Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 34(2008) 489ndash501

THE GLAGOLITIC BARRIER

WILLIAM R VEDER

The 21st century has witnessed two significant advances in the study of the ear-liest Slavic writing system the Glagolitic alphabet viz the collections of stud-ies published after the 1996 conference of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in commemoration the 100th anniversary of the death of Vatroslav Oblak1 and the 50th anniversary of the death of Bernd von Arnim2 (Miklas et al 2002) and the 2002 conference of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and the Diocese of Krk in commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Staroslavenska Akademija3 and the 50th anniversary of the Staroslavenski Institut (Duumlrrigl et al 2004) They have added to our knowledge painstaking analyses of new sources new interpretations of known sources and critical assessments of previous assump-tions and claims But they also show that the way to a plausible reconstruction of the state of the Glagolitic alphabet prior to its evacuation to the Balkans (886) remains barred4

To date the most comprehensive outline of the problems involved in the study of the Glagolitic alphabet is provided by Marti 2004b whose findings I summarise The barrier rests on three dilemmas 1 Did the original alphabet have [a] 36 or [b] 38 characters 2 Did it contain [a] only monographs or [b] digraphs as well 3 Did its characters have assigned numeral values [a] above 900 or [b] only up to and including 900 On these dilemmas numerous ques-tions of detail have aggregated which can be subsumed under three questions 4 What was the role of phonetic analysis in the constitution of the Glagolitic

1 See the summary of his work and bibliography by Angelina Daskalova in KME II 837ndash841 2 See the summary of his work and bibliography by Rumjana Zlatanova in KME I 105ndash106 3 See the summary of its work by Anica Nazor in Duumlrrigl et al 2004 25ndash35 4 A third publication Ivanova 2004 should be mentioned for the record It is a review of some ten years of research into problems of the Glagolitic alphabet by Russian scholars but as their approach is by and large semiotic the result of their labour stands strangely aloof of what is achieved elsewhere An exception should be made for the work of Proxorov 1992 which raises the question whether St Cyril should not be credited with the authorship of both the Cyrillic and the Glagolitic alphabet as does Lunt 2000

2

alphabet 5 What was the role of Greek Schriftdenken in its constitution 6 Which additions or alterations did it undergo in the course of its history5

Whichever the solution proposed for the dilemmas and whichever the an-swer to the questions it remains open to doubt The ambiguity surely resides in the fact that hitherto only two sets of data have been taken into consideration primary data ie Glagolitic manuscripts and inscriptions and secondary data ie alphabetaries numeraries and alphabetic verse (even if not preserved in Glagolitic but transcribed into Cyrillic) And 1 1 comparison always entails a 1 1 risk of error in interpretation In order to reduce the ambiguity we have to introduce a tertium comparationis like the third point in topographical triangu-lation which puts us in a position to measure not only relative distances but angles as well and thereby to collocate the three points precisely Such tertium comparationis was identified by Šafařiacutek 1858 26 286 as ldquocyrillische Copien aus glagolitischen Handschriftenrdquo His identification has not as yet been given the attention it merits7

In this study I shall examine the tertiary data of the Cyrillic transcriptions of a translation to be dated before 885 and evacuated from Morava to Bulgaria in a single Glagolitic manuscript in 886 It is the Scete Patericon (CPG 55628) to be ascribed to St Methodius and dated between his return from his first visit to Rome to Morava in 870 and his death in 886 It was copied once in Glagolitic in Pliska (886ndash887) and the original was then transported to Ohrid where it remained available for perusal until 1395 when the city was conquered by Hairuddin Pasha Of the Pliska copy Ⰰ five Glagolitic copies αβγδε were made at Preslav which were all taken to Kiev there to be transcribed into Cyrillic after 1036 At Ohrid ten independent Cyrillic transcriptions were made (ockw and W124568) among them an edition to make the text more explicit (c) and a recollation with a younger Constantinopolitan Greek manuscript (k) Schemati-cally the stemma of the witnesses to this text can be represented as shown in 5 The last question is specifically addressed by Lunt 2000 and Trunte 2004 6 See the summary of his work and bibliography by Lili Laškova and Desislava Atanasova in KME IV 524ndash529 7 Isolated readings in Cyrillic texts it is true have been explained by reference to underlying Glagolitic readings (eg VM xv дъва попꙑ скорописьцѧ larr ⰲ middot ⱂⱁⱂⱐⰻ Mathiesen 1967 and ше-стию мсць larr ⰷ middot ⰿⰵⱄⱔⱌⱐ Rešetar 1913 O Pismenexъ 63 β д ѫ larr ⰴ ⱁⱔ Marti 1983) but no attempt has as yet been made to systematically question Cyrillic witnesses of a Glagolitic text as to that latterrsquos graphic and orthographic makeup 8 The original title is not preserved in CPG the work is ranged under Apophthegmata patrum as Collectio systematica I use the traditional designation for the Slavic translation (for its contents and their structure see Veder 2005 259ndash284) The particulars of the history of the text are laid out in Veder 2007

3

Fig 19

ω

Ⰰ

α a = A1 Beograd NBS Dečani 96 a A23 Moskva GIM Sin 3 SPb RNB Pog 267

β s S12 Leiden UB Scal 74 Moskva RGADA MGAMID 603ii s S3 Saratov NBSGU 45

γ b B1 Moskva GIM Uvarov 483 b B24 Moskva RGB F178 8240 F310 219 b B5 Lrsquoviv LBAN ASP 56

δ m M1 SPb RNB KirndashBel 201259 m M2 SPb RNB Sofijsk 1391iii

ε i I1 SPb RNB Tixanov 552 i I2 Moskva RGB F113 601

o O12 Moskva GIM Čud 318A Beograd NBS Dečani 93 f177ndash179v c C1423 Moskva GIM Čud 18 RGB F304 37 703 NBMGU 1310 k K12 SPb BAN 13317 Belokrin 2

w W3 Moskva RGB Popov 93 W7 Leiden UB BPL 2290

W1 Sinai MSC Slav 33 W2 Beograd NBS Peć 86 W4 SPb RNB Hilf 90 W5 Wien OumlNB Slav 152 W6 Beograd MSPC Krka 4 W8 Paris BN Slav 10

Fig 1 Stemma codicum of the Scete Patericon

Among the witnesses to the protograph ω direct witnesses (W124568) can be dis-tinguished from indirect (A1ndashK2 and W37) but the distinction should not be be overrated thanks to the conservatism of the MSS especially those of East Slav-ic provenance it is fully possible to retrieve conflicting graphic and ortho-graphic features of ockw αβγδε and even of Ⰰ Moreover the direct witnesses can be shown not to be free of the pervasive tutelage of Ⰰ In ch 816 the son of abba Poemenrsquos sister has been taken hostage in order to force abba Poemen

9 In the stemma bold Latin letters indicate Cyrillic transcriptions of which the hyparchetype is not preserved shading marks the work of Balkan scribes For an overview of the structural textual and graphic features of the Cyrillic hyparchetypes (their classification not yet reflecting the insights of Veder 2007) see Veder 2005 218ndash224 231ndash242 for dates provenance and descriptions of the MSS see ibidem 435ndash436 (NB There regrettably the sigla I1 and I2 as well as W3 and W6 are switched)

4

to come and meet the local governor when his sister reproaches him for refus-ing to do so he answers her

Pastor filios non generavit Ποιmicroὴν τέκνα οὐκ ἐγέννησεν Пѵмнъ не род чѧдъ

But the witnesses transmit the following Ⰰ ⱂⱓⰿⰹⱀⱐ ⱀⰵⰱⱃⱑⰷⰹ ⱍⱔⰴⱐ (γ rarr ⱍⱔⰴⱁ) oc пиминъ небрежеть чада kW8 пиминъ небрѣꙁи чѧда W5 небрѣꙁы чѧдь W2 пиминь не рождь

The degradation не род rarr небреꙃ (misimproved rarr небрежетъ) stems from Ⰰrsquos effort to copyndashedit the text eliminating inter alia original неродт lsquoneglectrsquo (missed in no more than three instances) and marking the readings to be changed by marginal notes in Glagolitic The later readers of the original con-sidered the annotations on a par with the Glagolitic text and took care not to skip them (with varying success) only W2 disregarded them (the task of tran-scription per se seems to have sorely taxed his capacities) In the discussion be-low I make no distinction between the two groups of witnesses but eschew readings marked by interference from Ⰰ

The text length (Cyrillic 96255 occurrences of 13172 forms Glagolitic 96034 occurrences of 12992 forms) prohibits all but exemplary treatment of the conflicts signalled below10 For the examples I have given preference to those that occur both in East and South Slavic witnesses and show that the variation is not dialectndashrelated

Jotation of Vowels

А initial predominant ꙗко (all branches of transmission) and ѣко (W5 2 W3 1) conflict with ако (a 4 B4W5 2 b 1) and акꙑ or аки (α 24 c 13 β 6 γ 4 δε 2 oW34 1) postvocalic моꙗ (chiefly in ascW168) conflicts with моа (b 31 k 18 W3 14 b 12 C3 7 b 5 o 4 W2 2)

Е initial ѥще (A2 27 C1 24 W2 19 W8 18 W6 17 W4 15 A3 11 aW1 3 C4W5 2) conflicts with predominant еще (all branches of transmission) postvo-calic моѥ (chiefly in ascW168) conflicts with predominant мое (all branches of transmission)

10 A searchable versendashbyndashverse collation of all the witnesses is published in Polata knigopisnaja 36(2006) at lthttpkbosuedudspacehandle18116399gt machinendashreadable copies of the individual witnesses are being made available at the website of the Bulgarian Academyrsquos CyrillondashMethodian Research Centre lthttpkmncbasbggt

5

ОУ initial юнndash (ab 33 c 22 bb 16 o 15 δε 14 s 6 k 3 W12348 1) con-flicts with predominant ѹнndash (all branches of transmission) postvocalic the predominant mnDndashdesinence ndashию (all branches of transmission) conflicts with ndashиу (W3 13 K2 9 aB4W2 3 K1 2 sbbiC23W4 1)

Ѫ initial fA ѭ (W5 6 ю passim) conflicts with ѫ (chiefly in B4bW6) post-vocalic своѭ (a 2 bmoW8 1 свою passim) conflicts with своѫ (W36 2 k 1)

Ѧ initial mfApl ѩ (a 9 W6 4 mW5 1) conflicts with predominant ѧ (all branches of transmission) postvocalic моѩ (a 14 W6 4 A3B4K2W5 1) conflicts with predominant моѧ (all branches of transmission)

Consider also the misspellings ѹже adv + ѫже rarr юже (W6 14 W58 11 W4 10 W2 6 aB2δocW1 1) ѹтрndash + ѫтрndash rarr ютрndash (W2 9 W48 5 W56 2)

The distribution of the readings makes it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ wrote jotated vowels and that the task of introducing jotationndashmarkers was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers

Palatalisation of Consonants

Б В М П forms with epenthetic л to mark palatalisation conflict with forms without it eg ꙁоблѭ ꙁобли (all branches of transmission) conflict with ꙁобѫ ꙁоби (W3 2) predominant корабли корабль корабльници кораблѧ (all branches of transmission) conflict with кораби корабь корабьници корабѣ (W2 4 W56 2 kW38 1) блгсвленndash (chiefly in bW2) conflicts with predominant блгсвенndash (all branches of transmission) тивлꙗнинь (W2 4 W4 1) conflicts with predominant ѳивѣнинъ (all branches of transmission) оставль оставлѭ (all branches of transmission) conflict with оставь оставѧ (W3 2 W456 1) predominant ꙁемли ꙁемлꙗ ꙁемлѧ (all branches of transmission) conflict with ꙁеми ꙁемѣ ꙁемѧ (W5 10 W6 3 abC3 1) ꙁемльнndash (W4 5 W8 3 bW12 2 εcW6 1) conflicts with predominant ꙁемьнndash (all branches of transmission) comp крѣплии крѣпльша крѣпльши (all branches of transmission) conflict with крѣпи крѣпша крѣпьци (W3 2 ac 1) predominant съплю сꙑплю (all branches of transmission) conflicts with спѧ сꙑпѧ (k 4 W36 3 W25 2 ⰀockW4 1) Consider also the variable relation of the two roots ndashимьмndash ndashемлndash (αoW8 21 γεcW124 151 sk 11 W356 115 δ 12)

Л Н Р forms with jotated vowels (cf above) conflict with forms without them eg хвалꙗхъ (b 2 хвалѧхъхвалѣхь passim) conflicts with хвалахь (W2) болѥ (W48 5 W2 4) conflicts with predominant боле (all branches of transmis-sion) adjmD павьлю (B2oW568) conflicts with павьлѹ (αbB4bkW2) кланꙗю (W48 3 abmC2W126 1 кланѣѫкланѧю passim) conflicts with кланаю (W1) the desinence ndashнѥниѥ (W24 5 W8 4 a 1) conflicts with predominant ndashнениѥ Ldu коню conflicts with конѹ (sW123) цсрꙗ (W4 цсрѧцсрѣ passim) conflicts with цсра (W28) морѥ (W8 2 W26 1) conflicts with predominant море (all branches of transmission) рѥкшь рѥщи рѥче (a 2 W23 1) conflict with predominant рекъшь рещи рече (all branches of transmission) predominant творю conflicts with

6

творѫтворѹ (W2 35 W8 23 W4 21 W1 12 b 6 k 5 a 4 W36 1) Consider al-so the variable relation of the two roots ndashлѹчndash and ndashключndash eg in ndashлѹчи сѧ ndashключи сѧ (α 21 γ 12 ε W4 14 sδW568 18 ockW123 120)

The distribution of the readings makes it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ marked consonants for palatalisation before full vowels and that the task of in-troducing such marking was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers (perhaps to some extent preceded by αβγδε) But the sur-vey of palatalisation is incomplete without an examination of the two halfndashvowel signs ъ and ь for which by way of exception I turn to the South Slavic witnesses alone (the East Slavic witnesses with their longer transmission histo-ry have leveled the distribution of the halfndashvowel signs albeit they show a high incidence of etymologically incorrect ьndashspellings)

These witnesses usually prefer ь as a halfndashvowel sign but none is without attestations of ъ W2 has 2 (both etymologically incorrect) W8 10 correct + 2 incorrect W1 13 correct W4 21 correct W3 25 correct + 6 incorrect W5 45 cor-rect + 17 incorrect K1 651 correct + 166 incorrect (the witness is only fragmen-tarily preserved) K2 4124 correct + 3252 incorrect and W6 6447 correct + 2921 incorrect the locations of ъ in W1234 do not coincide in W58 only in the prefixes въndash (6) and съndash (1)

The discrepancies in the use of ъ and ь in the individual witnesses make it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ distinguished the two halfndashvowels but that the distinction was introduced during the later phases of transmission (by a second-arily differentiated ъⱏ) each transmitter having to decide for himself how to handle it A vivid example of the difficulty of deciding which halfndashvowel to use is provided by the name of St Arseniusrsquo disciple Zoel (1510aЛЪ) for which we find both ꙁоилъ ꙁоилѹꙁоилови and ꙁоиль ꙁоилюꙁоилеви (ocW3 40 a 22 aεk 13 γW24 04)

ЖД and Щ

In contrast to etymological ж the reflex of đǵ (жд) is a source of conflicts among the witnesses compare ꙗкоже (with stable ж) and такожде (chiefly W468) такоже (chiefly aboc) тако (chiefly ε) Beside ж or oslash we find жг (7) eg дъждѹ bB4bkW3568 дъждю moc дъжгу α11 дъжгю B2 д (27) eg хождаахѫ bkW3 ndashхожаху αB4ε ndashходѧхѹ bB2m ndashспѣахѫ ocW568 страждьба bkW5 стражьба αbboW268 страдба W3 ѹгождениѥ abkW3 ѹгожение aB2boc ѹгодиѥ B4W1 ѫрождааше αo ѹрожаше γδc ѧродѣше W3 oslash k

11 As the oldest witness of α A1 (late 12th c) is of South Rusian provenance жг there cannot be explained as a North Rusian dialectism

7

ꙁг (4) eg ижденndash ⰀokW56 иꙁгонndash B24 иꙁгънndash cW3 раждьжетъ aA3B4kW24 ражьжеть A2sbB2δc раждеть ε раꙁгорить o ꙁд (1) раждаѩ раꙁдаꙗх εc раꙁдаваѧ αγokW1368 ꙁ (1) раждаѥтъ A2 ражаѥть A3B4c раꙁдаеть b раꙁаеть B2 т (1) похождь bkW2568 похожь aA3sbbε похоть A2 походивъ oc щ (1) сѫждь aA2bB4bW24568 сѹжь A3B2 сѹще W1 сѹдивъ o сѹдихъ c oslash ε

Considering the predominance of monographic renderings I presume the source of this variation to be a monograph in ω (copied by Ⰰ save in one in-stance) most probably the letter ⰼ (pace Marti 2004a 409ndash410)

The reflex of ćḱ (щ) shows no conflicts of interpretation save 4 шт (W4 2 C2W5 1)12

ОУ and Ѵ The digraph ѹ varies not only with ю (cf above) but also with the monographs у (α 25ndash77 ε 12ndash65) and ꙋ (γ 12ndash63 o 71 c 4ndash79 k 51ndash73 W5 2 W8 30) as well as with е и and о eg и молиши rarr ѹмолиши i неимѣниѥ rarr неѹмѣнїе i сѣдѧще rarr сѣдѧщѹ a сѫдищи rarr сѹдищѹ okW48 ꙗдѫщѹ rarr ꙗдѹще aokW35 ꙗдѹщи B2m This makes it plausible that ω and Ⰰ (possibly followed by αβγδε) wrote a monograph most probably ⱛ (cf Miklas 2000 124 Marti 2000 65)

The variation indicated above contrasts with another type of variation re-stricted to loanwords from Greek viz и ѹ ѵ (marginally including also о ы юѭ oslash) eg египьтndash егѹпьтndash егѵпьтndash (all biow no и abk no ѹ aW2568 no и or ѹ scW14 no ѹ or ѵ m no ѵ bmi) мѡиси мѡусимѡѵси мѡси (all bεok no и m no ѹ αcwW56 no ѹ or oslash sbW1248 no oslash b) пиминъ пѹминъ пѵминъ13 (all o no и b no и or ѹ c no ѹ αsbimW12456 no ѹ or ѵ mwW8 no ѵ bik) синъклитndash сѹнъклитndash сѵнъклитndash (all bbok no и i no и or ѹ asbicW14 no ѹ mwW2568) These conflicting readings reflect a monograph different from radic most probably ⱓ (which the translator did not use to render jotated ju cf above)

Ф and Ѳ In the names ѳеодѡръ феръмьскꙑи and ѳеофилъ (16 occurrences) differentiated spellings of ph and th14 conflict with nonndashdifferentiated spellings as follows

12 A3 confuses with щ Glagolitic b in the heading of chapter 11 ⰱⱁⰴⱃⱛ rarr щодру 13 In the heading of chapter L Ⰰ wrote ⱂⱁⰻⰿⰵⱀ (reflected in abb as поимен) which is surely not original 14 Note that I consider both ѳеофилъ and феоѳилъ as differentiated spellings

8

only undifferentiated bδc 1ndash2 differentiated αso half of each bbk 1ndash3 undifferentiated εwW2456 only differentiated W18 Differentiated spellings be-come more numerous in the second half of the text and their correctness (by Greek standards) rises from 0ndash30 (andashi) to almost 100 (W1ndash8) These con-flicts as well as what may be interpreted as a learning curve of the transcribers make it plausible that that neither ω nor Ⰰ (nor αβγδε) differentiated the spell-ings and that the task of differentiating ph and th was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers

The misspellings ѳолъ rarr подъ (W2 3 помостъ ⰀocW3 3) and пѵминъ rarr фиминь (W1 17 W4 9) ie the confusion of Glagolitic ⱇ with ⱂ as well as ѳиваидndash rarr диваидndash (a) тиваидndash (W2 4 oW68 3 aW5 2 aεcW134 1) ie con-fusion with ⰴ and ⱅ make it plausible that the undifferentiated character used in ω (and retained in Ⰰ and its Glagolitic copies) was ⱇ

Х and Ⱒ The confusion гь хъ (ⰳⱐ ⱈⱐ) attested in all branches of transmission proves that христосъ was not written with ⱒ (pace Miklas 2003 181) хлъмъ in which ⱒ is attested (Schaeken 1999 80ndash81) is lacking in the text but the substitution х rarr м in грохотъ (αsbB4bεc) rarr хромотъ (B2okW2368) хꙑтръ (αsbB4bεc) rarr мѫдръ (B2okW2368) and the confusion of desinences GLpl ndashхъ Dpl ndashмъIpl ndashми (eg при двьрьхъ ⰀokW2 rarr прѣдъ дверми cW3 нечьстивꙑихъ ⰀockW134 rarr нечювьствьним W2 and inversely мъногꙑмъ αsbB4W14 rarr многыхъ B2ckW3568 мъногы ε грѣшьнꙑимъ ⰀocW3 rarr грѣшныхь W4568 глемꙑимъ ⰀockW2568 rarr глемыхъ W3 стимь таинамь W2 rarr стыхъ таинъ αγεokW345678 въсѣмь k rarr всѣхъ amoc oslash aγ пѫтемь хвѣмь bbεockW23468 rarr пѹтьхъ хвхъ αsb) might be interpreted to indicate that the protograph used ⱒ in these instances15

Ꙑ and Ѫ Conflicting readings with а и ъь ѣ ꙑы ѫѹ ѧе abound in the place of jery The variation most prominent in the first half of the text affects chiefly desinences which can significantly alter the text eg женꙑ rarr женѫ (akW2) женѣ (W2) and женъ rarr женꙑ (akW8) живꙑ rarr живи (sγδεockW36) живѧ (W68) идꙑ rarr иди (W268) идь (W5) ити (W3) польꙃи rarr польꙁꙑ (αbbεckW38) and польꙃѧ rarr польꙁꙑ (Ⰰ 5 ok 4 sW1 3 W3 2 W2 1) польꙁѫ (γocW6) сꙑ rarr си (aW4 2 oW26 1) съ прѣдꙑ rarr съ прѣда (aA2) съ прѣдѣ (A3) съ прѣдѹ (bb) тьрꙑ rarr тра (bB4) тре (W1) три (α) тꙑ rarr то (a) тъ (a) ꙗдꙑ rarr ꙗда (s 3) ꙗдъ (α) and ꙗдъ rarr ꙗдꙑ (Ⰰ) The variation indicates that ω in these instances

15 If this can be proven it would constitute an additional trigger for the vacillation between adnominal dative and genitive in the witnesses

9

used a monograph and the reflexes и and ѣ may be taken to indicate that it bore resemblance to both ⰻ and ⱑ ie most likely ⱖ (pace Marti 2000 65 Trunte 2004 424)

The massive confusion ѫ ѹ in all branches of the tradition eg бѫдѫ (kW356 15) predominant бѹдѹ (all branches of transmission) and the confu-sion ѫ ѧ (which appears already in Ⰰ) eg блѫдndash rarr блѧдndash (ⰀW4) and блѧдndash rarr блѫдndash (W28 2 αW3456 1) съмѫтndash rarr съмѧтndash (C12W6) and съмѧтndash rarr съмѫтndash (W3 8 k 6 C3W8 3 δ 2 acW16 1) can be satisfactorily explained only if ω wrote a letter similar to both ⱛ and ⱔ the reading ѹготовлѭ rarr ꙋготовль (W468 ѹготоваю Ⰰ) shows that it was similar to ⱐ as well The original letter may have looked like (ⱖ so Trunte 2004 424 lacks the prerequisite similarity) and must have been abandoned because it was opaque16

Almost all examples in this survey could of course be considered individually and many of them could be explained as innovations (eg the forms of the im-perfect and participles adduced for жд) But such explanation which fails to answer the crucial question What triggered the change17 is in fact nothing more than the rationalisation of an observation More importantly it slights the possibility that the variation be patterned

It is indeed only when we regard the marking of jotation and palatalisation the distinction of ŭ and ĭ ph and th and the digraphic renderings of đǵ u and y as addndashons18 that we begin to understand that in this text there was a single principal trigger for the variation and the resulting discord of the wit-nesses the inexplicit spelling of the Glagolitic protograph ω This led the tran-scribers (and in some cases the Glagolitic copyists as well) to more frequent and more varied interventions than faithfulness to the text would allow An ex-ample of these additional interventions to explicate the spelling is furnished by the name of abba Longinus (Λογγῖνος 10 occurrences) which ω surely spelled 16 The survey lacks data as to the distribution of о (ⱁ) and ѡ (ⱉ) as well as и (ⰹ) and і (ⰻ for the reversal of the traditional correspondences of the latter two letters see Miklas 2003) I must leave it to a colleague with more insight and patience than I can muster to sort them out 17 The traditional answer would be ldquoLanguage changes and the scribes parsed the text through their language competencerdquo In the perspective of the data of this particular text and its tradition it begs the counterndashquestion ldquoWhy then are the most recent transcriptions of the text (w and W1ndash8) the least innovativerdquo 18 W6 exhibits a curious individual addndashon to ѧ eg in чѧдо regularly written чѧндо with a mater lectionis н carefully erased in final editing The concept of addndashon in itself could do away with such concepts as eg Vertauschung der beiden Halbvokale and Aufgabe der Palata-litaumlt (Diels 1932 96ndash98 and 141ndash146) cf the data above on their representation in the South Slavic witnesses

10

loggjn= with double g this spelling is retained only in b (логгинndash with a hypercorrect pajerok) and k (K1 логгѵнndash K2 adding n and a hypercorrect ь лоньггѵнndash) δεc undouble the g (логинndash) as do W1234 in half of the cases in the other half joining W568 in substituting Slavic ng as well as adding a hypercor-rect ь (лоньгинndash) αbbo have an underlying spelling лѫггинndash19 (a лѫгинndash a лугинndash o лѹньгинndash bb vaccillating between лѹньгинndash лоньгинndash and логинndash) which is surely to be traced to Ⰰrsquos copyndashediting Need it be pointed out that the development of all of the translatorrsquos Grecisms (including agglndash rarr анъгелndash and the like) can be explained in similar terms

The terms of the development are intimately related to Nicolaas van Wijkrsquos concept de lrsquouniteacute agrave la puraliteacute But unity to be sought among Slavs well be-fore Sts Cyril and Methodiusrsquo mission to Morava was present in the Glagolitic protograph ω of the Scete Patericon only as an intention (lsquofor all Slavsrsquo) the means applied to realise it was parsimony reducing the spelling to the bare es-sentials in order to avoid marking any feature that might be divisive This inten-tion and the means to realise it were evidently the first casualties of the evacua-tion of the book to the Balkans there a notation of the type ⰸⰵⰿⰰ (ꙁема) was not recognised as being capable of representing both ꙁемꙗ and ꙁемлꙗ but only as not representing either The resulting tampering with the spelling (starting to an extent as yet to be precisely determined as early as the Pliska copy Ⰰ of 886ndash887) inevitably led to the plurality or to put it more bluntly prodigality of the witnesses

So far this attempt to follow up on Šafařiacutek 1858 and to question the Cyrillic witnesses to the Scete Patericon as to the evidence they can provide to the spelling of their Glagolitic source remains isolated and therefore vulnerable to criticism especially since its findings are at variance with established scholar-ship Yet there is a straightforward way to check their validity in the one text attributed expressis verbis to St Methodius viz the Nomocanon (VM xv) After the thorough work of Maksimovič 200420 who for the first time provides a co-herent analysis of the lexicon and morphosyntax of the translatorrsquos text it should not be too difficult to collect the witnesses (including excerpts transmit-ted separately from the full text) and question them about the orthography of their prendashBalkan protograph

19 If Ⰰ retained ωrsquos monographic ѫ () the b spelling логгинndash could be derived just as the spellings of bb from лѫггинndash which would then be the reading both of αγ and o 20 The criticism levelled against Maksimovič by Stankov 2006ab in no way affects the essence of his study but only broadens our insight into the controversial aspects of the term lsquomoravismrsquo as a label for lexical items

11

In conclusion it appears that the Glagolitic barrier which impedes our view of prendashBalkan texts and their spelling is more than just the aggregate of problems referred to in the second paragraph of this paper It consists of four conditions three historical and one manndashmade A the lack of any extant Glagolitic writing that can be attributed to either the first generation of Slavic men of letters (mis-sion to Morava) or their second and third generation (reception in the Balkans) B the probable shift in spelling from parsimony to prodigality which may have started already in the second generation and of which all extant Glagolitic (and Cyrillic) writing bears the traces C the retroactive influence of Glagolitic copyndashediting upon prendashBalkan Glagolitic texts readers making little or no dis-tinction between the original and subsequent accretions and finally D the ne-glect by established scholarship of the genealogical relations between witnesses and the resulting failure to probe beyond the extant witnesses into the realm of textual palaeligontology21 The first three conditions are irreparable but the last can very well be remedied by the close examination of Cyrillic witnesses to texts that have a Glagolitic protograph as Pavel Josef Šafařiacutek advocated a cen-tury and a half ago

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum IndashV Turnhout 1974ndash1987 Jacques Noret (ed) Turnhout 1998

Diels Paul 1932 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik 1 Teil Heidelberg

Duumlrrigl MarijandashAna and Milan Mihaljević Franjo Velčić (eds) 2004 Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam ZagrebndashKrk

Ivanova Tatrsquojana A 2004 Glagolica Novye gipotezi (neskolrsquoko kritičeskix zamečanij po povodu novyx

issledovanij o pervoj slavjanskoj azbuke) Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj litera-tury 56 78ndash93

KME Petăr Dinekov (ed) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija IndashIV Sofia 1985ndash2004

Lunt Horace G 2000 ldquoThoughts Suggestions and Questions about the Earliest Slavic Writing Sys-

temsrdquo Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 46 271ndash286

21 Since the first publication of the cod Clozianus by Jernej Kopitar (1836) almost seven generations of slavists have gone by neglecting to establish its proper genealogical relation to the cod Suprasliensis (remedied by Spasova 2007) For the term textual palaeligontology see Veder 2005 42ndash45

12

Maksimovič Kirill A 2004 Zakonъ soudьnyi ljudьmъ Istočnikovedčeskie i lingvističeskie aspekty issle-

dovanija slavjanskogo juridičeskogo pamjatnika Moskva Marti Roland W

1983 ldquoTextologische Probleme der Apologie Chrabrsrdquo Anzeiger fuumlr slavische Philologie 14 117ndash147

2004a ldquoDie Bezeichnung der Konsonanten in der Glagolicardquo In Duumlrrigl 2004 401ndash417

2004b ldquoAktuelle Probleme des altkirchenslavischen Schriftndash und Lautsystemsrdquo In-contri linguistici 27 11ndash37

Mathiesen Robert 1967 ldquoAn Emendation to the Vita Methodii XV1rdquo Zbornik za filologiju i ling-

vistiku 10 51ndash53 Miklas Heinz and Sylvia Richter Velizar Sadovski (eds)

2002 Glagolitica Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schriftkultur Wien (OumlAW Phi-losophisch-historische Klasse Schriften der BalkanndashKommission Philolo-gische Abteilung 41)

Miklas Heinz 2003 ldquoJesus-Abbreviatur und Verwandtes Zu einigen Raumltseln der glagolitischen

Schriftentwicklung am Material der Azbučnaja molitvardquo In W Honselaar et al (eds) Time flies Amsterdam (Pegasus Oost-Europese Studies 2) 171-204

Proxorov Gelian M 1992 Glagolica sredi missionerskix azbuk Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury

45 178ndash199 Rešetar Milan

1913 ldquoZur Uumlbersetzertaumltigkeit Methodsrdquo Archiv fuumlr slavische Philologie 34 234ndash239

Šafařiacutek Pavel J 1858 Uumlber den Ursprung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus Praha

Spasova Marija and William R Veder 2007 ldquoCopying CopyndashEditing Editing and Recollating Three Chrysostomian Len-

ten Homilies in Slavonicrdquo Polata knigopisnaja 38 in print preliminary Bul-garian version Prepisvane popravjane redaktirane i sverka na slavjanskija prevod na tri Zlatoustovi Velikopostni slova Preslavska knižovna škola 9 53ndash107

Stankov Rostislav 2006a ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjaxrdquo Preslavska

knižovna škola 9 29ndash52 2006b ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjax (2)rdquo A Da-

vidov et al (eds) Bălgarska filologična medievistika Naučni izsledvanija v čest na prof dfn Ivan Haralampiev Veliko Tărnovo 2006 261ndash287

Trunte Nikolaos 2004 ldquoZu Reformen in der glagolitischen Schriftrdquo In Duumlrrigl et al 2004 419ndash434

Veder William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto

slavjanstvo Sofia 2007 ldquoMetodieva zla hienardquo KirilondashMetodievski studii 17 in print

13

ГЛАГОЛИЧЕСКАЯ БАРЬЕРА Резюме Изучение древнейшей славянской азбуки страдает тем что к ней допуска-ется лишь два разряда данных ndash глаголические рукописи и надписи и сви-детелства об азбуке (абецедарии нумерарии и азбучные акростихи) Между тем уже полтора века назад ПЙ Шафарик (1858) посоветовал привлекать в качестве третьего разряда кириллические апографы текстов с глаголическими протографами В статье на основе обследования право-писных противоречий между кириллическими списками Скитского пате-рика перенесенного 886 г из Моравы в Болгарию в глаголическом своем протографе показывается плодотворность Шафарикского дополнения Рекомендуется проверить результаты обследования на единственном тек-сте недвусмысленно приписанном св Мефодию ndash Номоканоне обследо-ванном с точки зрения лексики и морфосинтаксиса в авторитетной работе Максимович 2004

2

alphabet 5 What was the role of Greek Schriftdenken in its constitution 6 Which additions or alterations did it undergo in the course of its history5

Whichever the solution proposed for the dilemmas and whichever the an-swer to the questions it remains open to doubt The ambiguity surely resides in the fact that hitherto only two sets of data have been taken into consideration primary data ie Glagolitic manuscripts and inscriptions and secondary data ie alphabetaries numeraries and alphabetic verse (even if not preserved in Glagolitic but transcribed into Cyrillic) And 1 1 comparison always entails a 1 1 risk of error in interpretation In order to reduce the ambiguity we have to introduce a tertium comparationis like the third point in topographical triangu-lation which puts us in a position to measure not only relative distances but angles as well and thereby to collocate the three points precisely Such tertium comparationis was identified by Šafařiacutek 1858 26 286 as ldquocyrillische Copien aus glagolitischen Handschriftenrdquo His identification has not as yet been given the attention it merits7

In this study I shall examine the tertiary data of the Cyrillic transcriptions of a translation to be dated before 885 and evacuated from Morava to Bulgaria in a single Glagolitic manuscript in 886 It is the Scete Patericon (CPG 55628) to be ascribed to St Methodius and dated between his return from his first visit to Rome to Morava in 870 and his death in 886 It was copied once in Glagolitic in Pliska (886ndash887) and the original was then transported to Ohrid where it remained available for perusal until 1395 when the city was conquered by Hairuddin Pasha Of the Pliska copy Ⰰ five Glagolitic copies αβγδε were made at Preslav which were all taken to Kiev there to be transcribed into Cyrillic after 1036 At Ohrid ten independent Cyrillic transcriptions were made (ockw and W124568) among them an edition to make the text more explicit (c) and a recollation with a younger Constantinopolitan Greek manuscript (k) Schemati-cally the stemma of the witnesses to this text can be represented as shown in 5 The last question is specifically addressed by Lunt 2000 and Trunte 2004 6 See the summary of his work and bibliography by Lili Laškova and Desislava Atanasova in KME IV 524ndash529 7 Isolated readings in Cyrillic texts it is true have been explained by reference to underlying Glagolitic readings (eg VM xv дъва попꙑ скорописьцѧ larr ⰲ middot ⱂⱁⱂⱐⰻ Mathiesen 1967 and ше-стию мсць larr ⰷ middot ⰿⰵⱄⱔⱌⱐ Rešetar 1913 O Pismenexъ 63 β д ѫ larr ⰴ ⱁⱔ Marti 1983) but no attempt has as yet been made to systematically question Cyrillic witnesses of a Glagolitic text as to that latterrsquos graphic and orthographic makeup 8 The original title is not preserved in CPG the work is ranged under Apophthegmata patrum as Collectio systematica I use the traditional designation for the Slavic translation (for its contents and their structure see Veder 2005 259ndash284) The particulars of the history of the text are laid out in Veder 2007

3

Fig 19

ω

Ⰰ

α a = A1 Beograd NBS Dečani 96 a A23 Moskva GIM Sin 3 SPb RNB Pog 267

β s S12 Leiden UB Scal 74 Moskva RGADA MGAMID 603ii s S3 Saratov NBSGU 45

γ b B1 Moskva GIM Uvarov 483 b B24 Moskva RGB F178 8240 F310 219 b B5 Lrsquoviv LBAN ASP 56

δ m M1 SPb RNB KirndashBel 201259 m M2 SPb RNB Sofijsk 1391iii

ε i I1 SPb RNB Tixanov 552 i I2 Moskva RGB F113 601

o O12 Moskva GIM Čud 318A Beograd NBS Dečani 93 f177ndash179v c C1423 Moskva GIM Čud 18 RGB F304 37 703 NBMGU 1310 k K12 SPb BAN 13317 Belokrin 2

w W3 Moskva RGB Popov 93 W7 Leiden UB BPL 2290

W1 Sinai MSC Slav 33 W2 Beograd NBS Peć 86 W4 SPb RNB Hilf 90 W5 Wien OumlNB Slav 152 W6 Beograd MSPC Krka 4 W8 Paris BN Slav 10

Fig 1 Stemma codicum of the Scete Patericon

Among the witnesses to the protograph ω direct witnesses (W124568) can be dis-tinguished from indirect (A1ndashK2 and W37) but the distinction should not be be overrated thanks to the conservatism of the MSS especially those of East Slav-ic provenance it is fully possible to retrieve conflicting graphic and ortho-graphic features of ockw αβγδε and even of Ⰰ Moreover the direct witnesses can be shown not to be free of the pervasive tutelage of Ⰰ In ch 816 the son of abba Poemenrsquos sister has been taken hostage in order to force abba Poemen

9 In the stemma bold Latin letters indicate Cyrillic transcriptions of which the hyparchetype is not preserved shading marks the work of Balkan scribes For an overview of the structural textual and graphic features of the Cyrillic hyparchetypes (their classification not yet reflecting the insights of Veder 2007) see Veder 2005 218ndash224 231ndash242 for dates provenance and descriptions of the MSS see ibidem 435ndash436 (NB There regrettably the sigla I1 and I2 as well as W3 and W6 are switched)

4

to come and meet the local governor when his sister reproaches him for refus-ing to do so he answers her

Pastor filios non generavit Ποιmicroὴν τέκνα οὐκ ἐγέννησεν Пѵмнъ не род чѧдъ

But the witnesses transmit the following Ⰰ ⱂⱓⰿⰹⱀⱐ ⱀⰵⰱⱃⱑⰷⰹ ⱍⱔⰴⱐ (γ rarr ⱍⱔⰴⱁ) oc пиминъ небрежеть чада kW8 пиминъ небрѣꙁи чѧда W5 небрѣꙁы чѧдь W2 пиминь не рождь

The degradation не род rarr небреꙃ (misimproved rarr небрежетъ) stems from Ⰰrsquos effort to copyndashedit the text eliminating inter alia original неродт lsquoneglectrsquo (missed in no more than three instances) and marking the readings to be changed by marginal notes in Glagolitic The later readers of the original con-sidered the annotations on a par with the Glagolitic text and took care not to skip them (with varying success) only W2 disregarded them (the task of tran-scription per se seems to have sorely taxed his capacities) In the discussion be-low I make no distinction between the two groups of witnesses but eschew readings marked by interference from Ⰰ

The text length (Cyrillic 96255 occurrences of 13172 forms Glagolitic 96034 occurrences of 12992 forms) prohibits all but exemplary treatment of the conflicts signalled below10 For the examples I have given preference to those that occur both in East and South Slavic witnesses and show that the variation is not dialectndashrelated

Jotation of Vowels

А initial predominant ꙗко (all branches of transmission) and ѣко (W5 2 W3 1) conflict with ако (a 4 B4W5 2 b 1) and акꙑ or аки (α 24 c 13 β 6 γ 4 δε 2 oW34 1) postvocalic моꙗ (chiefly in ascW168) conflicts with моа (b 31 k 18 W3 14 b 12 C3 7 b 5 o 4 W2 2)

Е initial ѥще (A2 27 C1 24 W2 19 W8 18 W6 17 W4 15 A3 11 aW1 3 C4W5 2) conflicts with predominant еще (all branches of transmission) postvo-calic моѥ (chiefly in ascW168) conflicts with predominant мое (all branches of transmission)

10 A searchable versendashbyndashverse collation of all the witnesses is published in Polata knigopisnaja 36(2006) at lthttpkbosuedudspacehandle18116399gt machinendashreadable copies of the individual witnesses are being made available at the website of the Bulgarian Academyrsquos CyrillondashMethodian Research Centre lthttpkmncbasbggt

5

ОУ initial юнndash (ab 33 c 22 bb 16 o 15 δε 14 s 6 k 3 W12348 1) con-flicts with predominant ѹнndash (all branches of transmission) postvocalic the predominant mnDndashdesinence ndashию (all branches of transmission) conflicts with ndashиу (W3 13 K2 9 aB4W2 3 K1 2 sbbiC23W4 1)

Ѫ initial fA ѭ (W5 6 ю passim) conflicts with ѫ (chiefly in B4bW6) post-vocalic своѭ (a 2 bmoW8 1 свою passim) conflicts with своѫ (W36 2 k 1)

Ѧ initial mfApl ѩ (a 9 W6 4 mW5 1) conflicts with predominant ѧ (all branches of transmission) postvocalic моѩ (a 14 W6 4 A3B4K2W5 1) conflicts with predominant моѧ (all branches of transmission)

Consider also the misspellings ѹже adv + ѫже rarr юже (W6 14 W58 11 W4 10 W2 6 aB2δocW1 1) ѹтрndash + ѫтрndash rarr ютрndash (W2 9 W48 5 W56 2)

The distribution of the readings makes it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ wrote jotated vowels and that the task of introducing jotationndashmarkers was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers

Palatalisation of Consonants

Б В М П forms with epenthetic л to mark palatalisation conflict with forms without it eg ꙁоблѭ ꙁобли (all branches of transmission) conflict with ꙁобѫ ꙁоби (W3 2) predominant корабли корабль корабльници кораблѧ (all branches of transmission) conflict with кораби корабь корабьници корабѣ (W2 4 W56 2 kW38 1) блгсвленndash (chiefly in bW2) conflicts with predominant блгсвенndash (all branches of transmission) тивлꙗнинь (W2 4 W4 1) conflicts with predominant ѳивѣнинъ (all branches of transmission) оставль оставлѭ (all branches of transmission) conflict with оставь оставѧ (W3 2 W456 1) predominant ꙁемли ꙁемлꙗ ꙁемлѧ (all branches of transmission) conflict with ꙁеми ꙁемѣ ꙁемѧ (W5 10 W6 3 abC3 1) ꙁемльнndash (W4 5 W8 3 bW12 2 εcW6 1) conflicts with predominant ꙁемьнndash (all branches of transmission) comp крѣплии крѣпльша крѣпльши (all branches of transmission) conflict with крѣпи крѣпша крѣпьци (W3 2 ac 1) predominant съплю сꙑплю (all branches of transmission) conflicts with спѧ сꙑпѧ (k 4 W36 3 W25 2 ⰀockW4 1) Consider also the variable relation of the two roots ndashимьмndash ndashемлndash (αoW8 21 γεcW124 151 sk 11 W356 115 δ 12)

Л Н Р forms with jotated vowels (cf above) conflict with forms without them eg хвалꙗхъ (b 2 хвалѧхъхвалѣхь passim) conflicts with хвалахь (W2) болѥ (W48 5 W2 4) conflicts with predominant боле (all branches of transmis-sion) adjmD павьлю (B2oW568) conflicts with павьлѹ (αbB4bkW2) кланꙗю (W48 3 abmC2W126 1 кланѣѫкланѧю passim) conflicts with кланаю (W1) the desinence ndashнѥниѥ (W24 5 W8 4 a 1) conflicts with predominant ndashнениѥ Ldu коню conflicts with конѹ (sW123) цсрꙗ (W4 цсрѧцсрѣ passim) conflicts with цсра (W28) морѥ (W8 2 W26 1) conflicts with predominant море (all branches of transmission) рѥкшь рѥщи рѥче (a 2 W23 1) conflict with predominant рекъшь рещи рече (all branches of transmission) predominant творю conflicts with

6

творѫтворѹ (W2 35 W8 23 W4 21 W1 12 b 6 k 5 a 4 W36 1) Consider al-so the variable relation of the two roots ndashлѹчndash and ndashключndash eg in ndashлѹчи сѧ ndashключи сѧ (α 21 γ 12 ε W4 14 sδW568 18 ockW123 120)

The distribution of the readings makes it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ marked consonants for palatalisation before full vowels and that the task of in-troducing such marking was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers (perhaps to some extent preceded by αβγδε) But the sur-vey of palatalisation is incomplete without an examination of the two halfndashvowel signs ъ and ь for which by way of exception I turn to the South Slavic witnesses alone (the East Slavic witnesses with their longer transmission histo-ry have leveled the distribution of the halfndashvowel signs albeit they show a high incidence of etymologically incorrect ьndashspellings)

These witnesses usually prefer ь as a halfndashvowel sign but none is without attestations of ъ W2 has 2 (both etymologically incorrect) W8 10 correct + 2 incorrect W1 13 correct W4 21 correct W3 25 correct + 6 incorrect W5 45 cor-rect + 17 incorrect K1 651 correct + 166 incorrect (the witness is only fragmen-tarily preserved) K2 4124 correct + 3252 incorrect and W6 6447 correct + 2921 incorrect the locations of ъ in W1234 do not coincide in W58 only in the prefixes въndash (6) and съndash (1)

The discrepancies in the use of ъ and ь in the individual witnesses make it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ distinguished the two halfndashvowels but that the distinction was introduced during the later phases of transmission (by a second-arily differentiated ъⱏ) each transmitter having to decide for himself how to handle it A vivid example of the difficulty of deciding which halfndashvowel to use is provided by the name of St Arseniusrsquo disciple Zoel (1510aЛЪ) for which we find both ꙁоилъ ꙁоилѹꙁоилови and ꙁоиль ꙁоилюꙁоилеви (ocW3 40 a 22 aεk 13 γW24 04)

ЖД and Щ

In contrast to etymological ж the reflex of đǵ (жд) is a source of conflicts among the witnesses compare ꙗкоже (with stable ж) and такожде (chiefly W468) такоже (chiefly aboc) тако (chiefly ε) Beside ж or oslash we find жг (7) eg дъждѹ bB4bkW3568 дъждю moc дъжгу α11 дъжгю B2 д (27) eg хождаахѫ bkW3 ndashхожаху αB4ε ndashходѧхѹ bB2m ndashспѣахѫ ocW568 страждьба bkW5 стражьба αbboW268 страдба W3 ѹгождениѥ abkW3 ѹгожение aB2boc ѹгодиѥ B4W1 ѫрождааше αo ѹрожаше γδc ѧродѣше W3 oslash k

11 As the oldest witness of α A1 (late 12th c) is of South Rusian provenance жг there cannot be explained as a North Rusian dialectism

7

ꙁг (4) eg ижденndash ⰀokW56 иꙁгонndash B24 иꙁгънndash cW3 раждьжетъ aA3B4kW24 ражьжеть A2sbB2δc раждеть ε раꙁгорить o ꙁд (1) раждаѩ раꙁдаꙗх εc раꙁдаваѧ αγokW1368 ꙁ (1) раждаѥтъ A2 ражаѥть A3B4c раꙁдаеть b раꙁаеть B2 т (1) похождь bkW2568 похожь aA3sbbε похоть A2 походивъ oc щ (1) сѫждь aA2bB4bW24568 сѹжь A3B2 сѹще W1 сѹдивъ o сѹдихъ c oslash ε

Considering the predominance of monographic renderings I presume the source of this variation to be a monograph in ω (copied by Ⰰ save in one in-stance) most probably the letter ⰼ (pace Marti 2004a 409ndash410)

The reflex of ćḱ (щ) shows no conflicts of interpretation save 4 шт (W4 2 C2W5 1)12

ОУ and Ѵ The digraph ѹ varies not only with ю (cf above) but also with the monographs у (α 25ndash77 ε 12ndash65) and ꙋ (γ 12ndash63 o 71 c 4ndash79 k 51ndash73 W5 2 W8 30) as well as with е и and о eg и молиши rarr ѹмолиши i неимѣниѥ rarr неѹмѣнїе i сѣдѧще rarr сѣдѧщѹ a сѫдищи rarr сѹдищѹ okW48 ꙗдѫщѹ rarr ꙗдѹще aokW35 ꙗдѹщи B2m This makes it plausible that ω and Ⰰ (possibly followed by αβγδε) wrote a monograph most probably ⱛ (cf Miklas 2000 124 Marti 2000 65)

The variation indicated above contrasts with another type of variation re-stricted to loanwords from Greek viz и ѹ ѵ (marginally including also о ы юѭ oslash) eg египьтndash егѹпьтndash егѵпьтndash (all biow no и abk no ѹ aW2568 no и or ѹ scW14 no ѹ or ѵ m no ѵ bmi) мѡиси мѡусимѡѵси мѡси (all bεok no и m no ѹ αcwW56 no ѹ or oslash sbW1248 no oslash b) пиминъ пѹминъ пѵминъ13 (all o no и b no и or ѹ c no ѹ αsbimW12456 no ѹ or ѵ mwW8 no ѵ bik) синъклитndash сѹнъклитndash сѵнъклитndash (all bbok no и i no и or ѹ asbicW14 no ѹ mwW2568) These conflicting readings reflect a monograph different from radic most probably ⱓ (which the translator did not use to render jotated ju cf above)

Ф and Ѳ In the names ѳеодѡръ феръмьскꙑи and ѳеофилъ (16 occurrences) differentiated spellings of ph and th14 conflict with nonndashdifferentiated spellings as follows

12 A3 confuses with щ Glagolitic b in the heading of chapter 11 ⰱⱁⰴⱃⱛ rarr щодру 13 In the heading of chapter L Ⰰ wrote ⱂⱁⰻⰿⰵⱀ (reflected in abb as поимен) which is surely not original 14 Note that I consider both ѳеофилъ and феоѳилъ as differentiated spellings

8

only undifferentiated bδc 1ndash2 differentiated αso half of each bbk 1ndash3 undifferentiated εwW2456 only differentiated W18 Differentiated spellings be-come more numerous in the second half of the text and their correctness (by Greek standards) rises from 0ndash30 (andashi) to almost 100 (W1ndash8) These con-flicts as well as what may be interpreted as a learning curve of the transcribers make it plausible that that neither ω nor Ⰰ (nor αβγδε) differentiated the spell-ings and that the task of differentiating ph and th was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers

The misspellings ѳолъ rarr подъ (W2 3 помостъ ⰀocW3 3) and пѵминъ rarr фиминь (W1 17 W4 9) ie the confusion of Glagolitic ⱇ with ⱂ as well as ѳиваидndash rarr диваидndash (a) тиваидndash (W2 4 oW68 3 aW5 2 aεcW134 1) ie con-fusion with ⰴ and ⱅ make it plausible that the undifferentiated character used in ω (and retained in Ⰰ and its Glagolitic copies) was ⱇ

Х and Ⱒ The confusion гь хъ (ⰳⱐ ⱈⱐ) attested in all branches of transmission proves that христосъ was not written with ⱒ (pace Miklas 2003 181) хлъмъ in which ⱒ is attested (Schaeken 1999 80ndash81) is lacking in the text but the substitution х rarr м in грохотъ (αsbB4bεc) rarr хромотъ (B2okW2368) хꙑтръ (αsbB4bεc) rarr мѫдръ (B2okW2368) and the confusion of desinences GLpl ndashхъ Dpl ndashмъIpl ndashми (eg при двьрьхъ ⰀokW2 rarr прѣдъ дверми cW3 нечьстивꙑихъ ⰀockW134 rarr нечювьствьним W2 and inversely мъногꙑмъ αsbB4W14 rarr многыхъ B2ckW3568 мъногы ε грѣшьнꙑимъ ⰀocW3 rarr грѣшныхь W4568 глемꙑимъ ⰀockW2568 rarr глемыхъ W3 стимь таинамь W2 rarr стыхъ таинъ αγεokW345678 въсѣмь k rarr всѣхъ amoc oslash aγ пѫтемь хвѣмь bbεockW23468 rarr пѹтьхъ хвхъ αsb) might be interpreted to indicate that the protograph used ⱒ in these instances15

Ꙑ and Ѫ Conflicting readings with а и ъь ѣ ꙑы ѫѹ ѧе abound in the place of jery The variation most prominent in the first half of the text affects chiefly desinences which can significantly alter the text eg женꙑ rarr женѫ (akW2) женѣ (W2) and женъ rarr женꙑ (akW8) живꙑ rarr живи (sγδεockW36) живѧ (W68) идꙑ rarr иди (W268) идь (W5) ити (W3) польꙃи rarr польꙁꙑ (αbbεckW38) and польꙃѧ rarr польꙁꙑ (Ⰰ 5 ok 4 sW1 3 W3 2 W2 1) польꙁѫ (γocW6) сꙑ rarr си (aW4 2 oW26 1) съ прѣдꙑ rarr съ прѣда (aA2) съ прѣдѣ (A3) съ прѣдѹ (bb) тьрꙑ rarr тра (bB4) тре (W1) три (α) тꙑ rarr то (a) тъ (a) ꙗдꙑ rarr ꙗда (s 3) ꙗдъ (α) and ꙗдъ rarr ꙗдꙑ (Ⰰ) The variation indicates that ω in these instances

15 If this can be proven it would constitute an additional trigger for the vacillation between adnominal dative and genitive in the witnesses

9

used a monograph and the reflexes и and ѣ may be taken to indicate that it bore resemblance to both ⰻ and ⱑ ie most likely ⱖ (pace Marti 2000 65 Trunte 2004 424)

The massive confusion ѫ ѹ in all branches of the tradition eg бѫдѫ (kW356 15) predominant бѹдѹ (all branches of transmission) and the confu-sion ѫ ѧ (which appears already in Ⰰ) eg блѫдndash rarr блѧдndash (ⰀW4) and блѧдndash rarr блѫдndash (W28 2 αW3456 1) съмѫтndash rarr съмѧтndash (C12W6) and съмѧтndash rarr съмѫтndash (W3 8 k 6 C3W8 3 δ 2 acW16 1) can be satisfactorily explained only if ω wrote a letter similar to both ⱛ and ⱔ the reading ѹготовлѭ rarr ꙋготовль (W468 ѹготоваю Ⰰ) shows that it was similar to ⱐ as well The original letter may have looked like (ⱖ so Trunte 2004 424 lacks the prerequisite similarity) and must have been abandoned because it was opaque16

Almost all examples in this survey could of course be considered individually and many of them could be explained as innovations (eg the forms of the im-perfect and participles adduced for жд) But such explanation which fails to answer the crucial question What triggered the change17 is in fact nothing more than the rationalisation of an observation More importantly it slights the possibility that the variation be patterned

It is indeed only when we regard the marking of jotation and palatalisation the distinction of ŭ and ĭ ph and th and the digraphic renderings of đǵ u and y as addndashons18 that we begin to understand that in this text there was a single principal trigger for the variation and the resulting discord of the wit-nesses the inexplicit spelling of the Glagolitic protograph ω This led the tran-scribers (and in some cases the Glagolitic copyists as well) to more frequent and more varied interventions than faithfulness to the text would allow An ex-ample of these additional interventions to explicate the spelling is furnished by the name of abba Longinus (Λογγῖνος 10 occurrences) which ω surely spelled 16 The survey lacks data as to the distribution of о (ⱁ) and ѡ (ⱉ) as well as и (ⰹ) and і (ⰻ for the reversal of the traditional correspondences of the latter two letters see Miklas 2003) I must leave it to a colleague with more insight and patience than I can muster to sort them out 17 The traditional answer would be ldquoLanguage changes and the scribes parsed the text through their language competencerdquo In the perspective of the data of this particular text and its tradition it begs the counterndashquestion ldquoWhy then are the most recent transcriptions of the text (w and W1ndash8) the least innovativerdquo 18 W6 exhibits a curious individual addndashon to ѧ eg in чѧдо regularly written чѧндо with a mater lectionis н carefully erased in final editing The concept of addndashon in itself could do away with such concepts as eg Vertauschung der beiden Halbvokale and Aufgabe der Palata-litaumlt (Diels 1932 96ndash98 and 141ndash146) cf the data above on their representation in the South Slavic witnesses

10

loggjn= with double g this spelling is retained only in b (логгинndash with a hypercorrect pajerok) and k (K1 логгѵнndash K2 adding n and a hypercorrect ь лоньггѵнndash) δεc undouble the g (логинndash) as do W1234 in half of the cases in the other half joining W568 in substituting Slavic ng as well as adding a hypercor-rect ь (лоньгинndash) αbbo have an underlying spelling лѫггинndash19 (a лѫгинndash a лугинndash o лѹньгинndash bb vaccillating between лѹньгинndash лоньгинndash and логинndash) which is surely to be traced to Ⰰrsquos copyndashediting Need it be pointed out that the development of all of the translatorrsquos Grecisms (including agglndash rarr анъгелndash and the like) can be explained in similar terms

The terms of the development are intimately related to Nicolaas van Wijkrsquos concept de lrsquouniteacute agrave la puraliteacute But unity to be sought among Slavs well be-fore Sts Cyril and Methodiusrsquo mission to Morava was present in the Glagolitic protograph ω of the Scete Patericon only as an intention (lsquofor all Slavsrsquo) the means applied to realise it was parsimony reducing the spelling to the bare es-sentials in order to avoid marking any feature that might be divisive This inten-tion and the means to realise it were evidently the first casualties of the evacua-tion of the book to the Balkans there a notation of the type ⰸⰵⰿⰰ (ꙁема) was not recognised as being capable of representing both ꙁемꙗ and ꙁемлꙗ but only as not representing either The resulting tampering with the spelling (starting to an extent as yet to be precisely determined as early as the Pliska copy Ⰰ of 886ndash887) inevitably led to the plurality or to put it more bluntly prodigality of the witnesses

So far this attempt to follow up on Šafařiacutek 1858 and to question the Cyrillic witnesses to the Scete Patericon as to the evidence they can provide to the spelling of their Glagolitic source remains isolated and therefore vulnerable to criticism especially since its findings are at variance with established scholar-ship Yet there is a straightforward way to check their validity in the one text attributed expressis verbis to St Methodius viz the Nomocanon (VM xv) After the thorough work of Maksimovič 200420 who for the first time provides a co-herent analysis of the lexicon and morphosyntax of the translatorrsquos text it should not be too difficult to collect the witnesses (including excerpts transmit-ted separately from the full text) and question them about the orthography of their prendashBalkan protograph

19 If Ⰰ retained ωrsquos monographic ѫ () the b spelling логгинndash could be derived just as the spellings of bb from лѫггинndash which would then be the reading both of αγ and o 20 The criticism levelled against Maksimovič by Stankov 2006ab in no way affects the essence of his study but only broadens our insight into the controversial aspects of the term lsquomoravismrsquo as a label for lexical items

11

In conclusion it appears that the Glagolitic barrier which impedes our view of prendashBalkan texts and their spelling is more than just the aggregate of problems referred to in the second paragraph of this paper It consists of four conditions three historical and one manndashmade A the lack of any extant Glagolitic writing that can be attributed to either the first generation of Slavic men of letters (mis-sion to Morava) or their second and third generation (reception in the Balkans) B the probable shift in spelling from parsimony to prodigality which may have started already in the second generation and of which all extant Glagolitic (and Cyrillic) writing bears the traces C the retroactive influence of Glagolitic copyndashediting upon prendashBalkan Glagolitic texts readers making little or no dis-tinction between the original and subsequent accretions and finally D the ne-glect by established scholarship of the genealogical relations between witnesses and the resulting failure to probe beyond the extant witnesses into the realm of textual palaeligontology21 The first three conditions are irreparable but the last can very well be remedied by the close examination of Cyrillic witnesses to texts that have a Glagolitic protograph as Pavel Josef Šafařiacutek advocated a cen-tury and a half ago

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum IndashV Turnhout 1974ndash1987 Jacques Noret (ed) Turnhout 1998

Diels Paul 1932 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik 1 Teil Heidelberg

Duumlrrigl MarijandashAna and Milan Mihaljević Franjo Velčić (eds) 2004 Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam ZagrebndashKrk

Ivanova Tatrsquojana A 2004 Glagolica Novye gipotezi (neskolrsquoko kritičeskix zamečanij po povodu novyx

issledovanij o pervoj slavjanskoj azbuke) Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj litera-tury 56 78ndash93

KME Petăr Dinekov (ed) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija IndashIV Sofia 1985ndash2004

Lunt Horace G 2000 ldquoThoughts Suggestions and Questions about the Earliest Slavic Writing Sys-

temsrdquo Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 46 271ndash286

21 Since the first publication of the cod Clozianus by Jernej Kopitar (1836) almost seven generations of slavists have gone by neglecting to establish its proper genealogical relation to the cod Suprasliensis (remedied by Spasova 2007) For the term textual palaeligontology see Veder 2005 42ndash45

12

Maksimovič Kirill A 2004 Zakonъ soudьnyi ljudьmъ Istočnikovedčeskie i lingvističeskie aspekty issle-

dovanija slavjanskogo juridičeskogo pamjatnika Moskva Marti Roland W

1983 ldquoTextologische Probleme der Apologie Chrabrsrdquo Anzeiger fuumlr slavische Philologie 14 117ndash147

2004a ldquoDie Bezeichnung der Konsonanten in der Glagolicardquo In Duumlrrigl 2004 401ndash417

2004b ldquoAktuelle Probleme des altkirchenslavischen Schriftndash und Lautsystemsrdquo In-contri linguistici 27 11ndash37

Mathiesen Robert 1967 ldquoAn Emendation to the Vita Methodii XV1rdquo Zbornik za filologiju i ling-

vistiku 10 51ndash53 Miklas Heinz and Sylvia Richter Velizar Sadovski (eds)

2002 Glagolitica Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schriftkultur Wien (OumlAW Phi-losophisch-historische Klasse Schriften der BalkanndashKommission Philolo-gische Abteilung 41)

Miklas Heinz 2003 ldquoJesus-Abbreviatur und Verwandtes Zu einigen Raumltseln der glagolitischen

Schriftentwicklung am Material der Azbučnaja molitvardquo In W Honselaar et al (eds) Time flies Amsterdam (Pegasus Oost-Europese Studies 2) 171-204

Proxorov Gelian M 1992 Glagolica sredi missionerskix azbuk Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury

45 178ndash199 Rešetar Milan

1913 ldquoZur Uumlbersetzertaumltigkeit Methodsrdquo Archiv fuumlr slavische Philologie 34 234ndash239

Šafařiacutek Pavel J 1858 Uumlber den Ursprung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus Praha

Spasova Marija and William R Veder 2007 ldquoCopying CopyndashEditing Editing and Recollating Three Chrysostomian Len-

ten Homilies in Slavonicrdquo Polata knigopisnaja 38 in print preliminary Bul-garian version Prepisvane popravjane redaktirane i sverka na slavjanskija prevod na tri Zlatoustovi Velikopostni slova Preslavska knižovna škola 9 53ndash107

Stankov Rostislav 2006a ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjaxrdquo Preslavska

knižovna škola 9 29ndash52 2006b ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjax (2)rdquo A Da-

vidov et al (eds) Bălgarska filologična medievistika Naučni izsledvanija v čest na prof dfn Ivan Haralampiev Veliko Tărnovo 2006 261ndash287

Trunte Nikolaos 2004 ldquoZu Reformen in der glagolitischen Schriftrdquo In Duumlrrigl et al 2004 419ndash434

Veder William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto

slavjanstvo Sofia 2007 ldquoMetodieva zla hienardquo KirilondashMetodievski studii 17 in print

13

ГЛАГОЛИЧЕСКАЯ БАРЬЕРА Резюме Изучение древнейшей славянской азбуки страдает тем что к ней допуска-ется лишь два разряда данных ndash глаголические рукописи и надписи и сви-детелства об азбуке (абецедарии нумерарии и азбучные акростихи) Между тем уже полтора века назад ПЙ Шафарик (1858) посоветовал привлекать в качестве третьего разряда кириллические апографы текстов с глаголическими протографами В статье на основе обследования право-писных противоречий между кириллическими списками Скитского пате-рика перенесенного 886 г из Моравы в Болгарию в глаголическом своем протографе показывается плодотворность Шафарикского дополнения Рекомендуется проверить результаты обследования на единственном тек-сте недвусмысленно приписанном св Мефодию ndash Номоканоне обследо-ванном с точки зрения лексики и морфосинтаксиса в авторитетной работе Максимович 2004

3

Fig 19

ω

Ⰰ

α a = A1 Beograd NBS Dečani 96 a A23 Moskva GIM Sin 3 SPb RNB Pog 267

β s S12 Leiden UB Scal 74 Moskva RGADA MGAMID 603ii s S3 Saratov NBSGU 45

γ b B1 Moskva GIM Uvarov 483 b B24 Moskva RGB F178 8240 F310 219 b B5 Lrsquoviv LBAN ASP 56

δ m M1 SPb RNB KirndashBel 201259 m M2 SPb RNB Sofijsk 1391iii

ε i I1 SPb RNB Tixanov 552 i I2 Moskva RGB F113 601

o O12 Moskva GIM Čud 318A Beograd NBS Dečani 93 f177ndash179v c C1423 Moskva GIM Čud 18 RGB F304 37 703 NBMGU 1310 k K12 SPb BAN 13317 Belokrin 2

w W3 Moskva RGB Popov 93 W7 Leiden UB BPL 2290

W1 Sinai MSC Slav 33 W2 Beograd NBS Peć 86 W4 SPb RNB Hilf 90 W5 Wien OumlNB Slav 152 W6 Beograd MSPC Krka 4 W8 Paris BN Slav 10

Fig 1 Stemma codicum of the Scete Patericon

Among the witnesses to the protograph ω direct witnesses (W124568) can be dis-tinguished from indirect (A1ndashK2 and W37) but the distinction should not be be overrated thanks to the conservatism of the MSS especially those of East Slav-ic provenance it is fully possible to retrieve conflicting graphic and ortho-graphic features of ockw αβγδε and even of Ⰰ Moreover the direct witnesses can be shown not to be free of the pervasive tutelage of Ⰰ In ch 816 the son of abba Poemenrsquos sister has been taken hostage in order to force abba Poemen

9 In the stemma bold Latin letters indicate Cyrillic transcriptions of which the hyparchetype is not preserved shading marks the work of Balkan scribes For an overview of the structural textual and graphic features of the Cyrillic hyparchetypes (their classification not yet reflecting the insights of Veder 2007) see Veder 2005 218ndash224 231ndash242 for dates provenance and descriptions of the MSS see ibidem 435ndash436 (NB There regrettably the sigla I1 and I2 as well as W3 and W6 are switched)

4

to come and meet the local governor when his sister reproaches him for refus-ing to do so he answers her

Pastor filios non generavit Ποιmicroὴν τέκνα οὐκ ἐγέννησεν Пѵмнъ не род чѧдъ

But the witnesses transmit the following Ⰰ ⱂⱓⰿⰹⱀⱐ ⱀⰵⰱⱃⱑⰷⰹ ⱍⱔⰴⱐ (γ rarr ⱍⱔⰴⱁ) oc пиминъ небрежеть чада kW8 пиминъ небрѣꙁи чѧда W5 небрѣꙁы чѧдь W2 пиминь не рождь

The degradation не род rarr небреꙃ (misimproved rarr небрежетъ) stems from Ⰰrsquos effort to copyndashedit the text eliminating inter alia original неродт lsquoneglectrsquo (missed in no more than three instances) and marking the readings to be changed by marginal notes in Glagolitic The later readers of the original con-sidered the annotations on a par with the Glagolitic text and took care not to skip them (with varying success) only W2 disregarded them (the task of tran-scription per se seems to have sorely taxed his capacities) In the discussion be-low I make no distinction between the two groups of witnesses but eschew readings marked by interference from Ⰰ

The text length (Cyrillic 96255 occurrences of 13172 forms Glagolitic 96034 occurrences of 12992 forms) prohibits all but exemplary treatment of the conflicts signalled below10 For the examples I have given preference to those that occur both in East and South Slavic witnesses and show that the variation is not dialectndashrelated

Jotation of Vowels

А initial predominant ꙗко (all branches of transmission) and ѣко (W5 2 W3 1) conflict with ако (a 4 B4W5 2 b 1) and акꙑ or аки (α 24 c 13 β 6 γ 4 δε 2 oW34 1) postvocalic моꙗ (chiefly in ascW168) conflicts with моа (b 31 k 18 W3 14 b 12 C3 7 b 5 o 4 W2 2)

Е initial ѥще (A2 27 C1 24 W2 19 W8 18 W6 17 W4 15 A3 11 aW1 3 C4W5 2) conflicts with predominant еще (all branches of transmission) postvo-calic моѥ (chiefly in ascW168) conflicts with predominant мое (all branches of transmission)

10 A searchable versendashbyndashverse collation of all the witnesses is published in Polata knigopisnaja 36(2006) at lthttpkbosuedudspacehandle18116399gt machinendashreadable copies of the individual witnesses are being made available at the website of the Bulgarian Academyrsquos CyrillondashMethodian Research Centre lthttpkmncbasbggt

5

ОУ initial юнndash (ab 33 c 22 bb 16 o 15 δε 14 s 6 k 3 W12348 1) con-flicts with predominant ѹнndash (all branches of transmission) postvocalic the predominant mnDndashdesinence ndashию (all branches of transmission) conflicts with ndashиу (W3 13 K2 9 aB4W2 3 K1 2 sbbiC23W4 1)

Ѫ initial fA ѭ (W5 6 ю passim) conflicts with ѫ (chiefly in B4bW6) post-vocalic своѭ (a 2 bmoW8 1 свою passim) conflicts with своѫ (W36 2 k 1)

Ѧ initial mfApl ѩ (a 9 W6 4 mW5 1) conflicts with predominant ѧ (all branches of transmission) postvocalic моѩ (a 14 W6 4 A3B4K2W5 1) conflicts with predominant моѧ (all branches of transmission)

Consider also the misspellings ѹже adv + ѫже rarr юже (W6 14 W58 11 W4 10 W2 6 aB2δocW1 1) ѹтрndash + ѫтрndash rarr ютрndash (W2 9 W48 5 W56 2)

The distribution of the readings makes it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ wrote jotated vowels and that the task of introducing jotationndashmarkers was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers

Palatalisation of Consonants

Б В М П forms with epenthetic л to mark palatalisation conflict with forms without it eg ꙁоблѭ ꙁобли (all branches of transmission) conflict with ꙁобѫ ꙁоби (W3 2) predominant корабли корабль корабльници кораблѧ (all branches of transmission) conflict with кораби корабь корабьници корабѣ (W2 4 W56 2 kW38 1) блгсвленndash (chiefly in bW2) conflicts with predominant блгсвенndash (all branches of transmission) тивлꙗнинь (W2 4 W4 1) conflicts with predominant ѳивѣнинъ (all branches of transmission) оставль оставлѭ (all branches of transmission) conflict with оставь оставѧ (W3 2 W456 1) predominant ꙁемли ꙁемлꙗ ꙁемлѧ (all branches of transmission) conflict with ꙁеми ꙁемѣ ꙁемѧ (W5 10 W6 3 abC3 1) ꙁемльнndash (W4 5 W8 3 bW12 2 εcW6 1) conflicts with predominant ꙁемьнndash (all branches of transmission) comp крѣплии крѣпльша крѣпльши (all branches of transmission) conflict with крѣпи крѣпша крѣпьци (W3 2 ac 1) predominant съплю сꙑплю (all branches of transmission) conflicts with спѧ сꙑпѧ (k 4 W36 3 W25 2 ⰀockW4 1) Consider also the variable relation of the two roots ndashимьмndash ndashемлndash (αoW8 21 γεcW124 151 sk 11 W356 115 δ 12)

Л Н Р forms with jotated vowels (cf above) conflict with forms without them eg хвалꙗхъ (b 2 хвалѧхъхвалѣхь passim) conflicts with хвалахь (W2) болѥ (W48 5 W2 4) conflicts with predominant боле (all branches of transmis-sion) adjmD павьлю (B2oW568) conflicts with павьлѹ (αbB4bkW2) кланꙗю (W48 3 abmC2W126 1 кланѣѫкланѧю passim) conflicts with кланаю (W1) the desinence ndashнѥниѥ (W24 5 W8 4 a 1) conflicts with predominant ndashнениѥ Ldu коню conflicts with конѹ (sW123) цсрꙗ (W4 цсрѧцсрѣ passim) conflicts with цсра (W28) морѥ (W8 2 W26 1) conflicts with predominant море (all branches of transmission) рѥкшь рѥщи рѥче (a 2 W23 1) conflict with predominant рекъшь рещи рече (all branches of transmission) predominant творю conflicts with

6

творѫтворѹ (W2 35 W8 23 W4 21 W1 12 b 6 k 5 a 4 W36 1) Consider al-so the variable relation of the two roots ndashлѹчndash and ndashключndash eg in ndashлѹчи сѧ ndashключи сѧ (α 21 γ 12 ε W4 14 sδW568 18 ockW123 120)

The distribution of the readings makes it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ marked consonants for palatalisation before full vowels and that the task of in-troducing such marking was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers (perhaps to some extent preceded by αβγδε) But the sur-vey of palatalisation is incomplete without an examination of the two halfndashvowel signs ъ and ь for which by way of exception I turn to the South Slavic witnesses alone (the East Slavic witnesses with their longer transmission histo-ry have leveled the distribution of the halfndashvowel signs albeit they show a high incidence of etymologically incorrect ьndashspellings)

These witnesses usually prefer ь as a halfndashvowel sign but none is without attestations of ъ W2 has 2 (both etymologically incorrect) W8 10 correct + 2 incorrect W1 13 correct W4 21 correct W3 25 correct + 6 incorrect W5 45 cor-rect + 17 incorrect K1 651 correct + 166 incorrect (the witness is only fragmen-tarily preserved) K2 4124 correct + 3252 incorrect and W6 6447 correct + 2921 incorrect the locations of ъ in W1234 do not coincide in W58 only in the prefixes въndash (6) and съndash (1)

The discrepancies in the use of ъ and ь in the individual witnesses make it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ distinguished the two halfndashvowels but that the distinction was introduced during the later phases of transmission (by a second-arily differentiated ъⱏ) each transmitter having to decide for himself how to handle it A vivid example of the difficulty of deciding which halfndashvowel to use is provided by the name of St Arseniusrsquo disciple Zoel (1510aЛЪ) for which we find both ꙁоилъ ꙁоилѹꙁоилови and ꙁоиль ꙁоилюꙁоилеви (ocW3 40 a 22 aεk 13 γW24 04)

ЖД and Щ

In contrast to etymological ж the reflex of đǵ (жд) is a source of conflicts among the witnesses compare ꙗкоже (with stable ж) and такожде (chiefly W468) такоже (chiefly aboc) тако (chiefly ε) Beside ж or oslash we find жг (7) eg дъждѹ bB4bkW3568 дъждю moc дъжгу α11 дъжгю B2 д (27) eg хождаахѫ bkW3 ndashхожаху αB4ε ndashходѧхѹ bB2m ndashспѣахѫ ocW568 страждьба bkW5 стражьба αbboW268 страдба W3 ѹгождениѥ abkW3 ѹгожение aB2boc ѹгодиѥ B4W1 ѫрождааше αo ѹрожаше γδc ѧродѣше W3 oslash k

11 As the oldest witness of α A1 (late 12th c) is of South Rusian provenance жг there cannot be explained as a North Rusian dialectism

7

ꙁг (4) eg ижденndash ⰀokW56 иꙁгонndash B24 иꙁгънndash cW3 раждьжетъ aA3B4kW24 ражьжеть A2sbB2δc раждеть ε раꙁгорить o ꙁд (1) раждаѩ раꙁдаꙗх εc раꙁдаваѧ αγokW1368 ꙁ (1) раждаѥтъ A2 ражаѥть A3B4c раꙁдаеть b раꙁаеть B2 т (1) похождь bkW2568 похожь aA3sbbε похоть A2 походивъ oc щ (1) сѫждь aA2bB4bW24568 сѹжь A3B2 сѹще W1 сѹдивъ o сѹдихъ c oslash ε

Considering the predominance of monographic renderings I presume the source of this variation to be a monograph in ω (copied by Ⰰ save in one in-stance) most probably the letter ⰼ (pace Marti 2004a 409ndash410)

The reflex of ćḱ (щ) shows no conflicts of interpretation save 4 шт (W4 2 C2W5 1)12

ОУ and Ѵ The digraph ѹ varies not only with ю (cf above) but also with the monographs у (α 25ndash77 ε 12ndash65) and ꙋ (γ 12ndash63 o 71 c 4ndash79 k 51ndash73 W5 2 W8 30) as well as with е и and о eg и молиши rarr ѹмолиши i неимѣниѥ rarr неѹмѣнїе i сѣдѧще rarr сѣдѧщѹ a сѫдищи rarr сѹдищѹ okW48 ꙗдѫщѹ rarr ꙗдѹще aokW35 ꙗдѹщи B2m This makes it plausible that ω and Ⰰ (possibly followed by αβγδε) wrote a monograph most probably ⱛ (cf Miklas 2000 124 Marti 2000 65)

The variation indicated above contrasts with another type of variation re-stricted to loanwords from Greek viz и ѹ ѵ (marginally including also о ы юѭ oslash) eg египьтndash егѹпьтndash егѵпьтndash (all biow no и abk no ѹ aW2568 no и or ѹ scW14 no ѹ or ѵ m no ѵ bmi) мѡиси мѡусимѡѵси мѡси (all bεok no и m no ѹ αcwW56 no ѹ or oslash sbW1248 no oslash b) пиминъ пѹминъ пѵминъ13 (all o no и b no и or ѹ c no ѹ αsbimW12456 no ѹ or ѵ mwW8 no ѵ bik) синъклитndash сѹнъклитndash сѵнъклитndash (all bbok no и i no и or ѹ asbicW14 no ѹ mwW2568) These conflicting readings reflect a monograph different from radic most probably ⱓ (which the translator did not use to render jotated ju cf above)

Ф and Ѳ In the names ѳеодѡръ феръмьскꙑи and ѳеофилъ (16 occurrences) differentiated spellings of ph and th14 conflict with nonndashdifferentiated spellings as follows

12 A3 confuses with щ Glagolitic b in the heading of chapter 11 ⰱⱁⰴⱃⱛ rarr щодру 13 In the heading of chapter L Ⰰ wrote ⱂⱁⰻⰿⰵⱀ (reflected in abb as поимен) which is surely not original 14 Note that I consider both ѳеофилъ and феоѳилъ as differentiated spellings

8

only undifferentiated bδc 1ndash2 differentiated αso half of each bbk 1ndash3 undifferentiated εwW2456 only differentiated W18 Differentiated spellings be-come more numerous in the second half of the text and their correctness (by Greek standards) rises from 0ndash30 (andashi) to almost 100 (W1ndash8) These con-flicts as well as what may be interpreted as a learning curve of the transcribers make it plausible that that neither ω nor Ⰰ (nor αβγδε) differentiated the spell-ings and that the task of differentiating ph and th was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers

The misspellings ѳолъ rarr подъ (W2 3 помостъ ⰀocW3 3) and пѵминъ rarr фиминь (W1 17 W4 9) ie the confusion of Glagolitic ⱇ with ⱂ as well as ѳиваидndash rarr диваидndash (a) тиваидndash (W2 4 oW68 3 aW5 2 aεcW134 1) ie con-fusion with ⰴ and ⱅ make it plausible that the undifferentiated character used in ω (and retained in Ⰰ and its Glagolitic copies) was ⱇ

Х and Ⱒ The confusion гь хъ (ⰳⱐ ⱈⱐ) attested in all branches of transmission proves that христосъ was not written with ⱒ (pace Miklas 2003 181) хлъмъ in which ⱒ is attested (Schaeken 1999 80ndash81) is lacking in the text but the substitution х rarr м in грохотъ (αsbB4bεc) rarr хромотъ (B2okW2368) хꙑтръ (αsbB4bεc) rarr мѫдръ (B2okW2368) and the confusion of desinences GLpl ndashхъ Dpl ndashмъIpl ndashми (eg при двьрьхъ ⰀokW2 rarr прѣдъ дверми cW3 нечьстивꙑихъ ⰀockW134 rarr нечювьствьним W2 and inversely мъногꙑмъ αsbB4W14 rarr многыхъ B2ckW3568 мъногы ε грѣшьнꙑимъ ⰀocW3 rarr грѣшныхь W4568 глемꙑимъ ⰀockW2568 rarr глемыхъ W3 стимь таинамь W2 rarr стыхъ таинъ αγεokW345678 въсѣмь k rarr всѣхъ amoc oslash aγ пѫтемь хвѣмь bbεockW23468 rarr пѹтьхъ хвхъ αsb) might be interpreted to indicate that the protograph used ⱒ in these instances15

Ꙑ and Ѫ Conflicting readings with а и ъь ѣ ꙑы ѫѹ ѧе abound in the place of jery The variation most prominent in the first half of the text affects chiefly desinences which can significantly alter the text eg женꙑ rarr женѫ (akW2) женѣ (W2) and женъ rarr женꙑ (akW8) живꙑ rarr живи (sγδεockW36) живѧ (W68) идꙑ rarr иди (W268) идь (W5) ити (W3) польꙃи rarr польꙁꙑ (αbbεckW38) and польꙃѧ rarr польꙁꙑ (Ⰰ 5 ok 4 sW1 3 W3 2 W2 1) польꙁѫ (γocW6) сꙑ rarr си (aW4 2 oW26 1) съ прѣдꙑ rarr съ прѣда (aA2) съ прѣдѣ (A3) съ прѣдѹ (bb) тьрꙑ rarr тра (bB4) тре (W1) три (α) тꙑ rarr то (a) тъ (a) ꙗдꙑ rarr ꙗда (s 3) ꙗдъ (α) and ꙗдъ rarr ꙗдꙑ (Ⰰ) The variation indicates that ω in these instances

15 If this can be proven it would constitute an additional trigger for the vacillation between adnominal dative and genitive in the witnesses

9

used a monograph and the reflexes и and ѣ may be taken to indicate that it bore resemblance to both ⰻ and ⱑ ie most likely ⱖ (pace Marti 2000 65 Trunte 2004 424)

The massive confusion ѫ ѹ in all branches of the tradition eg бѫдѫ (kW356 15) predominant бѹдѹ (all branches of transmission) and the confu-sion ѫ ѧ (which appears already in Ⰰ) eg блѫдndash rarr блѧдndash (ⰀW4) and блѧдndash rarr блѫдndash (W28 2 αW3456 1) съмѫтndash rarr съмѧтndash (C12W6) and съмѧтndash rarr съмѫтndash (W3 8 k 6 C3W8 3 δ 2 acW16 1) can be satisfactorily explained only if ω wrote a letter similar to both ⱛ and ⱔ the reading ѹготовлѭ rarr ꙋготовль (W468 ѹготоваю Ⰰ) shows that it was similar to ⱐ as well The original letter may have looked like (ⱖ so Trunte 2004 424 lacks the prerequisite similarity) and must have been abandoned because it was opaque16

Almost all examples in this survey could of course be considered individually and many of them could be explained as innovations (eg the forms of the im-perfect and participles adduced for жд) But such explanation which fails to answer the crucial question What triggered the change17 is in fact nothing more than the rationalisation of an observation More importantly it slights the possibility that the variation be patterned

It is indeed only when we regard the marking of jotation and palatalisation the distinction of ŭ and ĭ ph and th and the digraphic renderings of đǵ u and y as addndashons18 that we begin to understand that in this text there was a single principal trigger for the variation and the resulting discord of the wit-nesses the inexplicit spelling of the Glagolitic protograph ω This led the tran-scribers (and in some cases the Glagolitic copyists as well) to more frequent and more varied interventions than faithfulness to the text would allow An ex-ample of these additional interventions to explicate the spelling is furnished by the name of abba Longinus (Λογγῖνος 10 occurrences) which ω surely spelled 16 The survey lacks data as to the distribution of о (ⱁ) and ѡ (ⱉ) as well as и (ⰹ) and і (ⰻ for the reversal of the traditional correspondences of the latter two letters see Miklas 2003) I must leave it to a colleague with more insight and patience than I can muster to sort them out 17 The traditional answer would be ldquoLanguage changes and the scribes parsed the text through their language competencerdquo In the perspective of the data of this particular text and its tradition it begs the counterndashquestion ldquoWhy then are the most recent transcriptions of the text (w and W1ndash8) the least innovativerdquo 18 W6 exhibits a curious individual addndashon to ѧ eg in чѧдо regularly written чѧндо with a mater lectionis н carefully erased in final editing The concept of addndashon in itself could do away with such concepts as eg Vertauschung der beiden Halbvokale and Aufgabe der Palata-litaumlt (Diels 1932 96ndash98 and 141ndash146) cf the data above on their representation in the South Slavic witnesses

10

loggjn= with double g this spelling is retained only in b (логгинndash with a hypercorrect pajerok) and k (K1 логгѵнndash K2 adding n and a hypercorrect ь лоньггѵнndash) δεc undouble the g (логинndash) as do W1234 in half of the cases in the other half joining W568 in substituting Slavic ng as well as adding a hypercor-rect ь (лоньгинndash) αbbo have an underlying spelling лѫггинndash19 (a лѫгинndash a лугинndash o лѹньгинndash bb vaccillating between лѹньгинndash лоньгинndash and логинndash) which is surely to be traced to Ⰰrsquos copyndashediting Need it be pointed out that the development of all of the translatorrsquos Grecisms (including agglndash rarr анъгелndash and the like) can be explained in similar terms

The terms of the development are intimately related to Nicolaas van Wijkrsquos concept de lrsquouniteacute agrave la puraliteacute But unity to be sought among Slavs well be-fore Sts Cyril and Methodiusrsquo mission to Morava was present in the Glagolitic protograph ω of the Scete Patericon only as an intention (lsquofor all Slavsrsquo) the means applied to realise it was parsimony reducing the spelling to the bare es-sentials in order to avoid marking any feature that might be divisive This inten-tion and the means to realise it were evidently the first casualties of the evacua-tion of the book to the Balkans there a notation of the type ⰸⰵⰿⰰ (ꙁема) was not recognised as being capable of representing both ꙁемꙗ and ꙁемлꙗ but only as not representing either The resulting tampering with the spelling (starting to an extent as yet to be precisely determined as early as the Pliska copy Ⰰ of 886ndash887) inevitably led to the plurality or to put it more bluntly prodigality of the witnesses

So far this attempt to follow up on Šafařiacutek 1858 and to question the Cyrillic witnesses to the Scete Patericon as to the evidence they can provide to the spelling of their Glagolitic source remains isolated and therefore vulnerable to criticism especially since its findings are at variance with established scholar-ship Yet there is a straightforward way to check their validity in the one text attributed expressis verbis to St Methodius viz the Nomocanon (VM xv) After the thorough work of Maksimovič 200420 who for the first time provides a co-herent analysis of the lexicon and morphosyntax of the translatorrsquos text it should not be too difficult to collect the witnesses (including excerpts transmit-ted separately from the full text) and question them about the orthography of their prendashBalkan protograph

19 If Ⰰ retained ωrsquos monographic ѫ () the b spelling логгинndash could be derived just as the spellings of bb from лѫггинndash which would then be the reading both of αγ and o 20 The criticism levelled against Maksimovič by Stankov 2006ab in no way affects the essence of his study but only broadens our insight into the controversial aspects of the term lsquomoravismrsquo as a label for lexical items

11

In conclusion it appears that the Glagolitic barrier which impedes our view of prendashBalkan texts and their spelling is more than just the aggregate of problems referred to in the second paragraph of this paper It consists of four conditions three historical and one manndashmade A the lack of any extant Glagolitic writing that can be attributed to either the first generation of Slavic men of letters (mis-sion to Morava) or their second and third generation (reception in the Balkans) B the probable shift in spelling from parsimony to prodigality which may have started already in the second generation and of which all extant Glagolitic (and Cyrillic) writing bears the traces C the retroactive influence of Glagolitic copyndashediting upon prendashBalkan Glagolitic texts readers making little or no dis-tinction between the original and subsequent accretions and finally D the ne-glect by established scholarship of the genealogical relations between witnesses and the resulting failure to probe beyond the extant witnesses into the realm of textual palaeligontology21 The first three conditions are irreparable but the last can very well be remedied by the close examination of Cyrillic witnesses to texts that have a Glagolitic protograph as Pavel Josef Šafařiacutek advocated a cen-tury and a half ago

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum IndashV Turnhout 1974ndash1987 Jacques Noret (ed) Turnhout 1998

Diels Paul 1932 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik 1 Teil Heidelberg

Duumlrrigl MarijandashAna and Milan Mihaljević Franjo Velčić (eds) 2004 Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam ZagrebndashKrk

Ivanova Tatrsquojana A 2004 Glagolica Novye gipotezi (neskolrsquoko kritičeskix zamečanij po povodu novyx

issledovanij o pervoj slavjanskoj azbuke) Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj litera-tury 56 78ndash93

KME Petăr Dinekov (ed) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija IndashIV Sofia 1985ndash2004

Lunt Horace G 2000 ldquoThoughts Suggestions and Questions about the Earliest Slavic Writing Sys-

temsrdquo Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 46 271ndash286

21 Since the first publication of the cod Clozianus by Jernej Kopitar (1836) almost seven generations of slavists have gone by neglecting to establish its proper genealogical relation to the cod Suprasliensis (remedied by Spasova 2007) For the term textual palaeligontology see Veder 2005 42ndash45

12

Maksimovič Kirill A 2004 Zakonъ soudьnyi ljudьmъ Istočnikovedčeskie i lingvističeskie aspekty issle-

dovanija slavjanskogo juridičeskogo pamjatnika Moskva Marti Roland W

1983 ldquoTextologische Probleme der Apologie Chrabrsrdquo Anzeiger fuumlr slavische Philologie 14 117ndash147

2004a ldquoDie Bezeichnung der Konsonanten in der Glagolicardquo In Duumlrrigl 2004 401ndash417

2004b ldquoAktuelle Probleme des altkirchenslavischen Schriftndash und Lautsystemsrdquo In-contri linguistici 27 11ndash37

Mathiesen Robert 1967 ldquoAn Emendation to the Vita Methodii XV1rdquo Zbornik za filologiju i ling-

vistiku 10 51ndash53 Miklas Heinz and Sylvia Richter Velizar Sadovski (eds)

2002 Glagolitica Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schriftkultur Wien (OumlAW Phi-losophisch-historische Klasse Schriften der BalkanndashKommission Philolo-gische Abteilung 41)

Miklas Heinz 2003 ldquoJesus-Abbreviatur und Verwandtes Zu einigen Raumltseln der glagolitischen

Schriftentwicklung am Material der Azbučnaja molitvardquo In W Honselaar et al (eds) Time flies Amsterdam (Pegasus Oost-Europese Studies 2) 171-204

Proxorov Gelian M 1992 Glagolica sredi missionerskix azbuk Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury

45 178ndash199 Rešetar Milan

1913 ldquoZur Uumlbersetzertaumltigkeit Methodsrdquo Archiv fuumlr slavische Philologie 34 234ndash239

Šafařiacutek Pavel J 1858 Uumlber den Ursprung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus Praha

Spasova Marija and William R Veder 2007 ldquoCopying CopyndashEditing Editing and Recollating Three Chrysostomian Len-

ten Homilies in Slavonicrdquo Polata knigopisnaja 38 in print preliminary Bul-garian version Prepisvane popravjane redaktirane i sverka na slavjanskija prevod na tri Zlatoustovi Velikopostni slova Preslavska knižovna škola 9 53ndash107

Stankov Rostislav 2006a ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjaxrdquo Preslavska

knižovna škola 9 29ndash52 2006b ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjax (2)rdquo A Da-

vidov et al (eds) Bălgarska filologična medievistika Naučni izsledvanija v čest na prof dfn Ivan Haralampiev Veliko Tărnovo 2006 261ndash287

Trunte Nikolaos 2004 ldquoZu Reformen in der glagolitischen Schriftrdquo In Duumlrrigl et al 2004 419ndash434

Veder William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto

slavjanstvo Sofia 2007 ldquoMetodieva zla hienardquo KirilondashMetodievski studii 17 in print

13

ГЛАГОЛИЧЕСКАЯ БАРЬЕРА Резюме Изучение древнейшей славянской азбуки страдает тем что к ней допуска-ется лишь два разряда данных ndash глаголические рукописи и надписи и сви-детелства об азбуке (абецедарии нумерарии и азбучные акростихи) Между тем уже полтора века назад ПЙ Шафарик (1858) посоветовал привлекать в качестве третьего разряда кириллические апографы текстов с глаголическими протографами В статье на основе обследования право-писных противоречий между кириллическими списками Скитского пате-рика перенесенного 886 г из Моравы в Болгарию в глаголическом своем протографе показывается плодотворность Шафарикского дополнения Рекомендуется проверить результаты обследования на единственном тек-сте недвусмысленно приписанном св Мефодию ndash Номоканоне обследо-ванном с точки зрения лексики и морфосинтаксиса в авторитетной работе Максимович 2004

4

to come and meet the local governor when his sister reproaches him for refus-ing to do so he answers her

Pastor filios non generavit Ποιmicroὴν τέκνα οὐκ ἐγέννησεν Пѵмнъ не род чѧдъ

But the witnesses transmit the following Ⰰ ⱂⱓⰿⰹⱀⱐ ⱀⰵⰱⱃⱑⰷⰹ ⱍⱔⰴⱐ (γ rarr ⱍⱔⰴⱁ) oc пиминъ небрежеть чада kW8 пиминъ небрѣꙁи чѧда W5 небрѣꙁы чѧдь W2 пиминь не рождь

The degradation не род rarr небреꙃ (misimproved rarr небрежетъ) stems from Ⰰrsquos effort to copyndashedit the text eliminating inter alia original неродт lsquoneglectrsquo (missed in no more than three instances) and marking the readings to be changed by marginal notes in Glagolitic The later readers of the original con-sidered the annotations on a par with the Glagolitic text and took care not to skip them (with varying success) only W2 disregarded them (the task of tran-scription per se seems to have sorely taxed his capacities) In the discussion be-low I make no distinction between the two groups of witnesses but eschew readings marked by interference from Ⰰ

The text length (Cyrillic 96255 occurrences of 13172 forms Glagolitic 96034 occurrences of 12992 forms) prohibits all but exemplary treatment of the conflicts signalled below10 For the examples I have given preference to those that occur both in East and South Slavic witnesses and show that the variation is not dialectndashrelated

Jotation of Vowels

А initial predominant ꙗко (all branches of transmission) and ѣко (W5 2 W3 1) conflict with ако (a 4 B4W5 2 b 1) and акꙑ or аки (α 24 c 13 β 6 γ 4 δε 2 oW34 1) postvocalic моꙗ (chiefly in ascW168) conflicts with моа (b 31 k 18 W3 14 b 12 C3 7 b 5 o 4 W2 2)

Е initial ѥще (A2 27 C1 24 W2 19 W8 18 W6 17 W4 15 A3 11 aW1 3 C4W5 2) conflicts with predominant еще (all branches of transmission) postvo-calic моѥ (chiefly in ascW168) conflicts with predominant мое (all branches of transmission)

10 A searchable versendashbyndashverse collation of all the witnesses is published in Polata knigopisnaja 36(2006) at lthttpkbosuedudspacehandle18116399gt machinendashreadable copies of the individual witnesses are being made available at the website of the Bulgarian Academyrsquos CyrillondashMethodian Research Centre lthttpkmncbasbggt

5

ОУ initial юнndash (ab 33 c 22 bb 16 o 15 δε 14 s 6 k 3 W12348 1) con-flicts with predominant ѹнndash (all branches of transmission) postvocalic the predominant mnDndashdesinence ndashию (all branches of transmission) conflicts with ndashиу (W3 13 K2 9 aB4W2 3 K1 2 sbbiC23W4 1)

Ѫ initial fA ѭ (W5 6 ю passim) conflicts with ѫ (chiefly in B4bW6) post-vocalic своѭ (a 2 bmoW8 1 свою passim) conflicts with своѫ (W36 2 k 1)

Ѧ initial mfApl ѩ (a 9 W6 4 mW5 1) conflicts with predominant ѧ (all branches of transmission) postvocalic моѩ (a 14 W6 4 A3B4K2W5 1) conflicts with predominant моѧ (all branches of transmission)

Consider also the misspellings ѹже adv + ѫже rarr юже (W6 14 W58 11 W4 10 W2 6 aB2δocW1 1) ѹтрndash + ѫтрndash rarr ютрndash (W2 9 W48 5 W56 2)

The distribution of the readings makes it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ wrote jotated vowels and that the task of introducing jotationndashmarkers was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers

Palatalisation of Consonants

Б В М П forms with epenthetic л to mark palatalisation conflict with forms without it eg ꙁоблѭ ꙁобли (all branches of transmission) conflict with ꙁобѫ ꙁоби (W3 2) predominant корабли корабль корабльници кораблѧ (all branches of transmission) conflict with кораби корабь корабьници корабѣ (W2 4 W56 2 kW38 1) блгсвленndash (chiefly in bW2) conflicts with predominant блгсвенndash (all branches of transmission) тивлꙗнинь (W2 4 W4 1) conflicts with predominant ѳивѣнинъ (all branches of transmission) оставль оставлѭ (all branches of transmission) conflict with оставь оставѧ (W3 2 W456 1) predominant ꙁемли ꙁемлꙗ ꙁемлѧ (all branches of transmission) conflict with ꙁеми ꙁемѣ ꙁемѧ (W5 10 W6 3 abC3 1) ꙁемльнndash (W4 5 W8 3 bW12 2 εcW6 1) conflicts with predominant ꙁемьнndash (all branches of transmission) comp крѣплии крѣпльша крѣпльши (all branches of transmission) conflict with крѣпи крѣпша крѣпьци (W3 2 ac 1) predominant съплю сꙑплю (all branches of transmission) conflicts with спѧ сꙑпѧ (k 4 W36 3 W25 2 ⰀockW4 1) Consider also the variable relation of the two roots ndashимьмndash ndashемлndash (αoW8 21 γεcW124 151 sk 11 W356 115 δ 12)

Л Н Р forms with jotated vowels (cf above) conflict with forms without them eg хвалꙗхъ (b 2 хвалѧхъхвалѣхь passim) conflicts with хвалахь (W2) болѥ (W48 5 W2 4) conflicts with predominant боле (all branches of transmis-sion) adjmD павьлю (B2oW568) conflicts with павьлѹ (αbB4bkW2) кланꙗю (W48 3 abmC2W126 1 кланѣѫкланѧю passim) conflicts with кланаю (W1) the desinence ndashнѥниѥ (W24 5 W8 4 a 1) conflicts with predominant ndashнениѥ Ldu коню conflicts with конѹ (sW123) цсрꙗ (W4 цсрѧцсрѣ passim) conflicts with цсра (W28) морѥ (W8 2 W26 1) conflicts with predominant море (all branches of transmission) рѥкшь рѥщи рѥче (a 2 W23 1) conflict with predominant рекъшь рещи рече (all branches of transmission) predominant творю conflicts with

6

творѫтворѹ (W2 35 W8 23 W4 21 W1 12 b 6 k 5 a 4 W36 1) Consider al-so the variable relation of the two roots ndashлѹчndash and ndashключndash eg in ndashлѹчи сѧ ndashключи сѧ (α 21 γ 12 ε W4 14 sδW568 18 ockW123 120)

The distribution of the readings makes it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ marked consonants for palatalisation before full vowels and that the task of in-troducing such marking was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers (perhaps to some extent preceded by αβγδε) But the sur-vey of palatalisation is incomplete without an examination of the two halfndashvowel signs ъ and ь for which by way of exception I turn to the South Slavic witnesses alone (the East Slavic witnesses with their longer transmission histo-ry have leveled the distribution of the halfndashvowel signs albeit they show a high incidence of etymologically incorrect ьndashspellings)

These witnesses usually prefer ь as a halfndashvowel sign but none is without attestations of ъ W2 has 2 (both etymologically incorrect) W8 10 correct + 2 incorrect W1 13 correct W4 21 correct W3 25 correct + 6 incorrect W5 45 cor-rect + 17 incorrect K1 651 correct + 166 incorrect (the witness is only fragmen-tarily preserved) K2 4124 correct + 3252 incorrect and W6 6447 correct + 2921 incorrect the locations of ъ in W1234 do not coincide in W58 only in the prefixes въndash (6) and съndash (1)

The discrepancies in the use of ъ and ь in the individual witnesses make it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ distinguished the two halfndashvowels but that the distinction was introduced during the later phases of transmission (by a second-arily differentiated ъⱏ) each transmitter having to decide for himself how to handle it A vivid example of the difficulty of deciding which halfndashvowel to use is provided by the name of St Arseniusrsquo disciple Zoel (1510aЛЪ) for which we find both ꙁоилъ ꙁоилѹꙁоилови and ꙁоиль ꙁоилюꙁоилеви (ocW3 40 a 22 aεk 13 γW24 04)

ЖД and Щ

In contrast to etymological ж the reflex of đǵ (жд) is a source of conflicts among the witnesses compare ꙗкоже (with stable ж) and такожде (chiefly W468) такоже (chiefly aboc) тако (chiefly ε) Beside ж or oslash we find жг (7) eg дъждѹ bB4bkW3568 дъждю moc дъжгу α11 дъжгю B2 д (27) eg хождаахѫ bkW3 ndashхожаху αB4ε ndashходѧхѹ bB2m ndashспѣахѫ ocW568 страждьба bkW5 стражьба αbboW268 страдба W3 ѹгождениѥ abkW3 ѹгожение aB2boc ѹгодиѥ B4W1 ѫрождааше αo ѹрожаше γδc ѧродѣше W3 oslash k

11 As the oldest witness of α A1 (late 12th c) is of South Rusian provenance жг there cannot be explained as a North Rusian dialectism

7

ꙁг (4) eg ижденndash ⰀokW56 иꙁгонndash B24 иꙁгънndash cW3 раждьжетъ aA3B4kW24 ражьжеть A2sbB2δc раждеть ε раꙁгорить o ꙁд (1) раждаѩ раꙁдаꙗх εc раꙁдаваѧ αγokW1368 ꙁ (1) раждаѥтъ A2 ражаѥть A3B4c раꙁдаеть b раꙁаеть B2 т (1) похождь bkW2568 похожь aA3sbbε похоть A2 походивъ oc щ (1) сѫждь aA2bB4bW24568 сѹжь A3B2 сѹще W1 сѹдивъ o сѹдихъ c oslash ε

Considering the predominance of monographic renderings I presume the source of this variation to be a monograph in ω (copied by Ⰰ save in one in-stance) most probably the letter ⰼ (pace Marti 2004a 409ndash410)

The reflex of ćḱ (щ) shows no conflicts of interpretation save 4 шт (W4 2 C2W5 1)12

ОУ and Ѵ The digraph ѹ varies not only with ю (cf above) but also with the monographs у (α 25ndash77 ε 12ndash65) and ꙋ (γ 12ndash63 o 71 c 4ndash79 k 51ndash73 W5 2 W8 30) as well as with е и and о eg и молиши rarr ѹмолиши i неимѣниѥ rarr неѹмѣнїе i сѣдѧще rarr сѣдѧщѹ a сѫдищи rarr сѹдищѹ okW48 ꙗдѫщѹ rarr ꙗдѹще aokW35 ꙗдѹщи B2m This makes it plausible that ω and Ⰰ (possibly followed by αβγδε) wrote a monograph most probably ⱛ (cf Miklas 2000 124 Marti 2000 65)

The variation indicated above contrasts with another type of variation re-stricted to loanwords from Greek viz и ѹ ѵ (marginally including also о ы юѭ oslash) eg египьтndash егѹпьтndash егѵпьтndash (all biow no и abk no ѹ aW2568 no и or ѹ scW14 no ѹ or ѵ m no ѵ bmi) мѡиси мѡусимѡѵси мѡси (all bεok no и m no ѹ αcwW56 no ѹ or oslash sbW1248 no oslash b) пиминъ пѹминъ пѵминъ13 (all o no и b no и or ѹ c no ѹ αsbimW12456 no ѹ or ѵ mwW8 no ѵ bik) синъклитndash сѹнъклитndash сѵнъклитndash (all bbok no и i no и or ѹ asbicW14 no ѹ mwW2568) These conflicting readings reflect a monograph different from radic most probably ⱓ (which the translator did not use to render jotated ju cf above)

Ф and Ѳ In the names ѳеодѡръ феръмьскꙑи and ѳеофилъ (16 occurrences) differentiated spellings of ph and th14 conflict with nonndashdifferentiated spellings as follows

12 A3 confuses with щ Glagolitic b in the heading of chapter 11 ⰱⱁⰴⱃⱛ rarr щодру 13 In the heading of chapter L Ⰰ wrote ⱂⱁⰻⰿⰵⱀ (reflected in abb as поимен) which is surely not original 14 Note that I consider both ѳеофилъ and феоѳилъ as differentiated spellings

8

only undifferentiated bδc 1ndash2 differentiated αso half of each bbk 1ndash3 undifferentiated εwW2456 only differentiated W18 Differentiated spellings be-come more numerous in the second half of the text and their correctness (by Greek standards) rises from 0ndash30 (andashi) to almost 100 (W1ndash8) These con-flicts as well as what may be interpreted as a learning curve of the transcribers make it plausible that that neither ω nor Ⰰ (nor αβγδε) differentiated the spell-ings and that the task of differentiating ph and th was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers

The misspellings ѳолъ rarr подъ (W2 3 помостъ ⰀocW3 3) and пѵминъ rarr фиминь (W1 17 W4 9) ie the confusion of Glagolitic ⱇ with ⱂ as well as ѳиваидndash rarr диваидndash (a) тиваидndash (W2 4 oW68 3 aW5 2 aεcW134 1) ie con-fusion with ⰴ and ⱅ make it plausible that the undifferentiated character used in ω (and retained in Ⰰ and its Glagolitic copies) was ⱇ

Х and Ⱒ The confusion гь хъ (ⰳⱐ ⱈⱐ) attested in all branches of transmission proves that христосъ was not written with ⱒ (pace Miklas 2003 181) хлъмъ in which ⱒ is attested (Schaeken 1999 80ndash81) is lacking in the text but the substitution х rarr м in грохотъ (αsbB4bεc) rarr хромотъ (B2okW2368) хꙑтръ (αsbB4bεc) rarr мѫдръ (B2okW2368) and the confusion of desinences GLpl ndashхъ Dpl ndashмъIpl ndashми (eg при двьрьхъ ⰀokW2 rarr прѣдъ дверми cW3 нечьстивꙑихъ ⰀockW134 rarr нечювьствьним W2 and inversely мъногꙑмъ αsbB4W14 rarr многыхъ B2ckW3568 мъногы ε грѣшьнꙑимъ ⰀocW3 rarr грѣшныхь W4568 глемꙑимъ ⰀockW2568 rarr глемыхъ W3 стимь таинамь W2 rarr стыхъ таинъ αγεokW345678 въсѣмь k rarr всѣхъ amoc oslash aγ пѫтемь хвѣмь bbεockW23468 rarr пѹтьхъ хвхъ αsb) might be interpreted to indicate that the protograph used ⱒ in these instances15

Ꙑ and Ѫ Conflicting readings with а и ъь ѣ ꙑы ѫѹ ѧе abound in the place of jery The variation most prominent in the first half of the text affects chiefly desinences which can significantly alter the text eg женꙑ rarr женѫ (akW2) женѣ (W2) and женъ rarr женꙑ (akW8) живꙑ rarr живи (sγδεockW36) живѧ (W68) идꙑ rarr иди (W268) идь (W5) ити (W3) польꙃи rarr польꙁꙑ (αbbεckW38) and польꙃѧ rarr польꙁꙑ (Ⰰ 5 ok 4 sW1 3 W3 2 W2 1) польꙁѫ (γocW6) сꙑ rarr си (aW4 2 oW26 1) съ прѣдꙑ rarr съ прѣда (aA2) съ прѣдѣ (A3) съ прѣдѹ (bb) тьрꙑ rarr тра (bB4) тре (W1) три (α) тꙑ rarr то (a) тъ (a) ꙗдꙑ rarr ꙗда (s 3) ꙗдъ (α) and ꙗдъ rarr ꙗдꙑ (Ⰰ) The variation indicates that ω in these instances

15 If this can be proven it would constitute an additional trigger for the vacillation between adnominal dative and genitive in the witnesses

9

used a monograph and the reflexes и and ѣ may be taken to indicate that it bore resemblance to both ⰻ and ⱑ ie most likely ⱖ (pace Marti 2000 65 Trunte 2004 424)

The massive confusion ѫ ѹ in all branches of the tradition eg бѫдѫ (kW356 15) predominant бѹдѹ (all branches of transmission) and the confu-sion ѫ ѧ (which appears already in Ⰰ) eg блѫдndash rarr блѧдndash (ⰀW4) and блѧдndash rarr блѫдndash (W28 2 αW3456 1) съмѫтndash rarr съмѧтndash (C12W6) and съмѧтndash rarr съмѫтndash (W3 8 k 6 C3W8 3 δ 2 acW16 1) can be satisfactorily explained only if ω wrote a letter similar to both ⱛ and ⱔ the reading ѹготовлѭ rarr ꙋготовль (W468 ѹготоваю Ⰰ) shows that it was similar to ⱐ as well The original letter may have looked like (ⱖ so Trunte 2004 424 lacks the prerequisite similarity) and must have been abandoned because it was opaque16

Almost all examples in this survey could of course be considered individually and many of them could be explained as innovations (eg the forms of the im-perfect and participles adduced for жд) But such explanation which fails to answer the crucial question What triggered the change17 is in fact nothing more than the rationalisation of an observation More importantly it slights the possibility that the variation be patterned

It is indeed only when we regard the marking of jotation and palatalisation the distinction of ŭ and ĭ ph and th and the digraphic renderings of đǵ u and y as addndashons18 that we begin to understand that in this text there was a single principal trigger for the variation and the resulting discord of the wit-nesses the inexplicit spelling of the Glagolitic protograph ω This led the tran-scribers (and in some cases the Glagolitic copyists as well) to more frequent and more varied interventions than faithfulness to the text would allow An ex-ample of these additional interventions to explicate the spelling is furnished by the name of abba Longinus (Λογγῖνος 10 occurrences) which ω surely spelled 16 The survey lacks data as to the distribution of о (ⱁ) and ѡ (ⱉ) as well as и (ⰹ) and і (ⰻ for the reversal of the traditional correspondences of the latter two letters see Miklas 2003) I must leave it to a colleague with more insight and patience than I can muster to sort them out 17 The traditional answer would be ldquoLanguage changes and the scribes parsed the text through their language competencerdquo In the perspective of the data of this particular text and its tradition it begs the counterndashquestion ldquoWhy then are the most recent transcriptions of the text (w and W1ndash8) the least innovativerdquo 18 W6 exhibits a curious individual addndashon to ѧ eg in чѧдо regularly written чѧндо with a mater lectionis н carefully erased in final editing The concept of addndashon in itself could do away with such concepts as eg Vertauschung der beiden Halbvokale and Aufgabe der Palata-litaumlt (Diels 1932 96ndash98 and 141ndash146) cf the data above on their representation in the South Slavic witnesses

10

loggjn= with double g this spelling is retained only in b (логгинndash with a hypercorrect pajerok) and k (K1 логгѵнndash K2 adding n and a hypercorrect ь лоньггѵнndash) δεc undouble the g (логинndash) as do W1234 in half of the cases in the other half joining W568 in substituting Slavic ng as well as adding a hypercor-rect ь (лоньгинndash) αbbo have an underlying spelling лѫггинndash19 (a лѫгинndash a лугинndash o лѹньгинndash bb vaccillating between лѹньгинndash лоньгинndash and логинndash) which is surely to be traced to Ⰰrsquos copyndashediting Need it be pointed out that the development of all of the translatorrsquos Grecisms (including agglndash rarr анъгелndash and the like) can be explained in similar terms

The terms of the development are intimately related to Nicolaas van Wijkrsquos concept de lrsquouniteacute agrave la puraliteacute But unity to be sought among Slavs well be-fore Sts Cyril and Methodiusrsquo mission to Morava was present in the Glagolitic protograph ω of the Scete Patericon only as an intention (lsquofor all Slavsrsquo) the means applied to realise it was parsimony reducing the spelling to the bare es-sentials in order to avoid marking any feature that might be divisive This inten-tion and the means to realise it were evidently the first casualties of the evacua-tion of the book to the Balkans there a notation of the type ⰸⰵⰿⰰ (ꙁема) was not recognised as being capable of representing both ꙁемꙗ and ꙁемлꙗ but only as not representing either The resulting tampering with the spelling (starting to an extent as yet to be precisely determined as early as the Pliska copy Ⰰ of 886ndash887) inevitably led to the plurality or to put it more bluntly prodigality of the witnesses

So far this attempt to follow up on Šafařiacutek 1858 and to question the Cyrillic witnesses to the Scete Patericon as to the evidence they can provide to the spelling of their Glagolitic source remains isolated and therefore vulnerable to criticism especially since its findings are at variance with established scholar-ship Yet there is a straightforward way to check their validity in the one text attributed expressis verbis to St Methodius viz the Nomocanon (VM xv) After the thorough work of Maksimovič 200420 who for the first time provides a co-herent analysis of the lexicon and morphosyntax of the translatorrsquos text it should not be too difficult to collect the witnesses (including excerpts transmit-ted separately from the full text) and question them about the orthography of their prendashBalkan protograph

19 If Ⰰ retained ωrsquos monographic ѫ () the b spelling логгинndash could be derived just as the spellings of bb from лѫггинndash which would then be the reading both of αγ and o 20 The criticism levelled against Maksimovič by Stankov 2006ab in no way affects the essence of his study but only broadens our insight into the controversial aspects of the term lsquomoravismrsquo as a label for lexical items

11

In conclusion it appears that the Glagolitic barrier which impedes our view of prendashBalkan texts and their spelling is more than just the aggregate of problems referred to in the second paragraph of this paper It consists of four conditions three historical and one manndashmade A the lack of any extant Glagolitic writing that can be attributed to either the first generation of Slavic men of letters (mis-sion to Morava) or their second and third generation (reception in the Balkans) B the probable shift in spelling from parsimony to prodigality which may have started already in the second generation and of which all extant Glagolitic (and Cyrillic) writing bears the traces C the retroactive influence of Glagolitic copyndashediting upon prendashBalkan Glagolitic texts readers making little or no dis-tinction between the original and subsequent accretions and finally D the ne-glect by established scholarship of the genealogical relations between witnesses and the resulting failure to probe beyond the extant witnesses into the realm of textual palaeligontology21 The first three conditions are irreparable but the last can very well be remedied by the close examination of Cyrillic witnesses to texts that have a Glagolitic protograph as Pavel Josef Šafařiacutek advocated a cen-tury and a half ago

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum IndashV Turnhout 1974ndash1987 Jacques Noret (ed) Turnhout 1998

Diels Paul 1932 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik 1 Teil Heidelberg

Duumlrrigl MarijandashAna and Milan Mihaljević Franjo Velčić (eds) 2004 Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam ZagrebndashKrk

Ivanova Tatrsquojana A 2004 Glagolica Novye gipotezi (neskolrsquoko kritičeskix zamečanij po povodu novyx

issledovanij o pervoj slavjanskoj azbuke) Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj litera-tury 56 78ndash93

KME Petăr Dinekov (ed) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija IndashIV Sofia 1985ndash2004

Lunt Horace G 2000 ldquoThoughts Suggestions and Questions about the Earliest Slavic Writing Sys-

temsrdquo Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 46 271ndash286

21 Since the first publication of the cod Clozianus by Jernej Kopitar (1836) almost seven generations of slavists have gone by neglecting to establish its proper genealogical relation to the cod Suprasliensis (remedied by Spasova 2007) For the term textual palaeligontology see Veder 2005 42ndash45

12

Maksimovič Kirill A 2004 Zakonъ soudьnyi ljudьmъ Istočnikovedčeskie i lingvističeskie aspekty issle-

dovanija slavjanskogo juridičeskogo pamjatnika Moskva Marti Roland W

1983 ldquoTextologische Probleme der Apologie Chrabrsrdquo Anzeiger fuumlr slavische Philologie 14 117ndash147

2004a ldquoDie Bezeichnung der Konsonanten in der Glagolicardquo In Duumlrrigl 2004 401ndash417

2004b ldquoAktuelle Probleme des altkirchenslavischen Schriftndash und Lautsystemsrdquo In-contri linguistici 27 11ndash37

Mathiesen Robert 1967 ldquoAn Emendation to the Vita Methodii XV1rdquo Zbornik za filologiju i ling-

vistiku 10 51ndash53 Miklas Heinz and Sylvia Richter Velizar Sadovski (eds)

2002 Glagolitica Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schriftkultur Wien (OumlAW Phi-losophisch-historische Klasse Schriften der BalkanndashKommission Philolo-gische Abteilung 41)

Miklas Heinz 2003 ldquoJesus-Abbreviatur und Verwandtes Zu einigen Raumltseln der glagolitischen

Schriftentwicklung am Material der Azbučnaja molitvardquo In W Honselaar et al (eds) Time flies Amsterdam (Pegasus Oost-Europese Studies 2) 171-204

Proxorov Gelian M 1992 Glagolica sredi missionerskix azbuk Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury

45 178ndash199 Rešetar Milan

1913 ldquoZur Uumlbersetzertaumltigkeit Methodsrdquo Archiv fuumlr slavische Philologie 34 234ndash239

Šafařiacutek Pavel J 1858 Uumlber den Ursprung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus Praha

Spasova Marija and William R Veder 2007 ldquoCopying CopyndashEditing Editing and Recollating Three Chrysostomian Len-

ten Homilies in Slavonicrdquo Polata knigopisnaja 38 in print preliminary Bul-garian version Prepisvane popravjane redaktirane i sverka na slavjanskija prevod na tri Zlatoustovi Velikopostni slova Preslavska knižovna škola 9 53ndash107

Stankov Rostislav 2006a ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjaxrdquo Preslavska

knižovna škola 9 29ndash52 2006b ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjax (2)rdquo A Da-

vidov et al (eds) Bălgarska filologična medievistika Naučni izsledvanija v čest na prof dfn Ivan Haralampiev Veliko Tărnovo 2006 261ndash287

Trunte Nikolaos 2004 ldquoZu Reformen in der glagolitischen Schriftrdquo In Duumlrrigl et al 2004 419ndash434

Veder William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto

slavjanstvo Sofia 2007 ldquoMetodieva zla hienardquo KirilondashMetodievski studii 17 in print

13

ГЛАГОЛИЧЕСКАЯ БАРЬЕРА Резюме Изучение древнейшей славянской азбуки страдает тем что к ней допуска-ется лишь два разряда данных ndash глаголические рукописи и надписи и сви-детелства об азбуке (абецедарии нумерарии и азбучные акростихи) Между тем уже полтора века назад ПЙ Шафарик (1858) посоветовал привлекать в качестве третьего разряда кириллические апографы текстов с глаголическими протографами В статье на основе обследования право-писных противоречий между кириллическими списками Скитского пате-рика перенесенного 886 г из Моравы в Болгарию в глаголическом своем протографе показывается плодотворность Шафарикского дополнения Рекомендуется проверить результаты обследования на единственном тек-сте недвусмысленно приписанном св Мефодию ndash Номоканоне обследо-ванном с точки зрения лексики и морфосинтаксиса в авторитетной работе Максимович 2004

5

ОУ initial юнndash (ab 33 c 22 bb 16 o 15 δε 14 s 6 k 3 W12348 1) con-flicts with predominant ѹнndash (all branches of transmission) postvocalic the predominant mnDndashdesinence ndashию (all branches of transmission) conflicts with ndashиу (W3 13 K2 9 aB4W2 3 K1 2 sbbiC23W4 1)

Ѫ initial fA ѭ (W5 6 ю passim) conflicts with ѫ (chiefly in B4bW6) post-vocalic своѭ (a 2 bmoW8 1 свою passim) conflicts with своѫ (W36 2 k 1)

Ѧ initial mfApl ѩ (a 9 W6 4 mW5 1) conflicts with predominant ѧ (all branches of transmission) postvocalic моѩ (a 14 W6 4 A3B4K2W5 1) conflicts with predominant моѧ (all branches of transmission)

Consider also the misspellings ѹже adv + ѫже rarr юже (W6 14 W58 11 W4 10 W2 6 aB2δocW1 1) ѹтрndash + ѫтрndash rarr ютрndash (W2 9 W48 5 W56 2)

The distribution of the readings makes it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ wrote jotated vowels and that the task of introducing jotationndashmarkers was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers

Palatalisation of Consonants

Б В М П forms with epenthetic л to mark palatalisation conflict with forms without it eg ꙁоблѭ ꙁобли (all branches of transmission) conflict with ꙁобѫ ꙁоби (W3 2) predominant корабли корабль корабльници кораблѧ (all branches of transmission) conflict with кораби корабь корабьници корабѣ (W2 4 W56 2 kW38 1) блгсвленndash (chiefly in bW2) conflicts with predominant блгсвенndash (all branches of transmission) тивлꙗнинь (W2 4 W4 1) conflicts with predominant ѳивѣнинъ (all branches of transmission) оставль оставлѭ (all branches of transmission) conflict with оставь оставѧ (W3 2 W456 1) predominant ꙁемли ꙁемлꙗ ꙁемлѧ (all branches of transmission) conflict with ꙁеми ꙁемѣ ꙁемѧ (W5 10 W6 3 abC3 1) ꙁемльнndash (W4 5 W8 3 bW12 2 εcW6 1) conflicts with predominant ꙁемьнndash (all branches of transmission) comp крѣплии крѣпльша крѣпльши (all branches of transmission) conflict with крѣпи крѣпша крѣпьци (W3 2 ac 1) predominant съплю сꙑплю (all branches of transmission) conflicts with спѧ сꙑпѧ (k 4 W36 3 W25 2 ⰀockW4 1) Consider also the variable relation of the two roots ndashимьмndash ndashемлndash (αoW8 21 γεcW124 151 sk 11 W356 115 δ 12)

Л Н Р forms with jotated vowels (cf above) conflict with forms without them eg хвалꙗхъ (b 2 хвалѧхъхвалѣхь passim) conflicts with хвалахь (W2) болѥ (W48 5 W2 4) conflicts with predominant боле (all branches of transmis-sion) adjmD павьлю (B2oW568) conflicts with павьлѹ (αbB4bkW2) кланꙗю (W48 3 abmC2W126 1 кланѣѫкланѧю passim) conflicts with кланаю (W1) the desinence ndashнѥниѥ (W24 5 W8 4 a 1) conflicts with predominant ndashнениѥ Ldu коню conflicts with конѹ (sW123) цсрꙗ (W4 цсрѧцсрѣ passim) conflicts with цсра (W28) морѥ (W8 2 W26 1) conflicts with predominant море (all branches of transmission) рѥкшь рѥщи рѥче (a 2 W23 1) conflict with predominant рекъшь рещи рече (all branches of transmission) predominant творю conflicts with

6

творѫтворѹ (W2 35 W8 23 W4 21 W1 12 b 6 k 5 a 4 W36 1) Consider al-so the variable relation of the two roots ndashлѹчndash and ndashключndash eg in ndashлѹчи сѧ ndashключи сѧ (α 21 γ 12 ε W4 14 sδW568 18 ockW123 120)

The distribution of the readings makes it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ marked consonants for palatalisation before full vowels and that the task of in-troducing such marking was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers (perhaps to some extent preceded by αβγδε) But the sur-vey of palatalisation is incomplete without an examination of the two halfndashvowel signs ъ and ь for which by way of exception I turn to the South Slavic witnesses alone (the East Slavic witnesses with their longer transmission histo-ry have leveled the distribution of the halfndashvowel signs albeit they show a high incidence of etymologically incorrect ьndashspellings)

These witnesses usually prefer ь as a halfndashvowel sign but none is without attestations of ъ W2 has 2 (both etymologically incorrect) W8 10 correct + 2 incorrect W1 13 correct W4 21 correct W3 25 correct + 6 incorrect W5 45 cor-rect + 17 incorrect K1 651 correct + 166 incorrect (the witness is only fragmen-tarily preserved) K2 4124 correct + 3252 incorrect and W6 6447 correct + 2921 incorrect the locations of ъ in W1234 do not coincide in W58 only in the prefixes въndash (6) and съndash (1)

The discrepancies in the use of ъ and ь in the individual witnesses make it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ distinguished the two halfndashvowels but that the distinction was introduced during the later phases of transmission (by a second-arily differentiated ъⱏ) each transmitter having to decide for himself how to handle it A vivid example of the difficulty of deciding which halfndashvowel to use is provided by the name of St Arseniusrsquo disciple Zoel (1510aЛЪ) for which we find both ꙁоилъ ꙁоилѹꙁоилови and ꙁоиль ꙁоилюꙁоилеви (ocW3 40 a 22 aεk 13 γW24 04)

ЖД and Щ

In contrast to etymological ж the reflex of đǵ (жд) is a source of conflicts among the witnesses compare ꙗкоже (with stable ж) and такожде (chiefly W468) такоже (chiefly aboc) тако (chiefly ε) Beside ж or oslash we find жг (7) eg дъждѹ bB4bkW3568 дъждю moc дъжгу α11 дъжгю B2 д (27) eg хождаахѫ bkW3 ndashхожаху αB4ε ndashходѧхѹ bB2m ndashспѣахѫ ocW568 страждьба bkW5 стражьба αbboW268 страдба W3 ѹгождениѥ abkW3 ѹгожение aB2boc ѹгодиѥ B4W1 ѫрождааше αo ѹрожаше γδc ѧродѣше W3 oslash k

11 As the oldest witness of α A1 (late 12th c) is of South Rusian provenance жг there cannot be explained as a North Rusian dialectism

7

ꙁг (4) eg ижденndash ⰀokW56 иꙁгонndash B24 иꙁгънndash cW3 раждьжетъ aA3B4kW24 ражьжеть A2sbB2δc раждеть ε раꙁгорить o ꙁд (1) раждаѩ раꙁдаꙗх εc раꙁдаваѧ αγokW1368 ꙁ (1) раждаѥтъ A2 ражаѥть A3B4c раꙁдаеть b раꙁаеть B2 т (1) похождь bkW2568 похожь aA3sbbε похоть A2 походивъ oc щ (1) сѫждь aA2bB4bW24568 сѹжь A3B2 сѹще W1 сѹдивъ o сѹдихъ c oslash ε

Considering the predominance of monographic renderings I presume the source of this variation to be a monograph in ω (copied by Ⰰ save in one in-stance) most probably the letter ⰼ (pace Marti 2004a 409ndash410)

The reflex of ćḱ (щ) shows no conflicts of interpretation save 4 шт (W4 2 C2W5 1)12

ОУ and Ѵ The digraph ѹ varies not only with ю (cf above) but also with the monographs у (α 25ndash77 ε 12ndash65) and ꙋ (γ 12ndash63 o 71 c 4ndash79 k 51ndash73 W5 2 W8 30) as well as with е и and о eg и молиши rarr ѹмолиши i неимѣниѥ rarr неѹмѣнїе i сѣдѧще rarr сѣдѧщѹ a сѫдищи rarr сѹдищѹ okW48 ꙗдѫщѹ rarr ꙗдѹще aokW35 ꙗдѹщи B2m This makes it plausible that ω and Ⰰ (possibly followed by αβγδε) wrote a monograph most probably ⱛ (cf Miklas 2000 124 Marti 2000 65)

The variation indicated above contrasts with another type of variation re-stricted to loanwords from Greek viz и ѹ ѵ (marginally including also о ы юѭ oslash) eg египьтndash егѹпьтndash егѵпьтndash (all biow no и abk no ѹ aW2568 no и or ѹ scW14 no ѹ or ѵ m no ѵ bmi) мѡиси мѡусимѡѵси мѡси (all bεok no и m no ѹ αcwW56 no ѹ or oslash sbW1248 no oslash b) пиминъ пѹминъ пѵминъ13 (all o no и b no и or ѹ c no ѹ αsbimW12456 no ѹ or ѵ mwW8 no ѵ bik) синъклитndash сѹнъклитndash сѵнъклитndash (all bbok no и i no и or ѹ asbicW14 no ѹ mwW2568) These conflicting readings reflect a monograph different from radic most probably ⱓ (which the translator did not use to render jotated ju cf above)

Ф and Ѳ In the names ѳеодѡръ феръмьскꙑи and ѳеофилъ (16 occurrences) differentiated spellings of ph and th14 conflict with nonndashdifferentiated spellings as follows

12 A3 confuses with щ Glagolitic b in the heading of chapter 11 ⰱⱁⰴⱃⱛ rarr щодру 13 In the heading of chapter L Ⰰ wrote ⱂⱁⰻⰿⰵⱀ (reflected in abb as поимен) which is surely not original 14 Note that I consider both ѳеофилъ and феоѳилъ as differentiated spellings

8

only undifferentiated bδc 1ndash2 differentiated αso half of each bbk 1ndash3 undifferentiated εwW2456 only differentiated W18 Differentiated spellings be-come more numerous in the second half of the text and their correctness (by Greek standards) rises from 0ndash30 (andashi) to almost 100 (W1ndash8) These con-flicts as well as what may be interpreted as a learning curve of the transcribers make it plausible that that neither ω nor Ⰰ (nor αβγδε) differentiated the spell-ings and that the task of differentiating ph and th was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers

The misspellings ѳолъ rarr подъ (W2 3 помостъ ⰀocW3 3) and пѵминъ rarr фиминь (W1 17 W4 9) ie the confusion of Glagolitic ⱇ with ⱂ as well as ѳиваидndash rarr диваидndash (a) тиваидndash (W2 4 oW68 3 aW5 2 aεcW134 1) ie con-fusion with ⰴ and ⱅ make it plausible that the undifferentiated character used in ω (and retained in Ⰰ and its Glagolitic copies) was ⱇ

Х and Ⱒ The confusion гь хъ (ⰳⱐ ⱈⱐ) attested in all branches of transmission proves that христосъ was not written with ⱒ (pace Miklas 2003 181) хлъмъ in which ⱒ is attested (Schaeken 1999 80ndash81) is lacking in the text but the substitution х rarr м in грохотъ (αsbB4bεc) rarr хромотъ (B2okW2368) хꙑтръ (αsbB4bεc) rarr мѫдръ (B2okW2368) and the confusion of desinences GLpl ndashхъ Dpl ndashмъIpl ndashми (eg при двьрьхъ ⰀokW2 rarr прѣдъ дверми cW3 нечьстивꙑихъ ⰀockW134 rarr нечювьствьним W2 and inversely мъногꙑмъ αsbB4W14 rarr многыхъ B2ckW3568 мъногы ε грѣшьнꙑимъ ⰀocW3 rarr грѣшныхь W4568 глемꙑимъ ⰀockW2568 rarr глемыхъ W3 стимь таинамь W2 rarr стыхъ таинъ αγεokW345678 въсѣмь k rarr всѣхъ amoc oslash aγ пѫтемь хвѣмь bbεockW23468 rarr пѹтьхъ хвхъ αsb) might be interpreted to indicate that the protograph used ⱒ in these instances15

Ꙑ and Ѫ Conflicting readings with а и ъь ѣ ꙑы ѫѹ ѧе abound in the place of jery The variation most prominent in the first half of the text affects chiefly desinences which can significantly alter the text eg женꙑ rarr женѫ (akW2) женѣ (W2) and женъ rarr женꙑ (akW8) живꙑ rarr живи (sγδεockW36) живѧ (W68) идꙑ rarr иди (W268) идь (W5) ити (W3) польꙃи rarr польꙁꙑ (αbbεckW38) and польꙃѧ rarr польꙁꙑ (Ⰰ 5 ok 4 sW1 3 W3 2 W2 1) польꙁѫ (γocW6) сꙑ rarr си (aW4 2 oW26 1) съ прѣдꙑ rarr съ прѣда (aA2) съ прѣдѣ (A3) съ прѣдѹ (bb) тьрꙑ rarr тра (bB4) тре (W1) три (α) тꙑ rarr то (a) тъ (a) ꙗдꙑ rarr ꙗда (s 3) ꙗдъ (α) and ꙗдъ rarr ꙗдꙑ (Ⰰ) The variation indicates that ω in these instances

15 If this can be proven it would constitute an additional trigger for the vacillation between adnominal dative and genitive in the witnesses

9

used a monograph and the reflexes и and ѣ may be taken to indicate that it bore resemblance to both ⰻ and ⱑ ie most likely ⱖ (pace Marti 2000 65 Trunte 2004 424)

The massive confusion ѫ ѹ in all branches of the tradition eg бѫдѫ (kW356 15) predominant бѹдѹ (all branches of transmission) and the confu-sion ѫ ѧ (which appears already in Ⰰ) eg блѫдndash rarr блѧдndash (ⰀW4) and блѧдndash rarr блѫдndash (W28 2 αW3456 1) съмѫтndash rarr съмѧтndash (C12W6) and съмѧтndash rarr съмѫтndash (W3 8 k 6 C3W8 3 δ 2 acW16 1) can be satisfactorily explained only if ω wrote a letter similar to both ⱛ and ⱔ the reading ѹготовлѭ rarr ꙋготовль (W468 ѹготоваю Ⰰ) shows that it was similar to ⱐ as well The original letter may have looked like (ⱖ so Trunte 2004 424 lacks the prerequisite similarity) and must have been abandoned because it was opaque16

Almost all examples in this survey could of course be considered individually and many of them could be explained as innovations (eg the forms of the im-perfect and participles adduced for жд) But such explanation which fails to answer the crucial question What triggered the change17 is in fact nothing more than the rationalisation of an observation More importantly it slights the possibility that the variation be patterned

It is indeed only when we regard the marking of jotation and palatalisation the distinction of ŭ and ĭ ph and th and the digraphic renderings of đǵ u and y as addndashons18 that we begin to understand that in this text there was a single principal trigger for the variation and the resulting discord of the wit-nesses the inexplicit spelling of the Glagolitic protograph ω This led the tran-scribers (and in some cases the Glagolitic copyists as well) to more frequent and more varied interventions than faithfulness to the text would allow An ex-ample of these additional interventions to explicate the spelling is furnished by the name of abba Longinus (Λογγῖνος 10 occurrences) which ω surely spelled 16 The survey lacks data as to the distribution of о (ⱁ) and ѡ (ⱉ) as well as и (ⰹ) and і (ⰻ for the reversal of the traditional correspondences of the latter two letters see Miklas 2003) I must leave it to a colleague with more insight and patience than I can muster to sort them out 17 The traditional answer would be ldquoLanguage changes and the scribes parsed the text through their language competencerdquo In the perspective of the data of this particular text and its tradition it begs the counterndashquestion ldquoWhy then are the most recent transcriptions of the text (w and W1ndash8) the least innovativerdquo 18 W6 exhibits a curious individual addndashon to ѧ eg in чѧдо regularly written чѧндо with a mater lectionis н carefully erased in final editing The concept of addndashon in itself could do away with such concepts as eg Vertauschung der beiden Halbvokale and Aufgabe der Palata-litaumlt (Diels 1932 96ndash98 and 141ndash146) cf the data above on their representation in the South Slavic witnesses

10

loggjn= with double g this spelling is retained only in b (логгинndash with a hypercorrect pajerok) and k (K1 логгѵнndash K2 adding n and a hypercorrect ь лоньггѵнndash) δεc undouble the g (логинndash) as do W1234 in half of the cases in the other half joining W568 in substituting Slavic ng as well as adding a hypercor-rect ь (лоньгинndash) αbbo have an underlying spelling лѫггинndash19 (a лѫгинndash a лугинndash o лѹньгинndash bb vaccillating between лѹньгинndash лоньгинndash and логинndash) which is surely to be traced to Ⰰrsquos copyndashediting Need it be pointed out that the development of all of the translatorrsquos Grecisms (including agglndash rarr анъгелndash and the like) can be explained in similar terms

The terms of the development are intimately related to Nicolaas van Wijkrsquos concept de lrsquouniteacute agrave la puraliteacute But unity to be sought among Slavs well be-fore Sts Cyril and Methodiusrsquo mission to Morava was present in the Glagolitic protograph ω of the Scete Patericon only as an intention (lsquofor all Slavsrsquo) the means applied to realise it was parsimony reducing the spelling to the bare es-sentials in order to avoid marking any feature that might be divisive This inten-tion and the means to realise it were evidently the first casualties of the evacua-tion of the book to the Balkans there a notation of the type ⰸⰵⰿⰰ (ꙁема) was not recognised as being capable of representing both ꙁемꙗ and ꙁемлꙗ but only as not representing either The resulting tampering with the spelling (starting to an extent as yet to be precisely determined as early as the Pliska copy Ⰰ of 886ndash887) inevitably led to the plurality or to put it more bluntly prodigality of the witnesses

So far this attempt to follow up on Šafařiacutek 1858 and to question the Cyrillic witnesses to the Scete Patericon as to the evidence they can provide to the spelling of their Glagolitic source remains isolated and therefore vulnerable to criticism especially since its findings are at variance with established scholar-ship Yet there is a straightforward way to check their validity in the one text attributed expressis verbis to St Methodius viz the Nomocanon (VM xv) After the thorough work of Maksimovič 200420 who for the first time provides a co-herent analysis of the lexicon and morphosyntax of the translatorrsquos text it should not be too difficult to collect the witnesses (including excerpts transmit-ted separately from the full text) and question them about the orthography of their prendashBalkan protograph

19 If Ⰰ retained ωrsquos monographic ѫ () the b spelling логгинndash could be derived just as the spellings of bb from лѫггинndash which would then be the reading both of αγ and o 20 The criticism levelled against Maksimovič by Stankov 2006ab in no way affects the essence of his study but only broadens our insight into the controversial aspects of the term lsquomoravismrsquo as a label for lexical items

11

In conclusion it appears that the Glagolitic barrier which impedes our view of prendashBalkan texts and their spelling is more than just the aggregate of problems referred to in the second paragraph of this paper It consists of four conditions three historical and one manndashmade A the lack of any extant Glagolitic writing that can be attributed to either the first generation of Slavic men of letters (mis-sion to Morava) or their second and third generation (reception in the Balkans) B the probable shift in spelling from parsimony to prodigality which may have started already in the second generation and of which all extant Glagolitic (and Cyrillic) writing bears the traces C the retroactive influence of Glagolitic copyndashediting upon prendashBalkan Glagolitic texts readers making little or no dis-tinction between the original and subsequent accretions and finally D the ne-glect by established scholarship of the genealogical relations between witnesses and the resulting failure to probe beyond the extant witnesses into the realm of textual palaeligontology21 The first three conditions are irreparable but the last can very well be remedied by the close examination of Cyrillic witnesses to texts that have a Glagolitic protograph as Pavel Josef Šafařiacutek advocated a cen-tury and a half ago

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum IndashV Turnhout 1974ndash1987 Jacques Noret (ed) Turnhout 1998

Diels Paul 1932 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik 1 Teil Heidelberg

Duumlrrigl MarijandashAna and Milan Mihaljević Franjo Velčić (eds) 2004 Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam ZagrebndashKrk

Ivanova Tatrsquojana A 2004 Glagolica Novye gipotezi (neskolrsquoko kritičeskix zamečanij po povodu novyx

issledovanij o pervoj slavjanskoj azbuke) Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj litera-tury 56 78ndash93

KME Petăr Dinekov (ed) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija IndashIV Sofia 1985ndash2004

Lunt Horace G 2000 ldquoThoughts Suggestions and Questions about the Earliest Slavic Writing Sys-

temsrdquo Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 46 271ndash286

21 Since the first publication of the cod Clozianus by Jernej Kopitar (1836) almost seven generations of slavists have gone by neglecting to establish its proper genealogical relation to the cod Suprasliensis (remedied by Spasova 2007) For the term textual palaeligontology see Veder 2005 42ndash45

12

Maksimovič Kirill A 2004 Zakonъ soudьnyi ljudьmъ Istočnikovedčeskie i lingvističeskie aspekty issle-

dovanija slavjanskogo juridičeskogo pamjatnika Moskva Marti Roland W

1983 ldquoTextologische Probleme der Apologie Chrabrsrdquo Anzeiger fuumlr slavische Philologie 14 117ndash147

2004a ldquoDie Bezeichnung der Konsonanten in der Glagolicardquo In Duumlrrigl 2004 401ndash417

2004b ldquoAktuelle Probleme des altkirchenslavischen Schriftndash und Lautsystemsrdquo In-contri linguistici 27 11ndash37

Mathiesen Robert 1967 ldquoAn Emendation to the Vita Methodii XV1rdquo Zbornik za filologiju i ling-

vistiku 10 51ndash53 Miklas Heinz and Sylvia Richter Velizar Sadovski (eds)

2002 Glagolitica Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schriftkultur Wien (OumlAW Phi-losophisch-historische Klasse Schriften der BalkanndashKommission Philolo-gische Abteilung 41)

Miklas Heinz 2003 ldquoJesus-Abbreviatur und Verwandtes Zu einigen Raumltseln der glagolitischen

Schriftentwicklung am Material der Azbučnaja molitvardquo In W Honselaar et al (eds) Time flies Amsterdam (Pegasus Oost-Europese Studies 2) 171-204

Proxorov Gelian M 1992 Glagolica sredi missionerskix azbuk Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury

45 178ndash199 Rešetar Milan

1913 ldquoZur Uumlbersetzertaumltigkeit Methodsrdquo Archiv fuumlr slavische Philologie 34 234ndash239

Šafařiacutek Pavel J 1858 Uumlber den Ursprung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus Praha

Spasova Marija and William R Veder 2007 ldquoCopying CopyndashEditing Editing and Recollating Three Chrysostomian Len-

ten Homilies in Slavonicrdquo Polata knigopisnaja 38 in print preliminary Bul-garian version Prepisvane popravjane redaktirane i sverka na slavjanskija prevod na tri Zlatoustovi Velikopostni slova Preslavska knižovna škola 9 53ndash107

Stankov Rostislav 2006a ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjaxrdquo Preslavska

knižovna škola 9 29ndash52 2006b ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjax (2)rdquo A Da-

vidov et al (eds) Bălgarska filologična medievistika Naučni izsledvanija v čest na prof dfn Ivan Haralampiev Veliko Tărnovo 2006 261ndash287

Trunte Nikolaos 2004 ldquoZu Reformen in der glagolitischen Schriftrdquo In Duumlrrigl et al 2004 419ndash434

Veder William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto

slavjanstvo Sofia 2007 ldquoMetodieva zla hienardquo KirilondashMetodievski studii 17 in print

13

ГЛАГОЛИЧЕСКАЯ БАРЬЕРА Резюме Изучение древнейшей славянской азбуки страдает тем что к ней допуска-ется лишь два разряда данных ndash глаголические рукописи и надписи и сви-детелства об азбуке (абецедарии нумерарии и азбучные акростихи) Между тем уже полтора века назад ПЙ Шафарик (1858) посоветовал привлекать в качестве третьего разряда кириллические апографы текстов с глаголическими протографами В статье на основе обследования право-писных противоречий между кириллическими списками Скитского пате-рика перенесенного 886 г из Моравы в Болгарию в глаголическом своем протографе показывается плодотворность Шафарикского дополнения Рекомендуется проверить результаты обследования на единственном тек-сте недвусмысленно приписанном св Мефодию ndash Номоканоне обследо-ванном с точки зрения лексики и морфосинтаксиса в авторитетной работе Максимович 2004

6

творѫтворѹ (W2 35 W8 23 W4 21 W1 12 b 6 k 5 a 4 W36 1) Consider al-so the variable relation of the two roots ndashлѹчndash and ndashключndash eg in ndashлѹчи сѧ ndashключи сѧ (α 21 γ 12 ε W4 14 sδW568 18 ockW123 120)

The distribution of the readings makes it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ marked consonants for palatalisation before full vowels and that the task of in-troducing such marking was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers (perhaps to some extent preceded by αβγδε) But the sur-vey of palatalisation is incomplete without an examination of the two halfndashvowel signs ъ and ь for which by way of exception I turn to the South Slavic witnesses alone (the East Slavic witnesses with their longer transmission histo-ry have leveled the distribution of the halfndashvowel signs albeit they show a high incidence of etymologically incorrect ьndashspellings)

These witnesses usually prefer ь as a halfndashvowel sign but none is without attestations of ъ W2 has 2 (both etymologically incorrect) W8 10 correct + 2 incorrect W1 13 correct W4 21 correct W3 25 correct + 6 incorrect W5 45 cor-rect + 17 incorrect K1 651 correct + 166 incorrect (the witness is only fragmen-tarily preserved) K2 4124 correct + 3252 incorrect and W6 6447 correct + 2921 incorrect the locations of ъ in W1234 do not coincide in W58 only in the prefixes въndash (6) and съndash (1)

The discrepancies in the use of ъ and ь in the individual witnesses make it plausible that neither ω nor Ⰰ distinguished the two halfndashvowels but that the distinction was introduced during the later phases of transmission (by a second-arily differentiated ъⱏ) each transmitter having to decide for himself how to handle it A vivid example of the difficulty of deciding which halfndashvowel to use is provided by the name of St Arseniusrsquo disciple Zoel (1510aЛЪ) for which we find both ꙁоилъ ꙁоилѹꙁоилови and ꙁоиль ꙁоилюꙁоилеви (ocW3 40 a 22 aεk 13 γW24 04)

ЖД and Щ

In contrast to etymological ж the reflex of đǵ (жд) is a source of conflicts among the witnesses compare ꙗкоже (with stable ж) and такожде (chiefly W468) такоже (chiefly aboc) тако (chiefly ε) Beside ж or oslash we find жг (7) eg дъждѹ bB4bkW3568 дъждю moc дъжгу α11 дъжгю B2 д (27) eg хождаахѫ bkW3 ndashхожаху αB4ε ndashходѧхѹ bB2m ndashспѣахѫ ocW568 страждьба bkW5 стражьба αbboW268 страдба W3 ѹгождениѥ abkW3 ѹгожение aB2boc ѹгодиѥ B4W1 ѫрождааше αo ѹрожаше γδc ѧродѣше W3 oslash k

11 As the oldest witness of α A1 (late 12th c) is of South Rusian provenance жг there cannot be explained as a North Rusian dialectism

7

ꙁг (4) eg ижденndash ⰀokW56 иꙁгонndash B24 иꙁгънndash cW3 раждьжетъ aA3B4kW24 ражьжеть A2sbB2δc раждеть ε раꙁгорить o ꙁд (1) раждаѩ раꙁдаꙗх εc раꙁдаваѧ αγokW1368 ꙁ (1) раждаѥтъ A2 ражаѥть A3B4c раꙁдаеть b раꙁаеть B2 т (1) похождь bkW2568 похожь aA3sbbε похоть A2 походивъ oc щ (1) сѫждь aA2bB4bW24568 сѹжь A3B2 сѹще W1 сѹдивъ o сѹдихъ c oslash ε

Considering the predominance of monographic renderings I presume the source of this variation to be a monograph in ω (copied by Ⰰ save in one in-stance) most probably the letter ⰼ (pace Marti 2004a 409ndash410)

The reflex of ćḱ (щ) shows no conflicts of interpretation save 4 шт (W4 2 C2W5 1)12

ОУ and Ѵ The digraph ѹ varies not only with ю (cf above) but also with the monographs у (α 25ndash77 ε 12ndash65) and ꙋ (γ 12ndash63 o 71 c 4ndash79 k 51ndash73 W5 2 W8 30) as well as with е и and о eg и молиши rarr ѹмолиши i неимѣниѥ rarr неѹмѣнїе i сѣдѧще rarr сѣдѧщѹ a сѫдищи rarr сѹдищѹ okW48 ꙗдѫщѹ rarr ꙗдѹще aokW35 ꙗдѹщи B2m This makes it plausible that ω and Ⰰ (possibly followed by αβγδε) wrote a monograph most probably ⱛ (cf Miklas 2000 124 Marti 2000 65)

The variation indicated above contrasts with another type of variation re-stricted to loanwords from Greek viz и ѹ ѵ (marginally including also о ы юѭ oslash) eg египьтndash егѹпьтndash егѵпьтndash (all biow no и abk no ѹ aW2568 no и or ѹ scW14 no ѹ or ѵ m no ѵ bmi) мѡиси мѡусимѡѵси мѡси (all bεok no и m no ѹ αcwW56 no ѹ or oslash sbW1248 no oslash b) пиминъ пѹминъ пѵминъ13 (all o no и b no и or ѹ c no ѹ αsbimW12456 no ѹ or ѵ mwW8 no ѵ bik) синъклитndash сѹнъклитndash сѵнъклитndash (all bbok no и i no и or ѹ asbicW14 no ѹ mwW2568) These conflicting readings reflect a monograph different from radic most probably ⱓ (which the translator did not use to render jotated ju cf above)

Ф and Ѳ In the names ѳеодѡръ феръмьскꙑи and ѳеофилъ (16 occurrences) differentiated spellings of ph and th14 conflict with nonndashdifferentiated spellings as follows

12 A3 confuses with щ Glagolitic b in the heading of chapter 11 ⰱⱁⰴⱃⱛ rarr щодру 13 In the heading of chapter L Ⰰ wrote ⱂⱁⰻⰿⰵⱀ (reflected in abb as поимен) which is surely not original 14 Note that I consider both ѳеофилъ and феоѳилъ as differentiated spellings

8

only undifferentiated bδc 1ndash2 differentiated αso half of each bbk 1ndash3 undifferentiated εwW2456 only differentiated W18 Differentiated spellings be-come more numerous in the second half of the text and their correctness (by Greek standards) rises from 0ndash30 (andashi) to almost 100 (W1ndash8) These con-flicts as well as what may be interpreted as a learning curve of the transcribers make it plausible that that neither ω nor Ⰰ (nor αβγδε) differentiated the spell-ings and that the task of differentiating ph and th was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers

The misspellings ѳолъ rarr подъ (W2 3 помостъ ⰀocW3 3) and пѵминъ rarr фиминь (W1 17 W4 9) ie the confusion of Glagolitic ⱇ with ⱂ as well as ѳиваидndash rarr диваидndash (a) тиваидndash (W2 4 oW68 3 aW5 2 aεcW134 1) ie con-fusion with ⰴ and ⱅ make it plausible that the undifferentiated character used in ω (and retained in Ⰰ and its Glagolitic copies) was ⱇ

Х and Ⱒ The confusion гь хъ (ⰳⱐ ⱈⱐ) attested in all branches of transmission proves that христосъ was not written with ⱒ (pace Miklas 2003 181) хлъмъ in which ⱒ is attested (Schaeken 1999 80ndash81) is lacking in the text but the substitution х rarr м in грохотъ (αsbB4bεc) rarr хромотъ (B2okW2368) хꙑтръ (αsbB4bεc) rarr мѫдръ (B2okW2368) and the confusion of desinences GLpl ndashхъ Dpl ndashмъIpl ndashми (eg при двьрьхъ ⰀokW2 rarr прѣдъ дверми cW3 нечьстивꙑихъ ⰀockW134 rarr нечювьствьним W2 and inversely мъногꙑмъ αsbB4W14 rarr многыхъ B2ckW3568 мъногы ε грѣшьнꙑимъ ⰀocW3 rarr грѣшныхь W4568 глемꙑимъ ⰀockW2568 rarr глемыхъ W3 стимь таинамь W2 rarr стыхъ таинъ αγεokW345678 въсѣмь k rarr всѣхъ amoc oslash aγ пѫтемь хвѣмь bbεockW23468 rarr пѹтьхъ хвхъ αsb) might be interpreted to indicate that the protograph used ⱒ in these instances15

Ꙑ and Ѫ Conflicting readings with а и ъь ѣ ꙑы ѫѹ ѧе abound in the place of jery The variation most prominent in the first half of the text affects chiefly desinences which can significantly alter the text eg женꙑ rarr женѫ (akW2) женѣ (W2) and женъ rarr женꙑ (akW8) живꙑ rarr живи (sγδεockW36) живѧ (W68) идꙑ rarr иди (W268) идь (W5) ити (W3) польꙃи rarr польꙁꙑ (αbbεckW38) and польꙃѧ rarr польꙁꙑ (Ⰰ 5 ok 4 sW1 3 W3 2 W2 1) польꙁѫ (γocW6) сꙑ rarr си (aW4 2 oW26 1) съ прѣдꙑ rarr съ прѣда (aA2) съ прѣдѣ (A3) съ прѣдѹ (bb) тьрꙑ rarr тра (bB4) тре (W1) три (α) тꙑ rarr то (a) тъ (a) ꙗдꙑ rarr ꙗда (s 3) ꙗдъ (α) and ꙗдъ rarr ꙗдꙑ (Ⰰ) The variation indicates that ω in these instances

15 If this can be proven it would constitute an additional trigger for the vacillation between adnominal dative and genitive in the witnesses

9

used a monograph and the reflexes и and ѣ may be taken to indicate that it bore resemblance to both ⰻ and ⱑ ie most likely ⱖ (pace Marti 2000 65 Trunte 2004 424)

The massive confusion ѫ ѹ in all branches of the tradition eg бѫдѫ (kW356 15) predominant бѹдѹ (all branches of transmission) and the confu-sion ѫ ѧ (which appears already in Ⰰ) eg блѫдndash rarr блѧдndash (ⰀW4) and блѧдndash rarr блѫдndash (W28 2 αW3456 1) съмѫтndash rarr съмѧтndash (C12W6) and съмѧтndash rarr съмѫтndash (W3 8 k 6 C3W8 3 δ 2 acW16 1) can be satisfactorily explained only if ω wrote a letter similar to both ⱛ and ⱔ the reading ѹготовлѭ rarr ꙋготовль (W468 ѹготоваю Ⰰ) shows that it was similar to ⱐ as well The original letter may have looked like (ⱖ so Trunte 2004 424 lacks the prerequisite similarity) and must have been abandoned because it was opaque16

Almost all examples in this survey could of course be considered individually and many of them could be explained as innovations (eg the forms of the im-perfect and participles adduced for жд) But such explanation which fails to answer the crucial question What triggered the change17 is in fact nothing more than the rationalisation of an observation More importantly it slights the possibility that the variation be patterned

It is indeed only when we regard the marking of jotation and palatalisation the distinction of ŭ and ĭ ph and th and the digraphic renderings of đǵ u and y as addndashons18 that we begin to understand that in this text there was a single principal trigger for the variation and the resulting discord of the wit-nesses the inexplicit spelling of the Glagolitic protograph ω This led the tran-scribers (and in some cases the Glagolitic copyists as well) to more frequent and more varied interventions than faithfulness to the text would allow An ex-ample of these additional interventions to explicate the spelling is furnished by the name of abba Longinus (Λογγῖνος 10 occurrences) which ω surely spelled 16 The survey lacks data as to the distribution of о (ⱁ) and ѡ (ⱉ) as well as и (ⰹ) and і (ⰻ for the reversal of the traditional correspondences of the latter two letters see Miklas 2003) I must leave it to a colleague with more insight and patience than I can muster to sort them out 17 The traditional answer would be ldquoLanguage changes and the scribes parsed the text through their language competencerdquo In the perspective of the data of this particular text and its tradition it begs the counterndashquestion ldquoWhy then are the most recent transcriptions of the text (w and W1ndash8) the least innovativerdquo 18 W6 exhibits a curious individual addndashon to ѧ eg in чѧдо regularly written чѧндо with a mater lectionis н carefully erased in final editing The concept of addndashon in itself could do away with such concepts as eg Vertauschung der beiden Halbvokale and Aufgabe der Palata-litaumlt (Diels 1932 96ndash98 and 141ndash146) cf the data above on their representation in the South Slavic witnesses

10

loggjn= with double g this spelling is retained only in b (логгинndash with a hypercorrect pajerok) and k (K1 логгѵнndash K2 adding n and a hypercorrect ь лоньггѵнndash) δεc undouble the g (логинndash) as do W1234 in half of the cases in the other half joining W568 in substituting Slavic ng as well as adding a hypercor-rect ь (лоньгинndash) αbbo have an underlying spelling лѫггинndash19 (a лѫгинndash a лугинndash o лѹньгинndash bb vaccillating between лѹньгинndash лоньгинndash and логинndash) which is surely to be traced to Ⰰrsquos copyndashediting Need it be pointed out that the development of all of the translatorrsquos Grecisms (including agglndash rarr анъгелndash and the like) can be explained in similar terms

The terms of the development are intimately related to Nicolaas van Wijkrsquos concept de lrsquouniteacute agrave la puraliteacute But unity to be sought among Slavs well be-fore Sts Cyril and Methodiusrsquo mission to Morava was present in the Glagolitic protograph ω of the Scete Patericon only as an intention (lsquofor all Slavsrsquo) the means applied to realise it was parsimony reducing the spelling to the bare es-sentials in order to avoid marking any feature that might be divisive This inten-tion and the means to realise it were evidently the first casualties of the evacua-tion of the book to the Balkans there a notation of the type ⰸⰵⰿⰰ (ꙁема) was not recognised as being capable of representing both ꙁемꙗ and ꙁемлꙗ but only as not representing either The resulting tampering with the spelling (starting to an extent as yet to be precisely determined as early as the Pliska copy Ⰰ of 886ndash887) inevitably led to the plurality or to put it more bluntly prodigality of the witnesses

So far this attempt to follow up on Šafařiacutek 1858 and to question the Cyrillic witnesses to the Scete Patericon as to the evidence they can provide to the spelling of their Glagolitic source remains isolated and therefore vulnerable to criticism especially since its findings are at variance with established scholar-ship Yet there is a straightforward way to check their validity in the one text attributed expressis verbis to St Methodius viz the Nomocanon (VM xv) After the thorough work of Maksimovič 200420 who for the first time provides a co-herent analysis of the lexicon and morphosyntax of the translatorrsquos text it should not be too difficult to collect the witnesses (including excerpts transmit-ted separately from the full text) and question them about the orthography of their prendashBalkan protograph

19 If Ⰰ retained ωrsquos monographic ѫ () the b spelling логгинndash could be derived just as the spellings of bb from лѫггинndash which would then be the reading both of αγ and o 20 The criticism levelled against Maksimovič by Stankov 2006ab in no way affects the essence of his study but only broadens our insight into the controversial aspects of the term lsquomoravismrsquo as a label for lexical items

11

In conclusion it appears that the Glagolitic barrier which impedes our view of prendashBalkan texts and their spelling is more than just the aggregate of problems referred to in the second paragraph of this paper It consists of four conditions three historical and one manndashmade A the lack of any extant Glagolitic writing that can be attributed to either the first generation of Slavic men of letters (mis-sion to Morava) or their second and third generation (reception in the Balkans) B the probable shift in spelling from parsimony to prodigality which may have started already in the second generation and of which all extant Glagolitic (and Cyrillic) writing bears the traces C the retroactive influence of Glagolitic copyndashediting upon prendashBalkan Glagolitic texts readers making little or no dis-tinction between the original and subsequent accretions and finally D the ne-glect by established scholarship of the genealogical relations between witnesses and the resulting failure to probe beyond the extant witnesses into the realm of textual palaeligontology21 The first three conditions are irreparable but the last can very well be remedied by the close examination of Cyrillic witnesses to texts that have a Glagolitic protograph as Pavel Josef Šafařiacutek advocated a cen-tury and a half ago

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum IndashV Turnhout 1974ndash1987 Jacques Noret (ed) Turnhout 1998

Diels Paul 1932 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik 1 Teil Heidelberg

Duumlrrigl MarijandashAna and Milan Mihaljević Franjo Velčić (eds) 2004 Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam ZagrebndashKrk

Ivanova Tatrsquojana A 2004 Glagolica Novye gipotezi (neskolrsquoko kritičeskix zamečanij po povodu novyx

issledovanij o pervoj slavjanskoj azbuke) Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj litera-tury 56 78ndash93

KME Petăr Dinekov (ed) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija IndashIV Sofia 1985ndash2004

Lunt Horace G 2000 ldquoThoughts Suggestions and Questions about the Earliest Slavic Writing Sys-

temsrdquo Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 46 271ndash286

21 Since the first publication of the cod Clozianus by Jernej Kopitar (1836) almost seven generations of slavists have gone by neglecting to establish its proper genealogical relation to the cod Suprasliensis (remedied by Spasova 2007) For the term textual palaeligontology see Veder 2005 42ndash45

12

Maksimovič Kirill A 2004 Zakonъ soudьnyi ljudьmъ Istočnikovedčeskie i lingvističeskie aspekty issle-

dovanija slavjanskogo juridičeskogo pamjatnika Moskva Marti Roland W

1983 ldquoTextologische Probleme der Apologie Chrabrsrdquo Anzeiger fuumlr slavische Philologie 14 117ndash147

2004a ldquoDie Bezeichnung der Konsonanten in der Glagolicardquo In Duumlrrigl 2004 401ndash417

2004b ldquoAktuelle Probleme des altkirchenslavischen Schriftndash und Lautsystemsrdquo In-contri linguistici 27 11ndash37

Mathiesen Robert 1967 ldquoAn Emendation to the Vita Methodii XV1rdquo Zbornik za filologiju i ling-

vistiku 10 51ndash53 Miklas Heinz and Sylvia Richter Velizar Sadovski (eds)

2002 Glagolitica Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schriftkultur Wien (OumlAW Phi-losophisch-historische Klasse Schriften der BalkanndashKommission Philolo-gische Abteilung 41)

Miklas Heinz 2003 ldquoJesus-Abbreviatur und Verwandtes Zu einigen Raumltseln der glagolitischen

Schriftentwicklung am Material der Azbučnaja molitvardquo In W Honselaar et al (eds) Time flies Amsterdam (Pegasus Oost-Europese Studies 2) 171-204

Proxorov Gelian M 1992 Glagolica sredi missionerskix azbuk Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury

45 178ndash199 Rešetar Milan

1913 ldquoZur Uumlbersetzertaumltigkeit Methodsrdquo Archiv fuumlr slavische Philologie 34 234ndash239

Šafařiacutek Pavel J 1858 Uumlber den Ursprung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus Praha

Spasova Marija and William R Veder 2007 ldquoCopying CopyndashEditing Editing and Recollating Three Chrysostomian Len-

ten Homilies in Slavonicrdquo Polata knigopisnaja 38 in print preliminary Bul-garian version Prepisvane popravjane redaktirane i sverka na slavjanskija prevod na tri Zlatoustovi Velikopostni slova Preslavska knižovna škola 9 53ndash107

Stankov Rostislav 2006a ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjaxrdquo Preslavska

knižovna škola 9 29ndash52 2006b ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjax (2)rdquo A Da-

vidov et al (eds) Bălgarska filologična medievistika Naučni izsledvanija v čest na prof dfn Ivan Haralampiev Veliko Tărnovo 2006 261ndash287

Trunte Nikolaos 2004 ldquoZu Reformen in der glagolitischen Schriftrdquo In Duumlrrigl et al 2004 419ndash434

Veder William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto

slavjanstvo Sofia 2007 ldquoMetodieva zla hienardquo KirilondashMetodievski studii 17 in print

13

ГЛАГОЛИЧЕСКАЯ БАРЬЕРА Резюме Изучение древнейшей славянской азбуки страдает тем что к ней допуска-ется лишь два разряда данных ndash глаголические рукописи и надписи и сви-детелства об азбуке (абецедарии нумерарии и азбучные акростихи) Между тем уже полтора века назад ПЙ Шафарик (1858) посоветовал привлекать в качестве третьего разряда кириллические апографы текстов с глаголическими протографами В статье на основе обследования право-писных противоречий между кириллическими списками Скитского пате-рика перенесенного 886 г из Моравы в Болгарию в глаголическом своем протографе показывается плодотворность Шафарикского дополнения Рекомендуется проверить результаты обследования на единственном тек-сте недвусмысленно приписанном св Мефодию ndash Номоканоне обследо-ванном с точки зрения лексики и морфосинтаксиса в авторитетной работе Максимович 2004

7

ꙁг (4) eg ижденndash ⰀokW56 иꙁгонndash B24 иꙁгънndash cW3 раждьжетъ aA3B4kW24 ражьжеть A2sbB2δc раждеть ε раꙁгорить o ꙁд (1) раждаѩ раꙁдаꙗх εc раꙁдаваѧ αγokW1368 ꙁ (1) раждаѥтъ A2 ражаѥть A3B4c раꙁдаеть b раꙁаеть B2 т (1) похождь bkW2568 похожь aA3sbbε похоть A2 походивъ oc щ (1) сѫждь aA2bB4bW24568 сѹжь A3B2 сѹще W1 сѹдивъ o сѹдихъ c oslash ε

Considering the predominance of monographic renderings I presume the source of this variation to be a monograph in ω (copied by Ⰰ save in one in-stance) most probably the letter ⰼ (pace Marti 2004a 409ndash410)

The reflex of ćḱ (щ) shows no conflicts of interpretation save 4 шт (W4 2 C2W5 1)12

ОУ and Ѵ The digraph ѹ varies not only with ю (cf above) but also with the monographs у (α 25ndash77 ε 12ndash65) and ꙋ (γ 12ndash63 o 71 c 4ndash79 k 51ndash73 W5 2 W8 30) as well as with е и and о eg и молиши rarr ѹмолиши i неимѣниѥ rarr неѹмѣнїе i сѣдѧще rarr сѣдѧщѹ a сѫдищи rarr сѹдищѹ okW48 ꙗдѫщѹ rarr ꙗдѹще aokW35 ꙗдѹщи B2m This makes it plausible that ω and Ⰰ (possibly followed by αβγδε) wrote a monograph most probably ⱛ (cf Miklas 2000 124 Marti 2000 65)

The variation indicated above contrasts with another type of variation re-stricted to loanwords from Greek viz и ѹ ѵ (marginally including also о ы юѭ oslash) eg египьтndash егѹпьтndash егѵпьтndash (all biow no и abk no ѹ aW2568 no и or ѹ scW14 no ѹ or ѵ m no ѵ bmi) мѡиси мѡусимѡѵси мѡси (all bεok no и m no ѹ αcwW56 no ѹ or oslash sbW1248 no oslash b) пиминъ пѹминъ пѵминъ13 (all o no и b no и or ѹ c no ѹ αsbimW12456 no ѹ or ѵ mwW8 no ѵ bik) синъклитndash сѹнъклитndash сѵнъклитndash (all bbok no и i no и or ѹ asbicW14 no ѹ mwW2568) These conflicting readings reflect a monograph different from radic most probably ⱓ (which the translator did not use to render jotated ju cf above)

Ф and Ѳ In the names ѳеодѡръ феръмьскꙑи and ѳеофилъ (16 occurrences) differentiated spellings of ph and th14 conflict with nonndashdifferentiated spellings as follows

12 A3 confuses with щ Glagolitic b in the heading of chapter 11 ⰱⱁⰴⱃⱛ rarr щодру 13 In the heading of chapter L Ⰰ wrote ⱂⱁⰻⰿⰵⱀ (reflected in abb as поимен) which is surely not original 14 Note that I consider both ѳеофилъ and феоѳилъ as differentiated spellings

8

only undifferentiated bδc 1ndash2 differentiated αso half of each bbk 1ndash3 undifferentiated εwW2456 only differentiated W18 Differentiated spellings be-come more numerous in the second half of the text and their correctness (by Greek standards) rises from 0ndash30 (andashi) to almost 100 (W1ndash8) These con-flicts as well as what may be interpreted as a learning curve of the transcribers make it plausible that that neither ω nor Ⰰ (nor αβγδε) differentiated the spell-ings and that the task of differentiating ph and th was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers

The misspellings ѳолъ rarr подъ (W2 3 помостъ ⰀocW3 3) and пѵминъ rarr фиминь (W1 17 W4 9) ie the confusion of Glagolitic ⱇ with ⱂ as well as ѳиваидndash rarr диваидndash (a) тиваидndash (W2 4 oW68 3 aW5 2 aεcW134 1) ie con-fusion with ⰴ and ⱅ make it plausible that the undifferentiated character used in ω (and retained in Ⰰ and its Glagolitic copies) was ⱇ

Х and Ⱒ The confusion гь хъ (ⰳⱐ ⱈⱐ) attested in all branches of transmission proves that христосъ was not written with ⱒ (pace Miklas 2003 181) хлъмъ in which ⱒ is attested (Schaeken 1999 80ndash81) is lacking in the text but the substitution х rarr м in грохотъ (αsbB4bεc) rarr хромотъ (B2okW2368) хꙑтръ (αsbB4bεc) rarr мѫдръ (B2okW2368) and the confusion of desinences GLpl ndashхъ Dpl ndashмъIpl ndashми (eg при двьрьхъ ⰀokW2 rarr прѣдъ дверми cW3 нечьстивꙑихъ ⰀockW134 rarr нечювьствьним W2 and inversely мъногꙑмъ αsbB4W14 rarr многыхъ B2ckW3568 мъногы ε грѣшьнꙑимъ ⰀocW3 rarr грѣшныхь W4568 глемꙑимъ ⰀockW2568 rarr глемыхъ W3 стимь таинамь W2 rarr стыхъ таинъ αγεokW345678 въсѣмь k rarr всѣхъ amoc oslash aγ пѫтемь хвѣмь bbεockW23468 rarr пѹтьхъ хвхъ αsb) might be interpreted to indicate that the protograph used ⱒ in these instances15

Ꙑ and Ѫ Conflicting readings with а и ъь ѣ ꙑы ѫѹ ѧе abound in the place of jery The variation most prominent in the first half of the text affects chiefly desinences which can significantly alter the text eg женꙑ rarr женѫ (akW2) женѣ (W2) and женъ rarr женꙑ (akW8) живꙑ rarr живи (sγδεockW36) живѧ (W68) идꙑ rarr иди (W268) идь (W5) ити (W3) польꙃи rarr польꙁꙑ (αbbεckW38) and польꙃѧ rarr польꙁꙑ (Ⰰ 5 ok 4 sW1 3 W3 2 W2 1) польꙁѫ (γocW6) сꙑ rarr си (aW4 2 oW26 1) съ прѣдꙑ rarr съ прѣда (aA2) съ прѣдѣ (A3) съ прѣдѹ (bb) тьрꙑ rarr тра (bB4) тре (W1) три (α) тꙑ rarr то (a) тъ (a) ꙗдꙑ rarr ꙗда (s 3) ꙗдъ (α) and ꙗдъ rarr ꙗдꙑ (Ⰰ) The variation indicates that ω in these instances

15 If this can be proven it would constitute an additional trigger for the vacillation between adnominal dative and genitive in the witnesses

9

used a monograph and the reflexes и and ѣ may be taken to indicate that it bore resemblance to both ⰻ and ⱑ ie most likely ⱖ (pace Marti 2000 65 Trunte 2004 424)

The massive confusion ѫ ѹ in all branches of the tradition eg бѫдѫ (kW356 15) predominant бѹдѹ (all branches of transmission) and the confu-sion ѫ ѧ (which appears already in Ⰰ) eg блѫдndash rarr блѧдndash (ⰀW4) and блѧдndash rarr блѫдndash (W28 2 αW3456 1) съмѫтndash rarr съмѧтndash (C12W6) and съмѧтndash rarr съмѫтndash (W3 8 k 6 C3W8 3 δ 2 acW16 1) can be satisfactorily explained only if ω wrote a letter similar to both ⱛ and ⱔ the reading ѹготовлѭ rarr ꙋготовль (W468 ѹготоваю Ⰰ) shows that it was similar to ⱐ as well The original letter may have looked like (ⱖ so Trunte 2004 424 lacks the prerequisite similarity) and must have been abandoned because it was opaque16

Almost all examples in this survey could of course be considered individually and many of them could be explained as innovations (eg the forms of the im-perfect and participles adduced for жд) But such explanation which fails to answer the crucial question What triggered the change17 is in fact nothing more than the rationalisation of an observation More importantly it slights the possibility that the variation be patterned

It is indeed only when we regard the marking of jotation and palatalisation the distinction of ŭ and ĭ ph and th and the digraphic renderings of đǵ u and y as addndashons18 that we begin to understand that in this text there was a single principal trigger for the variation and the resulting discord of the wit-nesses the inexplicit spelling of the Glagolitic protograph ω This led the tran-scribers (and in some cases the Glagolitic copyists as well) to more frequent and more varied interventions than faithfulness to the text would allow An ex-ample of these additional interventions to explicate the spelling is furnished by the name of abba Longinus (Λογγῖνος 10 occurrences) which ω surely spelled 16 The survey lacks data as to the distribution of о (ⱁ) and ѡ (ⱉ) as well as и (ⰹ) and і (ⰻ for the reversal of the traditional correspondences of the latter two letters see Miklas 2003) I must leave it to a colleague with more insight and patience than I can muster to sort them out 17 The traditional answer would be ldquoLanguage changes and the scribes parsed the text through their language competencerdquo In the perspective of the data of this particular text and its tradition it begs the counterndashquestion ldquoWhy then are the most recent transcriptions of the text (w and W1ndash8) the least innovativerdquo 18 W6 exhibits a curious individual addndashon to ѧ eg in чѧдо regularly written чѧндо with a mater lectionis н carefully erased in final editing The concept of addndashon in itself could do away with such concepts as eg Vertauschung der beiden Halbvokale and Aufgabe der Palata-litaumlt (Diels 1932 96ndash98 and 141ndash146) cf the data above on their representation in the South Slavic witnesses

10

loggjn= with double g this spelling is retained only in b (логгинndash with a hypercorrect pajerok) and k (K1 логгѵнndash K2 adding n and a hypercorrect ь лоньггѵнndash) δεc undouble the g (логинndash) as do W1234 in half of the cases in the other half joining W568 in substituting Slavic ng as well as adding a hypercor-rect ь (лоньгинndash) αbbo have an underlying spelling лѫггинndash19 (a лѫгинndash a лугинndash o лѹньгинndash bb vaccillating between лѹньгинndash лоньгинndash and логинndash) which is surely to be traced to Ⰰrsquos copyndashediting Need it be pointed out that the development of all of the translatorrsquos Grecisms (including agglndash rarr анъгелndash and the like) can be explained in similar terms

The terms of the development are intimately related to Nicolaas van Wijkrsquos concept de lrsquouniteacute agrave la puraliteacute But unity to be sought among Slavs well be-fore Sts Cyril and Methodiusrsquo mission to Morava was present in the Glagolitic protograph ω of the Scete Patericon only as an intention (lsquofor all Slavsrsquo) the means applied to realise it was parsimony reducing the spelling to the bare es-sentials in order to avoid marking any feature that might be divisive This inten-tion and the means to realise it were evidently the first casualties of the evacua-tion of the book to the Balkans there a notation of the type ⰸⰵⰿⰰ (ꙁема) was not recognised as being capable of representing both ꙁемꙗ and ꙁемлꙗ but only as not representing either The resulting tampering with the spelling (starting to an extent as yet to be precisely determined as early as the Pliska copy Ⰰ of 886ndash887) inevitably led to the plurality or to put it more bluntly prodigality of the witnesses

So far this attempt to follow up on Šafařiacutek 1858 and to question the Cyrillic witnesses to the Scete Patericon as to the evidence they can provide to the spelling of their Glagolitic source remains isolated and therefore vulnerable to criticism especially since its findings are at variance with established scholar-ship Yet there is a straightforward way to check their validity in the one text attributed expressis verbis to St Methodius viz the Nomocanon (VM xv) After the thorough work of Maksimovič 200420 who for the first time provides a co-herent analysis of the lexicon and morphosyntax of the translatorrsquos text it should not be too difficult to collect the witnesses (including excerpts transmit-ted separately from the full text) and question them about the orthography of their prendashBalkan protograph

19 If Ⰰ retained ωrsquos monographic ѫ () the b spelling логгинndash could be derived just as the spellings of bb from лѫггинndash which would then be the reading both of αγ and o 20 The criticism levelled against Maksimovič by Stankov 2006ab in no way affects the essence of his study but only broadens our insight into the controversial aspects of the term lsquomoravismrsquo as a label for lexical items

11

In conclusion it appears that the Glagolitic barrier which impedes our view of prendashBalkan texts and their spelling is more than just the aggregate of problems referred to in the second paragraph of this paper It consists of four conditions three historical and one manndashmade A the lack of any extant Glagolitic writing that can be attributed to either the first generation of Slavic men of letters (mis-sion to Morava) or their second and third generation (reception in the Balkans) B the probable shift in spelling from parsimony to prodigality which may have started already in the second generation and of which all extant Glagolitic (and Cyrillic) writing bears the traces C the retroactive influence of Glagolitic copyndashediting upon prendashBalkan Glagolitic texts readers making little or no dis-tinction between the original and subsequent accretions and finally D the ne-glect by established scholarship of the genealogical relations between witnesses and the resulting failure to probe beyond the extant witnesses into the realm of textual palaeligontology21 The first three conditions are irreparable but the last can very well be remedied by the close examination of Cyrillic witnesses to texts that have a Glagolitic protograph as Pavel Josef Šafařiacutek advocated a cen-tury and a half ago

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum IndashV Turnhout 1974ndash1987 Jacques Noret (ed) Turnhout 1998

Diels Paul 1932 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik 1 Teil Heidelberg

Duumlrrigl MarijandashAna and Milan Mihaljević Franjo Velčić (eds) 2004 Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam ZagrebndashKrk

Ivanova Tatrsquojana A 2004 Glagolica Novye gipotezi (neskolrsquoko kritičeskix zamečanij po povodu novyx

issledovanij o pervoj slavjanskoj azbuke) Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj litera-tury 56 78ndash93

KME Petăr Dinekov (ed) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija IndashIV Sofia 1985ndash2004

Lunt Horace G 2000 ldquoThoughts Suggestions and Questions about the Earliest Slavic Writing Sys-

temsrdquo Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 46 271ndash286

21 Since the first publication of the cod Clozianus by Jernej Kopitar (1836) almost seven generations of slavists have gone by neglecting to establish its proper genealogical relation to the cod Suprasliensis (remedied by Spasova 2007) For the term textual palaeligontology see Veder 2005 42ndash45

12

Maksimovič Kirill A 2004 Zakonъ soudьnyi ljudьmъ Istočnikovedčeskie i lingvističeskie aspekty issle-

dovanija slavjanskogo juridičeskogo pamjatnika Moskva Marti Roland W

1983 ldquoTextologische Probleme der Apologie Chrabrsrdquo Anzeiger fuumlr slavische Philologie 14 117ndash147

2004a ldquoDie Bezeichnung der Konsonanten in der Glagolicardquo In Duumlrrigl 2004 401ndash417

2004b ldquoAktuelle Probleme des altkirchenslavischen Schriftndash und Lautsystemsrdquo In-contri linguistici 27 11ndash37

Mathiesen Robert 1967 ldquoAn Emendation to the Vita Methodii XV1rdquo Zbornik za filologiju i ling-

vistiku 10 51ndash53 Miklas Heinz and Sylvia Richter Velizar Sadovski (eds)

2002 Glagolitica Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schriftkultur Wien (OumlAW Phi-losophisch-historische Klasse Schriften der BalkanndashKommission Philolo-gische Abteilung 41)

Miklas Heinz 2003 ldquoJesus-Abbreviatur und Verwandtes Zu einigen Raumltseln der glagolitischen

Schriftentwicklung am Material der Azbučnaja molitvardquo In W Honselaar et al (eds) Time flies Amsterdam (Pegasus Oost-Europese Studies 2) 171-204

Proxorov Gelian M 1992 Glagolica sredi missionerskix azbuk Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury

45 178ndash199 Rešetar Milan

1913 ldquoZur Uumlbersetzertaumltigkeit Methodsrdquo Archiv fuumlr slavische Philologie 34 234ndash239

Šafařiacutek Pavel J 1858 Uumlber den Ursprung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus Praha

Spasova Marija and William R Veder 2007 ldquoCopying CopyndashEditing Editing and Recollating Three Chrysostomian Len-

ten Homilies in Slavonicrdquo Polata knigopisnaja 38 in print preliminary Bul-garian version Prepisvane popravjane redaktirane i sverka na slavjanskija prevod na tri Zlatoustovi Velikopostni slova Preslavska knižovna škola 9 53ndash107

Stankov Rostislav 2006a ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjaxrdquo Preslavska

knižovna škola 9 29ndash52 2006b ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjax (2)rdquo A Da-

vidov et al (eds) Bălgarska filologična medievistika Naučni izsledvanija v čest na prof dfn Ivan Haralampiev Veliko Tărnovo 2006 261ndash287

Trunte Nikolaos 2004 ldquoZu Reformen in der glagolitischen Schriftrdquo In Duumlrrigl et al 2004 419ndash434

Veder William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto

slavjanstvo Sofia 2007 ldquoMetodieva zla hienardquo KirilondashMetodievski studii 17 in print

13

ГЛАГОЛИЧЕСКАЯ БАРЬЕРА Резюме Изучение древнейшей славянской азбуки страдает тем что к ней допуска-ется лишь два разряда данных ndash глаголические рукописи и надписи и сви-детелства об азбуке (абецедарии нумерарии и азбучные акростихи) Между тем уже полтора века назад ПЙ Шафарик (1858) посоветовал привлекать в качестве третьего разряда кириллические апографы текстов с глаголическими протографами В статье на основе обследования право-писных противоречий между кириллическими списками Скитского пате-рика перенесенного 886 г из Моравы в Болгарию в глаголическом своем протографе показывается плодотворность Шафарикского дополнения Рекомендуется проверить результаты обследования на единственном тек-сте недвусмысленно приписанном св Мефодию ndash Номоканоне обследо-ванном с точки зрения лексики и морфосинтаксиса в авторитетной работе Максимович 2004

8

only undifferentiated bδc 1ndash2 differentiated αso half of each bbk 1ndash3 undifferentiated εwW2456 only differentiated W18 Differentiated spellings be-come more numerous in the second half of the text and their correctness (by Greek standards) rises from 0ndash30 (andashi) to almost 100 (W1ndash8) These con-flicts as well as what may be interpreted as a learning curve of the transcribers make it plausible that that neither ω nor Ⰰ (nor αβγδε) differentiated the spell-ings and that the task of differentiating ph and th was assumed (with varying success) by the individual Cyrillic transcribers

The misspellings ѳолъ rarr подъ (W2 3 помостъ ⰀocW3 3) and пѵминъ rarr фиминь (W1 17 W4 9) ie the confusion of Glagolitic ⱇ with ⱂ as well as ѳиваидndash rarr диваидndash (a) тиваидndash (W2 4 oW68 3 aW5 2 aεcW134 1) ie con-fusion with ⰴ and ⱅ make it plausible that the undifferentiated character used in ω (and retained in Ⰰ and its Glagolitic copies) was ⱇ

Х and Ⱒ The confusion гь хъ (ⰳⱐ ⱈⱐ) attested in all branches of transmission proves that христосъ was not written with ⱒ (pace Miklas 2003 181) хлъмъ in which ⱒ is attested (Schaeken 1999 80ndash81) is lacking in the text but the substitution х rarr м in грохотъ (αsbB4bεc) rarr хромотъ (B2okW2368) хꙑтръ (αsbB4bεc) rarr мѫдръ (B2okW2368) and the confusion of desinences GLpl ndashхъ Dpl ndashмъIpl ndashми (eg при двьрьхъ ⰀokW2 rarr прѣдъ дверми cW3 нечьстивꙑихъ ⰀockW134 rarr нечювьствьним W2 and inversely мъногꙑмъ αsbB4W14 rarr многыхъ B2ckW3568 мъногы ε грѣшьнꙑимъ ⰀocW3 rarr грѣшныхь W4568 глемꙑимъ ⰀockW2568 rarr глемыхъ W3 стимь таинамь W2 rarr стыхъ таинъ αγεokW345678 въсѣмь k rarr всѣхъ amoc oslash aγ пѫтемь хвѣмь bbεockW23468 rarr пѹтьхъ хвхъ αsb) might be interpreted to indicate that the protograph used ⱒ in these instances15

Ꙑ and Ѫ Conflicting readings with а и ъь ѣ ꙑы ѫѹ ѧе abound in the place of jery The variation most prominent in the first half of the text affects chiefly desinences which can significantly alter the text eg женꙑ rarr женѫ (akW2) женѣ (W2) and женъ rarr женꙑ (akW8) живꙑ rarr живи (sγδεockW36) живѧ (W68) идꙑ rarr иди (W268) идь (W5) ити (W3) польꙃи rarr польꙁꙑ (αbbεckW38) and польꙃѧ rarr польꙁꙑ (Ⰰ 5 ok 4 sW1 3 W3 2 W2 1) польꙁѫ (γocW6) сꙑ rarr си (aW4 2 oW26 1) съ прѣдꙑ rarr съ прѣда (aA2) съ прѣдѣ (A3) съ прѣдѹ (bb) тьрꙑ rarr тра (bB4) тре (W1) три (α) тꙑ rarr то (a) тъ (a) ꙗдꙑ rarr ꙗда (s 3) ꙗдъ (α) and ꙗдъ rarr ꙗдꙑ (Ⰰ) The variation indicates that ω in these instances

15 If this can be proven it would constitute an additional trigger for the vacillation between adnominal dative and genitive in the witnesses

9

used a monograph and the reflexes и and ѣ may be taken to indicate that it bore resemblance to both ⰻ and ⱑ ie most likely ⱖ (pace Marti 2000 65 Trunte 2004 424)

The massive confusion ѫ ѹ in all branches of the tradition eg бѫдѫ (kW356 15) predominant бѹдѹ (all branches of transmission) and the confu-sion ѫ ѧ (which appears already in Ⰰ) eg блѫдndash rarr блѧдndash (ⰀW4) and блѧдndash rarr блѫдndash (W28 2 αW3456 1) съмѫтndash rarr съмѧтndash (C12W6) and съмѧтndash rarr съмѫтndash (W3 8 k 6 C3W8 3 δ 2 acW16 1) can be satisfactorily explained only if ω wrote a letter similar to both ⱛ and ⱔ the reading ѹготовлѭ rarr ꙋготовль (W468 ѹготоваю Ⰰ) shows that it was similar to ⱐ as well The original letter may have looked like (ⱖ so Trunte 2004 424 lacks the prerequisite similarity) and must have been abandoned because it was opaque16

Almost all examples in this survey could of course be considered individually and many of them could be explained as innovations (eg the forms of the im-perfect and participles adduced for жд) But such explanation which fails to answer the crucial question What triggered the change17 is in fact nothing more than the rationalisation of an observation More importantly it slights the possibility that the variation be patterned

It is indeed only when we regard the marking of jotation and palatalisation the distinction of ŭ and ĭ ph and th and the digraphic renderings of đǵ u and y as addndashons18 that we begin to understand that in this text there was a single principal trigger for the variation and the resulting discord of the wit-nesses the inexplicit spelling of the Glagolitic protograph ω This led the tran-scribers (and in some cases the Glagolitic copyists as well) to more frequent and more varied interventions than faithfulness to the text would allow An ex-ample of these additional interventions to explicate the spelling is furnished by the name of abba Longinus (Λογγῖνος 10 occurrences) which ω surely spelled 16 The survey lacks data as to the distribution of о (ⱁ) and ѡ (ⱉ) as well as и (ⰹ) and і (ⰻ for the reversal of the traditional correspondences of the latter two letters see Miklas 2003) I must leave it to a colleague with more insight and patience than I can muster to sort them out 17 The traditional answer would be ldquoLanguage changes and the scribes parsed the text through their language competencerdquo In the perspective of the data of this particular text and its tradition it begs the counterndashquestion ldquoWhy then are the most recent transcriptions of the text (w and W1ndash8) the least innovativerdquo 18 W6 exhibits a curious individual addndashon to ѧ eg in чѧдо regularly written чѧндо with a mater lectionis н carefully erased in final editing The concept of addndashon in itself could do away with such concepts as eg Vertauschung der beiden Halbvokale and Aufgabe der Palata-litaumlt (Diels 1932 96ndash98 and 141ndash146) cf the data above on their representation in the South Slavic witnesses

10

loggjn= with double g this spelling is retained only in b (логгинndash with a hypercorrect pajerok) and k (K1 логгѵнndash K2 adding n and a hypercorrect ь лоньггѵнndash) δεc undouble the g (логинndash) as do W1234 in half of the cases in the other half joining W568 in substituting Slavic ng as well as adding a hypercor-rect ь (лоньгинndash) αbbo have an underlying spelling лѫггинndash19 (a лѫгинndash a лугинndash o лѹньгинndash bb vaccillating between лѹньгинndash лоньгинndash and логинndash) which is surely to be traced to Ⰰrsquos copyndashediting Need it be pointed out that the development of all of the translatorrsquos Grecisms (including agglndash rarr анъгелndash and the like) can be explained in similar terms

The terms of the development are intimately related to Nicolaas van Wijkrsquos concept de lrsquouniteacute agrave la puraliteacute But unity to be sought among Slavs well be-fore Sts Cyril and Methodiusrsquo mission to Morava was present in the Glagolitic protograph ω of the Scete Patericon only as an intention (lsquofor all Slavsrsquo) the means applied to realise it was parsimony reducing the spelling to the bare es-sentials in order to avoid marking any feature that might be divisive This inten-tion and the means to realise it were evidently the first casualties of the evacua-tion of the book to the Balkans there a notation of the type ⰸⰵⰿⰰ (ꙁема) was not recognised as being capable of representing both ꙁемꙗ and ꙁемлꙗ but only as not representing either The resulting tampering with the spelling (starting to an extent as yet to be precisely determined as early as the Pliska copy Ⰰ of 886ndash887) inevitably led to the plurality or to put it more bluntly prodigality of the witnesses

So far this attempt to follow up on Šafařiacutek 1858 and to question the Cyrillic witnesses to the Scete Patericon as to the evidence they can provide to the spelling of their Glagolitic source remains isolated and therefore vulnerable to criticism especially since its findings are at variance with established scholar-ship Yet there is a straightforward way to check their validity in the one text attributed expressis verbis to St Methodius viz the Nomocanon (VM xv) After the thorough work of Maksimovič 200420 who for the first time provides a co-herent analysis of the lexicon and morphosyntax of the translatorrsquos text it should not be too difficult to collect the witnesses (including excerpts transmit-ted separately from the full text) and question them about the orthography of their prendashBalkan protograph

19 If Ⰰ retained ωrsquos monographic ѫ () the b spelling логгинndash could be derived just as the spellings of bb from лѫггинndash which would then be the reading both of αγ and o 20 The criticism levelled against Maksimovič by Stankov 2006ab in no way affects the essence of his study but only broadens our insight into the controversial aspects of the term lsquomoravismrsquo as a label for lexical items

11

In conclusion it appears that the Glagolitic barrier which impedes our view of prendashBalkan texts and their spelling is more than just the aggregate of problems referred to in the second paragraph of this paper It consists of four conditions three historical and one manndashmade A the lack of any extant Glagolitic writing that can be attributed to either the first generation of Slavic men of letters (mis-sion to Morava) or their second and third generation (reception in the Balkans) B the probable shift in spelling from parsimony to prodigality which may have started already in the second generation and of which all extant Glagolitic (and Cyrillic) writing bears the traces C the retroactive influence of Glagolitic copyndashediting upon prendashBalkan Glagolitic texts readers making little or no dis-tinction between the original and subsequent accretions and finally D the ne-glect by established scholarship of the genealogical relations between witnesses and the resulting failure to probe beyond the extant witnesses into the realm of textual palaeligontology21 The first three conditions are irreparable but the last can very well be remedied by the close examination of Cyrillic witnesses to texts that have a Glagolitic protograph as Pavel Josef Šafařiacutek advocated a cen-tury and a half ago

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum IndashV Turnhout 1974ndash1987 Jacques Noret (ed) Turnhout 1998

Diels Paul 1932 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik 1 Teil Heidelberg

Duumlrrigl MarijandashAna and Milan Mihaljević Franjo Velčić (eds) 2004 Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam ZagrebndashKrk

Ivanova Tatrsquojana A 2004 Glagolica Novye gipotezi (neskolrsquoko kritičeskix zamečanij po povodu novyx

issledovanij o pervoj slavjanskoj azbuke) Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj litera-tury 56 78ndash93

KME Petăr Dinekov (ed) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija IndashIV Sofia 1985ndash2004

Lunt Horace G 2000 ldquoThoughts Suggestions and Questions about the Earliest Slavic Writing Sys-

temsrdquo Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 46 271ndash286

21 Since the first publication of the cod Clozianus by Jernej Kopitar (1836) almost seven generations of slavists have gone by neglecting to establish its proper genealogical relation to the cod Suprasliensis (remedied by Spasova 2007) For the term textual palaeligontology see Veder 2005 42ndash45

12

Maksimovič Kirill A 2004 Zakonъ soudьnyi ljudьmъ Istočnikovedčeskie i lingvističeskie aspekty issle-

dovanija slavjanskogo juridičeskogo pamjatnika Moskva Marti Roland W

1983 ldquoTextologische Probleme der Apologie Chrabrsrdquo Anzeiger fuumlr slavische Philologie 14 117ndash147

2004a ldquoDie Bezeichnung der Konsonanten in der Glagolicardquo In Duumlrrigl 2004 401ndash417

2004b ldquoAktuelle Probleme des altkirchenslavischen Schriftndash und Lautsystemsrdquo In-contri linguistici 27 11ndash37

Mathiesen Robert 1967 ldquoAn Emendation to the Vita Methodii XV1rdquo Zbornik za filologiju i ling-

vistiku 10 51ndash53 Miklas Heinz and Sylvia Richter Velizar Sadovski (eds)

2002 Glagolitica Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schriftkultur Wien (OumlAW Phi-losophisch-historische Klasse Schriften der BalkanndashKommission Philolo-gische Abteilung 41)

Miklas Heinz 2003 ldquoJesus-Abbreviatur und Verwandtes Zu einigen Raumltseln der glagolitischen

Schriftentwicklung am Material der Azbučnaja molitvardquo In W Honselaar et al (eds) Time flies Amsterdam (Pegasus Oost-Europese Studies 2) 171-204

Proxorov Gelian M 1992 Glagolica sredi missionerskix azbuk Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury

45 178ndash199 Rešetar Milan

1913 ldquoZur Uumlbersetzertaumltigkeit Methodsrdquo Archiv fuumlr slavische Philologie 34 234ndash239

Šafařiacutek Pavel J 1858 Uumlber den Ursprung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus Praha

Spasova Marija and William R Veder 2007 ldquoCopying CopyndashEditing Editing and Recollating Three Chrysostomian Len-

ten Homilies in Slavonicrdquo Polata knigopisnaja 38 in print preliminary Bul-garian version Prepisvane popravjane redaktirane i sverka na slavjanskija prevod na tri Zlatoustovi Velikopostni slova Preslavska knižovna škola 9 53ndash107

Stankov Rostislav 2006a ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjaxrdquo Preslavska

knižovna škola 9 29ndash52 2006b ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjax (2)rdquo A Da-

vidov et al (eds) Bălgarska filologična medievistika Naučni izsledvanija v čest na prof dfn Ivan Haralampiev Veliko Tărnovo 2006 261ndash287

Trunte Nikolaos 2004 ldquoZu Reformen in der glagolitischen Schriftrdquo In Duumlrrigl et al 2004 419ndash434

Veder William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto

slavjanstvo Sofia 2007 ldquoMetodieva zla hienardquo KirilondashMetodievski studii 17 in print

13

ГЛАГОЛИЧЕСКАЯ БАРЬЕРА Резюме Изучение древнейшей славянской азбуки страдает тем что к ней допуска-ется лишь два разряда данных ndash глаголические рукописи и надписи и сви-детелства об азбуке (абецедарии нумерарии и азбучные акростихи) Между тем уже полтора века назад ПЙ Шафарик (1858) посоветовал привлекать в качестве третьего разряда кириллические апографы текстов с глаголическими протографами В статье на основе обследования право-писных противоречий между кириллическими списками Скитского пате-рика перенесенного 886 г из Моравы в Болгарию в глаголическом своем протографе показывается плодотворность Шафарикского дополнения Рекомендуется проверить результаты обследования на единственном тек-сте недвусмысленно приписанном св Мефодию ndash Номоканоне обследо-ванном с точки зрения лексики и морфосинтаксиса в авторитетной работе Максимович 2004

9

used a monograph and the reflexes и and ѣ may be taken to indicate that it bore resemblance to both ⰻ and ⱑ ie most likely ⱖ (pace Marti 2000 65 Trunte 2004 424)

The massive confusion ѫ ѹ in all branches of the tradition eg бѫдѫ (kW356 15) predominant бѹдѹ (all branches of transmission) and the confu-sion ѫ ѧ (which appears already in Ⰰ) eg блѫдndash rarr блѧдndash (ⰀW4) and блѧдndash rarr блѫдndash (W28 2 αW3456 1) съмѫтndash rarr съмѧтndash (C12W6) and съмѧтndash rarr съмѫтndash (W3 8 k 6 C3W8 3 δ 2 acW16 1) can be satisfactorily explained only if ω wrote a letter similar to both ⱛ and ⱔ the reading ѹготовлѭ rarr ꙋготовль (W468 ѹготоваю Ⰰ) shows that it was similar to ⱐ as well The original letter may have looked like (ⱖ so Trunte 2004 424 lacks the prerequisite similarity) and must have been abandoned because it was opaque16

Almost all examples in this survey could of course be considered individually and many of them could be explained as innovations (eg the forms of the im-perfect and participles adduced for жд) But such explanation which fails to answer the crucial question What triggered the change17 is in fact nothing more than the rationalisation of an observation More importantly it slights the possibility that the variation be patterned

It is indeed only when we regard the marking of jotation and palatalisation the distinction of ŭ and ĭ ph and th and the digraphic renderings of đǵ u and y as addndashons18 that we begin to understand that in this text there was a single principal trigger for the variation and the resulting discord of the wit-nesses the inexplicit spelling of the Glagolitic protograph ω This led the tran-scribers (and in some cases the Glagolitic copyists as well) to more frequent and more varied interventions than faithfulness to the text would allow An ex-ample of these additional interventions to explicate the spelling is furnished by the name of abba Longinus (Λογγῖνος 10 occurrences) which ω surely spelled 16 The survey lacks data as to the distribution of о (ⱁ) and ѡ (ⱉ) as well as и (ⰹ) and і (ⰻ for the reversal of the traditional correspondences of the latter two letters see Miklas 2003) I must leave it to a colleague with more insight and patience than I can muster to sort them out 17 The traditional answer would be ldquoLanguage changes and the scribes parsed the text through their language competencerdquo In the perspective of the data of this particular text and its tradition it begs the counterndashquestion ldquoWhy then are the most recent transcriptions of the text (w and W1ndash8) the least innovativerdquo 18 W6 exhibits a curious individual addndashon to ѧ eg in чѧдо regularly written чѧндо with a mater lectionis н carefully erased in final editing The concept of addndashon in itself could do away with such concepts as eg Vertauschung der beiden Halbvokale and Aufgabe der Palata-litaumlt (Diels 1932 96ndash98 and 141ndash146) cf the data above on their representation in the South Slavic witnesses

10

loggjn= with double g this spelling is retained only in b (логгинndash with a hypercorrect pajerok) and k (K1 логгѵнndash K2 adding n and a hypercorrect ь лоньггѵнndash) δεc undouble the g (логинndash) as do W1234 in half of the cases in the other half joining W568 in substituting Slavic ng as well as adding a hypercor-rect ь (лоньгинndash) αbbo have an underlying spelling лѫггинndash19 (a лѫгинndash a лугинndash o лѹньгинndash bb vaccillating between лѹньгинndash лоньгинndash and логинndash) which is surely to be traced to Ⰰrsquos copyndashediting Need it be pointed out that the development of all of the translatorrsquos Grecisms (including agglndash rarr анъгелndash and the like) can be explained in similar terms

The terms of the development are intimately related to Nicolaas van Wijkrsquos concept de lrsquouniteacute agrave la puraliteacute But unity to be sought among Slavs well be-fore Sts Cyril and Methodiusrsquo mission to Morava was present in the Glagolitic protograph ω of the Scete Patericon only as an intention (lsquofor all Slavsrsquo) the means applied to realise it was parsimony reducing the spelling to the bare es-sentials in order to avoid marking any feature that might be divisive This inten-tion and the means to realise it were evidently the first casualties of the evacua-tion of the book to the Balkans there a notation of the type ⰸⰵⰿⰰ (ꙁема) was not recognised as being capable of representing both ꙁемꙗ and ꙁемлꙗ but only as not representing either The resulting tampering with the spelling (starting to an extent as yet to be precisely determined as early as the Pliska copy Ⰰ of 886ndash887) inevitably led to the plurality or to put it more bluntly prodigality of the witnesses

So far this attempt to follow up on Šafařiacutek 1858 and to question the Cyrillic witnesses to the Scete Patericon as to the evidence they can provide to the spelling of their Glagolitic source remains isolated and therefore vulnerable to criticism especially since its findings are at variance with established scholar-ship Yet there is a straightforward way to check their validity in the one text attributed expressis verbis to St Methodius viz the Nomocanon (VM xv) After the thorough work of Maksimovič 200420 who for the first time provides a co-herent analysis of the lexicon and morphosyntax of the translatorrsquos text it should not be too difficult to collect the witnesses (including excerpts transmit-ted separately from the full text) and question them about the orthography of their prendashBalkan protograph

19 If Ⰰ retained ωrsquos monographic ѫ () the b spelling логгинndash could be derived just as the spellings of bb from лѫггинndash which would then be the reading both of αγ and o 20 The criticism levelled against Maksimovič by Stankov 2006ab in no way affects the essence of his study but only broadens our insight into the controversial aspects of the term lsquomoravismrsquo as a label for lexical items

11

In conclusion it appears that the Glagolitic barrier which impedes our view of prendashBalkan texts and their spelling is more than just the aggregate of problems referred to in the second paragraph of this paper It consists of four conditions three historical and one manndashmade A the lack of any extant Glagolitic writing that can be attributed to either the first generation of Slavic men of letters (mis-sion to Morava) or their second and third generation (reception in the Balkans) B the probable shift in spelling from parsimony to prodigality which may have started already in the second generation and of which all extant Glagolitic (and Cyrillic) writing bears the traces C the retroactive influence of Glagolitic copyndashediting upon prendashBalkan Glagolitic texts readers making little or no dis-tinction between the original and subsequent accretions and finally D the ne-glect by established scholarship of the genealogical relations between witnesses and the resulting failure to probe beyond the extant witnesses into the realm of textual palaeligontology21 The first three conditions are irreparable but the last can very well be remedied by the close examination of Cyrillic witnesses to texts that have a Glagolitic protograph as Pavel Josef Šafařiacutek advocated a cen-tury and a half ago

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum IndashV Turnhout 1974ndash1987 Jacques Noret (ed) Turnhout 1998

Diels Paul 1932 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik 1 Teil Heidelberg

Duumlrrigl MarijandashAna and Milan Mihaljević Franjo Velčić (eds) 2004 Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam ZagrebndashKrk

Ivanova Tatrsquojana A 2004 Glagolica Novye gipotezi (neskolrsquoko kritičeskix zamečanij po povodu novyx

issledovanij o pervoj slavjanskoj azbuke) Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj litera-tury 56 78ndash93

KME Petăr Dinekov (ed) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija IndashIV Sofia 1985ndash2004

Lunt Horace G 2000 ldquoThoughts Suggestions and Questions about the Earliest Slavic Writing Sys-

temsrdquo Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 46 271ndash286

21 Since the first publication of the cod Clozianus by Jernej Kopitar (1836) almost seven generations of slavists have gone by neglecting to establish its proper genealogical relation to the cod Suprasliensis (remedied by Spasova 2007) For the term textual palaeligontology see Veder 2005 42ndash45

12

Maksimovič Kirill A 2004 Zakonъ soudьnyi ljudьmъ Istočnikovedčeskie i lingvističeskie aspekty issle-

dovanija slavjanskogo juridičeskogo pamjatnika Moskva Marti Roland W

1983 ldquoTextologische Probleme der Apologie Chrabrsrdquo Anzeiger fuumlr slavische Philologie 14 117ndash147

2004a ldquoDie Bezeichnung der Konsonanten in der Glagolicardquo In Duumlrrigl 2004 401ndash417

2004b ldquoAktuelle Probleme des altkirchenslavischen Schriftndash und Lautsystemsrdquo In-contri linguistici 27 11ndash37

Mathiesen Robert 1967 ldquoAn Emendation to the Vita Methodii XV1rdquo Zbornik za filologiju i ling-

vistiku 10 51ndash53 Miklas Heinz and Sylvia Richter Velizar Sadovski (eds)

2002 Glagolitica Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schriftkultur Wien (OumlAW Phi-losophisch-historische Klasse Schriften der BalkanndashKommission Philolo-gische Abteilung 41)

Miklas Heinz 2003 ldquoJesus-Abbreviatur und Verwandtes Zu einigen Raumltseln der glagolitischen

Schriftentwicklung am Material der Azbučnaja molitvardquo In W Honselaar et al (eds) Time flies Amsterdam (Pegasus Oost-Europese Studies 2) 171-204

Proxorov Gelian M 1992 Glagolica sredi missionerskix azbuk Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury

45 178ndash199 Rešetar Milan

1913 ldquoZur Uumlbersetzertaumltigkeit Methodsrdquo Archiv fuumlr slavische Philologie 34 234ndash239

Šafařiacutek Pavel J 1858 Uumlber den Ursprung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus Praha

Spasova Marija and William R Veder 2007 ldquoCopying CopyndashEditing Editing and Recollating Three Chrysostomian Len-

ten Homilies in Slavonicrdquo Polata knigopisnaja 38 in print preliminary Bul-garian version Prepisvane popravjane redaktirane i sverka na slavjanskija prevod na tri Zlatoustovi Velikopostni slova Preslavska knižovna škola 9 53ndash107

Stankov Rostislav 2006a ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjaxrdquo Preslavska

knižovna škola 9 29ndash52 2006b ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjax (2)rdquo A Da-

vidov et al (eds) Bălgarska filologična medievistika Naučni izsledvanija v čest na prof dfn Ivan Haralampiev Veliko Tărnovo 2006 261ndash287

Trunte Nikolaos 2004 ldquoZu Reformen in der glagolitischen Schriftrdquo In Duumlrrigl et al 2004 419ndash434

Veder William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto

slavjanstvo Sofia 2007 ldquoMetodieva zla hienardquo KirilondashMetodievski studii 17 in print

13

ГЛАГОЛИЧЕСКАЯ БАРЬЕРА Резюме Изучение древнейшей славянской азбуки страдает тем что к ней допуска-ется лишь два разряда данных ndash глаголические рукописи и надписи и сви-детелства об азбуке (абецедарии нумерарии и азбучные акростихи) Между тем уже полтора века назад ПЙ Шафарик (1858) посоветовал привлекать в качестве третьего разряда кириллические апографы текстов с глаголическими протографами В статье на основе обследования право-писных противоречий между кириллическими списками Скитского пате-рика перенесенного 886 г из Моравы в Болгарию в глаголическом своем протографе показывается плодотворность Шафарикского дополнения Рекомендуется проверить результаты обследования на единственном тек-сте недвусмысленно приписанном св Мефодию ndash Номоканоне обследо-ванном с точки зрения лексики и морфосинтаксиса в авторитетной работе Максимович 2004

10

loggjn= with double g this spelling is retained only in b (логгинndash with a hypercorrect pajerok) and k (K1 логгѵнndash K2 adding n and a hypercorrect ь лоньггѵнndash) δεc undouble the g (логинndash) as do W1234 in half of the cases in the other half joining W568 in substituting Slavic ng as well as adding a hypercor-rect ь (лоньгинndash) αbbo have an underlying spelling лѫггинndash19 (a лѫгинndash a лугинndash o лѹньгинndash bb vaccillating between лѹньгинndash лоньгинndash and логинndash) which is surely to be traced to Ⰰrsquos copyndashediting Need it be pointed out that the development of all of the translatorrsquos Grecisms (including agglndash rarr анъгелndash and the like) can be explained in similar terms

The terms of the development are intimately related to Nicolaas van Wijkrsquos concept de lrsquouniteacute agrave la puraliteacute But unity to be sought among Slavs well be-fore Sts Cyril and Methodiusrsquo mission to Morava was present in the Glagolitic protograph ω of the Scete Patericon only as an intention (lsquofor all Slavsrsquo) the means applied to realise it was parsimony reducing the spelling to the bare es-sentials in order to avoid marking any feature that might be divisive This inten-tion and the means to realise it were evidently the first casualties of the evacua-tion of the book to the Balkans there a notation of the type ⰸⰵⰿⰰ (ꙁема) was not recognised as being capable of representing both ꙁемꙗ and ꙁемлꙗ but only as not representing either The resulting tampering with the spelling (starting to an extent as yet to be precisely determined as early as the Pliska copy Ⰰ of 886ndash887) inevitably led to the plurality or to put it more bluntly prodigality of the witnesses

So far this attempt to follow up on Šafařiacutek 1858 and to question the Cyrillic witnesses to the Scete Patericon as to the evidence they can provide to the spelling of their Glagolitic source remains isolated and therefore vulnerable to criticism especially since its findings are at variance with established scholar-ship Yet there is a straightforward way to check their validity in the one text attributed expressis verbis to St Methodius viz the Nomocanon (VM xv) After the thorough work of Maksimovič 200420 who for the first time provides a co-herent analysis of the lexicon and morphosyntax of the translatorrsquos text it should not be too difficult to collect the witnesses (including excerpts transmit-ted separately from the full text) and question them about the orthography of their prendashBalkan protograph

19 If Ⰰ retained ωrsquos monographic ѫ () the b spelling логгинndash could be derived just as the spellings of bb from лѫггинndash which would then be the reading both of αγ and o 20 The criticism levelled against Maksimovič by Stankov 2006ab in no way affects the essence of his study but only broadens our insight into the controversial aspects of the term lsquomoravismrsquo as a label for lexical items

11

In conclusion it appears that the Glagolitic barrier which impedes our view of prendashBalkan texts and their spelling is more than just the aggregate of problems referred to in the second paragraph of this paper It consists of four conditions three historical and one manndashmade A the lack of any extant Glagolitic writing that can be attributed to either the first generation of Slavic men of letters (mis-sion to Morava) or their second and third generation (reception in the Balkans) B the probable shift in spelling from parsimony to prodigality which may have started already in the second generation and of which all extant Glagolitic (and Cyrillic) writing bears the traces C the retroactive influence of Glagolitic copyndashediting upon prendashBalkan Glagolitic texts readers making little or no dis-tinction between the original and subsequent accretions and finally D the ne-glect by established scholarship of the genealogical relations between witnesses and the resulting failure to probe beyond the extant witnesses into the realm of textual palaeligontology21 The first three conditions are irreparable but the last can very well be remedied by the close examination of Cyrillic witnesses to texts that have a Glagolitic protograph as Pavel Josef Šafařiacutek advocated a cen-tury and a half ago

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum IndashV Turnhout 1974ndash1987 Jacques Noret (ed) Turnhout 1998

Diels Paul 1932 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik 1 Teil Heidelberg

Duumlrrigl MarijandashAna and Milan Mihaljević Franjo Velčić (eds) 2004 Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam ZagrebndashKrk

Ivanova Tatrsquojana A 2004 Glagolica Novye gipotezi (neskolrsquoko kritičeskix zamečanij po povodu novyx

issledovanij o pervoj slavjanskoj azbuke) Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj litera-tury 56 78ndash93

KME Petăr Dinekov (ed) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija IndashIV Sofia 1985ndash2004

Lunt Horace G 2000 ldquoThoughts Suggestions and Questions about the Earliest Slavic Writing Sys-

temsrdquo Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 46 271ndash286

21 Since the first publication of the cod Clozianus by Jernej Kopitar (1836) almost seven generations of slavists have gone by neglecting to establish its proper genealogical relation to the cod Suprasliensis (remedied by Spasova 2007) For the term textual palaeligontology see Veder 2005 42ndash45

12

Maksimovič Kirill A 2004 Zakonъ soudьnyi ljudьmъ Istočnikovedčeskie i lingvističeskie aspekty issle-

dovanija slavjanskogo juridičeskogo pamjatnika Moskva Marti Roland W

1983 ldquoTextologische Probleme der Apologie Chrabrsrdquo Anzeiger fuumlr slavische Philologie 14 117ndash147

2004a ldquoDie Bezeichnung der Konsonanten in der Glagolicardquo In Duumlrrigl 2004 401ndash417

2004b ldquoAktuelle Probleme des altkirchenslavischen Schriftndash und Lautsystemsrdquo In-contri linguistici 27 11ndash37

Mathiesen Robert 1967 ldquoAn Emendation to the Vita Methodii XV1rdquo Zbornik za filologiju i ling-

vistiku 10 51ndash53 Miklas Heinz and Sylvia Richter Velizar Sadovski (eds)

2002 Glagolitica Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schriftkultur Wien (OumlAW Phi-losophisch-historische Klasse Schriften der BalkanndashKommission Philolo-gische Abteilung 41)

Miklas Heinz 2003 ldquoJesus-Abbreviatur und Verwandtes Zu einigen Raumltseln der glagolitischen

Schriftentwicklung am Material der Azbučnaja molitvardquo In W Honselaar et al (eds) Time flies Amsterdam (Pegasus Oost-Europese Studies 2) 171-204

Proxorov Gelian M 1992 Glagolica sredi missionerskix azbuk Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury

45 178ndash199 Rešetar Milan

1913 ldquoZur Uumlbersetzertaumltigkeit Methodsrdquo Archiv fuumlr slavische Philologie 34 234ndash239

Šafařiacutek Pavel J 1858 Uumlber den Ursprung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus Praha

Spasova Marija and William R Veder 2007 ldquoCopying CopyndashEditing Editing and Recollating Three Chrysostomian Len-

ten Homilies in Slavonicrdquo Polata knigopisnaja 38 in print preliminary Bul-garian version Prepisvane popravjane redaktirane i sverka na slavjanskija prevod na tri Zlatoustovi Velikopostni slova Preslavska knižovna škola 9 53ndash107

Stankov Rostislav 2006a ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjaxrdquo Preslavska

knižovna škola 9 29ndash52 2006b ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjax (2)rdquo A Da-

vidov et al (eds) Bălgarska filologična medievistika Naučni izsledvanija v čest na prof dfn Ivan Haralampiev Veliko Tărnovo 2006 261ndash287

Trunte Nikolaos 2004 ldquoZu Reformen in der glagolitischen Schriftrdquo In Duumlrrigl et al 2004 419ndash434

Veder William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto

slavjanstvo Sofia 2007 ldquoMetodieva zla hienardquo KirilondashMetodievski studii 17 in print

13

ГЛАГОЛИЧЕСКАЯ БАРЬЕРА Резюме Изучение древнейшей славянской азбуки страдает тем что к ней допуска-ется лишь два разряда данных ndash глаголические рукописи и надписи и сви-детелства об азбуке (абецедарии нумерарии и азбучные акростихи) Между тем уже полтора века назад ПЙ Шафарик (1858) посоветовал привлекать в качестве третьего разряда кириллические апографы текстов с глаголическими протографами В статье на основе обследования право-писных противоречий между кириллическими списками Скитского пате-рика перенесенного 886 г из Моравы в Болгарию в глаголическом своем протографе показывается плодотворность Шафарикского дополнения Рекомендуется проверить результаты обследования на единственном тек-сте недвусмысленно приписанном св Мефодию ndash Номоканоне обследо-ванном с точки зрения лексики и морфосинтаксиса в авторитетной работе Максимович 2004

11

In conclusion it appears that the Glagolitic barrier which impedes our view of prendashBalkan texts and their spelling is more than just the aggregate of problems referred to in the second paragraph of this paper It consists of four conditions three historical and one manndashmade A the lack of any extant Glagolitic writing that can be attributed to either the first generation of Slavic men of letters (mis-sion to Morava) or their second and third generation (reception in the Balkans) B the probable shift in spelling from parsimony to prodigality which may have started already in the second generation and of which all extant Glagolitic (and Cyrillic) writing bears the traces C the retroactive influence of Glagolitic copyndashediting upon prendashBalkan Glagolitic texts readers making little or no dis-tinction between the original and subsequent accretions and finally D the ne-glect by established scholarship of the genealogical relations between witnesses and the resulting failure to probe beyond the extant witnesses into the realm of textual palaeligontology21 The first three conditions are irreparable but the last can very well be remedied by the close examination of Cyrillic witnesses to texts that have a Glagolitic protograph as Pavel Josef Šafařiacutek advocated a cen-tury and a half ago

Deerfield IL

REFERENCES

CPG Maurits Geerard (ed) Clavis patrum graeligcorum IndashV Turnhout 1974ndash1987 Jacques Noret (ed) Turnhout 1998

Diels Paul 1932 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik 1 Teil Heidelberg

Duumlrrigl MarijandashAna and Milan Mihaljević Franjo Velčić (eds) 2004 Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam ZagrebndashKrk

Ivanova Tatrsquojana A 2004 Glagolica Novye gipotezi (neskolrsquoko kritičeskix zamečanij po povodu novyx

issledovanij o pervoj slavjanskoj azbuke) Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj litera-tury 56 78ndash93

KME Petăr Dinekov (ed) KirilondashMetodievska enciklopedija IndashIV Sofia 1985ndash2004

Lunt Horace G 2000 ldquoThoughts Suggestions and Questions about the Earliest Slavic Writing Sys-

temsrdquo Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 46 271ndash286

21 Since the first publication of the cod Clozianus by Jernej Kopitar (1836) almost seven generations of slavists have gone by neglecting to establish its proper genealogical relation to the cod Suprasliensis (remedied by Spasova 2007) For the term textual palaeligontology see Veder 2005 42ndash45

12

Maksimovič Kirill A 2004 Zakonъ soudьnyi ljudьmъ Istočnikovedčeskie i lingvističeskie aspekty issle-

dovanija slavjanskogo juridičeskogo pamjatnika Moskva Marti Roland W

1983 ldquoTextologische Probleme der Apologie Chrabrsrdquo Anzeiger fuumlr slavische Philologie 14 117ndash147

2004a ldquoDie Bezeichnung der Konsonanten in der Glagolicardquo In Duumlrrigl 2004 401ndash417

2004b ldquoAktuelle Probleme des altkirchenslavischen Schriftndash und Lautsystemsrdquo In-contri linguistici 27 11ndash37

Mathiesen Robert 1967 ldquoAn Emendation to the Vita Methodii XV1rdquo Zbornik za filologiju i ling-

vistiku 10 51ndash53 Miklas Heinz and Sylvia Richter Velizar Sadovski (eds)

2002 Glagolitica Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schriftkultur Wien (OumlAW Phi-losophisch-historische Klasse Schriften der BalkanndashKommission Philolo-gische Abteilung 41)

Miklas Heinz 2003 ldquoJesus-Abbreviatur und Verwandtes Zu einigen Raumltseln der glagolitischen

Schriftentwicklung am Material der Azbučnaja molitvardquo In W Honselaar et al (eds) Time flies Amsterdam (Pegasus Oost-Europese Studies 2) 171-204

Proxorov Gelian M 1992 Glagolica sredi missionerskix azbuk Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury

45 178ndash199 Rešetar Milan

1913 ldquoZur Uumlbersetzertaumltigkeit Methodsrdquo Archiv fuumlr slavische Philologie 34 234ndash239

Šafařiacutek Pavel J 1858 Uumlber den Ursprung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus Praha

Spasova Marija and William R Veder 2007 ldquoCopying CopyndashEditing Editing and Recollating Three Chrysostomian Len-

ten Homilies in Slavonicrdquo Polata knigopisnaja 38 in print preliminary Bul-garian version Prepisvane popravjane redaktirane i sverka na slavjanskija prevod na tri Zlatoustovi Velikopostni slova Preslavska knižovna škola 9 53ndash107

Stankov Rostislav 2006a ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjaxrdquo Preslavska

knižovna škola 9 29ndash52 2006b ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjax (2)rdquo A Da-

vidov et al (eds) Bălgarska filologična medievistika Naučni izsledvanija v čest na prof dfn Ivan Haralampiev Veliko Tărnovo 2006 261ndash287

Trunte Nikolaos 2004 ldquoZu Reformen in der glagolitischen Schriftrdquo In Duumlrrigl et al 2004 419ndash434

Veder William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto

slavjanstvo Sofia 2007 ldquoMetodieva zla hienardquo KirilondashMetodievski studii 17 in print

13

ГЛАГОЛИЧЕСКАЯ БАРЬЕРА Резюме Изучение древнейшей славянской азбуки страдает тем что к ней допуска-ется лишь два разряда данных ndash глаголические рукописи и надписи и сви-детелства об азбуке (абецедарии нумерарии и азбучные акростихи) Между тем уже полтора века назад ПЙ Шафарик (1858) посоветовал привлекать в качестве третьего разряда кириллические апографы текстов с глаголическими протографами В статье на основе обследования право-писных противоречий между кириллическими списками Скитского пате-рика перенесенного 886 г из Моравы в Болгарию в глаголическом своем протографе показывается плодотворность Шафарикского дополнения Рекомендуется проверить результаты обследования на единственном тек-сте недвусмысленно приписанном св Мефодию ndash Номоканоне обследо-ванном с точки зрения лексики и морфосинтаксиса в авторитетной работе Максимович 2004

12

Maksimovič Kirill A 2004 Zakonъ soudьnyi ljudьmъ Istočnikovedčeskie i lingvističeskie aspekty issle-

dovanija slavjanskogo juridičeskogo pamjatnika Moskva Marti Roland W

1983 ldquoTextologische Probleme der Apologie Chrabrsrdquo Anzeiger fuumlr slavische Philologie 14 117ndash147

2004a ldquoDie Bezeichnung der Konsonanten in der Glagolicardquo In Duumlrrigl 2004 401ndash417

2004b ldquoAktuelle Probleme des altkirchenslavischen Schriftndash und Lautsystemsrdquo In-contri linguistici 27 11ndash37

Mathiesen Robert 1967 ldquoAn Emendation to the Vita Methodii XV1rdquo Zbornik za filologiju i ling-

vistiku 10 51ndash53 Miklas Heinz and Sylvia Richter Velizar Sadovski (eds)

2002 Glagolitica Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schriftkultur Wien (OumlAW Phi-losophisch-historische Klasse Schriften der BalkanndashKommission Philolo-gische Abteilung 41)

Miklas Heinz 2003 ldquoJesus-Abbreviatur und Verwandtes Zu einigen Raumltseln der glagolitischen

Schriftentwicklung am Material der Azbučnaja molitvardquo In W Honselaar et al (eds) Time flies Amsterdam (Pegasus Oost-Europese Studies 2) 171-204

Proxorov Gelian M 1992 Glagolica sredi missionerskix azbuk Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury

45 178ndash199 Rešetar Milan

1913 ldquoZur Uumlbersetzertaumltigkeit Methodsrdquo Archiv fuumlr slavische Philologie 34 234ndash239

Šafařiacutek Pavel J 1858 Uumlber den Ursprung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus Praha

Spasova Marija and William R Veder 2007 ldquoCopying CopyndashEditing Editing and Recollating Three Chrysostomian Len-

ten Homilies in Slavonicrdquo Polata knigopisnaja 38 in print preliminary Bul-garian version Prepisvane popravjane redaktirane i sverka na slavjanskija prevod na tri Zlatoustovi Velikopostni slova Preslavska knižovna škola 9 53ndash107

Stankov Rostislav 2006a ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjaxrdquo Preslavska

knižovna škola 9 29ndash52 2006b ldquoO leksičeskix moravizmax v drevnix slavjanskix rukopisjax (2)rdquo A Da-

vidov et al (eds) Bălgarska filologična medievistika Naučni izsledvanija v čest na prof dfn Ivan Haralampiev Veliko Tărnovo 2006 261ndash287

Trunte Nikolaos 2004 ldquoZu Reformen in der glagolitischen Schriftrdquo In Duumlrrigl et al 2004 419ndash434

Veder William R 2005 Hiljada godini kato edin den Životăt na tekstovete v Pravoslavnoto

slavjanstvo Sofia 2007 ldquoMetodieva zla hienardquo KirilondashMetodievski studii 17 in print

13

ГЛАГОЛИЧЕСКАЯ БАРЬЕРА Резюме Изучение древнейшей славянской азбуки страдает тем что к ней допуска-ется лишь два разряда данных ndash глаголические рукописи и надписи и сви-детелства об азбуке (абецедарии нумерарии и азбучные акростихи) Между тем уже полтора века назад ПЙ Шафарик (1858) посоветовал привлекать в качестве третьего разряда кириллические апографы текстов с глаголическими протографами В статье на основе обследования право-писных противоречий между кириллическими списками Скитского пате-рика перенесенного 886 г из Моравы в Болгарию в глаголическом своем протографе показывается плодотворность Шафарикского дополнения Рекомендуется проверить результаты обследования на единственном тек-сте недвусмысленно приписанном св Мефодию ndash Номоканоне обследо-ванном с точки зрения лексики и морфосинтаксиса в авторитетной работе Максимович 2004

13

ГЛАГОЛИЧЕСКАЯ БАРЬЕРА Резюме Изучение древнейшей славянской азбуки страдает тем что к ней допуска-ется лишь два разряда данных ndash глаголические рукописи и надписи и сви-детелства об азбуке (абецедарии нумерарии и азбучные акростихи) Между тем уже полтора века назад ПЙ Шафарик (1858) посоветовал привлекать в качестве третьего разряда кириллические апографы текстов с глаголическими протографами В статье на основе обследования право-писных противоречий между кириллическими списками Скитского пате-рика перенесенного 886 г из Моравы в Болгарию в глаголическом своем протографе показывается плодотворность Шафарикского дополнения Рекомендуется проверить результаты обследования на единственном тек-сте недвусмысленно приписанном св Мефодию ndash Номоканоне обследо-ванном с точки зрения лексики и морфосинтаксиса в авторитетной работе Максимович 2004