The Old Church Slavonic Translation of the Andron Hagion Biblos: In the Edition of Nikolaas Van Wijk [Reprint 2018 ed.] 9783110874709, 9789027931962

Citation preview

SLAVISTIC PRINTINGS AND REPRINTINGS edited by C. H. V A N SCHOONEVELD Indiana

University

1

THE OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC TRANSLATION OF THE

ANAPilN AriQN BIBAOE in the edition

of

NIKOLAAS VAN WIJKt

Leiden University

edited

by

DANIEL ARMSTRONG, RICHARD POPE AND C.H.Indiana VAN University SCHOONEVELD

1975

MOUTON THE H A G U E • PARIS

© Copyright 1975 in The Netherlands Mouton & Co. N.V. Publishers, The Hague No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 74-83130

Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., The Hague

FOREWORD

When Nikolaas van Wijk passed away on 25 March 1941 at the age of sixty, he left two completed major works which were to be published by German publishers. One of them was the second part of his Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache; as far as I know, the manuscript was burned in the De Gruyter Publishing House during an air raid on Berlin. The other was in the care of the editor of Sudostforschungen, Professor Fritz Valjavec, who wanted to bring it out as a special issue of his journal. It contained the text and a study of the Old Church Slavonic translation of the patericon AvSpcov ayirav pip^oq, which, in Van Wijk's opinion, had been translated by Methodius. Both manuscripts, then, were already at the printer's when the campaign against Russia began on 22 June 1941 (typesetting had even been started on the Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache). The prospects for early publication of the two works worsened considerably, and Professor Valjavec decided to send the manuscript of the Methodius Patericon back to Holland, where, with the exception of page 3 of the Introduction, which was evidently lost in transit, it arrived after Van Wijk's death. During the War the manuscript was preserved in the safe of the Board of Trustees of the Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden. While studying at Columbia University during the years 1946-49, I received a letter from the Leiden Sanskrit scholar, Professor F.B.J. Kuiper, who was acting at the behest of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, in which he asked me if it would be possible to have the manuscript published in the United States or to receive American financial support for publication in Europe. I turned to my teacher, Professor R. O. Jakobson, who approached the Committee for the Promotion of Advanced Slavic Studies, under the chairmanship of R. Gordon Wasson, and later also the Mediaeval Academy of America and obtained promises for an amount sufficient to ensure publication. It was decided that I would translate the German text into English and

VI

FOREWORD

that the book be readied for immediate publication. I had still not found a publisher, however, when in 1952 I was invited to fill the chair that Van Wijk had occupied in Leiden. The following year, though, when I agreed with Mr. Peter de Ridder, director of publications at Mouton & Co., The Hague, to edit the series "Slavistic Printings and Reprintings", it was decided to begin the series with Van Wijk's edition of the Methodius Patericon. The text, however, remained untouched, since at the time Mouton had no Church Slavic type, and I myself was busy with my work on Russian sentence intonation and with preparing my book on the tenses and aspects of the Old Russian verb for the press. Furthermore, the Mouton printing house was far too occupied at the time to take on the difficult task of setting type for the book. It was not until about 1956 that Mouton had both the time and the necessary Church Slavic letters — although in a Russian font — to start experimenting with setting the book. The Church Slavic text had been typed in America by Professor Dmitrij Cizevskij and was ready for immediate typesetting, but the sixty-page German Introduction still had to be translated. The publisher and I came to the conclusion that, for experimental typesetting, a rapidly translated introduction would be better than no introduction — parts of it could always be reset later if necessary — and a Church Slavic text in Russian script was better than no text. Elizabeth Starck van Schooneveld and I made an initial translation of the Introduction in two or three days with the idea that I would later fill in the gap that had resulted from the loss of page 3 and carefully check over the English. The proofs had been ready for some time, but just when my other obligations were taken care of to the point that I could return to this work, I decided to leave Leiden for a position at Stanford University. It was 1960 before my library was again accessible in my new residence in California; however, I could not find the proofs and other materials necessary for completing the Van Wijk project. At last, in the summer of 1960,1 learned that they had been removed from my house in Leiden during my absence in California and passed on to a scholar outside of Holland who wanted to edit the text himself. Although as a later successor to the chair which Van Wijk had once occupied, and as his pupil, I regretted that the Patericon edition was no longer entrusted to me, I decided to give as much assistance as I could to the new editor so that the work might appear as soon as possible. I had hesitated in this too long myself, and Van Wijk mentions more than once in his Introduction that he had desisted from undertaking

FOREWORD

VII

several analyses in connection with his research on patericons so that Slavists would not have to wait longer than necessary for publication of the text. Therefore, I sent the new editor additional relevant materials that I had at hand and later, at his request, further materials, in particular photocopies of the manuscripts which Van Wijk had used as the basis for his edition of the text. Unfortunately my hopes for speedy publication have not been fulfilled, and the answers to my repeated inquiries have been restricted to the information that the work was in progress. Since this labor has already lasted twelve years, I have felt obliged to resume my former responsibility for publishing the manuscript, a task made easier by my discovery in the fall of 1971 that the whole original of the Introduction (except for page 3), from which the preliminary English translation had been made, was still in my possession, together with a microfilm of Van Wijk's edition of the Church Slavic text. In order that the work, with a preface which would bring the question of the Slavic patericons up to date, might appear as soon as possible, I have invited Professor Richard Pope and Dr. Daniel Armstrong to take part in the publication. Since the original galleys which were set experimentally in a Russian font were destroyed in the course of the years, it was necessary to reset the entire text. This time, however, we were able to use a Church Slavic font. Since the support from the above-mentioned American foundations has long since been forfeited, I see no further necessity for translating the German text of the Introduction into English and have decided to let it stand in the original. The German text has the advantage, moreover, of preserving the original flavor of Van Wijk's style. To those who knew Van Wijk in his later years it brings back in a bewitching fashion the figure in the large study at Nieuwstraat 36 in Leiden: constantly at work, erudite and energetic. At the same time, the more this image comes to mind the more one wonders, when reading the Introduction with which Van Wijk has preceded his edition, about several inconsistencies that are puzzling in this monograph. Van Wijk repeatedly refers to projects which were to be incorporated later in this edition but which he evidently failed to include. Although he was a rapid, almost feverish worker, such carelessness was totally uncharacteristic of him. But this text also evokes the atmosphere in which it was prepared for the printer: the first period of the German occupation of Holland, still relatively quiet but fraught with the foreboding of the devastating years that were to follow. One sees him rushing to put a premature close to his book in order to avail himself of what he feared was the last opportunity for a long time to have the

VIII

FOREWORD

work appear in print. He most likely abandoned all further plans and hastily sent the manuscript of the text and Introduction to Munich. Even before the War escalated, his own death intervened unexpectedly. All three editors wish to express their gratitude and admiration for the professional ingenuity of Mr. Ph. W. Bras, head of the Monotype department at the Mouton printing house, and Mr. W. P. van Rijn, who so masterfully set this difficult text in type, partly from Van Wijk's longhand manuscript. We are also grateful for the assistance of Professor F. V. Mares, who arranged for providing us with a duplicate photocopy of the Vienna manuscript. Belated thanks are due the chairman, Dr. R. Gordon Wasson, and the members of the Committee for the Promotion of Advanced Slavic Studies, the Mediaeval Academy of America, and Professor R. O. Jakobson, for their efforts on behalf of publication at the time. An apology is due the memory of Nikolaas van Wijk that so much time has elapsed before the actual printing. Bloomington, Indiana Fall 1972

C. H. van Schooneveld

CONTENTS

Foreword (C. H. van Schooneveld)

v

Preface (Richard Pope)

1

Bibliography of Van Wijk's Work on Patericons

25

Einleitung (with notes in < > by Richard Pope)

27

I. Das Problem von Methods Paterikon-Übersetzung II. Die Avöpcöv dyicov ßißlot; und ihre slavische Übersetzung

29 .

33

III. Die Handschriften der slavischen Übersetzung

37

IV. Zweck und Aufgabe der vorliegenden Ausgabe

44

V. Inhalt der einzelnen Redaktionen der slavischen ÄvSpcöv dyiov ßißXoq

47

VI. Die andern kirchenslavischen Paterika

68

VII. Der sprachliche Charakter der slavischen Äv8ptöv dyicov ßißXoq

80

Vorbemerkungen zum Textabdruck

90

Text: AvSpcov dyicov ßißXog

93

PREFACE

DID METHODIUS TRANSLATE A PATERICON?*

In 1846, when discussing the literary legacy of St. Methodius, Filaret cautiously avoided taking a stand on the meaning of the now famous 1 "OMKCKIIIRA KNH™", pointing out simply that Methodius' "Pannonian biographer" does not specify what they might be.2 One year later, Safarik voiced the opinion that the term "without doubt" indicated a

• While finishing this article in the summer of 1972, I discovered that William R. Veder was planning a paper for the Dutch Contributions to the Seventh International Congress of Slavists with the title "Was ist Methods Väterbuch?" In this paper, which he was kind enough to send to me in typewritten form, Veder gives a "kurzen Überblick" of the various views, rejecting (rather summarily I think) all but the Skete Patericon and the Homiliary as possible candidates, both of which, he feels, can be placed linguistically in the ninth century. For a number of reasons Veder favors the patericon, siding rather strongly with Van Wijk, although he does consider the possibility of a patericon with sermons appended in one book (cf. Goäev and Grivec). Veder concludes that only exhaustive comparative attribution studies will tell the tale (I agree but would want to see this include Bible Commentaries and the Roman and Sinaitic Patericons as well) and ends with the important reminder that we are as yet in no position to undertake such a comparison: "Die vollständige Veröffentlichung des sprachlichen Materials der gesicherten Teile des Corpus Methodianum ist eine der ganz dringenden Aufgaben der Slavistik." 1 See below, "Einleitung", Chapter I, p. 29. It should be noted from the outset that some scholars not only do not discuss the meaning of the term "oi^CKTvira KNHrTil" but actually consider it part of a later insert which does not belong to the original Vita. As early as 1854 E. Dümmler, "Die pannonische Legende vom heiligen Methodius", Archiv für Kunde österreichischer Geschichtsquellen, XIII (1854), 197, considered the whole fifteenth chapter of the Vita Methodii a later insert. V. A. Bil'basov, KupuA/i u Metßoduü no sanaÖHbiM Aezenda.w, Part II of his Kupwui u Mecßoduü (St. Petersburg, 1871), 103-104, though not rejecting the whole chapter outright, felt that at least the concluding words about the Nomocanon and the "OMKCKUia KHHI"M" were undoubtedly inserted much later. Since, however, it is now rather widely accepted that Methodius did translate the Nomocanon, it seems that the OMkCKTvira KHHrtl must also be taken seriously. a Filaret, episkop rizskij, "KHPHUJI H MecJiOflHö, CnaBsmcKHe npocBeTHTem", Hmettun e Oöutecmee

ucmopuu u dpeemcmeii

poccuücKUx npu MOCKOSCKOM yuueepcu-

meme. No. 4 (1846), 25; reprinted in KupuAAo-MecßodueecKuü cöopuuK, ed. M. Pogodin (Moscow, 1865), 76.

2

PREFACE

patericon, 3 an opinion with which Jagic, 4 Novakovic, 5 Jirecek, 8 and Murko 7 in turn concurred. Perhaps the first Russian scholar to voice this opinion was S. N . Palauzov, 8 though he was later followed by a number of scholars among w h o m were 1.1. Sreznevskij, 9 Archimandrite Leonid, 1 0 and N . Barsov. 1 1 There were, however, opposing schools of thought. 1 2 Arseniev 1 3 and Pal'mov, 1 4 for example, held that the reference was to works of the Church Fathers, while Golubinskij, clearly inveighing against Sreznevskij, 3

P. J. Safarik, "Rozkvet slovanske literatury v Bulkarsku", Sebrane spisy, III (Prague, 1865), 169; republished from Casopis ceskeho Museuma, I (1848), 1-32. Read before the Royal Czech Learned Society on 25 November 1847. 4 V. Jagic, Historija knjizevnosti tiaroda hrvatskoga i srbskoga, book 1, Staro doba (Zagreb, 1867), 60. See also his Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der kirchenslavischen Sprache, part I, Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, vol. 47 (Vienna, 1900), 46, and "Konstantin (¿iril) i Methodije: Osnivaci slovenske crkve i knjizevnosti", Brastvo, XVI, Drustvo sv. Save, book 27 (1921), 17. 6 Stojan Novakovic, Mcmopuja cpncKe KH>uw:e8H0cmu, 2nd ed. (Belgrade, 1871), 50. 6 C. J. Jirecek, Geschichte der Bulgaren (Prague, 1876), 430. ' M. Murko, Geschichte der älteren südslawischen Litteraturen (Leipzig, 1908), 43. 8 S. N. Palausov, BeK öoAzapcKoao ifapn Cuueona (St. Petersburg, 1852), 71. 9

I. I. Sreznevskij, "CnaBSHopyccKaa naneorpatJwH",

Mypnaji

Hapodnozo npoceeufenun, part 222 (1882), 299, 319; reprinted in najteozpatßuR XI-XIV eg. JleKtfuu, uumanHbie e C.-Üemepö.

Muuucmepcmea

his

CjiaenHopyccKaa yuueepcumeme e

1865-1880 22. (St. Petersburg, 1885), 53, 72. Leonid, arximandrit, "CBe^eHHe o cuaBsmcKHx h pyccKHx nepeBOflax naTepmcoB

10

pa3JiHix HanMeHOBaHn8 h 0630p peflaicmm ohmx", Hmenun e Oöuiecmee ucmopuu u dpeeuocmeü poccuücKux npu MOCKOBCKOM ynueepcumeme, book 4 (1891), 1. 11 N . P. Barsov, " K h p h j i j i h Mecfroflim", 3nifUKAonedimecKuü cAoeapb, eds. F . A . Brokgauz and I. A. Efron, XV (St. Petersburg, 1895), 118, col. 2. 12 The view held by such scholars as S. P. Sevyrev, Mcmopun pyccKoü cjioeecnocmu, 3rd ed. (Moscow, 1887), part 1, 107, and A. S. Orlov, JleKifuu no ucmopuu dpeeueü pyccKoü Aumepamypbi (Moscow, 1916), 3, that "OMkCKTilta KHHTTvl" means "Lives of Saints" and the view held by A. Margulies, Der altkirchenslavische Codex Suprasliensis (Heidelberg, 1927), 221, that it means a Synaxarion cannot really be considered completely opposing views since all the scholars in question agree that the reference is to a work or works of hagiographical nature and, moreover, patericons and Prologi were formerly widely held to be collections of short Lives of Saints. In 1937, M. Weingart, Rukovet' jazyka staroslovenskeho (Prague, 1937), 30-31, wrote that it was still very difficult to decide whether we should understand OMKCK'Kltd KHHTTil as a patericon or Lives of Saints, and in 1945 J. Stanislav reiterated Weingart's position, Slovanski apostoli Cyril a Metod a ich cinnosi vo vel'komoravskej risi (Bratislava, 1945), 86. 18

A . V. Arseniev,

Cjioeapb

nucameAeü

dpeeneao

nepuoda

pyccxoü

IX-XVII eexa (862-1700 22.) (St. Petersburg, 1882), 2. 14 I. S. Pal'mov, KpamKuU 0630p AeKiiuü no ucmopuu CAaenHCRUx

Aumepamypbi

tfepKeeü, numambtx cmydeumaM 1-20 Kypca CTIE. dyxoenoii Anadejuuu e 1899/1900 ynemioM aKadeMunecKOM 2ody (St. Petersburg, 1900), 316. This book was not available to me, but I learned of this reference from V. S. Preobrazenskij, CAaennopyccKuH cKumcKuü namepuK: Onum ucm0puK0-6u6AU02pa@unecK020 uccAedoeanun (Kiev, 1909), 147, n. 2.

PREFACE

3

Leonid, and Barsov, wrote that "to understand OHKCKTIIRA K I W K I as a patericon, as some understand [it], is completely groundless," because Methodius had to worry about laymen before monks and there were none of the latter in Moravia in his time anyway. 15 Golubinskij notwithstanding, during the first quarter of the twentieth century a number of scholars continued to adhere to the patericon theory, 16 although Preobrazenskij was the only one who supported his adherence to this view with any real arguments at all.17 Since natepiKa PiPMa was the usual Greek for patericon, then, says Preobrazenskij, one can propose with some probability that the term OHICKTVIIJI KHHTTVI indicates that Methodius translated a patericon. In fact, clearly interpreting OHkCKTiira khhttiI as a plural, Preobrazenskij went on to say that perhaps Cyril and Methodius even translated several patericons. He argued that, on the one hand, after all, the young Slavic Church doubtless needed such works which, through examples taken from the Lives of the Fathers, made Christian moral teaching more readily comprehensible to the newlyenlightened folk and, on the other hand, patericons were needed for the Divine Service. Since Cyril and Methodius translated everything that was needed for the first Service, he continues, then it is entirely likely that they translated one of the patericons for liturgical use and that Methodius, after his return in 883 from Constantinople, where he could have gotten manuscripts from Photius, translated a [another? — R.P.] patericon, perhaps part of a miscellany containing both a Nomocanon and a 16

E. E. Golubinskij, Hcmopua pyccKou ifepxeu, 2nd ed., vol. I, part 1 (Moscow, 1901), 905, n. 1. This footnote was not in the first edition of 1880 (vol. I, part 1, 745). 18 Inter alia: P. A. Lavrov, "Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der kirchenslavischen Sprache, von Vatroslav Jagic. Wien, 1900", H3eecmuH OmdeAemn pyccKozo H3bma u cAoeemocmu, VI, book 1 (1901/1903), 274; V. S. Preobrazenskij, CmemiopyccKuu cKumcKuu namepuK ..., 147-150; B. Angelov, Hcmoputecmu onepm Ha cmapama 6hAzapcKa Aumepamypa om uanaAomo do om. iJaucun, p a r t 1 of his EbAzapcKa

Aumepamypa (Sofia, 1923), 37. It hardly seems proper to include I. M. Smirnov in this category as does Rajko Nahtigal (and others), "OtLCtsky kinigy (2itije Metodovo pogl. XV)", Razprave of the Slovenska Akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Razred za filoloske in literarne vede, I (1950), 3-4. The following statement by Smirnov would suggest a different view: "Even if we do not nurture peculiar illusions as do, for example, Archimandrite Leonid and others, about the correctness of the chronological localization of the translation of the Sinaitic Patericon within the bounds of the period of literary activity of Methodius (i.e., in this manner deciding the question of the translation of the "OHIiCKTvira KHHTTil" in the Pannonian Vita in exactly this meaning), linguistic facts in the work guarantee its origin in any case in one of the very earliest periods of Slavic letters" ( C U H O U C K U U namepuK [Aeincbv IIvsunaTiKdi;] e dpeenecAaemcKOM nepeeode [Sergiev Posad, 1917], p. XIV). 17 The arguments summarized below can be found in full in Preobrazenskij's CAaenHopyccKuu

cKumcKuu namepuK ..., 147-150.

4

PREFACE

patericon. Preobrazenskij concludes his case with commendable caution by admitting that his arguments only lend justification to the view held by the majority of scholars but do not prove it beyond all doubt. The first really substantial challenge to this patericon theory came from N. K. Nikol'skij in 1928.18 He noticed that the Vita Constantini is particularly rich in biblical citations with accompanying interpretations which are attributed to Cyril, whose role as a polemicist and exegete of the Scriptures is repeatedly stressed together with his faith in and reliance upon books, especially when discussing the True Faith. Nikol'skij points out that both the Vita and the Service to St. Cyril stress his dicta and wise parables (npHTHH), and he reasons that the books used by Cyril in his debates with the Saracens, Jews, Moslems, and Khazars were biblical books of the Old Testament together with interpretations (either Cyril's written in Greek, or those of the Church Fathers) by means of which Cyril would disclose the hidden meaning of the Scriptures. There can be no doubt, says Nikol'skij, that such interpretative texts were already translated into Slavic during the Cyrillo-Methodian era, since both the Pannonian Vitae and in particular the Tale of Bygone Years affirm that Cyril and Methodius were summoned to an already Christianized Moravia in order to interpret correctly the True Faith, the Scriptures, and Church law for the Moravian people. The Nomocanon translated by Methodius answered the demand for norms in Church life and the OMhCKTvira khhttvi or interpretations of biblical texts by various Church Fathers (perhaps the ones used by Cyril in his debates) answered the demand for correct understanding of the Bible and the faith. That ©•ikcKiiira Kiinnii signifies interpretative, exegetical biblical texts and not a patericon is the more likely, Nikol'skij continues, since: (1) "it seems very strange that, given the scarcity of books translated into Slavic and the complete lack of edifying literature for the people, a translation should have been undertaken while Methodius was still alive of a book intended for monastic reading and not for the very goal for which the brothers had gone to Moravia" (p. 443); (2) fifteenth and sixteenth-century MSS of a very old epistle dating from the earliest Christian period in Russia or even among the Slavs in general preserve the term onkcKTiira khhtivi in two places with the specific meaning of interpretations by the Church Fathers of Old and New Testament books, in particular exegetical Paremijniki, 18

N. K. Nikol'skij, "K Bonpocy o cohhhchhhx, npnnncf>iBaeMMX Kapiumy HJiocoy", IfoeecmuH no pyccKOMy n3bMy u CAoeecuocmu, I, No. 2 (1928), 399-457. The information summarized below can be found mainly on pp. 442-446, 453-457. I have tried to reproduce Nikol'skij's argument as faithfully as possible, especially since his views have never been adequately represented by his later opponents.

PREFACE

5

Aprakos Gospels, and Aprakos Acts and Epistles of the Apostles; (3) in a Bull dated 879, Pope John VIII refers to exegetical Old and New Testament texts as already existing in Slavic (p. 445).18 Nikol'skij stresses that the problem of determining exactly which of the many biblical interpretations are of Cyrillo-Methodian origin is a complex one which can only be answered after much further study. He does point out, however, that keeping in mind all the fragments from Cyril's debates so conscientiously recorded in his Vita, one should examine not so much the generally-known texts as the little-studied ones that are scattered in bits and pieces throughout the various interpretative miscellanies. In 1931, three years after the appearance of Nikol'skij's article, N. van Wijk attempted to refute Nikol'skij's view and reestablish the supremacy of the patericon theory.20 In answer to Nikol'skij's first point, that Methodius would hardly have decided to translate a book meant for monks when there was still no edifying literature for the people in general, Van Wijk asserts to the contrary that the short, stylistically simple apophthegms and anecdotes of a patericon would have been very appropriate for a wider public, the more so since the majority of the people at the time were illiterate and patericons were well-suited to being read aloud, whereas biblical commentaries would have been accessible to a much narrower circle. On the one hand, Van Wijk is right that patericons, especially ones like the AvSpc&v ¿yicov pipA-oq, were bettersuited for the job of enlightening the folk, and if this was the sole criterion according to which Methodius chose the work for translation, then a patericon is the more likely choice. On the other hand, however, Van Wijk's assertion does not refute Nikol'skij's point that the brothers were invited first and foremost not to provide readily comprehensible edifying literature but to translate and explain the meaning of the Scriptures, in which case we would have to prefer the choice of biblical commentaries over a patericon. In the last analysis, this type of argument cannot be 19 "... lectiones divinas novi et veteris testamenti bene translatas et interpretatas ..." [my italics — R.PJ. The actual date of this Epistle to Svjatopolk ("Industriae tuae") seems to be 880. See V. A. Bil'basov, Kupwui u Mecfioduu no doKyMeumanbHbiM ucmoHHUKaM, part I of Kupwui u Mecfioduu (St. Petersburg, 1868), 87, 134; F. Grivec, Konstantin und Method: Lehrer der Slaven (Wiesbaden, 1960), 256. The manuscript in which the Epistle is preserved is of eleventh-century origin (Bil'basov, KupuAA u Mecfioduu no ..., 16). 80 Van Wijk's argument, surveyed below, can be found in his "Studien zu den altkirchenslavischen Paterika", Verhandelingen der Koninklijke akademie van wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Afdeeling letterkunde, N S XXX, No. 2 (1931), 21-24. See also below, Chapter I, pp. 31-32. Van Wijk maintained these views right up to his death in 1941.

6

PREFACE

decisive, since we simply do not know what goal or aim was uppermost in Methodius' mind at the time. One can only guess that, if forced to make a choice, Methodius would probably have opted for the text which would have most helped his disciples to understand and explain the true meaning of the Scriptures better than their Frankish adversaries, rather than a text of purely edifying nature like a patericon. Van Wijk was certain that oikcKTiira khhttii in the Vita Methodii was simply a direct translation of TtaieptKÖv (seil. ßiß)äov), and he felt that Nikol'skij had uncritically and quite incorrectly overestimated the worth of his old epistle (where OHb.cKTiira k n h ™ is used in the meaning of biblical commentaries) for solving the problem of the Methodian oikcKTiira k h h ™ . Van Wijk admits that oikcKTiira knh™ in Nikol'skij's text does indeed mean biblical commentaries (though possibly homilies as well) but stresses that since (in his opinion) the epistle itself cannot possibly be older than the period of Tsar Simeon, as can be seen from examination of the biblical citations in the epistle, the words omkckuizi k n h ™ here probably refer to the biblical commentaries that arose after Methodius' death and "wir haben keinen Anlass, weshalb wir für eine etwas frühere Periode eine solche Bedeutung jenes Ausdruckes annehmen sollten." 21 Van Wijk adds that the author of the epistle probably could only use this expression in this sense because its referent is clearly defined earlier in the same text. Van Wijk does not say why the term could mean biblical commentaries in Simeon's time but not fifty years earlier. In any case, although I do not think Nikol'skij's epistle originated as early as the Simeon period, surely the significant thing is simply that in a text of relatively great age the term OHKCKura k n h ™ is indisputably used in the sense of biblical commentaries. This does not mean, however, that we are obliged to accept Nikol'skij's theory. Nikol'skij is simply right that onkcKTiira khhttiI could mean biblical commentaries. He himself even pointed out that onkcKTiira k h h ™ , at least "in later works", could also mean a patericon. 22 Apparently neither 21

"Studien zu den altkirchenslavischen Paterika", 24. Nikol'skij, "K Bonpocy o cohhhchhhx, npnnncMBaeMbix Kapanny aKyjiTeT, X V (1937-1938), 67-69. 28

F. Grivec, "Vitae Constantini et Methodii. Veisio Latina, notis dissertationibusque de fontibus ac de theologia ss. Cyrilli et Methodii illustrata", Acta Academiae Velehradensis, XVII (1941), 170; "Clozov-Kopitarjev glagolit v slovenski knjizevnosti in zgodovini", Razprave of the Slovenska Akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Razred za filoz.-filol.-histor., I (1943), 351-352. 80 F. Grivec, Zitja Konstantina in Methodija, 2nd enlarged ed. (Ljubljana, 1951), 130-131. See also: F. Grivec, Konstantin und Method: Lehrer der Slaven (Wiesbaden,

PREFACE

9

Grivec and Gosev feel that the term ««TkCKiiira k n h ™ may embrace both homiletic literature and a patericon. In 1951, Rajko Nahtigal, who had long opposed the patericon theory, finally launched his attack in print. 31 He felt that it was a mistake to seek the solution to Methodius' ©HkcKTura KHunii among works of Greek monastic literature such as patericons, pointing out, as Golubinskij had before him, that Methodius' pupils were not monks and that Rostislav, according to the fifth chapter of the Vita Methodii, had requested teachers for the simple folk. 32 Nahtigal does not dispute Van Wijk's assertion of the archaic nature of the language of the AvSpo&v ayicov pip^og, but he does feel that Van Wijk's arguments do not prove a Methodian origin for the translation since some of the words Van Wijk puts forth as typically Methodian can also be found in the Vita Methodii, which was written by his pupils shortly after his death. It should be noted, however, that Nahtigal only adduces one example — CTpH?KKNHKrh — of such a word, 33 and besides, even if there are more, there is nothing strange about finding words from the vocabulary of a teacher in the works of his students. Introducing his alternative theory, 34 Nahtigal writes that for some thirty years he has been of the opinion that 0"TkcKTiitd khhttvI refers to the old prototype of Codex Clozianus and related texts, such as Codex Suprasliensis and in particular the Mihanovic Homiliary.35 This is the more likely, he continues, since such a homiliary for important church holidays would have been needed for the Service. The term onkcKTiira KHHriii is particularly appropriate for a homiliary like the Mihanovic one, which consists of Holiday sermons of the great Church Fathers, and after a brief study of the language and contents of Codex Clozianus, Codex Suprasliensis, and the Mihanovic Homiliary, stressing, on the one hand, their interrelationships and, on the other hand, the great age and Pannonomoravianisms of Clozianus, Nahtigal concludes that Methodius translated a homiliary, parts of which came down to us in Clozianus, 1960), 135-136; Slovanska blagovestnika sv. Ciril in Metod: 863-1963 (Celje, 1963), 155-156. 31 "OtbChsky kiriigy (Zitije Metodovo pogl. XV)", 7-24. This article contains good bibliography on the whole problem. As early as 1914/15 in unpublished lectures Nahtigal had put forth the view that Codex Clozianus represented the remains of Methodius' ©nkcKTiitii k h h t t i I (p. 16). 92 Ibid., 9, 15. 83 Ibid., 15. 84 This theory, which is very briefly surveyed below, can be found on pp. 16-24 of Nahtigal's "Otbfibsky ktnigy ..." 86 Nahtigal points out (p. 23) that F. Grivec also felt that the prototype of Codex Clozianus could have been Methodius' OHkCKtira KHHT'hi.

10

PREFACE

Suprasliensis, the Mihanovic Homiliary and various other MSS, and that of the existing MSS, the Mihanovic Homiliary can give us the best idea of the original form of the Methodian prototype. Although Nikol'skij's alternative to the patericon theory has not as yet had any other supporters, 36 Nahtigal's theory has been accepted and refined by the Czech scholar Emilie Blahova 37 and the Bulgarian scholar Dora Ivanova-Mirceva. 38 Blahovd writes that Nahtigal's opinion is supported by the fact that homiliaries are preserved in two canonical OCS monuments — Codex Clozianus and Codex Suprasliensis — whereas we know of no patericon earlier than the twelfth century. 39 This, together with the fact that some homilies were translated twice before the middle of the tenth century, and likely before the end of the first quarter, proves that homilies were translated in the very oldest period of OCS literature. 40 Ivanova-Mirceva further points out that such sermons were a necessity from the earliest Cyrillo-Methodian times since after every solemn liturgy the priest had to deliver a sermon explaining the meaning of the Holiday. 4 1 36

Michael Lacko, in his book Saints Cyril and Methodius (Rome, 1963), 200, writes: "The Books of the Fathers are homilies, or sermons, and instructions on Holy Scripture, found in the writings of the Church Fathers of earlier ages. The homilies were highly necessary to young clerics in the preparation of their sermons. A number of these Slavonic sermons have been preserved in the Glagolitic Codex Glagolita Clozianus." Though Lacko mainly adheres to Nahtigal's view, one wonders if his phrase "instructions on Holy Scripture" might not also indicate his partial acceptance of Nikol'skij's view. a ' E. Bldhovd, "Homilie Clozianu a homilidre Mihanovicova: Syntakticky rozbor", Slavia, XXXII, No. 1 (1963), 1-16; "K ot^zce otbcbskycht kbriigV', Slavia, XXXVIII, No. 4 (1969), 582-590. This latter article contains good bibliography on the question, including references to her earlier articles. 88

D o r a Ivanova-Mirceva, "XoMWinapi>T Ha MHxaHOBHH", Hieecmun

Ha UHcmumyma

3a CbJizapcKU e3UK, X V I (1968), 381-391; "H3 CTapo6wirapcKHH xoMHiraap: HOBOOTKPHTH npeBOflH", KoHcmanmuH-KupuA (fiujiocotfi: K)6ujieeH c6opnm no CAyiaii 1100-eoduuiHUHama om cMbpmma My (Sofia, 1969), 309-314; "Crapo6T>JirapcKHHT xoMHJiwap h H3CJieflBaHeTO Ha KKpmio-MeTOflHeBHH e3HK", KoHcmanmuH-KupuA $ujioco(f>: ffoKjiadu om cuMno3uyMa, noceemen 11a 1100-eoduiUHUiiama om CMtpmma My

(Sofia, 1971), 109-120. 89 Strictly speaking, I suppose, she is right, though it must be said that the presence of a patericon story in Codex Suprasliensis, see S. Nikolova, "IlaTepiwHHTe pa3Ka3H B HCTopHHTa Ha crapaTa 6MrapcKa jiHTepaTypa",

CmapoSbAzapcKa

Aumepamypa:

HicAedeane u MamepuaAu, book 1 (Sofia, 1971), 167, and patericon excerpts in the Izbornik 1076 substantially weakens this point. I do not know if these patericon excerpts were taken from already-existing full patericon translations, though this appears to be the case for the excerpts in the Izbornik 1076, but it should be remembered that Codex Clozianus and the homiletic parts of Codex Suprasliensis also contain only excerpts fiom various hypothetical larger works. 40 "K ot&zce otbcbskychi kinigb", 582. 41 "H3 CTapo6iJirapcKHH xOMiumap ...", 309; "CTapo6tJirapciuwT xoMHjmap ...", 110.

PREFACE

11

Blähovä and Ivanova-Mirceva concentrate on establishing the age of the various parts of Codex Clozianus, Codex Suprasliensis, the Mihanovic Homiliary, and other miscellanies that contain homilies, indicating that all of them were compiled from various sources translated at various times, and concluding that the most archaic homilies of all of them come from one original prototype homiliary of as yet unknown specifics which was probably Methodius' owkcK'kira KNHrw. Contrary to Nahtigal, the Mihanovic Homiliary, in Ivanova-Mirceva's opinion, goes back to a prototype of very early East-Bulgarian Preslav origin42 and cannot be regarded as a direct descendant of the oldest Methodian homiliary. Unlike Blähovä and Ivanova-Mirceva, most scholars did not accept Nahtigal's homiliary theory and still adhere to the original patericon theory. 43 Shortly after Nahtigal's article appeared in 1950, D. Cizevskij reproached him for having overlooked the fact that "D. Abramovic bereits im J. 1931 die Identität der beiden Bezeichnungen [oMkcKTiira KNHrw — R.P.] nachgewiesen hat ..." 44 and as recently as 1969, Svetlina Nikolova wrote that Nahtigal's attempt to prove that onkcKiiira khhcu meant a collection of homilies is unconvincing, even though he is right about the Moravian origin of Codex Clozianus. She presents the following arguments in favor of a patericon: (1) © 11 Miklosich zitiert es als Pat. Mih., s. S. XVII des Lexicon. °

K A P I T E L IV

ZWECK U N D AUFGABE DER VORLIEGENDEN AUSGABE

Als ich anhand der Leidener Blätter (Nr. 35 des obigen Verzeichnisses) die slavische Redaktion der XvSpcöv äyicov ßißlog zu studieren anfing, sah ich sofort, dass wir es hier mit einem sehr alten Text zu tun haben. Denselben Eindruck bekam ich von dem Paterik von Mihanovic (Nr. 32), insofern als das von Miklosich aus demselben gesammelte Material ein Urteil gestattete. Glücklicherweise erfuhr ich bald aus der oben angeführten Conevschen Beschreibung Wiener slavischer Codices, dass diese Handschrift sich jetzt in Wien befindet. Ich Hess sie dort photographieren, und aus dem mir auf diese Weise und später durch Autopsie zugänglichen Texte ergab sich zu meiner grossen Freude, dass die Handschrift von Mihanovic den archaistischen Charakter nicht nur des Vokabulars, sondern auch der grammatischen Formen mit einer grossen Treue bewahrt hat. Dann studierte ich die Pariser Handschrift (Nr. 33 des obigen Verzeichnisses), in welcher das Paterikon gerade dieselbe Zusammensetzung zeigt wie in derjenigen von Mihanovic, deren sprachlicher Charakter aber im allgemeinen weniger altertümlich ist. Eine Vergleichung der in den Leidener Blättern enthaltenen Textabschnitte mit der Redaktion von Mih und Par ergab die im allgemeinen grössere Altertümlichkeit der letztgenannten Gruppe, 1 während die Handschrift des Klosters Krka (oben Nr. 34) eine stilistisch stark modernisierte Redaktion enthält; 2 allerdings hat die Gruppe von Mih und Par zahlreiche Apophthegmen 1 S. Byzantinoslavica, IV (1932), 31-34. Besonders beachte man die daselbst 34 hervorgehobenen Stellen Ib7 (Mih bk TdHH,T>, Leid TdHHO ^"kd©: ¿v Kpwrtiö, in secreto), T IblO (M CKTBOpH, L nfffcEhi: feitoiriae), Ib26 (M c e r o , L e r o : aCtT), ista), I I a l / 2 (M TKHHA, L WHlTk: növov), IIb20/l,23 (M wce^K, L O C m ' l ^ , -Ii: övov, -o?) ce: der Leidener Blätter. Allerdings hat I a l 4 (M CK p d ^ o e f i A , L Xoipovxsi;, gaudentes) L die ältere Lesart. 2 S. Maza3UH CjeeepHe JJaAMaifuje, II (Split, 1935), 109f., wo ich auf die Ausdehnung des Gen. pro acc. ausserhalb des klassischen Usus, auf die Einschaltung von N6 bei NHHTO usw., auf die zahlreichen bestimmten Formen der Adjektive auf -CKTi, auf die Perfecta anstatt Aoristi, auf die Ausdehnung des Gerundgebrauches, auf das für alle Geschlechter verwendete e?Ke, auf wiederholte Fälle von Parataxis anstatt Partizipialkonstruktion, auf Einschaltung von H und IK e, auf die öfters hinzugefügten Substantive EfldTTi, C T d p e i ^ , HAß« hinwies.

EINLEITUNG

45

weggelassen, die in K (Hs. von Krka) vorhanden sind. Die russischen Handschriften enthalten im allgemeinen eine noch vollständigere Redaktion, es wäre aber sehr schwer gewesen, all diese Handschriften zu Gesicht zu bekommen. Ich habe sogar davon abgesehen, wenigstens einen Teil derselben durch eine Reise nach der URSS oder durch phototypische Reproduktionen näher kennen zu lernen, denn ich hätte dann die Herausgabe des Textes, welche sowieso wegen Zeitmangels bedeutend verzögert wurde, noch weiter aufschieben müssen. Das Schwerste musste am schwersten wiegen; das hiess in diesem Falle, dass der so wichtige Methodianische Text so schnell wie möglich den Slavisten zugänglich gemacht werden sollte. Nun lag im Paterikon Mih eine zwar gekürzte, anderseits aber in mehreren Punkten archaistische Redaktion vor; und trotz der Weglassung zahlreicher Apophthegmen schien mir dieser Text reichhaltig genug, den Forschern eine richtige und genügend vollständige Vorstellung von der Grammatik und dem Vokabular der von Method abgefassten Übersetzung zu geben. Deshalb entschied ich mich, einstweilen das in der Mihanovicschen Handschrift enthaltene Paterikon mit den Varianten der Pariser Handschrift herauszugeben; von den Lesarten der Krkaer Hs. führe ich im Variantenverzeichnisse, das der Ausgabe hinzugefügt wird, diejenigen an, welche mir für die Rekonstruktion des Methodianischen Textes wichtig scheinen, während für die Abschnitte, welche in den Leidener Blättern enthalten sind, auch diese benutzt werden. Auch die aus den griechischen und lateinischen Fassungen in demselben Verzeichnisse angeführten Lesarten dürften vieles für die künftige Rekonstruktion der allerältesten Fassung beisteuern." Ich hoffe, dass ein ein" {Evidently Van Wijk compiled a list of variants from the Krk patericon, the Leiden folia, and the Greek and Latin versions of the text. Although he apparently planned to append the list to this publication, no such list came down to us with his MS. It was either lost or, possibly, was never completed. Van Wijk had been adding copious variants from the Krk MS alongside those from the Paris MS at the bottom of every page of his edition of the Vienna MS. At a certain spot in the text (corresponding to the Paris MS, fol. 53"), however, he abandoned this plan, probably in favor of the above-mentioned variant list in appendix form, and he went back and crossed out all the variants from the Krk MS. It is possible that Van Wijk then found that the variant list was going to take more time to prepare than he had anticipated and, not wishing to delay the publication of the text, he decided to proceed without the variant list, forgetting to delete mention of it in his "Einleitung". He may have intended to publish the variant list soon after under separate cover, perhaps together with the planned vocabulary analysis, which also disappeared (see below, p. 80, note w). The fact that he left the Krk MS and the Leiden folia in his "Vorbemerkungen zum Textabdruck", however, argues for the completion of the list and its subsequent loss. Be that as it may, we could find no trace of it. See also above, "Foreword", p. vn.>

46

EINLEITUNG

gehendes Studium der russischen Redaktionen bald das so gezeichnete Bild vervollständigen wird, ich bezweifle jedoch, ob ich selber diese Arbeit unternehmen werde. Am wichtigsten ist m.E. das Vokabular. Über die Grammatik des ältesten Kirchenslavischen sind wir sowieso schon ziemlich gut unterrichtet, dem bisher Bekannten fügt das Paterik-Material nur wenig hinzu. Dagegen sind auf dem Gebiete der altkirchenslavischen Lexikographie unsere bisherigen Kenntnisse sehr lückenhaft, und eine so vollständig mögliche Sammlung und eine kritische Betrachtung des Wortmateriales eines Methodianischen Textes haben deshalb einen grossen Wert. Diesem Gegenstande wird der letzte Teil dieser Arbeit gewidmet sein.

KAPITEL V

INHALT DER EINZELNEN REDAKTIONEN DER SLAVISCHEN ANAPQN A H O N BIBAOE

Eine gemeinsame Eigentümlichkeit aller slavischen Handschriften ist das Fehlen des ersten Kapitels der griechischen Xvöpcöv dyirov ßißloq, welches in Photius' Bibliotheca den Titel: riapaivecn^ eig 7tp0K07cf|v t£Xeiöxr|TO(; trägt; 1 in der lateinischen Übersetzung heisst es: Deprofectu Patrum. Offenbar hat Method eine griechische Handschrift benutzt, wo dieses Kapitel weggelassen war. Anderseits enthält das 3. Buch (nach der Zählung des griechischen Grundtextes) ausführliche Einschübe, welche, weil sie in allen slavischen Redaktionen vorkommen, ebenfalls der griechischen Vorlage zugeschrieben werden müssen. Ich fange an mit einer Inhaltsübersicht der Mihanovicschen Handschrift (Wien 137 = 152); in Klammern nenne ich die Seiten- und Zeilenzahlen des Pariser Kodex (fonds slave 10). Für diejenigen Abschnitte, welche im erstgenannten Kodex fehlen, konnte ich nur den zweiten benutzen; zur Vermeidung von Missverständnissen füge ich deshalb überall die Buchstaben M (Wiener Hs. = Hs. von Mihanovic) bezw. P (Pariser Hs.) hinzu. Für die in den Leidener Blättern vorhandenen Abschnitte verglich ich auch diese (L). Weitere Abkürzungen sind: Alph — die alphabetisch geordneten Apophthegmata Patrum, in Mignes Patrologia graeca, Bd. LXV. 2 Arm — Armenische Apophthegmata-Übersetzung, Red. A. 3 B — Codex Berolinensis Phill. 1624.4 K — die koptische, von Hopfner beschriebene Übersetzung der XvSpräv dyicov ßiß>.oq.5 1

S. Photii Bibliotheca, ex recensione I. Bekkeri (Berlin, 1824), 161 ; Patrologia graeca, CHI (Paris, 1900), 664; Patrologia latina, LXXIII, 852. 2 S. W. Bousset, Apophthegmata (Tübingen, 1923), 94-105. 3 S. W. Bousset, aaO., 150-170. 4 S. W. Bousset, aaO., 106f., 110-120. 5 S. o. S. 35, Fussn. 11.

48

EINLEITUNG

M o s — die Moskauer Codices 452 und 163 (Nr. 344 bezw. 345 in Vladimirs Katalog der griechischen Hss. der Synodalbibliothek). 6 N

— die von F. égyptiens.7

Nau

herausgegebenen

Histoires

des

solitaires

PJ

— die lateinische Übersetzung von Johannes und Pelagius, in Mignes Patrologia latina, Bd. LXXIII. 8

D a s Buch von Bousset (s. Fussn. 2) enthält vergleichende Inhaltsübersichten der griechischen, lateinischen, armenischen und syrischen Apophthegmensammlungen. "X T ' M 1, 3 tdKO noBde Be;k/H/1hBHtï!. Gh. BCfeKO/Hh TMJldHHS/ilh HCKdTH (P 1, 2) M 1,6 ( P I , 4) = M 1, 15 (P 1, 13) = M 1, 20 (P 1, 17) = M l v , 9 (P l v , 7) u M r , 19 (P r , 17) M2, 5 (P 2, 4) = M 2, 14 (P 2, 14) = M 3, 21 (P 3, 21) = M 3", 1 (P 3", 3) = M 3V, 5 (P 3V, 7) = V M 3", 8 (P 3 , 10) = M 3*, 12 (P 3V, 14) u M 3 \ 13 (P 3', 16) M 4, 1 (P 4, 6) M 4, 8 (P 4, 14) = M 4, 14 (P 4, 20) = M 4, 17 (P 4V, 2) = V M 4 , 19 GD oy/HH- L= aeHHi (P 5, 9) M 4", 19 (P 5, 10) = M 5, 1 (P 5, 15) = M 5, 13 (P 5V, 8) =

M 5V, 7 (P 6, 7)

=

PJ De quiete PJ II, 1 PJ II, 2 PJ II, 3 PJ II, 4 PJ II, PJ II, PJ II, PJ II, PJ II, PJII,

5 7 8 9 10 11

PJ II, 12 PJ PJ PJ PJ PJ

II, 13 II, 14 II, 15 II, 16 De compunctione PJ III, 1 PJ III, 2 N 41 (mit Abweichungen) B 206dl2

M 5 \ 19 (P 6, 20) = M 6V, 16 (P 7 \ 6) L= M 7, 9 (P 8, 6) M 8, 4 (P 9, 12) = M 8, 8 (P 9, 16) = M 8, 11 (P 9, 21) = M 8, 18 (P 9V, 7) = M 8", 1 (P 10, 1) = M 8", 10 (P 10, 10) = M 9, 1 (P 10', 5) = M 9, 7 (P 10v, 12) = M 9, 11 (P 10\ 18) = M 9 \ 3 (P 11, 15) = M9 V , 14 (P ll v , 6) = M 9 \ 18 (P 11% 11) = M 10, 11 (P 12, 8) = M 10, 17 (P 12, 15) = P 13", 2 = P 13", 15 = P 14, 8 = P 14, 12 = P 14, 16 = P 14, 20 = P 14\ 10 = P 15, 1 = M 11, 1 (P 15\ 3) = M 12", 14 (P 17', 12) = M 13, 3 (P 18, 5) = M 13, 14 (P 18, 16) =

PJ III, 3 ?

PJIII 4 PJ III 5 PJ III 6 PJ III 7 PJIII 8 PJ III 9 PJ III 10 PJ III 14b PJ III 15 P J I I I 16 P J I I I 17 PJ III 18 PJ III 19 PJ III 20 PJ III 21 PJ III 22 PJ III 23 PJ III 24 P J I I I 25 PJ III 26 P J I I I 27 B 210b3 B 210c4 B 210cl5 B 211d13 B 212a3

* Vladimir, CucmeMamuuecKoe onucmie pyKonuceü MOCKOSCKOÜ CuHodaMHoä (IJampiapiueü) ôuô.iiomeKU, I: PyKonucu zpenecKin (Moskau, 1894). Eine russische Übersetzung nach den zwei griechischen Handschriften liegt im bereits genannten ffpeemü IlamepuKb vor; s. o. S. 34, Fussn. 7. Eine Inhaltsübersicht in meiner Schrift: Das gegenseitige Verhältnis einiger Redaktionen der ÄvSpc&v üyitav ßißtax;, usw. (Amsterdam, 1933), 30ff. ' In der Pariser Revue de l'Orient Chrétien, 1907-1913. S. W. Bousset, aaO., 107-110. 8 S. W. Bousset, aaO., 105f„ 120-128.

49

EINLEITUNG M 13*, 3 (P 18', 9) = B 212a30 M 15, 21 (P 20\ 10) = B 203b9 M 15v, 9 (P 21, 1) =B213all M 16, 3 (P 22, 1) = B 213bl5 M 17, 6 (P 23, 9) = B 213dl9 M 17, 14 (P 23, 18) = B 215a27 M 17, 18 (P 23", 2) = B 214a7 M 17v, 7 (P 23», 14) = B 213d8 M 17v, 14 (P 24, 1) = B 214b5 M 19", 10 (P 26, 6) = ? M 19*, 16 (P 26, 12) = B 215b8 M 20, 2 (P 26, 20) = B 199a25 M 20, 10 (P 26", 8) = B 199bl3 M 22v, 18 (P 29\ 13) = B 203d20 M 23*, 5 (P 30v, 6) = B 204b24 M 23v, 12 (P 30v, 13) = B 201b4 M 24, 11 (P 31, 16) = B 201 d2 M 25, 21 (P 32v, 17) = B 202d29 M 25*, 11 GD no^ie-l = PJ De NHH, etc. (P 33,10) J continentia M 25", 16 (P 33, 15) = PJ IV, 1 M 26, 12 (P 33\ 15) = PJ IV, 2 M 26, 17 (P 34, 2) = PJ IV, 3 M 26, 20 (P 34, 5) = PJ IV, 4 M 26", 2 (P 34, 10) = PJ IV, 5 M 26", 12 (P 34, 21) = PJ IV, 6 M 26*. 16 (P 34*, 4) = PJ IV, 7 M 26*, 19 (P 34*, 8) = PJ IV, 8 P 34», 18 = PJ IV, 9 P 35, 7 = PJ IV, 10 P 35*, 2 = P J I V , 11 P 35*, 12 = PJ IV, 12 P 35*, 21 = PJ IV, 13 P 36, 10 = PJ IV, 14 P 36, 16 = PJ IV, 15 P36*, 11 = P J I V , 17 P 37, 2 = PJ IV, 18 P 37, 6 = PJ IV, 19 P 37, 14 = PJ IV, 22 P 37, 20 = PJ IV, 24 P37*, 13 = Alph, Aoyrivog 2; Mos IV, 28 P 37*, 17 = PJ IV, 26 P 38, 9 = Mos IV, 35 P 38, 12 = PJ IV, 32 P 38, 17 = PJ IV, 63 P38*, 11 = P J I V , 67 P 39, 1 KK oy-TBpiiA I JK6NHW B CTdWIJJHiHK E(ldN6/HK = PJ De Ha NKI W /1K>E0fornicatione ¿•hraHHia P 39, 4 = PJ V, 1

P 39*. 10 P 40, 2 P 40, 5 P 40, 16 P 42*, 14 P 43, 4 P 43, 15 P 43», 4 P 43», 9 P 44, 1 P 44, 7 P 44, 13 P 44», 2 P 44*, 11 P 45, 17 P 45*, 5 P 45», 20 P 46, 11 P 46», 7 P 47, 14 M 28», 1 (P 48, 3) M 28», 12 (P 48, 15) P 48», 12 P 49, 11 P 50, 7 P 51, 9 P 51», 18 P 52, 20 P 53, 11 P 53*, 1 P 53*, 12 P 54, 12 P 55, 4 P 55, 17 P 56, 8 P 56», 16 P 57, 6 M 29, 17 (P 58, 12) M 30», 7 (P 59», 12) M 31», 7 (P 61, 1) M 32, 18 (P 61», 19) M 35, 10 (P 65, 18) M 35», 20 (P 66, 15) M 36, 17 HOB-kcTH.. KK nd/HATH H (M^JKhCTBOy NdCh (P 67, 1) M 36, 19 (P 67, 3) M 36», 12 (P 67», 2) M 36», 17 (P 67», 8)

PJ V, 2 Alph, "Itodwris 6 Kotoßö? 4; Mos V, 3 PJ V, 3 = PJ V, 4 PJ V, 5 PJ V, 6 = PJ V, 7 PJ V, 8 PJ V, 9 Mos V, 10 PJ V, 10 PJ V, 11 PJ V, 12 PJ V, 13 PJ V, 14 PJ V, 15 PJ V, 16 PJ V, 17 PJ V, 18 PJ V, 19 PJ V, 20 PJ V, 21 PJ V, 22 PJ V, 23 PJ V, 24 PJ V, 26 PJ V, 27 PJ V, 28 PJ V, 29 PJ V, 30 PJ V, 31 PJ V, 32 PJ V, 33 PJ V, 34 PJ V, 35 PJ V, 36 PJ V, 37 PJ V, 38 PJ V, 39 PJ V, 40 PJ V, 41 PJ VI, 21 PJ VI, 22 PJ De patientia seu fortitudine PJ VII, 1 PJ VII, 2 • PJ VII, 3

50

EINLEITUNG

M 36", 20 (P 67", 11) = PJ VII, 4 M 36", 21 (P 67", 14) = Alph, Bevianiv 5; Mos VII, 5; K. M 37, 1 (P 67v, 17) = PJ VII, 5 M 37, 14 (P 68, 15) = PJ VII, 6 M 37, 20 (P 68v, 1) = PJ VII, 7 M 37", 4 (P 68v, 10) = PJ VII, 8 M 37v, 14 (P 69, 1) = PJ VII, 9 M 38, 11 (P 69", 10) = PJ VII, 10 M 38", 3 (P 70, 11) = PJ VII, 11 M 38", 6 (P 70, 14) = PJ VII, 12 M 39", 3 (P 71, 20) = Alph, üoiniiv 102; Mos VII, 18 M 39", 13 (P 71", 8) = PJ VII, 14 M 39v, 19 (P 71", 15) = Alph, naOXo? 6 nsyag; Mos VII, 21 M 40, 1 (P 71", 20) = PJ VII, 15 M 40, 8 (P 72, 6) = PJ VII, 16 M 41, 7 (P 73, 7) = PJ VII, 18 M 41", 4 (P 73v, 6) = PJ VII, 19 J;:|I;I0}(P73",9) M 41v, 13 (P 73*, 15) M 41v, 16 (P 73", 18) M 42, 14 (P 74, 21) M 42, 19 (P 74", 5) M 42", 1 (P 74", 11) M 42", 9 (P 74", 19) M 43, 5 (P 75, 20) M 43, 12 (P 75", 7) M 43, 16 (P 75", 13) M 43", 3 (P 76, 4) M 43", 14 (P 76, 18) M 44, 1 (P 76", 8) M 44, 19 (P 77, 7) M 44", 9 (P 77, 21) M 45, 5 (P 77", 20) M 45, 9 (P 78, 2)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

M 45, 20 (P 78, 14) M 45", 5 (P 78, 21)

= =

M M M M M M M M

= = = = = = = =

45", 12 (P 78", 7) 45", 21 (P 78", 17) 46", 11 (P 79", 14) 46", 15 (P 79", 18) 46", 19 (P 80, 2) 47, 10 (P 80, 16) 48, 20 (P 81", 13) 48", 20 (P 82, 15)

= PJ VII, 20 PJ VII, 21 PJ VII, 22 PJ VII, 23 PJ VII, 25 PJ VII, 26 PJ VII, 27 PJ VII, 28 PJ VII, 29 PJ VII, 30 PJ VII, 31 PJ VII, 32 PJ VII, 33 PJ VII, 34 PJ VII, 35 PJ VII, 36 N 374; Mos VII, 42 PJ VII, 37 N 376; Mos VII, 45 PJ VII, 39 PJ VII, 40 PJ VII, 38 PJ VII, 41 PJ VII, 42 PJ VII, 43 PJ VII, 44 PJ VII, 45

M 49, 5 (P 82", 2) M 49, 22 (P 82", 19) M 49", 13 MK© N6 no^OEdeTii A'b/tK CBOHXh n^'b^b, H^B'feKKI TBOpHTH (P 83, 16) M 49", 16 (P 83, 18) M 50, 14 (P 84, 2) M 50, 20 (P 84, 8) M 50", 2 (P 84, 14; der letzte Teil L 1-1", 8) M 51, 16 (P 85, 17; L 1", 8) M 51", 1 (P 85", 5; L 1", 17) M 51", 9 (P 85", 15; L 1", 26) M 51", 15 (P 86, 1) M 52, 16 (P 86", 10) M 52", 11 (P 87, 10) M 52", 19 (P 87, 19) M 53, 2 (P 87", 5) M 53, 17 (P 88, 2) M 53, 19 (P 88, 4) M 53, 20 (P 88, 6) M 53", 20 (P 88", 10) M 53", 23 (P 88", 14) M 54, 6 (P 89, 3) M 54, 11 (P 89, 11) M 54, 22 (P 89", 1) M 54", 4 (P 89", 7) M 54", 7 (P 89", 11) M 54", 17 (P 90, 2) M 55, 6 (P 90, 15) M 55, 8 WKO nOBd6TK XpiNÜ CA NH e^HNr WtA^dTli (P 90, 19) M 55, 10 (P 90", 1) M 55, 13 (P 90", 5) M 55", 1 (P 90", 19) M 55", 13 (P 91, 12) M 55", 17 (P 91, 17) M 55", 22 (P 91", 3) M 56", 9 (P 92", 1) M 56", 13 (P 92", 6) M 57, 6 (P 93, 3)

PJ VII, 46 PJ VII, 47 PJ De eo quod nihil per ostensionem fieri debeat PJ PJ PJ PJ

VIII, VIII, VIII, VIII,

1 2 3 4

PJ VIII, 6 PJ VIII, 7 PJ VIII, 8 PJ PJ PJ PJ PJ

VIII, 9 VIII, 10 VIII, 11 VIII, 12 VIII, 13

14 }- PJPJ VIII, VIII, 15

M 57, 16 (P 93, 14)

Mos VIII, 27 PJ VIII, 16 PJ VIII, 17 PJ VIII, 18 PJ VIII, 19 PJ VIII, 20 PJ VIII, 21 PJ VIII, 22 PJ VIII, 24 PJ De eo quod non oporteat judicare quemquam PJ IX, 2 PJ IX, 3 PJ IX, 4 PJ IX, 5 PJ IX, 6 PJ IX, 7 PJ IX, 8 PJ IX, 9 Alph, nacpvoOxiog 1; Mos IX, 13 = PJ IX, 10

EINLEITUNG

M 57, 19 (P 93, 17; = PJ IX, 11 der letzte Teil L II, 1-6) M 57v, 15 (P 93v, 17; = PJ IX, 12 L II, 6) M 58, 15 (P 94v, 4; = N 327 = 396a; Mos IX, L II", 8) 17/18 M58,19 U> CiHOTpCNIH= PJ De (P 94", 9; L II 12 (w discretione M 58, 20 (P 94", 10; = L IIV, 13) M 58, 23 (P 94", 13;) = L II", 16) M 58y, 13 (P 95, 10) J = M 59, 5 (P 95v, 8) M 59, 8 (P 95", 12) = M 59, 12 (P 95v, 16) = = M 59, 20 (P 96, 5) = M 59, 23 (P 96, 9) M 59', 8 (P 96, 17) = M 59v, 13 (P 96", 2) = M 60, 7 (P 96v, 21) = M 60", 1 (P 97, 21) = M 60", 16 (P 97", 19) = = P 98, 8 = P 98, 11 = P 98", 14

P 98", 18 M 61, 7 (P 99", 6) M 61, 22 (P 100, 2) M 61", 2 (P 100, 5) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

61v, 9 (P 100, 13) 62, 1 (P 100T, 9) 62, 10 (P 100\ 20) 62, 20 (P 101, 9) 62v, 13 (P 101", 8) 62", 20 (P 101", 19) 63, 5 (P 102, 7) 63, 11 (P 102, 15) 63, 18 (P 102", 1) 63v, 13 (P 102v, 21) 64, 3 (P 103, 16) 64, 8 (P 103\ 8) 64, 23 (P 103v, 16) 64", 4 (P 103", 21) 64', 11 (P 104, 6)

PJ X, 1 PJ X, 2

PJ X, 3 PJ X, 4 PJ X, 5 PJ X, 6 PJ X, 7 PJ X, 9 PJ X, 8 PJ X,10 PJX, 11 PJ X, 12 PJ X, 13 PJ X,14 Mos X, 45 (Alph, Mcucäpio? 6 AiyujmocmiH und im VII. Bd. der Zeitschrift Byzantinoslavica gedruckt. S. S. 41, Fussn. 10 und S. 53, Fussn. 9.

55

EINLEITUNG

W i e oben schon bemerkt wurde, 14 enthalten die Handschriften M und P eine bedeutend gekürzte Fassung der AvSpcöv dyicov ßiß^og. Sowohl die mittelbulgarische Handschrift des Klosters K r k a wie die in den Bibliotheken des SSSR aufbewahrten russischen Codices haben einen reicheren Inhalt. D i e Handschrift von K r k a habe ich an Ort und Stelle eingehend studiert; was ich v o m Inhalt derselben mitteilen werde, beruht also auf meinen eigenen Notizen. A u c h die russischen Handschriften gehen in den Einzelheiten bedeutend auseinander; trotzdem hat Preobrazenskij versucht, den Inhalt der einzelnen Kapitel annähernd festzustellen. Er schickt dieser Rekonstruktion drei Bemerkungen voraus: 1 5 1. D i e Reihenfolge und die A n z a h l der in der slavischen Übersetzung enthaltenen Erzählungen und Aussprüche steht derjenigen der lateinischen Redaktion PJ näher als derjenigen der Moskauer griechischen Codices 452 und 163, welche als ffpeeniü namepuKb, u3AOMceHHbiü no zAaeciMb in russischer Übersetzung herausgegeben worden sind; richtig schliesst Preobrazenskij daraus, dass die v o m kirchenslavischen Übersetzer benutzte Handschrift eine altertümlichere

Fassung

enthielt

als die Codices

Mosquenses;

2. die in der Mehrzahl der Handschriften enthaltenen Nummern werden wohl zur ältesten slavischen Redaktion gehört haben; 3. im allgemeinen sind die ältern Handschriften am wichtigsten; deshalb ist Preobrazenskij in diesem Teile seiner Arbeit von einer alten Handschrift, und zwar v o m Codex 3 der Synodalen Bibliothek ( N r . 4 des S. 9 mitgeteilten Verzeichnisses) ausgegangen. A u f diese Weise hat er eine im allgemeinen zuverlässige Übersicht der ältesten russischen Redaktion zusammengestellt, welche ich für die Vergleichung der drei mir bekannten Redaktionen (1. M i h - P a r ; auch wohl Leiden B P L 2290; s. S. 42, N r . 35, — 2. K r k a , — 3. Russische Handschriften) benutze, welche ich hier abdrucke, — wobei ich zunächst das Verhältnis zur lateinischen Übersetzung PJ berücksichtige und die daselbst vorliegende Numerierung der Kapitel beibehalte: 16

MIH-PAR

KRKA

RUSSISCHE REDAKTION

KAP. II P J I I , 1-5 PJ II,

"

" 16

7-16

S.S. 44. AaO., S. 220. Zu den anderen Abkürzungen s. S. 47-48.

56

EINLEITUNG KAP. I I I

PJ III, I, 2 N 41 B 206dl2 PJ III, 3 2 Nrn. eingeschaltet PJ III, 4-10 PJ III, 14b-21 Die S. 65 f. aufgezählten Abschnitte aus B

wie Mih-Par wie Mih-Par PJ III, 11-21; dann offenbar dieselben Einschaltungen wie Mih-Par KAP. IV

PJ IV, 1-15 PJ IV, 17-19 PJ IV, 22 PJ IV, 24 Mos IV, 28 PJ IV, 26 Mos IV, 35 PJ IV, 32 PJ IV, 63 PJ IV, 67

PJ IV, 1-15 PJ IV, 17-19 PJ IV, 21, 22 PJ IV, 24, 25 Mos IV, 28 PJ IV, 26-28, 30, 31 Mos IV, 35-38 PJ IV, 32-40, 44-49, 51-54 Mos IV, 65 PJ IV, 55-63 PJ IV, 65 PJ IV, 67, 70 Mos X, 168

PJ IV, 1-15 PJ IV, 17-22 PJ IV, 24, 25 Mos IV, 28 PJ IV, 26-31 Mos IV, 35-38 PJ IV, 32-54 Mos IV, 65 PJ IV, 55 Mos IV, 67 PJ IV, 56-65 PJ IV, 67, 69, 70 Mos X, 168

KAP. V

PJ V, 1, 2 Mos V, 3 PJ V, 3-9 Mos V, 10 PJ V, 10-24 PJ V, 26-41

Wie Mih-Par bis PJ V, 13b (Par 44", 20), dann folgt eine ganz andere Serie Texte (Krka 38v, l-104 v , 10) anst. PJ V, 13b-24; dann weiter mit Mih-Par (PJ V, 26-41)

mit Mih-Par, nur fehlt noch Nr. 30

KAP. VI

Nur PJ 21, 22

PJ VI, 1-9 Mos VI, 11 (auch in K) PJ VI, 10, 11 PJ VI, 13-22

PJ VI, 1-9 Mos VI, 11 (K) PJ VI, 10-22

KAP. VII PJ VII, 1-4 Mos VII, 5 (auch in K) PJ VII, 5-12 Mos VII, 18 PJ VII, 14 Mos VII, 21

mit Mih-Par

mit Mih-Par

57

EINLEITUNG

PJ VII, 15, 16, 18-23,25-36 PJ VII, 15, 18-34 Mos VII, 42 PJ VII, 37 PJ VII, 37 Mos VII, 45 | mit Mih-Par17 PJ VII, 39, 40, 38, 41-47

PJ VII, 15-23, 25-36 Mos VII, 42 PJ VII, 37, 38 Mos VII, 45 PJ VII, 39-47"

KAP. VIII PJ VIII, 1-4 PJ VIII, 6-15 Mos VIII, 27 PJ VIII, 16-22 PJ VIII, 24

Das ganze Kapitel fehlt

IX

KAP.

PJ IX, 2-9 Mos IX, 13 PJ IX, 10-12 Mos IX, 17, 18

wie Mih-Par18

KAP.

PJ X, 1-7 PJ X, 9, 8 PJ X, 10-14 Mos X, 45 PJ X, 15, 16, 17b Mos X, 20 (auch in K) PJX, 18-25 PJ X, 27, 28 Mos X, 50 PJ X, 33-36 PJ X, 60, 62-64, 67 Mos X, 93 PJ X, 69-71 Mos X, 99, 100 PJ X, 79 Mos X, 109 PJ X, 80-82 Mos X, 113

Mos X, 50 PJ X, 29-38 PJ X, 40-44 Mos X, 62 PJ X, 45 Mos X, 60 PJ X, 46 Mos X, 68 (?) PJ X, 49-55 PJ X, 58

PJ X, 83-86

PJ X, 61-67

17

mit Mih-Par; in einem Teil der Hss. fehlt auch PJ VIII, 7

wie Mih-Par

X20

PJ X, 1-7 PJ X, 9, 8 PJ X, 10-13 Mos X, 45 PJ X, 15, 16, 17b Mos X, 20 ( K ) PJ X, 18-21

PJ X, 1-8 PJ X, 9 in einigen Hss. PJ X, 10-17 Mos X, 20 (K) PJ X, 18-25 PJ X, 27-28 Mos X, 50 PJ X, 29-39 Mos X, 53, 5421 PJ X, 40-45 Mos X, 60 PJ X, 46-48 Mos X, 68 PJ X, 49-52 ein Poimen-Apophthegma (Mos X, 77? Alph, Poimen 13?)22 PJ X, 53-58

Ein Blatt fehlt zwischen fol. 128 und 129; es enthielt beinahe die ganze Nr. PJ VII, 42 und den ersten Teil von PJ VII, 43. 16 Über die grossen Abweichungen gewisser Handschriften s. V. Preobrazenskij, aaO., 223 f. 19 Zwischen Bl. 131 und Bl. 132 gehört Bl. 151. 20 Die Blätter des 18. Heftes sind in den Folgen 133, 134, 139, 137, 135, 138, 136, 140 zu lesen. 21 Diese Nrn. und auch Mos X, 148-150 fehlen in den Hss. 11 und 16 des oben S. 38 mitgeteilten Verzeichnisses. 22 Mit diesem Apophthegma fängt die XIII. Doctrina des Abbas Dorotheus an (Patr. gr. LXXXVIII, 1761), aufweiche Preobrazenskij verweist.

58 PJ X, 88-90 Mos X, 122 PJ X, 91-93 Mos X, 133, 134 PJ X, 94 ? PJ X, 95-103 Mos X, 148-150 PJ X, 104-108, 114, 115

EINLEITUNG

Mos X, 93 PJ X, 68, 69, 71 Mos X, 99 PJ X, 72-76 PJ X, 78 PJ X, 85 PJ X, 92, 9323 PJ X, 97, 98 Mos X, 150 PJ X, 105 A j K h t i g h jkh^nk np"fenoBNdro wi^a Nawero ecJjflociNd noßd^d24 PJ X, 109, 110, 112-115 Alph, Ännävag 10 Alph, ÄXcoviog 4

Mos X, 83 PJ X, 59-67 Mos X, 93 PJ X, 68-71 Mos X, 99, 100 PJ X, 72-78, 80 Mos X, 109 PJ X, 81-103 Mos X, 148-150 PJ X, 104-115 Alph, Änncbvag 10 Alph, Ä/.cbviog 4

KAP. X I

Nur PJ XI, 1

PJ X I , 1-14" Mos X I , 38 PJ X I , 15-23 Mos X I , 58 PJ XI, 25, 26, 24, 27-31 Mos XI, 67 PJ XI, 33-40 Mos XI, 87 PJ XI, 41, 42 Mos XI, 9 0 , 9 1 , 9 2 , 94 PJ XI, 43-47 Mos XI, 100 PJ XI, 48, 49 Mos XI, 103 PJ XI, 50

PJ XI, 1-14 Mos XI, 38 PJ XI, 15-23 Mos XI, 58 PJ XI, 24-32 Mos XI, 67 PJ XI, 33-49

Mos XI, 103 PJ XI, 50-54

KAP. X I I

Fehlt ganz

PJ X I I , 1-6 Mos X I I , 7 PJ X I I , 7-11 PJ XII, 14, 15, 13 PJ XII, 12 (?)

PJ XIII, 1, 2

KAP. XIII PJ XIII, 1-6 Mos XIII, 7

PJ XII, 1-6 Mos XII, 7 PJ XII, 7-11 (Mos XII, 19 in einer Hs.) PJ XII, 12, 13 nur in einem Teil der Hss. PJ XII, 14 Über den &vaaEic|K>jirapcKH npeBOzm ...", 225, n. 1 and

231, n. 3. A good edition of one MS of this text (the State Historical Museum in Moscow, Synodal Collection, MS No. 551) is now available: CUMÜCKUÜ namepm, eds. V. S. Golysenko and V. F. Dubrovina (Moscow, 1967).) 28

O npoucxoMcdemu EeunemcKaeo üamepuKa, Cöopnuxb eb necmb tia npo(ß. JI. MuAemmb 3a cedeMdecemzoduiununama omb poMcdemiemo My (Sofia, 1933), 361-369.

77

EINLEITUNG

dßßcu;

àKT)8ia

àvaxcopr|TÌi