the curzon gospel

0 downloads 0 Views 8MB Size Report
Jun 2, 2008 - more separate textual traditions, as is the case for the DBC Gospel version. .... Ω, fi ž azure. – q, Q; q,Q dz ends. 6 j, Z z z. 7. ⁄, о, п, H, Ы i beet. 8 i, I ...... the back jer in strong position to /ә/.72 This substitution shows up unam-.



THE CURZON GOSPEL

curzon_2.indb 1

02/06/2008 09:19:52



curzon_2.indb 2

02/06/2008 09:19:52



THE CURZON GOSPEL Volume II: A Linguistic and Textual Introduction

C. M. Vakareliyska

1

curzon_2.indb 3

02/06/2008 09:19:52



3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford  New York Athens  Auckland  Bangkok  Bogotá  Buenos Aires  Cape Town  Chennai  Dar es Salaam  Delhi  Florence  Hong Kong  Istanbul  Karachi  Kolkota  Kuala Lumpur  Madrid  Melbourne  Mexico City  Mumbai  Nairobi  Paris  São Paolo  Shanghai  Singapore  Taipei  Tokyo  Toronto  Warsaw with associated companies in Berlin  Ibadan Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States By Oxford University Press Inc., New York © C. M. Vakareliyska 2008 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2008 The publisher thanks the Hilandar Research Library for its generous grant towards the cost of production of these volumes. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data [to follow] isbn 978-0-19-921677-2 (vol. I) isbn 978-0-19-921678-9 (vol. II) isbn 978-0-19-921679-6 (vol. I and II set) 1  3  5  7  9  10  8  6  4  2 Typeset in Minion by Peter Kahrel Ltd., Lancaster Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., King’s Lynn, Norfolk

curzon_2.indb 4

02/06/2008 09:19:52

Contents Preface Old Cyrillic graphemes Abbreviations List of figures 1 The Liturgical Tetraevangelion

1



Gospel genres Compilation issues Lectionary influence on DBC Reconstruction of the common DBC ancestor 1.4.1. Redactions underlying the DBC version of MLJ 1.4.2. Reconstruction blueprint

1 2 7 8 8 8

2 Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

10



10 10 10 11 12



curzon_2.indb 5

xi xv xvii xx

1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4.

2.1. Introduction 2.1.1. The relationship among D, B, and C 2.1.2. Methodology and conv`entions 2.1.3. Chapter organization 2.2. Shared DBC orthographic features 2.2.1. Shared characteristic features of post-OCS western Bulgarian manuscripts 2.2.2. Shared spellings of specific words 2.3. Shared morphological features 2.4. DBC syntactic innovations 2.5. DBC lexical features 2.5.1. Lexical evidence of the textual seam at Jo 11: 54 2.5.2. Archaisms and Graecisms 2.5.3. Lexical departures from ZM 2.5.4. Other DBC lexical distributions 2.5.5. DBC lexical innovations 2.5.6. Avoidance of jako, ubo, abьe, i bystъ 2.6. DBC textual features 2.6.1. ‘Liturgical tetraevangelion’ textual features 2.6.2. Reflections of early changes to the underlying redaction 2.6.3. Later revisions and alterations 2.6.4. B’s second redactional seam after Jo 20: 1

12 14 16 17 18 18 24 25 26 27 29 30 30 31 32 33

02/06/2008 09:19:52

vi



contents

2.7. Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ 2.7.1. Mark 2.7.2. Luke 2.7.3. John 2.8. Conclusion: Assessing the relationship between DBC and other tetraevangelia containing Preslav-associated versions of the second half of John

3 Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

curzon_2.indb 6

3.1. Introduction 3.2. Structure, headings, and ornamentation 3.2.1. Composition 3.2.2. Gospel headings 3.3. Evidence of a cousinly copying relationship 3.3.1. General western Bulgarian orthographic conventions 3.3.2. Orthographic correspondences in specific words and locations 3.3.3. Shared morphological and morphosyntactic features 3.4. CB lexical features 3.4.1. Secondary Graecisms and innovations 3.4.2. Phonological/morphological innovations 3.4.3. Verse-specific lexical variants 3.4.4. CB variants in locations where D text is lost 3.5. Distinguishing CB textual features 3.5.1. The Lord’s Prayer, Luke 11: 2–4 3.5.2. Major distinguishing textual features of the shared CB antigraph 3.6. CB textual features of MLJ portions lost from D 3.7. Relationships among the CB Gospel text, rubrics, and SynI 3.7.1. Lexical discrepancies between the CB text and CB SynI 3.7.2. Textual discrepancies between CB SynI and CB MLJ 3.7.3. Discrepancies between CB SynI and D SynI 3.7.4. Discrepancies between CB SynI and CB rubrics 3.7.5. Discrepancies between the C and B versions of CB SynI 3.7.6. Distinguishing features of CB SynI 3.7.7. CB SynII 3.8. Conclusions 3.8.1. Orthographic relationship of C and B 3.8.2. Relationship of CB MLJ to C’s Matthew version 3.8.3. Implications for the dating of B

34 35 42 57 74 79 79 80 80 80 82 82 85 87 91 91 92 93 94 94 95 95 105 111 112 114 115 117 117 120 123 124 124 124 125

02/06/2008 09:19:52

contents

4 Distinguishing Features of the Curzon Gospel

127



127 127 131 131 132 134 136 137 139 140 141 141



curzon_2.indb 7

vii

4.1. Introduction 4.2. Ornamentation and ornamental letters 4.3. Orthographic features 4.3.1. Line divisions 4.3.2. Jers 4.3.3. Jusy 4.3.4. Vowel letter alternations reflecting dispalatalization: g–i, u–ü 4.3.5. Distributions of ê–« and a–æ 4.3.6. Distribution of a–™ alternations 4.3.7. Distribution of ê–™ alternations 4.3.8. in–an 4.3.9. Vowel letter alternations reflecting denasalization of *ǫ, *ę 4.3.10. Phonological and morphophonemic implications of vowel letter ­alternations 4.3.11. i-elision 4.3.12. Consonant alternations in specific words 4.3.13. Orthographic innovations in specific words 4.3.14. Other evidence of a Serbian plast 4.4. Morphological features 4.4.1. Archaisms 4.4.2. Innovations 4.4.3. Idiosyncratic morphosyntactic features 4.5. Lexical features 4.5.1. Innovations 4.5.2. Secondary Graecisms 4.6. Distinguishing textual features 4.6.1. The Lord’s Prayer (Lu 11: 2–4) 4.6.2. Textual innovations 4.7. Inserted folios 128–9 4.7.1. Scribal identity: Codicological and paleographic features 4.7.2. Orthographic features 4.7.3. Morphological and syntactic features 4.7.4. Lexical and textual features 4.8. Synaxaria and Easter/Sexagesima Table 4.8.1. SynI 4.8.2. SynII 4.8.3. Easter/Sexagesima table 4.9. Conclusion

158 167 168 169 171 173 173 174 176 178 178 179 180 180 181 181 181 185 187 187 188 189 189 189 190

02/06/2008 09:19:52

viii

curzon_2.indb 8

contents

5 The Curzon Version of Matthew

192



192 194 194 195 196 196 196 197 197 200 210 211 211 215 224

5.1. Introduction 5.2. Distinguishing features of C’s Matthew version 5.2.1. Ornamentation 5.2.2. Paleographic and orthographic features 5.2.3. Morphological features 5.2.4. Consistent lexical features 5.3. Segment I: Mt 6: 14–c. 15: 11 5.3.1. Unusual orthographic features in Segment I 5.3.2. Distinguishing lexical features of Segment I 5.3.3. Textual features of Segment I 5.3.4. Summary 5.4. Segment II: C Mt 15: 12–28: 20 5.4.1. Lexical features of Segment II 5.4.2. Textual features of Segment II 5.5. Conclusion

6 A Tale of Two Menologies

226



226 228 228 229 234 234 235 237 237 237 243 255 280

6.1. Introduction 6.2. Codicological and orthographic features of the CB menology 6.2.1. Placement and liturgical instructions 6.2.2. Orthographic features 6.3. Shared grammatical and lexical features 6.3.1. Grammatical features 6.3.2. Lexical features 6.4. Textual features of the CB menology 6.4.1. Bulgarian saints 6.4.2. Archaic CB tradition 6.4.3. September–March 6.4.4. April–August 6.5. Conclusion

7 Conclusions

286



286 286 286 287 290

7.1. Introduction 7.2. C as a research instrument 7.2.1. Paleographic level 7.2.2. Orthographic level 7.2.3. Textological level

02/06/2008 09:19:52

contents



7.3. Issues resolved and outstanding 7.3.1. The relationship between liturgical tetraevangelia and lectionaries 7.3.2. Greek and Italo-Greek influence  7.3.3. Methodologies of text compilation from multiple antigraphs 7.4. Concluding thoughts

References Index

curzon_2.indb 9

ix

291 291 292 293 295 297 305

02/06/2008 09:19:52

curzon_2.indb 10

02/06/2008 09:19:52

Preface This commentary on the western Bulgarian manuscript I refer to as the Curzon Gospel (British Library Add. MS 39,628, c.1354, hereafter C) is intended for a broad audience of general linguists, Church historians, medieval philologists, Byzantinists, Biblical scholars, hagiologists, and theologians, as well as Slavists. The goal of the volume is threefold: to report on C as a manuscript of significance in its own right; to employ C as a tool for reconstructing the common source it shares with its two close relatives, the western Bulgarian Dobrejšo and Banica Gospels, which together with C compose the only identified family of medieval Bulgarian gospel manuscripts; and to examine the implications of C’s linguistic and textual features for a wide range of issues in Slavic and general historical linguistics and textology, ranging from the state of the Bulgarian Church Slavic literary language and western Bulgarian vernacular dialects in the mid-fourteenth century, to scribal methodologies for the compilation of liturgical tetraevangelia and menologies (calendars of saints) from two or more antigraphs,1 to the preservation of archaic Byzantine textual traditions, in translation, in medieval Slavic menologies. C is of special interest for the light it sheds on the features and provenance of its closest relative, the Banica Gospel (hereafter B), which has been the subject of a number of scholarly studies (NBKM No. 847, printed transcription edition by Dogramadžieva and Rajkov, hereafter D&R, 1981): see, inter alii, Momčilov 1865: 12–20, 43–6; Conev 1923a; Kossek 1984; Koceva 1985; Miklas 1988; Koceva and Atanasov 1991, 1993; Temčin 1997b). B has been attributed by Bulgarian scholars to the thirteenth century (Conev 1923a: 4; Momčilov 1865: 14 (late 13th c.); 1 

Following Capaldo (1981), I use the term ‘antigraph’ (Gr. ‘response’, ‘copy’) to refer to any hypothetical direct ancestor of the manuscript in question. The ‘immediate antigraph’ is the hypothetical earlier manuscript from which the manuscript in question, or any given portion thereof, has been directly copied, whereas a ‘shared’ or ‘common’ antigraph of two or more related manuscripts is the hypothetical Slavic manuscript (not the Greek text or manuscript from which the Slavic translation was originally made) that is the earliest direct ancestor of each one of the related manuscripts in the family. A descendant of a particular antigraph is an ‘apograph’; thus each antigraph is itself the apograph of any antigraphs that precede it, and each apograph is an antigraph of any successor(s) it might have. I prefer the term ‘antigraph’ to ‘protograph’ in reference to Slavic ancestor manuscripts of gospels and menologies, for several reasons. First, Slavic liturgical manuscripts are translations from Greek sources, and thus they are not protographs in the sense of being original works. Second, the earliest shared ancestor manuscript that can be reconstructed in any detail for related later medieval Slavic liturgical manuscripts is not the original version of the Slavic translation from Greek, but, rather, a distant apograph of the original version that has undergone extensive revision by generations of copyists, and has acquired textual contaminations and errors transmitted from earlier antigraphs, many or most of which probably were not in the original Slavic ancestor. The goal of this study is to reconstruct not the protograph Old Church Slavonic translation that was the original source for a very wide variety of later manuscript families, but the much younger earliest direct ancestor that contains all the features shared by related manuscripts in question, including shared orthographic, morphological, lexical, and textual anomalies. Finally, the term ‘protograph’ seems inappropriate for a shared ancestor manuscript that itself was compiled from two or more separate textual traditions, as is the case for the DBC Gospel version. More accurately, the protographs for multipleredaction manuscripts would be not the conjoined ancestor, which contains only portions of two or more Gospel redactions (i.e. editions), but the full Gospel versions from which that ancestor was compiled.

curzon_2.indb 11

02/06/2008 09:19:53

xii

Preface

Stojanov and Kodov 1964: 18; Džurova 1981: 96 and plate 123; D&Rajkov 1981: 68; Xristova, Karadžova, and Ikonomova 1982: 34), although this dating has been questioned by Lunt, who observed that the manuscript’s palaeographic features appear more typical of the middle or the second half of the fourteenth century (1984: 59–60). Close paleographic comparison of B with C, which is datable to c.1354, may eventually lead toward a resolution of the dating issue for B, because of the unusually close textual relationship between the two manuscripts: striking textual coincidences, including identical garblings, lexical anomalies, and repetitions and omissions of standard text, establish beyond question that the immediate antigraphs of C and B for Mark, Luke, and most of John (hereafter MLJ), and for the synaxaria and half of the menology, were very closely related manuscripts—­although it is highly unlikely that C was copied directly from B or vice versa, because each of the two manuscripts omits some portions of standard Gospel text which the other preserves (see ch. 3). Through close comparison of C both with B and with the earlier Dobrejšo Gospel (D), dated to the thirteenth century, the volume offers a very rough reconstruction of the major distinguishing orthographic, grammatical, lexical, textual, and compositional features of the hypothet­ical common antigraph for all three manuscripts (DBC), and of its apograph, the hypothetical common antigraph shared by C and B (CB). It also extracts from these comparisons some insights into the compilation of gospels and other texts from multiple sources in thirteenth- and fourteenthcentury Bulgaria, focusing particularly on the integration of valued ­older and, apparently, incomplete textual versions into younger versions. While it is beyond the scope of the study to seek to identify other manuscripts related to DBC or to trace the Greek source of the DBC textual version, any future discoveries of more manuscripts belonging to or relating to the DBC tradition will be of great value, of course, in providing further evidence for more nuanced reconstruction of the Slavic DBC antigraph. To make the analysis more user-friendly to readers who are not familiar with Church Slavonic or the Old Cyrillic writing system, I have used standardized Roman transliteration, accompanied by English glosses and literal translations, where possible, and have provided the equivalent reconstructed Greek Gospel text from Nestle–Aland (1985). Readers are directed to volume I, The Curzon Gospel: An Annotated Edition (Vakareliyska 2008) for the complete transcribed text of the manuscript, and for accompanying annotations that compare C word by word against a corpus of both canonical Old Church Slavonic (OCS) and later, roughly contemporaneous, medieval Church Slavonic gospels. The volume consists of six chapters and a conclusion. Chapter 1 discusses the liturgical tetraevangelion genre, to which the DBC family belongs, and information that the DBC family offers on methodological practices in the compilation of Bulgarian liturgical tetraevangelia. Chapter 2 identifies and analyzes the most noteworthy distinguishing orthographic, lexical, textual, and compilational features of the DBC antigraph for MLJ. Chapter 3 identifies the most significant features shared only by C and B, namely, the primary features of the post-DBC shared CB antigraph. Chapter 4 examines the structure and text of C’s version of Matthew, which is a compilation of two sources, an antigraph in the original DBC textual tradition for c. Mt 15: 2 to the end, and an anomalous non-DBC Matthew version for Mt 6: 14, where the first surviving folio of the manuscript begins, to c. Mt 15: 1. The summaries in

curzon_2.indb 12

02/06/2008 09:19:53

Preface

xiii

Chapters 2, 3, and 4 also serve as checklists for preliminary comparison of any other Slavic gospel version with the DBC and CB traditions. Chapter 5 is a manuscript study of C in a more traditional vein, offering an overview of C’s distinguishing orthographic, grammatical, lexical, and textual features. (Codicological and palaeographic descriptions of C, including identification of later editors of the manuscript, are located in the Introduction to the edition.) This chapter, which is likely to be of particular interest to linguists, manuscript specialists, and readers of the transcription edition of C, focuses on two issues: C’s somewhat free-rolling orthographic system and what its characteristics suggest about the phonological features of the dialect or dialects which it reflects; and reflections in C of Serbian influence. Although generally transcriptions from all manuscripts appear in this volume in Roman transliteration, reproductions of manuscript-specific orthographic variants are presented in Old Cyrillic script. For the benefit of non-Slavist readers, a table of the Old Cyrillic characters used in C and their Roman-alphabet counterparts directly follows this preface. Chapter 6, on C’s menology,2 shows that both B’s and C’s calendars of saints are based in part on a rare and archaic Italo-Greek short calendar that reflects the earliest attested redaction of the menology to the Typikon of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (pre-967 ad), and that these archaic menology listings are supplemented in both B and C by entries from more recent Slavic menology sources—a different source in each—for the days of the year not covered by the short calendar. The analysis seeks to reconstruct, to the extent possible, the textual formulae of the saints’ entries in the shared Slavic antigraph for the CB menology, and to determine the place of the Slavic antigraph’s Greek source, and of the two independent C and B supplementary antigraphs, within the medieval Slavic and Greek menology traditions. The comparison corpus of calendars on which the analysis is based consists of four subcorpora of medieval Slavic, Greek, and Latin menologies, totaling over 700 individual calendars; the identifications of these manuscripts are set forth in the Manuscript References appendix to volume I. Chapter 7 summarizes the major findings in the earlier chapters and, based on these findings, offers conclusions about medieval Bulgarian methods and practices in the compilation of liturgical tetraevangelia and menologies from multiple sources. The following conventions are followed in this volume. All transcriptions from C, B, and D are made from the original manuscripts, with the exceptions of (a) portions of D which were lost during World War II (Mt 3: 2–28: 20, Mk 1: 1–7: 4), for which I have had to rely on Conev’s flawed (1906) printed transcription edition, and (b) a now-missing leaf from B which was transcribed by Momčilov (1865: 43–6, Jo 11: 1–24). The transcriptions from manuscripts H, R, and Zogr2 (see Manuscript References appendix to volume I) I have made from photocopies of microfilms kept at the Hilandar Research Library at The Ohio State ­University. 2  The term ‘menology’ is used throughout this study, following Lunt (1981–2: 410), to refer to a calendar of fixed feasts that indicates which saints are to be commemorated on specific calendar dates of the year, beginning on 1 September, and which may or may not also indicate lections or lectionary instructions for those dates. In contrast, the term ‘synaxarion’, as used in this study, refers either to a list of movable feasts organized according to the Easter cycle, or to a list of various types of occasion (the ‘variable synaxarion’, or varia), which simply provides lectionary instructions for each such feast or occasion.

curzon_2.indb 13

02/06/2008 09:19:53

xiv

Preface

For the Javilo Gospel (RGADA f. 381, No. 2), I have relied on a microfilm from the Russian State Archive for Antique Documents, which Tamara Lönngren of Trömsø University very kindly obtained for me. Citations from the other gospel texts in the comparison corpus are from their printed or facsimile editions. Unless otherwise indicated, all liturgical rubrics transcribed in this volume from C’s version of MLJ are identical to B’s rubrics in both content and location. Lexical comparisons of C with other manuscripts are text-based: that is, lexical correspondences are shown on a verse-by-verse basis, and do not include corresponding lexical variants that appear in D, B, or other manuscripts in locations other than the particular verses where they appear in C, with occasional exceptions where the lexical variant under consideration is rare or unusual. The headwords in lexical lists are given in standardized dictionary form: nouns and adjectives are generally given in the nominative singular form, verbs in the infinitive form. The standard Greek equivalents are provided for most lexical variants; for textual variants, Greek equivalents are generally given only where a variant appears to convey a different meaning from the standard Greek variant. Citations of the standard Greek version of the Gospel text are from the Nestle–Aland reconstructed text (1985). Portions of standard Gospel text that are omitted in a given manuscript are indicated by three dots within angle brackets: ⟨. . .⟩. Roman transliterations from Old Church Slavonic (OCS) are orthographic, while reconstructions from Common Slavic are preceded by an asterisk and are in phonemic transcription (e.g. OCS transliteration velьi ‘great’, reconstruction *velьjь ‘great’). Line breaks in a manuscript are indicated by a single vertical line ( | ), page breaks by a double line ( || ). Parenthesized letter sequences represent ligated letters, for example, (æk)o. Where multiple manuscript sources are cited for a single variant, they appear in rough chronological order as in the edition, for instance, ZMAVkVrBH. Parentheses surrounding a manuscript code (e.g. (Z)) indicate that the given citation in that source is partially defective. For lections which appear more than once in a lectionary, a subscript numeral or numerals following a manuscript code indicates which of the lection versions is cited, in order of their appearance (e.g. A1, H1,2 ). In citations, a plus sign attached to the right of a word (e.g. M vъ edinъ+) indicates that that word appears in the named source(s) immediately preceding the word that appears after it in the other source(s) cited. Conversely, a plus sign attached to the left of a word (e.g. DBC +sъi ) indicates that the word appears in the named source(s) immediately following the word that appears before it in the other source(s) cited. Finally, listed in the preface to volume I are the many colleagues and students whose advice, assistance, and support was essential to the writing of this volume, and to whom I am profoundly grateful. They have rescued me from many errors, and those errors that remain are entirely my responsibility. 

CMV

Eugene, Oregon, October 2006

curzon_2.indb 14

02/06/2008 09:19:53

Old Cyrillic graphemes

curzon_2.indb 15

Old Cyrillic

Roman transliteration

Approximate phonetic value

a, A b, B v, V g, G d, D ê, E Ω, fi q, Q; q,Q j, Z ⁄, î, ï, H, Û i, I h, H k, K l, L m, M n, N o, O p, P r, R s, S t, T u, U f, F ƒ, Ï x, X ∑, „ w, W c, C ∂, ¤ ‚, Í ß y, ¥, g

a b v g d e ž dz z i i g´ k l m n o p r s t u f th x o št c č š ъ (back jer) y (jery)

father b v go d end azure ends z beet beet (unknown) k l m n o p r s t boot f thin or t German ach o fishtail nets chin fish put English ugh

Numerical value 1 – 2 3 4 5 – 6 7 8 10 – 20 30 40 50 70 80 100 200 300 400 500 9 600 800 – 900 100 200 – –

02/06/2008 09:19:54

xvi

´ ™, ‰ ü, Ü æ, Æ «, » å, Å ø,z; Ø, Z •, ° œ, Œ ≈ π û, √ #

curzon_2.indb 16

old cyrillic graphemes

ь (front jer) ĕ (jat′) ju ja je ę, ję (jus minor) o˛, jo˛ (jus major) ję jo˛ ks ps ÿ –

pit bat you German ja yes nasalized 'e' (Fr. vin) nasalized 'o' (Fr. bon) nasalized ‘ye’ (Fr. mien) nasalized ‘yo’ (Fr. Lyons) sticks apse myrrh –

3,000 4,000 5,000 – – 900 – – – 60 – 400 90

02/06/2008 09:19:54

Abbreviations Ø 1P 1Pl 1Sg 2P 2Pl 2Sg 3Du 3P 3Pl 3Sg A AA. SS. abbrev. ac. acc. adj. adv. ambig. ann. anns. anom. aor. approx. Arx B Baron MR Bas C C c. c. CB

curzon_2.indb 17

zero first person (adj.) first-person plural first-person singular second person (adj.) second-person plural second-person singular third-person dual third person (adj.) third-person plural third-person singular Codex Assemanianus Acta Sanctorum abbreviation active accusative adjective adverb ambiguous annotation annotations anomalous aorist approximately Arhangel′sk Gospel Banica Gospel Baronius’s Martyrologium Romanum Basilian CT edition Curzon Gospel consonant century circa shared Curzon–Banica ­antigraph

cc. chap. collec. comp. compar. conj. corr. Crk CT D D&R DBC

centuries chapter collective complementizer comparative conjunction correction Crkolez Gospel Constantinople Typikon Dobrejšo Gospel Dogramadžieva and Rajkov shared Dobrejšo–Banica–Curzon antigraph Deč Dečani Gospel Dm Dobromir Gospel du. dual dat. dative def. definite ed. editor edn. edition Ekl Eklogadion f. feminine Fig. Figure fol. folio gen. genitive Gil′f Gil′ferding collection Gr. Greek Hil Hilandar Gospel illeg. illegible imperf. imperfect impf. imperfective imv. imperative inanim. inanimate indef. indefinite inf. infinitive

02/06/2008 09:19:54

xviii

instr. instruc. interjec. interrog. Iv Jav Jo K Ka KJ Kul. l. LCS lig. lit. liturg. ll. loc. Lu M m. menol. MHier min. Mir mis. mis. fol. Mk MLJ ms. mss. Mst Mt N n. N–A NBKM Neap. neg.

curzon_2.indb 18

Abbreviations

instrumental instruction interjection interrogative Tsar Ivan Alexander Gospel Javilo Gospel John Kohno Gospel Karpino Gospel King James English Bible ­translation Kulič collation line Late Common Slavic ligature literally liturgical lines locative Luke Codex Marianus masculine menology Martyrologium Hieronymianus minority Miroslav Gospel missing missing folio Mark Mark, Luke and John manuscript manuscripts Mstislav Gospel Matthew Nikola Gospel neuter reconstructed Greek text, Nestle–Aland (1985) Cyril and Methodius National Library Neapolitan wall calendar negative

NIV nom. n.p. obj. OCS om. O Oh P Pant part. pass. pers. comm. pf. Pir pl. posses. postpos. p.p.p. pre-Bas. prep. pres. produc. pron. ptcl. R RNB r resul. S s. seg. sg. Slav. Slep. ss. SS. SS subjun. Supr syn. SynI

New International Version nominative non-past object Old Church Slavonic omission Ostromir Gospel Ohrid Apostolus Plovdiv Gospel Panteleemon Gospel participle passive personal communication perfective Pirdopski Gospel plural possessive postposition past passive participle pre-Basilian preposition present productive pronoun particle Raško Hilandar Gospel Russian National Library recto resultative Savvina Kniga section segment singular Slavic Slepče Apostolus superscript saints St., saint subjunctive Codex Suprasliensis synaxarion Synaxarion I

02/06/2008 09:19:55

Abbreviations

SynII unambig. unproduc. v v. V V Vr Vk vir. voc. vol.

curzon_2.indb 19

Synaxarion II (varia) unambiguous unproductive verso verse Vatican Palimpsest Gospel vowel Vraca Gospel Vukan Gospel virile vocative volume

xix

X1

the first of two or more occurrences of the same lection in manuscript X X2 the second of two or more occurrences of the same lection in manuscript X X3 the third of two or more occurrences of the same lection in manuscript X Z Codex Zographensis ZM Z and M Zogr2 Zograph Trephologion (­ Draganov Menaion)

02/06/2008 09:19:55

List of Figures Figure 1.1 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 5.1 Figure 7.1

curzon_2.indb 20

The basic relationship among D, B, and C Braided ornamental O Braided header to Book of Mark Header to Book of John Inserted folio 128r Schema of Mt Segment I Textual seams in C

9 128 128 129 183 211 292

02/06/2008 09:19:55

1 The Liturgical Tetraevangelion 1.1.  Gospel genres Medieval Slavic gospels are typically categorized as either tetraevangelia or lectionary gospels. The tetraevangelion is a continuous gospel; the lectionary gospel, or aprakos, is a ‘discontinuous’ gospel, composed of lections, or readings, presented in the order in which they are to be read over the church year. Lectionary gospels include short lectionaries, which contain lections confined mostly to Sundays and holidays, and long or ‘full’ lectionaries, a later genre containing one or more lections for every day of each week of the church year. C and its closest relatives are liturgical tetraevangelia, continuous gospels that contain liturgical rubrication marking the beginnings and ends of the lections within the narrative text. As such, liturgical tetraevangelia occupy a middle position between continuous tetraevangelia that are not divided into lections, and the lectionary gospels, which omit the transitional tetraevangelion text that occurs between lections, insert lection incipits into the text, and reorganize the sequence of the lections to correspond to the church year. Because the lections in liturgical tetraevangelia appear in chapter order, these manuscripts typically include a synaxarion, or calendar of lections, following the Gospel text. Liturgical tetraevangelia existed in the OCS period, in the sense that some tetraevangelia, including the canonical Codices Zographensis (Z) and Marianus (M), contained the occasional terse marginal insertions začęlo ‘beginning’ and konьcь ‘end’, and other markers, to delineate certain lections. The earliest long lectionaries are believed to have been compiled from this early type of liturgical tetraevangelion (Vrana 1960: 420). The later liturgical tetraevangelion type originated in Serbia and was common from the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries also in the East Slavic, Bulgarian, and Macedonian traditions. The newer type, exemplified by the DBC family, contained full liturgical instructions in red ink within the body of the text, identifying the day of the church year for which the lection was to be read, and providing the lection incipit, usually reče gospodь ‘the Lord said’ or vъ ono vrĕmę ‘at that time’, as appropriate, or a variant thereof. Since the later liturgical tetraevangelion type contained the complete narrative text divided into lections, with full instructions on the page, beginning in the thirteenth century

curzon_2.indb 1

02/06/2008 09:19:55

2

The Liturgical Tetraevangelion

it was commonly used for liturgical purposes as an alternative to a long lectionary gospel, and it appears to have taken over the role of the long lectionary altogether in Bulgaria.1 1.2.  Compilation issues Because later-type liturgical tetraevangelia contain the transitional text between lections, it would be reasonable to assume that they were compiled from non-liturgical tetraevangelia. However, C and its close relatives share some textual variants with certain lectionary manuscripts, and in some locations they all omit the tetraevangelion transition verse just before the rubric that marks a lection incipit. These two facts together suggest that the earliest common source for the DBC family of liturgical tetraevangelia was compiled in heavy reliance on one or more long lectionaries in addition to one or more tetraevangelia. A major issue in the study of any later medieval Slavic gospel is the extent to which its textual provenance can be identified with one or both of the two major Church Slavonic redactions, or textual editions: the early Ohrid edition, reflecting the first Cyrillo-Methodian translation from the Greek, as represented in Z, M, the Codex Assemanianus lectionary (A), and other OCS gospels; and the so-called Preslav redaction, a later edition associated with a later, ninth- or early tenth-century second translation made in the eastern city of Preslav, the capital of the Bulgarian state under Tsar Simeon (893–927). The features of the original Preslav redaction cannot be determined with certainty, as there are no surviving OCS manuscripts identified with it (see e.g. MacRobert 2005). The term ‘Preslav redaction’ is used most frequently in reference to post-OCS gospel and psalter manuscripts that contain Slavic lexical variants for many of the high-frequency Greek borrowings in the Cyrillo-Methodian translation, including Slavic starĕišiny žьrьčьsky for the Greek borrowing arxierei ‘high priests’, and židovьskъ for ijudeiskъ ‘Jewish’. As has been observed with respect to D (Kossek 1984: 63–5), B (Kossek 1984: 63; Lunt 1984: 68; Temčin 1997b: 51), and C (Vakareliyska 1993: 13, 1996: 51, 107), the hallmark of the DBC textual tradition is its reliance on an early Ohrid redaction up to the first half of John, at which point there is an abrupt shift to what appears, on the basis of its lexicon, to be the later Preslav redaction. Although B is missing a leaf at the crucial place, the location of the textual seam can be narrowed to approximately Jo 11: 54, which is where the first Preslav-­associated lexical variant occurs in D and C, toward the end of the lection for the sixth Monday after Easter (Jo 11: 47–54). Here the Ohrid variant ijudei (‘Jews’, ‘Judeans’), which occurs as recently 1  Alekseev states that there are only two known extant Bulgarian long lectionary gospels, both from the thirteenth century, but he includes as one of these the Karpino Gospel, which is Macedonian. The other is BAN 24.4.25, from the ­Bulgarian Academy of Sciences collection (1999: 16). Pentkovskij traces the first Bulgarian long lectionaries to the St. ­Kliment Monastery in Ohrid, which closed in 916; he believes them to have been compiled from short lectionaries, supplemented by (earlier-type) liturgical tetraevangelia for the weekday lections. Vrana and Pentkovskij also believe that the late twelfth-century Serbian Miroslav long lectionary tradition, to which Vk and H from this study belong, was based primarily on an early Slavic liturgical tetraevangelion (Vrana 1960: 420; Pentkovskij 1988: 43). On the other hand, Pent­ kovskij speculates that the East Slavic Mstislav long lectionary tradition may have been based on the synaxarion to a Greek tetraevangelion whose lections and rubrication system were from two different traditions.

curzon_2.indb 2

02/06/2008 09:19:55

1.2.  Compilation issues

3

as in Jo 11: 45, is replaced for the first time with the Preslav-associated variant židove. The last Ohrid lexical variant before the textual seam, arxierei ( ‘chief priests’), appears at Jo 11: 47, at the beginning of the same lection. The newer lexicon appears both between lections, in the transitional tetraevangelion text, and within the lections: Jo 11: 55 židovьska(ja) (‘Jewish’), 11: 57 starĕišiny žьrьčьsky (‘chief priests’; see more detailed discussion in s. 2.5.1). The change to the Preslav-associated lexicon indicates that at some point in the history of the DBC Gospel version, a scribe substituted a different antigraph, from a different textual tradition, for the second half of John, most likely because the last portion of his immediate antigraph was defective or simply unavailable for copying. A similar abrupt shift to later Preslav-associated lexical variants was noted by Temčinas (Temčin 1998a) between Jo 11 and 12 in the East Slavic continuous Javilo tetraevangelion (Jav), which predates C by only about thirteen years. The Jav textual seam occurs earlier in the text than the DBC seam, in the middle of the sixth Lenten Saturday lection. The first Jav Preslav-associated lexeme is in Jo 11: 19, (gen. pl.) židovъ (Gr. ejk tw’n ∆Ioudaivwn ‘from the Jews’; cf. DBC Jo 11: 19, 31, 33, 36, 35 ijudei). Moreover, the Jav and DBC versions both lapse briefly back into the older Ohrid-associated lexicon toward the very end of John, beginning in Chapter 20: Jo 19: 19 with C (B mis. fol.): C, Jav ijudei-, D židov- (‘Jew’) cf. Jo 19: 20: Jav, DC židovcf. Jo 19: 35 Jav poslušьstv- ; DBC sъvĕdĕtelьstv- ‘testify’, ‘testimony’ cf. Jo 20: 19 with C only: C, Jav ijudei-, DB židovJo 20: 31 DBC, Jav (gen.) život- ‘life’; cf. Preslav-associated žiznJo 21: 18, 25 DBC, Jav aminь ‘amen’; cf. Preslav-associated pravo ‘verily’, ‘truly’ At first glance, the occurrence of two such parallel seams appears to be strong evidence that DBC and Jav traditions are related, as Temčinas argues, but it is difficult to account for why the textual seams occur in different locations in DBC and Jav. It likely is no accident that the return to the older lexicon occurs in the lections for Easter Sunday: the older redaction may well have been the preferred version for the Easter lections in many places, when they were read during the liturgy, just as the old King James Version is still the most commonly used English translation of the Luke Christmas lection.2 As shown in Chapter two, Jav and the DBC family are not noticeably related on the textual level. Nevertheless, it seems more than a coincidence that they both are tetraevangelia that switch to a Preslav-associated version for the second half of John, not in the very last chapters, where one might expect an antigraph to have lost its last leaves, but much earlier in the text. This is a different scenario from the seam in the Serbian Vukan long lectionary (Vk), generally dated to c. 1200. Vk’s lexical switch is the mirror image of DBC’s and Jav’s: the Vk version of Matthew, and of most of Mark, Luke, and John (MLJ), contains the newer lexicon, with the 2  On the co-occurrence in DBC and Jav of the older lexeme sъĕdĕtelbstvo (‘witness’) at Jo 21: 24, in one of the Passion lections for Good Friday, see p. 76.

curzon_2.indb 3

02/06/2008 09:19:55

4

The Liturgical Tetraevangelion

older lexicon appearing primarily between Jo 14: 1 and 17: 26, and in a few other locations. Vk’s return from Ohrid- to Preslav-associated lexical variants does not occur in the same verse as the DBC or Jav seams, but rather just a few verses after the DBC seam, at Jo 12: 3. Since Jav and Vk are not closely related either to DBC or to each other, this coincidence raises the question why a shift from Ohrid to ‘Preslav’ lexicon should occur in mid-John in Bulgarian, Serbian, and East Slavonic recensions, in a non-liturgical tetraevangelion, a liturgical tetraevangelion, and a long lectionary. If the explanation suggested above is correct for DBC and Jav, in both cases the text of the second half of John was missing or illegible in an antigraph. But this explanation could hardly stand for Vk, since lections from the second half of John occur in the front of lectionaries as well as in the back. Moreover, since liturgical tetraevangelia are believed to be compiled primarily from long lectionaries, with continuous tetraevangelia consulted mainly only for the transitional verses between lections, how could the second half of John have been missing, beginning mid-lection, from the lectionary version that underlies the hypothetical DBC common antigraph? A second look at Vk offers a tentative explanation for the general location of the seam in DBC and Jav. In long lectionary gospels, much of the text of John appears in the very first lections, for the weeks following Easter. It is a common occurrence that the first leaves of a manuscript will become loose from the binding through use and eventually fall out. In such a situation, the compilers of some long lectionaries may have had to use a different source to substitute for the pages that were missing from their immediate antigraph. This appears to have occurred in the compilation of the Vk version. The same textual seam then would be reflected in any liturgical tetraevangelia that were compiled similarly in reliance on a long lectionary that used two sources. Such a scenario raises in turn the question why, in the first place, a scribe would choose to copy a manuscript missing its first leaves and supplement it with a second manuscript for just the missing portion, when it would be so much simpler to make full use of an intact manuscript. One answer in the case of Vk is that the apparently missing lection in its antigraph was not the first lection: the first Vk lections, for Easter and the first two weeks afterwards, exhibit Preslav-associated lexicon, like most of the Vk text. Hence the defective antigraph for Vk must have lost some leaves not at the beginning of the manuscript, but in a location that was not immediately noticeable. Another interesting feature of Vk is that altogether its defective antigraph must have contained several sets of missing leaves, affecting both the lection for the third Saturday after Easter, and later a series of consecutive lections in the fifth and sixth weeks following Easter. But again, why did the copyist continue to return to the defective antigraph after each missing portion of text, instead of continuing with the intact substitution (if the substitute Vk antigraph was indeed intact)? While there is no certain answer, it is noteworthy that this practice was by no means uncommon: the composition of other medieval Slavic manuscripts, including DBC, suggests that the compilers were striving to preserve as much as possible of a preferred version, even if this meant patchworking together two sources. This brings us, by way of example, to the most striking feature of the later CB version. D is the only manuscript in the DBC family to contain the original DBC version throughout

curzon_2.indb 4

02/06/2008 09:19:55

1.2.  Compilation issues

5

­ atthew. B substitutes a different early Ohrid version of Matthew, and begins the DBC verM sion at Mark. C contains the second half of the DBC version of Matthew, but it substitutes yet a third, and flawed, Ohrid version for the first half of the text. For both the C and B scribes to abandon their respective antigraphs for Matthew and adopt the DBC version, apparently at the points in the text where it was first available to each of them, the DBC version must have had preferred status as the ‘house version’ of the D, B, and C scriptoria. A more complex series of shifts between a preferred tradition and a supplemental one occurs independently in the C and B menologies, or calendars of saints. These both are full menologies, containing listings of saints for each day of the calendar year. C and B both rely on the same short menology source for the more major feasts, which compose approximately half of the text of their menologies. The shared short menology source is supplemented in both manuscripts by a separate newer full menology antigraph. This patchwork composition required both the C and B scribes, or predecessors, to alternate back and forth between two antigraphs, when it would have been less labor-intensive for both copyists to use their respective full menologies alone. This expenditure of effort indicates that the C and B scriptoria (or, quite likely, a single scriptorium) valued the short menology enough to use it even when compiling a full menology, and for good reason: it is an archaic and unusual menology that contains saints’ entries found only in the earliest Slavic calendars, and some saints and textual formulae found only in the pre-tenth-century version of the Greek Constantinople Typikon (see Ch. 6). As noted above, Vk uses a source containing the older Ohrid lexicon for some of the lections for the weeks following Easter (the ‘John cycle’), together with a newer ‘Preslav’-lexicon source for the rest of the text.3 The older Ohrid lexicon also appears in some lections from Mark and Luke within the John cycle, and runs from Jo 14: 1–17: 26 before the Preslav-associated text is resumed. This pattern demonstrates that the substitute Ohrid-redaction antigraph for Vk was a lectionary, not a tetraevangelion, since the post-Easter Mark and Luke lections are located nowhere near the Book of John in the latter genre. The Vk lection for the second Sunday after Easter (Jo 20: 19–31), which appears later in the John cycle, also contains Ohrid lexemes. The first Passion lection from John for Holy Week, located at the end of the lectionary, duplicates many of the verses from the post-Easter lections, and so it is not surprising that the substitute Ohrid redaction has been reproduced here too. This explains the two textual seams in Vk, but it leaves open the question why it seems the substituted version for the second half of John in Ohrid-redaction liturgical tetraevan3  The older, Ohrid-associated lexicon occurs in Vk only in Jo 1: 35–52, Jo 14: 1–17: 26, Mk 15: 43–7, and Lu 24: 12–35 (Vrana 1967: 7). Most of these portions are within the first half of the manuscript, and comprise the following Easter cycle lections: 3rd Sat. after Easter (Jo 15: 17–27, 16: 1–2), 6th Fri. (Jo 14: 1–11), 6th Sat. (Jo 14: 10–21), 7th Sun. (Jo 17: 1–13), 7th Mon. (Jo 14: 27–31, 15: 1–7), 7th Tues. (Jo 16: 2–13), 7th Wed. (Jo 16: 15–23), 7th Thurs. (Jo 16: 23–33), 7th Fri. (Jo 17: 11–26). The Ohrid lexicon also occurs in the first Passion lection, in the second half of the manuscript, a duplication of the postEaster lections (Jo 13: 31–8, 14: 1–31, 15: 1–27, 16: 1–33, 17: 1–26, 18: 1). Note that the Jo 14: 1–17: 26 portion of Vk’s substitute Ohrid-lexicon source is within the Preslav-associated portion of Jav and DBC. The Ohrid lexicon also occurs in other post-Easter lections in the first half of Vk: 1st Tues. after Easter (Lu 24: 12–35, duplicated in the second half of Vk as the fifth matins lection in the festival portion), 1st Wed. (Jo 1: 35–51, duplicated in the second half as the lection for the 1st Sun. in Lent), 3rd Sun. (Mk 15: 43–7, 16: 1–8, duplicated in the second half as the tenth Passion lection for Holy Thursday), and the 2nd Sun. after Easter (Jo 20: 19–31).

curzon_2.indb 5

02/06/2008 09:19:56

6

The Liturgical Tetraevangelion

gelia always reflects the newer, ‘Preslav’ redaction. The answer is that probably many, if not most, Ohrid-redaction gospels substituting a different antigraph for the last portion of John did not use a substitute source with ‘Preslav’ lexicon: the textual seams in those manuscripts that change redaction are simply more easily recognized because of the dramatic change in lexicon.4 Moreover, the fact that two Ohrid-redaction gospels shift to Preslav-associated lexicon in John is not evidence in itself that they are closely related, if they do not share the same major textual-level features. In the case of Jav, Vk, and DBC, Vk’s ‘Preslav’ portion contains some of the unusual syntactic and textual features of DBC’s ‘Preslav’ portion, but Jav does not (see s. 2.5.1). Hence Jav and DBC are related only in the sense that they are two Ohrid-redaction tetraevangelia, from different Ohrid textual versions, which shift to different ‘Preslav’-lexicon textual versions in the middle of John. The question remaining is whether the DBC family’s ‘Preslav’ half of John was taken from a long lectionary in the Vk tradition, or, alternatively, whether Vk’s Preslav’ portion (which constitutes most of the text) was compiled from a tetraevangelion version related to the DBC’s ‘Preslav’ portion. Both these scenarios could be right, if we consider the view that long lectionaries were compiled originally from a liturgical tetraevangelion for their weekday readings, and that Slavic liturgical tetraevangelia were originally compiled from Slavic long lectionaries (Pentkovskij 1988). What suggests that Vk’s predominantly Preslav-associated portions were compiled from a long lectionary is that some of its first lections, for Easter and the weeks following it, are substituted from an older Ohrid redaction, including the lection for the second Sunday after Easter, from the second-to-last chapter of John, 20: 19–31. If the textual seams in Vk were taken from a tetraevangelion that switched from an older to a newer redaction in mid-John, it would be unlikely that this lection would contain the same older lexicon as the surrounding lections for after Easter, which are from the first chapters in John. We cannot be certain that Vk’s ‘Preslav’ portions are in fact from the Simeon-era Preslav textual redaction, because there are no published studies in the literature that identify textual as opposed to lexical features of the original late ninth–early tenth-century Preslav translation of the Gospels. Indeed, in light of Alekseev’s observation that many thirteenth­century Serbian liturgical tetraevangelia simply replace certain Ohrid-associated lexemes with Preslav-associated ones, it is quite likely that the ‘Preslav’ portions of Vk, and of Jav and DBC, are not from the Preslav redaction at all. For the purposes of this study, however, the distinction between the actual ‘Preslav’ textual tradition and the lexical characteristics of that tradition is relatively unimportant: the main issue is the observable shift in mid-John from one textual version to another, regardless of whether the second version is from the same general underlying redaction as the first. 4  The distinction between the Preslav redaction and the Preslav-associated lexicon is fuzzy. Alekseev notes that many Serbian liturgical tetraevangelia from the thirteen century combine the structure of the old Ohrid tetraevangelia with certain lexical features characteristic of the ‘Preslav’-era long lectionaries (1999: 173). Alekseev offers B as an example of this new type of liturgical tetraevangelion (174), although, of course, B’s ‘Preslav’ lexemes are found only in one portion of the Gospel text.

curzon_2.indb 6

02/06/2008 09:19:56

1.3.  Lectionary influence on DBC

7

With regard to the DBC tradition, it seems less likely that the switch to a newer redaction, or version, occurred when the liturgical tetraevangelion was being compiled from a lectionary, both because the switch occurs in the middle of a lection, and, more significantly, because the newer lexicon also occurs in transition verses between lections that appear only in tetraevangelia (Jo 11: 55 židovьska(ja), 11: 57 starĕišiny žьrьčьsky). Although it is possible that the lexical consistency was the result of editing by the compiler of the DBC antigraph from a long lectionary and a tetraevangelion, it is more likely that the DBC textual seam had already been established in a tetraevangelion ancestor of DBC. Jav is essentially eliminated as an identifiable relative of the DBC family, because its parallel textual seam is similar to DBC’s and Vk’s only in its general location and general switch to Preslav-associated vocabulary, while those Jav lexical variants in the same portion of John that are not stereotypical Preslavisms often differ markedly from DBC’s and Vk’s (see s. 2.7.3). Thus the location of a textual seam in the middle of John between an Ohrid redaction textual version and a textual version containing Preslav-associated lexicon carries no implications in itself that a manuscript containing this feature is related to other manuscripts that have the same type of lexicon-based textual seam in the same general location. 1.3.  Lectionary influence on DB C The version of the early Ohrid redaction underlying DBC Mk 1: 1–Jo 11: 54 exhibits considerable similarities with the lectionary tradition; for instance, lectionary-style incipits appear as part of the text in the beginning verses of many lections, some tetraevangelion verses that do not appear in lectionaries are omitted, and specific lexical and textual variants often correspond with those in early OCS lectionaries (A, the Vatican Palimpsest Gospel (V), and the Savvina Kniga (S)) more closely than with the variants in the canonical tetraevangelia Z and M. These features suggest that the version of the early redaction which DBC follows may have been originally from an early lectionary tradition, and this should not be particularly surprising, for a liturgical tetraevangelion. How exactly these ‘lectionary-type’ features were acquired by DBC, however, is unclear: most likely the lections in DBC, or in a predecessor liturgical tetraevangelion (at least up to the early textual seam at John 11: 54), were reorganized from a continuous tetraevangelion by a scribe who copied the tetraevangelion text but consulted a lectionary gospel at the same time, in order to incorporate the rubrication and wording of incipits. It is not impossible, however, that at least some of the lectionary features entered DBC through inattentiveness of the DBC scribe or a predecessor, who was unable to screen out a familiar lectionary version of particular verses, when copying them from a tetraevangelion.5 Indeed, by the thirteenth century, a considerable amount of textual contamination had occurred in both directions between lectionaries and tetraevangelia, and for this rea5  Another possibility is that DBC reflects an early tetraevangelion version of the Ohrid redaction that was closer to the lectionary tradition than to the canonical OCS continuous tetraevangelia. This hypothesis, however, would not account for the occasional omissions of tetraevangelion text immediately preceding lections (see s. 2.6.1).

curzon_2.indb 7

02/06/2008 09:19:56

8

The Liturgical Tetraevangelion

son, although many individual lexical and textual features of the DBC version of MLJ correspond to those of specific lectionary manuscripts, I shall avoid labeling these as ‘lectionary’ and ‘tetraevangelion’ variants (cf. e.g. Horálek 1954; Dobrev 1979).6 A more appropriate framework for future textual comparisons may be between the textual traditions of liturgical tetraevanglia such as DBC, and of non-liturgical tetraevangelia such as the Nikola Gospel (N) and Jav (see Vrana 1960). The division of the continuous Gospel text into lections in DBC generally follows the organization in Vk and in the later Serbian Hilandar long lectionary gospel (H). This correspondence is not surprising, of course, since liturgical tetraevangelia were composed in reliance on long lectionaries either directly, or indirectly, by consultation of full synaxaria, which themselves reflect the lection organization in long lectionaries. For this reason, the lection is the basic unit of textual analysis in the study of DBC features of MLJ in Chapter 2, and of C and DBC Matthew in Chapter 4. The DBC and C textual versions are compared with short lectionary versions also, as potential indirect influences. Indeed, in one instance in the C version of Matthew, direct parallels are found with S (see s. 5.3.3.6).

1.4.  Reconstruction of the common DB C ancestor 1.4.1.  Redactions underlying the DBC version of MLJ As suggested earlier in this chapter, the primary distinguishing textual feature of the DBC family is that it reflects an early Ohrid redaction up to Jo 11: 54, where there is a shift to certain later, Preslav-associated lexemes. In very rough accordance with the general principles set forth by Maas (1960), the basic relationships among D, B, and C can be illustrated in a skeletal stemma in which a and b represent hypothetical ancestor manuscripts, and in which there may be any number of intervening antigraphs between any one tier and the next (see Fig. 1.1). 1.4.2.  Reconstruction blueprint The next three chapters sketch a broad reconstruction blueprint for the DBC, CB, and C versions of MLJ, setting forth the most significant identifying features of each. Chapter 2 identifies the major global features of the DBC version, followed by a lection-by-lection presentation of notable shared DBC idiosyncracies in specific locations. Chapter 3 looks at the major structural, orthographic, morphological, lexical, and textual features that distinguish CB 6  The existence of tetraevangelia and lectionaries which are textually related to each other, such as the late thirteenthcentury Serbian Raško Hilandar tetraevangelion and the H long lectionary, suggests that the tetraevangelion–lectionary distinction may be more relevant generally for the reconstruction of lectionary traditions, which, particularly in the case of long lectionaries, are more likely to have been compiled from tetraevangelia than vice versa; compare, however, Jagić’s observation that while Matthew through Luke in the the twelfth-century Macedonian Dobromir liturgical tetraevangelion (Dm) reflect a tetraevangelion source, Dm’s version of John appears to have been based, for unknown reasons, on a lectionary source instead (1898 [1960]: 4).

curzon_2.indb 8

02/06/2008 09:19:56

1.4.  Reconstruction of the common DBC ancestor MLJ to c. Jo 11: 54 early Ohrid redaction

Jo 11: 54 on ?(probably early Ohrid redaction)

a

b

9

DBC CB C

D B

Figure 1.1  The basic relationships among D, B, and C

from its DBC ancestor, as well as major CB features of the portions of MLJ text that are missing from D. Chapter 4 identifies the departures in C from B that represent post-CB changes, and examines what they suggest about later orthographic and lexical influences on C.

curzon_2.indb 9

02/06/2008 09:19:56

2 Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John 2.1.  Introduction 2.1.1.  The relationship among D, B, and C This chapter is devoted to the significant shared features in MLJ that establish the DBC family as a distinct textual tradition, focusing particularly on features common to D, B, and C that depart from the canonical OCS tetraevangelia Z and M and are not shared, at least in the same verse locations, by most or all of the other gospel manuscripts in the comparison corpus. Paleographic and orthographic features of C and B indicate that they are younger than D by at least a century. They are also more closely related to each other on the textual level than either is to D, sharing, in particular, many idiosyncracies and inadvertent errors. There is no direct evidence that C and B were copied from the same immediate antigraph, nor, as explained earlier, was one copied directly from the other. Systemic orthographic differences, and occasional lexical differences, between C and B suggest at least one intervening antigraph between the earliest CB antigraph and C and B; thus the relationship between C and B can be deemed cousinly, rather than sisterly. It is not impossible that the common CB antigraph itself shares an immediate antigraph with D, but comparison of the three manuscripts does not provide enough evidence to draw this conclusion. B contains a number of alterations and emendations to the DBC version, including corrections of numerous errors shared by C and D that must have stemmed from the DBC antigraph. B is the most carefully written of the three manuscripts, while the C scribe is the least confident of the three, and the least knowledgeable of Greek and OCS, as demonstrated by his slavish and often uncomprehending reproduction of orthographic variants and textual garblings from his immediate antigraph. Yet despite its many faults, C is somewhat more reliable than B as a tool for reconstructing the DBC antigraph, for two reasons: it is textually more conservative than B, and physically the most intact of the three manuscripts, preserving all the portions of MLJ missing from B and D, including one portion that is lost from both. 2.1.2.  Methodology and conventions The data presented in this chapter are from a close comparison of the MLJ portion of D, B, and C against a corpus of eleven gospel texts: canonical OCS Z, M, A, S and V, the East ­Slavic

curzon_2.indb 10

02/06/2008 09:19:56

2.1.  Introduction

11

Ostromir Gospel (O), Serbian long lectionaries Vk and H, and the Bulgarian Vraca, Kohno and Plovdiv lectionaries (VrKP)).1 Although tracing the Greek sources for the DBC Gospel version is outside the scope of this study, where a shared DBC departure from Z and M corresponds to a well-known minority Greek textual variant, I have relied for reproduction of the Greek equivalent on the critical apparati to the Nestle–Aland and Soden (1913) Greek reconstructions, and the annotations to Jagić’s (1883 [1960]) edition of M. A rough English translation is provided for each Slavic variant cited in this chapter. For translations of OCS lexemes into English, I have relied on Sadnik and Aitzetmüller’s dictionary (1955), and Lunt’s OCS glossary (1959). The English translations are not intended to be precise or to indicate the precise difference in meaning, if any, between equivalent Slavic lexical variants—indeed it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a particular lexical item in a fourteenth-century Bulgarian manuscript had the same meaning for scribes as it did earlier in OCS manuscripts, particularly in instances where the lexical variant in the later manuscript appears in a different location. The purpose of the rough translations is to provide the general meaning of the OCS and standard Greek equivalents of DBC lexical and textual variants for readers not familiar with OCS and New Testament Greek. The English translations are mine for the most part, unless specified as a quotation from the King James version (KJ) or New International Version (NIV) of the Gospel text. In the English translations, I have not translated verbatim all morphosyntactic structures in the Church Slavonic text, but instead, I have tried to render the meaning of the text without grammatical glosses, except where necessary. 2.1.3.  Chapter organization Sections 2.2–4 are brief summaries of the common orthographic, morphological, and syntactic features shared by D, B, and C in specific textual locations that can be inferred with relative confidence to have been present in the DBC antigraph. Section 2.5 presents the DBC lexical features, including the lexical evidence for the location of the shared DBC ‘Ohrid/Preslav’ textual seam at Jo 11: 54 (s. 2.5.1), shared archaisms and Graecisms (s. 2.5.2), the distributions of other shared lexical variants in MLJ (s. 2.5.3–4), and shared lexical innovations (s. 2.5.5). Section 2.6 discusses general text-level features of the DBC antigraph; Section 2.7 provides a broad lection-by-lection reconstruction of the more significant individual textual features that distinguish the DBC textual version of MLJ from other known versions. General conclusions are drawn in Section 2.8. For the full inventory of shared DBC textual features, including minor features such as shared presence or absence of conjunction i ‘and’, readers are referred to the annotations to the C text in the edition volume. Since the annotations to the edition provide the D and B variants of all unusual C forms, and all variations of D and B from C forms, in this chapter I have generally confined the examples of described DBC orthographic, morphological, and syntactic forms to just one or two illustrations apiece. 1  Compare the preliminary article on the relationship between C and B (Vakareliyska 1993), where comparisons with D, B, and C were limited to Z, M, A, O, Dm, K, P, and the Ivan Alexander Gospel (Iv).

curzon_2.indb 11

02/06/2008 09:19:56

12

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

2.2.  Shared DB C orthographic features Although the reconstruction of the general orthographic features of the DBC antigraph is greatly hampered by the use of different orthographic systems in D, B, and C, certain shared spellings in the same verse locations provide evidence of isolated orthographic details of the common DBC ancestor. Since detailed descriptions of the D and B systems are provided by Conev (1906) and D&R (1981), this chapter discusses only those shared features of D, B, and C that are relevant to reconstruction of the DBC antigraph. A fuller description of C’s orthographic system is in Chapter 4. 2.2.1.  Shared characteristic features of post-OCS western Bulgarian manuscripts D has the most traditional orthographic system of the three manuscripts, using both the ‘jus minor’ grapheme (å), which in OCS represented the etymological front nasal vowel *ę, and the ‘jus major’ (ø), representing the etymological back nasal vowel *o˛—although the preservation of this orthographic pair does not mean that the Common Slavic nasal vowels were preserved in the D scribe’s dialect, since denasalization of *ę and *o˛ was already underway by the thirteenth century,2 when D was most likely written. D also preserves both the back jer (ß), which represented the etymological back reduced vowel *ъ, and the front jer (´), representing the etymological front reduced vowel *ь. As is characteristic of Bulgarian Church Slavonic manuscripts,3 D contains many substitutions of one jer for the other, reflecting a loss of phonological distinction between the two reduced front and back vowels as the consonants dispalatalized in the Middle Bulgarian vernacular. In contrast, the alternations in D between jus minor and jus major are relatively systematic, with the jus major ø following a letter representing any (now-hardened) palatal consonant, regardless of whether the nasal vowel the jus represents is etymologically *o˛ or *ę: e.g. D ‚ø for OCS šę (‚å). Otherwise, following nonpalatal consonant letters, D generally preserves the OCS orthographic distinction between *ę and *o˛. D sometimes uses the variant œ where a jus major immediately follows another vowel letter (e.g. -êœ), and • where a jus minor does (e.g. -å•). Like D, B uses a jus major, but in the paleographic variant z, to represent etymological *o˛. Unlike D, however, B frequently substitutes the jus major for the jus minor (å) as the representation of etymological *ę, and, conversely, sometimes substitutes the jus minor for the jus major to represent etymological *o˛ (for details, see Dogramadžieva’s analysis in D&R 1981: 31). As is common in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century western Bulgarian manuscripts, B uses a single jer grapheme, ´, to represent both the front and back OCS reduced vowels, reflecting systemically the post-OCS South Slavic dispalatalization of consonants. 2  The vernacular language spoken by the Slavs during the period c. 800–1100; cf. Early Common Slavic, c. 500–800. The literary language Old Church Slavonic is based on a generalized Bulgaro-Macedonian Slavic dialect of Late Common Slavic. 3  The term ‘Bulgarian Church Slavonic’, or ‘Bulgarian Church Slavonic recension’, refers to the post–1100 version of Church Slavonic that reflects Bulgarian phonological, morphological, and lexical features.

curzon_2.indb 12

02/06/2008 09:19:56

2.2.  Shared DBC orthographic features

13

C has the same single-jer convention as B, but it also has only one jus letter, å, representing both *ę and *o˛ (see fuller discussion in s. 4.3). The paleographic variant z, or ‘middle jus’, occurs only sporadically in C, but it is not used as a jus major as in B. Instead, the middle jus, when it occurs at all, appears word-initially or immediately after another vowel letter, and can represent either etymological *o˛ or *ę (see s. 4.3.3). None of the three manuscripts tends to substitute a jer (or, in D’s case, the back jer ß) for a jus major, as is common to many Bulgarian Church Slavonic manuscripts, except in specific words where it likely reflects a dialect variant of a particular lexeme (see s. 4.3.9.4). Other pervasive Bulgarian Church Slavonic orthographic conventions shared by D, B, and C include alternations of y and i, with fairly regular izyd- for OCS izid- ‘go out’; and the contraction of OCS definite adjectival suffixes (m./n. gen. sg. -aego/-aago, m/n. dat. -uumu/​ ‑uemu). For masculine/neuter genitive singular, D generally has contracted -ago, while C and B substitute the pronominal definite suffix -ogo. For masculine/neuter dative singular, all three manuscripts use the pronominal definite suffix -omu (-emu), with a few exceptions (for C, see 4.4.1).4 D exhibits more Macedonian-associated orthographic tendencies than C or B. Particularly striking is its frequent representation of historical back jers in strong position as o, which reflects the lowered reflex in Macedonian dialects, and a minority of western Bulgarian ones, as in påtokß (pętokъ, fol. 16v1), for canonical OCS påtßkß (pętъkъ).5 While all three manuscripts usually represent a historical front jer in strong position as ê, the reflex in both Macedonian and western Bulgarian dialects, C and B seldom write a strong back jer as anything other than ´ in their single-jer systems, with the few exceptions discussed later in this chapter, and in Sections 3.3.1.4 and 4.3.2. As is typical of Bulgarian Church Slavonic manuscripts, a weak front jer in tense position, which orthographically is directly preceded or followed by another vowel letter, is usually written in all three manuscripts as i (i): for instance, deverbal noun suffix -iê for canonical OCS spelling -´ê. In C and B, generally a front jer in tense position is written as i even if it also is in strong position. The most prominent exception to this rule, however, is the spelling of the post-OCS m. nom. 3Sg demonstrative pronoun sьjь ‘this one’, which regularly appears in C and B as s´i (sьi; cf. an exception in C, 2.2.2), and in B also occasionally as s¥i (syi), while D generally has sêi (sei), treating the jer as strong. The tense back jer in the post-OCS m. 3Sg pronoun form tъjь ‘that one’ is also written by D as strong (toi, toi). As expected, CB generally do not treat this back jer as strong (cf. exception in 2.2.2.2), but neither do they treat it as tense by writing it as tyi (t¥i); instead, they preserve the jer, which they reproduce as ´ in their single-jer systems (t´i, tьi). 4  Other DBC orthographic features characteristic of 13th–14th c. western Bulgarian manuscripts are the orthographic reflection of consonant voicing and devoicing assimilation, and simplification of consonant clusters, as a result of the loss of the reduced vowels in weak position, that is, in a syllable immediately followed by another syllable that has a vowel other than a jer, or in a word-final syllable (e.g. zde for OCS sьde ‘here’). 5  A jer is in strong position if it is in a syllable immediately followed by a syllable containing a weak jer. The strong jers generally lowered to full vowels. In Macedonian and western Bulgarian dialects, strong *ь lowered to /e/; in Macedoniantype dialects like D’s, strong *ъ lowered to /o/; in Bulgarian-type dialects like C’s and B’s, the reflex of the strong *ъ was a mid-vowel similar to /ә/. The jer shift began in South Slavic dialects during the tenth century and is already reflected in OCS manuscripts.

curzon_2.indb 13

02/06/2008 09:19:57

14

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

2.2.2.  Shared spellings of specific words The shared orthographic features discussed above are common in later western Bulgarian manuscripts, and thus are not significant indicators of the features of the common DBC ancestor manuscript. More instructive for reconstructing the DBC antigraph are consistent shared orthographic anomalies in specific words and in specific verse locations. The most noteworthy of these are presented in this subsection; for a full inventory, see the annotations to the C text in the edition.6 2.2.2.1.  i-elision Like many other Bulgarian Church Slavonic manuscripts, D, B, and C often omit word-initial i (i) directly preceding another vowel letter in foreign names, e.g. juda (üda) for OCS ijuda (iüda) ‘Judas’. The instances where all three manuscripts share an initial i-elision in the same verse location are of some interest, since at least some of these may reflect the common antigraph’s spelling in that location; for example, DBC skariotьskyi for OCS iskariotьskyi ‘Iscariot’ at Mk 14: 10, the abbreviated form of variant erusalimъ for OCS ierusalimъ ‘Jerusalem’ at Mk 15: 41, and judei- for OCS ijudei- at Lu 1: 65.7 2.2.2.2.  Jers As noted in 2.2.1, the representation of the strong back jer as o is not a regular feature of either C or B, and it can be inferred from this that [o] was not the reflex of strong back jers in the dialect or dialects underlying the CB antigraph. Therefore, it can be inferred that those particular lexemes in which CB regularly share with D an o for strong jer probably were written with o in the DBC antigraph. It cannot be determined, however, whether the o in these locations also reflects a dialect pronunciation shared by the C and B scribes, because many scribes simply copied spellings from their immediate antigraphs. Since C and B use o for etymological strong back jer in some locations where D does not, their spelling may reflect the dialect of the earlier CB scribe, and/or perhaps the dialect of a post-DBC predecessor, or it may simply indicate that the D scribe, influenced by his own dialect or that of a predecessor, has strayed from the DBC spelling while CB preserves it. The spelling of a strong back jer as o occurs in all three manuscripts at Mk 3: 25 in domotъ ‘that house’ (OCS domъ tъ), and at Mk 14: 12 in the gen. pl. form oprĕsnokъ ‘unleavened bread’ (OCS oprešnъkъ), and in D and C in the adjectival form oprĕsnočьnyi (OCS oprešnъčьnyi) at Lu 22: 1 and 7, where B is missing a folio. These are likely features of the DBC antigraph,8 but načętokь for OCS načętъkъ (‘begin6  To the extent possible, shared orthographic and other variants are presented in this volume in normalized Roman transliteration, without reproducing or comparing orthographic differences among the manuscripts that are predictable from the rules of their individual orthographic systems. Thus, for example, a shared DBC orthographic variant of a word that contained an etymological back jer in OCS will reproduce the jer as ъ, even though B and C write that jer as ь in their single-jer orthographic systems. 7  The D and B equivalents of each instance in C of names beginning in i followed by another vowel letter are recorded in the annotations to the edition. 8  C has the anomalies oprĕsnočky at Lu 22: 1 and oprĕsnoky at 22: 7. In the latter instance, the o actually represents an etymological *ъ in weak position, where it would be expected not to lower. This anomaly suggests strongly that the C scribe was copying the gen. pl. form, with lowered strong jer, and inadvertently substituted the acc. C also shares with D gen. pl. oprĕsnokъ at Mt 26: 17; cf. acc. pl. oprĕsnъky, with weak jer, in the same verse of B’s unrelated Matthew version.

curzon_2.indb 14

02/06/2008 09:19:57

2.2.  Shared DBC orthographic features

15

ning’) at Jo 8: 25, in C and B alone, is less clear, since this form does not appear elsewhere in the Gospel text. An etymologically weak back jer is represented as o, as if strong, in both occurrences of the OCS verb upъvajo˛tъ ‘hope’, ‘have faith’, at Mt 27: 43 (DBC aor. oûpova), Lu 11: 22 (DBC nonpast oûpovaœtß) and, in C and B, at Mk 10: 24 (pres. ac. part. oûpovaåwim´, D mis. fol.). The co-occurrence at the end of Matthew indicates that at least in B, the lowering of the jer was not a reflection of the DBC antigraph, since B has a separate Matthew version. More interesting is the shared orthographic treatment of an etymological strong back jer as a lowered strong front jer in Mt 25: 6, in the dialect form veplь (OCS vъplь ‘a cry’; see Rusek 1974). Here too, the correspondence in D, B, and C could reflect merely a common regional pronunciation, but the fact that this dialect form is not widespread points instead to the DBC antigraph as its source. Another shared feature is the representation of the neutral front jer in OCS skrьžьt- ‘gnash’ as e, as if it were in strong position, both in Mk 9: 18 (3P n.p. skrežeštetъ) and Lu 13: 28 (m. n. sg. noun skrežetъ ‘gnashing’). That this orthographic variant occurs throughout the different D, B, and C versions of Matthew, at 8: 12 (D mis. fol.), 13: 42, 50, 22: 13 (D mis. fol.), 24: 51, and 25: 30, indicates that its co-occurrence is independent of the DBC antigraph. Similarly, the three manuscripts consistently share žezl- for OCS žьzl- ‘rod’, ‘staff ’ at Mk 6: 8 and Lu 9: 3; see also CB Mt 10: 10 (D mis. fol.). The OCS root svьt- ‘shine’ is metathesized to sьvt- in C and B, apparently having been reanalyzed in the DBC antigraph as the prefixed stem sъ-vьt- with the weak front jer later dropped, as suggested by the occasional spelling sъvьt- in D: Lu 17: 24 DC 3P n.p. sъvtitь/ sьvtitь sę (B mis. fol.), Jo 1: 5 DBC 3P n.p. sъvtitь/sьvtitь sę (OCS svьtitъ sę); Jo 5: 35 CB m. nom. sg. pres. part. sьvtę (OCS svьtę; D has a different stem, svĕt-) and, later in the same verse, DBC n. gen. sg. noun sъv(ь)tĕnija (C sьvьt-, B sьvt-, D sъvъt-; OCS svьtĕnьja ‘­shining’). Also characteristic of C and B, and fairly frequent in D, is the later post-OCS convention of inserting a superfluous front jer into the OCS 1PSg n.p. stem esm- ‘I am’, resulting in the disyllabic variant esьm-. B occasionally substitutes a back jus for the superfluous jer in this form («søm´, jeso˛mь), although otherwise back jus for back jer is not a characteristic B feature. A separate issue is DBC usьmn- sę for OCS uso ˛ mьn- ‘doubt’ in Mk 11: 23. The consistency of this orthographic variant in all three manuscripts here, in their separate versions of Mt 14: 31, and in both the DC and B versions of Mt 28: 17, and D’s consistent use of a front jer rather than back jer for OCS *o˛ in this stem, where C and B have no choice but to use a front jer, indicate that the spelling reflects a regional dialect. 2.2.2.3.  Other shared orthographic variants Greek upsilon (u) is always spelled as i in Greek miro ‘myrrh’ in the three manuscripts, and as either i or u in toponyms. Like many other Bulgarian and Macedonian manuscripts of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, D, B, and C frequently substitute k for x in OCS pasxa ‘Passover’, but not routinely in the same locations: cf. Jo 2: 13, where all three, probably coincidentally, have paska.

curzon_2.indb 15

02/06/2008 09:19:57

16

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

OSC sĕmo ‘hither, to here’ is spelled consistently in D and C as samo, reflecting a dialect variant, throughout all four Gospel Books. B vacillates, with sĕmo at Mt 17: 17, 22: 12, Mk 11: 3, Lu 14: 21 and samo at Lu 9: 41, 19: 27, Jo 4: 15, 16, 6: 25, 20: 27. The regularity in D and C suggests strongly that samo was a DBC feature that the B scribe, or a post-CB predecessor, ­occasionally emended, and the vacillation itself indicates that the scribe in B’s history who occasionally changed samo to sĕmo must have been familiar with the dialect form. Significant orthographic variants shared by D and C alone and attributable to the DBC antigraph are the following: thoma (ƒoma) for ZMB toma (toma) ‘Thomas’ throughout the four Gospel Books, with the exceptions of Jo 14: 5 and 20: 27, where C has toma (in the latter, possibly influenced by po tomь ‘after that’ earlier in the sentence); the unusual iotated variant janъna/jana for ZMB et al. anna ‘Anne’ at Lu 2: 36 (later corrected to anъna in D); o for strong back jer in the abbreviation crkovnaja (OCS crьkъvьnaja; cf. B’s abbreviation crkvna) ‘church’ (adj.) at Lu 23: 45 and in m. sg. toi ‘that one, he’ at Jo 21: 22 (cf. B tьi, the usual CB form; ZM tъ); and, in Jo 21: 24, the shared spelling of post-OCS sьjь (m. nom. sg. ‘this one’) as sei (sêi), which is characteristic of D but not of C or B (see s. 2.2.2.2; note also that B’s neuter singular form se (sê) here almost certainly reflects a misreading of the DC form sei in the CB antigraph). Finally, parallel DC orthographic anomalies at Jo 19: 29, where D has masculine nominative plural past active participle vъzьnьše (vßzN´`‚ê) and C has vьnьzьši (v´n´z´‚i; cf. B vьzьnьzьše, OCS vъznьzъše ‘having put on’), which omit one of the z’s and also stray from the DBC convention of writing strong front jers as e, are evidence of a corruption in the DBC antigraph that was corrected by either the B scribe or a post-CB predecessor. 2.3.  Shared morphological features Widespread morphological innovations shared by D, B, and C include frequent co-occurrences of the simple nominal declension locative singular suffix -i for anomalous simple declension suffix ‑e, as in crьkъvi for OCS crьkъve at Mk 11: 27, and regularly co-occurring -sta for the OCS 3P dual aorist ending -ste, as in Mk 7: 35 razvrьzosta sę ‘opened’. All three tend to use the later productive aorist forms in MLJ, with the exception, common to postOCS manuscripts, of the old aorist forms rĕxъ ‘I said’ and rĕšę ‘they said’ instead of productive rekoxъ and rekošę, respectively, and, less frequently, the old aorist form ido˛ ‘they went’ instead of productive idošę. Other shared common post-OCS morphological variants are the infinitive form pogresti for OCS pogreti ‘bury’ at Lu 9: 59, 60, and in C and B’s separate nonDBC Matthew versions at 8: 21 (D mis. fol.); and the long-form demonstrative pronoun tъjь for OCS tъ ‘that (one)’, mentioned in Section 2.2.1, which is also characteristic of Vr. There are two shared instances of the resultative participle znajali (B znaali) at Jo 14: 7 for ZM et al. plural resultative participle znali ‘known’. At Lu 2: 41, each manuscript has a different innovative prefixed third-person dual imperfect variant that combines the contracted imperfect suffix -ĕ-/-a- with the aorist dual desinence -sta in place of the imperfect dual -šete: D vъsxoždasta ‘went up’, B vьsxodĕsta ‘went in’, C isxodĕsta ‘went out’; cf. ZM xoždaašete ‘went’. C and B’s variants have an uniotated d here, as in the aorist form, instead of expected

curzon_2.indb 16

02/06/2008 09:19:57

2.4.  DBC syntactic innovations

17

žd preceding the imperfect suffix. The other unusual morphological forms attributable to the DBC antigraph are the contracted third-person singular imperfect variant vъlazĕše ‘entered’, without iotation of the z (cf. OCS vъlažaaše, inf. vъlaziti), at Jo 5: 4; the anomalous noun desinence -ĕi for OCS a-stem feminine dative singular -ĕ, which occurs twice in Lu 1: 27 (DBC dĕvĕi ‘to the maiden’, ZM dĕvĕ); and, at Lu 9: 52, the adjective stem samareisk- for ZMVkH samarĕnьsk- ‘Samaritan’, likely the result of a misreading of n (n) as i (i) by the DBC copyist or a predecessor. 2.4.  DB C syntactic innovations The DBC Gospel version is less in lockstep with Greek word order than Z and M are; compare, for example, DBC Lu 14: 22 eže povelĕ i byštъ ‘what you commanded has been done’ with bystъ eže/jakože povelĕ ‘it has been done what/as you commanded’ (gevgonen o] ejpevtaxa”) in ZM and the other manuscripts in the comparison corpus (hereafter ‘ZM et al.’). A less literal approach to Greek constructions is also illustrated by the DBC tendency to replace the Greek-influenced formula ‘and answering, he said’ to simply ‘he answered’: e.g. Lu 20: 3, DBC ‘Jesus answered them’ (otъvĕšta že kъ nimъ isusъ), ZMVk otъvĕštavъ že (Vk +isusъ) reče kъ nimъ ‘answering them, he (Vk ‘Jesus’) said to them’ (ajpokriqei;” de’ ei\pen pro;” aujtouv”). The DBC version is also much less consistent than ZM in rendering the Greek postparticle de; as the Slavic postparticle že, favoring instead the conjunction i (‘and’): e.g. DBC Lu 15: 25 i reče (‘and he said’), with S, for ZM et al. reče že (ei\pen de;). Most occurrences of the innovative construction ašte . . . to ‘if . . . then’ for ZM ašte . . . Ø ‘if ’ that Dogramadžieva cites in B (D&R 1981: 60) are shared by C and D: Mk 7: 4, 9: 23, Lu 13: 9, 14: 32, 19: 31 (D mis. fol.), Jo 15: 20, 18: 36. C and D also share the construction with B in several non-ZM locations not noted by Dogramadžieva: Mk 7: 3 (D mis. fol.), Lu 17: 6, 19: 31 (D mis. fol.; ZM ašte . . . tako ‘if . . . so’). ‘If . . . then’ occurs in C and D alone at Jo 11: 57 (B mis. fol.) and at Jo 20: 15, where B has simply ‘if ’. Conversely, D and B share ‘if . . . then’ at Jo 8: 42, where C has only ‘if ’. In Lu 13: 9, all three have the garbling ašte ne sъtvoritъ ploda. to . . . ‘if it does not bear fruit, then . . .’, for ZM ašte ubo sъtvoritъ plodъ. ašte li ni . . . ‘for if it bears fruit, (good,) and if not . . .’ (also standard Greek ka]n me;n poihvsh/ karpo;n eijı to; mevllon. eij de; mhv ge . . . .). Shared DBC constructions with to in the meaning of ‘then’, but without ašte ‘if ’, are Jo 18: 37 to cĕsarь li esi ty ‘then are you a king?’, for ZM ubo cĕsarь . . . ‘for are you . . . ?’ (M contains to as a later Cyrillic insertion), and Lu 17: 17 ne desętь li čistišę sę. to devętь po čьto ne vъzvratišę sę ‘Did not ten cleanse themselves? Then why did nine not return?’ (cf. ZM et al. da, ‘that’). Note also DC anomalous to, corrected in B to masculine third-person singular nominative demonstrative tъ ‘the latter’, as in ZM, before kako emu estъ synъ at Mk 12: 37 (DC ‘then how is he his son?’, ZMB ‘how is the latter his son?’); cf. B elsewhere generally post-OCS tьjь for ZM tъ. The peculiarly placed dative absolute construction pręklonьšju že sę dьni ‘the day having drawn to a close’, which begins Lu 9: 12 both in DBC and in Dm, appears redactional in

curzon_2.indb 17

02/06/2008 09:19:58

18

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

nature for two reasons: first, because Dm is not closely related to DBC, and second, because the construction, which appears to introduce a lection, is not a part of the lection that begins later in the same verse, but instead may reflect an earlier lectionary division in a slightly different location.9 ZM have here dьnь že načętъ prĕklanĕti sę ‘and the day began to draw to a close’, which is closer to the standard Greek text JH de; hJmevra h[rxato klivnein. Also of redactional interest is the distinctive DBC positioning of the subordinate clause ‘since it was Friday’ at the end of Jo 19: 31, which is discussed more fully in 2.7.3. 2.5.  DB C lexical features Shared DBC lexical features can be subdivided into four general categories: parallel distributions of Ohrid-associated and Preslav-associated lexical variants, in the vicinity of the textual seam at Jo 11: 54, where DBC shifts from an early Ohrid redaction to a redaction containing lexical ‘Preslavisms’, and elsewhere (s. 2.5.1); shared unusual archaisms and Graecisms (s. 2.5.2); shared non-‘Preslav’ lexical distributions (s. 2.5.3); and shared lexical innovations (s. 2.5.4). 2.5.1.  Lexical evidence of the textual seam at Jo 11: 54 2.5.1.1.  Distribution of Ohrid- and Preslav-associated lexemes The DBC version of Matthew (as represented in D and C), Mark, Luke, and the first half of John, up to c. 11: 54, reflects an early Cyrillo-Methodian, Ohrid-associated redaction on both the textual and lexical levels. Jo 11: 54 is the location of the textual seam, or shift between the DBC Ohrid-associated redaction, and a different redaction containing certain later, Preslavassociated lexemes. DBC return to the older Ohrid-associated lexicon in the last chapter of John, where there appears to be a second textual seam (see ss. 2.7.3, 2.8). Most lexemes identified as ‘Preslav’ are either Slavic substitutions for Greek borrowings in the Ohrid redaction, or younger Slavic lexical variants.10 The inventory of Preslav lexemes is disputed, however, and there is also controversy over whether the ‘Preslav’ redaction was a retranslation from Greek, or simply a lexical revision of the Ohrid redaction.11 While extant eleventh- and twelfth-century psalters containing ‘Preslav’ vocabulary can provide some diagnostic information on the features of the Preslav redaction,12 the difficulty in establish  9 

I am indebted to Horace G. Lunt for bringing this to my attention (pers. comm., 1991). See, for example, the inventories of Ohrid/‘Preslav’ lexical pairs by Dobrev (1979) and Slavova (1989). Alekseev (1998: 25) has observed that each manuscript from the second generation of archaic Ohrid-redaction tetraevangelia (12th–14th c.), in which he includes B and D, contains some reflections (i.e. presumably lexical ones) of a Preslavtype redaction, and that B, D, N, and the long lectionary Ka also show signs of redactional revision. Cooper provides a historical overview and summary of the controversy over the Preslav redaction (2003: 89–96). For a review of the literature, see Stankov (1991). 12  MacRobert (2005) identifies these as the eleventh-century Sinai Psalter, Monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, MS 6; printed edition by M. Altbauer and H. G. Lunt, An Early Slavonic Psalter from Rus’ (Cambridge, Mass. 1978), supplemented by Tarnanides (1988); also Harvard Psalter, attributed by Lunt to the twelfth century, in Altbauer and Lunt, ix: Houghton Library, MS Typ. 221, Harvard University. 10 

 11 

curzon_2.indb 18

02/06/2008 09:19:58

2.5.  DBC lexical features

19

ing even the lexical features of the Preslav redaction for gospels, if a Preslav gospel redaction was even undertaken, is compounded by the facts that there are no gospel manuscripts exhibiting the ‘Preslav’ lexicon from before the thirteenth century, and that no later gospels containing such lexemes can be presumed to be free of contaminations and editorial revisions. Moreover, without extant Simeon-era ‘Preslav’ gospels, there is no evidence of specific syntactic and textual features that can be identified with the Preslav gospel redaction, and therefore there is no way of knowing whether any of the thirteenth-century and later gospels containing the Preslav-associated vocabulary actually reflect the tenth-century redaction, or, on the contrary, whether most or all such manuscripts simply reflect the Ohrid redaction after systematic substitution of archaic lexemes and grammatical constructions with more contemporary ones. Yet another problem, encountered in both later psalters and gospels, is that many later manuscripts are inconsistent in their use of ‘Preslav’ equivalents for Ohrid lexemes, reflecting contamination from multiple sources, and many do not employ all of the lexemes that are generally agreed to reflect the Preslav redaction: an example is the DBC ‘Preslav’ half of John, in which D and C consistently use aminь ‘amen’ instead of Preslav­associated pravo ‘truly’, ‘verily’. Because of the paucity of current data to support the features of the Preslav Gospel redaction—let alone its very existence—no attempt will be made here to trace or identify the redactional origin of the second half of DBC John. Instead, I shall rely on the following list of specific lexical pairs that are generally agreed to distinguish the early Ohrid redaction from later redactions or textual versions (whether ‘Preslav’ or not), in order to document the lexical shift in DBC at Jo 11: 54.13 The pairs presented here are from the ‘Preslav’ lexicon lists compiled by Slavova (1989) and Temčinas (1997b); see also Jagić (1898 [1960]), Dobrev (1979), and Stankov (1991). In each pair below, in alphabetical order of their Greek equivalents, the Ohrid-associated lexeme appears first, followed by the later ‘Preslav’ equivalent. a[mpeloı ‘(grape)vine’. loz- Mk 14: 25, Lu 22: 18; vinograd- Jo 15: 1, 4, 5.14 ajrciereuvı, iJereuv” ‘high priest’. arxierei/arxierĕi Mk 1: 44, 2: 26, 8: 31, 10: 33, 11: 18, 27, 14: 1, 10, 43 (D mis. fol. 14: 13–15: 33), 47, 53bis, 54, 55, 60bis, 61, 63, 66, 15: 1, 3, 10, 11, 31, Lu 3: 2, 9: 22, 19: 47, 20: 1, 22: 2 (B mis. fol. 21: 7–22: 12), 4, 50, 52, 54, 66, 23: 4, 13, 23, 23: 10, 13, 24: 20, Jo 7: 45, 11: 49, 51; starĕišina žьrьčьskъ Jo 7: 32, 11: 47, 57, 12: 10, 18: 3, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, 22, 24, 26, 35, 19: 6,15 15, 21. grafhv ‘writing(s)’. kъnigy Mk 10: 4, 12: 10, 24, 26, 14: 49, Lu 3: 4, 4: 17bis, 20, 16: 7, 20: 42, 23: 38, 24: 27, 32, 45, Jo 2: 22, 5: 39, 47, 7: 15, 38, 42, 10: 35, 19: 24, 20: 30, 21: 25; pьsanьe Mk 15: 28, Lu 4: 21, 18: 31, Jo 19: 28, 37, 20: 9. 13  The list has been compiled on the basis of Temčinas’s contrastive list of lexical items in B (Temčin 1997b: 52–61), and, to a lesser extent, on Jagić’s and Horálek’s lexical lists (Jagić 1899: 4–51, 1913: 281–421; Horálek 1954: 40–124), Slavova’s (1989) list of lexical variants which she identifies as characteristic of the Preslav redaction, and Dogramadžieva’s list of noteworthy lexical items in B (1981: 60–7). The lists in this chapter, and in Chapter 3, are expansions of a preliminary sample lexical collation in Vakareliyska (1993: 14–16). 14  DBC also have loz- for klh’ma ‘branch’ instead of ZM razg-/rozg-, at Jo 15: 2, 4, 5, 6. Since the ZM variant does not occur before Jo 11: 54, DBC loz- in this meaning cannot be assumed to be a Preslavism. 15  The rubric incipit for Jo 19: 6, however, in C, B, and D, has arxierei. C’s rubric incipit is written in black ink as if it were part of the verse. There may be a connection between this error and the fact that that D’s rubric, which takes up two lines of the text, is in brown ink with red fill: the coincidence suggests that the incipit was written in black ink instead of

curzon_2.indb 19

02/06/2008 09:19:58

20

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

zwhv, ‘life’. život- Mk 9: 43, 45, 10: 17, 30, Lu 1: 75, 10: 25, 12: 15, 16: 25 (D and B mis. fol.) 18: 18, 30, Jo 1: 4, 3: 15, 16 (D mis. fol. 3: 1–18), 36, 4: 14, 36, 5: 24bis, 26bis, 29, 39, 40, 6: 27, 33, 35, 40, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54, 57, 63, 68, 8: 12, 10: 10, 28, 11: 25, 14: 6, 16: 25, 14: 6, 20: 31 (B alone); žiznь Jo 12: 25, 50, 17: 2, 3, 20: 31 (DC). The CB SynI explicit to Lu 18: 30 in the CB general synaxarion (SynI), for the tenth Wednesday in the New Year, also has žiznь. jIoudai- ‘Jew-’. ijudei- Mk 1: 5, 7: 3, 13: 14, Lu 5: 32, 7: 17, 21: 21, 23: 5, Jo 1: 19, 2: 18, 20, 3: 22, 25, 4: 9, 22, 54, 5: 10, 15, 16, 18, 6: 41, 52, 71, 7: 1, 11, 15, 35, 8: 22, 33, 41, 48, 52, 57, 9: 18, 10: 19, 24, 31, 33, 11: 8, 19, 31, 33, 36, 45, 19: 19 (C alone, cf. D židov-; B mis. fol.); židov- Jo 11: 54,16 55, 12: 9, 11, 13: 33, 18: 12, 14, 20, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 19: 3, 7, 12 (B mis. fol. 19: 8–26), 14, 19 (D alone here; B mis. fol. 19: 8–27), 20, 21, 31, 38, 40, 42, 20: 19. kh`poı, khpourovı ‘garden’, ‘gardener’. vrьt- Mk 11: 17, Mk 11: 17, Lu 13: 19, 19: 46, Jo 18: 1 (B alone), 20: 15 (C alone, also later emendation of D); grad- Jo 18: 1 (D alone; C om.), 26, 20: 15 (DB). B’s use of the Ohrid variant in the portion of Jo 18: 1 that C omits suggests that the CB antigraph contained a defect there, which was corrected later either in B, or in a postCB antigraph to B. ejn kruptw`/, lavqra ‘secretly’. tai Jo 7: 10 (DBC), 11: 28 (CB only; D otai); otai Jo 18: 20, 19: 38 (D om.). lupevw ‘grieve’, ‘be sorry for’. pf. verb oskrъbĕti (not in DBC); sъžaliti si Jo 21: 17. In the prePreslav portion of DBC, the imperfective form skrъbĕti occurs at Mk 3: 5, 14: 19, Lu 2: 48. marturevw, katamarturevw, kathgorevw ‘testify/testimony’, ‘witness’. sъvĕdĕtelь(stv)- Mk 1: 44, 6: 11, 10: 19, 13: 9, 14: 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 15: 4 (D mis. fol. 14: 14—15: 34), Lu 4: 22, 5: 14, 32, 33, 11: 48, 18: 20, 22: 71, 24: 48, Jo 1: 7, 8, 15, 17, 19, 32, 34, 2: 25, 3: 11, 26, 28, 32, 33, 4: 39, 44; 5: 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 7: 7, 8: 13, 14, 10: 25, 19: 35, 21: 24; poslušьstv- Jo 12: 17, 15: 26, 27; 18: 23, 37.17 pollavkiı, pollaplasivwn ‘many times’. Mk 5: 4 mъnogy kraty, 9: 22 mъnožicejo˛; mъnogašьdi/ mъnogašti Jo 18: 2.18 The B variant mъnožьstvo at Lu 18: 30, noted by Temčinas (1997: 56), also is shared by D and C. 2.5.1.2.  Other lexical shifts The following distributions before and after Jo 11: 54 are of lexical doublets not occurring in Slavova’s or Temčinas’s ‘Preslav’ lexical lists: deuvteron, ejk deutevrou, divı ‘for the second time’. vъtoricejo˛ Jo 21: 16; vъtoroe Mk 14: 30 (D mis. fol.), 72 (D mis. fol.), Jo 3: 4 (D mis. fol.), 9: 24. praitwvrion ‘judgment hall’. pretorъ Mk 15: 16 (B alone; C om., D mis. fol.); so˛dište Jo 18: 33, 19: 13, DBC innovation so˛dilьnica Jo 18: 28bis, CB hybrid so˛dilište Jo 19: 9, s. 3.4.2. red in the shared DBC source, and that after initially copying in black, the D scribe attempted to correct this error by adding red fill to indicate a rubric. 16  This occurrence officially marks the location of the textual seam (see Vakareliyska 1996: 134). 17  The return to the Ohrid-associated lexeme at in Jo 19: 35 and 21: 24 has been observed by Kossek (1984: 65) with respect to D. The CB SynI incipit for Jo 12: 17 (Holy Wed. matins, Holy Thurs. Great Compline) also reflects the textual seam, by containing two occurrences of poslušьstv-. 18  MacRobert has noted that this alternation is random in the early (and possibly earliest) Psalter redaction (pers. comm., 24 Sept. 1999).

curzon_2.indb 20

02/06/2008 09:19:58

2.5.  DBC lexical features

21

trivton, ejk trivtou, trivı ‘for the third time’. tretьicejo˛ Jo 21: 14 (B only), 21: 17a (CB only), 17b (B only); tretьe Mk 14: 41 (D mis. fol.), Lu 23: 22, Jo 21: 14 (DC), 17a (D only),17b (DC). Temčinas poses the question whether B’s introduction of the variants vъtoricejo˛ and tretьicejo˛ after the textual seam in John is coincidental (Temčin 1997b: 60). Comparison with D and C indicates that the answer is both yes and no. Since the shift from vъtoroe to vъtoricejo˛ occurs in all three manuscripts at Jo 21: 16, clearly it was a feature of the DBC antigraph; in contrast, the shift from tretьe to tretьicejo˛ at Jo 21: 14 occurs in B alone and thus probably was not a feature of the shared antigraph. 2.5.1.3.  Distribution of Ohrid- and Preslav-associated lexical variants before Jo 11: 54 Some lexical variants which Slavova and Temčinas identify as Preslav-associated appear in DBC sporadically before the textual seam at Jo 11: 54, and clearly are isolated alterations of the early Ohrid redaction that underlies all of Mark and Luke, and Jo 1: 1–11: 53. The Preslavassociated variants preceding Jo 11: 54 are listed below as the second member of each lexical pair, separated from the equivalent Ohrid variant or variants by a semicolon: ajnavstasiı, e[gersiı ‘resurrect-’. vъskrĕs-/vъskrьs- Mk 9: 9, 10, 31, 10: 34 (D mis. fol.), 12: 18, 19, 23, 25, 14: 28 (D mis. fol.), 16: 9, Lu 8: 55 (D mis. fol.), 9: 8, 19, 14: 14, 16: 31 (D mis. fol.), 18: 33, 20: 27, 28, 33, 35, 36, 24: 7, 26 (C alone), 36, 46, Jo 5: 21, 29, 6: 39, 40, 44, 54, 11: 23, 24, 12: 1, 9, 17, 20: 9bis; vъstan- Mk 8: 31, 12: 26 (with ZM), Lu 7: 22 (with ZM; D mis. fol.), 11: 32, 20: 37 (with ZM). dei’na, ei\”, ti” ‘a certain’. eterъ (very high frequency), edinъ Mk 10: 17 (D mis. fol.), 15: 36, Lu 19: 39, Jo 11: 49 (with Z; B mis. fol.); drugyji Jo 12: 20, 13: 29, nĕkyi/nĕkъto Lu 9: 8 (with ZM), Jo 11: 1 (B mis. fol.), 37, 46, 16: 17.19 dhnavrion, kevrma ‘coin’. dinarъ Lu 7: 41 (D mis. fol.) and pĕnędzь, written in a variety of dialect forms, Mk 6: 37, 12: 15, 14: 5, Lu 12: 6, Jo 2: 15, 6: 7; cęta (not in DBC in this meaning), zlatica Lu 20: 24. Note also, for dhnavrion, DBC sъrebrьnikъ ‘silver coin’ at Lu 10: 35. e[laion ‘oil’. olĕi Mk 6: 13; maslo Lu 7: 46 (with Z), 10: 34 (with Z), 16: 6. oJ, hJ qurwrovı ‘gatekeeper’. dvьrьnikъ Jo 10: 3; vratarь, vratarica Mk 13: 34 (cf. ZM vratьnikъ; see Temčin 1997b: 56); Jo 18: 16, 17. leptovn ‘mite’, ‘small coin’. lepta Mk 12: 42; cęta Lu 12: 59, 21: 2, Jo 12: 5 (B mis. fol.). (ajlavbastron) muvrou ‘(jar of) anointing oil, chrism, myrrh’. xrizma (not in DBC), (alavastrъ) mÿra Mk 14: 3, 4, 5, Lu 7: 37, 38 (D mis. fol.), 46, 23: 56, Jo 11: 2; mastь blagovonьnaja Jo 12: 3bis, 5. paraskeuhv ‘Friday’. paraskevg′ii (only in DC and B rubrics to Mt 27: 62); pętъkъ Mk 15: 42, Lu 23: 54, Jo 19: 14, 31, 42. plhsivon ‘close’, ‘near (one)’. iskrьnьi Mk 12: 33, Lu 10: 29, 36; bližьnьi Mk 12: 31, Lu 10: 27 (both for Z podrugъ ‘neighbor’). 19  D alone has nĕkyi in Lu 13: 1 (CB eterъ); in Jo 3: 1, D omits the word. B’s instances of nĕkyi in Lu 14: 8 and 17: 12 are not shared by C or D, and thus can be presumed to post-date the DBC and CB sources. Compare Lu 9: 8, where DBC nĕkyi co-occurs in ZM, as noted by Temčinas with respect to B (Temčin 1997b: 53).

curzon_2.indb 21

02/06/2008 09:19:59

22

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

pofuvra, porfurou`ı ‘purple (robe)’. prapro ˛ d- Mk 15: 17, 20; bagъrĕn- Lu 16: 19 (D and B mis. fol., ZM porfÿra), Jo 19: 2, 5. prwi? ‘in the morning’, ‘early’. utro Mk 1: 35, 11: 20, Jo 8: 2; zautra Mk 13: 35, 16: 2, 9; Jo 18: 28, 20: 1.20 spei’ra ‘band’, ‘troop’, ‘cohort’. spira (not in DBC); sъborъ Mk 15: 16, narodi Jo 18: 3, 12. sukavminoı, sukomoreva ‘sycamore’. sykamina/sykamoria (not in DBC); (j)agodičina Lu 19: 4. sunagwghv, sunevdrion, ajposunavgwgoı, ejpisunavzw. ‘meeting’, ‘synagogue’, ‘council’; ‘gather’. sъnьm- Mk 1: 29, Lu 13: 10; sъbor- Mk 1: 21, 23, 39, 3: 1, 6: 2, 12: 39, 13: 9 (D mis. fol.), 14: 55, 15: 1, Lu 4: 15, 16, 20, 28, 33, 38, 44, 6: 6 (D mis. fol.), 7: 5 (D mis. fol.), 8: 41, 11: 43, 12: 11, 21: 12 (B mis. fol.), 22: 66, Jo 6: 59, 9: 22, 11: 47, 12: 42, 16: 2, 18: 20. Temčinas’s observation that the Preslav-associated variant pętьkъ occurs throughout MLJ in B obviously holds true for DBC in general (Temčin 1997b: 59). Categorization of this lexeme as a Preslavism, however, is overly narrow. While it is not surprising that a later Preslav redaction would translate most Graecisms into Slavic calques or other equivalents with Slavic roots, the updating of unfamiliar lexemes, particularly Graecisms, certainly occurred in later Ohrid-redaction gospels (for many examples, see the annotations to the edition), where it is not a reflection of a textual shift to a different textual version. This well-documented tendency21 is behind the occurrence in DBC, before the textual seam at Jo 11: 54, of other Preslav-associated Slavic calques of Graecisms present in the earliest attested OCS gospels from Ohrid, including, above, (j)agodičina at Lu 19: 4, the sole occurrence of ‘sycamore’ in the Gospels. The occurrence in Z of the later variant sъborište, listed above, indicates that the opposition sъnьm- between sъbor- is not as distinct as that between arxierei and štarĕišina žьrьčьskъ, and that the former probably is not correctly categorized as an Ohrid–Preslav doublet.22 The common interpretation of sъborъ as a ‘Preslav’ variant of spira is equally dubious. Since, like many other post-OCS Ohrid versions, DBC usually uses the stem sъbor- for ZM sъnьmthroughout, the fact that sъbor- appears in extant post-OCS Preslav-redaction gospels indicates only that sъnьm- was considered archaic by that time. The co-occurrence of narodi ‘cohort’ in the second half of John in both DBC and Jav supports the view that both DBC and Jav shift in this portion to a different textual version, but it does not necessarily indicate that they shift to the same version (see Ch. 1). DBC also contain the Preslav-associated Slavic variants of three Greek borrowings that occur in ZM only after Jo 11: 54. The same lexemes are found in later Ohrid-redaction versions of John, however, and thus are not indicative of a different redaction: 20  As Temčinas observes with respect to B, Mk 13: 35 is the only occurrence in DBC of zautra that is not shared by ZM (1997b: 52). Even if most ‘Preslav’ texts consistently used zautra for utro, the frequent occurrence of zautra in ZM itself puts into question its appropriateness as an identifier of the Preslav redaction. In the CB SynI instruction for Palm Sunday, C has zautra while B has utro. 21  See e.g. MacRobert (1993). 22  Indeed, with respect to psalters, MacRobert (1993: 65–6) has observed that sъbor- sometimes crosses redactional lines, appearing occasionally even in the most conservative Psalter tradition.

curzon_2.indb 22

02/06/2008 09:19:59

2.5.  DBC lexical features

23

paravklhtoı ‘Paraclete’, ‘helper’, ‘comforter’. paraklitъ (not in DBC); utĕšitelь (lit. ‘comforter’) Jo 14: 16, 26, 15: 26, 16: 7. tivtlon ‘inscription’. titulъ (not in DBC); dъštica Jo 19: 20 (DC; B mis. fol.).23 citw`n ‘tunic, vest, clothing’, iJmativsmo” ‘garment’, ‘clothing’. xitonъ, matismъ (not in DBC); kotyga Jo 19: 23bis (DBC) and 24 (DC; B mis. fol.).24 Not all lexemes identified in the scholarly literature as Preslavisms occur in DBC, even after the textual seam at Jo 11: 54. DBC continues the Ohrid-associated lexeme aminъ for ­ajmhvn ‘amen’ regularly in this portion, eschewing pravo (lit. ‘truly’, ‘verily’), which Slavova (1989) lists as a Preslavism. Sporadic instances of pravo in B alone, both before and after the textual seam, (Mk 10: 19 and 14: 18 (D mis. fols.), Jo 8: 58, and 16: 20; see Temčin 1997b: 59)25 are all probably post-CB alterations. 2.5.1.4.  Conclusions regarding Ohrid-‘Preslav’ lexical oppositions The distributions above show that the Graecisms in DBC are preserved most consistently in Mark, which also exhibits isolated archaic morphological features (see s. 4.4.1, with respect to C) and appears to reflect a slightly more conservative Cyrillo-Methodian source than Luke, the first half of John, and the DC version of Matthew. From the distribution of Preslav-associated lexemes in DBC, some of which occur before the textual seam at Jo 11: 54, it is clear that while these later variants may have been present in the original Preslav redaction of the Gospel text, whatever that consisted of (and, of course, there is no proof that they were in fact present, since there are no extant gospels from that period containing these variants), the occurrence of such variants in a Gospel text is not in itself an indication that that text, or a portion that contains them, stems from the Preslav redaction. Nor is the occurrence of such variants even an indication of a particular textual version, unless their occurrence is highly consistent and includes regularly the variants starĕišin-, poslušьstv-, and židov-, which are the only lexemes from the lists above that are rare in the later Ohrid-redaction texts in the corpus. The other lexical doublets above work more accurately as criteria for determining redaction type if the Preslav-associated lexemes are treated as the default lexicon for all later Ohrid-redaction gospels, and archaisms and Graecisms are used as the determiner of the early Ohrid redaction. As can be seen from the distributions of kъnigy/pьsanьe and sъvĕdĕtelьstv-/poslušьstv-, above, D, B, and C all return, at least sporadically, to Ohrid variants beginning around Jo 21, which, as suggested earlier, may be the location of a secondary textual seam. B resumes Ohrid lexemes slightly earlier, after Jo 20: 19, where the last undisputed ‘Preslav’ stem, židov-, occurs in B, followed by životь at Jo 20: 31, and tretьicejo˛ at Jo 21: 14 and 15. B’s text-level variations

23 

Also DBC dъštica with ZM, at Lu 1: 62, for pinakivdion ‘small writing tablet’. Note also soudavrion ‘burial cloth, napkin, sudarium’, MVk sÿdarь, DBC ubrusъ (D obrusъ) at Jo 20: 7 (Z mis. fol.). The DBC variant occurs in ZM at Lu 19: 20 and Jo 11: 44. 25  Also Jo 16: 23, where D has aminъ, with ZM. Temčinas observes that B has nъ se ‘but this’ instead, and this variant is shared by C. 24 

curzon_2.indb 23

02/06/2008 09:19:59

24

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

from D and C in the same portion (see s. 2.6.4) are further indications that the folios that originally contained the end of John must have been lost or damaged in a post-CB antigraph of B, and were replaced in B with the equivalent portion of a different immediate antigraph that reflected an underlying Ohrid version.26 2.5.2.  Archaisms and Graecisms 2.5.2.1.  Slavic grędo˛tъ DBC has eighteen instances in MLJ of the archaic verb grędo˛tъ ‘go’, which has only present tense, imperative, and present active participle forms. Six of the occurrences are in the Preslav-associated second half of John, where the newer variant ido˛tъ would be expected (Jo 12: 12, 13, 15, 14: 30, 16: 13, 17: 13). 2.5.2.2.  Graecisms In the portion of MLJ before Jo 11: 54, D, B, and C preserve most of the early Greek borrowings in ZM that have been replaced with Slavic equivalents in one or both of the Serbian long lectionaries Vk and H: e.g. gazofilakija ‘treasury’ (with Vk) vs. H skrovištьno xranilište, Mk 12: 41; dragma ‘dragma’ vs. VkH mĕdьnica, Lu 15: 8, 9; ikonomъ ‘steward’ vs. VkH domu stroitelь, Lu 16: 8; katapezmata ‘curtain’ vs. Vk zapona, Lu 23: 45 (not in H); stratigъ ‘commander’ vs. Vk voevoda, Lu 22: 52 (not in H); tektonъ ‘carpenter’ vs. VkH drĕvodĕlь , Mk 6: 3. DBC shares with M two Graecisms that occur in Z in their Slavic equivalents: skinija ‘tabernacle’ vs. Z krovъ, Mk 9: 5 (not in VkH); krinъ ‘lily’ vs. Z cvĕtъ selьnyi, VkH cvĕtьcь, Lu 12: 27; cf., however, M skandal-, ZDBC sьblazn- ‘offend’/‘offence’, ‘scandal-’, Lu 17: 1, 2. In Mk 7: 31, DBC replace the ZM Graecism dekapelьskъ, the adjective form of the toponym Dekavpoli” ‘Decapolis’, with the Slavic calque desętь gradъ (lit. ‘ten cities’). Of special interest is the secondary Graecism metimonъ/methimonъ, which appears in the locative phrase na metimonĕ ‘at Methimon’ in the liturgical instructions to all three manuscripts and in the CB regular synaxarion (CB SynI). The form met(h)imonъ, which DBC treats as a single word, is a cyrillization of the Greek phrase meq∆ hJmw’n ‘with us’, taken from the first line of the hymn sung during the Great Compline evening service (‘God is with us’).27 The phrase na metimonĕ is used in the DBC rubrics and in CB SynI to mark the lections for the Great Compline evening services during the first week of Lent and Holy Week, which fall on both sides of the redactional seam, at Mt 7: 7, 20: 17, Lu 12: 35, Jo 15: 1—another indication that the DBC liturgical instructions postdate the conjoining of texts in John (see also C SynI fols. 192v22, 194r2, 21–2, 25, and discussion of DC ipopandija, s. 4.5.2). 26  The other B lexical variants in this portion that indicate a return to an older redaction are the imperative grędi ‘go’ at Jo 21: 3 (cf. DC idi); acc. mrĕžo˛ ‘net’ at Jo 21: 6, 11 (DC sĕtь); and masc. sg. nom. pres. ac. part. kleplę ‘signifying’ at Jo 21: 19 (DC znamenavaję). 27  I am grateful to Mother Seraphina of the Monastery of Ss. Mary and Martha in Wagener, South Carolina, for suggesting a connection between the lections marked in DBC and the Great Compline service (pers. comm., 2005). See also Skomoroxova-Venturini and Naumov (1985: 75) with respect to B and n. 50.

curzon_2.indb 24

02/06/2008 09:19:59

2.5.  DBC lexical features

25

2.5.3.  Lexical departures from ZM The following lexemes, all located before Jo 11: 54, are shared later alterations to the early Ohrid redaction represented by ZM: ajkoaiv (pl.) ‘rumours’. ZM sluxy, CB (D mis. fol.) slyšanьja Mk 13: 7 (cf. VkH nestroenьja).28 daimonivzomai, selhniavzomai ‘be possessed’. ZMVkH bĕsъnovati (sę), DBC bĕsiti sę Mk 5: 15, 18, Lu 8: 36 (VkH adj. bĕsьnъ), Jo 10: 21 (CBH only; VkD bĕsъnovati sę). ejlavsswn ‘worse’. ZMVkH tačai, DBC xuždь Jo 2: 10. qurwrov” ‘gatekeeper’. ZMVkH vratьnikъ, DBC vratarь, Mk 13: 34; cf. dvьrьnikъ, s. 2.5.1.3. peiravzw ‘attempt’. ZM okušajo˛tъ, VkDBCH iskušajo˛tъ Mk 10: 2. prwtoklisiva ‘place of honor at table’. ZMVkH prьvovъzleženьe, DBC prьvovъzlĕganьe, Mk 12: 39. savton ‘dry measure’. ZM satъ, DBCH sitъ Lu 13: 21 (Vk polъsъpędija). skuqrwpov”, stugnavzw ‘sad’. ZVk dręselъ, M dręxlъ, DB skrъbьnъ Lu 24: 17 (C later alteration unila, s. 4.5.1; not in H); cf. CB dręxlъ Mk 10: 22 (D mis. fol.). ∆Ioudai’o” ‘Jew’. ZMVk ijudei, DBC ijudejaninъ Jo 4: 9 (H židovinъ).29 krivqino” ‘barley’. ZMVkH jęčьnĕnъ, DBC jęčьmĕnъ Jo 6: 9, 13. phghv, frevar ‘well’, ‘cistern’. ZMH kladędzь, VkDBC studenьcь Lu 14: 5 (but here Vk kladędzь), Jo 4: 6bis, 11, 12. phvra ‘scrip’, ‘knapsack’. ZM et al. pira, DBC spira Lu 22: 36, and probably also Lu 22: 35 (CB gen. bezь spiry ‘without a knapsack’, D ambiguous bespiry), DC spira Mk 6: 8 (B pira). sumbavllw. ‘ponder’. ZM sъlagajo˛tъ, DBC sъvъkupljajo˛tъ Lu 2: 19 (this verse not inVkH). uJgrov” ‘green’, ‘fresh’. ZM syrъ, VkDBCH surovъ Lu 23: 31. Two further lexical departures from ZM are shared by D and C in locations where B is missing a folio: DC graditi for ZMVkH zьdati at Lu 17: 28, and VkDC trupъ for ZMH tĕlo at Lu 17: 37. Four additional non-ZM variants occur in D and C in locations where B contains a post-CB substitution of the ZM or M variant: ajmelevw, katafronevw, mevlei, parakouvw ‘neglect’, ‘ignore’. ZMB ne roditi/raditi, DC nebrĕgo˛tъ, Mk 4: 38, Lu 10: 40, Jo 10: 13; cf., at Mk 12: 14, for ZM ne rodiši ‘you neglect’, D’s garbling ne prĕžeši, B ne trĕbueši ‘you do not demand’, C nebrĕžeši ‘you neglect’, reflecting a defect or corruption in the shared DBC antigraph that C alone has interpreted correctly.30 ajpistiva, ojligopistiva ‘disbelief ’. Z nevĕrьe, MB nevĕrьstvьe, DC nevĕrьstvo Mk 9: 24.31 h[per ‘than’. ZMB neže, DC neželi Mk 6: 11, 9: 43 (with Z), 45 (with Z), Jo 12: 43; cf. ZMBC 28 

Also Mt 24: 6 C slyšanьja, with ZM (D mis. fol.). DBC share the spelling jud- here for OCS ijud-. C’s orthographic innovation judejannь is discussed in s. 4.3.13.2. Also DBC Mk 12: 10, for ajpedokimavzw (ZM nevrĕdu sъtvoriti ‘reject’). 31  Cf. C nevĕrьstvьe at Mk 6: 6 (with D and B), 16: 14 (with B, also D nevĕrstьe), and at Mt 13: 58 (D nevĕrstьe; cf. B nevĕrьe), 17: 20 (with D; cf. B nevĕrьe). 29 

30 

curzon_2.indb 25

02/06/2008 09:20:00

26

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

neže, D neželi Lu 17: 2, Jo 3: 19, ZMC neže Lu 16: 17 (DB mis. fol.), ZMDBC neže Mk 9: 47, Lu 10: 14, Jo 4: 1. o{ti ‘like’, ‘as’. ZMB jako, DC (j)aky Mk 11: 32. 2.5.4.  Other DBC lexical distributions The following individual distributions of lexical pairs are not a direct result of the conjunction of texts in John. None of the DBC variants, which follow the more frequent ZM variant in each pair below, is generally viewed as a ‘Preslav’ lexeme. blasfhm- ‘blasphem-’. vlasvim- Mk 2: 7, 14: 64 (D mis. fol.); xul- Mk 3: 28, 29, 7: 22, 15: 29 (with ZM; D mis. fol.), Lu 5: 21, 12: 10, 22: 65 (with ZM), 23: 39 (with ZM), Jo 10: 33, 36.32 kavtw. nizu Mk 14: 66 (with ZM; D mis. fol.), Lu 23: 45 (DBC do nizu; Z do nizъ, M om.); dolu Lu 4: 9 (D om.; M do nizъ, Z mis. fol.), 29 (ZM nizъ), 5: 19 (ZM nizъ), Jo 8: 6 (ZM nizъ). kovfino” ‘basket’. košь Mk 6: 43 (also C Mt 16: 9, D mis. fol.); košьnica Mk 8: 19, Lu 9: 17, Jo 6: 13. (Note also DBC košьnica for spuuriv” at Mk 8: 8, 20, with ZM.) monogenhv” ‘only child’. inočędъ Lu 8: 42, Jo 1: 14 (CB), 3: 16 (D mis. fol.); edinočędъ Lu 7: 12 (D mis. fol.), 9: 39 (with Z), Jo 1: 14 (D alone), 18, 3: 18, 5: 44 (M om.). mevga” ‘great’. velьi Mk 4: 32, 37 (CB), 39, 41, 5: 7, 11, 42, 14: 15 (D mis. fol.), 15: 34, 37 (CB), 16: 4, Lu 1: 15, 32, 42, 2: 9, 10 (CB), 4: 33, 38, 5: 29 (D om., Z velikъ), 6: 49 (D mis. fol.), 7: 16 (D mis. fol., ZM velikъ), 8: 37 (D om.), 14: 16, 16: 26 (DB mis. fol.), 17: 15, 19: 37, 21: 11b (B mis. fol.), 23, 22: 12 (Z om.), 23: 46, 24: 52 (CB), Jo 11: 43; velikъ Mk 4: 37 (D alone), 10: 42 (D mis. fol.; also ZM), 13: 2 (D mis. fol.; also ZM), 15: 37 (D alone), Lu 2: 10 (D alone), 8: 28 (D mis. fol.), 13: 19, 21: 11a (B mis. fol.; also ZM), 23: 23, 24: 52 (D alone), Jo 6: 18 (with Z), 7: 37 (also ZM), 11: 38 (not in ZM), 19: 31 (also M), 21: 11; note C SynI, fol. 191v8 velikъ (Lu 21: 11), but B SynI velьj-. pivnax ‘dish’. bljudo/bljudъ Mk 6: 25, Lu 11: 39 (M misa); misa Mk 6: 28 (with M). prosfwnevw, fwnevw ‘address’, ‘call’. (pri)glasiti Jo 4: 16 (DC; B prizъvati); prizъvati/prizyvajo˛tъ Mk 9: 35, 15: 16 (D mis. fol.; also ZM), Lu 7: 32 (D mis. fol.), 19: 15, Jo 2: 9, 4: 16 (B alone), 18: 33; note also DBC vъzyvajo˛tъ ‘call’, ‘summon’ for fwnevw (ZM glasiti) at Jo 10: 3. th’” Samareiva”. ‘of Samaria’. ZM samarĕnьskъ, DBC samareiskъ Lu 9: 52; ZM samarьskъ, DBC samarĕnьskъ (D -niskъ) Jo 4: 5.33 sivnapi ‘of mustard’. gorjušьnъ Mk 4: 31 (ZMCB; D gorjušičьnъ), Lu 13: 19; gorjušičьnъ Lu 17: 6 (DC; ZMB gorjušьnъ). staurovw ‘crucify’. propьn- Lu 23: 21bis, 23: 23, 33bis, 24: 7, 20, Jo 19: 6tret, 10, 15bis, 16, 18, 20, 23, 32, 41; raspьn- Mk 6: 56 (also ZM), 11: 4 (D mis. fol.; also ZM), CB 15: 13 (D mis. fol. 32 

Also poxuliti for ejxouqenevw (ZM uničьžajo˛tъ ‘ignore’, ‘despise’) at Mk 9: 12, Lu 18: 9, and for ajqetevw (ZM otъmetajo˛tъ ‘reject’) at Jo 12: 48. 33  Also C and B Mt 10: 5 samarĕnьskъ (D mis. fol.).

curzon_2.indb 26

02/06/2008 09:20:00

2.5.  DBC lexical features

27

14: 14–15: 33), 14, 15, 20, 24, 27 (also Z), 32, 16: 6, Lu 10: 10 (also ZM); 13: 26 (also ZM), 14: 21 (also ZM).34 sukh’ ‘fig tree’. smokъvьnica Mk 11: 21 (CB), 13: 28 (D mis. fol.), Lu 13: 6, 7, Jo 1: 49, 50; smoky/ smokъve (OCS ‘fig’), Mk 11: 13, 20, 21 (D alone), Lu 21: 29 (B mis. fol.). w{ra ‘hour’. godina Mk 6: 35b, 15: 33bis (D mis. fol.), 34, Lu 22: 14, 53, 59 (CB; D časъ), 23: 44bis, Jo 2: 4, 4: 6 (Z časъ), 21 (Z časъ), 23 (Z om.), 52bis (Z časъ), 53 (Z časъ), 5: 25, 28 (Z časъ), 35 (Z časъ), 8: 20, 11: 9 (B mis. fol.; Z časъ), 12: 27a (MD; ZBC časъ), 16: 2, 4, 21 (ZM godъ), 25, 32 (B mis. fol.), 17: 1 (B mis. fol.; Z časъ); časъ Mk 6: 35a (MCB; ZD godina), 11: 11, 13: 11 (D mis. fol.), 32 (D mis. fol.), 14: 35 (D mis. fol.), 37 (D mis. fol.), 15: 25 (D mis. fol.; ZM godina), Lu 2: 38, 4: 5 (Z mis. fol.), 7: 21 (D mis. fol.), 10: 21, 12: 12, 39, 40, 46 (M godina), 13: 31 (CB; MD dьnь ‘day’; Z mis. fol.), 20: 19, 24: 33 (Z mis. fol.), Jo 12: 23 (M godina), 27a (ZBC; MD godina), 27b (ZM godina), 19: 14 (B mis. fol.; ZM godina); cf. ZM godina, DBC vrĕmę ‘time’ at Jo 13: 1.35 2.5.5.  DBC lexical innovations Also common to D, B, and C are the following post-OCS lexical innovations, which include morphological and orthographic variants reflecting vernacular forms: (hJ) mna` ‘pound, monetary unit’. ZM mъnasъ/mъnasa, DBC manasъ Lu 19: 13, 16bis, 20, 24, and D Lu 19: 18 (CB om.). Although the OCS word is an indeclinable feminine noun, D and C modify manasъ with a masculine past passive participle in verse 20 (acc. položenъ ‘placed’), which can be assumed to be from the DBC antigraph. B has corrected the masculine participle to the feminine form položeno˛, as in ZM. In verses 16 and 20, D shares B’s correct feminine possessive adjective tvoja ‘your’, and, in verse 20, B’s correct feminine accusative relative pronoun jo˛že ‘which’, referring to manasъ. C has the masculine possessive tvoi in both verses, but its preservation of jo˛že, as in D and B, indicates that the feminine relative pronoun was also a feature of the shared DBC antigraph. It is not surprising, of course, that an earlier copyist unfamiliar with the form manasъ would interpret it as a o-stem masculine noun and emend its feminine modifiers accordingly to masculine ones, while overlooking the relative pronoun in the following clause. ei\do” ‘sight’, ‘look’. ZMVk zrakъ, DBC vidъ Lu 3: 22; cf. DC and B zrakъ for eijdeva at Mt 28: 3. ejpiluvw ‘tell, show, interpret’. ZM sъkazajo˛tъ, DBC sъkazovati Mk 4: 34. kwvmh, kwmovpoli”, povli”, cwrivon ‘village’. ZM vьsi, DBC vesi for the genitive, dative and locative singular and accusative plural form of OCS vьsь, in which the front jer in the root is in weak position: gen./dat./loc. sg. Mk 8: 23 (CB gen. sg. vesi; D unexceptional gen. pl. vesь, apparently a reinterpretation of vesi from the DBC antigraph), 26 (C alone loc. 34  The relegation of raspьn- to Mark and propьn- to Luke and John suggests that the DBC version of Mk stems originally from a slightly different Ohrid version from DBC Lu and Jo 1: 1–11: 54. The DBC distribution of propьn-/raspьn- casts into question the accuracy of Kossek’s generalization that raspьn- is a lectionary variant (1984: 57). 35  Compare the different distribution pattern of ZMB blagovĕstvovati, DC blagovĕstovati, at Lu 2: 10, 7: 22 (D mis. fol.), 9: 6 (D -stvovati), 20: 1, which may simply reflect individual scribes’ habits.

curzon_2.indb 27

02/06/2008 09:20:00

28

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

vesi; DB unexceptional acc. sg. vesь (vьsь)), 27 (CB; D garbling vso˛), Jo 4: 5; acc. pl. Mk 1: 38 (CB vesi, D vsi, with unexceptional dropping of weak jer), Lu 9: 12 (CB vesi, D vsi), 52 (CB vesi, D acc. sg. vesъ for vesь, apparently a reinterpretation of vesi), 13: 22 (CB vesi, D garbling vsę). Cf. DC loc. sg. vьsi, B acc. sg. vesь at Mt 26: 36; C acc. pl. vьs- at Mt 9: 35 (also B; D mis. fol.), 14: 15 (also D; B gradьcę), Lu 8: 1 (also B; D mis. fol.). phvra ‘scrip’, ‘knapsack’. ZMB pira, Vk mĕxъ, DBC s(ъ?)pira Mk 6: 8 (B with erased initial s-, not notated by D&R 1981: 215), Lu 22: 35 (CB bezь spiry, D bes piry), 36; cf. D and B spiry (spei’ra, ‘cohort, military unit’), C spirra at Mt 27: 27. kovro” ‘cor, largest dry measure’. Z korъ, M korьcь; H krinъ; CB vrъzoblь, VkD mĕra, written in D over a longer erased word, most likely originally vrъzoblь, Lu 16: 7. Rusek compares this form in B with its reflexes in contemporary Bulgarian dialect variations, 1974; see also Georgiev 1961. sw’ma ‘body’. ZMH tĕlo; VkDC trupъ ‘corpse’ (B mis. fol.), Lu 17: 37. wjÛkodovmoun ‘(they) were building’. ZMVkH zьdaaxo˛; DC graždaaxo˛ (B mis. fol.), Lu 17: 28. ceivmarro” ‘brook’. ZM ostrovъ, VkH potokъ, DBC vodotočьe Jo 18: 1 (lit. ‘waterflow’). Separate lexical anomalies in CB and D at Mk 13: 36 indicate attempts in one or both to correct a corruption or garbling in the DBC antigraph containing the prefix bez- ‘without’ on an adverb: CB bezьzaapa, D bezlĕpa (lit. ‘without being proper/fitting’; cf. OCS adj. nelĕpъ ‘wrong’, ‘shameful’), both for ZMVk vъnezaapo˛ (ejxaivfnh” ‘suddenly’); cf. DBC vъnezaapo˛ at Lu 2: 13, 9: 39, 21: 34 (B mis. fol.), 24: 4. In Lu 22: 10, now missing from B, D and C share the rare lexeme komъrogъ in place of ZMVk sko˛dьlьnikъ, for keravmion, ‘clay vessel’, ‘jug’: C loc. komrozĕ, D misspelling komozĕ. This form is cited in Sreznevskij’s dictionary of Old Russian (1902 [1971]: 1268) at Mk 14: 13 (where DBC have sko˛dьlьnikъ) in the East Slavic Jur′eev Gospel of 1119, and in several other East Slavic sources from the eleventh and fourteenth centuries. Relying on Sreznevskij, Vasmer lists komorъ, with variant komorovъ, in his etymological dictionary of Russian as a lexeme that appears only in Old Russian and in Church Slavonic (Fasmer 1986: 305). From Sreznevskij’s data, there appears to be a case for arguing, as Temčinas has done on other grounds, that the DBC antigraph was based at least partly on an East Slavic source (Temčin 1997b: 181). Sreznevskij’s task, however, was limited to collecting lexemes from East Slavic sources, not Church Slavonic sources in general, so the fact that his listings of komъrogъ are exclusively from East Slavic manuscripts does not necessarily indicate that the form does not appear in other South Slavic manuscripts besides D and C, or that it is East Slavic in origin. Indeed, Vasmer lists the word as being of unknown origin (Fasmer 1986: 305). Thus whether the DBC tradition was influenced by an East Slavic source remains an open question until an East Slavic gospel version is found that exhibits an unambiguous textual-level similarity to DBC. (Note that East Slavic Jav, which Temčinas suggests is a relative of C and B, has the usual ZM variant sko˛dьlьnikъ in both Mk 14: 13 and Lu 22: 10.) Certain other lexical and orthographic innovations are shared only by D and C, and thus clearly are features of the DBC antigraph that were normalized in B at some time in its postCB history:

curzon_2.indb 28

02/06/2008 09:20:00

2.5.  DBC lexical features

29

ajlevktwr. ‘cock’, ‘rooster’. Z kurъ, M kokotъ/kurъ, DC kurę Lu 22: 34, 60, 61, Jo 13: 38, Jo 18: 27; cf. B pętelь (OCS pĕtelь); see also ss. 3.6, 4.5.2. DC kurę, which adds to the root kur‘cock’, ‘rooster’ the Slavic suffix -ę, used commonly to indicate animal young, clearly postdates the textual seam at Jo 11: 54, since it occurs on both before and after it. That this same form co-occurs consistently throughout all four Gospel Books in the Macedonian long lectionary Ka, and in D, which has some Macedonian orthographic features, suggests that it is a Macedonian dialect variant that was replaced in B by the Old Church Slavonic variant (see Jagić 1913: 355). The DC form is both an innovation and an archaism, in that kurъ, of which kurę is a kind of diminutive, is generally limited to gospels in the oldest Ohrid tradition (an exception being M), while those in later traditions use pĕtelь or another variant from a different root. ajkavnqino” ‘of thorns’. ZMB trьnovъ, DC trьnovьnъ Mk 15: 17 (C alone; D mis. fol.), Jo 19: 5 (VrDC). dhnavrion ‘dinar, small coin, money’. ZMB pĕnę(d)zь, DC pĕnь(d)zь Mk 6: 37, 12: 15 (D alone, ZMBC pĕnę(d)zь), 14: 5, Lu 12: 6, Jo 2: 15, 6: 7. uJpavnthsi” ‘meeting’. In the rubrics to Lu 2: 22 and 2: 40, D and C have the secondary Graecism ipopandija, which does not appear in ZM, referring to the presentation of the infant Jesus to Simeon at the temple in Jerusalem. B has substituted the Slavic equivalent sъrĕtenьe in its corresponding rubrics. 2.5.6.  Avoidance of jako, ubo, abьe, i bystъ A major DBC characteristic is its resistance to the OCS lexemes ubo (a[ra, dev, gavr, ge, mevn, nu’n, ou\n ‘then’, ‘therefore’), jako as a translation of o{ti (‘because’, ‘that’), and abьe (eujquv”, ‘immediately’), which occur throughout the Cyrillo-Methodian Gospel redaction in verbatim translation from the Greek. The adverb abьe is simply omitted in DBC in most instances where it occurs in ZM (e.g. Lu 5: 25 DBC i vъstavь, ZM et al. +abьe) ‘and having stood up (immediately)’. Ubo also usually is omitted, as in Lu 12: 7 DBC ne boite sę, ZM +ubo) ‘(therefore) do not be afraid’, but occasionally it is substituted with another particle (e.g. Lu 11: 20 DBC to ‘then’, 11: 36 bo ‘for’).36 When used in the sense of the English complementizer ‘that’, jako is typically omitted in DBC following a verb of speaking and preceding a direct quotation (e.g. Mk 6: 16 DBC reče, ZM +jako ‘he said (that)’). When used similarly to English ‘because’, jako is sometimes replaced with zane ‘since’ (e.g. Jo 19: 20) or the postpositive particle bo ‘for’, ‘since’ (e.g. Lu 10: 13 ZM jako ašte ‘because if ’, DBC ašte bo ‘for if ’.37 Also frequently omitted from the Gospel text in DBC are the ZM formula i bystъ (kai; ejgevneto ‘and it came to pass’, as in Lu 1: 23)—although D has a higher tolerance level for this phrase in lection incipits than do C and B—and particle se (ijdou; ‘lo!’, as in Mk 5: 22, which 36  Compare, however, DBC ubo in Jo 9: 30 for ga;r, together with Z, where MAVOVkH have bo. See anns. to vol. I for the complete inventory of DBC omissions and substitutions of abьe, jako, and ubo, and the index verborum to vol. I for all occurrences of these forms in C. 37  Note also, at Lu 24: 51, DBC jako blagosloviję ‘as he blessed them’ for ZM et al. i bystъ egda blagoslovljajašeję ‘and it came to pass while he blessed them’ (kai; ejgevneto en tw’Û eujlogei’n aujto;n aujtou;”).

curzon_2.indb 29

02/06/2008 09:20:01

30

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

begins a lection). Se is sometimes replaced by an adverb, e.g. Lu 22: 47 togda ‘then’, 24: 4 vъnezaapo˛ ‘suddenly’, or by an existential phrase, as in DBC Lu 13: 1 i tu bĕ (ZM i se) žena ‘and (ZM lo, DBC ‘there was there’) a woman’. These two modifications to the Cyrillo-Methodian redaction are part of a general strategy in the DBC version to simplify and update the rendition of non-Slavic and otherwise unfamiliar lexemes and syntactic constructions, a pattern observed in Section 2.4 regarding the frequent simplification in DBC of the Greek construction ‘and answering, he said’. As will be further illustrated in Section 2.6, these patterns are evidence of a relatively flexible DBC approach to the Greek Gospel text. In no way does this approach indicate, however, that the DBC version is based on a newer translation than the original Cyrillo-Methodian one, since on the whole, DBC’s lexical and textual tradition reflects an early Ohrid redaction. The departures in DBC from some of the more slavish OCS renditions of Greek lexemes and constructions stem instead from the work of generations of editor copyists who replaced unfamiliar words and constructions in the text with updated, more comprehensible equivalents, in some instances without consulting Greek sources, and in others, consulting later, nonstandard Greek sources. 2.6.  DB C textual features This section discusses generally the DBC textual version of MLJ, focusing on the DBC textual version within the context of Vrana’s (1960) lexical criteria for the liturgical tetraevangelion tradition (s. 2.6.1); early redactional changes reflected in DBC (s. 2.6.2), later revisions and alterations (s. 2.6.3); and the substitution in B of a conservative Cyrillo-Methodian redaction for John, Chapters 20–21 (s. 2.6.4). The general discussion in this section is followed in Section 2.7 by a lection-by-lection presentation of individual DBC textual variants that are either rare or altogether absent in the comparative corpus used for this study. 2.6.1.  ‘Liturgical tetraevangelion’ textual features In all but two instances, D contains the lexical and textual variants that Vrana has identified as characteristic of liturgical tetraevangelia (including Z and M) as opposed to lectionaries and non-liturgical tetraevangelia (1960: 426). All the ‘liturgical tetraevangelion’ variants found in D co-occur in C, and all but one co-occur in B.38 One of the two non-liturgical tetraevangelion variants from Vrana’s list is found in D and C at Jo 19: 9, well past the textual seam in John, in a verse now missing from B: ZM otъvĕta ne sъtvori ‘did not make an answer’ vs. otъvĕta (DC +emu) ne dastъ ‘did not give (DC + ‘him’) an answer’ (ajpovkrisin oujk e[dwken 38  These are Mk 5: 32 oziraaše sę vs. ogled˛aaše (perieblevpeto ‘looked around’); Mk 9: 1 vidętъ vs. uzьrętъ ‘they see’ (i[dwsin); Lu 7: 43 CB vęšte vs. mъnožae (to; plei’on ‘more’; D mis. fol.), Lu 10: 39 imenemъ ‘by name’ vs. naricaemaa ‘called’ (kaloumevnh), Lu 15: 26 rabъ ‘slave’, ‘servant’ vs. otrokъ ‘boy’, ‘servant’ (tw’n paivdwn), Lu 16: 11 vъ žitьi ‘in the . . . life’ vs. vъ mamonĕ ‘in the . . . mammon’ (ejn tw’Û . . . mamwna’Û), Lu 18: 4 DC poslĕdь/poslĕdi ‘afterward’ vs. po sixъ že ‘and after these things’ (meta; tau’ta; B mis. fol.). Cf. Lu 12: 33 B imĕnьe vaše ‘your property/possession’ vs. DC imĕnija vaša ‘your properties/possessions’ (ta; uJpavrconta uJmw’n).

curzon_2.indb 30

02/06/2008 09:20:01

2.6.  DBC textual features

31

aujtw’Û). According to Vrana’s criteria, this location of the variant would suggest that DBC John conjoins a liturgical gospel version with a lectionary or a continuous tetraevangelion version at Jo 11: 54. 2.6.2.  Reflections of early changes to the underlying redaction Three DBC omissions and additions of text before Jo 11: 54 also occur in some of the ­earliest Slavic gospels, and thus can be assumed to reflect early variations in the underlying ­Cyrillo-Methodian redaction: at Mk 3: 32, with ANVkRH and the twelfth-century Miroslav Gospel (Mir), DBC se mati tvoja i bratьja tvoja ‘lo, your mother and your brothers’, cf. M et al. +i sestry tvoję ‘and your sisters’ (Z mis. fol.); at Mk 12: 30, the omission, with A and N, of ZM vьsĕmь umomь tvoimь i vьsejo˛ krĕpostьjo˛ tvoejo˛ ‘with all your mind and all your strength’; and, at Lu 15: 21, as in ZVSVkNH, the additional sentence sъtvori mę jako edinogo otъ naimьnikъ tvoixъ ‘make me as one of your day-labourers’, which MAO do not include. These three DBC variants occur in some Greek manuscripts (Nestle–Aland 1985: 98, 131, 212). Among early Slavic textual variants not cited by Nestle–Aland or Soden (1913) in Greek manuscripts, at Mk 9: 17 DBC share with ZVS and the Serbian gospels MirVkRH the phrase i gluxъ ‘and deaf ’ following duxъ nĕmъ ‘a dumb spirit’, likely an anticipation of the vocative phrase in Mk 9: 25 nĕmy i gluxy duše ‘O dumb and deaf spirit’. The phrase i gluxъ is absent from MA and the other Slavic sources in the comparative corpus. In Lu 7: 15, now missing from D, C and B follow the ZA variant i sĕde mrьtvyi i načętъ glagolati ‘and the dead man sat and began to speak’; cf. MOMirVkRH +i dastъ i materi ego ‘and he gave him to his mother’, also Nestle–Aland (1985). Another CB variant of a verse now lost from D is the omission in Lu 6: 37 of the ZM et al. sentence i ni so˛dite. da ne so˛dętъ vamъ ‘judge not, that you may not be judged’. The same segment is omitted in the Serbian long lectionaries MirVkH, which begin a lection in the second half of verse 37, although it is preserved in the related Serbian tetraevangelion R. The correspondence with MirVkH both here and in three of the variants above suggests that DBC may indeed have been pieced together from a lectionary, and specifically a long lectionary from the same general tradition as MirVkH, with the transitional tetraevangelion verses inserted by the copyist from memory between the daily lections. In that scenario, it would not be surprising that a copyist would forget to include a clause that immediately precedes the lection, and indeed, as shown in Section 2.7.3, this occurs more than once in the DBC version. However, it is equally possible that the similarity between this sentence, which precedes the lection rubric, and the sentence following it caused a scribe somewhere in the history of the DBC antigraph to omit the first sentence, independently of MirVkH. The same sentence appears in an unusual location in the Macedonian tetraevangelion Dm, immediately following the similar sentence i ne oso˛ždaite da ne oso˛dętъ vasъ ‘and condemn not, that you not be condemned’ rather than preceding it (Givnesqe oijktivrmoneı kaqw;ı (kai;) oJ path;r uJmw`n oijktivrmwn ejstivn. Kai; mh; krivnete, kai; ouj mh; kriqh`te. kai; mh; katadikavzete, kai; ouj mh; katadikasqh`te). This parallel suggests that the omission in CB may even have arisen as the result of a scribe’s encounter with a Dm-type inversion of the text at some point in the

curzon_2.indb 31

02/06/2008 09:20:01

32

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

history of DBC or CB, although in itself it does not necessarily suggest a close relationship between DBC and Dm. A second textual parallel with Dm occurs in B alone in Lu 8: 15 (D mis. fol.), a verse not included in MirVkH. B and Dm follow the lectionaries ASOP by inserting into this verse the phrase imĕęi uši slyšati da slyšitъ ‘he who has ears, let him hear’, which appeared earlier in verse 8 (also attested here by Soden 1913: 132). B omits the preceding ‘lectionary-tradition’ phrase, A et al. si glagolję vъzglasi ‘saying these things, he cried out’. Since this verse is missing from D, it cannot be determined with certainty whether the additional phrase was a feature of DBC that was later omitted in C, or whether its insertion into B was a later development.39 2.6.3.  Later revisions and alterations Overlying the redactional lexical and textual features of the underlying version of MLJ in DBC are later changes introduced during the copying of DBC and/or its ancestor manuscript(s). These revisions consist of sporadic lexical substitutions (including the introduction of some later secondary isolated Graecisms, as discussed in s. 2.5.4), morphological and syntactic alterations, and textual revisions that may reflect non-standard Greek Gospel versions. These types of deliberate alteration are not unusual in twelfth- and thirteenth-century South and East Slavic manuscripts, and they probably were introduced by more than one copyist in the pre-history of DBC. Another feature which DBC shares with many thirteenth-century South Slavic scriptural manuscripts is a somewhat cavalier rendition of the text, which suggests that the DBC scribe, and/or one or more predecessors, was relying to some degree on memory while copying.40 This apparent practice has resulted in sporadic unintentional textual substitutions from parallel passages in other Gospel Books, or in other portions of the same Gospel Book (hereafter ‘involuntary reminiscences’). The very occurrence of the reminiscences suggests that at least some of the DBC ‘lectionary-style’ textual variants may have come about indirectly, as the result of a scribe’s relying on memory, particularly if he were more familiar with a lectionary Gospel version. Another level of alterations consists of inadvertent copying errors present in DBC that have been inherited by the D, B, and C apographs. These too are probably attributable to more than one scribe in the history of DBC; they include omissions and repetitions of standard text, and garblings, most of which appear to have arisen from misreadings of an antigraph. 39  A separate issue, not dealt with here, is the extent of the textual relationship, if any, between DBC and Dm as a whole. On lexical and textual layers in Dm, see, inter alia, Jagić (1898 [1960], 1899), Dobrev (1984), and Temčin (1998b). Dobrev (1979: 11) has observed that Chapters 2–11 of Mark in Dm reflect a separate textual redaction from the rest of the manuscript. It is in this portion in particular that most textual correspondences are found with DBC, but a comparison of DBC with Dobrev’s list of the 73 most significant Dm textual departures from Z in Mark Chapters 2–11 yields only five full correspondences, not a high enough proportion to indicate a significant relationship between any portion of Dm and DBC. These are Mk 3: 32, discussed above, 4: 19 bogatьstva vs. ZM bogatьstvьja (both ‘of wealth’), 7: 24 da bi niktože čjulъ ‘that no one might know’ vs. ZM da bi kъto čjulъ ‘that anyone would know’; 8: 6 i priimъ sedmь (ZM +to˛) xlĕbъ ‘and having taken seven loaves’, 9: 12 poxulętъ ‘mock’ vs. ZM uničьžętъ ‘despise’. 40  I am grateful to Mary MacRobert for bringing this to my attention (pers. comm., 24 Sept. 1999).

curzon_2.indb 32

02/06/2008 09:20:01

2.6.  DBC textual features

33

2.6.4.  B’s second redactional seam after Jo 20: 1 B displays a number of lexical and textual discrepancies with D and C beginning in Chapter 20 of John, including an earlier return to older Ohrid lexical variants, in locations where DC still continue with the Preslav-associated equivalents (see, in particular, Jo 21: 6, 8, in s. 2.7.3). These departures suggest a post-CB substitution in B of approximately the last two chapters of DBC John with a different source.41 Further evidence of a change of antigraph here in B is a shift in the same location to a more laconic rubric style and somewhat different placement and content of liturgical instructions from that in C. These include a rubric marking the end of the Easter lection, which C does not have, and the content of the rubric immediately preceding Jo 20: 1, which can be considered tentatively the location of the redactional seam in B (see anns. to vol. I). On the morphological level, in Jo 21: 3, B shifts from productive aorists to old aorist forms as in ZM, but D and C correspond more closely to ZM lexically (DC produc. 3Pl aor. vъsĕdošę ‘sat down in’, ZM unproduc. vъsĕdo˛; cf. B unproduc. vъlĕzo˛ ‘entered’). It is impossible to determine which, if any, of the shared DC textual discrepancies from B are ‘Preslav’ in origin, and which are the result of later revisions, since, as discussed in Chapter 1, the textual features of the original Preslav redaction have not been established. The lexical and textual differences from B that occur beginning in Chapter 20 are mostly minor, but numerous: e.g. Jo 20: 31 ZMD vĕruete ‘you believe’, C vĕruetъ ‘believes’, B vĕro˛ imo˛tъ ‘they believe’; 21: 6 DC izъvlĕšti ‘to pull out’, ZMB privlĕšti ‘to bring’, ‘drag’; 21: 8 DC (mrĕžo˛) plьno˛ rybъ ‘(a net) full of fish’, ZM Ø rybъ ‘of fish’, B i ryby ‘and fish’; 21: 18 DC prostrĕši ‘you will stretch forth’, ZMB vъzdeždeši ‘you will lift up, extend, stretch’. The final verse of John, to which B alone adds a colophon, or personal postscript (see anns. to fol. 172v, vol. I), contains three departures from D and C: ZMB pisana byvajo˛tъ ‘are written’, DC pisana bišę/bišę pisana ‘were written’; ZMB ni samomu mьnę vьsemu miru vъmĕstiti vъ pišemyixъ kъnigъ ‘not even, I suppose, the whole world (could) contain the books that would be written’, DC ni samomu miru vъmĕstiti možetъ pišemyixъ sixъ kъnigъ ‘not even the world can contain these books being written’ (C garbling . . . vъmĕstymi pišemy sixъ vъ kъnigaxъ ‘by being contained being written of these in books’). The textual discrepancies at the end of John also include copying errors in both the DC and B versions. In 21: 16, following ljubiši li mę ‘do you love me’, D and C repeat the phrase pače sixъ ‘more than these?’ from the previous verse, while B does not. In verse 22, B omits the ZM imperative po mьnĕ ty grędi ‘(you) follow me’. This phrase is present in D and C (ty vъ slĕdъ mene idi), although an erasure in C of four letters immediately preceding the phrase in C suggests that C’s copyist appears to have begun making the same error independently).42

41  As B’s synaxaria following John, however, and the CB portion of B’s menology, are nearly identical to C, the substitute antigraph clearly was used only for the last few leaves of John, with a return afterwards to the CB antigraph for the liturgical portions that follow. The antigraph substitution in John was a post-CB change, likely occasioned by several missing or defective leaves in the immediate antigraph. 42  In v. 25, C alone has the extraneous word znamenьja ‘signs’, an involuntary reminiscence from Jo 20: 30.

curzon_2.indb 33

02/06/2008 09:20:01

34

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

2.7.  Distinctive DB C textual characteristics in MLJ Since liturgical tetraevangelia divide the narrative Gospel text into lections, the probability of lectionary influence on any given manuscript of this genre is high, and therefore the lection is used in this section as the primary unit of textual analysis. The individual DBC lections are identified and presented here in the order in which they appear in the manuscripts, numerically by chapter and verse. As noted earlier, DBC follows generally the same synaxarion as the Serbian long lectionary Vk, and much the same synaxarion as H. The DBC version of the weekday lections appears to be taken, to some extent, from one or more long lectionaries from the VkH tradition (but not vice versa, since Vk and H do not generally share DBC omissions and garblings of text). The weekday DBC lections, which do not appear in shorter lectionaries, tend to contain more dramatic departures from the ZM tetraevangelion version, and more parallels with VkH, than do the DBC Saturday and Sunday lections. From these facts, one of two possibilities can be inferred: (a) that the shared DBC antigraph’s liturgical tetraevangelion version of Mark, Luke, and the first half of John was compiled originally in consultation with a short lectionary for those lections that occurred in the latter, and with a Serbian-tradition long lectionary for the additional weekday readings; or, more likely, (b) that the antigraph relied solely on a Serbian-tradition long lectionary which based its Saturday, Sunday, and high holiday lections on a short lectionary, supplemented by a tetraevangelion for the weekday lections. Certainly one could expect a compiler of a liturgical tetraevangelion to consult a long lectionary in order to mark pericope boundaries and, where necessary, change the tetraevangelion version of the first verse of a lection to the lectionary formula. Thus it is not surprising that in copying these portions, the compiler of the original DBC liturgical tetraevangelion might be influenced by the textual version found in the lectionary or lectionaries consulted. Indeed, it is possible that he even copied the lections themselves directly from a long lectionary, and relied on a narrative tetraevangelion source only for the transition verses between lections. This practice would explain the occasional parallel omissions of narrative transition sentences between lections in the DBC manuscripts. The analysis in this section provides a broad overview of the most prominent substantive textual features of the shared DBC version of MLJ, paying particular attention to those variants that distinguish DBC both from ZM and from most or all of the other manuscripts in the comparison corpus. Commentary is provided also on more minor identically located textual and orthographic anomalies in D, B, and C that allow inferential reconstruction of the parallel text in the shared antigraph. Not listed here are the many unusual word-order variants in DBC, with the exception of those that significantly affect the substance of the text. Similarly, individual instances of recurring DBC lexical features that were mentioned earlier, including omissions of abьe, ubo, jako, and i bystъ (s. 2.5.6), are not recorded here. The complete inventory of major shared orthographic variants, and all shared grammatical, lexical, and textual features, can be found in the annotations to the text of MLJ in vol. I, from which the DBC antigraph can be reconstructed in greater detail.

curzon_2.indb 34

02/06/2008 09:20:02

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

35

Because D, B, and C use different orthographic systems, citations from the manuscripts in this chapter and in the next two chapters are presented, to the extent feasible, in normalized Roman transliteration and standard OCS morphological forms. The citation ‘ZM et al.’ refers to majority variants in the corpora that occur in both Z and M, while ‘M et al.’ refers to majority variants found in M but not Z. 2.7.1.  Mark The early Mark chapters in D, B, and C contain strikingly few significant departures from the Ohrid tetraevangelion tradition represented in ZM. DBC lections Mk 1: 1–8 (Sunday before Epiphany), and 1: 9–11 (Epiphany matins), are unexceptional. These lections appear in the Mir long lectionary but not in Vk or H. Mk 1: 9b–15, 12th Mon. after Pentecost. At Mk 1: 13, in not sharing the ZMVkH adverb tu ‘there’ before vъ pustyni ‘in the desert’, D, B, and C reflect a tradition found in some Greek manuscripts (ejkei’ ejn th’Û ejrhvmwÛ, Nestle–Aland 1985: 89). D, however, has immediately following vъ pustyni the feminine locative singular demonstrative pronoun toi ‘that’ (‘in that desert’). The orthographic similarity between tu (tu) and D toi (toi) suggests that an antigraph of D inserted the ZM variant tu at the end of the phrase, in an awkward position for an adverb, but the usual position for a demonstrative, and that the word order was behind its reinterpretation as toi. If tu or toi occurred in the DBC antigraph, it was omitted in the pre-history of CB. Mk 1: 16–22 (12th Tues. after Pentecost), Mk 1: 23–28a (12th Wed.), and Mk 1: 29–35a (12th Thurs.) contain no remarkable textual variations from ZM. Mk 1: 35b–44, 2nd Sat. in Lent. At v. 40, in an involuntary reminiscence of Mt 8: 2, D, B, and C have the vocative form gospodi (‘Lord’) in place of ZM jako introducing direct speech: DBC i glagolję emu. gospodi ašte xošteši možeši mę očistiti ‘and saying to him, “Lord, if you want, you can make me clean.”’ Mk 2: 1–12, 2nd Sun. in Lent. In v. 1, DBC positions the noun isusъ ‘Jesus’ at the end of the verse in the subordinate clause rather than at the beginning in the first main coordinating clause, as in M et al. (Z has an error here), and renders hjkouvsqh ‘it was heard’ as the past participle slyšavъše ‘(they) having heard’, leaving the second coordinating clause without a main verb: i vъnide paky vъ kapernaumь. po dьnexъ. i slyšavъše jako vъ domu estъ isusъ ‘and (he) entered Capernaum again after a few days, and (they) hearing that Jesus was in the house’. In contrast, M et al. have i vъnide paky isusъ vъ kaperъnaumъ po dьnexъ. i sluxъ (Vk vĕstь) bystъ jako vъ domu estъ Ø ‘and Jesus entered Capernaum again after a few days and a rumor [Vk ‘news’] arose that (he) was in the house’. Although it follows M et al. in its placement of isusъ, H reflects the same general textual version here as DBC in rendering hjkouvsqh as the aorist form slyšašę ‘they heard’ rather than as the M et al. paraphrase ‘a rumor arose’. The standard Greek version of the verse does not include the name ‘Jesus’ at all: kai; eijselqw;n pavlin eij” Kafarnaou;m di∆ hJmerw’n hjkouvsqh o{ti ejn oi[kwÛ ejstivn. In v. 9, D, B, and C omit udobĕe ‘easier’ from ZM et al. čьto estъ udobĕe ‘which is easier?’ (tiv ejstin eujkopwvteron). Mk 2: 13 (tetraevangelion transition verse between lections) and Mk 2: 14–17 (3rd Sat. in Lent; cf. Vk 5th Sat.) are unremarkable.

curzon_2.indb 35

02/06/2008 09:20:02

36

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

Mk 2: 18–22, 12th Fri. after Pentecost. In v. 22, DBC shares with Vk and H an involuntary reminiscence from Lu 5: 37: prosaditъ vino novo mĕxy (D +vetxy) ‘the new wine will burst through the [D +‘old’] wineskins’, for ZM prosaditъ vino novo Ø (‘the new wine will burst through’, rJhvxei oJ oijno” tou;” ajskouv”). Mk 2: 23–3: 5, 1st Sat. in Lent. D and B contain identically placed anomalies in Mk 3: 1. D inserts the phrase vъ so˛boto˛ ‘again on the Sabbath’ before vъ sъborište (‘into the synagogue’, eij” sunagwghvn), which D spells in the later orthographic variant v zborište. B has the standard variant ‘into the synagogue’, but with the orthographic error so ˛ borište for OCS sъborište ‘synagogue’. Although the ˛o–ъ alternation is common in Bulgarian manuscripts, it is not a common feature in D, B, or C. The parallel between B’s odd spelling so ˛ borište and the first syllable of D’s insertion so ˛ boto˛ ‘Sabbath’ (as opposed to D zborište), suggests that the DBC antigraph contained either the corruption so˛boto˛ ‘Saturday’ in place of sъborište, or, as in B, the variant so ˛ borište, which the D copyist or a predecessor misread as so˛bota. In either ­scenario, one of the scribes in D’s pre-history later inserted the standard phrase ‘into the synagogue’ in his own spelling (zborište). C, which is generally the least thoughtfully written of the three manuscripts, here is the only one to avoid the defect, intentionally or unintentionally, by using the permissible spelling sborište ‘synagogue’, in which the ъ (or, in C’s system, ь) representing a weak jer is dropped. In Mk 3: 5, DBC has the garbling (i) okameni ‘(and) turned to stone’ for Gr. ejpi; th’Û pwrwvsei (th’” kardiva” aujtw’n), ZM et al. o okamenenьi, ‘about the hardening (of their hearts)’. It also omits cĕla ‘whole’ from the ZM phrase cĕla jako i/jaky drugaja ‘whole like the other (hand)’ (ajpekatestavqh hJ cei;r aujtou’). More shared garblings in the next lection indicate that the DBC antigraph must have been partly illegible or otherwise defective in this entire portion of the text. Mk 3: 6–12, 13th Mon. after Pentecost, cf. H 2nd Mon. In v. 9, in addition to the redactional variation da bo˛detъ sьde ladьja ‘that there be a boat here’ for ZM da estь pri njemь ladica ‘that there be a small boat near him’ (i{na ploiavrion proskarterh’Û aujtw’Û), D, B, and C have the first-person dative clitic pronoun mi ‘(lest they crush) me’ for ZM dative emu ‘him’.43 In v. 11, the grammatical subject has become a direct object, but with its modifier remaining in the nominative case: DBC i egda vidĕxo˛ duxy nečisti (for acc. duxy nečisty) ‘and when they saw the unclean spirits’, for ZM et al. i egda vidĕxo˛ dusi nečisti ‘and when the unclean spirits saw’, kai; ta; pneuvmata ta; ajkavqarta, o{tan aujto;n ejqewvroun. Mk 3: 13–21 (13th Tues. after Pentecost) and 3: 19b–27 (13th Wed.) contain no significant departures from ZM. Mk 3: 28–35 (13th Thurs. after Pentecost). DBC consistently substitutes for its usual Ohrid stem vlasvim- ‘blaspheme’ the Slavic variant xul-, in vv. 28 and 29. Mk 4: 1–9 (13th Fri. after Pentecost). DBC has a minor word order variation in v. 1, pri 43 

All three manuscripts also share an omission of the word-final ъ in the preceding word: DBC sъto˛žajo˛t mi (OCS sъto˛žajo˛tъ). The orthographic practice of dropping word-final ъ or ь before a clitic is not unusual even in canonical OCS manuscripts, but as it is uncommon in B, and particularly in C, this minor correspondence clearly reflects the spelling in the CB antigraph, and probably also the DBC antigraph.

curzon_2.indb 36

02/06/2008 09:20:02

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

37

mori bĕšę na zemli for M bĕšę pri mori na zemli ‘were by the sea on the land’, and in v. 2, aorist glagola for M imperfect glagoljaaše ‘(he) said’ (Z mis. fol.). Mk 4: 10–23 (14th Mon. after Pentecost). In vv. 18 and 20, the nominative plural demonstrative pronoun si is interpreted as neuter, referring to semena ‘seeds’, and modified by the neuter plural past passive participle, although the following modifier is masculine: DBC si so˛tъ sĕjana(ja) vъ trъnьi. slyšęštei/iže slyšętъ slovo ‘these are the sown-[n.], hearing-[m.]/who[m/] hear the word’, for ZM masculine plural si so˛tъ sĕjani. In v. 22, D and B share the variant ničьto for ZMC ničьtože ‘nothing’. Mk 4: 24–32 (14th Tues. after Pentecost). In v. 25, C has the ZM reflexive variant otъimetъ sę ‘will be taken away’, but D has the equivalent past passive participle construction otъnęto bo˛detъ , and B substitutes vъzьmetъ sę ‘will be taken (up)’. As C’s version matches B syntactically and D lexically, most likely it reflects DBC. In v. 29, following the ‘when’ clause, DBC inserts to (‘then’) preceding ZM posъletъ srъpъ ‘he will send forth the sickle’. Mk 4: 35–41 (14th Wed. after Pentecost), and 5: 1–20 (14th Thurs.) are unremarkable textually. Mk 5: 22–4a, 35–6: 1a, 14th Fri. after Pentecost. In v. 23, DBC shares with the King James English translation the version dьšti moja na konьčinĕ ležitь ‘my daughter lies at the point of death’ for ZMVkH . . . estь ‘is’ (N–A ejscavtw” e[cei). Parallel anomalies in D and C in the next sentence of the verse suggest a defect in DBC that was corrected later in B: for the ZMVkHB third-person singular subjunctive oživetъ in the clause da spasena bo˛detъ i oživetъ (i{na swqh’Û kai’ zhvshÛ) ‘that (she) may be saved and live’, C substitutes i for the word-final jer (oživeti), before the following two i’s in the text (i ide ‘and she went’), while D, apparently reflecting an encounter with the same garbling as in C, omits the last two letters of oživetъ, producing the aorist ožive ‘(she) lived’. Mk 5: 24–34, 15th Mon. after Pentecost. DBC omits from v.  30 the standard phrase vъ narodĕ ‘in the crowd’ (ejn tw’Û o[clwÛ). In v. 34, DBC has, ‘your faith will make you well’ (spasetъ tę), with Vk, for ZMH ‘has made you well’ (spase tę, sevswkevn se), and ‘healthy’ (sъdrava) for ZMVkH ‘whole’ (cĕla: i[sqi uJgih;”). The shared DC variant ‘seeing’ (vidęšti) for ZMVkHB ‘knowing’ (vĕdo˛šti , eijdui’a) in v. 33 probably also came from the shared DBC antigraph and was later corrected at some point later in B’s pre-history. Mark 6: 1–7, 15th Tues. after Pentecost. DBC has in v.  5 the rendering ‘did not want’ (xotĕaše) instead of ‘was not able’ (ZMVkH ne možaaše) for oujk ejduvnato ‘could not’. Mk 6: 7–13 (15th Wed.) and Mk 6: 14–30, (29 Aug., beheading of John the Baptist) have no remarkable variations from ZM. Mk 6: 30–45, 15th Thurs. after Pentecost. In v. 37, DBC moves ZMVkH xlĕby ‘loaves’ from the clause da šьdъše kupimъ dьvĕmi sъtoma pĕnędzь xlĕby (ajpelqovnte” ajgoravswmen dhnarivwn diakosivwn a[rtou”, KJ ‘shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread’ to the end of the following clause da damъ imъ jasti (DBC +xleby; kai; dwvsomen aujtoi’” fanei’n, KJ ‘and give them to eat’), resulting in ‘shall we buy two hundred pennyworth and give them bread to eat’ (see also s. 3.5.2). Mk 6: 45b–53, 15th Fri. after Pentecost. In v. 50, DBC has the formula onъ že otъvĕsta (CB otъvĕštavъ) kъ nimъ, ‘and he answered [CB ‘he, having answered’] to them’ for oJ de; eujqu;”

curzon_2.indb 37

02/06/2008 09:20:02

38

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

ejlavlhsen met∆ aujtw’n (ZMVkH onъ že abьe glagola sъ nimi, KJ ‘and immediately he talked with them’). Mk 6: 54–7: 8, 16th Mon. after Pentecost. D and C share in v. 54 the morphosyntactic garbling išьdъše (D+že) imъ (nom. pl. participle ‘[D ‘and’] having gone out’ with dat. ‘them’) in place of the ZMB dative absolute construction išьdъšimъ že imъ ‘and when they came out’ (a later emendation in B), as the rendering of the Greek genitive absolute kai; ejxelqovntwn aujtw’n. In Mk 7: 2, DBC has rekъše ‘they having said’ for ZMVkH sirĕčь ‘that is to say’ (tou’t∆ e[stin). Mk 7: 5–16 (16th Tues. after Pentecost) and 7: 14–24 (16th Wed.) are discussed in Section 3.5.2, as the leaf containing vv. 5–21 is lost from D. Mk 7: 24–30, 16th Thurs. after Pentecost. (Vk has Mk 7: 24 again, together with 8: 1–10, as the lection for 16th Fri.) In v. 26, like Vk and H, D and C treat the borrowing Σurofoinivkissa ‘Syrophoenician’ as two words, inserting an intervening point: C sorofoniky. sanyni, D surofuny. kisanyni, VkH suriny: funikisanyni; cf. ZM sÿrofÿnikissanyni (M sÿrofo-), B sofonikysaniny. In v. 30, D and C’s garbling Ø domъ ‘the house’ for VkHB vъ domъ ‘into the house’ (cf. ZM dat. domovi ‘to the house’; eij” to;n oi[kon aujth’”, ‘to her house’) is evidence of another DBC anomaly that was later emended in B’s pre-history. Mk 7: 31–7, 4th Sat. in Lent (with H; Vk 3rd Sat.). In v. 31, Vk and H share with DBC a Slavic calque of Dekapovlew”, in the genitive case (see s. 2.5.2.2): desęti gradъ, lit. ‘of ten cities’, for the more common ZM adjective dekapolьskъi (‘Decapolis’). For VkBH genitive plural gradъ ‘cities’, however, D has apparent accusative or instrumental grady and C has apparent nominative plural gradi (very possibly simply a substitution of i for y), both undoubtedly reflecting a transmitted defect in DBC. Mk 8: 1–10, 16th Fri. after Pentecost. DBC adds to v. 3 the phrase eda kako (‘how then’) before ZMVkH oslabĕjo˛tъ na po˛ti (ejkluqhvsontai ejn th’Û oJdw’Û, KJ ‘they will faint by the way’). Mk 8: 11–21, 13th Mon. after Pentecost. (VkH vv. 11–20.) In v. 20, both CB and D have avoided the traditional Ohrid-redaction translation of Greek plhrwvmata (‘fullnesses’) in the phrase povswn spurivdwn plhrwvmata (‘how many baskets full’). Where ZMVkH render ­plhrwvmata literally as the Slavic noun isplьnenьja, CB has the indeclinable adjective plьnъ (‘full’), while D, unintentionally or not, omits rendering plhrwvmata altogether. Mk 8: 22–6, 13th Tues. after Pentecost. In v. 22, immediately following vitsaido˛ ‘Bethsaida’, both D and C omit ZMB i privedošę/privĕsę kъ nemu slĕpa ‘and they brought to him a blind man’ (kai; fevrousin aujtwÛ’ tuflovn). The C scribe also omitted the first post-incipit words of the lection (DB pride isusъ ‘Jesus arrived’, ZM i pride ‘and he arrived’) together with the entire preceding liturgical rubric, except for the instruction začęlo ‘beginning’. Although the C scribe later corrected this omission by inserting the rest of the introductory rubric into the lower margin and adding pride isusъ into the rubric as the instruction for the lection incipit, C begins the lection text with the garbling i privede vitsaido˛-[acc.] ‘and (he) led-[3Sg] Bethsaida’ for ZMB i privedoše/privesę vъ vitsaido˛ ‘and they led into Bethsaida’. The parallel omission in D and C indicates that the same text portion had been omitted from the DBC antigraph and later added in B. C’s further difficulty with the verse may indicate that the CB apograph may have contained an additional garbling that was also remedied later in B’s pre-history.

curzon_2.indb 38

02/06/2008 09:20:02

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

39

In v. 25, all three manuscripts omit the ZM phrase i utvori sę (kai; ajpekatevsth ‘and he was restored’); cf. VkH i utvьrdi sę ‘and he was made firm/strengthened’. In v. 26, CB and D part ways in their approaches to what must have been another DBC defect, with C and B sharing the same nonstandard form vesi for ZMVkH locative singular vьsi ‘village’ (see s. 2.5.5). The first letter of the abbreviation vesi in B is a correction, possibly from n; if so, then the B scribe must have initially started here the common abbreviation nebe si (‘sky’, ‘heaven’). The DBC antigraph itself probably did not have ‘sky’ here instead of ‘village’, since that error does not appear in C, but clearly it had some defect in this location, which D dealt with by omitting the phrase ‘in the village’ altogether.44 Mk 8: 27–31, 5th Sat. in Lent (Vk 4th Sat.) is unexceptional. Mk 8: 30–4, 13th Wed. in New Year. DBC has the lexical variant vъstati in v. 31 for ajnasth’nai ‘to rise up’; cf. ZM et al. vъskrьsno˛ti (see also s. 2.5.1.3). Mk 8: 34–8, 9: 1 (3rd Sun. in Lent) and Mk 9: 2–9 (transition text between lections) are unexceptional. Mk 9: 10–16, 13th Thurs. in New Year. DBC has poxulętъ (‘they will blaspheme, mock’) in v. 12, with N, for ZMVk(H) uničьžętъ ‘they will ignore, despise’ (ejxoudenhqh’Û, KJ ‘be set at nought’, NIV ‘be rejected’). Mk 9: 17–31, 4th Sun. in Lent. In verse 22, following the third person singular aorist vъvrьže ‘threw in’, the DBC antigraph contained an illegible or erroneous letter followed by a nasal vowel (vъvrьže ⟨_⟩ę or vъvrьže⟨_⟩o˛), which D, B, and C reconstruct in separate ways. C interprets the segment ⟨_⟩ę as the reflexive particle sę (så), resulting in vъvrьže sę vъ vodo ˛ ‘he threw himself into the water’ for ZM et al. vъvrьže (i) vъ vodo˛ ‘he threw (him) into the water’, eij” pu’r aujto;n e[balen). B interprets ⟨_⟩ę as the feminine instrumental singular personal pronoun ejo˛ (B «ø), resulting in the garbling ‘he threw (him) by it/her, and into the water’ (B vrьže ejo ˛ . i vъ vodo˛). The similarity in shape between the first letters of B «ø and C så is evidence that the problematic DBC grapheme appeared in the CB apograph as a letter containing a ‘c’-shape. In contrast, immediately following vъvrьže, D has an erasure the space of two or three letters, beginning with w (št). From the length of the erasure it can be inferred that D’s original unerased form was an interpretation of DBC vъvrьže⟨_⟩ę as the present active participle form vъvrьžeštę (vßvr´Ωêwå, cf. OCS vъvrьžęštę ‘(who were) throwing’). In verse 27, D, B, and C share the third person singular aorist vъstavi ‘made stand, raised’ for ZM vъzdviže ‘raised’, ‘lifted up’, and the insertion of the phrase onъ že ‘the latter’ before ZM et al. vъsta ‘stood up’: C vъstavi. onъ že sta ‘he raised (him); the latter stood’, B vъstavi. onъ že vъstavъ ‘he raised (him), the latter having stood up’, D vъstavi. i onъ že vъsta ‘he raised (him), and the latter stood up’ (cf. ZM et al. vъzdviže i. i Ø vъsta ‘he raised him, and (he) stood up’, h[geiren aujtovn, kai; ajnevsth). In v. 31, together with O, DBC omit ‘and they will kill him’ (ZM et al. i ubьjo˛tъ i, kai; ajpoktenou’sin). 44  This phrase is part of the clause ‘nor tell it to any in the village’, which appears in some Greek manuscripts, and in the KJ translation, at the end of the verse. It is not included in Nestle–Aland’s text reconstruction of the Greek text. CB have the same innovative loc. form vъ vesi ‘in the village’ in v. 27 (cf. SH vъ vьsi), for ZM acc. vъ vьsь ‘into the village’, but D’s garbling here, the fem. acc. vьso˛ ‘all’ instead of vьsь ‘village’, suggests that the CB feature was not in the earlier common DBC antigraph.

curzon_2.indb 39

02/06/2008 09:20:03

40

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

Mk 9: 33–41, 14th Fri. in New Year (Vk 13th Fri.). In v. 33, the DBC antigraph contained the masculine nominative singular definite present active participle phrase vъ domu syi ‘being in the house’, as in D; cf. ZM et al. byvъ vъ domu, with the past active participle in the same meaning (ejn th’Û oijkivaÛ genovmeno”). In the CB apograph, DBC’s non-ZM participle form syi apparently was interpreted as the higher-frequency masculine nominative–accusative singular demonstrative adjective sii ‘this’, as a result of erosion of the orthographic distinction between OCS vowels [y] and [i]. Since, however, the phrase vъ domu sii would contain a nominative–accusative demonstrative modifying a locative noun, in CB the accusative form domъ was substituted for domu to achieve case agreement with sii, resulting in vъ domъ sii (C si, B sy) ‘into this house’. Mk 9: 42–10: 1, 14th Mon. in New Year. In v. 49, for ZM poĕstъ (M osolitъ) sę ‘will be consumed (M ‘salted’)’, DBC has oso˛ditъ sę ‘will be judged’; cf. Vk sъžigaetъ sę ‘is burned up’, H požigaetъ ‘is lit, burned’. Mk 10: 2–11, 14th Tues. in New Year (VkH vv.  2–12). In v.  2, DBC adds se že glagolaxo˛ ‘and they said this’ preceding ZM et al. okušajo˛šte/iskušajo˛šte i ‘tempting him’ (peiravzonte” ­aujtovn). D’s folios containing Mk 10: 12–11: 10b are missing; see s. 3.6 for analysis of Mk 10: 11–16 (14th Wed. in New Year), Mk 10: 17–27 (14th Thurs.; VkH 13th Sun.), Mk 10: 23b–32 (14th Fri. in New Year, VkH vv. 24–32), Mk 10: 32–45 (5th Sun. in Lent), Mk 10: 46b–52 (15th Mon. in New Year), and Mk 11: 1–11a (Mon. in Meatfare week, i.e. the second week before Lent). Mk 11: 11–23, 15th Tues. in New Year. In v. 13, DBC has an involuntary reminiscence of Lu 13: 6: CB i pride kъ nei. xotę obrĕsti plodъ na nei, D i pride kъ nei. obrĕsti xotę na nei ploda, ‘and he came to it, wanting to find fruit on it’ (kai; h\lqen zhtw’n karpo;n ejn aujth’Û), for ZMVkH Ø pride ašte ubo obręštetъ čьto (VkH čьto obręštetъ) na nei, h\lqen eij a[ra ti euJrhvsei ejn aujth’Û (KJ ‘he came, if haply he might find anything on it’). It is unclear whether the antigraph’s word order matched D or CB; the CB order matches the Greek more closely. Mk 11: 22b–26, 15th Wed. in New Year (VkH vv. 23–6). DBC has an involuntary reminiscence of Mt 21: 21 in v. 23: ašte kъto vĕro˛ imatъ i (D Ø) ne uso˛mьnĕ (B -nę, D -ni) sę. i rečetъ gorĕ sei dvigni sę i vъvrьzi sę (B vrьzi sę) vъ more. bo˛detъ že ašte (D Ø iže) rečetъ ‘if anyone has faith (and) doubting (B ‘doubted’, D imv. ‘doubt’) not, and says to this mountain, remove yourself and be cast into the sea, it shall be as that person says’ (Mt 21: 21 eja;n e[chte pivstin kai; mh; diakriqh’te ouj movnon to; th’” sukh’” poihvsete, ajlla; ka]n tw’Û o[rei touvtwÛ ei[phte; KJ ‘if ye have faith and doubt not, ye shall not only do this what was done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done’); cf. ZM et al. Mk 11: 23 jako iže (Vk Ø) ašte (M Ø) rečetъ gorĕ sei. dvigni sę i vrьzi sę vъ more. i ne uso˛mьnitъ sę vъ srьdьci svoemь nъ vĕro˛ emletъ. jakože glagoletъ. byvaetъ. bo˛detъ emu eže ašte rečetъ (oJti o}” a]n ei[phÛ tw’Û o[rei touvtwÛ. a[rqhti kai; blhvqhti eij” th;n qavlassan, kai; mh; diakriqh’Û ejn th’Û kardivaÛ aujtou’ ajlla; pisteuvhÛ o{ti o} lalei’ givnetai, e[stai aujtw’, KJ ‘that whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass, he shall have whatsoever he saith’). On the shared spelling usьmn- here, see Section 2.2.2.2.

curzon_2.indb 40

02/06/2008 09:20:03

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

41

Mk 11: 27–33 CB 15th Thurs. in New Year. In v.  32, DBC makes ejfobou’nto to;n o[clon (ZMVkH bojaxo˛ sę ljudьi, KJ ‘they feared the people’) into a continuation of the direct quotation that followed, as in the corresponding Mt 21: 26 version: DBC v. 32 boimъ sę ljudьi, ‘we fear the people’ (Mt 21: 26 boimъ sę naroda, fobouvmeqa to;n o[clon). Mk 12: 1–12 (15th Fri. in New Year) and 12: 13–17 (16th Mon.) are textually unremarkable. Mk 12: 18–27, 16th Tues. in New Year. In v. 24, the DBC omission of ZMVkH ne sego li radi (ouj dia; tou’to) before blo˛dite (plana’sqe ‘you err’) results in ‘you err’ for ‘therefore do you not err’. Mk 12: 28–37, 16th Wed. in New Year. With A and N, DBC follows a Greek variant of verse 30 that omits Z(M)VkH i vъsĕmь umomь tvoimь. i vьsejo˛ krĕpostьjo˛ tvoejo˛ (kai; ejx o{lh” th’” dianoiva” sou kai; ejx o{lh” th’” ijscuvo” sou, KJ ‘and with all thy mind and all thy strength’). Mk 12: 38–44 (16th Thurs. in New Year) contains no unusual variations from ZM. D is missing the text of Mk 13: 1–9a (16th Fri.), 9b–13 (17th Mon.), 14–23 (17th Tues.), and 24–31 (17th Wed.), which are discussed in Section 3.6. Mk 13: 31–37 (17th Thurs., VkH to 14: 1), where D resumes for vv. 34–37a, is unremarkable. Mk 14: 1–11, 17th Fri. in New Year (VkH 14: 3–9). In v.  3, DBC alavastrъ mira vĕrna mъnogocĕnьna dragago for ajlavbastron muvrou navrdou pistikh’” polutelou’” (‘an alabaster jar of true ointment (myrrh), valuable and precious’) is partially a reminiscence from Mt 26: 7 ajlavbastron muvrou barutivmou ‘an alabaster jar of precious ointment/myrrh’; cf. ZMVkH Mk 14: 3 alavastrъ xrizmy nardьny pistikii Ø dragy ‘an alabaster jar of ointment (chrism) of precious liquid nard’. In v. 8, DBC has the anomaly si (C se) bo eže sъtvori o mьnĕ ‘for this which (she) did about me’ for ZMVkH eže imĕ si (VkH se) sъtvori ‘and what (she) had, she did’ (o} e[scen ejpoivhsen, KJ ‘she hath done what she could’). D is missing a folio containing Mk 14: 16–15: 33, but Mk 14: 10–42 (18th Tues. in New Year, Meatfare week), Mk 14: 43–72, 15: 1 (18th Wed., Meatfare week), and Mk 15: 16–32 (18th Fri., Meatfare week and Good Friday Third Hour; cf. VkH Meatfare Fri. vv. 22, 25, 33–41 and Sixth Passion lection vv. 16–32; H Meatfare Fri. vv. 22, 41, Third Hour Mk 15: 1–41) are unremarkable in CB. Mk 15: 22–41, continuation of Good Friday Passion lection (D text resumes at v. 33). In v. 36, DBC ilija spasetъ ‘Elijah will save (him)’ for ZMVkH ilija sъnętъ ‘Elijah will take (him) down [from the cross]’ (kaqelei’n aujtovn) is an involuntary reminiscence from Mt 27: 49 (eij e[rcetai ∆Hliva” swvswn aujtovn). Mk 15: 42, transition sentence between lections. DBC omits the final clause eže estъ kъ so˛botĕ ‘which is before the Sabbath’ (o{ ejstin prosavbbaton, KJ ‘that is, the day before the Sabbath’). Mk 15: 43–7, 16: 1–8 (3rd (C 2nd) Sun. after Easter, DB 10th Passion lection vv. 43–7) and Mk 16: 1–8 (Easter, 2nd Resurrection lection, and, in DB, 10th Passion lection; VVkVr 3rd Sun. in Mark). DBC has in v. 46 ‘he wrapped him in it’ (vъ njo˛) for ZM et al. ‘and he wrapped him in the linen’ (Z vъ ponjĕvico˛, MAVOVkH vъ plaštanico˛ (th’Û sindovni)). Mk 16: 1–8 (2nd Resurrection Gospel lection) and 16: 9–20 (3rd Resurrection lection, and in C also Ascension Day matins, DB also matins for 6th Thurs. after Easter) are unremarkable.

curzon_2.indb 41

02/06/2008 09:20:03

42

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

2.7.2.  Luke As in Mark, the DBC version is generally consistent with ZM in the first chapters of Luke, at least partly because there are no corresponding lections in the other Gospel Books that could give rise to involuntary reminiscences. The first of these holiday lections, which are found in the menology section in the back of lectionary gospels, are now missing from the Vk and H long lectionaries. Lu 1: 1–25 (first portion, Birth of John the Baptist), 1: 5–25 (Conception of John the Baptist), 1: 26–38 (Annunciation), and 1: 39–48 (B vv. 39–50), 56 (matins, all feasts of the Virgin Mary; Vk 1: 39–49, 56 matins, Birth of the Virgin Mary) are unremarkable. Lu 1: 57–68, 76–80 (continuation, Birth of John the Baptist). In v. 63, for ZM m. nom. sg. past active participle isprošь ‘having requested’, a defective form in DBC containing s (s) for ZM š (‚) appears in D as the anomaly isprosъ, in B as the ambiguous abbreviation ispr so, and in C as a reinterpretation as the aorist isprosi ‘he requested’. Lu 2: 1–20, Christmas Eve. In v. 6, D, B, and C share the anomaly i egda bystъ tu ‘and when it came to pass there’ for ZM et al. bystъ že egda byste ‘and it came to pass that they were there’, ∆egevneto de; ejn tw’Û ei\nai aujtou;” ejkei’. Lu 2: 20–1 (first portion of Circumcision lection) contains no significant departures from ZM. Lu 2: 22b–40 (Presentation in the Temple). In v. 26, D, B, and C have (ne vidĕti sъmrьti) prĕžde. nъ egda viditъ xrista gospodja viditъ (B viditъ xrista gospodinja, C viditъ xrista i gospoda) ‘(not to see death) before, but when he sees the Lord’s Christ (C ‘Christ and the Lord’)’ for ZMAS . . . prĕžde daže vidit xrista gospodja ‘. . . before he sees the Lord’s Christ’ (. . . mh; ijdei’n qavnaton pri;n h] a]n i[dhÛ to;n cristo;n kurivou). DBC v.  27 contains i pride (D pridetъ) duxomь vedomъ vъ crьkъve ‘and he came (D ‘will come’) led by the spirit in the temple’ for ZMAS i pride duxomь Ø vъ crьkъvь ‘he will come by the spirit into the temple’, kai; h\lqen ejn tw’Û pneuvmati. DBC v. 33 has bĕsta iosifъ i marija ‘Joseph and Mary were there’, which is not found among the Greek variants listed by Nestle–Aland or Soden (1913: 116); cf. MOVr bĕ iosifъ i mati ego ‘Joseph was there and (his) mother’, h\n ∆Iwsh;f kai; hJ mhvthr; ZAS bĕ otьcь i mati ego ‘(his) father was there and (his) mother’, N–A h\n oJ path;r aujtou’ kai; hJ mhvthr. DBC v. 42 has dative– instrumental dvĕma na desęte lĕtoma in place of MAOK gen. dъvoju na desęte lĕtu, ZS acc. dъva na desęte letĕ for ejtw’n dwvdeka ‘twelve years old’; see also Lu 8: 42. The Graecism ipopandija in the D and C rubrics to this lection is discussed in Section 4.5.2. Lu 2: 40–52 (continuation of Circumcision lection). D, B, and C share in v. 52 the garbling isusъ bĕaše prĕmo˛drostьjo˛ i tĕlomь ⟨. . .⟩ otъ boga Ø človĕkъ ‘Jesus was in wisdom and body/ stature from God Ø men’, for ZMASOK isusъ že spĕaše prĕmo˛drostijo˛ i tĕlomь i blagodĕtьjo ˛ otъ boga i človĕkъ ‘and Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men’ (kai; ∆Ihsou’” proevkopten ejn th’Û sofivaÛ kai; hJlikivaÛ kai; cavriti para; qew’Û kai; ajnqrwvpoi”). Lu 3: 1–18, Epiphany Eve (Baptism of Jesus). In v. 1, DBC has the clumsy word order filipu že četvrьtovlastьstvujo˛štju bratu ego ‘and Philip being tetrarch, his brother’ for ZMASVO fili-

curzon_2.indb 42

02/06/2008 09:20:03

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

43

pu že bratu ego četvrьtovlastьstvujo˛štju ‘and Philip, his brother, being tetrarch’ (Filivppou de; tou’ ajdelfou’ aujtou’ tetraarcou’nto”). Lu 3: 19–22 (1st Mon. in New Year) is unremarkable. Lu 3: 23–4: 1a (1st Tues. in New Year). In the list of Jesus’s ancestors, DBC has in v. 29, following levgiinъ ‘(son) of Levi’ (tou’ Leuiv), the homoioteleuton45 melxievъ iannĕevъ ‘(son) of Melchi, (son) of Janna’ (tou; Melci; tou; ∆Iannaiv) from v.  24, and, in v.  34, the garbling fartonatovъ (D)/far(ь)tonagovъ (CB), for ZM taranь, Vk faraonъ, H tharanovъ ‘(son) of Thara’ (tou’ Qavra). DBC also omits entirely the following name naxorovъ ‘(son) of Nachor’ (tou’ Nacwvr), which Z places instead in v. 28 (Jagić 1879a [1954]: 87). Lu 4: 1b–15, 1st Wed. in New Year (VkH begin at 4: 1a). In v. 2, for the ZMVkH reflexive dative absolute past participle construction vъ ty dьni. i konьčavъšemъ sę imъ ‘in those days, and with them [i.e. the days] having ended-[intrans.]’, DBC had the non-reflexive nominative plural participle, resulting in the garbling vь tiję dьni sъkonьčavъše Ø imъ ‘in those days, having ended-[trans.] to them’. In efforts to remedy the case misagreement, C changes the nominative participle to a third person singular imperfect (vь tiję dьni konьčĕše imь ‘in those days, it was ending-[trans.] to them’), while D and B keep the nominative participle form but drop the misagreeing dative pronoun imъ ‘them’ (vь tiję dьni sъkonьčavъše Ø ‘in those days, they having ended-[trans.] Ø’). Lu 4: 16–22a (1st Thurs. in New Year) is unremarkable. Lu 4: 22b–32, 1st Fri. in New Year. In v. 29, DBC has xotęšte dolu sъrino˛ti ‘wanting to cast (him) down’, vs. ZMAOVkVrH da bo˛ i nizъrino˛li ‘that they might cast him down’ (w{ste katakrhmnivsai aujtovn). Lu 4: 31–6 (1st Sat. in New Year) is unremarkable. Lu 4: 37, transition sentence. DBC omits the ZM segment šjumъ o nemь. vъ ‘a news/rumor about him into’ between isxoždaaše ‘there went out’ and vьsĕko mĕsto strany ‘every place of the surrounding area’ (for kai; ejxeporeuveto h\co” peri; aujtou’ ei;” pavnta tovpon th’” pericwvrou), and changes mĕsto strany to mĕsto i strany ‘place and surrounding areas’. CB later alters DBC neuter singular vъsĕko ‘every’ to misagreeing neuter plural vьsja ‘all’ (B v´s™, C v´så) as the modifier of neuter singular mĕsto ‘place’. Lu 4: 38b–44 (2nd Mon. in New Year), 5: 1b–11 (1st Sun.), and 5: 12–16 (2nd Tues.) are unremarkable. Lu 5: 17–26, 2nd Sat. in New Year. At v. 17, in a botched attempt to change the ZMOVkVrPH variant ‘from every Galilean and Judaean village’ (otъ vьsĕkoję vьsi galileisky i ijudeisky, ejk pavsh” kwvmh” th’” Galilaiva”) to the AK variant ‘from all Galilean and Judaean villages’ (otъ vьsĕxъ vьsьi galileiskъ i ijudeiskъ), DBC has failed to alter the genitive singular feminine adjective galileisky, which also is the nominative plural form, to plural galileiskъ. The number misagreement is transmitted to D and C as otъ vьsĕxъ vьsьi (D vьsi) galileisky i ijudeisky. The confusion is compounded in D by the ambiguous orthographic form vьsi ‘village(s)’, which 45  In this study, the term ‘homoioteleuton’ refers to a repetition or an omission of a similar-appearing neighboring ­segment of text.

curzon_2.indb 43

02/06/2008 09:20:04

44

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

can be either genitive singular or genitive plural. B resolves the misagreement by making both adjectives, ‘Galilean’ and ‘Judaean’, genitive definite plural: otъ vьsĕxъ vьsei (gen. pl.) galileiskyxъ i ijudeiskyxъ. Further in the same opening verse, DBC has i sila gospodja iscĕlĕše ję ‘and the power of the Lord healed them (C cĕlĕše i ‘healed him’)’ for ZMAOVrK i sila gospodja bĕ cĕliti ję ‘and the power of the Lord was present to heal them’ (kai; duvnami” kurivou h\n eij” to; ija’sqai aujtouv”); note also VkH . . . bĕ(še) cĕlęšti ję ‘was present healing them’.46 In v. 19, for ZM et al. ‘through the tile/roof they lowered him with his bed’, skvozĕ sko˛dolъ/ sko˛delъ (‘tile’; OVr pokrovъ ‘roof ’, VkKH stropъ ‘roof ’) nizъvĕsišę (Vk i izъvĕsišĕ, KH sъvĕsišę) i sъ ložemь (‘with his bed’, MS sъ odromь ‘with his bed/cot’, H na odrĕ ‘on his bed/cot’), dia; tw’n keravmwn kaqh’kan aujto;n su;n tw’Û klinidivwÛ, DBC has an involuntary reminiscence from Mk 2: 4, otъemъše krovъ sъvĕsišę i sъ odromь dolu. na zemljo˛ ‘having removed the roof, they lowered him with his cot below to the ground’ (cf. Mk 2: 4, ZM ‘they opened the roof where he was, and having dug through, they lowered the cot on which the paralytic lay’, otъkryšę pokrovъ ideže bĕ. i prokopavъše sъvĕsišę odrъ. na nemьže oslablenyi sъležaaše (ajpestevgasan th;n stevghn o{pou h\n, kai; ejxoruvxante” calw’si to;n kravbaton u{pou oJ paralutiko;” katevkeito). B has extended the reminiscence even further, changing the DBC variant otъemъše krovъ ‘having removed the roof ’ in Lu 5: 19 to the Mk 2: 4 ZM variant otъkryšę pokrovъ ‘they opened the roof ’. In v. 21, DBC, like H, uses accusative plural xuly ‘blasphemies’ (also N–A pl. blasfhmiva”) for OVkVr sg. xulo˛ and ZMASK sg. vlasvimijo ˛ . In v. 24, with SVkH, DBC repeats M’s lexical variant odrъ ‘bed’/‘cot’ (N–A klinivdion); cf. ZAOVrK lože ‘bed’, reflecting a minority Greek version (krabbavtwn ‘mattress’, ‘bed’, ‘pallet’). Lu 5: 27–32, 3rd Sat. in New Year. In v. 28, DBC, with M, omit ZOVkVrPH vъstavъ ‘having gotten up’ immediately preceding vъ slĕdъ ego ide ‘he followed him’ (ajnasta;” hjkolouvqei aujtwÛ’). Lu 5: 33–9, 2nd Wed. in New Year. Following the rubric, DBC have in black ink, as the beginning text of the lection, the VkH lectionary incipit segment ono pristo˛pišę kъ isusu farisei (CB + i ijudei) i rekošę emu ‘at that time there approached Jesus Pharisees (CB +‘and Jews’) and said to him’; cf. ZM simply oni že rĕšę kъ nemu ‘and they said to him’. As D has lost several leaves beginning after the first syllable of farisei, it is uncertain whether the DBC antigraph included the additional CB phrase ‘and Jews’. The next sixteen lections, which are missing from D, are discussed in Section 3.6.47 Lu 8: 26–39, 6th Sun. in New Year. In v. 33, where D resumes, for ZMASOVrP stado ‘the herd’ (hJ ajgevlh) DBC has stado vьse ‘the whole herd’ (also S vьse stado) and VkH have stado vьse svinoe ‘the whole swineherd’, both apparently reminiscences from Mt 8: 32 (pa’sa hJ agevlh ‘the whole herd’). Lu 8: 41–56, 7th Sun. in New Year. At the beginning of v. 41, B entirely omits ZM i se ‘and lo’ (kai; ijdou;), while C preserves i ‘and’ and D substitutes togda ‘then’. In v. 42, as earlier in 46 

The variant ‘to heal them’ (also KJ) reflects a minority Greek version; C’s use of ‘him’ matches N–A aujtovn. Lu 6: 1–10 (4th Sat. in New Year), 6: 12–19 (2nd Thurs.), 6: 17–23 (2nd Fri.), 6: 24–30 (3rd Mon.), 6: 31–6 (2nd Sun.), 6: 37–45 (3rd Tues.), 6: 45–7: 1a (3rd Wed.), 7: 1b–10 (5th Sat.), 7: 11–16 (3rd Sun.), 7: 17–30 (3rd Thurs.), 7: 31–5 (3rd Fri.), 7: 36–50 (4th Mon.), 8: 1–3 (4th Tues.), 8: 5–15 (4th Sun.), 8: 16–21 (6th Sat.), 8: 22b–25 (4th Wed.). 47 

curzon_2.indb 44

02/06/2008 09:20:04

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

45

Lu 2: 42, DBC renders wJ” ejtw’n dwvdeka ‘about twelve years old’ with dative–instrumental Ø dvĕma na desęte lĕtoma; cf. ZM et al. gen. jako dъvoju na desĕte lĕtu’ ‘of about twelve’. D and C exhibit parallel anomalies in v. 48 that suggest a DBC defect in the feminine dative singular pronoun ei in the clause (i) reče ei isusъ ‘(and) Jesus said to her’. The ambiguous second i in C’s variant i reče i isusъ looks like the modern vernacular Bulgarian clitic form of ei, but more likely it is simply an omission of one of the two consecutive e’s between reče ‘said’ and ei ‘to her’. In the same location, D omits one of the two consecutives i ’s between ei ‘to her’ and isusъ ‘Jesus’, producing what appears to be neuter accusative ‘it’: D Ø reče e isusъ ‘Jesus said it’. B has correct i reče ei isusъ; cf. ZM et al. word order isusъ/onъ (M že) reče ei ‘(and) Jesus/he said to her’. Lu 9: 1–6, 7th Sat. in New Year. Like VkH, DBC begins v. 1 with sъzъva že isusъ oba na desęte apostola ‘and Jesus called together the twelve apostles’, in contrast to the short lectionaries’ variant . . . učenika ‘disciples’ (ASOVrP, also English KJ) and the ZM variant ‘and having called together the twelve’ (sъzъvavъ že Ø oba na desĕte, sugkalesavmeno” de; tou;” dwvdeka Ø). In v.  3, DBC alone has (gen.) vrĕtišta ‘sack’ for ZMASOP Graecism piry/pirъ ‘scrip’, ‘knapsack’ (phvran); cf. VkVrH shared garbling ryby ‘fish’. DBC v. 5 contains the variant eliko ixъ ne priemletъ vasъ ‘as much of them as does not receive you’, where ZM et al. have eliko Ø ne priemljo˛tъ vasъ ‘as much as (they) do not receive you’, o{soi a]n mh; devcwntai uJma’” (KJ ‘whosoever will not receive you’). Also here, DBC shares with S the Greek textual variant vъ sъvĕdĕnie imъ ‘in testimony to them’ (aujtoi’”, Soden 1913: 135) in place of ZM et al. vъ sъvĕdĕnie na nę ‘in witness against them (eij” martuvrion ejp∆ aujtouv”). In v. 6, following prixoždaaxo˛ ‘they came’, DBC omits the phrase skvozĕ vьsi ‘through the villages’ (dihvrconto kata; ta;” kwvma”). Lu 9: 7–11, 4th Thurs. in New Year. DBC v. 7 contains the active construction glagolaaxo˛ bo eteri ‘for some said’ for ZMVkH present passive zane glagolaemo bĕ otъ eterъ (VkH nĕkyixъ), ‘for it was being said by some’ (also N–A dia; to; levgesqai uJpov tinwn). Lu 9: 12a, transition verse. DBC begin the verse with the dative absolute participial construction prĕklonъšu že sę dьni ‘and the day coming to a close’; cf. ZM aorist dьnь že načętъ prĕklanĕti sę ‘the day began to come to a close’ (hJ de; hJmevra h[rxato klivnein). Lu 9: 12b–18, 4th Fri. in New Year. DBC v. 13 has the subjunctive nъ da šedъše vъ Ø ljudi sьję kupimъ brašьna, ‘but so that going, we may buy food for these people’, for ZMVk(H) ašte ubo ne my šedъše vъ vьsę ljudi sьję kupimъ brašьna, ‘unless we, going, buy food for all these people’. Lu 9: 18–23a, 5th Mon. in New Year. In v. 18, DBC has the virile accusative singular present participle so˛šta ‘being’ for ZM infinitive byti ‘to be’, and the lexical variant mьnętъ ‘think’, ‘assume’ for ZM nepьštjujo˛tъ ‘think’, ‘imagine’: DBC kogo mę mьnętъ narodi so˛šta, ZM kogo mę nepьštjujo˛tъ narodi byti ‘who do the crowds think me to be?’ 48 VkH alone have ‘say’ instead of ‘think’ here, matching the standard Greek version: kogo mę glagoljo˛tъ narodi byti, tivna me oiJ o[cloi levgousin ei\nai, ‘who do the crowds say me to be?’). 48  In v. 20, DBC again uses the present participle so˛šta in place of ZMVkH infinitive byti: DBC i reče imъ vy že kogo mę glagolete so˛šta ‘and he said to them, who do you say I am?’, ZMVkH Ø reče že imъ kogo mę glagolete byti, uJmei’” de; tivna me levgete ei\nai.

curzon_2.indb 45

02/06/2008 09:20:05

46

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

Lu 9: 23b–28, 5th Tues. in New Year. DBC omits ašte ‘-ever’ twice: in v. 24, with AOH, iže Ø pogubitъ dušo˛ svojo˛ mene radi ‘he who will lose his soul’, for (Z)MVkH iže ašte pogubitъ . . . ‘whoever will lose his soul’, o}” d∆ a]n apolevshÛ th;n yuch;n; and in v. 26, DBC alone substitues bo for ašte: iže bo postyditъ sę mene (CB +radi) i moixъ slovesъ ‘for he who will be ashamed (CB +‘because’) of me and my words’; cf. ZM et al. iže ašte postyditъ sę mene Ø i moixъ slovesъ. ‘whosoever will be ashamed of me and my words’. Also in v. 26, D and C share the garbling oči, apparently the dual nom.–acc. noun ‘eyes’, as it has no titlo over it in either manuscript to indicate that it is an abbreviation, for the ZMB et al. fem. loc. sg. possessive adjective otьči ‘father’s’, in the (ZM) phrase vъ slavĕ svoei i otьči svętyxъ angelъ ‘in his own glory and the Father’s and the holy angels’ (ejn th’Û dovxhÛ aujtou’ kai; tou’ patro;” kai; tw’n aJgivwn ajggevlwn). The C scribe obviously had trouble making sense of this phrase: an erased titlo is visible in the segment oči stixь (stixь being the abbreviation of svętyxъ ‘holy’), albeit not over the č, as would be expected if oči were intended as an abbreviation of otьči, or over the following abbreviation stixь, but instead covering the final i of oči and the s of stixь. This indicates that at least initially, the C scribe did not recognize oči and stixь as separate words, but interpreted them together as either the anomalous adjective očistixь ‘pure’ (cf. OCS verb očistiti ‘to purify’, adj. čistъ ‘pure’), ‘in his own glory and that of the pure angels’, or, less likely, as the ungrammatical phrase o čistixь angelъ ‘about the pure angels’, in which the original genitive adjective ending is interpreted as the identical locative ending following preposition o, but the noun remains in the genitive. B has corrected the DBC defect to the definite adjective abbreviation očii ‘father’s’, bearing a titlo (o˙∂©ii˙). DBC v. 27 has the grammatical variant iže ne vъkusętъ sъmrьti for the ZM et al. analytic future construction iže ne imo˛tъ vъkusiti sъmrьti ‘those who will not taste death’ (oi} ouj mh; geuvswntai qanavtou). Lu 9: 28b–36, The Transfiguration. This lection, which occurs near the end of the lectionary gospel text, is now missing from all lectionaries in the corpus except O. In v. 28, DBC has po slovesexъ že sixъ prĕbystъ Ø dьnii osmь ‘and after these words there remained about eight days’, for ZM bystъ že po slovesexъ sixъ jako dьnii osmь ‘and it came to pass about eight days after these words’ (∆Egevneto de; meta; tou;” lovgou” touvtou” wJsei; hJmevrai ojktwv). In v. 31, DBC has a syntactically less slavish translation than ZMO: DBC i glagolasta o isxodĕ ego ‘and they spoke about his departure’ vs. (Z)MO glagolaašete že isxodъ ego (lit. ‘and they were speaking the departure’, e[legon th’n e[xodon aujtou’). Lu 9: 37–43, 8th Sat. in New Year. At v. 42, DBC has two involuntary reminiscences: iscĕlĕ otrokъ ‘the boy was healed’ (Mt 17: 18 kai; ejqerapeuvqh oJ pai’”, also S i icĕlĕ vъ tъ časъ ‘and he was healed in that hour’) for ZM et al. i icĕli otroka ‘and he healed the boy’ (kai; ijavsato to;n pai’da); and, with ZSVk, the insertion directly before that clause of (DBC glagolję+) duše nečistyi. izidi otъ otroka ‘(DBC ‘saying’,+) “Unclean soul, depart from the boy”’ (Mk 9: 25 glagolję emu. nĕmy i gluxy duše. azъ ti veljo˛ izidi iz nego, levgwn aujtw’Û. to; a[lalon kai; kwfo;n pneu’ma, ejgw; ejpitavssw soi, e[xelqe ejx aujtou’, ‘saying to it, “Dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him.”’) Lu 9: 44–50 (5th Wed. in New Year) is unexceptional. Lu 9: 51–6, 5th Thurs. in New Year (VkH begin at v. 49). At v. 51, DCB has egda približišę sę

curzon_2.indb 46

02/06/2008 09:20:05

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

47

dьnьe ‘when the days approached’ for ZMVkH bystъ že egda sъkonьčavaaxo˛ sę dьnьe ‘and it came to pass, when the days were fulfilled/completed’, ∆egevneto de; ejn tw’Û sumplhrou’sqai ta;” hJmevra”. Lu 9: 57–62, 9th Sat. in New Year. At v. 57, DBC has the lectionary style incipit to the lection, albeit with characteristic omission of bystъ ‘it came to pass’: Ø ido˛štju isusu ‘as Jesus was going’ (cf. ZM bystъ že ido˛štemъ imъ ‘and it came to pass, as they were going’, kai; poreuovmenon aujtw’n), followed by instrumental po˛tьmь for ZM po po˛ti ‘along the road’. The other manuscripts in the corpus reflect a minority Greek version that adds gospodi ‘Lord’ in the same verse following koližьdo ideši ‘wherever you go, Lord’; DBC alone matches the N–A version in not containing it (o{pou eja;n ajpevrchÛ). Lu 10: 1–15, 5th Fri. in New Year. In v. 6, DBC has the involuntary reminiscence ašte li ne bo˛do˛tъ dostoini ‘if they are not worthy’ (Mt 10: 13 eja;n de; mh; h\Û ajxiva ‘and if it is not worthy’) for ZMVkH ašte li ni ‘if not, otherwise’ (eij de; mhv ge). In v. 8, D, B, and C share the error i vъ nьže gradъ kogda vъxodite ‘and which town when you enter’ for ZM i vъ nьže gradъ koližьdo, VkKH i vъ nьže koližьdo gradъ ‘and whichever town you enter’ (kai; eij” h}n a]n povlin eijsevrchsqe). Immediately thereafter, DBC omits (ZMVkKH) i priemljo˛tъ vy ‘and they receive you’, kai; devcwntai uJma’”. In v. 11, DBC shares with A the variant vъ (B na) nogaxъ našixъ ‘on our feet’ (also N–A, Soden (1913) hJmi’n . . . eij” tou;” povda”), for ZVkVrK’s vъ nogaxъ vašixъ ‘on your feet’ (M om.). Lu 10: 16–21 (10th Sat. in New Year, VkH 19–21) and 10: 22–4 (6th Mon.) are unexceptional. Lu 10: 25–38a, 8th Sun. in New Year (also H; Vk 25–7, 29–37). In v. 35, DBC has vъ utrĕi for ZM et al. na utrьĕ ‘the next morning’ (ejpi; th;n au[rion) and the garbling ašte prĕživeši ‘if you live through’, for ZM eže ašte priiždiveši ‘whatever you spend’. DBC’s omission of eže ‘which’, ‘what’ is shared by P; prĕživeši for priiždiveši is shared by H. Lu 10: 38a (transition sentence) is unremarkable except for avoidance of i bystъ. Lu 10: 38b–42, 11: 27–8; Birth of the Virgin Mary. DBC v. 39 has the anomaly poslušaaše slovese ‘she obeyed/listened to his word’ (or CB slovesъ ‘words’) for ZMAOVkKPH slyšaaše slovo ego ‘she heard his word’, h[kouen to;n lovgon aujtou’. Lu 11: 1b–10 (6th Tues. after New Year) is unexceptional. Lu 11: 9–13, 6th Wed. in New Year (with VkH); Lu 5–13, Sat. in Meatfare (VkH Lu 21: 8–9, 25–7, 33–6). DBC v. 13 otьcь vašь nebesnyi dastъ blagaja (‘your Heavenly Father will give good things’) is an involuntary reminiscence from Mt 7: 11 (oJ path;r uJmw’n oJ ejn toi’” oujranoi’” dwvsei ajgaqa;); cf. MOVkH v. 13 otьcь vašь sъ nebese dastъ duxъ svętyi ‘your Father from heaven will give the Holy Spirit’ (oJ path;r oJ ejn oujranou’ dwvsei pneu’ma a{gion). The ZAS version of the same verse also has been subject to contamination from Mt 7: 11 (. . . dastъ duxъ blagъ ‘. . . will give a good spirit’). Lu 11: 14–23, 6th Thurs. in New Year. Probably influenced by Mt 12: 22 (tovte proshnevcqh aujtw’Û daimonizovmeno” tuflo;” kai; kwfov”), DBC omits from v. 14 the ZMVkH incipit i bĕ izgonę bĕsy ‘and he was casting out demons’ (kai; h\n ejkbavllwn daimovnion), beginning instead with the variant i bĕ tu človĕkъ nĕmъ i bĕsьnъ (C bĕsъ) ‘and a mute and possessed person was there’ for MH i tъ bĕ Ø nĕmъ ØØ ‘and it [the demon] was mute’ (kai; aujto; h\n kwfovn), ZVk i tu bĕ Ø nĕmъ ØØ, ‘and a mute was there’.

curzon_2.indb 47

02/06/2008 09:20:06

48

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

DBC v. 17 follows the standard Greek version more literally than do ZMVkH, adding na sę ‘against itself ’ following vьsĕko cĕsarьstvьe razdĕljaję sę ‘every kingdom divided’ (pa’sa basileiva ejf∆ eJauth;n diamerisqei’sa). In v. 18, in an effort to replace jako ‘because’ (o{ti), DBC has ‘what/that you say’ (eže glagolete) for ZM(Vk)H ‘because you say’ (jako glagolete, o{ti levgete). Verse 21 has ‘will arm himself ’ (vъoro˛žitъ sę) for Z(M)VkH past participle ‘having armed himself ’ (vъoro˛žь sę, kaqwplismevno”). In v. 22, CB nъ krĕpъkyi našьdъ pobĕditъ (C pobĕdi) i ‘but the strong one, having attacked, overpowers (C ‘overpowered’) him’ (cf. D’s garbling nъ krĕpъkyi našь da pobĕditъ i ‘but our strong one, that he may overpower him’) differs in a number of details from the standard Greek version ejpa;n de; ijscurovtero” aujtou’ ejpelqwvn nikhvshÛ aujtovn and ZMVkH a po neže krĕplьi ego našьdъ pobĕditъ i, ‘but insofar as a stronger one than he, having attacked, will overpower him’. Also in this verse, DBC has the third person plural non-past variant upovajo˛tъ ‘they trust’ (see s. 2.2.2.2) for ZMVkH imperfect upъvaaše ‘he trusted’ (ejpepoivqei). Lu 11: 23–6, 6th Fri. in New Year. DBC v. 26 has poimetъ sъ sobojo ˛ inĕxъ duxъ gorьšiixъ (D anomaly gorьšeixъ or gorьše ixъ, B misagreement gorьši) sebe sedmь ‘it takes with itself seven other spirits worse than itself ’ for ZMVkH poimetъ ØØ drugyixъ Ø gorьšь sebe sedmь ‘it takes seven others worse than itself ’, paralambavnei e{tera pneuvmata ponhrovtera eJautou’ eJptav. Lu 11: 27–8 (continuation, Birth of the Virgin Mary), is unexceptional. Lu 11: 29–33, 7th Mon. in New Year. DBC shares with VkH in v. 31 sg. oso˛ditъ ‘(she) will condemn’ (katakrinei’) for ZM pl. oso˛dętъ ‘they will condemn’. Lu 11: 34–41, 7th Tues. in New Year. DBC has in v. 34 ašte li ‘if ’ for ZMVkH a po neže ‘but inasmuch as’; cf. N–A ejpa;n de;. In v.  38, DBC omits prĕžde ‘first’ from ZMVkH ne prĕžde krьsti sę prьvĕe obĕda ‘he had not first washed before dinner’, ouj prw’ton ejbaptivsqh pro; tou’ ajrivstou. In v. 40, the DBC antigraph contained the DB variant ˛otrьnee ‘inside’ (cf. ZMVkH vъno˛trьnee ‘inner’) for to; e[swqen; here C has the hybrid garbling no˛trьnee. Lu 11: 42–6, 7th Wed. in New Year. In v. 44, DBC has the garbling ideže Ø jako i (D jaky) grobi este nevĕdomi ‘where like (D ‘such as’) graves you are unknown’ for ZM ižde este jako (i) grobi nevĕdomi, VkH este bo jako grobi nevĕdomi ‘for you are like unknown graves’ (o{ti ejste; wJ” ta; mnhmei’a ta; a[dhla). Lu 11: 47–12: 1, 7th Thurs. in New Year. DBC share with ZVkH in v. 47 the minority Greek variant gore vamъ kъnižьnici (Z +i) farisĕi (Z +i) ÿpokriti ‘woe to you, scribes, (and) Pharisees, (and) hypocrites’; M and N–A have simply gore vamъ, oujai’ uJmi’n (‘woe to you’). In 12: 1, DBC has the garbling sъšьdъše sę tьmami naroda, ‘having come together-[m. nom. pl.] through multitudes-[f. instr. pl.] of people’ for ZMVk dative absolute participial construction sъnьmъšemъ sę tьmamъ naroda ‘there having gathered multitudes of people’. Further CB anomalies in this lection are discussed in Section 3.5.2. Lu 12: 2–12, 7th Fri. in New Year. In v. 11, DBC has kako (i)li čьto pomyslite. ili čьto otъvĕštaete ‘how or what you will think or what you will answer’ for ZAVOVkVrKH . . . ili čьto rečete ‘. . . or what you will say’. M alone in the corpus has the N–A version ‘how and what you will answer or what you will say’ (kako ili čьto otъvĕštaete ili čьto recete, mh; merimnhvshte pw’” h] tiv apologhvshsqe h] tiv ei[phte).

curzon_2.indb 48

02/06/2008 09:20:06

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

49

Lu 12: 13–15, 22–31, 8th Mon. in New Year (VkH vv. 13–21). DBC has imĕnьe ‘property’ in v. 13 for ZMH dostojanьe ‘inheritance’, ‘wealth’ (klhronommivan; cf. Vk pričęstьe ‘part’.) Lu 12: 16–21, 9th Sun. in New Year. DBC end v.  21 with the ZSK version a ne vъ bogъ bogatĕję ‘and is not rich toward God’; MASOVkVrPH, and some Greek manuscripts, add i si glagolję vъzglasi imĕjęi uši slyšati da slyšitъ ‘and saying these things he cried, “he who has ears to hear, let him hear”’ (tau’ta levgwn ejfwvnei. oJ e[cwn w[ta ajkouvein ajkouevtw). Lu 12: 22–31, continuation of 8th Mon. in New Year. In v.  31, following obače ištĕte cĕsarьstьja božьja (plh;n zhtei’te th;n basileivan tou’ qeou’, also KJ ‘but rather seek ye the kingdom of God),49 DBC adds from Mt 6: 33 i pravьdy ego ‘and his righteousness’ (kai; th;n dikaiosuvnhn). Lu 12: 32–40, 11th Sat. in New Year. In v. 33, DBC shares with VkH imĕnьe ‘property’ (Vk pl. imĕnьja) for (Z)MAOVrKP vъlagališta ‘purses’, ‘bags’ (ballavntia). In v. 34, DBC matches Vk and P in omitting bo˛detъ ‘will be’ from Z(A)MSOVr(K) tu i srьdьce vaše bo˛detъ ‘there also will your heart be’. In C and B, this results in the phrase ‘there (is) your heart also’; D, probably as a later emendation, has tu Ø estъ srьdьce vaše ‘there is your heart’. Lu 12: 35–48?, Tues. in Holy Week. D, B, and C alone in the corpus mark this lection and specify it for the Great Compline service with the Graecism na metimonĕ, literally ‘for meq∆ hJmw’n oJ qevo”’, referring to the hymn ‘God is with us’.50 The D and C rubrics list the lection for Tuesday in Holy Week; B’s rubric lists it for Thursday. It does not appear for either day in CB SynI, however. None of the three manuscripts indicates clearly where the lection ends: all three mark v. 48 as the end for an unspecified Tuesday lection, but the following lection, for the eighth Tuesday in the New Year, traditionally ends there. DBC adds nošti ‘of the night’ in v. 38 to the end of the phrase ljubo vъ vъtoro˛jo˛ ljubo vъ tretьjo˛ stražo˛ ‘either in the second or in the third watch’ (ka]n ejn th’Û trivthÛ fulakhÛ’). Lu 12: 41 transition verse. DBC omits the final ZM phrase li kъ vьsĕmъ ‘or to all?’ following gospodi kъ namъ li pritъčo˛ sijo˛ glagoleši, ‘Lord, are you telling this parable to us?’; cf. kuvrie, pro;” hJma’” th;n parabolh;n tauvthn levgei” h] kai; pro;” pavnta”…. Lu 12: 42–8, 8th Tues. in New Year. In v. 42, DBC follows M’s variant nadъ čelĕdьjo˛ svoejo˛ ‘over his family’; cf. Z nadъ domomь svoimь ‘over his house’, VkH nadъ raby svoimi ‘over his slaves’, for ejpi; th’” qerapeiva” aujtou’ (KJ ‘over his household’). In v. 45, however, DBC shares with Z the verb muditъ (Z mo˛ditъ) rather than MVkH kъsnitъ for cronivzei, ‘delays’-[3PSg], and in v. 46, časъ for MVkH godino˛ ‘hour’ (w{raÛ). In v. 47 D, B, and C have ne ugotovatъ, which looks like the supine, a grammatical form that does not normally appear in DBC, for ZMH past participle ne ugotovavъ (‘not having prepared’, mh; ejtoimavsa”; Vk om.). Lu 12: 48b–59, 8th Wed. in New Year. In the opening verse, DBC has the variant vъzištetъ sę ‘will be looked for, sought’ for ZMVkH izištetъ sę ‘will be demanded, sought’ (zhthqhvsetai, KJ ‘shall be . . . required’), and definite adjective bolьšaja ‘more’ (also minority Greek version plevon, KJ ‘the more’) for ZMVkH indefinite lišьša ‘excessive’, ‘exceeding’ (N–A per49 

Compare the standard Greek version basileivan aujtou’, ‘his kingdom’ (Nestle–Aland 1985: 202). I am indebted to Francis Thomson for identifying the Greek phrase behind met(h)imonъ and its origin in a hymn (pers. comm., 2003), and to the Office of the Archdiocese of the Greek Orthodox Church in the United States for directing me to the specific hymn. 50 

curzon_2.indb 49

02/06/2008 09:20:06

50

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

issovteron). DBC begins v. 59 out of habit with aminъ ‘amen’ before (ZM et al.) glagoljo˛ tebĕ ‘I say unto you’ (levgw soi). Lu 13: 1–10, 8th Thurs. in New Year. Although the D version of this lection differs noticeably from both CB and ZM (see s. 3.5.2), there are a few minor features that can be attributable to the DBC antigraph. In v. 6, all three manuscripts have i reče sijo˛ pritъčo˛ vs. ZM(Vk) H glagolaaše že sijo˛ pritъčo˛ for [Elegen de; tauvthn th’n parabolh;n ‘and he told this parable’. In v. 9, DBC i ašte ne sъtvoritъ ploda ‘and if it will not bear fruit’ reflects a mistranslation of me;n in this context as ‘not’ (ne) rather than ‘indeed’ (ubo). This clause is followed by the ‘if . . . then’ construction that DBC favors: to vъ prido˛šte vrĕmę posĕčeši jo˛, ‘then in the future you shall cut it down’. ZMVkH are closer to the standard Greek version, although both Slavic versions have the phrase ‘in the future’ in a different location from N–A: ZMVkH i ašte ubo sъtvoritъ plodъ. ašte li že (Z Ø) ni. vъ grędo˛štee/pridŏšte vrĕmę posĕčeši jo˛ ‘and if indeed it will bear fruits, otherwise in the future you shall cut it down’ (ka]n me;n poihvshÛ karpovn eij” to; mevllon. eij de; mhv ge, ejkkovyei” authvn, ‘and if indeed it will bear fruit in the future, otherwise, you shall cut it down’). Lu 13: 10–17, 10th Sun. in New Year. DBC shares with O in v.  16 the lexical variant ne podobaaše li for ZM et al. ne dostojaaše li ‘was it not fitting’ (oujk e[dei). In v. 18, the DBC shared antigraph contained either the accusative or the instrumental form of the noun pritъča ‘parable’, since CB and D insert one or the other form of the noun following ZMO glagolaaše že ‘and he said’ (e[legen ou\n): CB i glagolaaše pritъčejo˛ ‘and he spoke through a parable’, D reče gospodь pritъčo˛ sijo˛ ‘he told this parable’. Lu 13: 19–28 (B v. 30), 12th Sat. in New Year (VkH vv. 19–29). DBC follow the Z and second O lection version of v. 19, which does not identify the subject referent from the preceding lection: podobьno estъ (zrьnu gorjušьnu) ‘it is like (a mustard seed)’ (also N–A oJmoiav ejsti;n); cf. M et al. podobьno estъ cĕsarьstvьe nebesьskoe ‘the kingdom of heaven is like’. In v. 24, DBC’s word order is glagoljo˛ vamъ Ø mъnodzi vъzišto˛tъ vъniti (also VkH glagoljo˛ bo vamъ jako mъnodzi vъniti vъzišto˛tъ, ‘(VkH ‘For’) I tell you (VkH +that) many will seek to enter’, vs. ZM et al. jako mъnodzi glagoljo˛ vamъ vъzišto˛tъ vъniti ‘for many, I tell you, will seek to enter’, o{ti polloiv, levgw uJmi’n, zhthvsousin eijselqei’n. DBC v. 27 has i togda rečetъ ne vĕdĕ vasъ otъ ko˛du este ‘and then he shall say “I do not know you, where you are from”’, for ZM et al. i rečetъ glagoljo˛ vamъ. ne vĕmь vasъ otъ ko˛du este ‘and Ø he shall say, “I tell you, I do not know you, where you are from”’ (KJ). Lu 13: 29–30 (transition verses) are unexceptional. Lu 13: 31–5, 8th Fri. in New Year. DBC and VkH follow the Greek version of v. 35 that adds e[rhmo” ‘empty’ after ijdou; ajfivetai ujmi’n oJ oi\ko” uJmw’n ‘lo, your house is left unto you’: DBC, Vk se ostavljaetъ sę vamъ domъ vašъ pustъ’. Also here, DBC corresponds to the Greek version that omits the phrase h{xei o{ti ‘the time shall come when’: DBC donьdeže rečete ‘until you shall say’, MVkH donьdeže pridetъ egda rečete ‘until [the time] comes when you shall say’ (e{w” h{xei o{ti ei[phte; Z mis. fol.). Lu 14: 1–12, 13th Sat. in New Year. In v. 1, and in C’s preceding rubric incipit, DBC has pride ‘arrived’ instead of M et al. vъnide ‘entered’ (SVk2H vъniti ‘to enter’) for ejn tw’Û ejlqei’n aujto;n (eij” oi\kovn). In v. 2, DBC has bĕ (D bĕše) tu človĕkъ prĕdъ nimь imy (D imĕęi) vodьnyi tro˛dъ

curzon_2.indb 50

02/06/2008 09:20:07

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

51

‘there was there a man before him who had dropsy’, also P tьi bĕše . . . ‘he was . . .’, for M et al. i se človĕkъ edinъ/eterъ/nĕky imy vodьnyi tro˛dъ bĕ prĕdъ nimь, ‘and lo, a certain man who had dropsy was before him’ (also N–A kai; ijdou; a[nqrwpov” ti” h\n uJdrwpiko;” e[mprosqen aujtou’). In v. 5, referring to the animal fallen into the pit on a Sabbath, DBC has i ne Ø izьmetъ li ego ‘will he not take it out’; cf. M(A)SVkVr(K) i ne abьe istrьgnetъ ‘will he not immediately tear it out’, ZVkH . . . istrъgnete . . . ‘will you not tear it out’, P . . . izvlĕčetъ . . . ‘will he not immediately pull it out’, for oujk eujqevw” ajnaspavsei aujto;n. Lu 14: 11–15 (9th Fri. after New Year) is unexceptional. Lu 14: 16a transition sentence. CB have isusъ že reče emu ‘and Jesus told him’ for ZM onъ že reče Ø ‘he said’ (oJ de; ei\pen); D has instead the incipit formula reče gospodь pritъčo˛ sijo˛ ‘the Lord told this parable’. Lu 14: 16b–25, 11th Sun. after New Year. DBC v. 18 has the adverb kupьno for ZM et al. vъ kupъ/kupĕ (ajpo; mia’” ‘together, at the same time’). Lu 14: 25–35, 9th Tues. in New Year. In v. 25, CB idĕaše sъ isusomь narodь mъnogъ ‘[there] went with Jesus a large crowd’ corresponds loosely to the MVk variant idĕaxo˛ že sъ nimь narodi mъnodzi ‘and there went with him large crowds’ (suneporeuvonto de; aujtw’Û polloiv). D’s lection text matches Z’s word-order variant sъ nimъ že idĕaxo˛ narodi mъnodzi ‘and with him went large crowds’, but D’s rubric incipit idĕaše sъ ‘[there] went with’ matches the CB version of the verse, probably it is CB and not D that reflects the DBC antigraph here. DBC omits v. 27 (o{sti” ouj bastavzei to;n stauro;n eJautou’ kai; e[rcetai ojpivsw mou, ouj duvnatai ei\ naiv mou maqhthv”, KJ ‘And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple’). In v. 29, DBC has ‘will not finish’ (ne sъvrьšitъ) for ZMVkH ‘cannot finish’ (ne možetъ sъvrьšiti, kai; mh; ijscuvonto” ejktelevsai). DBC v. 31 insert the present participle ‘wanting’ (CB sg. xotę , D pl. xotęšte) between sъniti sę and na branь to go (DBC +wanting) to make war’, as the rendition of sumbalei’n eij” povlemon. In v. 32, DBC shares with Vk and H ašte že li ni (C Ø) to, literally ‘and if not (C Ø) that’, for eij de; mhv ge ‘otherwise’; cf. ZM’s more literal translation ašte li že ni, lit. ‘and if not’. Lu 15: 1–10, 9th Wed. in New Year. In v. 5, DBC has singular na ramo svoe ‘on his shoulder’ (B garbling na ramĕ-[loc. sg. or acc. du.] svoimь-[instr. sg.]) for ZMVkH dual na ramĕ svoi ‘on his shoulders’, Gr. pl. ejpi; tou;” w[mou” aujtou’. In v. 7, DBC apparently had a feminine nominative singular adjective, either D takova ‘such’ or C taka ‘of this sort’, in place of the ZMVkH adverb tako ‘so/likewise’ preceding radostь bo˛detъ ‘[there] will be joy’. B has corrected the defect to the ZMVkH variant. Lu 15: 11–32, Sun. before Meatfare. In v. 17, DBC inserts imъ ‘to/for them’ between koliko naemьnikъ otьca moego izbyvajo˛tъ and xlĕbi (‘how many servants of my father have loaves (DBC +for them) to spare’), for povsoi mivsqioi tou’ patrov” mou perisseuvontai a[rtwn, and omits sьde ‘here’ from ZM et al. azъ že sьde gladomь gybljo˛ ‘and here I perish from hunger’ (ejgw; de; limw’Û w|de ajpovllumai). Lu 16: 1–9, 9th Thurs. after New Year. In v. 7, both D and C omit ZMVkH onъ že reče ‘and he said’ (oJ de; ei\pen); B has i reče ‘and (he) said’, probably a later correction. In v. 9, DBC shares with H the alternate Greek textual formula otъ mamony nepravьdьny ‘of unrighteous mammon’ (N–A ejk tou’ mamwna’ th’” ajdikiva”, KJ ‘of the mammon of unrighteousness’) to ZM otъ

curzon_2.indb 51

02/06/2008 09:20:07

52

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

mamoniny nepravьdy ‘of the unrighteousness of mammon’ (ejk tou’ ajdikou’ mamwna’; see Jagič 1883 [1960]: 272, n. to ll. 3–4); cf. Vk otъ nepravьdьnago bogatьstva ‘of unrighteous wealth’. Lu 16: 10–15b, 14th Sat. in New Year. In v. 13, D and C have the lexical variant nebrĕšti načьnetъ for Z nebrĕšti vъčьnetъ, while B matches M et al. ne roditi/raditi načьnetъ ‘will begin to neglect’ (cf. N–A katafronhvsei, KJ ‘[will] despise’, also VkH prĕobiditъ ‘will despise’). Lu 16: 15a–18, 17: 1–4a, 9th Fri. in New Year (C’s rubric before v. 15a mislabels the day as the 9th Mon.). D has lost Lu 16: 13b–31a, and B 16: 14b–17: 2a, leaving C the sole witness to the DBC version of Lu 16: 14–31, of which only sketchy inferences can be drawn. The most reliable data from C are its lexical variants, since C tends generally to correspond closely to D and B on the lexical level: C v. 16 propovĕdaetъ sę vs. ZMVkH blagovĕstvuetъ sę ‘is proclaimed’, for eujaggelivzetai; v. 18, with Vk, prĕljuby sъtvoritъ ‘will commit adultery’ (Vk tvoritъ, ‘commits’) for moiceuvei (cf. ZMH prĕljuby dĕetъ ‘commits adultery’), with M and VkH, puštenojo˛ for Z puštenicejo˛ ‘a divorced woman’, and, at verse-end with MH, preljuby tvoritъ ‘commits adultery’ (C sъtvoritъ, ‘will commit’) vs. ZVk prĕljuby dĕetъ; v. 19, with H, bagrĕnico˛ ‘purple robe’ in place of the (Z)M et al. Graecism porfyro˛ (porfuvran); and in v. 28, with P and H, the newer 3Pl m. nom. pronoun form tie aujtoi; ‘they’, vs. ZM et al. ti. In v. 15, C’s omission of the verse incipit i reče imъ ‘and he said to them’ in ZM et al. (kai; ei\ pen aujtoi’”) likely is a CB feature, if not a DBC feature, as CB tends not to reproduce in the text those incipits that appear in the preceding liturgical rubric (here, C’s rubric reče gospodь ‘the Lord said’). Lu 16: 19–31, 5th Sun. in New Year.51 It cannot be determined whether C’s omission in v. 19 of (Z)M(SVk)VrP i vysonъ, AO i vъ vysъ, H i vъ čьrvlenico˛ (kai; buvsson, ‘and (in) fine linen’) also occurred in D or B. In v. 21, C shares with P the plural phrase otъ trapezъ ‘from the tables’ for (Z)M et al. singular otъ trapezy ‘from the table’ (ajpo; th’” trapevzh”). In v. 24, C has Lazarus dipping his fingertips (konьcy) rather than a single fingertip (ZM et al. konьcь, a[kron tou’ daktuvlou aujtou’). In v. 26, with AVkVrPH, C has the minority Greek variant meždju vami i nami ‘between you and us’ (see Soden 1913: 157) for ZMSO meždju nami i vami (metaxu; hJmw’n kai; uJmw’n). C and Vk begin this phrase with nъ ‘but’ for ZM et al. i ‘and’ (kai;). In v. 27, C substitutes xodęštu ‘going-[dat. sg.]’ for ZM et al. xotęštei ‘wanting-[nom. pl.]’. C’s syntactic variant moljo˛ ti sę ‘I pray of you’ in the same verse surely reflects the DBC antigraph at least to the extent that it omits ubo, which DBC generally avoid; cf. ZM et al. moljo˛ tę ubo ‘therefore I ask you’, for ejrwtw’ se ou\n. In v. 28, C omits bo ‘for’ from ZM et al. imamь pętь bratrьję ‘for I have five brothers’ (e{cw ga;r pevnte ajdelfouv”). Lu 17: 1–2 transition verses. In the second half of this verse, where D resumes, both D and C have for oujai; de; ‘but woe’ the ZVkH construction obače gore (cf. M Ø gore že). Lu 17: 3–10, 15th Sat. in New Year. In v. 5, DBC has xrьstovi ‘to Christ’ for ZM et al. gospodovi/kъ gospodu ‘to the Lord’ (tw’Û kurivwÛ). In v. 6, DBC shares with S and P gorĕ ‘to the mountain’, an involuntary reminiscence from Mt 17: 20, for (Z)MAVO sÿkaminĕ ‘to the mulberry tree’, Vk sъmokovьnici ‘to the fig tree’ (th’Û sukamivnwÛ; H mis. fol.). This is immediately followed in DBC by another reminiscence from the same Matthew verse, the imperative vъzdvigni 51 

curzon_2.indb 52

C fails to identify or mark the beginning of this lection with a rubric, but it does mark the end.

02/06/2008 09:20:07

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

53

sę ‘move’ for ZMAOVr imperative vъzderi sę ‘be pulled out’, Vk istrьgni sę ‘be torn out’, S vъzьmi sę ‘be taken’ (ejkrizwvqhti). In v. 9, D, B, and C share a misplaced point in the segment povelĕnaja ne mьnjo˛. tako ‘the things that were commanded I do not think. So . . .’; cf. ZM et al povelĕnaja. ne mьnjo˛ tako ‘the things that were commanded. I do not think so’. Lu 17: 11 transition sentence. DBC begins the sentence with ido˛štju že emu ‘and while he was going’ for ZM i bystъ ido˛štju Ø ‘and it came to pass, as he was going’ (kai; ejgevneto ejn tw’Û poreuvesqai). This is followed by a second dative absolute clause, i proxodo˛štu ‘and while passing’, for ZM main clause i tъ proxoždaaše ‘and he passed’ (kai; aujto;” dihvrceto). Lu 17: 12–19, 12th Sun. after New Year. In v. 13, DBC contains the SVkH lexical variant vъzdvigošę in place of ZM et al. vъznĕsę as the rendition of h\ran ‘they lifted up’; also, with (M)SOVk, DBC add glasъ svoi ‘their voice’, after the verb. In v.  15, D, B, and C insert the superfluous accusative reflexive clitic pronoun sę ‘himself ’ between ZM et al. vidĕvъ ‘having seen’ and jako icĕlĕ ‘that he was healed’ ijdw;n o{ti ijavqh. In v. 17, DBC has po čьto ‘why’ vs. ZMASOP kako ‘how’, VkH kъde kako ‘where and how’, VrK kъde ‘where’, for pou’ ‘where’. In v. 18, an omission results in the DBC garbling ne Ø vъzvratišę sĕ ‘they did not return’ for ZM et al. ne obrĕto˛ sę. vъzvraštьše sę ‘they were not found who returned’ (also KJ ‘there are not found that returned’; cf. N–A oujc euJrevqhsan uJpostrevyante” ‘were there none found to return’). Lu 17: 20–5 (10th Mon. in New Year) and 17: 25 (transition verse) are unremarkable. Lu 17: 26–37, 10th Tues. in New Year (VkH also 18: 8). B has lost its leaf containing Lu 17: 24b–18: 9a. In v. 31, D and C have ‘those days’ (C ti dьnii, D tyę dьni) for ZMVkH ‘that day’ (tъ dьnь, ejkeivnhÛ th’Û hJmevraÛ). In v. 34, C has edinъ poemletъ without the reflexive marker (ZVk edinъ poemletъ sę ‘one will be taken’, MVkDH edinъ poemljo˛tъ, ‘they will take one’), and both C and D have edinъ poemletъ (‘one will take’ or ‘he will take one’) in v. 36, for Vk reflexive edinъ poemletъ sę ‘one will be taken’, ZMH plural edinъ poemljo˛tъ ‘one they will take’; this verse is omitted by Nestle–Aland. C has a singular non-reflexive verb yet again in the following clause: C a drugi ostavljaetъ, ‘and another leaves (it)’ or ‘and he leaves another’ for Vk drugi ostavljaetъ sę ‘the other is left’ ZMDH a drugy (D drugęję) ostavljajo˛tъ ‘and the other (D ‘others’) they leave’. Lu 18: 2–8, 16th Sat. in New Year. In v. 2, D and C have glagola kъ nimъ ‘he said to them’ in place of ZM glagoljo˛ ‘I say’ (cf. N–A levgwn ‘saying’) or the standard lectionary incipit reče gospodь pritъčo˛ sijo˛ ‘the Lord told this parable’. In v. 7, D and C substitute ne sъtvoritъ li mьsti (C i mьstь) izbьranyixъ svoixъ radi ‘shall (He) not avenge for the sake of (His) chosen ones’ for ZM et al. ne imatъ li sъtvoriti mьsti izbьranyixъ svoixъ Ø ‘shall (He) not avenge (His) chosen ones’, ouj mh; poihvshÛ th’n ejkdivkhsin tw’n ejklektw’n aujtou’. Lu 18: 9, transition verse. Apparently reflecting a misreading of the first part of the verse as a lectionary incipit formula (reče že kъ eteromъ ‘he said to some’), D, B and C insert the redundant verb reče ‘(he) told’ again at the end of the sentence preceding pritъčo˛ sьjo˛ ‘this parable’, in place of ZM pročęję ‘the others’, and makes poxulĕjo˛štemъ ‘those mocking’ (cf. ZM uničьžajo˛štemъ ‘despising’), the indirect object of the first reče, into a dative absolute construction by adding after it the third person dative plural pronoun imъ. This produces the shared syntactic garbling (reče že eteromъ nadĕjo˛štemъ sę na sę. jako so˛tъ pravьdьnici.)

curzon_2.indb 53

02/06/2008 09:20:08

54

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

i poxulĕjo˛štemъ imъ Ø reče pritъčo˛ sьjo˛ ‘(and he told certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous) and while they were mocking he told this parable’, for ZM . . . i uničьžajo˛štemъ Ø pročęję pritъčo˛ sьjo˛ ‘. . . and who despised others, this parable’ (ei\pen de; kai; prov” tina” tou;” . . . ejxouqenou’nta” tou;” loipou;” th;n parabolh;n tauvthn). Lu 18: 10–14 (16th Sun. in New Year) and 18: 15–17 (first portion of 10th Wed.; VkH vv. 15–30) are unremarkable. Lu 18: 18–27, 13th Sun. in New Year (VkH Mk 10: 17–27). In v. 22, DBC have the textual variant imĕti načьneši ‘you shall begin to have’ for ZM et al. imĕti imaši ‘you shall have’ (e{xei”; see also DBC Lu 22: 18). Lu 18: 28–30, continuation of 10th Wed. in New Year. DBC begins v. 29 with isusъ ‘Jesus’ for ZMVkH onъ ‘he, the latter’ (oJ). In v. 30, DBC has the lexical variant mъnožьstvo ‘a multitude’, in either the instrumental case as in D (-ьstvomь), or in the accusative as in CB (-ьstvo), in place of ZMVkH mъnožicejo˛ (‘many times’, pollaplasivona). Lu 18: 31–4, 10th Thurs. in New Year. In v. 34, for ZMVk ničьsože otъ sixъ ne razumĕšę ØØ, H ničьsože ne razumĕšę otъ sixъ ØØ ‘of these things they understood nothing’ (aujtoi; oujde;n touvtwn sunh’kan), DBC has ničьsože ne razumĕšę tĕxъ jaže glagola ‘they understood nothing of those things that he said’, possibly a reminiscence of Lu 2: 50 (i ta ne razumĕste glagola iže reče ima ‘and they-[du.] did not understand the saying that he told them’). Lu 18: 35–43, 14th Sun. in New Year. DBC v. 36 has čьto si so˛tъ ‘what these things were’ for ZM et al. ubo čьto estъ se ‘therefore what this was’; cf. tiv ei[h tou’to ‘what this might be’. Lu 19: 1–10, 15th Sun. in New Year. In v. 2, DBC omits ZM et al. i se ‘and lo’ preceding mo˛zь ‘a man’ (kai; ijdou; ajnh;r), and renders kai; aujto;” plouvsio” as i bogatъ syi ‘and being rich’; cf. ZM et al. i tъ bĕ bogatъ ‘and he was rich’. Verse 5 contains the DBC anomaly i jako pride do nego ‘and as he came up to him’ for ZM et al. i jako pride na mĕsto ‘and as he came to the place’ (kai; wJ” h|lqen ejpi; to;n tovpon). In v. 8, with P, DBC has reče kъ isusu. gospodi se (C Ø) ‘he said to Jesus, ‘Lord, behold (C Ø) . . .’ for M reče gospodi se, Z et al. reče kъ gospodju se (‘he said to the Lord, “Behold”’ (ei\pen pro;” to;n kuvrion. ijdou;). The insertion of dative isusu ‘Jesus’ in DBC and P likely has resulted from independent misinterpretations of the dative i-stem variant gospodi ‘Lord’ in the phrase kъ gospodi as the vocative form gospodi preceded erroneously by the preposition kъ ‘to’ as the result of an omitted dative noun; note that Z et al. have the o-stem variant gospodju instead of ambiguous gospodi. Lu 19: 11 (transition verse) is unremarkable. Lu 19: 12–28, 10th Fri. in New Year D is missing vv. 22b–24a, 30–4a. DBC begins v. 26 with i reče aminь glagoljo˛ Ø vamъ, ‘and he said, “Amen, I say to you.”’; cf. ZM et al. glagoljo˛ že vamъ ‘and I say to you’, for levgw uJmi’n. Lu 19: 29–44, 11th Mon. in New Year, DBC, H (Vk Cheesefare Mon., i.e. first week before Lent, 19: 29–40, 22: 7–39). In v.  38, DBC has ‘on the earth’ (na zemli) for ‘in heaven’ (ejn oujranw’Û, MVk2 na nebese, ZVk1 na nebesexъ), and in v.  42, ‘in the day of the present’ (vъ dьni so˛štaego), a garbling of (Z)MVk ‘in this thy day’ (vъ dьnь sь tvoi (Z Ø), ejn th’Û hJmevraÛ). The DBC variant is preceded by ponĕ ‘at least’ (also N–A ge, KJ). In v. 43, DBC has ‘will walk around ‘(obъsto˛po˛tъ) vs. Z ‘will encompass, keep in’ (okročętъ), Vk ‘embrace’ (obьmo˛tъ), for perikuklwvsousivn ‘will surround’ (cf. MN ‘will condemn’, oso˛dętъ). D’s omission of ‘on all

curzon_2.indb 54

02/06/2008 09:20:08

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

55

sides’ (pavntoqen, ZMVk vъso˛du), together with the CB variant otъ vъso˛du, lit. ‘from all sides’, points to a DBC defect that the CB apograph attempts to remedy. In v. 44, DBC has ‘he shall not leave’ (ne ostavitъ) for ZM ‘they shall not leave’ (ne ostavętъ, oujk ajfhvsousin; Vk omits this clause). Lu 19: 45–8, 11th Tues. in New Year. DBC follows the same Greek textual variant as Z in v. 45: ‘those selling doves’ (prodajo˛štęę golo˛bi, tou;” pwlou’nta” ta;” peristerav”, N–A 1979, 1985: 225, n. to v. 45); cf. N–A tou;” pwlouvnto”, NIV ‘those selling’, and the MVk and English KJ variant ‘them that sold therein, and them that bought’ (prodajo˛štęę vъ nei i kupujo˛štęę, tw’n pwlountwn ejn aujtwÛ kai; ajgoravzonta”; see Jagić 1883 [1960]: 287, n. to l. 26). In v. 46, DBC follows the ZN version ‘and my house will be a house of prayer’ (i bo ˛ detъ xramъ moi xramъ molitьbĕ, kai; e[stai oJ oi\kov” mou oi\ko” proseuch’”) vs. M’s minority Greek version ‘is’ (estъ, ejstin, N–A n. to v. 46); Vk has a hybrid garbling (i bo˛detъ xramъ moi xramъ molitьby estь, ‘and my house will be is a house of prayer’, sic). In v. 47, D and C share the garbling starĕiši(i) ljudьe-[acc.] ‘older people’ for ZMVk starĕišiny ljudьmъ-[dat.] ‘leaders of the people’ for prw’toi tou’ laou’. B has corrected the garbling starĕiši to the virile accusative/genitive plural form starĕišinь, but has neglected to change accusative ljudьe ‘people’ to the dative or genitive, resulting in the garbling ‘the leaders’ people’. Lu 20: 1–8 (11th Wed. in New Year) is unremarkable. Lu 20: 9–18, 11th Thurs. in New Year. In v. 17, D and Vk share nebrĕgošę ‘neglected’ for ZM nevrĕdu sъtvorišę ‘rejected’ (ajpedokivmasan). CB have the garbled hybrid nebrĕgo sъtvorišę, lit. ‘did neglectfully’, which may reflect more closely the DBC version. In the same verse, DBC has the noun napisanьe ‘(a) writing’ for Z past passive participle napьsanoe, MVk pisanoe ‘that which is written’ (gegrammevnon). In v. 18, D, B, and C have the orthographic variant sъtrety-i (sßtrêty-i), which is uncharacteristic for each of them, for OCS 3sg. sъtretъ i ‘will grind him’. Lu 20: 19–26, 11th Fri. in New Year. DBC v. 19 contains the phrase ‘Pharisees and scribes’ (farisei i kъnižьnici; B kъnižьnici i farisei ‘scribes and Pharisees’), a reminiscence from Mt 21: 45 also found in some Greek mss. (Soden 1913: 167 oiJ farisai’oi kai; oiJ grammatei’”), for the usual OCS formula ‘chief priests and scribes’, which ZMVk have here (ZM arxierei i kъnizьnici, Vk starĕišiny žrьčьskyę i kъnižьnici, oiJ ajrcierei’” kai; oiJ grammatei’”; see Soden ibid.). B’s version ‘scribes and Pharisees’, alone among the five Slavic manuscripts cited here, matches the word order of the majority Greek version ‘scribes and chief priests’ (N–A oiJ grammatei’” kai; oiJ ajrcierei’”). In v. 23, DBC follows Z’s majority Greek version ‘he said to them’ (reče kъ nimъ, ei\pen pro;” aujtouv”) in v. 23; cf. MVk’s addition from Mt 22: 18 ‘why do you test me’ (čьto mĕ okušaete, tiv me peravzete; see Jagić 1883 [1960]: 290, n. to ll. 16–17). Lu 20: 27–44, 12th Mon. in New Year. In v. 40, for ZMVkH gen. ničьsože ‘nothing’, CB has ni o čemьže ‘about nothing’, and D ni o komьže (‘about no one’). In v. 41, as Jagić has noted, the discrepancy between Z ‘how do the writings say’ (kъnigy) vs. M(VkH) ‘how do some say’ (M edini, VkH nĕci) reflects differing Greek textual variants (1883 [1960]: 291, n. to l. 29). Soden records the minority Greek variant on which Z is based as levgousin oiJ grammatei’” ‘(how do) the scribes say’ (1913: 168); this is also the version found in DBC, which has ‘the scribes’ (kъnižьnici), as in the Greek; cf. N–A simply levgousin ‘(how do) [they] say’. The DBC ­version may not have

curzon_2.indb 55

02/06/2008 09:20:08

56

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

originated as a translation of the Greek variant, however, since the phrase ‘the scribes’ appears in the same story in Mk 12: 35 and thus may well be an independent involuntary reminiscence contaminating the Z version. Lu 20: 45–7, 21: 1–4, 12th Tues. in New Year (VkH 17th Sat.). In v. 46, D’s repetition of the word prĕdъsĕdanьja ‘first seats of honor’ is a transmitted homoioteleuton from DBC: D ‘and the first seats of honor (prĕdъsĕdanьja) in the synagogues and the first seats of honor (prĕdъsĕdanьja)’; cf. ZM et al. prĕdъsĕdanьja . . . prĕždezъvanьja ‘first seats of honor . . . Ø seats of honor at feasts’. Evidently in an attempt to remove the homoioteleuton, CB omits the entire first phrase ‘and the first seats of honor in the synagogues’, where prĕdъsĕdanьja actually was correct, and has the hybrid prĕždesĕdanьja ‘seats of honor’ (ZM prĕždezъvanьja/D prĕdъsĕdanьja) in the second phrase. S contains the same omission as CB, but has the usual variant prĕždezъvanьja in the second phrase. DBC ends Lu 21: 4 with the sentence ‘Having said this, he cried, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear”’ (se glagolę vъzъglasi. imĕję uši slyšati da slyšitъ, tau’ta levgwn ejfwvnei. oJ e[cwn w\ta ajkouvein ajkouevtw), which occurs in this verse in Nestle–Aland’s reconstructed Greek version, and in the Slavic lectionaries in the corpus, but not in Z; M has it at the end of the preceding verse. Lu 21: 5–24, 12th Wed. in New Year (VkH 21: 5–11, 20–4, with vv. 12–19 for 12th Tues.). B has lost a leaf containing 21: 7b–22: 12a. In v. 6, D, B, and C omit ne ‘not’ before ostanetъ, resulting in ‘will be left’ for ‘will not be left’ (oujk ajfeqhvsetai). In v. 12, D and C share an ungrammatical omission of the preposition vъ ‘into’ in the ZM et al. clause prĕdajo ˛ šte na sъborišta i vъ tьmьnicę ‘delivering (you) to [lit. ‘onto’] the synagogues and into the prisons’. Lu 21: 8–9, 25–7, 33–6 (Meatfare Sat.) and 21: 28–36 (12th Thurs. in New Year; VkH vv. 28–33), also missing from B, are unexceptional. Lu 21: 37–22: 8, 12th Fri. in New Year. In v. 38, C reflects a DBC misinterpretation of the OCS supine form poslušatъ ‘in order to listen’ as third-person non-past poslušajo ˛ tъ ‘(they) listen’, while D further misinterprets it lexically as posъlo ˛ tъ ‘they will send’. Lu 22: 1–39, Holy Thursday matins (H mis. fol.). In v. 1, for tw’n ajzuvmwn ‘of unleavened bread’, D and C share the adjective oprĕsъnъčьnъ (‘unleavened-bread’; also in C at v. 7) for ZMVkH’s more literal noun translation oprĕsъnikъ ‘of unleavened bread’. In v. 7, D and C share with VkH the error žrĕti ‘to swallow/eat (the Passover lamb)’ for ZM žrьti ‘to sacrifice’; cf. quvesqai ‘kill’. At v. 18, after B’s text resumes, DBC has ne načьno ˛ piti ‘I shall not begin to drink’ for the ZMVk construction ne imamь piti ‘I shall not drink’ as the rendition of ouj mh; pivw (see also DBC Lu 18: 22). In v. 25, DBC contain the anomalous, albeit logical, variant ‘leaders’ (vlastele) in place of ZMVk ‘benefactors’ (blagodĕtele, eujrgevtai; full sentence (KJ) ‘they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors’). In v. 36, the DBC anomaly spira ‘military unit’ for ZM pira (Vk mĕxъ, phvra) ‘purse’, ‘knapsack’ demonstrates again the DBC scribe’s unfamiliarity with the Graecism pira (see also DBC Mk 6: 8). In v. 37, DBC vьsja bo jaže (D Ø) o mьnĕ byšę (D bešę) pisana (B pisana byšę). i juže konьčino ˛ imo ˛ tъ ‘for all things which (D Ø) have been written about me already are coming to an end’ is closer to the standard Greek version tou’to to; gegrammevnon dei’ telesqh’nai ejn ejmoi than ZMVk ibo eže o mьnĕ konьčino ˛ imatъ, KJ ‘for what there is concerning me is coming to an end’.

curzon_2.indb 56

02/06/2008 09:20:08

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

57

Lu 22: 39–23: 1a (Vk Cheesefare Tues., i.e. Tues. of first week before Lent; this lection is not marked by rubrics in D, B, or C, nor is it listed in CB SynI). In v. 41, for ZM accusative vrĕženьe, Vk vrьženьe ‘a stone’s throw’ (N–A wJsei’ livqou bolhvn ‘about a stone’s throw’), D, B, and C share the grammatical garbling do vrьženьe ‘up to a stone’s throw’, which contains accusative vrьženьe for genitive vrьženьja after the preposition do. DBC v. 42 has ‘if you want’ (ašte xošteši) in place of M ‘if you wish’ (ašte voliši; cf. ZVk ašte veliši ‘if you command’), for eij bouvlei. DBC v. 55 contains the distortion ‘having kindled a fire for them’ (vъzgnĕtivъše[nom.] že imь) for the ZMOVk dative absolute construction ‘and when they had kindled a fire’ (vъzgnĕštьštemъ-[dat.] že imъ; Gr. gen. absolute periayavntwn de; pu’r). In v. 64, DBC has zakryvъše lice ego ‘having covered his face’ for the more literal ZMOVk rendition zakryvъše i ‘having covered him’ (perikaluvyante” aujto;n). At the end of the verse, DBC’s version prorьci namъ xriste ‘prophesy to us, Christ’ is taken from Mt 26: 68; cf. ZMOVk simply prorьci ‘prophesy’, proqhvteuson. Lu 22: 66b–23: 55 (Good Friday, 6th hour lection) is unremarkable. Lu 23: 1–56, Cheesefare Thurs. B ends this lection at v. 55, H2 at v. 49. In v. 23, DBC have ne prĕmlьčaxo˛ ‘did not fall silent’ vs. ZM(Vk)H ustojaxo˛ ‘prevailed’ for kativscuon. Lu 23: 32–49 (Holy Thursday, part of 8th Passion), 23: 56 (transition verse), 24: 1–12 (Easter, 4th Resurrection lection); 24: 12–35 (5th Resurrection lection and Tues. in Bright Week, i.e. Easter Tues.) are unexceptional. Lu 24: 36–53, Easter, 6th Resurrection lection (omitted in Vk; D also Ascension Day; Vk1,2 6th Thurs. after Easter and Ascension Day). In v. 43, DBC has, with lectionaries AVkK, i jadъ prĕdъ nimi ‘and having eaten before them’, for MOH i vъzьmъ/priimъ prĕdъ nimi jastъ ‘and having taken/received (it) before them, he ate’; kai; labw;n ejnwvpion aujtw’n e[fagen (Z mis. fol.).52 2.7.3.  John Jo 1: 1–17 (Easter), 1: 18–28, (Mon. in Bright Week, i.e. Easter Monday); 1: 29–34, (7 Jan., Synaxis of St. John the Baptist) are unremarkable. Jo 1: 35–51, Wed. in Bright Week. In v.  38 (v.  39 in Jagić’s editions of Z and M), DBC and Vr omit sъkazaemo ‘in translation’ (meqermhneuovmenon) from ZMAOVk eže glagoletъ sę sъkazaemo učitelju ‘which means, in translation, Teacher’ (o} levgetai meqermhneuovmenon didavskale). Jo 1: 43–51 (1st Sun. in Lent) is unexceptional. Jo 2: 1–11, 2nd Mon. after Easter. The rubrics to this lection in D and C omit the week number, which B has added. The text itself is unexceptional. Jo 2: 12–22, Fri. in Bright Week. In v. 12, DBC has malo dьnьi ‘a few days’ for ouj polla;” hJmevra”, in place of the more literal translation ne mъnogy dьni ‘not many days’ in ZM et al. Jo 2: 24–5, transition verses. In v. 24, DBC has ‘into their hands’ (vъ ro˛cĕ) for ZM ‘into their faith’ (vъ vĕro˛) as the rendering of aujtoi’” ‘to them’. 52  All the Slavic versions in the collation follow the minority Greek variant of the verse that adds the clause ‘and gave the rest to them’ (kai; ta; ejpivloipa e[dwken aujtoi’”).

curzon_2.indb 57

02/06/2008 09:20:09

58

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

Jo 3: 1–15, Thurs. in Bright Week. D’s leaf containing vv. 1b–18a is lost. In v. 1, D, B, and C, together with Vr, have ‘by name of Nicodemus’ (imenemь nikodimъ) vs. the more literal ZMA(O)Vk rendering ‘his name Nicodemus’ (nikodimъ imę emu) for nikovdhmo” o[noma aujtw’Û (for the remainder of the lection, see Section 3.6). For Jo 3: 13–17 (Sun. before Exaltation of the Holy Cross), and vv. 13–17 of Jo 3: 13–22 (Fri. in Bright Week), see Section 3.6. Jo 3: 16–21 (2nd Tues. after Easter) is unexceptional. Jo 3: 22–33, Sat. in Bright Week. DBC v. 25 contains the garbling i očištenii ‘and purification-[loc.]’ for M. et al. o očištenii-[loc.] ‘about purification’ (peri; kaqarismou’; Z mis. fol.). In v. 27, DBC alone follows the Greek version that inserts ‘concerning/about himself ’ into the sentence ‘a man can receive nothing’: ne možetъ človĕkъ o sebĕ priimati ničesože (ouj duvnatai a[nqrwpo” lambavnein ajf∆ eJautou’ oujde;n). In v. 28, possibly partly as a perseveration (or inadvertent repetition) of o sebĕ ‘concerning/about himself ’ in v. 27, DBC has vy sъvĕdĕtelьstvuete sami o mьnĕ jako Ø nĕsmь azъ xristosъ ‘you yourselves bear witness about me that Ø I am not the Christ’ for MAOVkVr vy Ø mьnĕ sъvĕdĕtelьstvuete sami jako rĕxъ nĕsmь azъ xristosъ ‘you yourselves bear witness to me (moi) that I said (ei\pon) I am not the Christ’. In v. 30, D, B, and C share the garbling da onomu podobaetъ radostь. a mьnĕ mьnitъ sę ‘may joy be fitting to that one, but it is decreasing for me’ for M et al. Ø onomu podobaetъ rasti. a mьnĕ mьniti sę ‘it behooves that one to grow, and me to decrease’ (ejkei’non dei’ aujxavnein, ejme; de; ejlattou’sqai). The substitution of radostь ‘joy’ for rasti ‘to grow’ is repeated in C in a homoioteleuton later in the verse. Jo 3: 34–4: 4 (transition verses) are unremarkable. Jo 4: 5–42, 5th Sun. after Easter. In v. 23, DBC omits ‘the Father’ (M et al. dat. otьcu, tw’Û patriv) following poklonętъ sę ‘(they) will worship’, and in v. 24, the (ZM et al.) segment duxъ bo estъ bogъ. (i) iže klanjajo˛tъ sę emu ‘for God is a spirit, and they that worship him’ (pneu’ma oJ qeov”, kai; tou;” proskunou’nta”). D alone continues the omission through duxomъ i istinojo˛ ‘in spirit and truth’ in v. 24 (ejn pneuvmati kai; ajlhqeivaÛ). In v. 39, DBC inserts superfluous ‘what he said’ (eže glagola) after sъvĕdĕtelьstvujo˛šti ‘testifying’, in the ZM et al. segment ‘because of the word of the woman testifying (DBC + ‘what he said’), “He told me everything that I had done”’. DBC v. 41 has vĕrovašę slovesi ‘believed (his) word’ for ZM et al. vĕrovašę za slovo ‘they believed because of (his) word’ (jpivsteusan dia; to;n lovgon aujtou’). In v. 42, DBC vĕruemъ ‘we believe’ for ZM et al. vĕmъ ‘we know’ (oi[damen) is a perseveration from earlier in the same verse. Jo 4: 43–5, transition verses. In v. 45, DBC follows Z’s standard Greek version, without the additional M phrase ‘for they too had gone to the feast’ (M i ti bo prido˛ vъ prazdьnikъ, kai; aujtoi; ga;r h\lqon eij” th;n eJorthvn). Jo 4: 46–54 (3rd Mon. after Easter) is unexceptional. Jo 5: 1b–15, 4th Sun. after Easter. With Vr, DBC has in v. 3 (gen.) vъzmo˛štenьja vodĕ ‘the disturbance of the water’ for ZM et al. dviženьja vodĕ ‘the movement of the water’ (see also s. 3.5.2). In v. 13, the DBC variant ‘in that place’ (na mestĕ tomъ) for ZM et al. ‘in (the) place’, ‘there’ (na mestĕ Ø, ejn tw’Û tovpwÛ) is an anticipation of the following verse. Jo 5: 16, transition verse. DBC has ‘healings’ (CB iscĕlenьja, D cĕlenьja) for ZM ‘these things’ (si, tau’ta).

curzon_2.indb 58

02/06/2008 09:20:09

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

59

Jo 5: 17–24, 2nd Wed. after Easter. DBC v. 19 has ‘but’ (nъ) for more literal ZMAOVkVr ‘except / if not’ (ašte ne, a]n mhv), and omits ‘these things’ (ZM et al. si, tau’ta) before ‘the Son does also’. Jo 5: 24–30, 2nd Thurs. after Easter. Both D and C mismark the beginning of the lection at v. 25, which is similar in content to v. 24. This error may have been made independently in the two manuscripts, as it would be easy to miss the overlap between the preceding lection, which ends at v. 25, and this one, which begins a verse earlier. C and B share the wrong incipit in their introductory rubric (see s. 3.5.2). Jo 5: 30–6: 2, 2nd Fri. after Easter. In v. 44, D and C omit ‘which’ (jaže) from the ZAOVkB textual variant ‘you do not seek the glory which is from the only-begotten Son of God (slavy jaže otъ edinočędьnaego syna božьja ne ištete), resulting in DC ‘you do not seek glory from the only-begotten Son of God’.53 Jo 6: 5–14, 5th Wed. after Easter. In v. 5, DBC has ‘and looking up’ (vъzьrĕvъ že) for the more literal translation ‘lifting his eyes’ (ZM et al. vъzvedъ že oči; ejpavra” ou\n tou;” ojfqalmou;”). Jo 6: 14–27, 2nd Sat. after Easter. In v. 21, DBC has a dative absolute participle construction in place of the imperfect (DBC xotęštemъ imъ ‘while they wanted’ for ZM et al. ‘xotĕaxo˛ bo’ (‘for they wanted’), and substitutes priti ‘to arrive’ for ZM et al. prięti i ‘to receive him’, most likely under indirect influence from the parallel verses Mt 14: 22 and Mk 6: 51: DBC ‘and while they wanted to come into the boat’ (i xotĕštimъ imъ priti vъ korablь) vs. ZM et al. ‘for they wanted to receive him into the boat’ (xotĕaxo˛ bo prięti i vъ korablь, h[qelon ou\n labei’n aujto;n eij” to; ploi’on). At the end of v. 22, following nъ edini učenici ego idošę ‘but only his disciples had gone’ DBC adds vъ korablь ‘into the boat’, a repetition from earlier in the sentence. Jo 6: 27–33, 3rd Tues. after Easter. In v. 33, DBC omits ‘for the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven’ (ZM et al. xlĕbъ bo božьi estъ sъxodęi sъ nebese, oJ ga;r a[rto” tou’ qeou’ ejstin oJ katabaivnwn ejk tou’ oujranou’)—an understandable slip, considering that the omitted segment is the fifth sentence in a row to end with ‘from heaven’ (sъ nebese). Jo 6: 34 (transition verse) is unremarkable. Jo 6: 35–9, 3rd Wed. after Easter. Both D and C mark the end of the lection after v. 40 rather than 39; B has corrected this error. Jo 6: 39–44 (3rd Thurs. after Easter) and transition verses Jo 6: 45–7 are unremarkable. Jo 6: 48–54, 3rd Fri. after Easter. In v. 48, the DBC variant ‘I am the bread of eternal life’ (života vĕcьnaego) in place of ZM et al. ‘I am the bread of life’ (adj. životьnyi, th’” zwh’”) is an automatism, written out of habit. Jo 6: 55 (transition verse) and 6: 56–69 (4th Mon. after Easter) are unremarkable. Jo 7: 1–13, 4th Tues. after Easter. In v. 10, DBC has togda i samъ (D i togda ØØ) isusъ vъzide vъ prazdьnikъ ‘and then Jesus himself (D Ø) went to the feast’, repeating the phrase vъ prazdьnikъ; cf. ZM et al. togda i samъ vъzide ‘then he himself went ØØØ’ (tovte kai; aujto;” ajnevbh). 53  M alone in the corpus reflects the standard Greek version ‘which from the only God’ (jaže otъ edinaego boga, th;n para; tou’ movnou qeou’). Neither Nestle–Aland nor Soden records any Greek minority versions of this verse similar to the Z et al. textual variant.

curzon_2.indb 59

02/06/2008 09:20:09

60

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

Jo 7: 14–30, 4th Wed. after Easter. DBC v. 17 has ‘for I am not speaking of myself ’ (azъ bo ne o sebĕ glagoljo˛) vs. ZM et al. ‘whether I am speaking of myself ’ (li azъ o sebĕ glagoljo˛, h] ejgw; ajp∆ ejmautou’ lalw’). The DBC extra phrase ‘truly’, ‘indeed’ (vъ istino˛) in v. 26, between sь estъ ‘this is’ and xristosъ ‘the Christ’, also appears in some Greek manuscripts (ajlhqw’”, Soden 1913: 197). Jo 7: 31–6 (transition verses), 7: 37–52, 8: 12 (Pentecost), and 8: 1–2 (transition verses) are unexceptional. Jo 8: 3–11. B’s rubric marks this as a lection in commemoration of women confessors (ispovĕdьnymъ ženamъ);54 C and D have no corresponding rubric marker. The passage, about the adulterous woman, appears in the corpus only in ZM. The DBC version has a ‘lectionary’ feel to it, however, in that it contains additional or more precise referential phrases that clarify the context: v. 3 DBC ‘(and they brought) to him’ (kъ nemu; cf. ZM, N–A ØØ); v. 4 ‘(and they said) to Jesus’ (kъ isusu; cf. ZM emu ‘to him’, N–A aujtw’Û); v. 5 ‘(what do you say) concerning her?’ (o nej; cf. ZM, N–A ØØ), v. 9 ‘(in the midst) of them’ (ixъ; cf. ZM, N–A Ø). The DBC variants in vv. 3 and 5 are both found in some Greek manuscripts: v. 3 +pro;” aujtovn (Nestle–Aland 1985: 273, Soden 1913: 199), v. 5 +heri; aujth’” (Soden, ibid.). In v. 9, DBC reflects the Greek textual version that inserts after ‘those who heard’ (slyšavъše, ajkouvsante”) the clause, also in KJ, ‘and being reproached by their conscience’ (i sъvĕdenьemь obličaemyi, kai; uJpo; th’” suneidhvsew” ejlegcovmenoi, N–A ibid, n. to v. 9) ; cf. ZM, English NIV, and N–A. In the same verse, DBC follows the standard Greek version with Z, omitting the phrase ‘to the last’ (M do poslĕdьniixъ , KJ ‘even unto the last’, e{w” tw’n ejscavtwn, Nestle–Aland ibid.) immediately following ‘from the eldest ones (first)’ (otъ starьcь, ajpo; tw’n presbutevrwn).55 DBC v. 10 follows the minority Greek version that inserts the additional clause nikogože ne vidĕ tъkmo ženo˛ edino˛ (also KJ ‘and saw none but the woman’) between vъsklonь že sę isusъ ‘and having stood up, Jesus’) and i reče ei ‘and said to her’ (kai; mhdevna qeasavmeno” plh;n th’” gunaikov”, Nestle–Aland ibid., n. to v. 10; not in ZM, NIV or N–A version). Jo 8: 12–20 (4th Thurs. after Easter) is unremarkable. Jo 8: 21–30, 4th Fri. after Easter. In v. 27, DBC has the AVrP version ‘he said “I have a Father”’ (otьca imamь glagolaaše) for ‘he spoke to them of the Father’ (ZMVOVkH otьca imъ glagolaaše, to;n patevra aujtoi’” e[legen). Jo 8: 31–42 (4th Sat. after Easter) and 8: 42–51 (5th Mon.) are unexceptional. Jo 8: 51–9, 5th Tues. after Easter. Influenced by the preceding verse (‘Abraham died and the prophets’), DBC omits ‘died’ following ‘and the prophets’ in v. 53 (DBC i proroci Ø; ZM et al. i proroci umrĕšę.56 In v. 56, DBC follows the same Greek variant as N and Vr, using the conditional vъzdradovalъ sę (CB +bi) ‘he would have rejoiced’ for ZMAOVkH aorist i vъzdradova 54 

See Skomoroxova-Venturini and Naumov (1985: 98); cf. D&R’s misprint ispovĕdьnymъ že namъ, lit. ‘and for us confessors’ (1981: 400). 55  On the variation among Greek manuscripts, see also Jagić (1883 [1960]: 347, n. to ll. 19–20). 56  In the same verse, DBC has, with Z, nom. ‘who’ (kъto) instead of MAO acc. kogo in the sentence ‘whom do you make yourself (out to be)?’ Jagić characterizes this as a grammatical error in Z (cf. VkH kako, ‘how do you make yourself (out to be)?’ The correspondence with Z most likely is coincidental: kъto was encountered by scribes sentence-initially more frequently than was kogo, so it is not surprising that kogo might have been misread by the copyist as the subject of the sentence.

curzon_2.indb 60

02/06/2008 09:20:10

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

61

sę ‘and he rejoiced’ (hjgalliavsato). DBC v.  58 substitutes the past for present in ‘(before Abraham was, I) was’ (bĕxъ) for ZM et al. ‘am’ (esmь, eijmiv). Jo 9: 1–38, 5th Sun. after Easter. DBC v. 13 has the virile accusative past active participle prozьrĕvъšaego ‘the one who gained his sight’, for ZM et al. more literal iže bĕ inogda slĕpъ ‘who had once been blind’ (tovn pote tuflovn). The same participle occurs again in DBC v. 30 (prozьrĕvyi ‘the one who had gained his sight’) for ZM et. človĕkъ ‘the individual/person’ (oJ a[nqrwpo”). Jo 9: 39–41, 10: 1–9, 5th Thurs. after Easter. In v. 40, for ZM et al. sii so˛štei sъ nimь ‘those being with him’, DBC has so˛šti sъ nimь nĕci ‘certain ones being with him’ as the rendition of tau’ta oiJ met∆ aujtou’ o[nte”. The lexical choice is an emendation, since otherwise, before the Preslav-associated half of John, DBC routinely shares with Z the Graecism eterъ for ‘(a) certain’. Jo 10: 9–16, 3 Sept. (St. Anthimus). B marks the beginning and end of this lection without identifying it; D and C mark only the end, also without identification. DBC shares with AKPH an inadvertent omission of the second consecutive occurrence of the phrase ‘the good shepherd’ (pastyrь dobryi) in v. 11. With K alone, DBC attempts to salvage the resulting sentence by substituting polagajo˛ ‘I lay down’ for polagaetъ ‘he lays down’, resulting in ‘I am the good shepherd. I lay down (my) life for the sheep’ (azъ esmь pastyrь dobryi. ØØ dušo˛ svojo˛ polagajo˛ za ovьcę) for ZM et al. ‘I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down (his) life for the sheep’ (azъ esmь pastyrь dobryi. pastyrь dobryi dušo˛ svojo˛ polagaetъ za ovьcę, ∆Egwv eijmi oJ poimh;n oJ kalov”. oJ poimh;n oJ kalo;” th;n yuch;n aujtou’ tivqhsin uJpe;r tw’n probavtwn). Jo 10: 17–30, 5th Fri. after Easter (VkH vv. 17–28). D and C mark the end of the lection after v. 29, and B at v. 30. Otherwise this lection, and Jo 10: 27–38 (5th Sat.) are unexceptional. Jo 11: 1–45, 6th Sat. in Lent (the Raising of Lazarus). In v. 10, C shares with P the N–A Greek version ‘if anyone walks in the night, he will stumble, because there is no light in him’ (vъ nemь, ejn aujtw’Û). D and B,57 however, both have here ‘in it-[fem.]’, referring to ‘night’ (vъ nei; i.e. ‘because there is no light in it’; also some Greek mss. ejn aujth’Û), reflecting the DBC antigraph. ZM et al. have the variant ‘(there is no light) around him’ (o nemь), which neither Nestle–Aland nor Soden lists as a Greek variant. In v. 11, DBC has si rekъ glagola imъ ‘having said these things, he told them . . .’ for ZM et al. si reče. i po semь glagola imъ, ‘he said these things and after that he told them . . .’ (tau’ta ei\ pen, kai; meta; tou’to levgei aujtoi’”; cf. Vk ‘having said this, and after that . . .’ se rekъ i po semь). DBC v. 31 has ‘and seeing her’ (DB vidĕvъše že jo ˛ ; C vidĕvъšei ØØ) for ZM et al. ‘seeing Mary’ (vidĕvъše marijo˛, ijdovnte” th;n Maria;m). DBC contains in v.  38 velika ‘large’ after ZM et al. peštь/peštera ‘cave’ (sphvlaion). The adjective velika likely reflects additional pre-DBC editing, since otherwise before the Preslav­associated portion of John, DBC usually follows ZM in its selection between velьjь and velikъ for ‘large’. In v. 45, DBC has ‘to Martha and Mary’ (kъ martĕ i marьi) for ZM et al. ‘to Mary’ (kъ marьi, pro;” th;n Maria;m).

57 

curzon_2.indb 61

For the text of the now-missing B leaf containing Jo 10: 41–11: 25a, I have relied on Momčilov’s (1868) transcription.

02/06/2008 09:20:10

62

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

Jo 11: 47–54, 6th Mon. after Easter. The textual seam occurs within this lection, at approximately v. 54, the location of the first Preslav-associated lexeme in D and C.58 B is missing a leaf containing vv. 11: 47b–12: 10a. For ei\” dev ti” (e[x aujtw’n) ‘but one of them’ in v. 49, Z has edinъ ‘a’, ‘one’, which is M’s usual variant (Z edinъ že otъ nixъ, ‘and one of them’), while M adds Z’s preferred variant eterъ (M edinъ že eterъ otъ nixъ ‘and one certain one of them’). D and C follow Z here, together with Vr. Vr corresponds to D and C also in v. 53, with da ubьjętь i (C Ø) ‘that they kill him (C Ø)’ for ZM et al. da i bo˛ ubili ‘that they might kill him’ (i{na ajpokteivnwsin aujtovn). In v. 54, D and C alone have the homoioteleuton xoždaaše ‘went (about)’, from earlier in the verse, in place of ZM et al. živĕaše ‘lived’, ‘stayed’ at verse end: i tu xoždaaše sъ učeniky svoimi ‘and there he went with his disciples’ for kajkei’ e[meinen meta; tw’n maqhtw’n. Jo 11: 55–7, transition verses. In v. 56, D and C insert ‘“Where is he?” they asked’ (kъde estъ oni vъprašaaxo˛), a reminiscence from Jo 7: 11, between ‘and they said to one another’ (i glagolaaxo˛ kъ sebĕ) and ‘as they stood in the temple, “What do you think? Will he not come to the feast?”’ (vъ crьkъve stoęšte. čьto sę mьnitъ vamъ. jako ne imatъ li priti vъ prazdьnikъ). In v. 57, D and C share the contracted form dašte for ZM da ašte (‘that if ’, i{na ejavn); omit ‘(he) would be’ (bo˛detъ) in the (ZM) clause da ašte kъto oštjutitъ i. kъde bo˛detъ ‘that if anyone found out where he would be’, and to da povĕstь (C +i) ‘then that he should report (it)’ for ZM povĕstъ ‘he shall report (it)’. Jo 12: 1–18, Palm Sunday Service. The DBC version of the Palm Sunday lection contains a number of textual anomalies that go well beyond Preslav-associated lexicon, and from which inferences can be drawn about the DBC ‘Preslav’ textual version in general. The distribution of lexical variants in the lection is interesting because it does not fit the stereotype for the Preslav redaction. The usual ‘Preslav’ lexemes are present: with Vk, starĕišini žьrьčьskyi for oiJ ajrcierei’” ‘chief priests’ (ZMH arxierei, v. 10), židove for tw’n ∆Ioudaivwn ‘Jews’ (ZMH ijudei, v. 11), poslušьstvovaaše for ejmartuvrei ‘bore witness’ (ZMH sъvĕdĕtelьstvovaaše, v. 17), and masti for muvrou (Z xrizma, MASOKH mÿro); and, in v. 5, with Jav, the arguably ‘Preslav’ variant česo dĕlja for dia; tiv ‘why’ (ZM, Vk et al. česo radi). Co-existing with these newer forms is the ZMAK archaic variant grędetъ for e[rcetai ‘is coming’, which DBC shares with Jav in vv. 12 and 15 (also participle grĕdyi ‘coming’ in v. 13); cf. idetъ in Vk’s ‘Preslav’ version of this lection, and in S and O. In v. 13, for tw’n foinivkwn ‘of palms’, DBC uses an adjectival form, finikovo (D pl. finikovy) in place of the prepositional phrase otъ finikъ (lit. ‘from palms’) in ZM, Jav et al. The DBC textual-level variants in this lection cannot be attributed simply to the general Preslav redaction, as some of them are not shared by Vk or by Jav, which changes to Preslavassociated lexicon at 11: 19. In Jo 12: 5, in a repetition from v. 3, D and C alone have česo dĕlja mastь (C gen. masti) si blagovonьnaja ne prodastъ sę? ‘why was this ointment of spikenard not sold?’ for Z česo radi xrizma si ne prodana bystъ, MASOKHJav česo radi (Jav dĕlja) mÿro se ne prodano bystъ ‘why 58  Vъ židovĕxъ, with H, for ZMAOVkVr vъ ijudeixъ ‘among the Jews’. Cf. in v. 51 DBC arxierei ‘chief priests’, H alone starĕišina žьrьčьsky.

curzon_2.indb 62

02/06/2008 09:20:10

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

63

was this ointment not sold?’, Vk česo radi mastь ⟨__⟩ Ø prodana bystъ ‘why was this ointment sold?’ (facs. partly illeg.). D and C have in v. 7 sъbljudetъ mę ‘she should save me’ for ZM et al. sъbljudetъ jo˛ ‘she should save it-[fem.]’ (thrhvshÛ aujtov). In v. 9, D and C insert xristosъ ‘Christ’ into the (ZM et al.) clause egože vъskrĕsi otъ mrьtviixъ ‘whom he raised from the dead’ (o}n h[geiren ejk nekrw’n): D egože vъskrĕsi otъ mrьtviixъ xristosъ, C egože vъskrĕsi xristosъ otъ mrьtviixъ ‘whom Christ raised from the dead’. In v. 12, after B resumes, DBC shares with Vk and Jav, the other ‘Preslav’ versions of the lection, na utrija že for th’Û ejpauvrion ‘and on the next day’ (ZM vъ utrĕi že dьnь). In the same verse, DBC inserts ‘stood’ (stojaaše) between ‘a large crowd’ (narodъ mъnogъ) and ‘that had come’ (prišьdъi), thus skewing the sentence syntax: ‘On the next day a large crowd stood, which had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming, [v. 13] took branches of palm trees . . .’. Here apparently a pre-DBC copyist failed to read ahead to the end of the long sentence, and concluded that his immediate antigraph was missing the main verb, which he would need to supply. In v.  13, DBC has ‘Hosanna in the highest’ (osanna vъ vyšьnixъ), clearly a reminiscence of Mt 21: 9 and Mk 11: 10, for wjsannav (ZM, Jav, et al. osanna). In v. 15, DBC inserts kъ tebĕ krotъkъ ‘to you lowly’ between se cĕsarь tvoi grędetъ ‘behold, your king is coming’ and sĕdę na žrĕbęte osьli ‘seated on a donkey’s colt’. The insertion, from Zechariah 9: 9, is not an involuntary reminiscence, because the preceding verse in John states that the following is a quotation from the Scriptures; in fact, the DBC version with the insertion is a more accurate quotation from Zechariah than the standard Greek version of Jo 12: 15, which the other Slavic manuscripts in the corpus reflect. In v.  16, the dative pronoun emu (‘to him’) caused a copyist somewhere in the pre-history of DBC to interpret the remainder of the clause as the dative absolute construction se sъtvorъšju emu ‘he having done this’, instead of ZM et al. i si sъtvorišę emu ‘and that these things also had been done to him (lit. ‘and they did these things to him’, kai; tau’ta ejpoivhsan aujtw’Û). DBC v. 17 reflects an earlier scribal misreading of (ZM et al.) vъzglasi or vъzъva ‘he called’ as vъskrĕsi ‘he raised/resurrected’. This is likely another automatism, since the immediately following words are ‘from the grave’: DBC lazarja vъskrĕsi otъ groba i vъstavi otъ mrьtvyixъ ‘he raised Lazarus from the grave and woke him from the dead’; cf. ZM et al. lazarja vъzglasi/ vъzъva otъ groba i vъskrĕsi ego otъ mrьtvyixъ ‘he called Lazarus from the grave and raised him from the dead’ (to;n Lavzaron ejfwvnhsen ejk tou’ mnhmeivou kai; h[geiren aujto;n ejk nekrw’n). In v. 18, DBC alone has the variant sъrĕte i narodъ (lit. ‘the crowd met him’) vs. ZM et al. i protivъ izide emu narodъ (lit. ‘and the crowd came out meeting him’) for kai; uJphvnthsen aujtw’Û oJ o[clo”. Jo 12: 17–50, Holy Wed. matins (cf. Vk. Mk 14: 1–11) and 12: 19–36, 6th Tues. after Easter (Jav 6th Mon.). In v. 21, DBC alone inserts kъto estъ ‘who (he) is’ following xoštemъ isusa vidĕti ‘we want to see Jesus’ (qevlomen to;n ∆Ihsou’n ijdei’n); this may be a reminiscence from Jo 9: 12. In v. 25, DBC alone has the ‘Preslav’ lexeme žiznь ‘life’, in the accusative, vs. ZM, Jav, et al. Ohrid-associated životъ, in the locative: DBC tъ (sic; B vъ) žiznь vĕčьnojo˛ ‘into eternal life’,

curzon_2.indb 63

02/06/2008 09:20:10

64

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

ZM et al. vъ životĕ vĕčьnĕmь ‘in eternal life’, for eij” zwh;n aijwvnion. DBC and H share in the same verse the variant sъbljudetъ vs. ZM, Jav et al. sъxranitъ ‘shall keep’, for fulavxei. In v. 28, with Vk and Jav, DBC reflects a minority Greek version which adds the participle glagolję ‘saying’ (levgousa) after pride že glasъ sъ nebese ‘there came a voice from the heavens’. In v. 30, however, together with M and O, DBC follows the standard Greek version vasъ radi ‘for your sakes’ (di∆ uJma’”); cf. ZJav et al. naroda radi ‘for the people’s sake’. Jo 12: 35b–47, 6th Wed. after Easter (other manuscripts in the corpus begin the lection at v. 36; VkH 46–4, 46–7). In v. 40, DBC has the apparent homoioteleuton ‘and when they will see with their eyes and understand with their hearts’ (egda že uzьrętъ (D vidętъ) očima i razumĕjo˛tъ srьdьcemь), immediately following ‘that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their hearts’ (da ne vidętъ očima. ni razumĕjo˛tъ srьdьcemь, i{na mh; i[dwsin toi’” ojfqalmoi’” kai; nohvswsin th’Û kardivaÛ). This segment is actually an involuntary reminiscence of Mt 13: 14 ‘when he shall see with his eyes and they will hear with their ears and will understand with their heart’ ((Z)M egda kogda uzьrętъ očima. i ušyma uslyšętъ. i srьdьcemь razumĕjo˛tъ). In v. 43, DBC contains the variant ‘earthly praise’ (slavo˛ zemьno˛jo˛) for ZM et al. standard ‘human praise’ (slavo˛ človĕčьsko˛, th;n dovxan tw’n ajnqrwvpwn). In v. 47, DBC have infinitives in place of the Greek subjunctives that ZMJav et al. render faithfully in the segment ne pridoxъ bo so˛diti mirovi. nъ sъpasti mira ‘for I have come not to judge the world, but to save the world’; cf. ZM et al. ne pridъ bo da so˛ždo˛ miru. nъ da sъpaso˛ mirъ ‘in order that I might judge the world, but that I might save the world’ (i{na krivnw to;n kovsmon, ajll∆ i{na swvsw to;n kovsmon). DBC also differs from the other versions by apparently extending the ‘virile’ animate accusative marking -a to the noun ‘world’ (mira) in the second clause.59 Jo 12: 48–50, transition verses. The introductory rubric in D suggests that these two verses are to follow Lu 24: 36–53 as part of the lection for the 6th Thursday after Easter/Ascension Day, and D alone marks the end of a Thursday lection after v. 49. The two verses are not indicated as part of a lection in any other manuscripts in the corpus. In v.  48, DBC has xulęi mę ‘insulting/contradicting me’ for ZMJav otъmetajęi sę mene ‘rejecting me’ (oJ ajqetw’n ejme;). In v. 49, directly following the liturgical instruction in D that marks the end of the lection, DBC omits ZMJav čьto reko˛. i čьto vъzglagoljo˛ ‘what I should say and what I should speak’ (tiv ei[pw kai; tiv lalhvsw). In v. 50, DBC has ‘his commandments are life eternal’ (zapovĕdi ego žiznь vĕcьnaja so˛tъ) for ZMJav ‘his commandment is life eternal’ (zapovĕdь ego životъ vĕčьny estъ, hJ ejntolh; aujtou’ zwh; aijwvniov” ejstin). DBC omits ZMJav ‘for the things I say’ (jaže ubo azъ glagolja) later in the verse. D alone continues the omission to the end of the verse.

59 

Or mira may have been intended as the genitive form, the copyist having overextended the grammatical scope of negation from the preceding clause to this one. DBC has in v. 37 sice že emu znamenьja tvoręštju ‘even thus while he had performed miracles’, for ZM, Jav et al. tolika že emu znamenьja tvoręštju ‘even though he had performed so many miracles’ (tosau’ta de; aujtou’ shmei’a pepoihkovto”). Although the only grammatical way to interpret DBC sice in this sentence is as the adverb sice ‘thus’, sice is also the form of the neuter nominative singular pronoun ‘such’. Most likely DBC sice was originally in the neuter nominative plural form sica ‘such (things)’ in a pre-DBC antigraph, agreeing in number with the neuter plural noun znamenьja ‘miracles’ that it modifies, since the variant ‘such’ for ‘so many’ is also found in some Greek manuscripts (tau’ta; see Nestle–Aland 1985: 292, n. to v. 37).

curzon_2.indb 64

02/06/2008 09:20:11

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

65

Jo 13: 1–11, Holy Thursday, The Washing of Feet. Verses 3–17 are labeled additionally in ASOVkKP as part of the Holy Thursday Service lection. B has a liturgical rubric marking the beginning of the Holy Thursday lection at v. 2, but neither D nor C has an opening rubric identifying the Holy Thursday lection, although both mark the end of an unidentified lection after v. 17, where D instructs a skip back to Mt 26: 21 for the continuation of Holy Thursday lection. DBC v.  2 has i dijavolъ vъloži sę ‘and the devil put himself (into Judas Iscariot’s heart)’ for the ZM et al. dative absolute construction Ø dijavolu juže vъložьšju Ø ‘the devil already having put Ø’ (tou’ diabovlou h[dh beblhkovto” eij” th;n kardivan). In v. 7, DBC has poslĕdь že razumĕeši ‘but afterwards/later you will understand’ for the more literal rendering in ZM, Jav. et al. razumĕeši že po sixъ (Vk po semь) ‘but you will understand after these things (Vk ‘after that’)’ (gnwvshÛ de; meta; tau’ta). In v. 6, DBC shares with Jav and H glagola že emu petrъ ‘Peter said to him’ for ZM et al. glagola že emu tъ ‘he/the latter said to him’ (Ø levgei aujtw’Û). DBC v. 11 has ‘you are clean, but not all (of you)’ (vy čisti este nъ ne vьsi) for ZMJav et al. ‘that not all of you are clean’ (jako ne vьsi vy este čisti, o{ti oujci; pavnte” kaqaroiv ejste). Jo 13: 12–17, After the Washing of Feet. DBC has in v. 13, with the English NIV and some Greek manuscripts, ‘Lord and Teacher’ (gospoda i učitelja ; see Soden 1913: 212) for ZM, Jav et al. ‘Teacher and Lord’ (učitelja i gospodja, N–A oJ didavskalo” kai; oJ kuvrio”). Jo 13: 18–31a, transition verses. DBC v. 18 has da sъkončaetъ sę pisanьe (CB p.p.p. pisanoe), with ‘Preslav’ variant pisanьe ‘writing’ as expected here, vs. ZM da kъnigy sъbo˛do˛tъ sę ‘that the Scripture/writing (CB ‘that which has been written’, s. 3.5.2) may be fulfilled’ (i{na hJ grafh; plhrwqh’Û); cf. Jav hybrid da sъbo˛do˛tъ sę pisanьja ‘that the writings may be fulfilled’. In the same verse, D ‘the one who eats my loaves’ (jady xlĕby moję) and CBJav ‘the one who eats my bread’ (jady xlĕbъ moi) follow the majority Greek variant of both this verse and Psalm 41: 10, oJ trwvgwn mou to;n a[rton; cf. ZM ‘that the one who eats bread with me’ (jako jady sъ mьnojo˛ xlĕbъ), reflecting a minority Greek variant (. . . met∆ ejmou’ . . .). Likewise, in v. 22, DBC has učenici ego, as in some Gr. mss. oiJ mαqhtai; aujtou’), for ZMJav učenici ‘the disciples’, which reflects the standard Greek variant oiJ maqhtai;. Two independent DBC and Jav anomalies in consecutive verses constitute the first evidence so far for arguing a possible textual relationship between DBC and Jav. Verse 24 contains the DBC garbling ‘remembered’ (pomęno˛/pomĕno˛) for ZM ‘nodded’ (pomano˛, neuvei) in the segment neuvei ou\n touvtwÛ Sivmwn Pevtro” ‘Simon Peter nodded therefore to that one’; Jav has here the garbling ‘since’ (po neže) for pomano˛. In v. 25, which Jav omits, DBC has i vъzlegъ ‘and having reclined (on Jesus’s breast)’ in contrast to ZM’s more literal rendering napadъ že (M +tъ) tako ‘and (Z: ‘he’, ‘the former’) having fallen thus (on Jesus’s breast)’, ajnapesw;n ejkei’no” ou{tw”. Also in v. 25, DBC have ‘who is it betraying you?’ (kъto estъ prĕdajęi tę) for ZM ‘who is it?’ (kъto estъ, tiv” ejstin).60 In v. 29, DBC has ‘that Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast”, or that that he give something to the poor, insofar as Judas had the money bag’ (jako glagoletъ emu isusъ. kupi egože trĕbuemъ vъ prazdьnikъ. ili da ništiimъ 60  In v. 28, DBC share with Jav the minor variant ‘about what’ (CB, Jav o čemь, D o štomь) vs. M ‘toward what (goal)’ (kъ česomu), Z ‘because of what’ (česo radi) for pro;” tiv ‘why’ (lit. ‘for what’).

curzon_2.indb 65

02/06/2008 09:20:11

66

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

nĕčьto podastъ. zane kovčežьcь imĕaše ijuda); Jav shares ZM’s closer word order to the Greek, ‘because Judas had the money bag, that Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast”, or that he give something to the poor’ (po neže (Jav imъže) kovčežьcь (Jav kovъ, M skrinico˛) imĕaše ijuda, jako glagoletъ emu isusъ. kupi egože (Jav ixъže) trĕbuemъ vъ (Jav na) prazdьnikъ. li ništiimъ (Jav ili ubogimъ) da (Jav Ø) nĕčьto dastъ (ejpei; to; glwssovkomon ei\cen ∆Iouvda”, o{ti levgei aujtw’Û ∆Ihsou’”. ajgovrason w|n creivan e[comen eij” th;n eJorthvn, h] toi’” ptwcoi’” i{na ti dw’Û).... Jo 13: 31b–18: 1, Holy Thursday, First Passion lection. DBC does not mark the end of the lection. In v. 33, following vъzištete mene ‘you shall seek me’, DBC adds i ne obręštete ‘and you shall not find (me)’, an involuntary reminiscence from Jo 7: 34. DBC v. 36 has ‘you cannot come’ (D ty ne možeši priti, CB vy ne možete priti with plural ‘you’) for ZM Jav et al. ‘you cannot follow me now’ (ty ne možeši nynĕ po mьnĕ (Jav vъ slĕdъ mene) iti, ouj duvnasaiv moi nu’n ajkolouqh’sai). Jo 14: 1–10, 6th Fri. after Easter.61 In v. 1, following the clause ‘let not your hearts be troubled’ (DBC da ne sъmo˛štaetъ sę srьdьce vaše, ZM et al. . . . vaše srьdьce, Jav pl. da ne smo˛štajo˛tъ sę srьdьca vaša), DBC alone has ni ustrašaetъ ‘nor let it fear’, an anticipation of v. 27. In v. 3, DBC has a second significant textual correspondence with Jav: i ašte (Jav jako) ido ˛ ugotovati mĕsto (Jav mesta) vamъ. (Jav +i) paky prido˛ ‘and if (Jav ‘because’) I go to prepare a place (Jav ‘places’) for you, (Jav + ‘and’) I shall come again’, vs. MV i ašte ido˛ ugotovajo˛ mĕsto vamъ. paky prido˛ ‘and if I go, I shall prepare a place for you. I shall come again’, Z i ešte ido˛ paky prido˛. i ugotovajo˛ mĕsto vamъ ‘I am still going. I shall come again and shall prepare a place for you’, for kai; eja;n poreuqw’ kai; eJtoimavsw tovpon uJmi’n, pavlin e[rcomai. The lectionaries ASVkKH follow a Greek version that omits the portion preceding ‘I shall come again’ (see Jagič 1883 [1960]: 375, n. to ll. 1–2). DBC v. 7 has ‘you see him’ (vidite i) for ZVSOVk(Vr)KJav ‘you saw him’ (vidĕste i, eJwravkate aujtovn), MA ‘you knew him’ (uvĕdĕste i). Jagić notes that Greek and Latin versions of this segment vary widely (ibid.). Jo 14: 10–21, 6th Sat. after Easter.62 In v. 14, DBC omits ZMJav et al. ‘in my name’ (vъ imę moe, ejn tw’Û ojnovmativ mou), and in v. 16 adds ‘concerning/for you’ (o vasъ) following ‘and I will ask the Father’ (i azъ umoljo˛ otьca, kajgw; ejrwthvsw to;n patevra). In v. 17, DBC has ‘for it did not see him nor did it understand him’ (jako ne vidĕ ego ni razumĕ ego) for ZMJav et al. ‘for it does not see him nor does it know him’ (jako ne viditъ ego ni znaetъ ego, o{ti ouj qewrei’ aujto; oujde; ginwvskei). DBC razumĕ ‘understood’ here may be an anticipation of razumĕete ‘you shall understand’ in v. 20. In v.  23, DBC shares with H ‘may he keep my word’ (slovo moe da sъbljudetъ, H da sъbljudaetъ) for ZMJav et al. ‘he will keep my words’ (slovo moe Ø sъbljudetъ, to;n lovgon mou thrhvsei). In v. 27, clearly anticipating the following sentence ‘my peace I give to you’, DBC begins the verse with ‘my peace I leave to you’ (mirъ moi ostavljajo˛ vamъ), for ZM et al. ‘peace I leave to you’ (mirъ ostavljajo˛ vamъ, eijrhvnhn ajfivhmi uJmi’n); Jav omits this first sentence. 61  62 

curzon_2.indb 66

Mislabeled in C’s rubric as Monday. C also neglects to mark the lection end. Jav marks this lection for the sixth Tuesday after Easter, in a rare liturgical rubric.

02/06/2008 09:20:11

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

67

Jo 14: 27b–15: 16, 7th Mon. after Easter. D and C fail to mark the end of this lection; B marks it erroneously at v. 7, which concludes similarly to v. 16 (v. 7 dastъ sę vamъ ‘will be given to you’, v. 16 dastъ vamъ ‘(he) will give to you’. In v. 28, both DBC and Jav, very likely independently, the homoioteleuton jako rekoxъ ido˛ kъ otьcu moemu (Jav Ø) ‘that I said, “I am going to my (Jav ‘the’) Father”’, vs. ZM et al. jako ido˛ kъ otьcu ‘that I am going to the Father’, for o{ti poreuvomai pro;” to;n patevra; compare earlier in the same verse (DBC) slyšaste jako rekoxъ vamъ. ido i prido˛ kъ vamъ ‘you have heard that I said to you, “I am going away and I am coming back to you.”’ Jo 15: 1–27, Thursday in Holy Week, Great Compline evening service. Both D and C label the lection in the liturgical rubric as na methimonĕ (lit. ‘at the Meth Enom’), referring to the hymn met∆ hJnw’n ‘God is with us’ which is sung as part of the Great Compline during Monday through Thursday evening of Holy Week. B marks where the lection begins, but does not identify it. None of the three manuscripts marks the end of the lection; Vk marks the end at v. 27. Vk does not give the lection an identifying label for a specific Passion, but simply marks the beginning of a lection at v. 1, within the larger lection labeled at Jo 13: 31 for Thursday in Holy Week during the singing of the First Passion (Jo 13: 31–8, 14: 1–31, 15: 1–27, 16: 1–33, 17: 1–26, 18: 1). Although the First Passion lection is part of the Ohrid-redaction portion of Vk, in v. 2, DBC nevertheless shares some lexical variants with Vk, and Vk is also the closest to the DBC version of the verse on the textual level: DBC vьsja loza (D +o mьnĕ) ne tvoręšti (B +o mьnĕ) ploda dobra posĕkaema byvaetъ (D ‘every vine in me that does not bear good fruit is cut off ’, CB ‘every vine that does not bear (B +in me) fruit is cut off ’ for ZM et al. vьsĕko˛ razgo˛/ rozgo˛ (VkJav lozo ˛ ) o mьnĕ (MSKHJav ØØ) ne tvoręšto˛ (jo˛) ploda (Vk + dobra, Jav +o mьnĕ) izъmetъ jo ˛ ‘every vine in me (MSKHJav ØØ) that does not bear (Vk + ‘good’) fruit (Jav + ‘in me’) he takes out’, pa’n klh’ma ejn ejmoi; mh; fevron karpovn, ai[rei aujtov. Later in the verse, DBC has ‘is pruned’ (otrĕbitъ sę) for ZMJav et al. ‘he will prune (it)’ (otrĕbitъ jo˛, kaqaivrei aujto;). In v. 5, DBC has the variant vinogradъ istinyi ‘the true vine’, an involuntary reminiscence of verse 1, for VkJav vinogradъ (OCS ‘the vineyard’), ZM et al. loza Ø (‘the vine’), ajmpelo”.63 In v.  7, C and B have i egože ašte xoštete. prosite ‘and whatever you want, you shall ask’ (o} eja;n qevlhte aijthvsasqe). D omits xoštete ‘you want’, producing ‘whatever you shall ask’. The defective D version likely reflects most closely the shared DBC antigraph, since C has first written prosite ‘you shall ask’ and then erased it and written xoštete. prosite over it. In place of DBC gen. egože ašte for ‘whatever’, ZMJav et al. have dative emuže koližьdo. DBC completes the sentence with i dastъ sę vamъ ‘it shall be given to you’, evidently an involuntary reminiscence from Mt 7: 7 ‘ask, and it will be given to you’, for ZMVkJav et al. i bo˛detъ vamъ, ‘and it shall be (so) for you’, for kai; genhvsetai ujmi’n. D and C share with Jav in v. 10 the more natural syntactic variant vъ ljubъve ego ‘in his love’ vs. ZM et al. vъ nego ljubъve for aujtou’ ejn th’Û ajgavphÛ. B’s attempt to emend this variant, apparently striving to replace it with the majority version, results in the anomaly vъ ljubovъ vъ nego ‘in(to) love into him’. 63  The lexical correspondence with Vk here is noteworthy, as the lection occurs in Vk’s Ohrid portion, where for a[mpelo” ‘vine’ one would expect loza instead of Preslav-associated vinogradъ.

curzon_2.indb 67

02/06/2008 09:20:12

68

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

Jo 15: 17–16: 2, 3rd Sat. after Easter. In v. 19, DBC shares with H and the ‘Preslav’ portion of Vk the less literal rendering mirъ sy svoi ljubilъ vy bi ‘this world, being yours, would love you’ for ZMJav et al. mirъ ubo svoę (MAOVr svoe) ljubilъ Ø bi ‘for the world would love its own’ (oJ kovsmo” a]n to; i[dion ejfivlei). In the same verse, DBC alone has the variant nъ zaneže ‘but because’ (o{ti de;), which is slightly closer to the standard Greek version than OK nъ jakože ‘but just as’ and ZMASVkJav Ø jakože ‘Ø just as’. In v. 20, immediately following nĕstъ rabъ bolьi gospodja svoego ‘there is no slave greater than his master’, DBC alone contains the addition ni apostolъ bolьi poslavъšaego i ‘nor an apostle greater than the one who has sent him’, an involuntary reminiscence from Mt 10: 24. In v. 22, in contrast to ZMJav et al. viny ‘excuse (for their sin)’ for provfasin, D, which more likely reflects DBC, has viny i izvĕta ‘excuse and pretext’, while C and B have instead simply otъvĕta ‘answer’. Jo 16: 2b–13a, 7th Tues. after Easter. DBC has in v. 2 the younger (gen. pl.) lexical variant sъborištь ‘synagogue’ for ZM et al. sъnьmištъ, which occurs here even in the Preslav-associated portion of Vk and Jav. In v. 7, as expected in this Preslav-associated portion, DBC and Jav have the newer, Slavic variant utĕšitelь for ZM et al. paraklitъ (oJ paravklhto” ‘the Comforter’).64 Jo 16: 13b–14 (transition verses) are unexceptional. Jo 16: 15–23, 7th Wed. after Easter. In v. 17, DBC inserts the plural pronoun nĕci ‘some, certain ones’ before ZM et al. otъ učenikъ ‘(some) of the disciples’ (ejk tw’n maqhtw’n; cf. Jav učenici ego ‘his disciples’). In v. 19, DBC shares with S the variant vъprašaete sę vs. Jav pytaete meždo˛ sobojo˛, ZM et al. sъtędzaete sę for ‘do you inquire among yourselves’ (zhtei’te met∆ ajllhvlwn). In v. 20, B alone shares with Vk and Jav the Preslav-associated Slavic variant pravo pravo ‘truly, truly’, which DBC eschews even in its ‘Preslav’ half of John, for ZM et al. aminь aminь ‘amen, amen’. In v. 23, for ZMJav et al. ‘you will ask me nothing’ (mene ne vъprosite ničesože, Jav mene ne prosite ničьtože, ejme; oujk ejrwthvsete oujde;n), DBC has the anomaly mene vъprosite (CB vъsprosite)65 i bez mene ne možete ničesože tvoriti (D tvoriti ničesože) ‘you will ask me, and without me you will be able to do nothing’, a reminiscence of Jo 15: 5 cwri;” ejmou’ ouj duvnasqe poiei’n oujdevn. Later in the same verse, DBC has the variant vьse eliko prosite otьca vs. ZM et al. ašte česo prosite u/otъ otьca for a[n ti aijthvshte to;n patevra ‘whatever you ask of/from the Father’, while Jav eliko ašte prosite u otьca displays features of both versions. Jo 16: 24–32, 7th Thurs. after Easter (VkH vv. 23–33). B has lost a leaf containing vv. 16: 30b–17: 17. In v. 26 DBC has ‘you will ask of me and I will not say’ (mene vъprosite. i ne reko˛), 64 

Although DBC employs utĕšitelь only in the second half of John, and paraklitъ elsewhere (for distribution, see index verborum to edition), the fact that Vk’s ‘Preslav’ portion contains the Graecism paraklitъ here illustrates the fuzziness of the category of Preslav-associated lexemes. On the basis of the distribution in this verse between Vk and DBC alone, the discrepancy can be accounted for either by rejecting the ‘Preslav’ categorization of utĕšitelь and treating it simply as a newer, Slavic lexeme that is used in some later manuscripts regardless of their general redaction; or, alternatively, Vk’s use of the Cyrillo-Methodian variant paraklitъ here can be explained as a secondary revision. 65  B mene ne vъprosite . . . ‘you will not ask’, is either a perseveration from v. 24 or an anticipation of the negative in the phrase i ne reko˛.

curzon_2.indb 68

02/06/2008 09:20:12

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

69

partly a perseveration from v. 23 in the preceding lection, for ZMJav et al. ‘you will ask in my name and I am not saying to you’ (vъ imę moe vъprosite. i ne glagoljo˛ vamъ, ejn tw’Û ojnovmativ mou aijthvsesqe, kai; ouj levgw ujmi’n). DBC shares with Vk in v. 30 the variant ‘we have understood’ (razumĕxomъ) for ZMJav et al. ‘we know’ (vĕmъ, oi[damen). In v. 32, now missing from B, D and C share a transposition of the verb priti ‘to arrive’ from the immediately following clause: C has pridetъ godina ‘the hour will arrive’, D pride godina ‘the hour has arrived’, for SVkJav se (Jav Ø) idetъ godina, ZM et al. se grędetъ godina ‘lo (Jav Ø), the hour is coming’ (ijdou; e[rcetai w{ra). Immediately following this, both C and D have i nynĕ estъ ‘and now it is (here)’ for ZMJav et al. i nynĕ pride ‘and now it has arrived’ (kai; ejlhvluqen). Toward the end of the verse, D and C share with P and Jav nъ ‘but’ in place of of ZM et al. jako ‘because’ (o{ti) as the complementizer of the clause otьcь sъ mьnojo˛ estъ ‘the Father is with me’. Jo 17: 1–13, 7th Sun. after Easter (Vk1 Ohrid-redaction portion), Jo 17: 1–26, continuation of First Passion, Holy Thursday Great Compline (Vk2 ‘Preslav-redaction’ portion). In v. 3, D and C share with A and Jav the variant ‘the true God’ (istinьnaego boga) vs. ZM et al. ‘the only true God’ (edinogo istinьnaego boga), for to;n movnon ajlhqino;n qeo;n. In v. 10, D and C have with Jav, in the singular, ‘and all mine is yours and yours mine’ (i moe vьse tvoe estъ i tvoe moe) for ZM et al. i moja vьsja tvoja so˛tъ i tvoja moja ‘all mine are yours and yours mine’ (kai; ta; ejma; pavnta sav ejstin kai; ta; sa; ejmav). In v. 12, with S, D and C omit the segment ‘those you have given me I have kept’ (ZMJav et al. jęže dalъ esi mьnĕ sъxranixъ (Vk2PH1 sъbljudoxъ ję)). Later in the verse, D shares with Vk2 and H1 the singular variant da sъbo˛detъ sę pisanьe ‘that the Scripture might be fulfilled’ vs. MASOVrKPH1 da sъbo˛do˛tъ sę kъnigi ‘and (S)Vk1 da kъnigi sъkonьčajo˛tъ sę (both pl. ‘that the Scriptures might be fulfilled’), for i{na hJ grafh; plhrwqh’Û. Jav contains elements of both versions: da sъkončaetъ sę pisanьe. C has here again the definite neuter singular past passive participle pisanoe (lit. ‘that which has been written’), as CB has in Jo 13: 18, for the DVk2H1Jav noun pisanьe (‘writing’). Jo 17: 18–26, 18: 1, 7th Fri. after Easter (also H; Vk1 17: 11–26). B’s text resumes with the liturgical rubric for this lection. In v. 26, together with P, DBC anticipates the instrumental case in the immediately following relative pronoun, erroneously marking the subject noun as instrumental, thus producing the grammatical garbling da ljubovьjo ˛ ejo˛že mę si vъljubilъ. vъ nixъ bo˛detъ ‘that by the love by which you have loved me will be in them’; cf. ZMJav et al. nom. da ljuby ejo˛že . . . ‘that the love by which . . .’ Jo 18: 1–28, Holy Thursday, 2nd Passion lection. (Vk ‘Preslav’ portion; v. 1 is also the last verse of the First Passion in Vk’s Ohrid-redaction portion). DBC v. 1 contains a grammatical anomaly in the phrase ‘to the other side of the stream Kedron’: here the DBC noun form vodotočьi, which looks like the genitive plural form of a neuter dialect noun vodotočьe (cf. OCS vodotečь ‘torrent’), is in misagreement with the adjective kedrьsky (D kedъrsky) ‘of Kedron’, which could be interpreted either as a feminine definite nominative/accusative plural, as masculine definitive nominative plural, or as an indefinite feminine genitive singular; cf. ZMJav et al. m. gen. sg. potoka kedrьska (lit. ‘torrent of Kedron’, tou’ ceimavrrou tou’ Kedrwvn). In v. 3, DBC has i priimъ narody (D narodъ) ijuda, also Jav ijuda že priimъ narodъ ‘and Judas, having received the crowds (D, Jav ‘crowd’)’, vs. Vk ijuda že poimъ voiny ‘and Judas,

curzon_2.indb 69

02/06/2008 09:20:12

70

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

having taken soldiers’, ZM et al. ijuda že priimъ spiro˛ ‘and Judas, having received a military detachment’, for ∆Iouvda” labw;n th;n spei’ran. (DBCJav narodъ is the expected ‘Preslav’ variant of voiny; see s. 2.5.11.) Later in the verse, DBC shares with S the variant sъ svĕštami ‘with candles’ vs. Jav sъ svĕštami i oro˛žьi ‘with candles and weapons’, ZM et al. sъ svĕtily/svĕtilьniky i svĕštami ‘with lanterns and candles’, for meta; fanw’n kai; lampavdwn. DBC v. 9 contains the anomaly slovo pisanoe eže reče ‘the written word that he had spoken’, for ZMJav et al. slovo eže reče ‘the word that he had spoken’ (oJ lovgo” o}n ei\pen), and omits mьnĕ ‘to me’ from ZMJav et al. jęže dalъ esi mьnĕ ‘which you gave to me’ (ou}” devdwkav” moi). In v.  12, DBC has plural ‘commanders’ (tyso˛štьnici) for ZMJav et al. ‘commander’ (tyso˛stьnikъ, oJ cilivarco”); in v. 13, the lexical variant prĕžde vs. ZMJav et al. prьvĕe for prw’ton; and in v. 14, tьi (D toi) bo kaijafa ‘for he, Caiaphas’ (using the Bulgarianism tъi/tьi for OCS tъ ‘he’), vs. ZJav et al. bĕ že kaijafa ‘for (it) was Caiaphas’, for h|n de; Kai>afa’” (M mis. fol.). In an anticipation of v. 16, DBC v. 15 has the relative clause iže bĕ znaemъ ‘who was known’ for ZJav et al. učenikъ že tъ bĕ znaemъ ‘and that disciple was known’ (oJ de; maqhth;” ejkei’no” h\n gnwsto;”). Following this sentence, DBC omits ZJav et al. i vъnide sъ isusomь vъ dvorъ arxiereovъ (Vk starĕišiny žьrьčьska; note Jav Ohrid variant here) ‘and entered with Jesus into the high priest’s court’ (kai; suneish’lqen tw’Û ∆Ihsou’ eij” th;n aujlh;n tou’ ajrcierevw”). DBC v. 18 omits ZJav et al. i grĕaxo˛ sę ‘and (they) were warming themselves’ (kai; ejqermaivnonto), and has bĕ že simonъ petrъ ‘and Simon Peter was there’ for Z et al. bĕ že sъ nimi Ø (Vk simonъ) petrъ ‘and (Vk ‘Simon’) Peter was there with them’, kai; oJ Pevtro” met∆ aujtw’n eJstw;”; Jav omits this ­sentence. In v. 20, DBC has ‘where the Jews always come together’ (CB ideže vьsegda židove sъbirajo˛tъ sę, D . . . židove vьsegda . . .), with ‘always’ a perseveration from the preceding sentence, vs. Z et al. ideže vьse ijudei (Vk vьsi židove) sъnemljo˛tъ sę/sъbirajo˛tъ sę ‘where all the Jews come together’ for o{pou pavnte” oiJ ∆Ioudai’oi sunevrcontai. Once again, Jav’s version contains elements of both variants: ideže vьsegda Ø sъnimaxo˛ sę, ‘where (they) always gathered together’; note also Dm kьdĕže vьsegda vьsi ijudei sьbiraaxo˛ se, with vьsi ‘all’ inserted in superscript after ‘always’, and vьsegda a scribal correction from an erasure. DBC has in v. 24 the garbling posъlašę že isusa ‘and they sent Jesus’ for ZJav et al. posъla že i anna ‘and Annas sent him’ (ajpevsteilen ou\n ajuto;n oJ ”Anna”). Jo 18: 28–19: 16a, Holy Thursday, 4th Passion Lection (VkH to 19: 4). B is missing a leaf from 19: 7b–27a. In v. 35, DBC offers a different syntactic interpretation from the other manuscripts in the corpus: ‘Am I a Jew, your people? But the chief priests handed you over to me’ (eda azъ židovinъ esmь rodъ tvoi. nъ starĕišiny žrьčьsky prĕdašę tę mьnĕ) for ZMJav et al. ‘Am I a Jew? Both (Jav, others Ø) your people and the chief priests handed you over to me’ (eda azъ židovinъ esmь rodъ tvoi. (ZM +i) tvoi rodъ i arxierei (Jav starĕišinъ žrьčьskъ) prĕdašę tĕ mьnĕ; for mhvti ejgw; ∆Ioudai’ov” eijmi… to; e[qno” to; so;n kai; oiJ ajrcierei’” parevdwkavn se ejmoiv.66 In v. 38, DBC shares with the other two ‘Preslav’ versions, in Vk and Jav, the syntactic variant niedinoję viny ne obrĕtajo˛ do nego vs. the more literal translation niedinoję vini ne obrĕtajo˛ 66  In this verse, ZM and the other Ohrid-redaction versions in the corpus have the Preslav-associated variant židovinъ ‘Jew’ instead of ijudei.

curzon_2.indb 70

02/06/2008 09:20:12

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

71

vъ nemь in ZM et al., for ejgw; oujdemivan euJrivskw ejn aujtw’Û aijtivan ‘I find no crime in him’. In v. 40, DBC has, also with Jav but very likely independently, the variant razboinika ‘the robber’ for ZM et al. varavo˛ ‘Barabbas’ (Barabba’n), apparently an anticipation of the following sentence, bĕ že varava razboinikъ ‘Barabbas was a robber’. In a reminiscence of both Mt 27: 26 and Mk 15: 15, DBC alone has in 19: 1 ‘and having beaten him, he delivered him (D +‘to them’)’ (i bivъ i prĕdastъ i (D +imъ)) for ZMJav et al. ‘and he beat him’ (i bi/tepe i; kai; ejmastivgwsen). In v. 4, with M, DBC adds niedinoję ‘none at all’ following viny ‘guilt’, likely a reminiscence from v. 38. DBC v. 5 contains the lexical variant bagrĕnico˛ for OVrJav bagъręno˛ rizo˛, ZMASH prapro˛dьno˛ rizo˛, ‘purple robe’ (to; porfurou’n iJmavtion; Vk mis. fol.). Jo 19: 6, 9–11, 13–20, 25–8, 30b–35, Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Liturgy (14 Sept.). Only B marks the end of the lection. In v. 12, likely influenced by Mt 26: 15 and Mk 14: 11, D and C share ‘Pilate sought a suitable time to release him’ (pilatъ iskaaše podobna vrĕmene pustiti i) for ZMJav et al. ‘Pilate sought to release him’ (oJ Pila’to” ejzhvtei apolu’sai aujtovn). In v. 13, D and C omit na mĕstĕ ‘at a place’ from ZMJav et al. na so˛dišti na mĕstĕ naricaemĕmь litostrato˛ ‘in the judgement seat at a place called the Stone Pavement’ (ejpi; bhvmato” eij” tovpon legovmenon Liqovstrwton). In vv. 14 and 15, as to be expected, Jav exhibits lexical parallels with D and C, but not ­textual-level ones. At v. 14, D and C have ‘at the sixth hour’ (C i časъ bĕ šestyi, D časъ že bĕ šestyi), vs. MOVkVrKPHJav godina (Jav časъ) (že) bĕ jako šestaja ‘(and) at about the sixth hour’ (w{ra h\n wJ” e{kth); cf. ZASVH Greek variant ‘at about the third hour’ (godina bĕ jako tretьjaja, w{ra h\n wJ” trivth). In v. 15, together with H, D, and C have the single imperative vъzьmi ‘take (him)’ for ZMJav et al. vъzьmi. vъzьmi (‘take (him), take (him)’, a\ron, a\ron). In the same verse, D and C share with ZM and Jav propьni ‘crucify’ vs. ASOVkVrKH raspьni, for stauvrwson. Verse 17 in D and C has na mĕsto naricaemoe kranievo, rather than the Greek-influenced word order in ZMJav et al. vъ naricaemoe kranievo mĕsto (‘at the place called “Of the Skull”’ eij” to;n legovmenon kranivou tovpon;67 Vk alone substitutes Slavic lobьnoe here for the Graecism kranievo ‘of the skull’). In v. 18, D and C have ‘and with him two robbers, one on the right and the other on the left’ (i sъ nimь dъva razboinika. edinogo o desno˛jo˛ a drugaego o šjujo˛), a reminiscence from Mt 27: 38 and Mk 15: 27 that occurs also here partially in P’s version of the verse;68 compare ZMJav et al. ‘and with him two others, on one side and the other side’ (i sъ nimь ina dъva. so˛du i ovo˛du, kai; met∆ aujtou’ a[llou” duvo ejnteu’qen kai; ejnteu’qen). In vv. 19 and 20, D and C contain a diminutive form of Vk’s Slavic lexeme dъsku (C dъštico˛, D dъsčico˛) in place of the (ZMJav et al.) Graecism titьlъ/titьlo˛ for tivtlon ‘title’. D and C differ lexically from Vk in v. 20, however, in sharing with SVrKPJav the variant i grьčьsky i rimьsky (lit. ‘and in Greek and Roman’) vs. (Z)MOVk i grьčьsky i latinьsky ‘and in Greek and in ­Latin’; compare the word order of the standard Greek version ÔRwmai?stiv, ÔEllhnistiv ‘in Roman and in Greek’. Immediately following this phrase, D and C repeat from v. 19 the title cĕsarь židovьsky ‘King of the Jews’. The same homoioteleuton occurs in K (cĕsarь ijudeiskъ). 67  68 

curzon_2.indb 71

C regularly misspells kranievo as krainevo, as do P and K in this particular verse (K has krainievo). P has the variant ‘and with him they crucified two robbers’ (i sъ nimь rasьpęšę dъva razboinika).

02/06/2008 09:20:13

72

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

Jo 19: 21–4, transition verses. In v. 21, D and C omit the adjective ‘of the Jews’ (ZM ijudeisci, Jav židovьskъ, tw’n ∆Ioudaivwn) following ‘the chief priests’ (DCJav starĕišini zъrьčьsky, ZM arxierei). In v. 23, with Jav, D and C have vъzęšę ‘took’ vs. Z prijĕšę, M prijęsę ‘received’, ‘accepted’, ‘took’, for e[labo, but D and C also have here, alone, an anticipation of the following verse, i o kotygo˛ jego metašę žrĕbьję ‘and they cast lots for his tunic’, for Jav i kotygo˛, ZM i xitonъ ‘and his tunic’ (kai; to;n citw’na). At the end of verse 24, together with Jav, D and C omit ZM voini že ubo si sъtvorišę ‘the soldiers therefore did these things’ (oiJ me;n ou\n stratiw’tai tau’ta ejpoivhsan), which is preserved in Dm’s ‘Preslav’ version of the verse. This may not be as significant a coincidence as it appears, however, as such omissions just before the beginning of a new lection occur often in DBC. Jo 19: 25–37, Holy Thursday, 9th Passion; Jo 19: 25–7, St. John the Evangelist (8 May); Jo 19: 31–7, Good Friday Liturgy. D and C have in v. 26 ‘and Jesus saw (his) mother standing, and the disciple whom Jesus loved’ (isusъ že vidĕ matere stojęšto˛. i učenika egože ljubljaaše isusъ) for ZMJav et al. ‘and Jesus saw (his) mother, and the disciple standing whom he loved’ (isusъ že vidĕ materь/matere. i učenika stoęšta egože ljubljaaše Ø, ∆Ihsou’” ou\n ijdw;n th;n mhtevra kai; to;n maqhth;n parestw’ta o{ hjgavpa). In v. 27, with O2, D and C have ‘from that day on’ (otъ togo dьne) for ZMJav et al. ‘and from that hour on’ (i otъ togo časa, kai; ajp∆ ejkeivnh” th’” w{ra”). B resumes immediately following this phrase. Only Vk’s Good Friday lection shares DBC’s peculiar version of v. 31, with the exception of the final clause ‘because it was Friday’, which Vk inadvertently omits, influenced by the ZM majority version. DBC and Vk have ‘they asked Pilate, in order that the bodies not remain on the cross during the Sabbath, for that Sabbath it was a holy day, they asked (Vk +‘Pilate’) that their shins be broken and that they be taken away (DC +‘because it was Friday’)’, vъprosišę pilata da ne ostano˛tъ tĕlesa na krьstĕ vъ so˛boto˛. bĕ bo velikъ dьnь toję so˛boty. molišę (Vk +pilata) da prĕbьjo˛tъ golĕni ixъ i vъzьmo˛tъ ję. (DC +poneže pętokъ bĕ). In contrast, ZMASVOVrKPJav and Vk’s Ninth Passion lection for Holy Thursday, which also is from Vk’s ‘Preslav’­lexicon portion, follow the standard Greek word order: ‘Because it was Friday, in order that the bodies not remain on the cross on Saturday, for it was a holy day that Saturday, they asked Pilate to break their shins and take them away’, poneže paraskevg′ii (SVkVrKPJav pętъkъ) bĕ. da ne ostano˛tъ na krьstĕ tĕlesa vъ so˛boto˛. bĕ bo velьi (MSOVkVr velikъ) dьnь toję so˛boty. molišę pilata da prĕbьjo˛tъ golĕni ixъ. i vъzьmo˛tъ ję; ejpei; paraskeuh; h\n, i{na mh; meivvnhÛ ejpi; tou’ staurou’ ta; swvmata ejn tw’Û sabbavtwÛ, h\n ga;r megavlh hJ hmevra ejkeivnou tou’ sabbavtou, hjrwvthsan to;n Pila’ton i{na kateagw’sin aujtw’n ta; skevlh kai; ajrqw’sin. That Vk’s ‘Preslav’ version shares, for the most part, the DBC variant here, while Jav follows the ZM version, is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that Jav’s version of the second half of John is not more closely related to DBC’s than any other later manuscript in the corpus.69 As noted earlier, DBC lapses back into the Ohrid-associated lexicon at v. 35, sharing with Vk M’s variant sъvĕdĕtelьstvova ‘has given testimony’ (memartuvrhken; Z omits this clause) 69 

Dm positions the clause ‘because it was Friday’ immediately following the phrase ‘on the Sabbath’; this word order has been corrected by a later editor to the standard Greek version. The eastern Bulgarian Ivan Alexander tetraevangelion, dated 1356, has the clause ‘because it was Friday’ twice, both in the standard sentence position, and in the same position as Dm.

curzon_2.indb 72

02/06/2008 09:20:13

2.7.  Distinctive DBC textual characteristics in MLJ

73

and ZM sъvĕdĕtelьstvo ‘testimony’ (hJ marturiva), while Jav continues on with the Preslavassociated variants poslušьstvuetъ, poslušьstvo. DBC returns, however, to the younger variant pisanoe (lit. ‘what is written’) in v. 36 (also Vk, in the Ninth Passion lection) and in v. 37 (also A and Vk Good Friday and Ninth Passion lections), vs. ZMOVrKPH Ohrid-associated kъnigy ‘scriptures’, ‘writings’. DBC vv. 35–6 omit the ZMJav et al. segment ‘and he knows that he speaks the truth, so that you also may believe. These things occurred ‘(i tъ vĕstъ jako istino˛ glagoletъ. da i vy vĕro˛ imete. byše bo si (kai; ejkei’no” oi\den o{ti ajlhqh’ levgei, i{na kai; uJmei’” pisteuvhte). Jo 19: 38–42, Holy Thursday, 11th Passion. In v. 38, C and B share with Jav the Preslavassociated lexeme otai (cf. D’s garbling otъ ‘from’), vs. ZMVk et al. Ohrid-associated tainъ, for kekrummevno” ‘secretly’. DBC v. 41 has ‘they crucified Jesus’ (propęšę isusa) for ZM et al. ‘they crucified him’ (ZMAVr i propęšę/propęsę, AOVkKJav i raspęšę/raspęsę; ejstaurwvqh). In v. 42, DBC places položista isusa (D Ø) ‘they-[du.] lay Jesus (D Ø)’ after i tu ‘and there’ as the explicit to the Ninth Hour Good Friday lection, in addition to plural položišę isusa (cf. ZM du.) at verse end. Jo 20: 1–10, Easter, 7th Resurrection lection (Vk Easter matins.) In v. 2, DBC omits ‘and arrived’ (ZM et al. i pride, kai; e[rcetai) immediately following ‘she ran therefore’ (teče že; trevcei ou\n). Since the D and C omissions also drop the word že ‘therefore’ preceding i pride, B’s occurrence of že must be a later scribal emendment. Jo 20: 11–18, Easter, 8th Resurrection lection. In v. 11, DBC and A omit M et al. ‘as she was weeping’ (jakože plakaaše sę, wJ” ou\n e[klaien; Z mis. fol.) immediately following ‘but Mary stood outside the tomb weeping’ (marьja že stojaše vъnĕ u groba plačo˛šti sę). DBC v. 14 has ‘she returned’ (vъzvrati sę) for M et al. ‘she turned around/back’ (obrati sę; ejstravfh eij” ta; ojpivsw). Jo 20: 19–31, 2nd Sun. after Easter (Vk Ohrid portion) and 9th Resurrection lection (Vk ‘Preslav’ portion). At the beginning of the lection, in v. 19, Jav alone returns to ijudĕiskъ ‘of the Jews’, while DBC continue with the ‘Preslav’ variant židovьskъ. In Jo 20: 31, however, DBC share with Jav the older lexeme životъ ‘life’ in place of Preslav-associated žiznь from Jo 12: 25, 50, and 17: 2, 3; cf. Jav životъ at 12: 25 and žitьe at 17: 2 and 3). DBC omits in v. 25 ‘and put my finger into the imprint of the nails’ (MJav et al. ni vъložo˛ prьsta moego vъ jazvo˛ gvozdьino˛jo˛, kai; bavlw to;n davktulovn mou eij” to;n tovpon tw’n h{lwn). Jo 21: 1b–14a, Easter, 10th Resurrection lection (C also 7th Sat. after Easter). At approximately 21: 1, B begins to depart from D and C in minor ways, using old aorists in place of the usual DBC productive aorist forms, corresponding more often textually with ZM than with D and C, and containing rubrics that no longer match C’s in formula—signs of substitution or, perhaps more likely, consultation of a more conservative Ohrid-redaction antigraph for the last few leaves of John at some point in the post-CB history of B, which may have been missing from an immediate antigraph (see anns., vol. I). In v. 6, however, immediately following ‘because of the multitude of fish’ (otъ mъnožьstva rybъ), B shares with D and C alone in the corpus the added phrase ‘which they caught’ (DC jęže ęšę, B jęže obъęšę), probably an anticipation of v. 10 ‘bring some of the fish that you caught today’ (prinesĕte otъ rybъ jęže jęste nynĕ).

curzon_2.indb 73

02/06/2008 09:20:13

74

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

Jo 21: 14a–25, Easter, 11th Resurrection lection. D, Vk and most of the other lectionaries in the corpus mark this lection additionally for the seventh Saturday after Easter. B does not mark any lection for that day with a rubric; cf. C Jo 21: 1b–14? (end marker does not identify the lection(s)). At the end of v. 15, DBC shares with SOVkVr and Jav ‘(feed my) sheep’ (ovьcę, PB ovьci) for ZMAKH ‘lambs’ (agnьcę; ajrniva).70 The DBC variant is found in some Greek manuscripts (provbata) and in the other two ‘Preslav’ versions in the corpus. In v. 17, DBC has together with H the variant sъžali že si petrъ for ZMJav et al. oskrъbĕ (že) petrъ ‘Peter was grieved’ (ejluphvqh oJ Pevtro”). In v. 24, DBC and both the other ‘Preslav’ versions, in Jav and Vk, return to the Ohridassociated lexemes sъvĕdĕtelьstvuję for oJ marturw’n ‘testifying’ and sъvĕdĕtelьsto for hJ marturiva ‘testimony’; cf. H’s Preslav-associated variants poslušьstvujęi, poslušьstvo. 2.8.  Conclusion: Assessing the relationship between DB C and other tetraevangelia containing Preslav-associated versions of the second half of John DBC’s ‘Ohrid’ portion of MLJ, from Mk 1: 1 to Jo 11: 54, reflects a conservative and relatively archaic version of the Ohrid redaction that preserves Cyrillo-Methodian Graecisms. The underlying archaic redaction has undergone some later revision, however, most obviously on the morphological and lexical levels, as shown in Sections 2.3 and 2.5. The lexical revisions consist largely of Slavic innovations, plus a few Greek borrowings in the liturgical rubrics, most notably methimonъ and ipopandija. Secondary Graecisms are not a feature of the DBC Gospel text itself, however, although they occurred later in the CB apograph (see s. 3.4.1). The DBC textual version contains quite a few innovations and anomalies not found in other manuscripts in the corpus, and is characterized by a less slavish rendering of Greek word order and syntactic constructions than in the canonical OCS texts and other later manuscripts, both before and after the redactional seam at Jo 11: 54. The DBC ‘Preslav’ second half of John (11: 54–21: 25) is of particular interest not so much for its younger, Preslav-associated lexicon, which is common to many manuscripts and portions of manuscripts, as for its textual peculiarities and the questions they raise regarding the extent to which common ‘Preslav’ textual features can be identified for either the tenth-century Preslav redaction, or for later versions of John that contain Preslav-associated lexemes. Comparison of the DBC ‘Preslav’ portion of John with the corresponding ‘Preslav’ portions of Vk and, particularly, Jav, which changes to ‘Preslav’ lexicon about a chapter earlier than DBC, yields eight textual parallels that suggest prima facie the possibility of a closer textual relationship in the second half of John between Jav and DBC than DBC has with any other manuscripts in the corpus: at Jo 17: 10, 18: 20, 38, 40, 19: 24, 35, 20: 31, and 21: 24 (see s. 2.7). A preliminary comparison, however, of these correspondences with a small corpus of other thirteenth- and fourteenth-century tetraevangelia which contain fairly regularly in the sec70 

curzon_2.indb 74

C has instead of ovьcę the abbreviation oca ‘father’.

02/06/2008 09:20:14

2.8.  conclusion

75

ond half of John at least the Preslav-associated lexeme židove, reveals that most of the shared variants occur also in at least one other tetraevangelion, and that the two variants that DBC share with Jav alone can be explained as unremarkable independent scribal errors.71 The Jav–DBC substitution of neuter singular pronouns ‘mine’ and ‘yours’ (moe, tvoe) for ZM et al. plural (moja, tvoja) in Jo 17: 10 occurs also in the ‘Preslav’-lexicon Bulgarian gospel Athens. 1796 (‘Ath’, 13th–14th cc.);72 moreover, like DBC and Jav, Ath omits ‘all’ (ZM n. pl. vьsja) before ‘mine’ in the clause ‘all mine is yours’. The Jav–DBC variant vьsegda ‘always’ for vьsi ‘all’ before židove ‘(the) Jews’ occurs also in Jo 18: 20 in the ‘Preslav’ portion of Dm (which also contains vьsi, inserted in superscript), and before the older equivalent ijudei ‘(the) Jews’ in the late fourteenth-century Ohrid-redaction Great Lavra Serbian liturgical tetraevangelion GLZ.31 (GLZ.31). The variant vьsegda židove/ijudei is a repetition of orthographically similar vьsegda from earlier in the verse (‘I have always taught’), and thus it may well have occurred independently in Jav and DBC as a result of scribal errror. The same substitution, of pavntote ‘always’ for orthographically similar pavnte” ‘all’, is also attested in some Greek manuscripts (Nestle–Aland 1985: 308, n. to v. 20), and therefore, in at least some of the manuscripts, it may have been transmitted from the Greek source on which the verse translation or revision was based. In Jo 18: 38, the Jav–DBC variant do nego (lit. ‘up to him’) is a freer translation of Greek ejn aujtw’Û, than ZM vъ nemь ‘in him’, and a Bulgarian syntactic construction. It co-occurs in HM.SMS.18 (H18), an Ohrid-redaction Bulgarian old-type liturgical tetraevangelion dated 1322,73 and in the eastern Bulgarian Ivan Alexander continuous tetraevangelion, dated 1356 (to which liturgical rubrics were added later). The occurrence of this Bulgarism in both DBC and Jav is evidence of a Bulgarian heritage, and counters Temčinas’s suggestion that the DBC antigraph stems from an East Slavic, Jav-type source (1998a). Jav alone shares with DBC the variant razboinika ‘(the) robber’ for varaavo˛ ‘Barabbas’ in Jo 18: 40, and an omission of the sentence voini že ubo si sъtvorišę ‘so the soldiers did this’ from John 19: 24. Razboinika clearly is an anticipation of the following sentence ‘now Barabbas was a robber’ (bĕ že varaava razboinikъ) in the same verse; thus, without other evidence that Jav and DBC are textually related, its co-occurrence here cannot be considered more than the result of independent scribal errors. The omission of voini že ubo si sъtvorišę in Jo 19: 24 comes at the end of the modern verse, immediately following a citation from Psalm 22: 19. If a scribe interrupted his copying of the verse to consult the Greek or Slavic translation of the psalm, it is not surprising that he might miss this last sentence when he returned. Thus again, since the only other textual variant that Jav and DBC share is the commonplace type of shared anticipation in Jo 18: 40, in the absence of further textual parallels the omission in 19: 24 alone is insufficient evidence that Jav and DBC are distant members of a single family 71  I owe special thanks to Dr. Mary-Allen Johnson, Assistant Curator of the Hilandar Research Library at The Ohio State University, for searching the Library’s microfilm collection for 12th–14th c. Bulgarian, Serbian, and East Slavic liturgical tetraevangelia with regular use of Preslav-associated lexicon in the pertinent portion of John, for checking the specific verses in each manuscript, and for providing me with photocopies of the relevant pages of the manuscripts, with the exception of SPbGU rukp. 312, (SP312), a 13–14th c. Serbian tetraevangelion for which reproduction rights are restricted. 72  Greek National Library, Bulgarian liturgical tetraevangelion, dated to the 13th–14th cc. 73  Hilandar Monastery collection, microfilm copy at the Hilandar Research Library, The Ohio State University.

curzon_2.indb 75

02/06/2008 09:20:14

76

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

of manuscripts that conjoin an Ohrid redaction and a Preslav redaction in different locations in the middle of the Book of John. On the other hand, in 19: 31, likely the diagnostically most significant verse in the ‘Preslav’ portion of John, DBC’s striking departure from the ZM textual formula is shared to some extent not only by the ‘Preslav’ versions of the verse in Vk and Dm, but also with the Ohrid version in IvAl and in GLZ.31 (ijudei eže da ne ostano˛tъ na krьstĕ tĕlesa vъ so˛bo˛to˛ po neže pętьkъ bĕ, ‘the Jews, so that the corpses would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath, since it was Friday’). Of the five gospel manuscripts that share some parallels to DBC in this verse, the closest is not Jav, but the only lectionary among them, Vk (see s. 2.7). The parallel Jav–DBC shift back to the Ohrid-associated lexemes sъvĕdĕtelьstv- ‘to testify’ in Jo 19: 35 and 21: 24, and životъ ‘life’ in Jo 20: 31, occurs also in all the ‘Preslav’ John versions in the tetraevangelia corpus (HM.SMS.1,74 BL 41,256,75 SP312, and Ath), and in Dm and the long lectionary Vk. Interestingly, all the ‘Preslav’ tetraevangelia have the Ohrid-associated variant kъnigy ‘books’ in Jo 21: 25, as do DBC and Jav. The probable explanation for this widespread lexical seam, whether it exists on the textual or purely lexical level, is that unlike the immediately preceding lections (Jo 19: 6, 9–11, 13–20, 25–8, 30, Exaltation of the Holy Cross; Jo 18: 28–40, 19: 1–16, Holy Thursday, 4th Passion Lection), the portion of John beginning at 19: 31 consists of Easter-related lections that appear in the short lectionaries as well as in long lectionaries and tetraevangelia: Jo 19: 31–7 Good Friday Liturgy; Jo 20: 19–31, 9th Resurrection lection; Jo 21: 14a–25, 11th Resurrection lection. The shift to the Ohrid ‘lectionary’ version for these lections likely was a matter of scriptorial preference, because specific textual formulae from the Ohrid-lexicon short lectionaries in these portions were well known and thus, as suggested more generally in Chapter 1, they had taken on the kind of traditional preferred status that the archaic KJ version of the Luke Annunciation and Nativity lections still have in English. The lexical and textual features shared by DBC and Vk alone in the second half of John are at least as notable as those shared by DBC and Jav alone. Of these, the most striking Vk-DBC correspondences are in Jo 15: 2, 19 and 18: 26: Jo 12: 3 Vk masti smĕseny blagovonьnyi vĕrьnyi ‘of mixed fragrant pure ointment’; DC masti blagovonьnyi vĕrna ‘of fragrant pure ointment’ (B mis. fol.); Jav myra blagovonьna ‘fragrant anointing oil’ (ZMASOK xrizmy/myra narda pistikiję ‘ointment of liquid spikenard’, muvrou navrdou pistikh’”). Jo 12: 5 Vk mastь ⟨___⟩ (illeg.) prodana bystъ ‘(why) was the ointment [not] sold’; Jav mÿro prodano bystъ; DBC masti blagovonьnaja ne prodastъ se ‘(why) was the fragrant ointment not sold’ (Z et al. xrizma si ne prodana bystъ, to; muvron oujk ejpravqh). Jo 15: 2 Vk vьsĕko˛ lozo˛ o mьnĕ ne tvorĕštjo˛ ploda dobra izьmetъ jo˛ ‘every branch in me not bearing good fruit he takes away’; DBC vьsja loza ne tvoręšti ploda dobra posĕkaema byvaetъ ‘every branch ØØ not bearing good fruit is cut down’; cf. Jav vьsjo˛ lozo˛ ne tvoręštjo˛jo˛ 74  Hilandar Monastery, HM.SMS.1, Serbian liturgical tetraevangelion, 1316; mis. fol. at Jo 21: 40; microfilm copy at Hilandar Research Library. 75  British Library, Serbian liturgical tetraevangelion dated to the 14th century.

curzon_2.indb 76

02/06/2008 09:20:14

2.8.  conclusion

77

ploda Ø o mьnĕ izьmetъ jo˛, ‘every branch not bearing Ø fruit in me he takes away’, also ZM vьsĕko˛ razgo˛ o mьnĕ ne tvoręšto˛ ploda. izьmetъ jo˛’, pa’n klh’ma ejn ejmoi; mh; fevron karpovn, ai[rei aujtov. Jo 15: 19 Vk, H, DBC mirъ (DBC +sьi) svoi ljubilъ vy bi ‘the/this your world would love you’; cf. Jav, Z et al. mirъ ubo svoję/svoe ljubilъ bi ‘for the world would love its own’; oJ kovsmo” a]n to; i[dion ejfivlei. Jo 16: 15 (sg. pronoun for pl.) Vk, DBC vьse eliko imatъ otьcь. moe estъ ‘what my father has is mine’, also Jav vьse eliko imatъ otьcь ⟨. . .⟩ ‘what my father has [om.]’; ZM et al. vьsja eliko imatъ otьcь. moja so˛tъ ‘whatever (things) my father has are mine’; pavnta o{sa e[cei oJ path;r ejmav ejstin. Jo 18: 26 anomalous grammatical agreement: DBC edinъ otъ rabъ starĕišinъ-[gen. pl.] žьrь­ čьska-[m. gen. sg.], Vk edinъ ot rabъ starĕišinъ-[gen. pl.] židovьska-[m. gen. sg.] ‘one of the slaves of the high priests’; Jav edinъ otъ ⟨. . .⟩ starĕišinъ-[gen. pl.] žьrьčьskъ-[gen. pl.] ‘one of ⟨. . .⟩ the high priests’; Z et al. edinъ otъ rabъ arxiereovъ. These comparisons with Jav and Vk indicate that there is insufficient textual evidence to consider Jav a relative of DBC except in the sense that both are essentially Ohrid-redaction tetraevangelia. Some of the variants co-occurring in the ‘Preslav’ portion of Jav and DBC John, particularly the return to the Ohrid lexicon in Chapter 19, appear to reflect an earlier general redactional revision, possibly the thirteenth-century one described by Alekseev (1999); the other shared variants are probably coincidental.76 The many textual differences between DBC John 11: 54–21: 25 and the ‘Preslav’ portions of John in Jav and Vk make it difficult to determine the extent to which DBC reflects the tenthcentury Preslav Gospel redaction, if it indeed existed. On the textual level, there is nothing to distinguish the ‘Preslav’ portion of DBC John from the DBC Ohrid version of Mark, Luke, and the first half of John. Both DBC portions are characterized by a less verbatim translation from Greek than in the canonical OCS gospels, and by numerous textual innovations not found in other gospels, as shown in Section 2.7. There is no evidence, however, that DBC reflects any translation other than the underlying Cyrillo-Methodian one, in either its Ohrid or its ‘Preslav’ portion. Most of the textual innovations are isolated and seem to result from 76 

Nor does Jav’s ‘Ohrid’ portion of John share more of the distinguishing DBC features set forth above than the other manuscripts in the corpus. Only three of these are shared by Jav. In Jo 5: 44. Jav and DC omit jaže ‘which’ from the ZAOVk textual variant slavy jaže otъ edinočędьnaego (Jav inočędaego) (DBC +syna) božьja ne ištete ‘the glory which you do not seek from the only-begotten Son of God’, resulting in DC ‘you do not seek glory from the only-begotten Son of God’. In 8: 27, Jav, DBC, and AVrP have in error ‘he said ‘I have a Father’ (otьca imamь glagolaaše) for ‘he spoke to them of the Father’ (ZMVOVkH otьca imъ glagolaaše). In 10: 11 Jav, DBC, and AKPH omit the second occurrence of ‘the good shepherd’ (pastyrь dobryi), and Jav joins K and DBC in changing polagaetъ ‘he lays down’ to polagajo˛ ‘I lay down’ in order to preserve subject–verb agreement after the omission. In the eight remaining instances, Jav’s departure from ZM is either an omission or a different textual variant from DBC’s: Jo 1: 38 DBC, Vr eže glagoletъ sę ‘which means’ (Z et al. + sъkazaemo ‘in translation’), Jav eže skazaetъ sę ‘which is translated’; 4: 42 DBC vĕruemъ ‘we believe’, ZM et al. vĕmъ ‘we know’, Jav vidĕxomъ ‘we saw’; 5: 16 DBC ‘healings’ (CB iscĕlenьja, D cĕlenьa), ZM si ‘these things’, Jav omits vv. 16–17; 5: 19 DBC om. of ZM si ‘these things’, Jav instead to ‘that’; 9: 13 DBC prozьrĕvъšaego, ZM iže bĕ inogda slĕpъ ‘who was once blind’, Jav om.; 9: 30 DBC prozьrĕvyi ‘the one who had gained his sight’ for ZM et. človĕkъ ‘the man’, Jav onъ ‘he’; 11: 11 DBC si rekъ glagola imъ ‘having said this, he told them’, ZM si reče. i po semь glagola imъ; ‘he said these things and after that he told them . . .’; Jav ØØ i po semь reče Ø ‘and after that he said’; 11: 38 DBC peštь velika ‘large cave, ZM peštь/peštera ‘cave’, Jav grobъ ‘grave’.

curzon_2.indb 77

02/06/2008 09:20:14

78

Reconstructing the DBC Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

secondary revision by a series of scribes/editors, likely often through consultation of one or more (probably more) Greek manuscripts from differing traditions, particularly in the case of some Scriptural quotations in the Gospel text. As can be seen in Section 2.7.3, the DBC textual version of the second half of John does not appear to differ more from Vk’s Ohridversion lections in that portion that it does from Vk’s ‘Preslav’ lections. The one insight that DBC’s ‘Preslav’ half of John does offer, together with the other ‘Preslav’ John versions examined here, is that many, if not most, tetraevangelia with Preslav-associated vocabulary in the second half of John shift to Ohrid vocabulary at the Good Friday Service lection. While this lexical shift tells us little or nothing about the tenth-century Preslav redaction, it can be considered a later redactional feature itself, and it appears to be motivated by a preference for the more archaic lexicon in specific Easter lections.77 The inventory presented in this chapter of the most striking distinguishing features of the DBC Gospel version can serve as a diagnostic for determining the relationship of other gospel manuscripts to the DBC antigraph. In the next chapter, the analysis resumes one or more manuscript generations later with the CB apograph, the next reconstructable plast of C and B. 77  As noted in Section 2.7.3, the H long lectionary has the ‘Preslav’ stem poslušьstv- for sъvĕdĕtelьstv- in both instances in Jo 21: 24; it also has Ohrid-associated (gen. pl.) kъnigъ (‘books’) in Jo 21: 25. Note also Jav and C alone ijudeiskъ at Jo 20: 19 (DB židov-), as another example of scribal lexical inconsistency in this portion of John.

curzon_2.indb 78

02/06/2008 09:20:14

3 Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John 3.1.  Introduction A significant number of lexical, syntactic, and textual parallels between C and B in MLJ are not shared in the same locations either with D or with any of the other manuscripts in the corpus. These close correspondences indicate that both C and B were copied directly either from a single third manuscript, or, more likely, from two closely related manuscripts which had CB as a common immediate antigraph or earlier ancestor.1 None of the shared features of CB MLJ that differs from D is indicative of a different redaction, and many of the CB alterations to DBC that have been transmitted to both C and B are clearly inadvertent. C and B do, however, share some occasional conscious lexical revisions of the DBC version as it is reflected in D: these include a few isolated secondary Graecisms (observed earlier in B by Lunt 1984: 68–9), and several Slavic lexical variants that are not found elsewhere in the corpus, at least in the same locations in the Gospel text (see s. 3.4). While the possibility cannot be excluded that some of these CB variants are actually DBC features that were later changed in D, most shared CB discrepancies from D, with the exception of obvious errors in D, will be treated here as CB alterations to the DBC text, particularly in instances where D’s version is the standard one. C and B share striking peculiarities not only in orthographic, lexical, and textual variants, but also in codicological organization, in the textual formulae of their headers to Mark, Luke, and John, and in their rubrication system and rubric formulae. These close correspondences permit a fairly accurate reconstruction of the shared CB antigraph for those portions of MLJ which are intact in B. This chapter discusses only the most noteworthy distinguishing features of the shared CB antigraph. The more minor correspondences, which are 1  As mentioned earlier, neither C nor B could have been copied from the other, since each contains some omissions of standard text that the other preserves. Some examples of B’s independent omissions are at Mk 6: 16–16 (ZMC et al. tъ vъsta otъ mrьtvyixъ ‘he rose from the dead’); Mk 12: 21 B ⟨. . .⟩ (ZMC et al. i vъtory poętъ jo˛. i umrĕtъ. i tъ i ne ostavitъ sĕmene ‘and the second took her and died, and he too left no seed’); Lu 8: 35 (ZMC et al. i prido˛/pridošę kъ isusovi ‘and they came to Jesus’); Jo 1: 22 (ZMC et al. čto glagoleši o tebĕ samomь ‘what do you say about yourself?’); Jo 15: 12 (ZMC et al. jakože (C jako iže azъ) vъzljubixъ vy ‘since I loved you’. Examples of C independent omissions include Lu 8: 2 (ZMB et al. marija naricaemaja magdalyni ‘Mary, called Magdalene’); Jo 9: 22 (ZMB et al. juže bo sę bĕao˛ sъložili (B sъvĕštali sь) ijudei ‘the Jews had already agreed’. Note also Mk 8: 22, where both C and D have an omission but B does not: ZMB i pride vъ vidьsaido˛. i privedošę kъ nemu slĕpa ‘and he arrived in Bethsaida, and they brought to him a blind man’ (see anns. to vol. I).

curzon_2.indb 79

02/06/2008 09:20:15

80

Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

of nearly equal importance for a reconstruction of the hypothetical antigraph, are recorded in the annotations to vol. I. Section 3.2 of this chapter compares the structure, organization, and Gospel headings in C and B. Section 3.3 examines significant shared orthographic, morphological, and syntactic variations from D in specific chapter/verse locations in MLJ. Section 3.4 identifies the lexical features that distinguish the CB Gospel version from the DBC version. Section 3.5 presents and discusses the major CB textual alterations and revisions to the DBC version of MLJ. Section 3.6 provides a lection-by-lection analysis of the CB version of the portions of MLJ lost from D, for which the shared CB text is the only information currently available for reconstructing the earlier DBC version. Section 3.7 examines the relationship between the the CB liturgical rubrics, the CB synaxaria, and the CB text of MLJ. Conclusions are presented in Section 3.8. In this chapter, reconstructions of underlying morphological forms are preceded by an asterisk (*). Unless indicated otherwise, the Roman transliterations of C and B lexical and textual variants in this chapter are normalized to standard OCS orthographic and morphological norms, and lexical variants are given in dictionary form. 3.2.  Structure, headings, and ornamentation 3.2.1.  Composition Immediately following the four Gospel Books, both C and B contain a menology, a full synaxarion, or lection calendar, for most days of the church year (SynI), and a synaxarion for special occasions, or varia (SynII). The most striking structural feature shared by C and B is the unusual positioning of the menology before the full synaxarion rather than after it, a feature observed with respect to B by Skomoroxova-Venturini and Naumov (1985). In B, the menology is preceded by SynII; in C, the menology is followed by both SynI and SynII. At the very end of B is a short matins synaxarion added by the same later editor who has written some of B’s August menology listings. C ends instead with a table written by the original scribe for calculating the dates for Easter and Sexagesima (see s. 4.8.3). B contains a colophon identifying its scribe, while C does not. Although the instruction following C’s Easter/Sexagesima table appears complete, it ends on the last line of fol. 198 verso, leaving unclear whether another folio originally followed, containing a colophon. 3.2.2.  Gospel headings Also immediately striking are B and C’s nearly identical cyrillized Greek headings to the Book of John (observed by Lunt 1984: 68, with respect to B). Since Greek headings do not appear in D, this heading may be a post-DBC innovation, together with certain other secondary Graecisms introduced into the CB antigraph (see s. 3.4.1), but it is equally possible that the shared DBC antigraph contained Greek headings that were replaced later in D by the scribe Dobrejšo, who prefaced each Gospel Book with a large braided ornament and Church

curzon_2.indb 80

02/06/2008 09:20:15

3.2.  Structure, headings, and ornamentation

81

Slavonic header. In their headings to John, both C and B transcribe the Greek genitive definite article tou` as Cyrillic to (TO, ‘that’) instead of phonetically accurate tu (TU), in the cyrillicized Greek phrase ejk tou` kata; jIwavnnhn (see Fig. 4.3 in Ch. 4). This shared distortion points to a defect or ambiguity in the shared CB source, and its slavish reproduction in both C and B suggests that neither scribe was very well-educated in Greek: C (fol. 130v6) »UGLI» † I„N± »K TO KATA | i∑N±n¥n´ na paskå glV±a a+ ¢ ©(N`)1 | TA I·„·(NIN`). B (D&R 1981, plate, fol. 148a) »·U(G LI)„N .± | »˚K TO KA | 1Û„ ¢ · (Na PSÊ^ )SZ. »˚U L G± Û » cf. D (fol. 73r) »Ú G(LIE) NA PASKØ.| OT¿ I·„¢ A ·NA GLVA 1A±1

¢ ©(N`)1 after the first half of the cyrillicized Greek word katav (ka), B inserts the segment 1Û„ within a large, elaborately braided square figure; unlike B and D, C has no braiding or other ornamentation in its header. The second half of B katav resumes below the filigreed square, with ta commencing the first line of text. The text of B’s header clearly was originally Greek eujaggevlion ejk tou’ kata; ∆Iwavnnhn ‘the Gospel according to John’, followed by the Church ¢ ©(N`)1), which Slavonic instruction na pasxo˛ ‘for Easter’. The misplaced segment ionь (1Û„ appears to have been interpreted by the B scribe or a predecessor as the name ‘John’, must have originated in an antigraph as the last three letters of Greek eujaggevlion ‘Gospel’, before this segment apparently became separated from the rest of the word on a different line of the decorative header.2 C’s insertion of the preposition otъ ‘from’, ‘according to’ (†) before this same segment (»UGLI» † I„N± ) also indicates that ionь was understood by a scribe to be an abbreviation of the name ‘John’. The reinterpretation of euangelion in C as the two words eÿaggelie and ioan results in a repetition of the phrase ‘according to John’, first in Church Slavonic and then in cyrillicized Greek: »U GLI» † I„N± »K TO KATA | i∑N±n¥n´ (eÿaggelie otъ ion ek to kata io nnynь), apparently ‘the Gospel-[Gr.] according to John-[Slav.] (eÿaggelie ot ion) according to John-[Gr.] (ek to kata ionnynь), with ionnynь as the Cyrillic transcription of Greek accusative singular ∆Iwavnnhn, which the C scribe appears not to have recognized. This discrepancy between the two manuscripts suggests that the common CB antigraph had cyrillicized Greek »UGLI„N± as the first word of the heading, as it appears in B. B’s heading to the Book of Luke is also in cyrillicized Greek (D&R 1981, plate, fol. 96a), but C’s is not. B’s Luke heading, within an elaborate filigree braided design containing teratological figures, appears as »Ú G±(LI)„˙ |(N`) »˙K TÁ k(at)a l˙Ku˙, with the Greek genitive definite article tou’ correctly transliterated here as tu. At the top of the design, in small letters, is the cyrillicized abbreviated Greek inscription ⁄˙¢s x©´ | n© ⁄ k´ (is xь ni kь), a transliteration of ∆Ihsou’” Cristo;” nikaÛ’ ‘Jesus Christ is victorious’, with the segment ni kь representing Greek nikaÛ’ ‘is victorious’ and with the four two-letter segments forming a square divided vertically by a decorative bar.3 C, however, has what appears to be a simple Slavic header (fol. 75v), eÿaggeli (sic, missing final e) otъ Luky (»ÚLI G± ˝ LOK±Ú) ‘the Gospel according to Luke’, followed by the repetitive instruction ‘chapter 1, for the Birth of John the Baptist, for the Lit2  3 

curzon_2.indb 81

I am grateful to Mary MacRobert for drawing this possibility to my attention (pers. comm., 1995). Thanks go to Sergejus Temčinas for drawing this to my attention (pers. comm., 1999).

02/06/2008 09:20:15

82

Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

urgy, the Gospel according to Luke, chapter’ {GLV±å A± NA RO|ΩD´stvo1 ∑N±a krS±tl™1 na lT±i «ûG±ê † lK±u gB±la22}. On closer inspection, however, it seems probable that »Ú LG± I ˝ in C reflects a Cyrillic transliteration of Greek eujaggevlion in an earlier antigraph, similar to B’s transliteration »Ú G±(LI)„˙ |(N`), and that B’s following Greek phrase was simply deleted in C’s version of the header.4 B’s header for the Book of Mark is preceded by the same small cyrillicized Greek heading ∆Ihsou’” Cristo;” nikaÛ’ as before its Luke heading, with Greek nika`/ ‘is victorious’ this time transliterated accurately as nika (nika; D&R 1981, plate, fol. 61r). Here too, in B the header forms part of a large sophisticated braided ornament. The headers in both B and C (fol. 44r) are in Church Slavonic, indicating that the common CB antigraph did not contain a Greek heading here as in Luke and John. The C and B Mark headers also consists of liturgical instructions, unlike the headers to Luke and John, further evidence that the shared CB antigraph used a different source, or at least a different template, for its header to Mark.5 In contrast to its other Gospel headings, C has some minimalist Balkan braiding ornamentation above its Mark header (Fig. 4.2); elsewhere, Balkan braiding in C is confined to a single initial letter O in Matthew (see Fig. 4.1). Since scribes usually did not copy the ornamentation of their immediate antigraph, it is not surprising that C’s headers do not contain the same sort of decoration as B’s. That C’s one braided header appears at the heading to Mark, however, is puzzling: one might expect B to be more likely than C to shift its ornamentation style at Mark, since all of B’s Book of Matthew, with perhaps the exception of the very last chapters, is from a non-DBC source; yet B uses intricate braiding designs for all four Gospel Books, including its Matthew heading (D&R 1981, plate, fol. 1a). C also shares the wording and mid-verse location of B’s large Church Slavonic heading to the first Passion lection beginning at Jo 13: 31, as well as a homoioteleuton resulting in omission of the first words of verse 32, ašte bogъ proslavitъ sę o nemь ‘if God is glorified in him’ (eij oJ qeo;” ejdoxavsqh ejn aujtwÛ’).6 3.3.  Evidence of a cousinly copying relationship 3.3.1.  General western Bulgarian orthographic conventions Like most other Bulgarian post-OCS manuscripts, C and B are characterized by i–y (i–¥) and u–ju (u–ü) letter alternations, which reflect the vernacular dispalatalization of consonants before front vowels. Front jers in strong position—those followed by another historical jer in the next syllable—are written consistently in both as e (ê), reflecting the phonological lowering of strong jers in Bulgaro-Macedonian dialects. Front and back jers in weak pos4  D’s Luke header is similar to C’s in content: načętьe ioanna krьstitelja evangelьe otъ luky. glava. a. ‘the Inception of John the Baptist, the Gospel according to Luke, chapter 1’ (fol. 19r). 5  CB nedĕlja prĕdъ prosvĕštenьemь euaggelie (B + eže) otъ marka (C + ‘a’) ‘the week before Epiphany, (B ‘which is’) the Gospel according to Mark (C + ‘chapter 1’)’. D has virtually the same instruction, according to Conev’s transcription (1906: 124): nedĕlja prĕdъ prosvĕštenьemь otъ marka svętaego ‘the week before Epiphany, according to St. Mark’ (original fol. 35a, now lost). 6  The omission also occurs independently in K.

curzon_2.indb 82

02/06/2008 09:20:15

3.3.  Evidence of a cousinly copying relationship

83

ition within a word—those followed by a different vowel in the next syllable—are frequently not written. Both B and C occasionally omit word-final jers before clitics (e.g. porøgav så, Lu 23: 11, C fol. 143r9). Etymological front jers in tense position, before /j/ (*ljudьje ‘people’), are generally written as i (ludie, lüdi«), even where they are also in strong position, before another jer in the next syllable.7 C and B only occasionally write strong back jers as o, a Macedonian-associated feature that occurs more frequently in D. Unlike D, both B and C generally use the grapheme «, which is common in East Slavic and many South Slavic postOCS manuscripts, to represent ê word-initially and immediately following another vowel letter, although there are many exceptions, particularly in B’s Gospel text and in the liturgical instructions and calendars of both manuscripts. 3.3.1.1.  Single-jer system In contrast to D, which uses the traditional two-jer, two-jus orthographic system (´–ß, å–ø), the younger manuscripts C and B use only the front jer letter ´ to represent both historical front and back reduced vowels *ь and *ъ, a common convention in post-OCS manuscripts from western Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Serbia. 3.3.1.2.  Jusy The primary distinction between B’s and C’s orthographic systems is C’s use of the jus minor (å) to represent both historical nasal vowels *ę and *o˛. In contrast, like most manuscripts of the period, B uses the jus minor generally to represent the historical front nasal vowel *ę both word-initially and following another vowel letter, and the jus major (ø, or, more precisely, in B’s case, the ‘middle jus’ paleographic variant z) to represent the historical back nasal vowel *o˛, both word-initially and following another vowel, with some exceptions (see Dogramadžieva’s introduction to D&R 1981: 29–32). The middle jus z occurs sporadically in C, and when it does occur, it represents either one of the two historical nasal vowels, wordinitially or following another vowel letter (see s. 4.3.3).8 C is characterized by pervasive alternations among å, ™, æ, and a (see s. 4.3.9), whereas B generally avoids vowel letter substitutions, with the exception of occasional « instead of å to represent *ę after a palatalized consonant in masculine nominative singular present active participles (e.g. gl+«, *glagolję ‘speaking’), a reflection of denasalization of the nasal vowels in the dialect or dialects underlying B.9 A similar ê–å orthographic alternation occurs very sporadically in C, but primarily in specific morphophonemic environments that suggest a scribal effort at some point in C’s post-CB pre-history to retransliterate an immediate antigraph with Serbian-type orthographic features into C’s orthographic system (see s. 4.3.9.5). 7  Compare, however, Mk 11: 26, where both C and B treat as strong a tense front jer that is also in strong position: n. gen. pl. prĕgrĕšenei (*nьjь) vs. Z -nьi, M -nii, D contracted -ni. 8  To avoid confusion between the functions of the middle jus in C and B, in Cyrillic transcriptions I shall represent B’s jus major as the standard paleographic variant ø, and C’s occasional variant for both front and back nasal vowels as z. 9  Lunt notes that B’s consistent substitution of å for ™ in forms of OCS pĕtelь ‘cock’, ‘rooster’, which B routinely spelled pętelь (påtêl´), reflects a traditional post-OCS south Macedonian spelling and not necessarily a phonological feature of the dialect underlying the manuscript (1984: 63).

curzon_2.indb 83

02/06/2008 09:20:16

84

Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

3.3.1.3.  Representation of Greek upsilon C and B represent Greek upsilon with ÿ (û) consistently only in the abbreviation «ûG± eÿaggelьe ‘Gospel’ in liturgical instructions (and also in the text of Mt 26: 13). C also has û in mûrånosicam´ (mÿronosicamь ‘the myrrh-bearing women’) in its rubric to Mk 16: 1, which has no matching counterpart in B, and, with B, in sûmê∑nov´ (sÿmeonovь ‘Simeon’, Lu 3: 30; D mis. fol.). Otherwise, C and B both generally represent Greek upsilon with i (i) in the OCS Greek borrowing mÿro (miro, muvron ‘ointment’), but as u (u) in the other OCS Greek borrowings arxisÿnagogъ (CB arxisunagog´, ajrcisunavgwgo” ‘synagogue president’, Mk 5: 35, 36, 38, Lu 8: 49, 13: 14), zmÿrn- (C zmurn-, B i˙zmurn-, smurn- ‘myrrh’, Jo 19: 39), and ÿpokritъ (uJpokrithv” ‘hypocrite’, upokrit´ CB Mt 23: 25, C Mt 23: 13, B Lu 11: 47; cf. B ipokriti or i pokriti ‘and hypocrites’ at, Mt 23: 13, C i pokriti at Lu 11: 47). The representation of upsilon in Greek toponyms in the C and B menologies varies between i and u (see chapter 6). B, however, uses ÿ (û“) in two of the three occurrences of tÿr- (tur-’Tyre’) in the Gospel text (B tû“ rMk 7: 24, 31, toûr- Lu 6: 17, tir- Mt 15: 21), while C has u consistently, including rum´skg (rumьsky) ‘Roman/Latin’ for ÔRwmai>stiv at Jo 19: 20, where B is missing a leaf. 3.3.1.4.  ´–ø/å alternation (*ъ–*o˛) The common Bulgarian orthographic alternation between ß (CB ´) and ø (in C’s case, å), reflecting a vernacular merger of etymological *ъ and *o˛, is not a regular feature of either manuscript, and it occurs more often in B than in C. C’s limitation of substitutions of ´ for ø/å to certain lexemes suggests that general denasalization of *o˛ to /ә/ was not a regular feature of its underlying dialects. Two of the eleven words cited by Dogramadžieva where B sometimes substitutes ´ for ø (D&R 1981: 29) undergo the same substitution in C, albeit often not in the same text location: *so˛pьr- ‘rival’ to sьpьr- in Lu 18: 3 (B mis. fol.; cf. B alone Lu 12: 58), and, together with D, *(u)so˛mьn- ‘doubt’ to (u)sьmьn- in all occurrences (DBC Mt 14: 31, 21: 21, 28: 17, Mk 11: 23, DC Lu 17: 20; cf. B Lu 17: 20 so˛mьn-). The co-occurrence of this latter orthographic variant throughout D, and in the unrelated C and B Matthew versions, indicates that the spelling was conventionalized. Unlike B, C has sьsĕd-/sьsęd- for *so˛sĕd- ‘neighbor’, in four of the word’s five occurrences (Lu 14: 12, 15: 6, 9, 17: 31 (here with D; B mis. fol.); cf. Jo 9: 8 so˛sĕd- in all three manuscripts (B sås™d-, with C; D søs™d-). In C, the ´-for-ø substitution is not sporadic; compare B’s single-instance substitutions of ´ for ø (with spelling here reflecting B’s orthographic system) in Jo 1: 13 mьžьsky ‘of a man’, Jo 6: 54b sьtь ‘are’-[3PPl], Jo 19: 29 sьsьdь ‘vessel’, SynI fol. 198a20 sьmьštaetь ‘disturb’ (6th Fri. after Easter), and feminine accusative singular forms kьjo˛ ‘which’ (Mt 5: 46) and izmĕnь ‘exchange’ (OCS izmĕno˛, Mt 16: 26; see D&R 1981: 29, but note that B Mk 7: 3 has trьjo˛šte for ZM tьro˛šte ‘wiping’, not trьšte as reported at p. 29). With the exception of the Bulgarian Church Slavonic variants nъ and no˛ ‘but’, discussed in Section 3.3.2.1, the converse substitution of ø/å for ´ representing etymological *ъ occurs in C in one word only, and consistently there: bådr´ for OCS bъdrъ ‘alert’, at Mt 26: 41 (D mis. fol.) and Mk 14: 38 (D mis. fol.); cf. B bødr´ at Mk 14: 38 only. B has single occurrences of ø for ´ in eight other words, and three occurrences of so ˛ so˛d- for sъso˛d- ‘vessel’ (Mt 13: 48, 25: 4, Mk 3: 27, cf. B sьsьd-, above; D&R 1981: 29).

curzon_2.indb 84

02/06/2008 09:20:16

3.3.  Evidence of a cousinly copying relationship

85

C shares B’s substitutions of ø (in C’s case, å) for etymological *ь in both occurrences of OCS stьdza, at Mk 1: 3 (C, B ståz-), Lu 3: 4 (C ståz-, B støz-). C does not, however, have any of the other substitutions that Dogramadžieva cites in B, that is, three occurrences of mo˛zdfor OCS mьzd- ‘reward’ in B’s independent Matthew version (6: 16, 10: 41, 42), one occurrence apiece of dro˛kolmi for OCS drьkolьmi ‘club’, ‘staff ’ (Mt 26: 55) and m. acc. sg. vьprašao˛šo ˛ for OCS -šь (or perhaps v. acc. -ša, Lu 2: 46; in either case, probably simply an anticipation of the immediately following pronoun jo˛ ‘she’, B ø), and occasional jeso˛mь, where ø replaces a superfluous ´ in the post-OCS form esьmь ‘I am’ (B «søm´, OCS esmь). 3.3.1.5.  Other vowel letter alternations Alternations between vowel letters u (u) and ø/å representing *o˛, which are characteristic of Serbian manuscripts of the period, occur nine times in B and three times in C, in unrelated locations (see D&R 1981: 30, and s. 4.3.9.6). The rarity of the alternation suggests deliberate repression by the copyists of this convention, which, in B, as Dogramadžieva speculates, may have been either a feature of the scribe’s vernacular dialect or an attempt to conform to western Bulgarian orthographic norms which came to prominence during the fourteenth century. In C, however, the occasional substitutions appear to be hypercorrections from an immediate antigraph using a Serbian-type orthographic system (see s. 4.3.14). 3.3.1.6.  ™ representing *a after ∂ With occasional exceptions, both C and B usually follow the Glagolitic-influenced convention of representing *a as ™ (ĕ) following the consonant letter ∂ (č), e.g. ∂™s´ for *časъ (see s. 4.3.6 and D&R 1981: 38). 3.3.2.  Orthographic correspondences in specific words and locations Despite the differences in their orthographic systems and in the levels of scribal expertise that they reflect, C and B share unusual spelling conventions for particular words, and many orthographic peculiarities in identical locations, all of which provide information on specific orthographic features of the shared CB antigraph. Moreover, although compositional differences in their menologies make it unlikely that C and B are sister manuscripts copied from the same immediate antigraph, the quantity and nature of their individual orthographic matches alone demonstrates that they are at least cousins, copied from sister or first-cousin manuscripts. It is not clear from comparison of C and B which type of orthographic system the CB antigraph contained, but it is doubtful that the shared antigraph had a similar system to C’s, since in that event one would expect B also to contain some vowel letter alternations of the type found in C that escaped later scribal attempts at orthographic normalization. 3.3.2.1.  Distribution of nъ-no˛ C and B use both Bulgarian Church-Slavonic orthographic variants for OCS nъ ‘but’: n´, which reflects the canonical OCS form in their single-jer orthographic systems; and B nø, C nå for the post-OCS Bulgarian variant no˛. As noted in Section  3.3.1.4, the vernacular

curzon_2.indb 85

02/06/2008 09:20:16

86

Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

c­ onflation of the OCS back jer *ъ and *o˛ that is suggested by the common post-OCS spelling no˛ is otherwise rarely represented in either C or B, and does not appear to be a regular feature of the underlying dialect of either manuscript. In contrast to D, which uses the younger nø variant consistently, both C and B generally prefer the more conservative n´ spelling. It appears that both scribes (or, at least in C’s case, more likely a predecessor scribe) were repressing a personal tendency to write nø, since there are fewer co-occurrences of nø between C and B than there are of n´. Nevertheless, the correlation between C’s and B’s distributions of n´ vs. nø is above chance-level, and it increases over the course of the MLJ text. Mark contains the lowest percent of orthographic correspondences: out of 54 instances of OCS nъ, 33, or 61 percent, are spelled n´ in both manuscripts, four are spelled nø/nå in both, 13 are spelled n´ in C and nø in B, and three are spelled nå in C and n´ in B. In Luke, of 42 occurrences, 28, or two-thirds, co-occur in C and B as n´, three co-occur as nø/nå, five are n´ in C and nø in B, and two are nå in C and n´ in B (plus three instances of C n´ and two of C nå in locations where B has lost a leaf). John contains the highest percentage of correspondences, both before and after the textual seam at c. 11: 54. Of 101 occurrences, 80, or 79 percent, are shared n´, one (Jo 5: 30) is shared nø/nå, seven are C nå vs. B n´, and three are C n´ vs. B nø. In the additional locations in John where OCS nъ is absent from B, C has 10 instances of n´ and one of nø. (For the exact distributions, see anns. to vol. I.) C is more consistent than B in keeping to the n´ spelling, and the C scribe’s slavish reproduction of peculiarities and errors stemming as far back as the DBC antigraph suggests strongly that the C scribe was closely copying the distribution of nъ and no˛ in the immediate antigraph. That both B and C show a preference for the spelling n´, and appear to be battling a tendency to use nø, permits a reasonable inference that the canonical OCS nъ spelling was also the variant of choice in the shared CB antigraph. (For C’s n´/nå distribution in Matthew, see s. 5.2.2) 3.3.2.2.  Superfluous i An occasional feature of B is a series of two consecutive i’s (ii), one of which is superfluous according to OCS orthographic norms. This includes the typical B spelling prii- for the prefix pri- in forms of OCS prido˛tъ ‘arrive’, a characteristic which is not rare in Bulgarian Church Slavonic manuscripts. The spelling prii- occurs in C only sporadically, however, and usually in the same locations where it appears in B. Both C and B have an instance of superfluous i in the spellings vyi (vgi) and nyi/niy (ngi/nHg), respectively, for OCS nominative plural vy ‘you’, and accusative plural ny ‘us’, but since they occur in different locations (vyi in C Mt 10: 19, B Lu 24: 49; niy in C Mt 20: 30, nyi in B Jo 1: 22), these cannot be assumed to be CB features. (For instances of superfluous i in C alone, see s. 4.3.14.1.) 3.3.2.3.  e for etymological weak front jer Unlike D, both C and B tend to write an etymologically weak front jer as e in the OCS neuter abstract noun suffix -ьstvo, when preceded by a palatal consonant letter. This spelling is consistent in C in forms of OCS mъnožьstvo ‘multitude’ (cf. B mьnožestvo only at Lu 1: 10, 19: 37,

curzon_2.indb 86

02/06/2008 09:20:16

3.3.  Evidence of a cousinly copying relationship

87

Jo 21: 6). In OCS roždьstvo ‘birth’, C has -estvo in one of three occurrences in the Gospel text (loc. roždestvĕ, Lu 1: 14), while B has it three times, at Mt 1: 18, 14: 6, Mk 6: 21, Jo 9: 1 (see D&R 1981: 27). Both C and B also have e for etymological weak jer after a palatal consonant letter in Jo 9: 31 bogočetecь (OCS bogočьtьcь ‘worshipper of God’) and Lu 7: 2 čestenь (OCS čьstьnъ ‘venerable’, ‘valuable’, observed by Lunt in B, 1984: 63); cf. B alone after a non-palatal consonant letter, in the imperative ne pecĕte sę (OCS ne pьcĕte sę ‘do not worry’) at Mk 13: 11. The spelling of etymological weak jer as e also occurs frequently in both C and B after a non-palatal consonant letter, in case forms of the OCS noun vьsь ‘village’ in which the following syllable contains a vowel other than jer: e.g. loc. sg. and nom. pl. vesi for OCS vьsi, ‘village(s)’. This spelling, which is common in non-Serbian post-OCS manuscripts (see Lunt’s comments with regard to B, 1984: 62), does not occur in CB forms of the OCS pronoun vьsь ‘all’; it represents a southwestern Bulgarian or Macedonian dialectal morphophonemic change of the root *vьs- ‘village’ to ves-. The spelling vesi for OCS vьsi appears in B in eleven out of twelve occurrences, all in MLJ (D&R 1981: 27); it appears in C eight times (see index verborum to vol. I), while D has vesi only once, at Jo 4: 5. In their unrelated versions of Mt 23: 15, B and C both omit the strong front jer from OCS v. m. acc. prišьlьca ‘newcomer’, ‘convert’, treating it as if it were in weak position. This correspondence suggests another regional dialect variant attested in the shared CB antigraph; cf. D prišelca. 3.3.3.  Shared morphological and morphosyntactic features 3.3.3.1.  Contracted imperfect and definite adjective desinences Like D and most other Bulgarian Church Slavonic manuscripts of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, both B and C use the contracted ­-ĕ- imperfective suffix for OCS -ĕa-. The definite adjective case desinences in C and B are also typical for Bulgarian manuscripts of this period: o-stem genitive and virile masculine accusative singular -ogo for OCS -aego, o-stem dative singular -omu for OCS -uumu, o-stem locative singular -ĕmь for OCS -ĕemь, o- and a-stem genitive plural -yxъ/-ixъ for OCS -yixъ/-iixъ, and occasionally a-stem accusative singular -yjo˛ (-¥ø) for OCS -o˛jo˛ (-øœ; e.g. CB Lu 2: 1 vьselenyjo˛ ‘universe’, D -no˛jo˛). Another characteristic of Bulgarian manuscripts of the period is the dual genitive dual noun/indefinite adjective desinence -oju for OCS -uju in C and B (e.g. the abbreviation stoju for OCS svętuju ‘saints’, throughout the C and B menologies). Both manuscripts use -ovi as an alternative to -u as the dative singular desinence for virile masculine nouns (e.g. petrovi, petru ‘to Peter’), and the collective form -ie (*-ьje) as an alternative to the masculine nominative plural desinence -i with human referents (e.g. fariseie vs. farisei, arxiereie vs. arxierei). 3.3.3.2.  Non-standard case forms and case misagreements As is characteristic of post-OCS Bulgarian manuscripts, C and B frequently substitute locative for accusative forms denoting direction, and, occasionally, accusative for locative forms denoting location (e.g. Jo 13: 23 vъzležę .  .  . na lono-[acc., for loc. lonĕ] isusovo ‘lying on Jesus’s bosom’, with D; Lu 8: 33 ustrьmi sę stado . . . vъ ezerĕ-[loc., for acc. ezero] ‘the herd

curzon_2.indb 87

02/06/2008 09:20:17

88

Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

. . . rushed into the lake’ (D mis. fol.), both observed in B by Dogramadžieva, D&R 1981: 53), and have competing dative and genitive possessive forms (e.g. Jo 4: 42 sъpasъ miru-[dat. for gen. mira] ‘saviour of the world’, also observed for B, D&R 1981: 52–3). Also frequent, particularly in C, are frozen nominative participle forms in place of datives in dative absolute constructions (e.g. C and B Lu 6: 1 ido ˛ šti (D mis. fol.; apparently def. m. nom. sg., for OCS m. dat. sg. -štju) isusovi-[dat] ‘as Jesus was going’, apparently a feature of the CB antigraph), and accusative desinences in place of genitive ones on objects of a negated verb (e.g. Lu 19: 44, ne razumĕ vrĕmę-[acc., for gen. vrĕmene] ‘you did not know the time’, also observed for B, op. cit. p. 53). Gender misagreements between relative pronouns and their referents, which are frequent in both manuscripts, and again particularly in C, occur also in Vk, D, and other postOCS Serbian and Bulgarian manuscripts. Most frequent are alternations between masculine ­nominative–accusative singular iže ‘who’, ‘which’ and neuter eže ‘which’: e.g. Lu 2: 50 glagolъ-[m.] eže-[n.] ‘the word which’ (with apparently acc. glagolъ instead of gen. glagola as the obect of a negative verb; cf. D Ø eže ‘that which’), Lu 6: 41 acc. so˛čьcь-[m.] eže-[n. nom] ‘the mote which’ and n. acc. brьvьno-/gen. brьvьna iže-[m.] ‘the beam which’ (D mis. fol.; full inventory is in the anns. to vol. I). As also is common in post-OCS manuscripts, both C and B tend to substitute the simple nominal declension genitive/locative desinence -i for the anomalous-declension desinence -e: e.g. C and B Lu 6: 41 n. loc. sg. očesi ‘eye’ for OCS očese. The genitive desinence also appears occasionally on feminine i-stem accusative nouns denoting human females, as an extension of the o-stem ‘virile’ masculine accusative form, which is identical to the genitive, to human animates in general: e.g. C, B matere-[gen.] for ZMD et al. materь-[acc.] ‘mother’ in Mk 10: 7 (note also D at Mk 5: 40, in a phrase omitted from CB). Both C and B frequently use what looks like the OCS indefinite feminine nominative singular present and past active participle forms -šti and -ъši in place of the masculine nominative plural forms -šte and -ъše. Since both manuscripts, and particularly C, tend to use definite and indefinite suffixes interchangeably, as is not unusual among post-OCS Bulgarian manuscripts, it is not possible to determine from the textual contexts in which they occur if these younger forms are intended as definites or indefinites. Morphologically, they appear to be contractions of the OCS definite masculine nominative plural present and past active participle suffixes -štei and -ъšei, which are uncommon in B and rarer in C; therefore, in this study, when they occur modifying masculine nominative plural referents, whether indefinite or definite, -šti and -ъši are considered tentatively to be younger definite participle suffixes, in morphological opposition to the indefinite masculine nominative plural active participle suffixes -šte and -ъše. In both C and B, the frozen-form -šti also occasionally appears in place of OCS indefinite masculine/feminine accusative plural -štę, indefinite virile masculine accusative singular -šta, and indefinite masculine dative singular -štju.10 In Mk 13: 9, C and B have the anomalous i-stem declension instrumental plural desinence 10  e.g. CB Mk 1: 34 imo˛šti for ZMD et al. indefinite m. acc. pl. imo˛štę(ę) ‘having’, CB Lu 3: 4 v. m. acc. isaijo˛ proroka glagoljo˛šti (C -štei) for ZMD et al. m. gen. sg. glagoljo˛šta ‘the Prophet Isaiah, saying’.

curzon_2.indb 88

02/06/2008 09:20:17

3.3.  Evidence of a cousinly copying relationship

89

-ьmi, attested on feminine nouns in OCS (see Lunt 2001: 73), which is attached to the softstem two-fold (o-stem) declension masculine noun cĕsarь ‘king’ in place of the OCS softstem instrumental plural desinence -i (CB abbreviation crьmi, cf. ZM c(s)ri). This apparently is a feature of the CB antigraph, if not a DBC feature: D is missing a leaf here. Both C and B also have the contracted pronominal neuter instrumental singular form ednĕmь for ZMD et al. edinĕmь ‘one’ in Mk 9: 47. The co-occurrence of this form in the unrelated C and B versions of Mt 18: 9 (but not in D’s version) suggests that the contracted form is a western Bulgarian dialect variant. Other shared case agreement innovations in MLJ are traceable to the CB antigraph: e.g. Mk 10: 51 acc. čьto ‘what’ for ZM et al. dat. česomu (D mis. fol.), and Lu 11: 46 ne prikasaete sę brĕmenemь-[dat. pl., or possibly intended as instr. sg.] ‘you do not touch the burdens’ for ZMD et al. brĕmenexъ-[loc.]. 3.3.3.3.  First-person plural non-past desinences -my, -me Both C and B have sporadic identically located occurrences of the innovative first-person non-past desinence -my (spelled -m¥ and, in C, sometimes -mi) for OCS -mъ, primarily in the non-suffixed athematic verbs imati ‘have’, byti ‘be’, vĕdĕti ‘know’, dati ‘give’, and jasti ‘eat’. Most of these occurrences are not shared by D: CB imamy Mk 8: 16, Jo 8: 41; esmy ‘we are’ Lu 9: 12; damy ‘(should) we give’ Mk 12: 14bis; vĕmy ‘we know’ Mk 11: 33, Jo 16: 18, and C Mk 14: 68 (B m. nom. sg. pres. part. vĕdę, D mis. fol.); (da) jamy C Lu 22: 8 (B mis. fol., D inf. jasti; see Vakareliyska 1994: 104), B SynI incipit (12th Fri. in New Year), and in unrelated C and B versions of Mt 6: 31 (D mis. fol.); cf. DBC Lu 17: 10 esmy, 20: 7 vĕmy. There is only one location where B has -my while C has OCS -mъ, in Mk 12: 14 (B vĕmy, DC vĕmъ). C has -my in three places where B has -mъ: Jo 8: 41 (C esmy, B esmъ; cf. ZMD nĕsmъ ‘we are not’); on the suffixed verb čajati ‘to await’ in Lu 7: 20 (C čaemy, B čaemъ, D mis. fol.); and in the non-DBC portion of C’s Matthew version, at 14: 17, where C has imamy, D has the incomplete form ima, and B has the new Bulgarian desinence -me (B imame). C has one instance of -me, in Lu 9: 13 (C imame, DB imamy). 3.3.3.4.  Aorists Lunt has remarked that the old unproductive aorists are surprisingly well preserved in B (1984: 66–7). As C generally has old aorist forms in the same MLJ locations where B does, this observation can be extended to the CB antigraph as well. The emendation idOåÍ in C (Lu 9: 11), in which the third-person plural old aorist form ido ˛ ‘they went’ is changed to the productive form idošę to match B’s and D’s versions of the verse, is paralleled in B elsewhere by two superscript alterations of old aorists noted by Dogramadžieva (1981: 48): B Mt 25: 38 1Pl sigmatic aor. vъvĕsomъ, altered to vъvĕ doxosomъ (intended as productive aor. vъvĕdoxomъ, as in D and C) and Jo 18: 34 3Pl X-aorist rĕšę, with D, changed to rĕk ošę (intended as productive rekošę, as in C). The emendations in C and B to productive aorist forms in Luke and John suggests that in these instances the scribe had first spontaneously substituted the archaic aorist form and then emended it to conform to the immediate antigraph, which used mostly productive aorists.

curzon_2.indb 89

02/06/2008 09:20:17

90

Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

3.3.3.5.  Third-person dual desinence -stĕ C and B share six occurrences of the innovative desinence -stĕ for the OCS third-person dual aorist desinence -ste/-sta, and seven occurrences, all in their unrelated Matthew versions, for the OCS third-person dual imperative desinence -ste. Dogramadžieva has speculated, with regard to B, that these occurrences indicate that ĕ was being generalized, at least in B, as a dual marker (D&R 1981: 45). While this hypothesis is correct, to the extent that B even contains a subjunctive non-past desinence -tĕ for OCS 2Du -ta (Mt 20: 33 da otvrьzetĕ sę ‘that (your eyes) may be opened’, cf. C anomalous 3Sg -tь, D mis. fol.), all instances of -stĕ and the one instance of -tĕ in B occur on verbs with non-masculine or non-male subjects: neuterdeclension inanimates (oči ‘eyes’) in the non-past in Mt 20: 33 above, and in the aorist in Mt 20: 34 prozrĕstĕ ‘gained sight’ (D mis. fol.), 26: 43 bĕstĕ ‘were’ (D mis. fol.), and Lu 2: 30 vidĕstĕ ‘saw’, with D; and female human subjects (the women at the tomb) in the aorist in Mt 28: 8 tečĕstĕ ‘ran’ (D -sta) and 28: 9 ęstĕ ‘took hold’ (with D) and poklonistĕ sę ‘worshipped’ (D -sta). Unlike D, B uses the desinence -tĕ in the imperative with dual female addressees in Mt 28: 5, 10 ne boitĕ sę ‘do not be afraid’, Mt 28: 6 pridĕtĕ i vidĕtĕ ‘come and see’, Mt 28: 7 rьcĕtĕ ‘say’, Mt 28: 9 raduitĕ sę ‘rejoice’, and Mt 28: 10 idĕtĕ i vъzvĕstitĕ ‘go and inform’; Lunt notes that in the Matthew passage, B has the -tĕ ending in 11 of 12 possible cases, with the exception being non-past iščete in Mt 28: 5 (1984: 66). C shares all the above dual aorist and imperative forms with B (including the plural iščete for dual iščeta/iščetĕ in Mt 28: 5 as in D), except for B’s imperatives rьcĕtĕ ‘say’ in Mt 28: 7 and vъzvĕstitĕ ‘inform’ in Mt 28: 10, where C has -ta (note also in Mt 28: 8 C aorists tekostĕ for B tečestĕ ‘ran’ and idĕstĕ ‘went’, omitted from B). C also has the aorist posъlastĕ with Mary and Martha as subjects in Jo 11: 3, where B is missing a folio (cf. D -sta). In Mt 10: 29, C and B independently use the -tĕ desinence in the present passive construction, on both the auxiliary and the participle: vĕnimĕ estĕ ‘are offered for sale’, with grammatically feminine animate dual subject pъtici ‘birds’ (D vĕnima esta). Vaillant identifies -stĕ in S and the OCS Codex Suprasliensis (Supr) as a special feminine grammatical form of the third-person dual aorist (1906 [1964]: 228); Lunt notes also its occurrence in O and in the Bulgarian Tsar Ivan Alexander Gospel, dated 1356 (1984: 66), and defines the form more broadly as a non-masculine dual aorist marker, as its distribution in C and B suggests (2001: 94, § 5.911). Both C and B go beyond O, S and Supr, however, in extending the innovative -stĕ desinence to second-person dual imperative forms with human feminine subject referents (see also Vaillant 1906 [1964]: 232). C also shares with S the contracted third-person dual form idĕstĕ with female subjects, for the innovative OCS third-person dual imperfect form idĕaste/idĕasta, in Mt 28: 8 (B om.; see Lunt 2001: 100, §9.121).11 The occurrences of -stĕ that C and B share in MLJ likely were features of the CB antigraph, but since only two of these, both aorists, co-occur in D (Mt 28: 9 ęstĕ, Lu 2: 30 vidĕstĕ), they cannot be assumed to be general DBC features. It is tempting to argue that the co-occurrence 11  Compare Lunt’s observation that B’s 3Du imperfect form xodĕsta (not -stĕ) is not an example of a different desinence, as Dogramadžieva claims (1981: 47), but a reflection of the phonological suppression of iotation of i­-stem verbs like xoditi before the imperfect suffix -ĕa- (1981: 66).

curzon_2.indb 90

02/06/2008 09:20:17

3.4.  CB lexical features

91

of -stĕ in the last chapters of Matthew is evidence that B has changed to the DBC antigraph at some point before Mark, but since both C and B also have this form in their separate nonDBC first halves of Matthew, where D does not, and since, as Lunt observes, the form was used for non-masculine dual subjects during the OCS period, it cannot be assumed that the use of the feminine dual marker in both C and B is evidence of a shared antigraph for this portion. It can be inferred, however, from C’s consistent use of the non-masculine, or nonmale, dual marker -stĕ both in MLJ and in the portion of its Matthew version that is related to D, that -stĕ likely was a convention of C’s immediate antigraph (if, of course, it was not the C scribe himself who first conjoined the two sources for the C version of Matthew). 3.3.3.6.  Morphosyntactic features A consistent CB morphosyntactic feature in MLJ is the construction o desьno˛jo˛-[acc.] . . . otъ šuę(ę)-[gen.], ‘on the right . . . on the left’, in which desьno˛jo˛ is appropriately in the accusative, preceded by the preposition o, and šuję(ję) is in the genitive form, as required by the preceding preposition otъ, resulting literally in ‘on the right . . . from the left’; cf. ZMD et al. acc. o desno˛jo˛ . . . o šujo˛jo˛ at Mk 10: 37, 40, 15: 27,12 Lu 23: 33, Jo 19: 18 (C only, B mis. fol.). That the same construction is found in C’s second half of Matthew (Mt 20: 21, 25: 33, 27: 38, all B otъ . . . otъ, and Mt 20: 23, B otъ . . . o, perhaps an inadvertent omission of superscript t), but not in D’s related Matthew version or B’s unrelated version, indicates that it was a post-DBC feature of the full CB antigraph, i.e. the antigraph containing the DBC second half of Matthew that B later replaced with a different source. 3.4.  CB lexical features 3.4.1.  Secondary Graecisms and innovations The noteworthy lexical correspondences between C and B include secondary Graecisms that were added by scribes and editors to the Greek borrowings preserved from the early CyrilloMethodian redaction. As evidence of strong secondary Greek influence on B, Lunt has drawn attention to Lu 16: 6 pitakъ, a cyrillization of Greek pittavkion for gravmmata (D kъnigi, ZM et al. bukъvi ‘accounts’), in addition to two occurrences of cyrillicized seismov” ‘earthquake’ in the menology (see s. 6.3.2.1) and the cyrillicized Greek headings to Luke (in B alone) and John (in B and C; see s. 3.2; Lunt 1984: 68–9, Vakareliyska 1993: 23).13 As noted earlier, C also shares the post-OCS innovation trьjo˛šte (m. nom. pl. pres. ac. part.; N–A nivywntai ‘wiping’; cf. D, ZM et al tьro˛šte) in Mk 7: 3, noted in B by Lunt (1984: 67; cf. D&R 1981: 29), which is either an orthographic-level or morphological-level anomaly.

12 

Here C has otъ preceding both desьno˛jo˛ (C dêsnåz) and šjuję (C ‚uå), apparently a scribal slip (fol. 73v18). Lunt also notes with respect to B the DBC modification in Mk 7: 31 of ZM gen. pl. adj. dekapolьskъ (Dekapovlewı ‘of Decapolis’) to the Slavic calque desęti gradъ (DC gradi; see s. 2.5.2.2), kamelь in B Mt 19: 24, not shared by D or C, and the Greek phrase doksa si o teosь ‘praise to you, O Lord’ instead of Slavic slava tebĕ gospodi in the B scribe’s note at the end of John. 13 

curzon_2.indb 91

02/06/2008 09:20:18

92

Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

3.4.2.  Phonological/morphological innovations In addition to the orthographic correspondences in Section 3.3, the following CB lexical variants reflect phonological and morphological innovations: ajgalliavw ‘rejoice’. Jo 5: 35 VrCB vъzraduvati sę, ZMD et al. vъz(d)radovati sę. ajntlevw ‘draw water’, Jo 4: 7 CB inf. počrьsti, ZMVkDH inf./supine počrĕsti/-tъ, A počrь­ patъ. a[sbesto” ‘unquenchable’. Mk CB 9: 43 m. acc. def. neugasajo˛štii (stem *ne-u-gas-aj), D nega­ so˛štii; ZM et al. negašo˛štii (OCS stem negas-a-); cf. Lu 3: 17 CB negašajo˛štimъ, D et al. negaso˛štii, ZM et al. negašo˛štii.14 oJ aujtov” ‘the same’. Lu 24: 13 CB tъižde, Vr toiže, ZMD et al. tъžde, formed, as in Vr, from the younger third-person singular m. nom. demonstrative pronoun variant tъjь (OCS tъ). e{lkw ‘draw, pull out’. Jo 18: 10 CB 3Sg aor. izvlьče, ZMD et al. izv(l)ĕče. ejxaivfnh” ‘suddenly’. Mk 13: 36 CB bez(ъz)aapa, possibly an inadvertent hybrid in CB of D bezlĕpa and ZM nezajapo˛ (see s. 2.5.5). ejmnhsteumevnh (f.) ‘betrothed’. Lu 2: 5 CB noun obro˛čьnica, ZMD et al. p.p.p. obro˛čenaja. praitwvrion ‘judgment hall’. Jo 18: 33 CB so˛dilište,VkD so˛dište, ZM et al. pretorъ; cf. CB Mk 15: 16 pretorъ (D mis. fol.).15 prosevcw. ‘pay attention, take care’. CB 2Pl imv. vъnemljaite or vъnemlĕite (v´nêml™itê; stem apparently vъnemljaj-, from vъnemlj-ĕj-), vs. ZMD et al. vъnemlĕte (stem vъnemlj-), Lu 12: 1, 17: 3, 20: 46, SynI 15th Sat. in New Year (Lu 17: 3); also C Lu 21: 34 (B mis. fol.) and C SynI fol. 192r23, 17th Sat. in New Year (Lu 20: 46, B ambig. abbrev. vъnemlĕ). th’” Samareiva” ‘of Samaria’. CBH samarĕnьskъ Jo 4: 5, D samarĕniskъ vs. AOVk samareiskъ, M samarьskъ, Z samarija; cf. DCB Lu 9: 52 samareiskъ; see s. 2.3. sunevcw ‘press’. CB utĕšьnjajo˛tъ Lu 8: 45, D ugnĕtajo˛tъ,16 ZM utĕstajo˛tъ, Iv utĕskajo˛tъ. uJpodedemevno” ‘(having) shod’. CB p.p.p. obuenъ Mk 6: 9, ZMD et al. obuvenъ (OCS inf. obujati). uJpovdhma ‘shoe’. CB obuštь Mk 1: 7; ZD sapogъ, M črĕvьi (on this variant in B, see Temčin 1997b: 61). The imperative form vъnemljaite or vъnemlĕite above undoubtedly was transmitted from the shared CB antigraph, since B does not have it in Matthew (7: 15, 10: 17, 16: 6). In C, the form occurs across Matthew, including C’s non-DBC portion before chapter 15. In view of the C copyist’s strenuous efforts to follow his immediate antigraph, the consistency of this unusual form throughout the manuscript is strong evidence that C’s non-DBC portion of 14 

Compare C’s partly legible ambiguous abbreviation nêgazv de (i˙˙avfa). Jo 18: 28–19: 16a. In v. 39, CB inserts before cĕsarja židovьska (ZM ijudeiska) ‘king of the Jews’ the modifier edinogo ‘one’, a perseveration from da edinogo vamъ otъpušto˛ na paso˛ ‘that I release one to you at Passover’, earlier in the verse. At 19: 6, CB has a homoioteleuton involving DBC v. 4 ne obrĕtajo˛ vъ nemь viny niedinoję (‘I do not find in him any guilt at all’, also M vъ nemь viny ne obrĕtajo˛ niedinoję), which itself, in M and DBC, is a reminiscence of v. 38, in the addition of niedinoję ‘any at all’ (cf. Z et al. v. 4 simply viny ‘guilt’): CB v. 6 azъ bo niedinoję viny ne obrĕtajo˛ ‘for I do not find in him any guilt at all’ vs. D azъ bo do nego viny ne obrĕtajo˛ (see discussion in s. 2.7.3.), ZM et al. azъ bo ne obrĕtajo˛ vъ nemь viny ‘for I do not find guilt in him’. Jo 19: 25–37 (B mis. vv. 25–27a). In v. 29, C and B omit AD (i) naplьnьše (že) go˛bo˛ ocьta, M oni že isplьnьše go˛bo˛ ocьta, Z et al. go˛bo˛ že naplьnьše otьca ‘(AD ‘and’, M ‘and they’) having filled a sponge with vinegar’ (spovggon ou\n mesto;n tou; o[xou” uJsswvpwÛ periqevnte”). 3.6.  CB textual features of MLJ portions lost from D For the portions of MLJ that are lost from D (Mk 7: 5–20b, 10: 12–11: 10a, 13: 1–34a, 14: 13b–15: 34a, Lu 5: 33b—8: 33a, Jo 3: 1b–18a), C and B are the only currently known witnesses to the features of the hypothetical DBC antigraph. For lexical variants in these sections, see Section 3.4.4; for the more minor textual features, see annotations to volume I. Mk 7: 5–16 (16th Tues. after Pentecost). In v. 5, C and B have 3Pl xotętъ ‘want’ for xodętъ ‘walk’ in (ZM et al.) po cьto ne xodętъ učinici tvoi po prĕdanьju starьcь ‘why do your disciples not walk (CB ‘want’) according to the tradition of the elders’ (dia; tiv ouj peripatou’sin oiJ maqhtaiv sou kata; th;n paravdosin tw’n presbutevrwn). CB v. 8 has the garbling ina podobьna takovyimъ-[dat. pl. def.] mъnoga tvorite ‘to/for such ones you do many other similar things’ for M et al. ina podobьna takova-[n. acc. pl.] mъnoga tvorite, Z ina podobьna takovaja-[n. acc. pl. (def.)] tvorite mъnoga, ‘and many other such things you do’. In v. 15, C and B share the anomalous ending -ia (-ia), both with unusual a instead of æ following a vowel letter, for ZM et al. neuter definite nominative plural -aja (-aæ) present active participle isxodęštaja ‘coming out’ (ejkporeuovmenav). This form obviously was transmitted from the shared CB antigraph, since both C and B have a following the vowel letter i instead of æ, the usual convention in the orthographic system of each. Mk 10: 12–16 (14th Wed. after Pentecost), 17–27 (14th Thurs.) and 23–32 (14th Fri.) are unexceptional.

curzon_2.indb 105

02/06/2008 09:20:22

106

Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

Mk 10: 32b–45 (5th Sun. in Lent). CB contains Z’s variant of v. 34, ‘and they will scourge him and spit upon him’ (Z i utepo˛tъ (CB bijo˛tъ) i i oplujo˛tъ i; cf. N–A kai; ejmptuvsousin aujtwÛ’ kai; mastigwvsousin aujto;n ‘and they will spit upon him and scourge him’). This portion of the verse is omitted in the Greek version that M and S follow (see Jagić 1883 [1960]: 157, fn. to l. 9). Mk 10: 46–52 (15th Mon. in New Year). In v. 48, for ZM izlixa vъpijaaše ‘cried out superfluously, to excess’, CB has pače zъvaaše ‘called even more’ (note also N’s literal translation pacĕ dzĕlo ‘even more greatly’, pollwÛ’ ma’llon e[krazen; this may also be an anticipation of Mk 13: 31, below). Mk 11: 1–11 (Monday in Meatfare). In 11: 2, both C and B have pronominal gender agreement errors that suggest another problem in the shared antigraph: in reference to the noun vьsь ‘village’(f.), for Z(M) vъ njo˛ ‘into it-[f.]’, C has vъ ne ‘into it-[n.]’, and B has vъ nь ‘into it-[m.]’. Mk 13: 1–8 (16th Fri. in New Year) and 9b–13 (17th Mon. after Pentecost) are unremarkable. Mk 13: 14–23 (17th Tues. in New Year). In v. 17, C and B share the misreading ido˛štiimъ ‘going’ for ZM et al. i dojęštiimъ ‘and nursing’ (kai; tai’” qhlazouvsai”). B compounds the garbling by substituting the neologism neprijaznyimъ ‘those who are wicked’ for the (ZMC et al.) preceding word neprazdьnyimъ ‘those who are pregnant’ (ejn gastri; ejcouvsai” kai; tai’” qhlazouvsai”). In v. 18, for ZM et al. (da ne bo˛detъ) bĕstvo (VkH bĕžьstvo) vaše ‘(that) your flight (may not be)’ (N–A has here simply mh’ gevnhtai ‘in order that (it) may not happen’), B has the plural form bĕ kьstva vaša ‘your flights’, an emendation of OCS plural bĕstvo ‘flight’ to the phonetically spelled variant bĕgьstvo, showing consonant devoicing assimilation, while C has the plural neologism deistva vaša ‘your actions’, which combines the -stvo suffix from bĕstvo with the root dej- (cf. OCS dĕjanьja ‘actions’). It appears that the OCS form bĕstvo, which has dropped the /g/ from the root bĕg- ‘flee’, ‘run’, was not familiar to the C and B scribes, and nor possibly to the CB scribe. Considering that the ZM redaction is based on a minority Greek version that adds the phrase ‘your flight’ (hJ fughv uJmw’n) as an involuntary reminiscence from Mt 24: 20 (see Soden 1913: 99, Nestle–Aland 1985: 134), perhaps the separate difficulties of the C and B scribes were compounded by unexpected encounters with the majority Greek version of the verse in the antigraph, in which the phrase is absent. CB v. 19 has nĕstъ bylo tacexъ ‘there have been no such ones’ for ZM et al. ne bystъ tako ‘it was not so’ (oi{a ouj gevgonen). Mk 24–31 (17th Wed. in New Year). In v. 27, with VkH, B has third-person plural sъbero˛tъ ‘they will gather’ (Vk izbero˛tъ ‘they select’) for ZM singular sъberetъ ‘he will gather’ (ejpisunavxei), and C appears to also (s´bir< a?≤t´). In v. 31, following nebo i zemlja ‘the sky and the earth’, C and B share the Vk variant mimoidetъ (C has the aorist or newer third-person singular non-past mimoide) rather than ZMH prĕidetъ ‘shall pass by’ for paraleuvsontai, but both have the ZMH lexical variant prĕido˛tъ ‘(they) will pass by’ following moja slovesa ‘my words’ later in the same sentence. Mk 14: 10–42 (Tues. in Meatfare). At v. 14, C and B share the dative definite adjectival neologism domovьnomu ‘house’ modifying the dative noun gospodinu ‘master’, in place of ZM et al. genitive noun domu ‘of the house’, for oijkodespovthÛ. CB v. 18 omits ZM et al.

curzon_2.indb 106

02/06/2008 09:20:22

3.6.  CB textual features of MLJ portions lost from D

107

i jado˛štemъ ‘and while they were eating’ (kai; ejsqiovntwn). In 14: 27, CB, and likely also DBC, reflects the minority Greek version that adds stada ‘of the flock’ after ovьcę ‘sheep’ (ta; provbata th’” poivmnh”, Nestle–Aland 1985: 138).21 In v. 31, as in Mk 10: 48 above, CB avoids the ZM et al. lexical item izlixa for ejkperissw’” ‘exceedingly’, ‘vehemently’: C simply glagolaaše ‘he spoke’, B pače glagolaaše ‘he spoke even more’; cf. ZM izlixa glagolaaše pače ‘he spoke even more vehemently’. At v. 37, CB inserts sъ mьnojo˛ ‘with me’ after edinogo časa pobьdĕti ‘to wait one hour’. In v. 41, CB omits ZM et al. pride časъ ‘the hour has come’ (h|lqen hJ w{ra). Mk 14: 43a—15: 1 (Meatfare Wed.). In v. 53, B has the productive third-person plural aorist sъnodošę ‘went down’, apparently a misreading of the old aorist reflexive sъnido ˛ sę ‘assembled (themselves)’ (sunevrcontai) as in ZM, while C has the anomalous form sъnidoxo ˛ , which conjoins the productive aorist stem sъnido- with the third-person plural imperfect desinence -o˛. CB, and probably DBC also, does not follow the minority Greek version underlying ZM that adds aujtwÛ’ ‘to him’ (kъ nemu) following this verb. Verse 54 contains a further CB garbling, i vъnide ‘and he entered’ for ZM do vъno˛trь ‘even inside’ (e{w” e[sw; note also Vk Ø vъnutrь ‘inside’). Also in v. 54, CB omits ZM et al. sъ slugami ‘with the attendants’ (meta; tw’n ujphretw’n). CB’s rendition u ognja ‘by the fire’ in the same verse is a less slavish translation of pro;” to; fw’” than is ZM et al. pri svĕšti ‘at the light’. In v.  66, C and B insert na dvorъ ‘into the courtyard’ between pride edina otъ rabynь ‘(there) arrived one of the maids’ and arxiereovъ ‘of the high priest’, apparently a perseveration of na dvorĕ ‘in the courtyard’ (ejn thÛ’ aujlhÛ’) earlier in the verse. In v. 68, for ZM et al. first person singular ne umĕjo˛ ni sъvĕmь ‘I do not know, nor do I understand’ (ou[te oi\da), CB clearly began the segment some form of the lexical variant ne vĕdĕti, as B has the anomalous forms ne vĕdę ni sъvĕdę, perhaps intended as first person singular ne vĕdĕ ni sъvĕdĕ, and C has first-person plural ne vĕmi ‘we do not know’, followed by an omission of ZM ni sъvĕmь. In v. 72, the introduction in C and B of two separate lexical variants of OCS kurъ ‘cock’, ‘rooster’ (ajlevktwr) that differ from their usual preferences (C and D kurę, B pĕtelь), suggests that one or both scribes, or a post-CB predecessor of one or both scribes, balked at copying the CB antigraph’s lexical variant in this verse. The occurrences of the usual C and B variants earlier in Mk 13: 35 (C kuręglašenьe, B pĕtloglašenьe ‘cockcrow’) but not here suggests further that the CB antigraph contained a different variant in v. 72 from its usual one, with which later scribes were forced to reckon. Very likely the CB antigraph had here C’s variant, alektorъ, as B tends to replace secondary Graecisms with their Slavic counterparts. The fact that B substitutes here not its usual variant pĕtelь, but kokotъ, as in M’s version of this verse, suggests that the copyist either consulted another manuscript for the Slavic equivalent of alektorъ, or used a word from his own vernacular. Whether the DBC antigraph had the usual innovative DC variant kurę here, or another variant, is unclear, in the absence of these verses from D (see, however, s. 4.5.2; see also s. 2.5.5). Also in v. 72, CB gorъko ‘bitterly’ following načьnъ plakati sę ‘he began to weep’ is an involuntary reminiscence of Mt 26: 66 and Lu 22: 62 ‘he wept bitterly’ (e[klausen pikrw’”). 21  B contains in superscript the preposition na ‘to’, ‘of ’, ‘onto’ immediately before stada. The insertion is written by a different hand, in black ink; cf. D&R’s determination that the insertion is by the regular B scribe (1981: 255).

curzon_2.indb 107

02/06/2008 09:20:22

108

Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

Mk 15: 1–15 (Meatfare Thurs.). More serious corruptions in the CB antigraph begin at Mk 15: 7, where C has sъvĕtьniky ‘advisers’, and B has the garbling svĕtilьniky ‘lamps’, ‘lights’ (apparently a lexical substitute based on the misreading svĕštьniky ‘lamps’ for sъvĕtьniky), in place of ZM et al. kovьniky ‘insurrectionists’ (stasiastw’n). Later in the verse, CB have vъ svĕtĕ, probably originally intended as vъ sъvĕtĕ ‘in council’ with dropped weak jer (or intended as vъ svĕtĕ ‘in the light’), for M vъ kovĕ ‘in a plot, sedition’ (ejn thÛ’ stavsei; cf. Z vъ gorĕ ‘in the mountain’). In parallel garblings at v. 11, before the dative noun narodu ‘the crowd’, C has what appears to be the third-person singular aorist form pomęno˛ ‘he remembered’, and B has the third-person plural aorist orthographic variant pomĕno˛šo˛ ‘they remembered’, (i.e. ‘he/ they remembered to the crowd’) for ZM et al. 3Pl aorist pomano˛šę narodu ‘they waved to/ stirred up the crowd’ (ajnevseisan to;n o[clon). Mk 15: 16–32 (Meatfare Fri. and 6th Passion). CB has in v. 16 the variant vьsь sъborъ ‘the whole assembly’ for ZM et al. vьso˛ spiro˛ ‘the whole cohort’ (o{lhn th;n spei’ran). This substitution can be assumed to have been in the DBC antigraph also, since the form spira is used elsewhere in DBC only in the meaning of OCS pira ‘scrip’, ‘knapsack’ (phvran; see s. 2.5.5, also CB spira in Mk 6: 8). In v. 26, as elsewhere, C and B avoid the ZM et al. deverbal noun napьsanьe ‘(a) writing’ (hJ ejpigrafhv), resulting here in CB bĕ napisana (C -no) vina ego ‘his charge was written’ vs. ZM et al. bĕ napьsanьe viny ego napьsano ‘a writing/notice of his charge was written’ (hJ ejpigrafh; th’” aijtiva” aujtou’ ejpigegrammevnh). C’s neuter singular desinence on napisano, which fails to agree with feminine vina ‘charge’, is an anticipation of the neuter singular form napisano later in the sentence. Lu 5: 33–9 (2nd Wed. in New Year). In v. 34, CB has the word order variant eda možete syny bračьnyję sъtvoriti postiti sę. doneliže ženixъ estъ sъ nimi ‘can you make the sons of the wedding fast while the bridegroom is with them?’ (note also H’s word order . . . syny bračьnii Ø postiti se. donьdeže sъ nimi estъ ženei se) for the more literal translation in ZMVk . . . syny bračьnyję. doideže/donьdeže ženixъ estъ sъ nimi. sъtvoriti postiti sę (mh; duvnasqe tou;” uiJou;” tou’ numw’no”, ejn w|Û oJ numfivo” met∆ aujtw’n ejstin, poih’sai nhsteu’sai…). Lu 6: 1–10 (4th Sat. in New Year). In v.1, for ZM bystъ že vъ so˛boto˛. vъtoroprьvy. iti emu ‘and it came to pass that on the second Sabbath after the first, he was to go’, CB begins the lection with a defective dative absolute construction containing the frozen-form present participle ending -i for masculine dative singular -(j)u (see s. 3.3.3.2): ido˛šti (OCS -štju) isusovi vъ so˛boto˛ ‘as Jesus was going on the Sabbath’. In this instance, the misagreeing -i ending may be an anticipation of the final -i of the immediately following abbreviation is svi ‘Jesus’-[dat.] (isusovi ‘Jesus’, with u-stem dative virile ending -ovi); N–A ejgevneto de; ejn sabbavtwÛ diaporeuv­ esqai aujto;n. CB follows the Greek version of this verse underlying the Slavic lectionaries, which omits ZM vъtoroprьvy following vъ so˛boto˛ (‘on the second after the first Sabbath’; cf. some Greek manuscripts de; ejn sabbavtw deuteroprwvtwÛ; Nestle–Aland 1985: 170). In v. 6, CB has vъšьdъ vъ sъborište učĕše ‘having entered the temple, he taught’, a less literal grammatical rendering of eijselqei’n aujto;n eij” th;n sunagwgh;n kai; didavskein than ZM et al. vъniti emu vъ sъnьmište/sъborište učiti. Similarly, in v. 10, CB alone has reče mo˛žju ‘he said to the man’ for ZM et al. reče emu ‘he said to him’ (ei\pen aujtwÛ’).

curzon_2.indb 108

02/06/2008 09:20:23

3.6.  CB textual features of MLJ portions lost from D

109

Lu 6: 11, transition verse. CB v. 11 has eže xotęšte sъtvoriti isusovi ‘that which they were wanting/going to do to Jesus’ for ZM’s conditional construction čьto (Z ubo) bišę sъtvorili isusovi ‘(therefore) what they would do to Jesus’ (tiv a]n poihvsaien). Lu 6: 12b–19 (2nd Thurs. in New Year) is unremarkable. Lu 6: 17b–23a (2nd Fri. in New Year). CB omits from v. 22, in the Sermon on the Mount, of ZM et al. i egda razlo˛čętъ vy ‘and when they shall exclude you’ (o{tan mishvswsin uJma’”). Lu 6: 23b, transition between lections. C and B share here the odd substitution of apparent preposition o ‘about’ for the dative plural noun prorokomъ, resulting in an interpretation of the immediately following subject noun otьci ‘fathers’ as the locative singular object of the preposition: tvorĕaxo˛ o otьci-[loc. sg.] ixъ ‘they did/made about their father’ for ZM et al. tvorĕao˛ prorokomъ otьci-[nom. pl.] ixъ ‘their fathers did unto the prophets’ (KJ; ejpoivoun toi’” profhvtai” oiJ patevre” aujtw’n). Lu 6: 24–30 (3rd Mon. in New Year) and 31–6 (2nd Sun.) are unexceptional. Lu 6: 37–45, 3rd Tues. in New Year. In v. 37, together with Serbian long lectionaries MirVkH, which begin the lection in the second half of the verse, CB omits the first part of the tetraevangelion verse, ZM i ni so˛dite. da ne so˛dętъ vamъ ‘and do not judge, that you may not be judged’ (kai; mh; krivnete, kai; ouj mh; kriqh’te). It is possible, of course, that CB was influenced here by the lectionary version, but more likely, the omission resulted from the similarity between the the omitted sentence and the one that follows, i ne oso˛ždaite da ne oso˛dętъ vasъ ‘and do not condemn, so that you not be condemned’ (kai; mh; katadikavzete, kai; ouj mh; katadikasqh`te). In v. 40, C and B have the imperative form bo˛di ‘be’ for ZM et al. 3Sg bo ˛ detъ ‘will be’, in (ZM) sъvrьšьnъ že vьsĕkъ bo˛detъ jakozъe i učitelь ego ‘everyone who has perfected himself shall be like his teacher’ (kathrtismevno” de; pa’” e[stai wJ” oJ didavskalo” aujtou’). Lu 6: 46–7: 1 (3rd Wed. in New Year) is unremarkable. Lu 7: 1b–10, 5th Sat. in New Year. CB v. 6 omits ne ‘not’ before daleče ‘far’ (ouj makravn). Lu 7: 11a (transition between lections). In v. 11, for ZM i bystъ vъ pročii ‘and it came to pass on the next (day)’, CB has the variant vъ drugyi že dьnь ‘and on the next day’ (ejn twÛ” eJxh’”). Lu 7: 11b–16, 3rd Sun. in New Year. CB omits in v. 12 ZM et al. i se ‘and behold’ (kai; ijdouv) and i ta bĕ vъdova ‘and she was a widow’ (kai; aujth; h\n chvra), and in v. 15 omits, together with Z and A, (M et al.) i dastъ i materi ego ‘and he gave him to his mother’ (kai; e[dwken aujto;n thÛ’ mhtri; aujtou’). Lu 7: 17–30, 3rd Thurs. in New Year. In v. 19, CB has i prizъvavъ otъ učenikъ svoixъ (B ego) dъva. posъla ja kъ isusovi ‘and calling two of his disciples, (he) sent them to Jesus’ for the more literal rendition in ZM et al. i prizъvavъ dъva etera otъ učenikъ svoixъ ioanъ. posъla Ø kъ isusovi ‘and John, calling a certain two of his disciples, sent (them) to Jesus’ (kai; proskalesavmeno” duvo tina;” tw’n maqhtw’n aujtou’ oJ ∆Iwavnnh”). CB v. 20 has posъlana(ja) ‘those (two) who were sent’ for more literal ZM et al. translation mo˛ža ‘(the two) men’ (oiJ a[ndre”). In v. 28, C and B share vъ roždenii ženami ‘in birth by women’ for ZM et al. past passive participle roždenyixъ ženami ‘than those born by women’ (ejn gennhtoi’” gunaikw’n). Lu 7: 31–5 (3rd Fri. in New Year) is unexceptional. Lu 7: 36–50, 4th Mon. in New Year. In v. 37, for ZM et al. i se žena vъ gradĕ jaže bĕ grĕšьnica

curzon_2.indb 109

02/06/2008 09:20:23

110

Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

‘and lo, a woman in the town who was a sinner’ (kai; ijdou; gunhv), C and B have bĕ že žena vъ gradĕ grĕšьnica ‘there was a woman in the town, a sinner’. Both also insert ta ‘that one’ before uvĕdĕvъši ‘who had learned’ (ejpignou’sa). In v. 38, with Vr and H, C and B omit ZM et al. (sъ) zadi ‘behind’ (ojpivsw) between i stavъši (kai; sta’sa) ‘and standing’ and pri nogu ego ‘at his feet’ (para; tou;” povda” aujtou’). CB v. 44 has ty že ni vody na nodzĕ moi vъzlija ‘and you neither poured water onto my feet’ for ZM et al. ØØ vody na nodzĕ moi ne dastъ ‘(you) did not give me water for my feet’ (u{dwr moi ejpi; povda” oujk e[dwka”). Lu 8: 1–3, 4th Tues. in New Year. C and B alone in the corpus omit from v. 1 i blagovĕstuję ‘and proclaiming the good news’ (khruvsswn) following propovĕdaję ‘preaching’ (cf. N–A word order khruvsswn kai; eujaggelizovmeno”). In v. 3, with H, CB has i anъna ‘and Anna’ or possibly ianъna ‘Ø Janna’ (i an´na or ian´na, both C and B using a and not their usual æ following the vowel letter i) for Z ioanna ‘Joanna’ or i oanna ‘and Oanna’, M i ioanna ‘and Joanna’ (kai; ∆Iwavnna). Lu 8: 4, transition verse. Here, perhaps in an effort to make sense of the Cyrillo-Methodian translation of the present participle suniovnto” ‘gathering’ as razumĕjo˛štju ‘heeding/understanding’ at the beginning of the verse, or simply as an anticipation of the following genitive prepositional phrase otъ vьsĕxъ gradъ ‘from all (the) towns’, CB has the virile accusative plural present active participle grędo˛štiixъ for dative grędo˛štiimъ ‘coming’ in the second dative absolute construction of the ZM segment razumĕjo˛štju že narodu mъnogu. i grędo˛štiimъ otъ vьsĕxъ gradъ kъ nemu ‘with a large crowd heeding, and (people) coming from all the towns to him’. The replacement of dative grędo˛štiimъ with grędo˛štiixъ in CB results in the single clause ‘with a large crowd heeding those (who were) coming from all towns to him’. Significantly, the C scribe originally wrote the ZM dative form grĕdo˛štiimъ here, but erased the m and replaced it with x to form the virile accusative grĕdo˛štiixъ. From this emendation, the inference can be drawn that the C scribe first wrote the correct dative form out of habit and then, in his characteristic self-doubting fashion, changed it to the accusative to match his immediate antigraph. Lu 8: 5–15, 4th Sun. in New Year. C and B follow the ZM tetraevangelion version of v. 8, which concludes with the sentence se glagolję vъzglasi. imĕjęi uši slyšati da slyšitъ ‘saying this, he cried out, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear”’ (tau’ta levgwn ejfwvnei: oJ e[cwn w\ta ajkouvein ajkouevtw). Both omit from v. 15 (ZM et al.) i blagomь ‘and good’ following dobromь srьdьcemь ‘with a noble heart’ (ejn kardivaÛ kalhÛ’ kai; ajgaqhÛ’). With the lectionaries ASOP, B departs from C in adding again the phrase imĕjęi uši slyšati da slyšitъ, as in v. 8 (also attested by Soden 1913: 132, following tau’ta levgwn ‘he cried out’, which B does not include, in contrast to ASOP; see also s. 2.6.2). Lu 8: 16–21 (6th Sat. in New Year) is unexceptional. Lu 8: 22b–25, 4th Wed. in New Year. CB omits from v. 22 (ZM et al.) i prĕjado˛/vъjado˛ ‘and they crossed over/went in’ (kai; ajnhvcqhsan). In v. 23, CB has more ‘sea’ for ZM et al. ezero ‘lake’ (th;n livmnhn), a reminiscence from the parallel lections Mt 8: 23–7 and Mk 4: 35–41, and plavaaxo˛ ‘they floated’ for ZM et al. vъlaaxo˛ sę ‘they tossed/were in peril’ (ejkinduvneuon). CB v. 26 begins with the dative absolute participial construction prĕšьdъšju isusovi ‘when Jesus had crossed’ for ZM aorist i prĕjado˛/prĕjadošę ‘and they crossed’ (kai; katevpleusan).

curzon_2.indb 110

02/06/2008 09:20:23

3.7.  Relationships among the CB Gospel text, rubrics, and SynI

111

Jo 3: 1–15 (Thurs. in Bright Week). As is frequent in DBC, both C and B, together with Vr, omit the second aminь, in v. 3, from ZM et al. aminь aminь (ajmh;n ajmh;n). 3.7.  Relationships among the CB Gospel text, rubrics, and SynI Most of D’s synaxarion is lost, but what little remains of it (Easter to 9th Tues. after Pentecost) follows the same assignment of lections to days in the Easter cycle as CB’s SynI. D’s rubrication of the Gospel text is generally the same as C’s and B’s throughout the church year, but its rubrics are not close to CB in textual formulae. From this it is clear that C and B used a different synaxarion source from D’s for their instructions and pericopes in SynI and the SynII varia, and for the incipits in the liturgical rubrics, but that CB’s synaxarion source was from the same tradition as D’s—that is, from much the same tradition as the synaxaria of the Serbian long lectionaries H and, particularly, Vk (see s. 2.7). Skomoroxova-Venturini and Naumov (1985) have published a thorough study of B as a liturgical document, focusing on its rubrication system and synaxaria text, so I shall not duplicate their analysis here. With the exception of comments on ь–y and v–u substitutions (op. cit. p. 79), most of the authors’ observations concerning B’s version of SynI hold true for C’s also, including the use of Ammonian chapter numerals and specific lexical and textual formulae (see anns. to SynI in vol. I for a detailed comparison of the B and C synaxaria). The primary difference in content between C’s and B’s versions of SynI is the inclusion of alleluias and musical mode specifications in B for the first Holy Thursday lection. Since, following the format of the Constantinople Typikon, B also includes alleluias and musical modes in the Constantinopolitan portions that its menology shares with C’s, while C’s menology version generally does not contain these (see anns. to vol. I), clearly the musical directions in B’s version of SynI and B’s menology stem from the CB antigraph, and, with only a few exceptions (including the Good Friday vespers entry), they were later deleted in the prehistory of C. B and C also have discrepancies in the chapter numerals given for certain lections in SynI, where the B scribe has first written the numeral that appears in C and then has erased and corrected it (see s. 3.7.5.1). As suggested above, the C and B variants of SynI are generally identical in content, although B tends to have slightly longer versions of the pericope incipits and explicits.22 The C and B liturgical rubrics in Mark, Luke, and John also usually match, and even the separate C and B versions of Matthew both follow the rubrication system of CB Syn. These facts together indicate that both the C and B scribes and their predecessors did not take much independent initiative in the wording or placement of rubrics, and that SynI, or at least the tradition that 22  Skomoroxova-Venturini and Naumov’s comments regarding the greater orthographic reflection of Middle Bulgarian pronounciation in B SynI than in B’s Gospel text (1985: 78) also hold true for C. In particular among these are initial ê instead of « for e word-initially or following another vowel letter. This substitution occurs also quite regularly in the abbreviation êûG± (euggelie ‘Gospel’) in C’s rubrics and version of CB SynI. On the basis of orthographic evidence, as well as lexical and textual differences from the B Gospel text, the authors conclude that B’s SynI has a different source from that of the B Gospel text (1985: 83).

curzon_2.indb 111

02/06/2008 09:20:23

112

Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

SynI reflects, was relied upon in both manuscripts in inserting the liturgical instructions into their non-DBC Matthew texts. 3.7.1.  Lexical discrepancies between the CB text and CB SynI 3.7.1.1.  CB SynI vs. C and B Matthew The following more significant lexical discrepancies occur between the CB version of SynI and the C and B versions of Matthew (see s. 2.5). Mt 7: 24–8: 4, 3rd Sat. after Pentecost (C fol. 187v5). In contrast to the Ohrid-redaction C and B variants in 8: 4 (B sъvĕdĕtelьstvo imъ, C sъvĕdĕnьe imъ ‘their testimony’; D mis. fol.), the explicit to this lection in C and B’s SynI and in D’s SynI (and thus in DBC SynI) contains the Preslav-associated variant poslušьstvo. The ‘Preslav’ variant is unexpected here, since one would expect that the now-lost text of D(B)C Mt 7: 4 contained one of the two Ohrid-associated lexemes in the unrelated C and B versions of the verse; moreover, even Vk’s Preslav-­associated version of this lection has the Ohrid variant sъvĕdĕnьe imъ ‘their testimony’ here.23 Mt 9: 18–26, 6th Sat. after Pentecost (C fol. 187v26). The DBC SynI incipit has nĕkъto ‘a certain’ for usual DBC archaism eterъ (C’s unrelated Matthew text has eterъ; this word does not appear in B’s text; D Mt text mis. fol.). Mt 21: 28–32, 10th Wed. after Pentecost (C fol. 188v1, D mis. fol.). The CB SynI explicit has the lexical variant vĕrovati vs. both DC and B Matthew text versions ęti vĕry ‘to believe’. Mt 23: 23–8, 11th Tues. after Pentecost (C fol. 188v7, D mis. fol.). C’s SynI explicit matches the word order of B’s Matthew version (C SynI licemĕrьja, also B Mt bezakonьja. i licemĕrьja ‘of lawlessness and hypocrisy’), while B’s SynI explicit matches the word order of C’s Matthew version (B SynI i bezakonьja, also C Mt licemĕrьja i bezakonьja (D Mt text mis. fol.)). 3.7.1.2.  CB SynI vs. the DBC version of MLJ Lexical discrepancies between CB SynI and the DBC version of MLJ indicate that the two are not based on the same underlying source. In most instances in the following list of Ohrid– ‘Preslav’ discrepancies, it is CB SynI, and not the DBC text, that contains the younger, Preslavassociated lexical variant (listed second in each lexical pair heading below). Lexical comparisons with the Gospel texts of Vk and H indicate that while CB SynI is very similar to Vk in structure, it does not correspond on a regular basis either with Vk’s ‘Ohrid’ or ‘Preslav’ portions, or with H. eterъ–nĕkъto/nĕkyi ‘a certain (one)’. Jo 3: 1–15, 1st Thurs. in Bright Week (C fol. 186r4) incipit, VkCB Jo text eterъ (D om.), DBC SynI incipit nĕ- (D nĕkyi, B nĕkъto, C nĕ; H mis. fol.). Lu 7: 36–50, 4th Mon. in New Year (C fol. 190r21) incipit, DBC text eterъ, VkH nĕkъto, B SynI nĕkyi (not in C SynI). Lu 11: 1b–10, 6th Tues. in New Year (C fol. 190v10) incipit, DCB text eterъ, C SynI and H nĕkyi, B SynI and Vk nĕkъto. Lu 12: 13–31, 8th Mon. in New 23  Note also 6th Sat. after Pentecost, Mt 9: 18 (fol. 187v26) CB SynI incipit nĕky, C text eterъ, B Ø, and 10th Sun. after Pentecost, Mt 17: 14 (fol. 188v5), CB SynI nĕkъto (C abbrev. nĕ), DC text eterъ, B Ø.

curzon_2.indb 112

02/06/2008 09:20:23

3.7.  Relationships among the CB Gospel text, rubrics, and SynI

113

Year (C fol. 190v24) incipit, DCB text eterъ, H nĕkotoryi, CB SynI and Vk nĕkъto. Lu 21: 5–24, Twelfth Wed. in New Year (C fol. 191v7–8) incipit, DBC text eterъ, VkH nĕkotoryi, CB SynI nĕkyi. Mk 9: 17–31, 4th Sun. in Lent (C fol. 193r9) incipit, DCB text eterъ, Vk edinъ, H nĕkyi, B SynI nĕkъto,C SynI kъnędzь ‘prince’). Cf. incipits where both the DBC text and CB SynI have eterъ: Lu 16: 1–9, 9th Thurs. in New Year (C fol. 191r10; not in C SynI incipit; Vk drugyi, H nĕkyi), Lu 16: 19–31, 5th Sun. in New Year (C fol. 190v8, VkH nĕkъto), and Lu 8: 41, 7th Sun. in New Year (C fol. 190v22, Vk nĕkъto, H microfilm fol. mis.). grędo˛tъ–ido˛tъ ‘go’. Jo 9: 1–38, 6th Sun. after Easter (C fol. 186v9) and Mk 2: 14–17, 3rd Sat. in Lent (C fol. 193r6) incipits, DCB text and D SynI (Jo 9: 1) mimoido˛tъ ‘pass by’, B Syn I mimogrędo˛tъ, C SynI grędo˛tъ; cf. Vk Jo 9: 1 prĕxodętъ (Ohrid portion), Mk 2: 14 mimoido˛tъ (‘Preslav’ portion, 4th Sun. in Lent). ijudei–židove ‘Jews’. Jo 19: 31–7, Good Friday, John portion of 9th Gospel lection (C fol. 194r17) incipit, VkDBC text ‘Preslav’ text židove, C SynI and H ijudei ; B SynI and rubrics do not mark this portion of the lection). vъskrьsno˛ti–vъstano˛tъ ‘rise, be resurrected’. Mk 8: 27–31, Fifth Sat. in Lent (C fol. 193r10) and Lu 9: 18–22, Fifth Mon. in New Year (C fol. 190v2) explicits, CB SynI and VkH (‘Preslav’ portion) vъskrьsno˛ti, DCB text vъstano˛tъ. životъ–žiznь ‘life’. Lu 18: 15–17, 28–30, Tenth Wed. in New Year (C fol. 191r20) explicit, VkHDBC text životъ, CB SynI žiznь; cf. CB SynI životъ in Jo 5: 17–24 explicit (2nd Wed. after Easter); cf. Jo 3: 1–15, Thurs. in Bright Week (C fol. 186r4) explicit, VkDBC text, D Syn and CB SynI životъ (H mis. fol.). Additional lexical discrepancies occur between CB SynI and DBC MLJ:24 istina–pravьda ‘truth’. Jo 16: 2–13a, Seventh Tues. after Easter (C fol. 186v22) explicit, DBC and H ‘Preslav’ version istina, DBC SynI and Vk pravьda. The correspondence between CB SynI and D’s synaxarion here indicates that at least some of the younger lexical variants in the former stem from the shared DBC SynI antigraph. sъvedo˛tъ sę–nizъvedo˛tъ sę ‘be put/thrown down’—sъnido˛tъ ‘descend, go down’. Lu 10: 1–15, Fifth Fri. in New Year (C fol. 190v6) explicit, VkHDCB text nizvedo˛tъ sę, CB SynI sъnido˛tъ. trьxotъ–cęta–mĕdьnica ‘penny’. Lu 12: 35–59, Holy Thurs. Great Compline service (C fol. 194r26) explicit, DBC text cęta, CB SynI andVkH mĕdьnica.25 Further indications that the CB and D versions of SynI are not based on the DBC text are the occurrences of abьe ‘immediately’ in the Lu 21: 9 explicit for Saturday in Meatfare (C fol. 192v6; C text nъ ‘but’, D ubo ‘therefore’; B mis. fol.), and ubo ‘therefore’ in the Mt 24: 42 incipit for the Eleventh Friday after Pentecost (C fol. 188v12; B independent Mt version also 24 

ZM variants are listed first in the headers. For a complete inventory, see anns. to SynI in vol. I. The CB SynI explicit for the 8th Wed. in the New Year is simply vъzdasi (fol. 191r2). Vk and H do not have the same lection for Holy Thursday. C and B neglect to mark the end of the Holy Thursday lection with an instruction. 26  Cf. Lu 12: 42, incipit, 8th Tues. in New Year, CB SynI and CB Lu ubo. 25 

curzon_2.indb 113

02/06/2008 09:20:24

114

Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

ubo, DC text že ‘and’; see s. 2.5.6).26 Also of interest is a lexical discrepancy between CB SynI and the CB Gospel text that is reflected in the rubrics to both the C and B texts. CB Lu 9: 1 begins the lection for the Seventh Saturday in the New Year with sъzъvavъ (C sъzъva) ‘having called together (C ‘he called together’)’, as in ZM. The incipit in the CB rubric, however, has instead prizъva- ‘having called’,27 as does CB SynI. Since the CB SynI lexical variant is the one that appears in D’s version of the verse, this discrepancy suggests that the CB text variant sъzъva- was a post-DBC alteration in CB. 3.7.2.  Textual discrepancies between CB SynI and CB MLJ While textual discrepancies between CB SynI and the unrelated C and B versions of Matthew are to be expected,28 there are also numerous discrepancies with the DC version of Matthew, and with the DBC version of MLJ, some of the more interesting of which are presented here (for full inventory, see anns. to SynI in vol. I). Jo 15: 7 (Seventh Mon. after Easter, C fol. 186v21) explicit, D Syn and CB SynI bo ˛ detъ (D bo˛do˛tъ) vamъ ‘(it/they) shall be (given) to you’, DBC ‘Preslav’ text dastъ sę vamъ ‘it shall be given to you’. Mk 16: 24 (Eighth Thurs. after Pentecost, C fol. 188r12) incipit, CB SynI iže xoštetъ ‘whosoever will’, DC and B texts ašte (D +bo) kъto xoštetъ ‘(D ‘for’) if anyone will’. Mt 25: 13 (17th Sat. after Pentecost, C fol. 189v3) explicit, CB SynI človĕčь pridetъ ‘of Man will come’, apparently an involuntary reminiscence from Mt 24: 42; DC and B texts ne vĕste bo dьne ni časa ‘for you do not know the day or time’. Mk 7: 30 (16th Thurs. after Pentecost, C fol. 189r25) explicit, CB SynI dьšterь ležęšto˛ ‘daughter lying’, DCB text otrokovico˛ ležęšto˛ na odrĕ. i bĕsъ (CB +eję) išьdъši(i) ‘the girl lying on the cot, and the demon having left (CB +‘her’)’. Mk 15: 16 (Meatfare Fri. and Good Fri. Sixth Passion, C fols. 192v3, 193v20) incipit, CB SynI voini (po)imъše isusa ‘the soldiers, having seized Jesus’, also CB rubric; cf. VkHCB text voini (CB +že) vedošę isusa ‘(CB ‘and’) the soldiers led Jesus out’ (D mis. fol.). Vk and H have Mk 15: 16–30 for Good Friday, Sixth Passion, and, for Meatfare Fri., Mk 15: 22, 25, 33–41, which has the similar incipit (pri)vĕdošę ‘and they led/brought’. Vk’s incipit for v. 22, however, combines the CB SynI and rubric incipit for v. 16 with the text voini poimъše isusa izvedošę i 27 

I am grateful to Horace Lunt for first drawing this fact to my attention (pers. comm., Sept. 1991). Skomoroxova­ enturini and Naumov observe that B’s SynI has a tendency to use the prefix pri- ‘to’ for verbs of motion over prĕ- ‘across’, V pro- ‘through’, vъ- ‘into’, and even, in one instance apiece, iz- ‘out of ’ (Mk 8: 1) and otъ- ‘from’ (Mt 15: 21; 1985: 83). Five of their twelve cited discrepancies are with B’s version of Matthew, which of course has a different source from CB SynI. The Lu 9: 1 discrepancy noted here is not among those listed. The authors appear to use the term ‘synaxarion’ (Russ. sinaksar’) rather loosely, as in some instances it seems they are referring to the pericopes in the B menology (e.g. reference to calendar dates in the ‘synaxarion part’ (‘sin. č’) p. 82, paragr. 4). Note also Lu 4: 31–6, 1st Sat. in New Year (fol. 190r5), CB SynI incipit pride ‘arrived’, CB text vъnide ‘entered’; explicit isxoditъ ‘goes out’, CB text isxodętъ ‘go out’; and Lu 4: 38b, 2nd Mon. in New Year, CB SynI incipit pride ‘arrived’, CB text vъnide ‘entered’. 28  Note, for example, 5th Tues. after Pentecost, Mt 12: 14–16, 22–9 (fol. 187v15), where D’s synaxarion shares with C SynI the incipit sъvĕtъ prięšę farisei, vs. B SynI sъvĕtъ sъtvorišę . . . (both ‘the Pharisees held a council’), but the unrelated C and B Matthew texts have farisei že šьdъše sъvĕtъ sъtvorišę ‘but the Pharisees, having gone out, held a council’.

curzon_2.indb 114

02/06/2008 09:20:24

3.7.  Relationships among the CB Gospel text, rubrics, and SynI

115

‘the soldiers, having seized Jesus, led him out’. Lu 19: 40 (Cheesefare Mon., C fol. 192v12–13) explicit, CB SynI and Vk kamenьe vъzъpьetъ ‘the stones will cry out’, ZMDBC text kamenьe vъpiti (Z vъzъpiti) načьnetъ (M imatъ) (lit. ‘the stones will begin (M ‘will have’) to cry out’; H mis. fol.). Jo 13: 11 (Holy Thursday Evening, Washing of Feet after the Liturgy, C fol. 193v4) explicit, CB SynI and ZMVkH ne vьsi este čisti ‘not all of you are pure’, DBC ‘Preslav’ portion text vy čisti este nъ ne vьsi ‘you are pure, but not all of you’. C and B have no opening rubric for this lection; cf. D, at Jo 13: 3. Jo 19: 42 (Holy Thursday, 11th Passion Lection, C fol. 194r2) explicit, CB SynI ideže položišę ‘where they left (him)’, DBC ‘Preslav’ portion vъ nemьže položišę ‘in which they left (him)’ (this verse not in H); cf. Vk kъde polagaxo˛, likely an involuntary reminiscence of Mk 15: 47 (the explicit to the Good Friday Third Hour lection in DBC, but not in Vk). Mt 27: 1 (Good Friday, First Hour, C fol. 194r5) incipit, CB SynI sъbrašę sę arxierei ‘the chief priests gathered’, DC, B, and H Mt texts and DC and B rubrics sъvĕtъ sъtvorišę/sъtvorъše vьsi arxierei ‘all the chief priests decided’ (Vk lec. begins at v. 3). Mk 15: 1 (Good Friday, Third Hour, C fol. 194r6) incipit: CB SynI iskaxo˛ arxierei(e) ‘the chief priests sought’ is a reminiscence from Mk 14: 1; cf. DCBH text sъvĕtъ sъtvorišę arxiereie ‘the chief priests decided’ and CB SynI Meatfare Thurs. incipit (C fol. 192v2). C marks the the lection in the text with a rubric specifying the incipit sъvĕtъ; B, however, has no opening rubric, perhaps reflecting a scribe’s difficulty finding the SynI incipit in the text. Neither C nor B marks the end of this lection at v. 47 in the text. (Vk has this lection for Meatfare Thurs. alone, and Mk 15: 16–32 for the Third Hour.) Jo 19: 31 (portion of Good Friday vespers lection, C fol. 194r10) incipit, CB SynI ijudei že poneže ‘and the Jews, since’, DBC ‘Preslav’ text portion židove že vъprosišę ‘and the Jews requested’. As noted in Section 2.7.3, DBC’s version of this verse is distinguished by an unusual ordering of clauses, to which Vk’s ‘Preslav’ version comes the closest, of the other sources in the corpus. CB SynI has the ZM version.29 CB SynI and the CB Gospel text share a grammatical anomaly in the Lu 6: 1 incipit for the Fourth Saturday in the New Year (C fol. 190r26): all four locations in C and B have ­frozenform ido˛šti modifying masculine singular dative absolute isusu/isusovi ‘Jesus’, for ido˛štju ‘while going’ (see ss. 3.3.3.2 and 3.6; D mis. fol.); cf. ZM iti emu ‘when he was to go’. 3.7.3.  Discrepancies between CB SynI and D SynI As noted earlier, comparison of the division into lections in CB SynI with the small preserved portion of D’s regular synaxarion (hereinafter ‘D SynI’) indicates that at least for that portion, both CB and D share a common source, although there are substantial differences between CB and D in format and textual content. The unusual placement of SynI in both C and B, following the menology, is not a feature of 29  The first two Mt lections in the CB series for this service are Mt 27: 1–38, Mt 27: 39–54; cf. Vk Mt 27: 1–43, Mt 27: 45–54.

curzon_2.indb 115

02/06/2008 09:20:24

116

Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

D, in which the synaxarion immediately follows the Book of John, as expected. Also in contrast to C and B, D’s synaxarion contains ornamentation and is preceded by an introductory page containing a large multicolored illustration consisting in part of braided hearts and circles, and labeled se estъ rai. iže naricaetъ sę paradisъ ‘this is heaven, which is called “paradise”’ (D fol. 121r). The Easter cycle of lections is written inside a tablet-like outline consisting of seven arched vertical columns per page, with multicolored braiding ornaments in the bottom and outside margins (fols. 121v–124v; the folios have been rebound in incorrect order). This special honor is rendered only to the post-Easter John lection cycle, as the scribe Dobrejšo has labeled John his favorite Evangelist in the portrait preceding the Book of John. The extant pages of the Pentecost cycle are without columns or ornamentation (fols. 125r–127v). In the following pericopes, all but one from the John cycle, D’s synaxarion corresponds to the DBC Gospel text but CB SynI does not: 3rd Tues. after Easter, Jo 6: 27–33 (C fol. 186r16). CB SynI explicit životъ vьsemu (B +miru) ‘life to the whole (B +‘world’)’, D syn. životъ daję Ø mirovi and DBC Jo dajęi životъ Ø miru ‘giving life to the world’. 3rd Wed. after Easter, Jo 6: 35–9 (C fol. 186r17). CB SynI misplaced explicit vьsi rĕšę ‘all said’ (a garbling of vьskrĕšo˛ ‘I shall be raised’, which begins the explicit to v. 39); cf. D syn. and DBC Jo vъ poslĕdьnii dьnь ‘on the last day’, the last words of v. 39. 5th Sun. after Easter, Jo 4: 5–42 (C fol. 186v2). D syn. Ammonian-system chapter number 33 (l©g); cf. CB SynI 31 (l©a). CB SynI explicit vьsemu miru xristosъ ‘to/of the whole world, Christ’; D syn., DBC Jo spasitelь Ø miru-[dat.] (D text mira-[gen.]) xristosъ ‘saviour to/ of the world, Christ’. 6th Sun. after Easter, Jo 9: 1–38 (C fol. 186v9). CB SynI incipit mimogrędy (C SynI -grędy) ‘passing’ ; D syn., DBC Jo mimoidy ‘passing’. 6th Thurs. after Easter, Lu 24: 36–53, Ascension (C fol. 186v14; also 6th Resurrection lec., C fol. 196r5). In both instances, CB SynI explicit blagoslovęšte boga ‘blessing God’ (C SynI alone adds anomalous o vьsĕxъ ‘for all things’); D syn. 6th Thurs., ZMDBC Lu +aminъ ‘amen’ (min. Greek variant, Nestle–Aland 1979, 1985: 236). D syn. includes here a matins lection, Mk 14: 9–19, probably intended for Ascension Day; it appears in CB SynI and is labeled in the CB rubrics for the 3rd Easter Resurrection lection. 7th Tues. after Easter, Jo 16: 2b–13a (C fol. 186v22). CB Syn I explicit vъsĕko˛ pravьdo˛ (‘Preslav’ variant); D syn., DBC Jo ‘Preslav’ portion vьsjo˛ istino ˛ ‘very truly’. 7th Thurs. after Easter, Jo 16: 23b–33a (C fol. 186v24), CB SynI misplaced explicit sъ mьnojo˛ estъ ‘is with me’; D syn., ZMDC Jo da vъ (D syn. o) mьnĕ mirъ imate ‘that in me you might have peace’ (B mis. fol.). 7th Wed. after Pentecost, Mt 14: 35–15: 11 (C fol. 188r4). CB SynI misplaced incipit pristo˛pišo˛ ‘(they) approached’, from the next day’s lection (Mt 15: 12–21); D syn., C and B Mt poznavъše isusa mo˛ži/mo˛žьe ‘the men having recognized Jesus’ (D Mt om.).30 30 

Note also the Second Saturday after Easter, Jo 6: 14–27 (C fol. 186r13), where B’s SynI incipit is vidĕvъše učenici ‘(the) disciples having seen’, vs. vidĕvъše človĕci ‘(the) persons having seen’ in D’s synaxarion and the DBC text of John. C SynI has simply vidĕvъše. In B’s Book of John, the first letter of the abbreviation člvci (B ∂lv©c¥, ‘persons’) in v. 14 is written over the second of two erased graphemes which appear to form u (u), as in u∂ênici (učenici).

curzon_2.indb 116

02/06/2008 09:20:24

3.7.  Relationships among the CB Gospel text, rubrics, and SynI

117

In the following two listings, CB SynI matches the DBC Gospel text, while D’s synaxarion does not: 3rd Mon. after Easter, Jo 4: 46b–54 (C fol. 186r15). D syn. incipit bĕ nĕkъto cĕsarь mo˛žь ‘there was a certain ruler, a man’; CB SynI, ZMDBC Jo bĕ eterъ cĕsarь mo˛žь. 4th Mon. after Easter, Jo 6: 56–69 (C fol. 186r22). D syn. misplaced incipit reče gospodь prišьdъšiimъ azъ esmъ sъš- ‘the Lord said to those who had come, “I am [abbreviation uncertain]”; cf. CB SynI, ZMDCB Jo, D rubric recĕ gospodь jady plъtь mojo˛ ‘the Lord said, “he who eats (of) my flesh”’. 3.7.4.  Discrepancies between CB SynI and CB rubrics In addition to the discrepancies shown in Section 3.7.2 between CB SynI and those CB rubrics that match the Gospel text, a few discrepancies occur solely between SynI and the CB rubrics but not the CB text, including two in Holy Week lections from Matthew. Although it is unsurprising that the textual version in the rubrics to B’s unrelated Matthew version would differ from the SynI pericopes, there are also some notable discrepancies between CB SynI and C’s rubrics in the second half of the DC version of Matthew. For the Palm Sunday matins lection (C fol. 193r13), C’s and B’s liturgical rubrics, and Vk, show a break between Mt 21: 1–11 and 15–17, which the CB SynI and H omit. CB SynI provides a pericope for the Great Compline evening service on Monday of Holy Week (CB SynI na met(h)imonĕ, Mt 21: 18–22, C fol. 194r21–2; see ss. 2.5.2.2, 5.4.2.3), but neither C’s nor B’s rubric to the lection labels it for the Great Compline.31 The lectionary incipit formula specified in CB SynI and the D syn. for the Second Thursday after Easter (C fol. 186r11) is reče gospodь prišьdъšiimъ ‘the Lord said to those who had come’, but the CB rubric to Jo 5: 24 has . . . kъ vĕrovavъšiimъ ‘. . . to those who believed’, a formula that occurs more commonly in D’s rubrics than in C’s or B’s (although D’s rubric does not include an incipit in this instance). CB SynI lists the beginning Ammonian chapter for the Meatfare Friday lection as 209 (s ©ƒ, Mk 15: 20, C fol. 192v3), having inadvertently omitted the actual incipit to the lection. The chapter numeral has been emended to 207 in B SynI, by B’s usual later editor (s©z, Mk 15: 16), to correspond to the CB text rubrics, which label v. 16 as the start of the lection and v. 20 as the location for a skip ahead to v. 22. (Cf. Vk, which begins the entire lection at v. 22.) 3.7.5.  Discrepancies between the C and B versions of CB SynI 3.7.5.1.  Chapter numeration Discrepancies between the C and B versions of SynI mainly concern the emendation of chapter numerals in B, as in the Meatfare Friday instruction, by B’s usual later editor, who also contributed the third B synaxarion. In the instruction for the Fifteenth Saturday after Pente31  Also, C’s rubric to Mt 22: 15–23, for the 13th Saturday after Pentecost, specifies that the lection is also for Holy Tuesday matins, but neither B’s rubric nor CB SynI reflects this.

curzon_2.indb 117

02/06/2008 09:20:25

118

Reconstructing the CB Antigraph for Mark, Luke, and John

cost, Mt 24: 3–13 (C fol. 189r20), C SynI specifies Ammonian chapter 242 (sm+v), whereas the last digit in B’s numeral 243 (sm+g) is an emendation by the later editor, written over an illegible erasure, most likely of the numeral v as in C SynI. The emendation in B SynI matches the chapter numeral in the margin to the lection text in both C and B, while C SynI marks the beginning of the lection at Mt 24: 1, the location at which it starts in VkH. This correspondence in C’s SynI, and apparently originally in B’s SynI, is further evidence that CB SynI was based on the rubrication system of a Vk-type long lectionary. Similarly, for the following lection (15th Sun. after Pentecost, Mt 22: 35, C fol. 189r21), the chapter numeral 225 given in C SynI (sk+ê, modern v. 41) is well ahead of where the lection actually begins, and B’s variant 224 (sk+d, v. 35) contains another final-digit emendation written over an illegible erased numeral. The CB SynI incipit, however, is zakonьnikъ eterъ ‘a certain lawyer’, which appears also in C’s rubric to the lection text, while the rubric to B’s Matthew text gives the incipit as i vъprosi edinъ otъ nixъ ‘and one of them asked’, that is, the first segment of v. 35, which immediately precedes the incipit in CB SynI and the C rubric, and which is omitted in C’s Matthew version, which begins the verse at zakonoučitelь ‘a lawyer/ doctor of law’. Neither the DC nor the B version of Mt 22: 35 contains the phrase zakonьnikъ eterъ: both versions have instead, as in C, zakonoučitelь Ø ‘a lawyer/doctor of law’. Moreover, both the DC and B rubrics mark the beginning of the lection at v. 34, which is omitted in C, and not at v. 35 as in C.32 In B’s Matthew text, however, the first words of v. 34 are written in red ink, although B’s liturgical rubric to the text specifies v. 35 as the beginning of the lection. This discrepancy in B is a result of two competing rubrication systems: the system from B’s immediate antigraph, which is represented by the red highlighting of the v. 34 text, and the system used for its liturgical rubrics, which appear to have been added by the B scribe after the text of Matthew was completed, since they are placed in the upper or lower margin of the page, not in the text as in MLJ, and are in a more orangish shade of red ink than the red portions appearing in the body of the text.33 The occurrence of anomalous zakonьnikъ eterъ as the lection incipit in both C and B SynI, and the obvious similarity between this phrase and the text variant zakonoučitelь in v. 35, suggests strongly that the SynI pericope was based on an antigraph of Matthew that had omitted v. 34 and the first portion of v. 35, as in C, and thus began the lection with zakonoučitelь. This in turn suggests that the CB SynI pericope is based on the same version of the second half of Matthew as C’s version of DC Matthew—that is, not based on the earlier DC version, since D has no omissions in vv. 34–5. There are no numerical discrepancies between C and B SynI in the post-Easter John cycle.34 In the Pentecost cycle, C’s SynI version contains numerous slight numbering discrepancies from B for lections that occur in C’s non-DBC portion of Matthew, before Chap32 

C places its rubric immediately after v. 33, but the rubric is followed by an omission of v. 34 and the beginning words of v. 35 ‘and there asked one of them’, resulting in the actual beginning of C’s lection text with zakonoučitelь Ø, that is, at the location specified in CB SynI and C’s rubric. 33  The CB SynI explicit to the same lection, at v. 46, also differs slightly from the DB and C Matthew text: CB SynI imperfective vъprašati ego (B +kъ tomu), C and B Mt text vъprositi ego kъ tomu ‘to ask him further’ (cf. D Mt vъprosi ego kъ tomu ‘asked him further’). 34  Compare 7th Sat. after Easter Jo 21: 14–25 (C fol. 186v26), where D SynI and CB SynI share the numerical error sk©z; the last digit has been erased in B.

curzon_2.indb 118

02/06/2008 09:20:25

3.7.  Relationships among the CB Gospel text, rubrics, and SynI

119

ter 15. C’s Ammonian chapter numerals for this portion correspond to D SynI, indicating that the numerals for these lections in B’s SynI were changed by the B scribe or a post-CB predecessor to match those in B’s independent version of Matthew.35 In the Pentecost cycle listings following D’s last complete listing, for the Eighth Wednesday, the C and B SynI versions contain further similar slight numerical discrepancies, and there are more occasional later corrections of the original (D)C numerals in B SynI, in the instructions to both Matthew and Mark lections. A similar pattern follows in the New Year cycle of Luke lections and the Lenten listings (for the full inventory, see anns. to SynI in vol. I). The emendations reflected in B’s SynI correspond to the chapter numerals in the outer margins of B’s Gospel text, while C’s margin numerals in Luke and John generally follow those in (D)C SynI. C does not have chapter numerals in the margins of Matthew and Mark. 3.7.5.2.  Other discrepancies As noted in the introduction to Section  3.7, B SynI contains instructions for alleluias and musical modes for the first Holy Thursday lection and Good Friday vespers, while C SynI has instructions only for the latter (C. fol. 194r10–11). The remaining discrepancies between the C and B versions of SynI are mostly minor differences in textual formulae. As an example, in the first listings in B SynI, for Bright Week, B uses the formula ‘Gospel’ (êûG±) followed by the abbreviated name of the appropriate Evangelist, e.g. ‘Gospel of John’ (êûG± ⁄∑N±), whereas C has ‘Gospel according to John’ (êûG± † ⁄∑N±). Starting at the First Sunday after Easter, B omits the abbreviation êûG± and gives only the name of the Evangelist, while C continues with the formula ‘Gospel according to’ until the Pentecost cycle, where it changes to B’s formula. Weekday instructions are preceded in CB SynI with the preposition vъ ‘on’, e.g. vъ srĕdo˛ ‘on Wednesday’, while weekend instructions omit vъ before the abbreviation for so˛bo˛to˛ ‘Saturday’ or nedĕljo˛ ‘Sunday’. On its first full page of SynI (fol. 186r), however, C inserts the preposition vъ ‘on’ before so˛bo˛to˛ ‘Saturday’ on two occasions (ll. 6, 20), and again at 186v8, 17, 26. In the instructions for the first two weeks after Easter, C SynI treats Sunday as the last day of the week for numeration purposes, while D’s synaxarion and B SynI treat it consistently as the first day: e.g. C ‘Second Sunday’ (nDê v+, fol. 186r14), DB ‘Third Sunday’ (nDê g+). C labels the following Sunday, however, as the ‘Fourth Sunday’, as in DB, omitting a ‘Third Sunday’ label (fol. 186r21), and continues to follow B’s pattern for the remainder of the cycle, with the exception of the Sixth Sunday after Easter, which C treats again as the last day of the week (‘Sixth Sunday’, fol. 186v19, later erased and emended), so that it has two ‘sixth Sundays’ for the same week, the first being at l. 9. Further evidence that B’s rubrics to its independent Matthew version were based on B SynI is the B SynI listing for the Thirteenth Saturday after Pentecost (Mt 22: 15–22, C fol. 189r4). 35  First Fri. after Pentecost, Mt 5: 33–41 (fol. 187r12), DC erroneous l©z, repeating the numeral for the preceding day’s lection, B correct l©i. 4th Sat. Mt 8: 14–23 (fol. 187v12), DC ≈©z, B ≈©i; cf. C Mt rubric ≈©q. 5th Tues. Mt 12: 14–16, 22–9 (fol. 187v15), DC rz+⁄, B r©⁄i (⁄ is a corr. from an illeg. letter, probably z). 5th Wed. Mt 12: 38–45 (fol. 187v16), DC rk©z, B rk+i. 5th Sun. Mt 8: 28–9: 1 (fol. 187v20), DC ≈©ƒ, B o©< _≤ (probably originally o©a, a repetition from Saturday); in the margin to B’s Mt text, .o+. is inserted in red ink into the margin next to vv. 27–8 (not recorded by D&R 1981: 101). 6th Mon. Mt 13: 10–23 (fol. 187v21), DC rl+a, B rl©v (v is a corr. from an illeg. letter, probably a). 7th Fri. Mt 15: 29–31 (fol. 188r6), DC rn+ƒ, B r©≈. 8th Sat. Mt 12: 30–7 (fol. 188v15), DC rk©v, B rk+g. 8th Sun. Mt 14: 14–22 (fol. 188r15). DC rm+q, B Syn r©m [ъ]. If, on the other hand, examples of the å–™ alternation can be found in a-stem case endings in other western Bulgarian and Macedonian manuscripts, then this will be strong indirect support that the alternation in C reflects a real phonological process. A comparative examination of the environments for å–™ substitutions in various medieval Bulgarian manuscripts, including a comparison of the distributions in C and Vr, warrants serious undertaking, as it is bound to shed considerable information on this issue. Since neither the ‘hard-stem’ nor the ‘soft-stem’ subparadigm of the OCS two-fold a-stem declension contains both å and ™, scribes may have been successful, for the most part, in avoiding substitutions across declensional subparadigms because they simply looked ‘wrong’ or unnatural, based on the scribes’ visual memory of the orthographic forms of individual words, in much the same way that the letter æ probably looked wrong to most scribes after ∂. Indeed, it is generally accepted by neuropsychologists that reading and writing in graphophonemic writing systems, such as the Roman or Cyrillic alphabets, involve mental storage of a skeletal visual outline of the general shape of an individual word—in other words, the pattern of peaks and valleys formed by the locations of tall and short letters, rather than a mental representation of the combination of specific graphemes, or of consonant–vowel patterns. Hence the difference in height between ™ and the other vowel letters can be expected to have resulted in a more consistent perception by scribes than usual that substitutions involving ™ did not look right. Thus the seemingly narrow å–™ issue, which invokes the more general issue of the relationship between orthography and phonology, also opens a Pandora’s box to an even broader issue, namely, the fuzzy boundaries among the categories of orthography, phonology, and morphosyntax, and their inextricable interrelationships in the erosion of the grammatical case paradigm, as reflected in C. Although a major focus of Chapter 5 was on the relationship between C’s orthographic system and the phonological and morphosyntactic realities of the

curzon_2.indb 289

02/06/2008 09:21:09

290

Conclusions

Middle Bulgarian vernacular, the orthographic system also serves to some extent as a source of information on the textual provenance of C itself. For example, the comparatively high number of matches with B in ê–« substitutions in the menology is prima facie evidence that both the B and C scribes were carefully copying the orthographic system of their immediate antigraphs for the menology, and that their antigraphs for the CB portion of the menology were, if not the same manuscript, then a very closely related pair. In light of the C scribe’s dependence on the immediate antigraph for an orthographic system, the gradual decrease over the manuscript in occurrences of the middle jus, which is most frequent in Matthew and already rare in both textual portions of John, may reflect a change in scribe, either in the immediate antigraph, or in a predecessor, at some point before John. 7.2.3.  Textological level C’s close relationship to D and B permits a reconstruction of many of the features of the earlier DBC antigraph, including many details that are not observable from a comparison of D and B alone. This is so because C is both more conservative, and physically more intact, than B. Thus, regardless of which of the two manuscripts pre-dates the other (and I have avoided taking a stand in this study on the century for B, because I have not yet come across a dated manuscript with paleographic features similar to B’s), from a textual standpoint B is the ‘younger’ of the two. C’s preservation of various portions of MLJ text that have been lost from either B or D—including a portion of Luke that is now missing from both D and B—allows it to be used both as a reasonably close supplement for B and as the only currently known source of information on the DBC version of Lu 16: 14–17: 2. C’s preservation of Jo 11: 40–12: 20, which is missing from B, also has made it possible, through comparison with D, to establish the precise location in John of the textual seam between the early Ohrid redaction for DBC Matthew and MLJ, and the replacement ‘Preslav’-lexicon redaction for the last half of John. More broadly, C’s close lexical and textual relationships with both D and B permits the establishment of a small family of Bulgarian liturgical tetraevangelia that spans a century and is currently the only positively identified family of medieval Bulgarian gospel manuscripts. In this respect, the DBC triad of manuscripts holds an equivalent position among Bulgarian tetraevangelia to the larger Serbian family consisting of the MirVkH long lectionaries and their relatives. In this respect it is particularly interesting, and perhaps curious, that C serves as a link between DBC and its Serbian alter-ego family, through its lexical and textual correspondences with H in Segment I of Matthew. C’s status as a more conservative sister of B provides an unusual opportunity to trace roughly step by chronological step how changes occurred from antigraph to apograph in the medieval Slavic tradition of Gospel transmission, as comparison of C, B, and D allows identification of which later alterations to the DBC version were made by the time of the shared CB offshoot, and which were post-CB alterations. Close comparison of Matthew in C, B, and D, and of the menologies in B and C, also provides some insights into the methodologies and practices used for compiling texts from more than one antigraph. In this respect, the preser-

curzon_2.indb 290

02/06/2008 09:21:09

7.3.  Issues resolved and outstanding

291

vation of C forces a reassessment of the content and structure of the B menology by providing information that might not be possible to glean from B alone.

7.3.  Issues resolved and outstanding 7.3.1.  The relationship between liturgical tetraevangelia and lectionaries The many striking textual correspondences that C, B, and D have with lectionaries raises the issue of the nature of the relationship between long lectionary gospels and liturgical tetra­ evangelia. Certain medieval Slavic tetras have been examined within the context of ‘lectionary influence’, and in many cases (e.g. Horálek 1954; Dobrev 1979 on Dm), the assumption has been that their textual and structural correspondences with lectionary versions indicate that the given tetra was compiled from a lectionary, with the transitional tetra verses supplemented either from a separate tetra ­antigraph, or from memory. (Note, for example, Jagić’s conclusion that the last chapters of Luke and the Book of John in Dm were copied from a lectionary, with another tetra used to fill in the text between lections, although he admits that it is unclear why this would be done; 1899: 4.) While the compilation of a tetra from both a lectionary and another tetraevangelion seems a cumbersome and not very sensible methodology, other parallel compilation methods in C indicate that selective combination of multiple antigraphs was in fact practiced by some scribes, and, at least in some cases, with good reason. There are other possible explanations, however, for the similarities between liturgical tetras like C, B, and D, and lectionaries, that do not require the positing of a lectionary ­archegraph. The most obvious ‘lectionary’ characteristic of the DBC family, which is illustrated particularly consistently in D, is the omission of tetraevangelion incipits to lections, or their substitution with traditional lectionary incipits. While this suggests reliance on a lectionary antigraph, it should not be forgotten that C, B, and D are liturgical tetras, designed specifically for liturgical use, and that as such, they contain liturgical rubrication of the same type found in lectionaries (compare the nearly identical synaxaria of (D)BC and Vk). Because scribes inserted liturgical rubrics into the text of this type of tetraevangelion, omissions or replacements of tetra verses and incipits could easily have resulted from a scribe’s having anticipated either the liturgical rubric or mid-verse lection opening, and having gotten ahead of himself in the process of interrupting the text, changing pen, and inserting the rubrics in red ink. The lectionary-type incipits in verses that are not actual beginnings of lections are more curious, however, since these may reflect the rubrication system of a considerably earlier, pre-DBC antigraph. This study has not focused on rubrication, but future comparison of the rubric locations and content in D, C, and B may provide more information on the more oddly placed lectionary incipits in D, and, occasionally, in CB. The involuntary reminiscences and other lexical and textual idiosyncrasies that are shared by Segment I of C’s Matthew version and the long lectionary H may well have stemmed from a shared tetra ancestor, since long lectionaries were originally based on tetraevangelia, at

curzon_2.indb 291

02/06/2008 09:21:09

292

Conclusions

Matthew Segment I: 6: 14–c. 15: 11 Mt 6: 14–c. 14: 22 H

Segment II: c. 15: 12–28: 20

Mt c. 14: 22–36 (–c. 15: 11?) S

DBC D, H

Mark–John Mark 1: 1–Jo 11: 54 Archaic CM redaction

Jo 11: 54–21: 25 Later redaction with younger lexicon DBC

Figure 7.1  Textual seams in the C gospel

least for some of their lections; indeed, the close relationship between the MirVkH family of long lectionaries and R, the earliest extant Serbian tetraevangelion, testifies to cross-genre borrowing. The parallels between Segment I and the Savvina Kniga in the locations of lexical and textual idiosyncracies in the Walking on Water lection suggest a more direct tie with a Savvina-type lectionary tradition (or even a pre-Savvina tetraevangelion tradition), but the correspondences with S are limited to only this portion of Segment I, and although the locations for idiosyncrasies are the same in C and S, the idiosyncrasies themselves are not; moreover, the correspondences in Segment I with S and H are in complementary distribution, with no noticeable relationship to H in this lection. This suggests that the last chapter or so of C’s Segment I was taken from a replacement source that was very likely a lectionary from the Savvina tradition: either an apograph of S, or an ancestor with lexical and textual idiosyncracies that both S and C Segment I attempted to resolve independently. The peculiar solutions reached in this portion in C, which are more outlandish than in S, suggest that a scribe in the pre-history of Segment I either was consulting a Greek source and supplying his own translation of the questionable variants from it, or was relying on memory in replacing the offending variants. In either event, this must have been an early textual seam in Segment I, and one wonders whether the scribe who conjoined Segment I with the DBC version of the rest of the Gospels did so because of dissatisfaction specifically with the Savvina-type direction that Segment I was taking during this lection, or because the DBC antigraph for Segment II and MLJ was the scriptorium’s or monastery’s ‘house’ Gospel version, and was missing the first half of Matthew. The textual seams that can be identified in the C Gospel version are shown in Figure 7.1. 7.3.2.  Greek and Italo-Greek influence As shown in Chapters 2 through 5, the DCB portions of C contain occasional secondary Graecisms. Because the C and B menologies did not originally accompany the DBC Gospel text (as indicated by the different textual version of their pericopes), the issue arises of

curzon_2.indb 292

02/06/2008 09:21:09

7.3.  Issues resolved and outstanding

293

whether the Graecisms in the CB menology—including the Greek word for ‘earthquake’, which appears twice—entered the Slavic text at the same time as the Graecisms in the CB Gospel text, or earlier. In contrast to the cyrillicized Greek works in the (D)BC Gospel text and rubrics, the Greek words and phrases in the CB portion of the C and B menologies are not secondary Graecisms, but primary ones that slipped through in the Slavic translation of a Greek calendar. The CB menology also reflects Italo-Greek influence on the textual level, in the rare Roman Catholic and pre-Basilian Constantinopolitan entries that it shares with Ekl and other menologies from Greek monasteries in Italy. This type of Greek influence is considerably different from the Graecisms in the Gospel text: textual differences between the menology pericopes and the DBC Gospel text show convincingly that the CB menology, or an expanded version, did not accompany the archegraph for the combined DBC Gospel text, and there is no particular reason to believe that the DBC Gospel version reflects a specifically Italo-Greek influence. The fact that the untranslated Greek words and phrases in the CB menology are fragments of the menology of the pre-Basilian Constantinople Typikon indicates both that the Church Slavonic translation reflected in CB is archaic, and that the Greek parent version of the menology was also quite archaic. It is of particular significance that the CB menology shares specifically Italian textual influence both with eleventh-century Italo-Greek menologies such as Ekl, and with the eleventhcentury East Slavic lectionary O and the twelfth-century Bulgarian apostolus Oh, which have been shown to share a common earlier ancestor (Loseva 1995), since this connection may offer clues toward identifying the channels by which Latin influence made its way into the canonical OCS Gospel texts. 7.3.3.  Methodologies of text compilation from multiple antigraphs The patchwork structure of the C and B long menologies, which both interweave the semishort CB menology with entries from supplementary full menologies from separate traditions, is of significance not only for the information it offers on methodologies of menology compilation, but also for the inferences that it allows to be drawn about the methodology of the compilation of the Gospel text in DBC and other liturgical tetras and long lectionaries. One of the intriguing aspects of the C and B full menologies is that both use the same archaic and rare semi-short CB menology, supplemented by entries from a later full menology, and that each uses a different Slavic full menology for this purpose. It would have been much more time- and labor-efficient simply to adopt the later full menology, instead of inserting excerpts from it for dates that were not covered in the CB menology. That both C and B took the more complicated route indicates that the scribe in each case who compiled the ‘checkerboard’ long menology, or the scriptorium or monastery whom he served, was well aware of the special value and archaic status of the CB menology, and hence made every effort to preserve as much of it as possible. The fact that C and B do not use the same supplementary long menology demonstrates that it was specifically the CB portion of the menology that was recognized as valuable, and that the choice of long menology to fill in the hiatuses was clearly secondary.

curzon_2.indb 293

02/06/2008 09:21:10

294

Conclusions

A similar, but simpler, pattern can be seen in the structure of both the C and B Gospel compilations, when viewed against the background of the C and B menologies. The pattern is not reflected in the shift of redaction in John, which occurs just at the last third of the text, at a point where an early ancestor manuscript could have broken off because of the loss of all the original subsequent folios. In this probable scenario, the substitution of a different antigraph was a matter of necessity, and its preservation in later apographs was simply a matter of accident. The pattern of the menology also probably is not reflected in the even earlier textual seam that is located either between Mark and Luke, or somewhere in the last half of Mark. If an internal comparison of D’s Matthew and Mark versus DBC Luke shows that Matthew is closer to Mark than to Luke, as is likely, then this can be attributed hypothetically to a defect in the antigraph for Matthew and Mark (e.g. the loss of one or more folios in the middle of the manuscript), which was remedied through complete replacement of the remaining Gospel text with a second antigraph. Since Luke and the Ohrid portion of John do not return to the sorts of lexical and morphological archaisms peculiar to Mark, this indicates that the Mark antigraph was not considered important enough to return to after the defective portion was substituted by the antigraph for Luke and the first half of John. The shift in C to the DBC Gospel version in mid-Matthew, however, does appear to echo in a modest way the compilation methodology and philosophy behind the C and B menologies. It is interesting that C, and perhaps also B, picks up the DBC antigraph in the second half of Matthew (and, in B’s case, close to the end of Matthew), rather than at the beginning of Mark, which would provide a less disruptive location for the textual seam. This suggests that in both instances, the DBC Gospel version held a preferred status for the scribe, or the scriptorium, in somewhat the same way that the CB menology version did, such that as much as possible of its Matthew text was reproduced, supplemented by a secondary, less valued antigraph that was pressed into service only where required as a result of missing folios in the DBC-type antigraph. The apparent preference for the DBC Gospel version in both C and B may well have been simply because of the favored status of the CB menology which the CB antigraph, and very possibly the DBC antigraph, contained. Finally, as suggested earlier, the use of primary and secondary antigraphs in the C and B menologies also has implications for the issue of whether the lectionary-type textual features of some tetraevangelia result from compilation from a lectionary, supplemented by a tetraevangelion. The fact that the C and B menologies were compiled by painstakingly interweaving antigraphs suggests that if a particular lectionary version was valued, there is no reason to assume that scribes would be any more deterred from interweaving it with a supplementary tetra version in order to adapt it into tetra form. The fact that the H long lectionary, and, to a lesser extent, some of its relatives, shares a number of the unusual lexical and textual features on both sides of the textual seam in C’s Matthew version, suggests that the Matthew lections in these lectionaries were more likely to have been taken from a tetraevangelion that bore some relationship to both segments of C’s Book of Matthew, than vice versa. But the number of correspondences in the DBC portion of C with canonical and later short lectionaries, together with the compilation methodology behind the C and

curzon_2.indb 294

02/06/2008 09:21:10

7.4.  Concluding thoughts

295

B menologies, indicates that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Slavic archegraph for the DBC Gospel version was a lectionary, supplemented by a tetraevangelion. 7.4.  Concluding thoughts Returning for a moment to the first topic of this chapter—the ornamentation patterns in C—it seems somehow emblematic that the Balkan braiding designs that C abandons after Matthew continue to be observable in the structure of the text, which is interwoven from pairs of primary and secondary antigraphs: on a minimalist level, the supplementation of Segment II of Matthew and MLJ with Segment I, and, on a more sophisticated level, the intricate intertwining of the archaic CB menology entries with supplementary entries from another textual tradition. In this respect, C can be said to have a checkered past in the most literal sense of the term. In a similar way, C’s status as a ‘working’ gospel is particularly appropriate to its value today. It is an unassuming manuscript, simple and utilitarian: water-damaged, made from cheap vellum punctuated by gaping holes, covered with later erasures, crossings-out, and corrections, and spattered with drops of candlewax. Its lack of aesthetic attributes resulted in its omission from Robert Curzon’s private catalogue, which in turn caused nineteenth- and early twentieth-century scholars who visited the Parham collection to be completely unaware of its existence. After a hiatus of approximately one hundred and fifty years, its return to circulation from obscurity has put it back into service as a ‘working’ manuscript of a different sort: a measuring instrument and point of reference for the analysis of the linguistic, textual, and structural features of other medieval Slavic gospels and menologies.

curzon_2.indb 295

02/06/2008 09:21:10

curzon_2.indb 296

02/06/2008 09:21:10

References Aitzetmüller, R. (ed.) (1966), Das Hexaemeron des Exarchen Johannes. Editiones monumentorium Slavicorum veteris dialecti, 4 (Graz). ——(ed.) (1971), Das Hexaemeron des Exarchen Johannes. Editiones monumentorium Slavicorum veteris dialecti, 6 (Graz). Alekseev, A. A., A. A. Pičxadze, M. B. Babickaja, I. V. Azarova, et al. (eds) (1998), Evangelie ot Ioanna v slavjanskoj tradicii, i: 3–54 (St. Petersburg). ——(1999), Tekstologija slavjanskoj biblii, Bausteine zur slavischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte. Neue Folge. Series A: Slavistische Forschungen, 24 (Cologne). Altbauer, M. (1973), Dobromirovo evangelie: Kirilski spomenik od XII vek, i (facs. edn.) (Skopje). Avanesov, R. I. (1989), Slovar′ drevnerusskogo jazyka (XI–XIV vv.), ii (Moscow). Baronius (1586), Caesar Baronius Soranus (ed.), Martyrologium Romanum ad novum kalendarii rationem, ex ecclesiasticae historiae veritatem restitutum. Gregorii XIII. Pont. Max. iussu editum. Accesserunt notationes atque tractatio de Martyrologio Romano (Rome). Bogdanović, D. (1977), ‘Srpski aprakosi u Xilandaru’, in A. Mošin, D. Bogdanović, B. Jovanović-Stipcević, and D. Trifunović, Zbornik Vladimira Mošina (Belgrade), 153–6. British Library (1992), Robert Curzon (1810–73) and the Levant: An exhibition in the King’s Library, 30 May to 25 October 1992 (London). British Museum (1933), Catalogue of additions to the manuscripts, 20 (1916–20) (London). Brokgauz, F. A. and I. A. Efron (eds) (1892 [1991]), Enciklopedičeskij slovar′, 13 (St. Petersburg). Bulaxovskij, L. A. (1952), ‘Voprosy istoričeskogo razvitija jazyka v svete raboty I. V. Stalina po jazykoznaniju’, in V. V. Vinogradov (ed.), Voprosy jazykoznanija v svete trudov I. V. Stalina (Moscow), 218–44. Bulgakov, S. (1913 [1993]), Nastol′naja kniga dlja svjaščenno-cerkovno-služitelej. (Sbornik svedenij, kasajuščixsja preimuččestvenno praktičeskoj dejatel′nosti otečestvennogo duxovenstva) (Moscow). Butler, F. (2005), ‘The autumn Saint George’s Day (Iur′ev Den′), the date of the Codex Assemanianus, and the dedication of Iaroslav’s Kievan Church of Saint George in the East Slavic tradition’, Palaeoslavica 13(2): 37–47. Byčkov, A. F. (1867 [1966]), ‘Zametka A. F. Byčkova o slavjanskix [sic] palimpseste’, Sbornik statej, čitannyx v Otdelenii russkogo jazyka i slovesnoti Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, i (St. Petersburg), xxvii–xxix. Capaldo, M. (1981), ‘L′abuchno-ierusalimskij paterik (Collection alphabetico-anonyme slave des Apoph­ theg­mata patrum)’, Polata k′′nigopis′naja 4: 26–49. Chatelain, E. and P. Legendre (eds) (1909), Hygini astronomica: Texte du manuscrit tironien de Milan, Biblio­ thèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Paris. Cleminson, R. (1988) (comp.), The Anne Pennington Catalogue. A union catalogue of Cyrillic manuscripts in British and Irish collections (London). Conev, B. (ed.) (1906), Dobrejšovo četveroevangele: Srednobŭlgarski pametnik ot XIII v. Bŭlgarski starini, kn. 1. —— (ed.) (1914), Vračansko evangele. Bŭlgarski starini, kn. 4 (Sofia). ——(1919, 1934, 1984), Istorija na bŭlgarskija ezik, vols. 1, 2 (Sofia). ——(1923a), ‘Knižovni starini ot Elena’, Godišnik na Sofijskija Universitet, Istoriko-filologičeski fakultet, 19(7): 1–33. ——(1923b), Opis na rŭkopisite i staropečatnite knigi na Narodnata Biblioteka v Sofia, ii (Sofia). Cooper, H. (2003), Slavic Scriptures: The formation of the Church Slavonic version of the Holy Bible (NJ: Madison).

curzon_2.indb 297

02/06/2008 09:21:10

298

references

Curzon, R. (1849a), Visits to monasteries in the Levant (London) (2nd edn. 1948, repr. 1955). Curzon, R. (1849b). Catalogue of materials for writing, early writings on tablets and stones, rolled and other manuscripts and Oriental manuscript books at Parham in the County of Somerset (London). Daničić, B. (ed.) (1864), Nikoljsko jevanđelje (Belgrade). de Rossi, Ioh. B. and L. Duchesne (eds) (1894), Martyrologium Hieronymianum ad fidem codium adiectis prolegomeni. Ex Act. SS., Novembris, ii (Brussels). Delehaye, H. (ed.) (1902), Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codices Sirmodiano, adiectis synaxarii selectis. Propylaeum ad Acta SS. Novembris (Brussels). Despodova, V. (1983), ‘Leksičkoto i semantičkoto vlijanie na grčkiot jazik vo makedonskite bibliski rakopisi’, Makedonski jazik 24: 157–65. ——(1986), ‘Karpinskoto evangelie i negovoto mesto meg´u slovenskite polni aprakosi’, Slovo 36: 171–84. ——(1988), Grigorovičevo evangelie, Br. 9 (Prilep). Despodova, V., K. Bicevska, D. Pandev, and L. Mitrevski (1995) (eds), Karpinsko evangelie. Institut za staro­ slovenska kultura, Makedonski srednovekovni rakopisi, 4 (Prilep). Diels, P. (1963), Altkirchenslavische Grammatik, mit einer Auswahl von Texten und einem Wörterbuch (Heidelberg). Djourova, A., and I. Dujčev (eds) (1978), Slavonic manuscripts from the British Museum and Library (London) (First publ. as Džurova, A. I, and Dujčev eds.) (1977), Slavjanski rŭkopisi ot Britanskija Muzej i Biblioteka (Sofia). Dmitrievskij, A. (1895/1917) (ed.), Opisanie liturgičeskix rukopisej, xranjaščixsja v bibliotekax Pravoslavnogo Vostoka, i (Kiev), iii (St. Petersburg). Dobrev, I. (1979), ‘Tekstŭt na Dobromirovoto evangelie i vtorata redakcija na starobŭlgarskite bogoslužebni knigi’, Bŭlgarski ezik 1: 9–21. Dogramadžieva, E. (1998), Pokazalecŭt “Evangelija različni na vsjaka potreba” v slavjanskite rŭkopisni evangelija (Sofia). ——(2000), ‘Sinaksarnite četiva v rannite slavjanski evangelski rŭkopisi’, Palaeobulgarica XXIV: 1 (3–40). Dogramadžieva, E. and B. Rajkov (eds) (1981), Baniško evangelie: Srednobŭlgarski pametnik ot XIII vek (­Sofia). Drinov, M. (1870), ‘Novi pametnici za istorijata na bŭlgarite i na texnite sŭsedi: Pismo No. 4 (12 maj, 1870)’, Periodičesko spisanie na Bŭlgarskoto Knižovno Družestvo v Braila, 2: 56–8. Duridanov, I. (1956), ‘Kŭm problemata za razvoja na bŭlgarskija ezik sintetisŭm kŭm analitizŭm’, Godišnik na sofijskija universite: Filologičeski fakultet 51(3): 85–274. Džurova, A. (ed.) (1981), 1000 godini bŭlgarska rŭkopisna kniga (Sofia). Eckhardt, Th. (1989), ‘Azbuka: Versuch einer Einführung in das Studium der slavischen Paläographie’, Wie­ ner Archiv für Geschichte des Slavwentums u. Osteuropas, xiv. (Vienna). Fasmer, M. (1986), Etimologicheskij slovar ′ russkogo jazyka, ii (Moscow). Filov, B. (1929), ‘Londonskoto evangelie na Ivan Aleksandra i negovite miniatjuri (Dokladvano v Istorikofilologičeskija klon na 20 oktombri 1927 g.)’, Spisanie na BAN. Klon istoriko-filologičen i filosofskoobštestven, 38(20): 1–32. Follieri, E. (1980), I calendari in metro innografico di Cristoforo Mitileneo, vols. 1, 2 (Brussels). Fraser, I. H. C. (1986), The heir of Parham: Robert Curzon, fourteenth Baron Zouche (London). Georgiev, Vl. (1961), ‘Nastavkata -op i proizxodŭt na dumite vъrzop, vъrtop, vъpa’, Bŭlgarski ezik kn. 4: 302–7. Gerdžikov, G. (1987), ‘Neravnomernijat xod na razvoja kŭm analitizŭm v različnite zvena na sistemata i negovite pričini’, in D. Ivanova-Mirčeva and E. Dogramadžieva, Vtori meždunaroden kongres po bŭlgaristika (Sofia, 23 May–3 June 1986). Dokladi, ii (Sofia), 32–41. Granstrem, E. È. and D. S. Lixačev (eds) (1953), Opisanie russkix i slavjanskix pergamennyx rukopisej (Lenin­ grad). Grot, K. (1887), ‘Londonskie zametki: Slavjanskie rukopisi Britanskogo muzeja. Slavistika v Anglii’, Russkij filologičeskij vestnik, 17: 1–29.

curzon_2.indb 298

02/06/2008 09:21:10

references

299

Gudev, P. T. (1892), ‘Bŭlgarski rŭkopisi v bibliotekata na lord Zouche’, Sbornik za narodni umotvorenija, nauka i knižnina, č. vii: 159–223; č. viii: 137–68. Hannick, C. (1992), ‘Liturgische Merkmale einer Bestimmung der kirchlichen Einflusse in der kiever Rus’, in Tachiaos, A.-E. N. (ed.), The Legacy of Saints Cyril and Methodius to Kiev and Moscow: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Millennium of the Conversion of Rus’ to Christianity, Thessaloniki 26–8 November 1988, (Thessaloniki), 305–19. Holweck, F. G. (ed.) (1924 [1990]), A biographical dictionary of the saints with a general introduction on hagiology, (Mo.: St. Louis and London). Horálek, K. (1954), Evangeliáře a čtveroevangelia. Přísprĕvsky k textové kritice a k dĕjinám staroslovĕnského překladu evangelia (Prague). Il Men. (1907), Il Menologio di Basilio II (Cod. Vaticano Graeco 1613). ii (Tavole). Ivanov, J. (1906), Severna Makedonija. Istoričeski izdirvanija (Sofia). Jagić/Jagič, V. (1879a [1954]) (ed.), Quattuor evangeliorum Codex glagoliticus olim Zographensis nunc Petropolitanus (Berlin) [Graz]. ——(1879b), ‘Wie lautete ø bei den alten Bulgaren?’, Archiv für Slavische Philologie, 3: 312–37. ——(1882), ‘Slavica im British Museum’, Archiv für slavische Philologie, 6: 617–18. —— (ed.) (1883 [1960]), Quattuor evangeliorum versionis palaeoslovenicae Codex Marianus glagoliticus (Berlin) [Graz]. ——(1898 [1960]), Evangelium Dobromiri: Ein altmacedonisches Denkmal der kirchenslavischen Sprache des XII. Jahrhunderts. Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Classe, cxxxviii, II Abh. ——(1899), Evangelium Dobromiri. II. Lexicalisch-kritischer Teil. Jahrhunderts Sitzungsberichte de kaiser­ lichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien: Philosophisch-historische Classe, cxl, III Abh. ——(1913), Entstehungsgeschichte der kirchenslavischen Sprache (2d edn.) (Berlin). Janin, R. (1969), La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin. I-e partie: Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat oecuménique, iii, Les églises et les monastères (2nd edn.) (Paris). Jireček, C. (1879), ‘Altslavische Handschriften in England’, Archiv für slavische Philologie 3: 131–3. Karskij, E. F. (1928), Slavjanskija kirillovskaja paleografija (Leningrad) (2nd edn. 1979). Knjazevskaja, O. A., L. A. Korobenko, and E. P. Dogramadžieva (eds) (1999), Savvina kniga. Drevneslavjanskaja rukopis’ XI, XI–XII i konca XIII veka (Moscow). Knjazevskaja, O. A., N. S. Koval′, O. E. Košeleva, and L. V. Moškova (eds) (1988), Katalog slavjano-russkix rukopisnyx knig XI–XIV vv., xranjaščixsja v CGADA SSSR, č. 1 (Moscow). Koceva, E. (1985), ‘Cerkovnye ustavy i izučenie slavjanskix rukopisej X–XIV vv.: Predvaritel′nye zamečanija, Polata k′′nigopis′naja 13: 44–9. Koceva, E. and A. Atanasov (1991), ‘Osobenosti v sŭdŭržanieto na Apostol No. 882 ot Narodnata Biblioteka “Sv.Sv. Kiril i Metodij” v Sofia’, Kirilo-metodievski studii 8: 292–319. ——(1993), ‘Carigradskijat mesecoslov ot X vek i kalendari v bŭlgarski pismeni pametnici’, in M. Bŭčvarov, E. Dogramadžieva, and S. Nikolova (eds), Xiljada i osemdeset godini ot smŭrtta na sv. Naum Oxridski, 214–41. Kodov, Xr. (ed.) (1969), Opis na slavjanskite rŭkopisi v Bibliotekata na Bŭlgarskata Akademija na Naukite (Sofia). Kolev, D., A. Kalojanov, and V. Koleva (1997), ‘Pleiades in the Bulgarian folk culture’, in A. Lebeuf and M. S. Ziółkowski (eds), Actes de la V-ième Conférence Annuelle de la SEAC, Gdańsk, 1997 (Warsaw/Gdańsk), 173–90. ——(1998), ‘Plejadite v bulgarskata narodna kultura’, in R. Popov and S. Grebenarova (eds), Etnografski pro­ blemi na narodnata kultura, v (Sofia), 248–74. Koneski, B. (1965), Istorija na makedonskiot jazik (Skopje) (2d edn., 1981). Kossek, N. V. (1984), ‘O leksike srednebolgarskix evangelij’, Palaeobulgarica, 8(3): 57–69. ——(ed.) (1986), Evangelie Koxno (Sofia).

curzon_2.indb 299

02/06/2008 09:21:11

300

references

Kovačev, I. (1914), ‘Narodna astronomija i meteorologija’, Sbornik na narodnite umetnosti 30: 1–85. Krasnosel′cev, P. (1892), ‘Tipik Cerkvi sv. Sofii v Konstantinopole (IX v.)’, Letopis’. Istoriko-filologičeskogo obščestva pri Imperatorskoj Novorossijskogo universitete. Vizantijskoe otdelenie, ii: 163–254 (Odessa). Krŭstanov, T., A.-M, Totomanova, and I. Dobrev (eds) (1996), Vatikansko evangelie. Starobŭlgarski kirilski aprakos ot X v. v palimpsesten kodekc Vat. Gr. 2505 (Sofia). Kudrjavcev, I. M. (ed.) (1961), Gosudarstvennaja Biblioteka SSSR imeni V. I. Lenina, Otdel rukopisej. Muzejnoe sobranie rukopisej (Moscow). Kuev, K. (ed.) (1979, 1986), Sŭdbata na starobŭlgarskata rŭkopisna kniga prez vekovete (1st/2nd edns.)(Sofia). Kulič, J. (ed.) (1992), Ricerca sulle commenmorazioni giornaliere bizantine nei menei (Rome). Kul′bakin, St. M. (ed.) (1907), Oxridskaja rukopis′ apostola konca XII veka. Bŭlgarski starini, iii. Kurz, J. (ed.) (1955), Evangeliář Assemanův. Kodex Vatikánsky 3. slovanský, díl II. Úvod, text v přepise cyrilském, poznámky textové, seznamy čtení (Prague) Kurz, J., A. Dostál, K. Horálek, B. Havránek, Fr. Mareš, et al. (eds) (1974), Slovník jazyka staroslovĕnského Československé akademie vĕd, ix (Prague). ——(eds) (1987), Slovník jazyka staroslovĕnského Československé akademie vĕd, 40 (Prague). Lavrov, P. A. (1914), Paleografičeskoe obozrenie kirillovskogo pis′ma. Enciklopedia slavjanskoj filologii, 4(1), Petrograd. Leskien, A. (1878), ‘Bemerkungen über den Vocalismus der mittelbulgarischen Denkmäler’, Archiv für slavische Philologie II: 269–88. Lindstedt, J. (1988), ‘Nasal vowels in the Cyrillo-Methodian language and in dialects of southeast Macedonia’, Studia slavica Finlandensia, 5: 69–83. Ljapunov, B. M. (1899), Issledovanie o jazyke sinodal′nogo spiska 1-oj Novgorodskoj letopisi (St. Petersburg). Loseva, O.V. (1995), ‘O rodstve mesjaceslovov Ostromirova Evangelija i Oxridskogo Apostola’, Zapiski otdela rukopisej. Rossijskaja Gosudarstvennaja Biblioteka 50: 324–9 (Moscow). ——(2001), Russkie mesjaceslovy XI–XIV vekov (Moscow). Lunt, H. G. (1959), Old Church Slavonic Glossary (Cambridge, Mass.) (corr. mimeograph reprint 1969). ——(1981–82), ‘On the Old Church Slavonic Codex Assemanianus’, Makedonski jazik 32–3: 405–15. ——(1984), ‘On editing early Slavic manuscripts: The case of the Codex Suprasliensis, the Mstislav Gospel, and the Banica Gospel’, International journal of Slavic linguistics and poetics, 30: 7–76. ——(2001), Old Church Slavonic Grammar (Berlin/New York) (7th revised edn.) Lusén, I. (ed.) (1995) Grečesko-staroslavjanskij konkordans k drevnejšim spiskam slavjanskogo perevoda evangelij (codices Marianus, Zographensis, Assemanianus, Ostromiri) (Uppsala). MacRobert, C. M. (1993), ‘A missing link in the early tradition of the Church Slavonic Psalter (the Tolstoy, Sluck, Eugenius and Vienna Psalters and MS 34 for the Moscow Synodal Typography)’, Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch, 39: 57–81. ——(2005), ‘On the problems of identifying a “Preslav redaction” of the Psalter’, Acta Paleaoslavica, 2: 39–46 (Sofia). Maas, P. (1960), Textkritik (4th edn.) (Leipzig). Maltzew, P. (1900), Menologium der Orthodox-Katholischen Kirche des Morgenlandes (Berlin). Martinov, I. (1863 [1963]), Annus Ecclesiasticus Graeco-Slavicus, 11, Octobris, Brussels.. Matejic, P. and H. Thomas (eds) (1992), Catalog. Manuscripts on microform of the Hilandar Research Library (The Ohio State University) (Columbus). Mateos, J. (ed.) (1962), ‘Le Typikon de la Grande Église: Ms. Sainte-Croiz no. 40, Xe siècle: Le Cycle des douze mois’, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 165(1). Michel, G. M. (ed.) (1987), Das Plovdiver Evangeliar, Slavische Sprachen und Literaturen, 14 (Neuried). Migne, J.-P. (ed.) (1864), ‘Menologii graecorum’ (Menology of Emperor Basil II Porphyrogenos), Patrologiae graecae, cxvii: 20–614. Miklas, H. (1988), ‘Kyrillomethodianisches und nachkyrillomethodianisches Erbe im ersten ostslavischen Einfluß auf die südslavische Literatur’, in K. Trost, E. Völk, and E. Wedel (eds), Symposium Metho­ dianum. Beiträge der Internationalen Tagug in Regensburg (17–24 Apr. 1985) zum Gedenken an den 1100. Todestag des hl. Method. Selecta Slavica, 13: 437–71.

curzon_2.indb 300

02/06/2008 09:21:11

references

301

Miklas, H. and M. Šniter (1998), ‘Imena i dati. Predvaritelni rezultati ot izsledvaneto na t. nar. “zapaden fond” v slavjanskite mesecoslovi’, in A. Miltenova (ed.), Medievistika i kulturna antropologija. Sbornik v čest na prof. Donka Petkanova, 27–36. Miklosich, F. (1876), Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen, iii: Formenlehre (1st edn 1856), Vienna). —— (ed.) (1862–65), Lexicon palaeoslovenico-graeco-latinum: Emendatum auctem (Vienna) (facs. reprint, 1977, Aalen). Mirčev, K. (1963), Istoričeska gramatika na bŭlgarskija ezik (Sofia) (2nd edn.). Mištenko, Ž. (1986), ‘Njakoi osobenosti na Tŭrnovskija ustav ot XIV v.’, Palaeobulgarica, 9(1): 6–19. Momčilov, I. (1865), Sbornik ot obrazci za izučaveneto na starobŭlgarskija ezik po sičkoto mu razvitie (­Vienna). Mošin, V. A. (ed.) (1954), ‘Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti’. Institut za makedonski jazik. Stari tekstovi, i: Makedonsko Evangelie na pop Jovana (Skopje). Mošin, V. (ed.) (1966), Paleografski album na južnoslovenskoto kirilsko pismo (Skopje). Moszyński, L. (1961), Ze studiów nad rękopisem Kodeksu Zografskiego (Wrocław/Warsaw/Cracow). E. Nestle, K. Aland et al. (eds) (1985), Novum Testamentum Graece (revised 26th edn.) (Stuttgart). Nikodemos, H. (ed.) (1868), Zunaxaristhvı tw`n dwvdeka mhnw`n tou` eJniautou`, i–ii (Athens). Pentkovskij, A.M. (1988), ‘Priloženie 1. Lekcionarii i četveroevangelija XI v. s raznočtenijami po rukopisjam XI–XVI vv’, in A. A. Alekseev, A. A. Pičxadze, M. B. Babickaja, I. V. Azarova et al. (eds) (1998), Evangelie ot Ioanna v slavjanskoj tradicii, i: 3–54 (St. Petersburg). Pešikan, M. and G. Jovanović (1974–75). ‘Tekstološki sastav i osnovne odlike teksta najstarijix srpskix četvorojevangélja’, Južnoslovenski filolog 31: 23–49. Pius (1913), Pope Pius X (ed.), Martyrologium Romanum. Editio Typica Vaticana auspice SS.D.N. Pio Papa X Confecta (Rome). Rajkov, B., S. Kožuxarov, Xr. Kodov, and H. Miklas (eds) (1994), Opis na slavjanskite rŭkopisi v biblio­tekata na Zografskija Manastir v Sveta Gora (Sofia). Ribarova, Z. (1984), ‘Kon pravopisot na nosovkite vo severomakedonskite tekstovi: Mešanje na nosovkite vo Radomirovoto evangelie’, Makedonski jazik 34: 197–204. ——(1991), ‘Makedonskata pismenost vo 13 vek’, in Seminar za Makedonski Jazik, Literatura i Kultura (Univerzitet ‘Kiril i Metodij’, Skopje), Predavanja na XXIII Seminar za Makedonski Jazik, Literatura i Kultura. Skopje i Oxrid, 3–22 August 1990 (Skopje). Rodić, N. and G. Jovanović (eds) (1986), Miroslavljevo jevanđelje. Kritičko izdanje. Srpska Akademija nauka i umetnosti. Istitut za srpskoxrvatski jezik. Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i književnost srpskog naroda, I odeljenje, kn. 32. Rozov, N. N., and P. Nechaev (eds) (1988), Ostromirovo evangelie 1056–7 goda. Faksimil′noe vosproizvedenie pamjatnika, xranjasščegosja v Gosudarstvennoj Publičnoj Biblioteke imeni M.E. Saltykova-Ščedrina v Leningrade (Leningrad). Rusek, J. (1974), ‘Bŭlgarskoto dialektno “vŭrzobŭl”’, in L. Andrejčin, Vl. Georgiev, Iv. Lekov, K. Mirčev, et al. (eds), Ezikovedski izsledvanija v pamet na prof. d-r St. Stojkov (Sofia), 293–8. Sadnik, L. and R. Aitzetmüller (eds) (1955), Handwörterbuch zu den altkirchenslavischen Texten. Slavistic printings and reprintings, vi (The Hague). Ščepkin, V. N. (ed.) (1903 [1959]), Savvina kniga. Pamjatniki staroslavjanskogo jazyka, t. I (2) (Moscow) [Graz]. ——(1906), Bolonskaja psaltyr′. Issledovanija po russkomu jazyku, ii(4), (St. Petersburg). Schiro, I. (ed.) (1966), Analecta Hymnica Graeca e codicibus eruta Italiae inferioris, i (Rome). Schnitter, M. and H. Miklas (1999), ‘Kyrillomethodianische Miszellen: Westliche Einträge in den ältesten kirchenslavischen Kalendarien’, in E. Hansack, W. Koschmal, N. Nübler, and R. Večerka (eds), Festschrift für Klaus Trost zum 65. Geburtstage (Munich), 259–88. Šniter, M. (1995) ‘Sveti Arnulf i Kral Arnulf ’, Palaeobulgaria, 21(1): 15–21. Šelamanova, N. B., E. È. Granstrem, V. Malyšev I, and M. V. Ščepkina (eds) (1965), ‘Predvaritel′nyj spisok slavjano-russkix rukopisej XI–XIV v., xranjaščixsja v SSSR (dlja “Svodnogo kataloga rukopisej xranjaščixsja v SSSR, do konca XIV v. vključitel′no”)’, Arxeologičeskij ežegodnik za 1965 g., 177–258.

curzon_2.indb 301

02/06/2008 09:21:11

302

references

Severjanov, S. (ed.) (1904 [1956]), Codex Suprasliensis tt. I-II (St. Petersburg) [Graz]. Skomoroxova-Venturini, L. and A. Naumov (1985), ‘Banickoe evangelie kak bogoslužebnyj pamjatnik’, Palaeo­bulgarica, 9(1): 73–101. Slavova, T. (1989), ‘Preslavska redakcija na Kirilo-Metodievija starobŭlgarski evangelski prevod’, KirikoMetodievski studii, 6: 15–29. Šmidt, S. O., L. P. Žukovskaja, N. N. Pokrovskij, et al. (eds) (1984), Svodnyj katalog slavjano-russkix rukopisnyx knig, xranjaxčixsja v SSSR. XI–XIII vv (Moscow). Šniter, M. (1995), ‘Sveti Arnulf i kral Arnulf ’, Palaeobulgarica, 19(1): 15–21. Spasskij, Arxiepiskop Sergij (1900), Polnyj mesjaceslov Vostoka, i (Moscow) (2nd. edn.). ——(1901), Polnyj mesjaceslov Vostoka, ii (Moscow) (2nd. edn.). Sreznevskij, I. I. (1872), ‘Slavjanskie rukopisi Britanskogo muzeja v Londone i Bodlejskoj biblioteke v Oksforde’, Izvestija Imperatorskogo arxeologičeskogo obščestva, 7(3): 233–5. ——(1876) [1965], Svedenija i zametki o maloizvestnyx i neizvestnyx pamjatnikax, t. II (St. Petersburg). ——(1893) [1971], Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka, i (St. Petersburg) [Graz]. ——(1902) [1971], Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka, ii (St. Petersburg) [Graz]. ——(1906) [photo reprint 1971], Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka, iii (St. Petersburg) [Graz]. Stankov, R. (1991), ‘Lokalizacija drevnebolgarskix perevodnyx tekstov v svete tak nazyvaemoj “oxridskoj” i “preslavskoj” leksiki (Na materiale Istoričeskoj Palei)’, Palaeobulgarica, 15(4): 82–91. Stender-Petersen, A. (1927), Slavisch-germanische Lehnwortkunde. Göteborgs Kungl. Vetenskaps- och Vitterhets-Samhälles Handlingar, 4. 31(4) (Göteborg) (Repr. 1974, Hildesheim). Stephens, L. (ed.) (1888), Dictionary of national biography, 13 (London). Stojanov, M. and X. Kodov (eds) (1964), Opis na slavjanskite rŭkopisi v Sofijskata Narodna Biblioteka (Sofia). Syrku, P. A. (1908), ‘Slavjanskie i russkie rukopisi Britanskogo muzeja v Londone’, Sbornik Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, 84(4)(3–4): 1–86. Tarnanidis, I.C. (1988), The Slavonic manuscripts discovered in 1975 on Mount Sinai (Thessaloniki). Temčin, S. Ju. (1997a), ‘O razgraničenii leksičeskix arxaizmov i innovacij v cerkovnoslavjanskom tekste: ­Varianty kъnižьnikъ i kъnigъčii v spiskax evangelija XI–XVI vv.’, Slavistica Vilnensis 45: 64–79. ——(1997b), ‘Tekstologičeskaja istorija Banickogo evangelija po dannym vnutrennej rekonstrukcii’, Palaeo­ bulgaria, 1: 48–62. ——(1998a), ‘O rodstve pskovskogo Javilova četrevoevangelija ok. 1341 g. s zapadnobolgarskimi tetrami X– II–XIV vekov’, Tekso analizė ir interpretacija. Tarptautinės konferencijos pranešimai Šiauliai, 1998 m. lapkričio 11–12 d. (Šiauliai, Lithuania), 177–82 (Šiauliai). ——(1998b), ‘Tekstologičeskaja istorija Dobromirova evangelija po dannym vnutrennej rekonstrukcii’, Makedonski jazik 45–7 (1994–6): 81–106. Toscani, T. (ed.) (1864), Ad typica Graecorum ac praesertim ad typicum cryptoferratense S. Bartholomaei ­Abbatis (Rome). Turilov, A. A. (2000), ‘Posle Klimenta i Nauma (Slavjanskaja pis′mennost′ na territorii oxridskoj arxiepiskopii v X—pervoj polovine XIII v.)’, in B. N. Florja, A.A. Turilov, and S. A. Ivanov (eds), Sud′by kirillomefodievskoj tradicii posle Kirilla i Mefodija, razd. I, č. IV, cc. 82–162. Ugrinova-Skalovska, R. and Z. Ribarova (1988) (eds), ‘Radomirovo evangelie’. Stari tekstovi, iv (Skopje). Uspenskij, B. A. (1988), ‘Russkoe knižnoe proiznošenie XI–XII vv. i ego svjaz′ s južnoslavjanskoj tradiciej (Čtenie erov)’, in K. V. Gorškova and G. A. Haburgaev (eds), Aktual′nye problemy slavjanskogo jazykoznanija (Moscow), 99–156. Uspenskij, F. (1878), ‘O nekotoryx slavjanskix i po slavjanski pisannyx rukopisjax, xranjaščixsja v Londone i Oksforde’, Žurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveščenija, č. 199(2): 1–121, č. 200(2): 63–94. Vaillant, A. (1906 [1964]), Manuel du Vieux Slave, i: Grammaire (Paris). Vakareliyska, C. (1993), ‘A preliminary comparison of the Curzon and Banica Gospels’, Oxford Slavonic ­Papers. New Series, 26: 1–39. Vakareliyska, C. (1994), ‘The Curzon Gospel menology (W. Bulgaria, c.1354): Anomalies and archaisms’, Indiana Slavic Studies 7: 264–72.

curzon_2.indb 302

02/06/2008 09:21:11

references

303

——(1996), ‘The lost Banica Gospel folia from Luke and John: Equivalent passages from the Curzon Gospel with comparative annotations’, Polata k′′nigopis′naja, 30: 50–177. ——(1997), ‘Twin Serbian menologies’, Die Welt der Slaven, 42: 137–49. ——(2000), ‘Precenjavane na mesecoslova ot Baniškoto evangelie. Novi danni ot edin sestrin rŭkopis’, in A. Miltenova (ed.), Bulgarian studies at the dawn of the twenty-first century: A Bulgarian–American perspective (Sofia), 219–32. Velčeva, B. (1969), ‘Kŭm ustanovjavaneto na srednobŭlgarskite pravopisni tipove (Stamatovo četveroevangelie ot XIII vek)’, Izvestija na Instituta za Bŭlgarski Ezik, 27: 233–86. ——(ed.) (1975), Dobromirovo evangelie. Bŭlgarski pametnik ot načaloto na XII vek (Sofia). ——(1980), Praslavianski i starobulgarski fonologicheski izmenenija (Sofia). von Soden, H. (ed.) (1913), Griechisches Neues Testament. Text mit kurzem Apparat (Handausgabe) (Göttingen). Vostokov, A. X. (ed.) (1843/1864), Ostromirovo evangelie 1056–7 goda (St. Petersburg) (facs. reprint 1964, 1997, Wiesbaden). Vrana, J. (1960), ‘Über das vergleichende Sprach- und Textstudium altkirchenslavischen Evangelien’, Die Welt der Slaven, 5(4): 418–28. ——(ed.) (1967), Vukanovo evanđelje. Srpska Kraljevska Akademija. Posebna izdanja, kn. CDIV, Odeljenje literature i jezika, kn. 18. Xristova, B., Karadžova, D., and Ikonomova, A. (eds) (1982), Bŭlgarski rŭkopisi ot XI do XVII vek zapazeni v Bŭlgaria. Svoden katalog, i (Sofia). Xristova, I. (1994), ‘Troparite v Eninskija apostol’, Palaeobulgarica, 18(4): 86–101. Žukovskaja, L. P., L. A. Vladimirova, and N. P. Pankratova (eds) (1983), Aprakos Mstislava Velikogo (Moscow).

curzon_2.indb 303

02/06/2008 09:21:11

curzon_2.indb 304

02/06/2008 09:21:11

Index abbreviations ​119, 132, 152, 169, 170, 175, 186, 195; English xvii–­xix abьe ​29, 113, 192, 198, 216 accusative case, see case inflections; morphosyntax; vowel letter alternations Acts and Epistles, see apostolus agodica, see jagodica adjectives, contractions ​164; dat. sg. -umu vs. -omu ​174; definite ​87, 176; dual -oju ​198; vs. prepositional phrase ​264 a-­elision ​178 Agram Oktoich ​166 Aitzetmüller, R. ​267 n. 77; see also Sadnik, L. and Aitzetmüller, R. aky, see jaky alavastro mira ​134, 169, 223 Alekseev, A. A. ​2 n. 1, 6, 18 n. 11, 77 aleksędr-  169 alektorъ/alextorъ ​94 n. 18, 107, 168, 179–80 alleluias ​111, 189, 216, 228, 237–8, 266, 283, 285, see also antiphones; communion verses; liturgical instructions Altbauer, M. and Lunt, H. ​18 n. 12 alternations, see case inflections; consonant letters; verb forms; vowel letter alternations Ammonian chapters ​111, 116, 197, 211–12, see also chapter numeration anomalous i-­stem declension ​88–9, 177 antipasxa ​180, 189 aorist ​16, 73, 89, 107, 173, 187; 3Du ​16, 90–1, 186, 196; 3Pl in -xǫ ​107; sigmatic ​150; X-­aorist ​89, 174, 3Pl productive in -še ​154, 186–7, see also participles; verb forms apostolus ​244, 283 aprakos, see lectionary gospels archaisms, lexical ​24, 74, 112, 116, 198, 235; in menology ​ 237–43; morphological ​173–4, 185; orthographic ​ 136, 139, 158, 163, 165, 166; see also eterъ; Graecisms; grędǫtъ Archangel′sk Gospel (Arx)  239, 279 Archimandrite Sergij see Spasskij, Archimandrite Sergij Arumanian ​231 Assemanianus, Codex (A)  2, 7, 10, 31, 46, 47, 57, 60, 61, 69, 77 n. 76, 100, 110, 136, 170 n. 90, 174, 175, 179 n. 104, 181, 188, 192 n. 2, 200, 202, 215, 220, 223; menology ​ 237, 239, 241, 250, 267, 279 astronomical events, see comet over Constantinople; Pleiades Atanasov, A., see Koceva, E. and Atanasov, A. Auslaut ​163, 164–5

curzon_2.indb 305

bagъrĕn-  22, 52, 71, 146 n. 49 Balkan Sprachbund ​288 Baronius, Cardinal ​240, 270 n. 91; see also martyrologies bečestьn-  169 bez(ъz)aapa ​28, 92 bĕsiti sę ​25 bĕstvo ​106 bližьn-  21, 214 bljudo/bljudъ ​26 blьgarьskъ ​171, 233 n. 19 Bogdanov Gospel ​206 n. 19 Bogdanović, D. ​193 n. 3 Bojansko Gospel ​252 Bologna Psalter ​154 bǫdrъ–­bъdrъ ​84, 153 braiding, Balkan ​81, 82, 128–9, 174, 193, 194, 287, 295 broad o ​130 Brokgaus, F. A. and Efron, I. A. ​267 Bulaxovskij, L. A. ​159 Bulgarian, Contemporary Standard ​28, 45, 288 Bulgarian Church Slavonic, see Church Slavonic, Bulgarian Bulgarian, Middle (vernacular) ​75, 82–3, 289; see also case inflections; dialects Bulgarisms ​75 Butler, F. ​250 bystъ, see i bystъ calendars ​83, 226, 288; modern ​237; wall calendars ​238; see also menaia; menology; prologues; typika; saints calques from Greek, see lexical features Capaldo, M.  xi n. 1 Capuan Gospel ​240 carii gradъ/konъstantina gradъ ​265 case, inflections and forms ​16, 17, 87–9; archaisms ​173–4, a-­stems ​17, 87, 274; erosion of ​142, 158–67, 288–90, f. def. sg. adj. in -ojǫ ​174; gen. pl. vs. gen. sg. collec. 175; innovations ​173, 174–5; instr. pl. in -ьmi ​89, 175; loc. pl. in -ovĕxъ ​196; personal pronouns ​160, 153; vocative ​169, 196; see also dative absolute; i-­stem nouns; misagreement; morphological features; morphosyntactic features; ‘virile’ accusative; vowel letter alternations cęta ​21, 113 chapter numeration ​111, 116, 117–19, 120–2, 123, 189, 197, 212–13, 229 n. 5; see also Ammonian chapters; rubrication Chatelain, E. and Legendre, P. ​267 n. 77, 272 churches, St. Anne at Constantinople (and Chapel of the Virgin Mary)  239, 245, 252; Archangel Michael at Anaplus ​245; Forty Women Martyrs at Tŭrnovo ​

02/06/2008 09:21:12

306

index

churches (cont.) 237; St. Euphemia near the Port of Neorion ​258, 267, 268; St. George at the Cypresses ​246, 250–1, at Kiev ​231 n. 9, 250–1, at Lydda, Palestine ​251; Hagia Sophia ​247, 250; Ss. Hermylus and Stratonicus ​241, 258, 271; St. James at Chalkoprateia/‘Jerusalem’ 245, 254; St. John the Baptist in Naples ​240, St. John the Evangelist/Theologian at Beatus ​246, 249, 274; St. Mamas in Sigma ​260, 275; Ss. Sergius and Bacchus ​258; Virgin Mary at Blachernai ​252, 254, 260, at Chalkoprateia ​244, 249, 262, at the Source, in Pege ​260, 274 Cleminson, R. ​184 n. 109 clitics ​45, 53, 133, 134, 150, 176, 219 codices, see Assemanianus, Codex; Marianus, Codex; Suprasliensis, Codex codicological features of CB ​80; of C ​181, 228 collective noun suffix ​87, 215 colophons in B ​80, 188 comet over Constantinople ​257, 267 n. 78 communion verses ​228, 237–8, 285 compilation of texts ​1, 2–7, 124–5, 127–31, 192–3, 224–5, 230, 287–8; see also liturgical tetraevangelia; Matthew; menology compline, see Great Compline service conditional mood ​60–1, 109, 196 Conev, B.  xi, xiii, 12, 82 n. 5, 131, 180, 190, 194 n. 5, 218, 220 conjunction i, see i-­elision consonant letters, alternations ​168–9; in menology ​231–2; ƒ-­t ​168; k–x ​168, 178 n. 102, 192 consonants, alternations ​168–9, 170, 189; devoicing assimilation ​106, 169; dispalatalization ​12, 16, 82, 136–7, 162, 163, 166; dissimulation ​168; epenthetic l ​ 148 n. 57, 152, 168 n. 88; gemination ​169, 197; ‘hard’ 166; liquids ​165, 168 n. 71; nasals ​164–5, 169, 171–2; palatal ​140, 165; palatalization ​160, 164, 165; truncation ​168–9, 250–1, 189; see also consonant letters Constantinian Order of St. George ​272, 281 Constantinople ​237–9; founding of ​236, 241–2, 257, 270, 281 Constantinople Typikon  xiii, 5, 111, 228; Basilian edition (Bas)  237, 242 n. 41, 249, 252, 265, 272, 275, 276, 279, 280; pre-­Basilian (first) edition ​235, 237–43, 249–52, 262, 264, 265, 266, 268–70, 271–2, 273, 274, 275, 278, 279, 280–5, 293 contamination, see reminiscences conventions ​18, orthographic ​134, 137, 138, 146, 148 n. 59, 151, 152–3, 155, 158–9, 161–2, 172, Central Balkan ​163, 165, 166, Serbian ​85; used in this volume  xiii–xiv, 10–11, 14 n. 6, 83 n. 8, 197 n. 8, 208 n. 22, 244, 249 n. 47; western Bulgarian ​85; see also consonant letter alternations; dialects; orthographic features; orthographic systems; palaeographic features; vowel letter alternations contractions, see adjectives; consonants; imperfect; suffixes Cooper, H. ​18 n. 11 Crkolez Gospel (Crk)  206, 207 crkovnaja ​16

curzon_2.indb 306

Curzon, R. ​295 Cyrillo-­Methodian (Ohrid) redaction, see lexical features; redactions Czech, Contemporary Standard ​159 časъ/godina ​27, 49, 71, 100, 114, 215 česo dĕlja, see dĕlja čest-/čьst-  133 dajaše ​185 Daničić, B. ​173 dating  xii, 10, 125, 188, 189–90, 286; of B  xii, 10, 125–6, 285, 290, of 822  227 n. 2 dative, see case inflections; dative absolute; misagreement dative absolute ​17, 38, 43, 45, 48, 53, 57, 59, 63, 65, 88, 98, 99, 108, 110, 115, 176, 177 Dečani Gospel (Deč)  170 n. 90; menology ​265, 275, 280 dedications of churches see churches definite, see adjectives Delehaye, H. ​238, 235 n. 21, 239 n. 34 dĕlja/radi ​62–3 demonstratives, see pronouns denasalization, see vowels de Rossi, Ioh. B. and Duchesne, L. ​242 n. 44 desęti gradi/desĕtь gradъ ​24, 38, 91 n. 13 desinences, see adjectives; aorist; case inflections and forms; dual; i-­stem nouns; participls; suffixes; verb forms desiti ​215 desen-, see o desnojǫ Despodova, V. ​131 devoicing assimilation, see consonants diacritical markings ​131, 195 n. 6 dialects and dialect variants ​15–16, 21, 84, 133, 139, 140, 141, 144, 148, 149, 153, 154, 157–63, 165–7, 168–9, 170, 179, 190–1, 213; Greek ​169, 232; Bulgaro-­Macedonian ​ 13; Latinate/Romance ​231–2; Macedonian ​13, 29, 83, 87, 166, 178, 289; Rhopode and Thracian ​166 n. 87; southeastern Bulgarian ​166 n. 87; Serbian ​ 173; Teteven and Erkeč ​165 n. 86; underlying B ​83, 85; western Bulgarian ​13 n. 3, 87, 159, 165 n. 86, 166, 288–9; see also Bulgarian, Middle Diels, C. ​170 n. 90 dispalatalization, see consonants dittography ​146 n. 48, 173 Djourova, A. and Dujčev, I. ​129; see also Džurova, A. Dmitrievskij, A. ​242 n. 43 Dobrev, I. ​8, 18 n. 10, 19, 32 n. 39, 291 Dobrilo Gospel, menology ​270 Dobromir Gospel (Dm)  8 n. 6, 11 n. 1, 17–18, 31–2, 72, 76, 92 n. 16, 166 n. 87, 170 n. 90, 194, 291 Dogramadžieva, E. ​17, 19 n. 13, 83, 84–5, 88, 89, 90, 123, 124, 125, 230; and Rajkov, B. (D&R)  xi, xii, 12, 27, 60 n. 54, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 107, 125, 134, 192 n. 2, 214, 230 n. 7, 231 n. 10, 232 n. 17, 233 n. 18, 237, 243, 268 n. 82; see also Rajkov, B. dolu ​26 dom(otъ)  14, 200 domovьnъ ​106 doneliže ​93 doublets, lexical

02/06/2008 09:21:12

index Drinov, M. ​239 drugyi ​21 dual forms, aorist ​16, 90–1, 186; in B ​90; imperfect ​16; non-­masc. aorist, pres. pass. part. and imv. in -ĕ ​ 90–1, 196; noun/adj. 87 Duridanov, I. ​159 dъštica ​23, 71 dьvri ​171, 173, 191, 195, 223 dzĕlo, numeral ​120; see also zalo Džurova, A.  xi, 125, 129; see also Djourova and Dujčev e–estъ ​120, 175 earthquakes ​235, 245, 247, 249, 251–2 East Slavic gospel tradition ​2 n. 1; influence, possibility of ​28, 75, 190; on menology ​230, 233, 239–40, 250–1, 254, 273–4, 281, 284 Easter/Sexagesima table ​80, 188, 189–90, 286 elipse, solar ​267 n. 78 Ecumenical Councils ​245, 260, 274 edinočędъ ​26 editors, later ​126, 137, 189, 197, 203, 237 edn-  89 Eklogadion ​228, 240, 241–3, 249, 250, 252, 253, 262, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 278, 280–1, 282, 283, 293 eleoni ​94 elisavta ​173 elision of letters ​231–2, of vowel letters ​232; see also i-­elision; a-­elision Enina Apostolus ​166 n. 87; menology ​237, 283 epenthetic l, see consonants erdanъ, see jerdanъ erimičьnь/jarьmьnič ​221 -esk-  134 -estvo ​86–7, 134 esьm-  15, 85, 134 eterъ ​61, 62, 93 n. 17, 112–13, 117, 200, 212, 220 Euchologion Sinaiticum ​215 explicits ​1112, 113 n. 25, 114, 115, 116, 119–20, 121, 122; see also incipits, liturgical instructions, synaxaria Fasmer, see Vasmer finikov-  62 folk tradition ​267 frozen forms, see misagreement; participles; pronouns future construction, analytic ​46, 54, 56 Galician gospels ​170 n. 90, 179 n. 11 galilejannь ​170 gender, grammatical, see misagreement; virile accusative; dual genethlion, genetlij-  236, 241–2, 270, 281 Georgiev, Vl. 28 Gerdžikov, G. ​160 n. 82, 161 Glagolitic, see orthographic features glasiti ​26 go ​176 godina ​27; see also časъ/godina Golubinskij, Ev. 280 n. 132 gorjušьnъ/gorjusičьnъ ​26, 199, 213

curzon_2.indb 307

307

gostьnica, gostьnikъ ​170, 178, 179 Gospel transmission, medieval Slavic tradition of ​290 Graecisms, lexical ​2, 22, 24–6, 61, 68, 71, 74, 84, 91 n. 13, 169, 171, 195, 198; headings to Gospels ​80–26; in menology ​235–6, 282, 293; orthographic ​169, 189; secondary ​29, 49, 74, 79, 80, 91, 107, 179–80, 189, 201, 215, 292–3; see also alektorъ; eterъ; Greek textual sources; ipopandija; lexical features; met(h)imonъ; pitakъ. graditi/graždaaxǫ ​20, 25, 28 Great Compline service ​24, 49, 67, 69, 113, 117, 201, 215, 218, 221; see also met(h)imonъ Great Lavra Gospel (GLZ.31)  75, 76 Greek influence, see menology Greek minority textual variants  xi n. 1, 2, 32, 35, 39 n. 44, 41, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 57 n. 52, 58, 60, 64, 65, 66, 74, 75, 96 n. 19, 97, 100, 106, 107, 108, 110, 116, 181, 200, 203, 204, 208, 217, 218, 219–20, 222, 292 grędotъ ​24, 62, 113, 116, 217 Grigorovič Paramejnik ​170 n. 90 guest scribe ​195 Hannick, Chr.  239–40, 243 haplography ​140, 170, 175, 176, 178, 287 headers to Gospel Books ​80–2 Hesiod ​267 Harvard Psalter ​18 n. 12 Hexaemeron of John Exarch ​267 Hilandar Gospel (H)  xiii, 2 n. 1, 8, 24, 31, 32, 35–6, 38, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 61, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 74, 77 n. 76, 78 n. 77, 93, 96, 103, 106, 108, 109, 110, 114, 117, 118, 120, 121, 141, 193, 199, 204, 206, 207, 210, 211, 212–15, 216–18, 223, 224–5, 290, 291, 294; orthographic features ​155, 172, 173; rubrication system and synaxarion ​34, 111 Hilandar Research Library  xiii, 75 nn. 71, 73 Holweck, F. G. ​244, 265 n. 75, 270, 272, 275, 278, 281 Holy Cross, Discovery of ​264; Deposition of ​274 homoioteleuta ​43, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 71, 82, 101–2, 105, 205, 206, 207–8; see also perseveration Horálek, K. ​8, 19 n. 13, 199 n. 11, 291 hypercorrection ​85, 155, 157, 169 i bystъ ​29, 47, 98, 201, 216 i-­elision ​167–8, 169–70, 177–8, 187; see also a-­elision; conjunctions; pronouns i-­stem nouns ​16, 88–9, 159 n. 80; see also anomalous i-­stem declension ičędija ​169 ida ​143 ierdanъ, see jerdanъ ijudejaninъ ​25, 170; see also judejannъ imperative, 3P dual in -ĕ ​90–1, 196; 2P in -tĕ ​196 imperfect, contracted ​87; dual ​16–17 incipits ​7, 38, 44, 47, 50, 52, 53, 59, 97, 98, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117, 122–3, 212, 220, 236, 237, 291; see also explicits; lections; liturgical instructions; pericopes indiction, see New Year/New Indiction infinitive vs. subjunctive ​45, 64, 182, 189 inflection, see case inflections; innovations; verbs

02/06/2008 09:21:12

308

index

influences, see Serbian influence; East Slavic possible influence; lectionaries; long lectionaries; menology innovations, case inflections ​16, 100; 2P du. imv. 196, 3P du. aor. 16; 3P du. imperfect ​16–17; lexical ​27–9, 27–9, 91–2, 178–9, 106, 120, 214, 215; morphological ​ 174–6, 196; morphosyntactic ​176–8; see also orthographic features; participles; verb forms inoęzič′nikъ ​214 inserted folios ​132, 138, 155, 174, 178, 181–8 involuntary reminiscences, see reminiscences iotation, see consonants ipopandija ​29, 42, 74, 180 iscal-  140 iskušajǫtъ ​25 istina/istinьnь ​169 Italo-­Greek influence, see menology Ivan Alexander Gospel (IvAl)  11 n. 1, 72 n. 69, 75, 76, 90, 194, 199–200, 208, 209, 212, 216, 219 Ivanov, J. ​237 n. 33 Izbornik of 1076  215 iže, see pronouns izyd-  13 Jagić/Jagič, V. ​8 n. 6, 11, 19, 29, 32 n. 39, 43, 55, 57, 60 n. 55 and ​56, 66, 106, 162, 166, 170 n. 90, 203 n. 14, 218, 220, 288, 291 jagьdica ​22 jako ​29, 48, 216, 231 n. 10 jaky/jako ​36, 179, 213, 218 Janin, R. ​251, 252, 254, 268, 272 janъna/jana ​16 jaromati ​139, 185 Javilo Gospel (Jav)  xiii–­xiv, 3–4, 6, 7, 8, 22, 28, 62, 63, 64, 65–6, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72–3, 74–7 jelisavta, see elisavta jerdanъ/ordanъ ​160–70 jers ​12–13, 14–15, 83, 132–4, 168; alternation with ĕ ​92; alternation with jusy ​15, 40, 84–5, 153–4; for etymological *e ​133; gemination ​378; liturgical pronunciation ​134, 169; lowering ​133; metathesis ​ 15, 91; neutral position ​15, 91, 171 n. 93, 173; omission word-­finally preceding clitic ​36 n. 43, 83; strong position ​13, 14, 16, 82–3, 132, 133–4, 149, 197; superfluous ​15, 134, 173, 195; tense position ​13, 83, 132–3, 138–9; weak position ​13, 15, 48, 82–3, 86–7, 132–3, 134; see also nъ–­nǫ; orthographic system; vowel letter alternations jęčьmĕnъ ​25 Jerusalem Typikon, see typika Jovanović, G., see Pešikan, M. and Jovanović, G. Jur′ev Gospel ​28, 199 n. 10 jusy ​12, 13, 83, 134–5, 190; alternations with e ​154–7, with u ​ 85, 157–8, with jers ​13, 15, 84–5, 153–4, 210; jus major vs. jus minor ​12, 83, 134, 178, 195, 288; middle jus ​ 13, 83, 134–5, 157, 158, 185–6, 190, 195, 290; see also orthographic system; vowel letter alternations; vowels, nasal kamьmelь ​180 karavanъ ​215, 223

curzon_2.indb 308

Karpino Gospel (Ka)  2 n. 1, 18 n. 11, 135 n. 18, 170 n. 90, 194, 199–200, 213, 217, 219, 223, 224 Karskij, E. F. ​136 kęperьnaumъ ​169, 196 Kiev ​231 n. 9, 239–40, 250–1, 284 kinisъ/kinъsъ ​214 Kjustendil Gospel ​166 n. 87, 170 n. 90 Koceva, E.  xi, 227 n. 2, 237, 238, 243, 285; and Atanasov, A.  xi, 243, 244, 266 n. 76 Kohno Gospel (K)  10, 57, 61, 71, 77 n. 76, 82 n. 6, 104, 200, 207, 222, 223, 235 kokotъ ​94, 107, 179–80, 222 Kolev, D., Kalojanov, A., and Koleva, V. ​267 Koleva, V. ​267 n. 79 komъrogъ ​28 Koneski, B. ​162, 165, 166, 288 Kossek, n. V.  xi, 2, 20 n. 17, 27 n. 34, 192 n. 1 košь/košьnica ​26, 214, 220 kotyga ​23 Kovačev, I. ​267 Kožuxarov, S. ​227 n. 3 krainevo/kranievo ​71 n. 67, 171, 195 Krasnosel′cev, P. ​251 n. 53 Kulič, J. ​228, 249, 250, 266, 268, 270, 273, 278 kurę  29, 94 n. 18, 107, 179, 213 Kurz, J. et al. 215 kъ dinĕ ​215 kъnigъč-  76, 198, 219 Late Common Slavic ​159, 160, 166 Latin/Western influence, see menology lazeše ​17 lectionary gospels  v, 213, 285; influence on C Mathew version ​210–11, 200; influence on DBC tradition ​ 7–8, 30–2, 34, 47, 57, 76, 108, 109, 212, 291–2, 294–5; influnece on menology ​252; ‘semi-­short’ lectionaries ​ 190; short lectionaries ​8, 76, 295; see also long lectionary gospels lections ​1, 4, 7, 18, 34, 46; Easter-­related ​76, 78, 111, 200–1; Good Friday lection ​72–3, 76, 78, 216; menology pericopes ​227; Palm Sunday ​62–3, 117, 218; Quelling of the Storm ​208–9; Walking on Water ​202, 208–10, 224, 292; weekday ​34; see also explicits; incipits; liturgical instructions; rubrication; synaxaria Leskien, A. ​154 lexical features, archaisms ​24, 74, 112, 116, 198; calques from Greek ​22, 24, 199; correspondence with Vukan and/or Hilandar gospels ​199–200, 223; DBC ​18–30, 52, 62–74, 75–8; DC ​28–9; CB ​91–4; C ​178–80, 196, 197–200, 208–10, 211–15; innovations ​27–9, 27–9, 91–2, 178–9, 106, 120, 214, 215; inserted folios ​ 187; ‘lectionary’ variants ​27 n. 34; lexical evidence of DBC textual seams ​18–24; menology ​235–7; Ohrid-­associated ​18, 196; Ohrid/‘Preslav’ doublets, distribution ​18–24, 112; Preslav-­associated ​2–6, 6 n. 4, 7, 18, 93, 112, 198, 290; synaxaria ​112–14; see also archaisms; dialect variants; East Slavic possible influence; Graecisms; long lectionaries; Serbian influence; Vukan Gospel licepokriti ​198

02/06/2008 09:21:13

index Lindstedt, J. ​169 line divisions ​131–2, 186, 195 listy/listьe ​215 liquid metathesis, see metathesis liturgical instructions  xiii, 1, 24, 59, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 73, 74, 79, 82, 83, 112, 120, 121, 122, 131, 218, 219 nn. 35 and ​ 36, 220; Apostol No. 882: 244, 266, 275, 276, 279–80, 283, 285; Banica Gospel ​60; menology ​226 n. 1, 227 n. 4, 228; see also alleluias; communion verses; explicits; incipits; lections; rubrics liturgical pronunciation, see jers liturgical tetraevangelia ​1–7, 77 nn. 71 and ​72; relationship to long lectionary gospels ​6, 8, 224–5, 291–2; textual features ​30–1; see also tetraevangelia; textual features Ljapunov, B. M. ​173 n. 99 London Gospel see Ivan Alexander Gospel long lectionary gospels ​1–2, 4, 6; East Slavic tradition ​ 2 n. 1, 199, 208 n. 21; influence on DBC ​2, 31–2, 34, 44, 45, 121, 224–5, 291–2; Macedonian tradition ​ 225; relationship to liturgical tetraevangelia ​6, 8, 224–5, 291–2; Serbian tradition ​2 n. 1, 31, 34, 44, 121, 198–200, 201, 205, 210–11, 216, 224–5, 290, 292; see also Hilandar Gospel; Jur′ev Gospel; lectionary gospels; Miroslav Gospel; Serbian influence; Vukan Gospel loni/lony ​178 Lönngren, T.  xiv Lord’s Prayer (Lu 11: 2–4)  95, 180–1 Loseva, O. ​240–1, 250–1, 253, 254, 283–4, 293 loz-/vinograd-  19, 67, 76–7, 237 lǫkavyi ​93, 223 Lunt, H. G.  xii, xiii n. 2, 11, 18 nn. 9 and ​12, 79, 80, 83 n. 9, 87, 89, 90–1, 114 n. 27, 125, 131, 168 n. 88, 179 n. 104, 235, 285 lьnъ ​199 lьstь ​132 n. 13 MacRobert, C. M. ​2, 18 n. 12, 20 n. 18, 22 nn. 21 and ​22, 32 n. 40, 81 n. 2, 163 n. 83, 173 n. 98, 179 n. 104 Maas, P. ​38 Macedonian features of D ​13 Macedonian gospel tradition ​1, 2 n. 1 Macedonian, Contemporary Standard ​288 Maltzew, P. ​278 manasъ ​27 Marianus, Codex ​1–2, 7, 10, 17, 24, 25–6, 35, 107, 154, 170 n. 90, 181, 207, 219, 220, 277 manuscripts, untitled a30: 279; AG80: 277; Anton. 278; Ap. 346: 265, 272, 275, 282; Ap. 1307: 274, 275; Athens. 1796 (Ath): 75; Bal. I: 278; Beloz. 36: 269; BL ​41: 25; Dom. 278; F13: 273; F15: 271, 274, 276, 282; F22: 276; F110: 267 n. 78; F118: 268; Flor. 1: 254; G1: 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 275, 282; G2: 278, 282; G5: 267 n. 78; G13: 274; G15: 272; Grig. 9: 131; H1: 241, 264, 266, 273, 274; Klar. 278; Maz. 265; Med. 269; Muz. 13: 278; Odes. 278; Paris gr. 368 and ​1617: 273, 274, 278, 280, 282; Petr. 278; Q44: 250, 268; Q59: 270; Reg. gr. 61: 266; S1: 272; S7: 273; S23: 277; S24: 269; Sin. 1: 242, 264, 269; Sin. Tip. 46: 240; SLAV ​39: 240; Sof. M. ​280; SP312: 75 n. 71, 76; T65: 272, 273, 274, 282;

curzon_2.indb 309

309

Tit. 3365: 254; Tur. 278; U. ​905: 277–8; UKr. 268; Vat gr. 787: 278; Vat gr. 1602: 249; Xlud. 28: 277; Xlud. 31: 265, 273; 240(S): 264, 268, 271, 272, 273, 275, 278, 282; 508: 238–9, 240, 241, 250, 262, 263, 266, 268, 270, 280, 281, 282, 284; 844: 250, 252, 269, 273; 849: 250; 882: 227, 233–4, 237–48, 249–50, 252, 253, 254, 255–85; 1146(S): 271; 1295(S): 249, 253, 282, 283; 1345(S): 271, 274, 1370(S): 268, 269, 271, 272, 274, 278; 1429(S): 271; 8651: 273 Marinov, D. ​267 Martinov, I. ​239, 278 martyrologies: Latin ​2, 270; Baronius’s Martyrologium Romanum (BaronMR)  228, 240, 253–4, 264, 265, 268, 269, 270, 272, 273–4, 275, 277, 278, 279, 281; Martyrologium Hieronymianum (MHier)  228, 243, 253–4, 265, 269, 272, 273–4, 275, 277, 278, 279, 281; Syrian Martyrology of Rabban Maura ​274, 280 n. 130 martyrs and saints, anonymous groups of, All Christians Martyred by Hunger, Thirst, Sword, or Frost ​242, 246, 247, 250; All Saints ​218, 221; Forefathers of Christ ​246, 247; Holy Innocents ​247; Maccabees ​ 261; Martyrs Burned at the Stake under Maximianus ​ 247, 255; Martyrs for the Icon of Christ ​261, 278; Monks Martyred at Mt. Sinai ​247; Monks of the St. Sabas Monastery ​236, 248, 253; Five Virgin Martyrs ​259; Seven Sleepers of Ephesus ​261, 276, 279; Seven Virgin Martyrs of Ancyra ​258; Ten Martyrs of Crete ​247; Twelve Apostles ​260; Sixteen Martyrs with Hippolyte ​247, 250; 33 Martyrs in Metetia ​246; 40 Martyrs at Sebaste ​248; 40 Virgin Martyrs ​244; 45 Martyrs at Nicopolis in Armenia ​ 260; 60/70 Martyrs at Scythopolis ​257; 70 Disciples/ Lesser Apostles ​235 n. 26, 245, 257; 120 Martyrs of Persia ​241, 255; see also saints’ names maslo ​21, 214 mastь (blagovonьnaja)  21, 62, 76 Mateos, J. ​228, 235 nn. 21, 23, 24, 237, 238–9, 250, 251, 252, 254, 268 Matthew, Book of ​4–5, 82, 92–3, 112, 114 n. 27, 117, 118, 119, 120, 124–5, 129, 135, 140, 149, 192–225, 291, 292, 294 menaia ​226, 227; see also calendars; Zograph Trephologion menologies  xiii n. 2, 280–5; full ​226, 243–4, 255–64, 276; ‘semi-­short’ 226, 227, 262–3, 283; short ​5, 226, 227, 243–4; Syrian ​253 menology, Curzon  xiii, 111, 226–83, archaic entries ​ 237–43, 249–53, 291; astronomical entry ​257, 267; compilation of ​225, 227, 235, 236, 278, 279, 280–5, 292–3; Greek influence ​236, 241–2, 249–53, 264, 268, 275, 280, 282; Italo-­Greek influence ​230, 231–3, 240, 272, 280–1, 283, 284, 293; Latin/Western entries ​ 240–1, 242, 253–4, 262–3, 264, 268, 269, 270, 275, 278, 279, 280–5, 293; orthographic features ​137–8, 147 n. 52, 139, 176; pericopes ​254; placement of ​80, 228; unique entries ​254–5; see also astronomical entries; calendars; Constantinople Typikon; East Slavic influence, possibility of; Graecisms; martyrologies; month names; saints’ names and names of Biblical figures

02/06/2008 09:21:13

310

index

Menology of Emperor Basil II, see Constantinople Typikon metathesis ​171, 172–3, 195, 232–3 met(h)imonъ ​24, 49, 67, 74, 117, 120, 180, 201, 215, 218; see also Great Compline mĕdьnica ​113 mĕxъ ​199 męk-/mękъk-  169 męr-/mĕr-  162 Michel, G. M. ​157 Middle Bulgarian, see dialects middle jus, see jusy Miklas, H.  xi, 227 n. 3, 229, 230–3, 243, 266, 274, 281, 283, 284; and Schnitter/Šniter, M. ​231 n. 11, 274, 281, 283; see also Schnitter and Miklas Miklosich, F. ​153 mimogrędǫtъ, see grędǫtъ Mirčev, K. ​131 miro ​84 Miroslav Gospel (Mir)  2 n. 1, 31, 32, 34, 109, 120, 121, 194, 199–200, 204, 214, 219, 222, 224, 290, 292; menology ​ 238–9, 276, 280 misa ​26 misagreement, case ​54, 55, 57, 69, 77, 87–9, 98–9, 100–1, 102, 105, 110, 122, 142, 144, 188, 205, 233, 235 n. 20, acc. for dat. sg ​177, locative for genitive plural ​176; gender ​60, 69, 88, 97, 99, 104, 108, 115, 122, 140, 147 n. 55, 148, 153, 156, 157, 162, 167, 223; number ​69, 99, 156, 157, 181, 222, 223, 233; person ​103; see also acc. vs. gen. of negation; participles; pronouns modes, musical, see musical notation Mokro Polje Gospel ​179 n. 104, 206 n. 19 Momčilov, I.  xi, xiii, 61 n. 57 month names ​237, 275 morphological features ​16–17, 87–90, 173–8, 196; archaisms ​16, 175–4, 185; constraints on vowel letter alternations ​159, 163–5, 166, 167; contracted desinences ​198, innovations ​174–6, 196, 198; see also aorist; adjectives; case inflections; dual; imperfect; innovations; misagreement; morphosyntactic features; verb forms morphosyntactic features ​91, 159, 161–2, 196; acc.–loc. opposition ​148; accusative vs. genitive of negation ​ 88, 221; gen.–dat. opposition ​234–5, 274, 279, 289; innovations ​176–8; instr.–dat. opposition ​220; see also case inflections; negated object mǫžesk-  133 mręž-/mrež-  162 Mstislav Gospel (Mst)  2 n. 1, 199–200, 208, 214, 221; menology ​269, 276 mu ​176 musical notation ​111, 189, 228 mъnogašьdi/mъnogašti ​20 mъnožьstvo ​20, 54 mьčьь ​33, 173, 195, 197 mÿronosicę ​84 napisanie ​56; see also pisanoe/pisanьe narodi ​22, 79 nasal vowels see vowels, nasal

curzon_2.indb 310

Naumov, A., see Skomoroxova-­Venturini, L. and Naumov, A. nazarĕnnъ ​170, 187 načętokъ ​14 na utrija že ​63 navečerьe ​254 nebrĕgǫtъ ​25, 212, 213 negašaj-/neugasaj-  92 negative object ​88, 173, 221 Neapolitan wall calendar in Church of St. John the Baptist (Neap.)  240, 241, 243, 253, 264, 265, 266, 270, 278, 281, 282 neologisms ​106 nerazumьnъ ​74 Nestle–Aland  xiv, 11, 31, 34, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59 n. 53, 60, 61, 64 n. 59, 75, 96 n. 19, 97, 100, 103, 106, 107, 108, 116, 203, 204, 208, 217, 219, 220, 222, 277 neugasaj-/negašaj-  92 nevĕrьstvo ​25 New Year/Indication ​238–9, 240, 244, 245, 249, 280 neželi ​25, 213 nĕ ​101 nĕkъto/nĕkyi ​21, 61, 68, 93 n. 17, 94, 112–13, 117, 200, 212, 227 n. 4, 236 nĕsьmь/nĕsmь, see esьmь Nikola Gospel (N)  8, 18 n. 11, 31, 60, 106, 170 n. 90, 173, 179 n. 106, 181, 194, 215 nikyiže ​94 niva ​199 non-­agreement, see misagreement nouns, see anomalous i-­stem nouns; case inflections; innovations; i-­stem nouns; lexical features; misagreement Novgorod Psalter ​134 numerals ​190 numeration, see chapter numeration nyi/niy ​86 nъ–nǫ distribution ​84, 85–6, 154, 195 o desnǫjǫ . . . o šjujǫ/otъ šjuę(ę)  91, 143 obixodnik (ordinaries)  253 obrĕtenьe/prĕnesenьe ​279 obrǫčьnica ​92 obrusъ/ubrusъ ​28 n. 24 obuenъ, obuštь ​92 obyčaja ​175 očrьvlenъ ​215 ogьnь/ognь ​134 Ohrid Apostolus ​239, 240–1, 242–3, 250, 253, 254, 265, 281, 282–4, 293 Ohrid redaction, see redactions Old Cyrillic graphemes, table of  xi–­xiii omega ​130; see also vowel letters oprĕsьnъk-/oprĕsnok-  14, 56 ordanъ/ijerdanъ ​169–70 ordinaries (obixodnik)  253 ornamentation ​82, 127–31, 174, 193, 194–5, 286, 295; Dobrejšo Gospel ​80, 116; see also braiding; headings to Gospels; teratological figures

02/06/2008 09:21:13

index orthographic features ​131–73, 190–1, 197, 287–90; of antigraphs ​12–16, 82–7, 154–8; archaisms ​136; Banica Gospel ​16, 168, 169–70, 172, 173; Dobrejšo Gospel ​ 166 n. 87, 170 n. 90; East Slavic ​134; Glagolitic influence ​85, 139, 158, 163, 165, 166, 240, 288; of Greek borrowings ​15, 16; innovations ​169–71; Macedonian ​ 13, 15, 83, 131, 148, 165, 191; of inserted folios ​185–7; menology ​229–34, 284; morphophonemic and phonological implications ​158–67; superfluous i ​56, 172, 191; synaxaria ​111 n. 22; ‘unblocked position’ 190, 197; western Bulgarian ​12–13, 15, 82–6, 87, 131, 133, 136, 148, 162, 186; see also consonant letters; conventions; dialects; i-­elision; line divisions; metathesis; jers; jusy; Serbian influence; vowel letter alternations; Vraca Gospel orthographic system ​190–1, 287; graphophonemic ​289; Banica and Dobrejšo Gospels ​12; single-­jer ​12–13, 83, 85, 103; single-­jus ​13, 83, 103, 151, 160, 166; two-­jus ​ 12, 103, 135, 165; two-­jer ​12, 83, 153, 190; see also Old Cyrillic graphemes; jers; jusy oskǫdĕemъ ​93 ostavlenьe ​212 Ostromir Gospel (O)  10–11, 39, 46, 50, 72, 74, 90, 93, 97, 110, 170 n. 90, 209, 213, 215, 219, 220, 223; menology ​ 239 n. 35, 240–2, 249, 250, 252, 253, 262, 266, 268, 269, 270, 271, 274, 276, 280, 281, 282, 293 otai ​20, 73 palatalization, see consonants paleographic features ​125, 127, 134 n. 17, 171, 181–4, 195, 286–7, 290 Palm Sunday, see lections Panteleemon Gospel ​251–2 paraskevg´ii ​21 Parker, A. E. ​182 n. 108 participles, past active ​174, 353, 354, 355, alternation with preterit ​155, 177, 188, 222, frozen forms in -šti/-ši ​88, 108, 115, in -ivъ ​122, 174, neuter plural in -ьše ​174; past passive in -nьn-  174, 197, for deverbal noun ​ 55, 65, 69; resultative participle in -le ​175; see also morphological features, verb forms paska/pasxa ​15, 142 n. 35 pendikosti/pentikosti ​180, 189, 215 Pentkovskij, A. M. ​2 n. 1, 6 pericopes, see explicits; incipits; lections; liturgical instructions; menology; rubrics; synaxaria perseveration ​58, 59, 68 n. 65, 69, 70, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 123, 140, 142 n. 36, 176, 178, 201, 223; see also homoioteleuta perьsĕnia ​170 n. 92 Pešikan, M. and Jovanović, G. ​179 n. 104 pĕnęzь/pĕnьzь ​29, 141, 149 n. 63, 154, 157–8, 169 pętelь/pĕtelь ​29, 83 n. 9, 94 n. 18, 107, 179 pętъkь/pętokъ ​13, 21 phonological features ​167; see also consonants; dialects; i-­elision; orthographic features; vowels; vowel letter alternations phonological leveling, see vowels; vowel letter alternations Pirdopski Apostolus (Pir)  253 n. 61, 264 n. 71, 271 pisanьe ​19, 23, 65, 69; see also napisanьe; participles

curzon_2.indb 311

311

pisanoe for pisanьe ​63, 69, 70, 73, 103, 108 pitakъ ​91, 180 plavaite ​208 Pleiades ​257, 267 plotъ/oplotъ/opletъ ​178 Plovdiv Gospel (P)  10, 51, 52, 60, 61, 69, 71, 77 n. 76, 110, 157, 171, 195, 200, 207, 213, 219, 222, 223 plьt-/plet-  133 počrьsti ​92 pogresti ​16, 198 pokritъ ​84, 168, 178, 215 ponę/ponĕ ​163, 164 poslušьstv-  20, 23 postiti ​200 praprǫd-  22 pravo ​19, 23, 62, 68, 104, 112, 237 požirujǫtъ ​214 Praxapostolus Macedonicus ​215 prepositional phrase vs. adjective ​264 Preslav redaction ​3–4; see also lexical features; redactions pretorъ ​20, 26 prĕdъprazdьnьstvo ​254 prĕždesĕdanьe ​56, 93 priča ​169 Priest John Macedonian Gospel ​165, 166 n. 87, 179 n. 106 priglasiti, see glasiti prii-  86, 172 prilučiti sę ​93, 120 prišleca ​87 prizъvati/prizyvajǫtъ ​21 productive aorist, see verb forms prologues ​264, 168, 271, 278 pronouns, clitic ​45, 53, 134, 135, 150, 176, 219; ellipsis ​168, 177–8, 187; non-­clitic personal ​134, 153, 177; relative ​ 99, 141, 156 n. 77; see also reflexive propьn-  71 prothetic a-  232, 234 prьvovъzlĕganьe ​25 psalters ​18, 30 n. 18, 22 n. 20, 179 n. 104 Pseudo-­Cæsarius ​267 ptici ​100 puštenica ​212 Puten′skij lectionary gospel ​170 n. 90 pьsanьe, see pisanьe Radomir Gospel ​193 n. 3 Rajkov, B. ​230 n. 7, 230 n. 7, 237, 243; see also Dogramadžieva, E. and Rajkov, B. Rajkov, B., Kožuxarov, S., Kodov, Xr., and Miklas, H. ​ 227 n. 3 raspьn-  26–7, 94, 146, 213 Raško Hilandar Gospel (R)  xiii, 8 n. 6, 31, 179 n. 104, 194, 224, 292 ravvi/učitelь ​94, 213 ravьstьvno ​120, 133 n. 13 razboinikъ ​71, 75 redactional features, of DBC ​18, 31–2, 74–8; of Matthew ​ 4–5, 19, 196, 197, 216 redactional seams ​2–7, 294; in Banica Gospel ​5, 33; see also menology; seams, lexical

02/06/2008 09:21:14

312

index

redactions ​2; Cyrillo-­Methodian (Ohrid)  2–3, 4–7, 18, 22, 25–6, 74, 193, 210, 216; ‘Preslav’ 2–3, 5–6, 18–19, 22 n. 10, 62, 74–8; underlying DBC ​8–9, 19, 74–8; see also lexical features; textual features reflexive ​55, 97, 99 Reichenau Library ​274 relative pronouns, see pronouns reminiscences ​32, 36, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 52–3, 54, 55–6, 57, 59, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 71, 96, 97, 98, 100, 105, 106, 107, 110, 114, 115, 125, 181, 201, 202, 203–5, 206, 207, 208–9, 210, 211, 219, 220–1, 223, 224, 225, 291 Ribarova, Z. ​135 n. 18, 165 n. 85, 193 n. 3, 288 rimьskъ ​71, 84 Rodič, n. and Jovanovič, G. ​205, 206 Rossi, G. B. and Duchesne, L. ​242 n. 44 rubrication ​57, 64, 79, 111–24, 193, 200, 291; see also chapter numeration; liturgical instructions; rubrics, liturgical rubrics, liturgical ​52, 58, 59, 65, 80, 111 n. 22, 114, 131, 180, 182, 188, 197, 202, 206, 207, 211–12, 215, 217 nn. 30–3, 218, 219, 220; see also explicits; incipits; liturgical instructions; rubrication; synaxaria rumьsky, see rimьskъ Rusek, J. ​15, 28 Russian, Contemporary Standard ​164 Sadnik, L. and Aitzetmüller, R. ​173 n. 99 saints, Slavic ​230, 243, 280, 283; Cyril ​239; John of Rila ​ 230, 245; Methodius ​239, 255; Petka ​230, 245; Tsar Peter ​230, 247 saints’ names and names of Biblical figures, Aaron ​139, 261, 374; Abda ​250, 260, 269, 274; Abdias ​233, 246; Abdicius ​256, 266; Abdjesus ​258, 269; Abercius ​ 232 n. 13, 245, 269; Abibon ​279, Abraham ​246, 247; Acepsimas ​246; Achatius ​231 n. 11, 234, 256, 258, 265, 274; Acindynus ​246; Adrianus ​248, 262; Aeglon ​262, 277; Aeithalas ​231 n. 10; Africanus ​256; Agape ​256, 264; Agapitus ​256; Agapus ​255; Agatha ​ 231 n. 10, 247; Agathonicus ​262; Agathopus ​255; Agathopodes ​231 n. 10; Aggaeus/Haggai ​247; Agnes ​ 233, 243; Agnes/Clodia ​243, 247, 281; Agrippa ​233; Aithalas ​246; Alexander ​232, 234, 246, 248, 253, 257, 262; Alexis ​248; Alphaeus ​245, 246, 249; Amantius ​ 246; Ambrose ​178, 247; Ammonius ​258; Amos ​259, 273, Ananias ​245, 247, 255; Anastasia ​178, 246, 247, 256, 265; Anastasius ​246, 247; Anatolius ​234, 246; Andrew ​169, 246, 260, 262, 274, 275; Andronicus ​ 234, 245, 258; Anempodistus ​246; Anicetus ​261; Anne ​233, 245, 246, 247, 248, 261; Anthemia ​231 n. 10; Anthimus ​61, 244, 256, 259; Anthiocus ​234, 260, 277; Anthony ​247, 257; Antipas ​230 n. 6, 256; Anysia ​230 n. 6, 247; Aphrodisius ​257; Aphthonius ​ 245; Aquilina ​243, 255, 259, 265; Archippus ​248, 260; Arethas ​245; Aristarchus ​256; Arnulph ​141, 231, 255, 260, 273–4, 283; Arsacius ​245; Arsenius ​247, 257, 267; Artemius ​245; Asyncritus ​259; Athanasia ​247; Athanasius ​234, 247, 257; Athenogenes ​260; Atticus ​ 245; Autonomus ​245, 253; Auxentius ​232 n. 17, 247, 248; Auxibius ​243, 248; Azarias ​247, 255; Azadanus ​ 266; Azadanus/Aza ​256, 266;

curzon_2.indb 312

Babylas ​244; Bacchus ​233, 245, 258; Badimus ​256; Barachisius/Barajesus and Jonah ​248, 250; Barbara ​ 240, 246; Barbarus ​257, 268; Barlaam ​256, 265, 266; Barnabas ​259, 272; Bartholomew ​171, 172–3, 259, 272; Bartimaeus ​173 n. 97; Basil ​234, 241, 245, 247, 248, 256, 266; Basiliscus ​232 nn. 13 and ​17, 248, 249, 258; Basilissa ​265; Beryllus ​248, 254; Bili ​266; Blasius/ Blaise ​248; Boniface ​232, 247; Bucolus ​247; Caesarius ​246; Calliopus ​255, 266; Callinicus ​261, 262; Callistratus ​245; Capitolina ​246; Capito ​234, 248, 262; Carpus ​233 n. 18, 245; Catherine ​246; Cecilia/ Celicia ​246; Celestine ​232 n. 17, 255, 258, 265; Celsus ​ 245; Charalampus ​232 n. 16, 245, 258; Chariton ​ 242, 245; Chionia ​256, 264; Christopher ​231 n. 10, 256, 257, 259, 265; Christina ​258, 261, 268, 275; Chrysogonus ​230 n. 6, 247; Claudianus/Claudius ​ 248, 253, 254; Claudius ​254 n. 68, 259, 266; Clement ​ 246, 247, 256, 265; Cleonicus ​232 n. 13, 248, 249; Clodia/Agnes ​243, 247; Codratus/Quadratus ​245, 248; Conon ​234, 243, 248, 259, 271; Constantine ​238, 257, 258, 267 n. 78; Corona ​268, Coronatus/Cornutus (see also Quadratus)  258, 270; Cosmas and Damian ​ 202, 241, 246, 250, 260; Crescentia ​259; Cyprian ​245; Cyriaca ​246, 249, 250; Cyriacus ​245, 231 n. 11, 278, Cyriacus/Quiri(a)cus ​259, 260, 261, 272; Cyril ​233, 237, 247, 248, 260, 264, 272; Cyril and Methodius ​239; Cyrus and John ​233, 247, 260, 272; Dadas ​279; Dalmatus ​261; Damian (and Cosmas)  202, 241, 246, 260; Danax ​256, 257, 269; Daniel ​247, 255, 261, 275; David ​247, 250; Demes ​256, 264; Demetrius ​ 241, 245, 246, 256, 257, 264, 267, 268, 269; Diodorus ​ 248, 253, 254, 255; Diomedes ​262; Dionysia ​269; Dionysius ​231 n. 11, 245, 257, 259, 266, 269; Dioscurus ​ 258; Dometius ​247, 249, 261, 277; Domna ​246, 250; Domnina ​246, 250; Donatus ​256, 257, 268, 269; Dorcas/Tabitha ​245, 249; Eleazar ​261; Eleutherius ​232 n. 16, 247, 261; Elijah ​ 259, 261, 273, 274; Elisha ​259, 273; Elizabeth ​173, 245, 256, 264; Elpidiphorus ​246; Emilianus ​260, 261, 274; Epaphroditus ​258, 267; Ephrem ​234, 247, 248; Epimachus ​246; Epiphanius ​257, 259, 260, 271, 274; Erotheis ​246; Eudocia/Eudoxia ​247, 248; Eudocimus ​261; Eudocius ​234; Eugenius ​247, 278; Eugraphus ​231 n. 10, 247; Eulampia and Eulampius ​ 245; Eulippia ​256, 266; Euphemia ​245, 256, 258, 260, 265, 267, 270, 275; Euphrosyne ​248, 260, 272; Eupsychius ​256; Eupl(i)us ​261; Eusebia/Xenia ​247; Eusebius ​258, 262, 266, 268, 270, 277; “Eusenius” 278; Eusignius ​261, 278; Eustace/Eustathius ​231 n. 10, 245, 260, 261, 262, 274, 277; Eustratius ​247; Eusythius ​ 256; Euthymius ​230 n. 6, 231 n. 10, 247; Eutropius ​ 232 n. 13, 248, 249, 262, 278; Eutychius ​255, 258; Evangelus ​260; Ezekiel ​256, 264; Faustus ​260; Febronia ​232 n. 15, 260; Florus ​257, 262, 265; Gabriel ​248; Gaianus ​257, 268; Gaius ​232 n. 13, 257, 268; Galaction ​246, 259; Ganaliel ​279; Gelasius ​ 248, 254; ‘Genethlius’ 241; Gennadius ​232 n. 15, 234, 245, 246; George ​246, 250–1, 255, 264, 267, 272, 284; Germanus ​242, 245, 250, 257; Geruntius ​256,

02/06/2008 09:21:14

index 65; Gervasius ​245, 266; Gordianus/Gordius ​247; Gregory ​168, 245, 246, 247, 250, 253, 254, 256; Guria ​ 245; Guy/Vitus ​259; Habakuk ​246; Habib ​246; Haggai/Aggaeus ​247; Helen ​258; Heraclides/Hierax ​258; Heraclius ​232 n. 15, 241, 246, 260, 269, 275; Hermes ​255, 262, 279; Hermione ​244, 252; Hermogenes ​247; Hermylus and Stratonicus ​241, 247, 258, 271; Herodion ​255; Hesychius ​230 n. 6, 248, 252; Hilarion ​245, 248, 260, 275; Hippolyte ​247, 250; Hirenarchus/Irenarcus ​233, 246; Hosea/Osee ​245, 249; Humphrey/Onuphrius ​ 259, 272; Hyacinth ​260, 275; Hypatius ​248, 257, 259, 266; Ignatius ​247; Io? 261, 279; Irenarcus/Hirenarchus ​233, 246; Irene ​231 n. 11, 256, 257, 262, 264, 278; Isaac ​246, 247, 248, 258; Isaiah ​257, 259, 273; Isidore ​232 n. 16, 248, 257, 267; Ismael ​259; Jacob ​246, 247; James ​ 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 254, 256, 257, 266, 252 n. 56; Jason ​257, 266; Jeremiah ​257; Joachim ​237, 245, 246; Joanna ​187; Job ​257; Joel ​245; John ​230, 233, 236, 240, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 253, 255, 256, 257, 258, 260, 261, 262, 272, 274, 279–80; John and Cyrus ​ 249, 260; Jonah ​245, 247; Jonah and Barachisius/ Barajesus ​248, 250; Joseph ​246, 247, 250; Judas/ Thaddeus ​258, 259, 262, 277; Juliana ​236, 240, 247, 259, 271, 281; Julianus ​246, 252, 254, 259, 272; Julitta ​ 259, 260; Junias ​258; Justina ​245; Justinus ​258; ‘Kterus’ 269; Laurentius ​261, 268, 278; Laurus ​262; Lazarus ​259; Leo ​248, 256; Leonidas ​261; Leonilla ​ 245; Leontius ​231 n. 11, 246, 249, 257, 259, 265, 272; Leucius ​247; ‘Limenus/Limeus’ 534; Levi ​ 277; Longinus ​245; Lucianus ​245, 248, 254, 259; Lucianus/Lucillianus ​258, 259, 273; Lucianus/Lucius ​ 254; Lucius ​262, 276; Luke ​245; Macarius ​247, 248, 249; Maccabees ​261; Macrobius ​ 257; Mamas ​244, 245, 254, 260, 275; Mamelchtina/ Mamelta ​233, 245; Manuel ​259; Marcianus ​245, 246, 250; Mardarius ​247; Margarita/Marina ​259; Marina ​260, 272; Marianus ​254; Marianus/Marinus ​ 248; Mark ​256, 258, 260, 261, 269, 278; Martha ​258, 259, 260, 271, 275; Martin ​233, 245, 246–7, 249, 250, 252, 256, 260, 274, 275; Martin and Priscus ​252; Martinianus ​248; Martyrius ​245; Mary ​248, 255, (Magdalene)  261, (Virgin/Theotokos)  239, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249, 252, 254, 260, 262, 274, 277, 280; Mary and Martha ​259, 271; Matrona ​246, 248, 250, 253; Matthew ​246, 261, 262, 277; Maura ​231 n. 11, 257; Maximianus/Maximilianus ​246; Maximianus/ Maximus ​256, 265 n. 75, 280; Maximus ​232 nn. 12 and ​17, 256, 257, 262, 265, 279; Melania ​247; Meldeus ​257; Meletius ​233, 247, 258, 277, 278; Memnon ​257; Menas ​246, 247, 260; Menander ​258; Menodora ​245; Mercurius ​246, 253; Meseera ​257, 268; Methodius ​237, 239, 243, 255; Metrodora ​245; Metrophanes ​259; Micah ​262; Michael ​206, 245, 246, 249, 252, 259, 271; Misael ​233, 247, 255; Mocius ​ 257; Modestus ​259; Moses ​240, 244, 261, 262, 274; Nahum ​246; Natalia ​262; Nazarius ​245; Nectarius ​ 245; Neophytus ​243, 247, 257, 261; Neon ​273; Nestabus ​257, 266; Nestor ​235; Nicander ​286, 250;

curzon_2.indb 313

313 Nicephorus ​248, 253, 254, 258; Nicetas ​245, 255, 257, 269; Nicholas ​246, 247, 249, 250, 252; Nicodemus ​ 258, 272, 279, 281; Nicon ​248; Nymphodora ​245; Obadjah/Abdias ​246; Onesimus ​232 n. 13, 248, 260, 274, 275; Onesimus/Onesiphorus ​246, 247, 249; Onesiphorus ​245; Onuphrius ​234; Onuphrius/ Humphrey ​259, 272; Orestes ​246, 260, 274; Osee/ Hosea ​245, 249; Pachomius ​257, 269, 270; Pamphalon ​258; Pamphamer ​ 258; Pamphilus/Pamphius ​248, 262, 278; Pansemne ​ 259, 273; Panteleemon/Pantaleon ​261; Papas/Papias ​ 248; Papias ​253, 254; Paphnutius ​245, 247, 248, 249; Paphuel/Thathuel/Thuthael ​261, 278; Papylus ​ 245; Paramon ​233, 246; Parasceve/Petka ​230, 245; Parthenius ​236, 248; Paris ​258; Pasicrates ​270; Patricius ​258, 268; Paul ​217, 220, 231 n. 11, 240, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 259, 260, 262, 267, 273; Paula ​231 n. 11, 259, 273; Pausilypus ​256; Pegasius ​246; Pelagia ​ 245; Perpetua ​233 n. 18, 246, 253, 281; Peter ​217, 220, 230, 239, 240, 245, 246, 247, 250, 257, 260, 269; Petka/ Parasceve ​230, 245; Philagrius ​248, 249; Philemon ​ 247, 248, 249, 260, 274; Philip ​244, 246, 257, 270; Philonilla ​245; Phocas ​245, 261; Photinus/Photius ​ 261; Plato ​246; Plotinus ​233, 248, 249; Pœmen ​262; Polyaenus ​258; Polycarp ​240, 243, 247, 248, 253, 260, 274, 281; Polyeuctus ​247; Pompeius ​256; Pompianus ​ 259; Pontianus ​262, 277; ‘Pontus’ 269; Porphyrius ​ 230 n. 6, 233 n. 18, 246, 248, 254; Primus ​246; Priscus ​245, 246, 247, 249, 250, 252; Probus ​245, 250; Proculus ​240, 246, 260; Procopius ​259, 260, 273; Protasius ​245, 266; Protion ​256, 264; Publius ​246; Pudens ​256; Pyrrhus ​259, 273; Quadratus/Codratus ​245, 248; Quadratus/Codratus/ Coronatus/Cornutus ​258, 270; Quartus ​246; Quintilianus ​279; Quiri(a)cus ​273; Quiri(a)cus/ Cyriacus ​259, 260, 261, 272; Rabanus ​257, 265; Romanus ​245, 246, 258, 269; Rufinus ​255; Rufus ​ 255; Sabas ​246, 260, 262, 274, 278; Sabel ​259; Sabinus ​ 245, Sabinus/Sabas ​262; Sadoc/Sadoth ​248, 253; Saloma ​261; Samson ​260; Samuel ​262; Saturninus ​ 248, 259; Saturus ​246; Sebastian ​247, 255; Secunda ​ 246; Serapion ​254; Sergius ​233, 234, 245, 258; Sergius and Bacchus ​233, 245, 258; Shamona ​246; Silvanus ​257; Simeon ​244, 248, 252, 256, 257, 258, 260, 261, 275; Sisinnius ​245; Sixtus/Xystus ​262, 278; Socrates ​256; Solochon ​258, 268; Sophia ​245, 258, 269; Sophonia ​249; Sophonias/Zephaniah ​246; Sophronius ​242, 247, 248; Sosipater ​257, 266; Sozon/ Tarasius ​245; Spiridon ​247; Stephen ​242, 246, 247, 250, 21, 279; Stratonicus (and Hermylus)  232 n. 17, 241, 247, 258, 271; Susanna ​241, 245; Sylvester ​231 n. 10, 247 Tabitha/Dorcas ​245, 249; Tarachus ​245; Tarasius ​248; Tarasius/Sozon ​245; Tarquin(i)us ​257, 266; Tatiana ​ 247; Teletius ​258; Terentius ​246, 250, 256; Thaddeus/ Judas ​258, 259, 262, 277; Thallelaeus ​258; Thathuel/ Thuthael/Paphuel ​261, 278; Thecla ​245; Theoctista ​ 247; Theodora ​242, 244, 247, 250, 258, 270; Theodore ​ 234, 247, 248, 250, 256, 257, 258, 259, 264, 266, 267, 269; Theodosia ​274; Theodosius ​234, 241, 247,

02/06/2008 09:21:14

314

index

Tabitha/Dorcas (cont.) 259, 261; Theodota ​247, 260; ‘Theodotius’ 274; Theodotus ​234, 243, 247, 258, 260; Theodulus ​255, 259; Theonas ​256; Theophanes ​248; Theophylactus/ Theophilius ​248; Theopista ​245; Therapontes ​258, 269; Therinus ​257, 268; Thomas ​16, 245, 246, 248, 250; Thyrsus ​231 n. 10, 247; Tiburtius ​256, 265, 270 n. 91; Timothy ​243, 247, 255, 257, 259, 265; Titus ​247, 254, 255, 262; ‘T(h)odimus’ 258, 269; Triphyllius ​259, 291; Trophimus ​241, 245, 249, 256; Tryphon ​248, 271; Tychon ​259, 271–2; Urbanus ​270; Valentine ​270; Valerianus ​256, 257, 270 n. 91; Vincentius ​246; Victor ​246, 254, 257, 268; Victorina ​246; Victorinus ​254, 268; ‘Virginal’ 236; Vitalis ​257, 261, 266, 275; Vitus/Guy ​259; Xenia/ Eusebia ​247; Xystus/Sixtus ​262, 278; Zacchaeus ​ 246, 249; Zacharias ​221 n. 38, 244, 246, 248, 249, 257, 258, 269, 270; Zenas ​259; Zenaïs ​240, 243, 259; Zeno ​ 257, 259, 261, 266, 272, 278; Zenobia and Zenobius ​ 147 n. 52, 246; Zephaniah/Sophonias ​246; Zosimas ​ 234, 247, 259; see also churches, martyrs and saints, anonymous groups of; earthquakes; Ecumenical Councils; saints, Slavic; new year/new indiction; synaxes samareiskъ/samarenьskъ/samarĕnьskъ ​17, 26, 92, 141, 170 samo/sĕmo ​16, 140 Savvina Kniga (S)  7, 10, 45, 52, 56, 69, 71, 74, 90, 100, 103, 106, 110, 170 n. 90, 174, 179, 192 n. 2; menology ​237, 239; relationship to Curzon Matthew version ​8, 193, 201, 207, 208–10, 214, 219, 220, 292 Schnitter/Šniter, M. ​274; and Miklas, H. ​253, 254, 265, 266, 270 n. 91, 273, 274, 275–6; see also Miklas and Schnitter scriptoria ​5, 76, 184, 193, 225, 292, 293–4 se ​29–30, 54, 76, 100 seams, lexical ​2–6; textual ​2–7, 23–4, 62, 290, 292, 294; Curzon Matthew version ​4, 192–3, 194–5, 224–94; see also redactional seams secondary Graecisms, see Graecisms sejь ​13 sĕkъ/vъsĕkъ ​178 Serbian, Contemporary Standard ​173 Serbian influence ​198–200, 211, 216, 220; on menology ​ 230, 281; on orthographic features ​83, 102–3, 104 n. 20, 155, 171–3, 185–6, 191, 195, 197 Serbian tradition ​1, 2 n. 1 Sinai Apostolus ​240, 253 n. 65 Sinai Psalter ​18 n. 12 Sirmondianus, Codex (Sirm.)  239 n. 4, 266 n. 75, 277 sisismъ/sis(ъ)mъ/sizъmъ ​91, 235, 293 sitъ ​25 Skomoroxova-Venturini, L. and Naumov, A. ​24 n. 27, 60 n. 54, 80, 111, 114 n. 27, 200 n. 12, 228 skoro/ędro ​213 skozĕ ​169 skǫdьlьnica ​93, 149 skrežet-  15 Slavova, T. ​18 n. 10, 19 n. 13, 20, 21, 23 Slepče Apostolus (Slep)  135 n. 1, 239, 241, 253, 271 slyšanьe ​25, 94

curzon_2.indb 314

smokъvьnica/smoky/smokъve ​27 Šmidt, M. et al. 199 nn. 10, 11 Šniter, M. see Schnitter, M. Smjadovski, S. ​252 n. 55 Soden, von, H. ​11, 31, 42, 45, 47, 52, 55, 59 n. 53, 60, 61, 65, 106, 110, 220 sǫdilište ​20, 92, 179 sǫmn-, see usьmn-/usъmnSpasskij , Archimandrite Sergij ​226 n. 2, 227, 239, 240, 242 n. 43, 249, 250 n. 52, 251, 253 nn. 60–2, 64, 65, 253 nn. 66, 68, 255 n. 69, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269 n. 87, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 277–8, 279, 280 s(ъ?)pira ​25, 27, 108 s(ъ)plьt-, see plьt-/pletsъrebrьnikъ ​21 Sreznevskij, I. I. ​28, 199 nn. 10–11, 250–1, 284 Stamatov Gospel ​166 n. 87, 170 n. 90 Stankov, R. ​18 n. 11, 19 starĕišina žьrьčьskъ ​3, 19, 23, 62, 72; see also žrьčeskste ​176 Stender-­Petersen, A. ​173 n. 99 stęza/stьza ​85, 154 Stojanov, M. and Kodov, X.  xi, 227 n. 2 strana/stranьna ​169 stroenьe ​93 studenьcь ​25 Studite Typikon, see typika stъlьcь ​214 subjunctive, see syntactic features substitutions, see vowel letter alternations suffixes, contractions ​13, 87, 89, 169–71, 174; -ĕnnъ ​170, 187; -ni- to -n-  170; see also adjectives; aorist; collective; participles; verb forms superfluous i, see orthographic features superscripts ​107 n. 21, 168 n. 89, 175, 197, 205 supine, see verb forms Suprasliensis, Codex ​90, 215 surovъ ​25 svjatcy ​254, 255 syllables, contraction ​169–71 synaxarion, definition  xiii n. 2 Synaxarion of St. Nicodemus (Synaxarion Nic.)  254, 278 synaxaria ​49, 57, 80, 111–24, 180, 188–9, 201, 211–12, 215, 227; Banica Gospel ​80, 117, 188, 200, 211–12, 279; Dobrejšo Gospel ​111, 115–17, 194 n. 5, 200; comparison with Matthew text ​200, 210, 211–12, 215–16; lexical features ​24; orthographic features ​ 137–8, 176, 229–30; placement of ​80, 115, 123, 188; relationship to Vukan and Hilandar gospels ​34; positioning ​181, 284; ‘Preslavisms’ in ​112–13, 116; SynII (special needs, varia)  xiii n. 2, 90, 123–4, 189, 228; see also chapter numeration; rubrication; explicits; incipits; lections synaxes, commemorations of ​235 n. 26, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 252, 257, 259, 260, 261, 262, 268, 271, 274 syntactic features ​168, DBC ​17–18, 75; subjunctive vs. infinitive ​45, 64; word order ​104, 108, 112, 201, 203–4, see also conditional; dative absolute; i-­elision; morphosyntactic features; pronouns; to Syrian martyrology, see martyrologies

02/06/2008 09:21:15

index sъblazn-/skandal-  213 sъbor-  22, 68, 94, 108, 198, 212 sъkazavati/sъkazovati ​27, 215 sъlučiti sę ​223 sъnьm-  22, 235 sъsĕd-/sьsĕd-  84, 153, 191 sъto kraty/štoricejǫ ​214 sъvĕdĕtelьstv-  72–3, 74, 76 sъvъkupljajǫtъ ​25 sъvt-  15, 173 n. 98, 191 sъžaliti ​51 sьi ​13, 97 sьmь ​176 sьpьr-/sъpьr-/sǫpьr-  84, 153, 191 Šafařík Gospel ​199 n. 11 Ščepkin, V. N. ​153, 154 Šelamanova, n. B., Granstrem, E. È., Malyšev, V. I., and Ščepkina, M. V. ​273 Tarnanides, I. C. ​18 n. 12 Temčinas/Temčin, S.  xi, 2, 3, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 n. 25, 28, 32 n. 39, 75, 81 n. 3, 92, 192 nn. 1 and ​2, 198, 242 n. 42, 277 n. 118, 281 n. 134 teratological figures ​81, 128 tetraevangelia ​225; continuous/narrative ​1–2, 4; see also liturgical tetraevangelia, transition verses between lections textual features, of Curzon Gospel alone (MLJ)  180; CB ​52, 55; correspondences with Serbian long lectionaries ​35, 193, 223; DBC ​30–74, 79 n. 1; Greek ​ 11; inserted folios ​187–8; ‘lectionary-­type’ 32, 47; Matthew ​201–11; menology ​226–7, 228, 236, 263, 264, 266, 276, 279, 282, 284, 292–3; synaxaria ​114–24, 189; versions ​6, 7, see also involuntary reminiscences; liturgical instructions; seams Theotokos, see saints’ names and names of Biblical figures; Mary, Virgin/Theotokos theta ​16, 168 thoma ​16, 49 n. 50 Thomson, F. ​49 n. 50 titla ​184 to ​17, 50, 62, 81, 222 tone notation, see musical notation toponyms, spellings of ​84, 169, 170, 178, 230 n. 6, 232 n. 13, 233–5; see also churches; saints’ names Toscani, T. ​272; see also martyrologies, Martyrologium Hieronymianum transition verses between lections ​1, 7, 40, 43, 53, 57, 58, 62, 64, 65, 72, 101, 104, 109, 110, 202, 291 tretьe ​21, 94, 223 trišti/tri kraty ​213 trupъ ​25, 28 trъnovьnъ ​29 trьjǫšte ​84, 91 truncation, see adjectives; consonants; suffixes Tsar Ivan Alexander Gospel, see Ivan Alexander Gospel Tŭrnovo Gospel ​199 n. 11 typika ​285; Jerusalem ​237; Studite ​237, 279; see also Constantinople Typikon tъižde ​217

curzon_2.indb 315

315

tъstьno ​179 tьjь/tьi/toi ​13, 16, 179, 196 ubo ​29, 52, 113, 192, 198, 216 ubrusъ/obrusъ ​28 n. 24 učenci/učenk-  123 n. 39, 170 učitelь/ravvi ​94, 213 Ugrinova-­Skalovska, R. and Ribarova, Z. ​193 n. 3 umręt-/umrĕt-  162, 165 umyvenьe ​120 ‘unblocked’ position ​229–30; see also orthographic features, vowel letter alternations unylъ ​178, 187 upsilon ​15, 84, 230 upъvajǫtъ/upovajǫtъ ​15, 48 Uspenskij, B. ​134 u-­stem nouns ​196 usьmn-/usъmn-  153 utešitelь ​23, 68 utĕšьnjajǫtъ ​92 utrĕi ​94 utrija, see na utrija že -uvati ​92 Vaillant, A. ​90 Vakareliyska, C. ​2, 11 n. 1, 19 n. 16, 91, 181 n. 107, 204 n. 15, 226 n. 2, 230, 267 n. 78 varia, see synaxaria Vasmer/Fasmer, M. ​28 Vatican Palimpsest Gospel ​7, 10, 98, 220, 223; menology ​ 241–2, 250, 270 n. 90 Velčeva, B. ​154, 165 n. 86, 166 n. 87, 170 n. 90 velьi/velikъ ​26, 61 veplь ​15, 213 verb forms, 3Sg aorist–1Sg nonpast ​106, 3Sg aorist/ imperfect–3Sg nonpast ​101, 103, 175, 221; 3Sg non­past in -e ​106; innovations ​175; infinitive ​198; 1Pl non-­past in -me/-my ​89, 103, 107, 175, 196; supine ​ 49, 56, 98; see also aorist; participles; vowel letter alternations vernacular, see dialects versions, see textual features vesi ​28, 39, 87, 133 vidъ ​27 vinograd-  19, 67 ‘virile’ accusative ​64, 110; dative sg. of ​87; extended to fem. nouns ​88 vlьzavulъ ​171, 195 vocative case, see case inflections vodotočьi ​28, 69 von Soden, H., see Soden, von, H. vowel letter alternations ​84–5, 131, 132–67, 169–70; a–ja ​ 16, 105, 110, 185; a/ja–ĕ ​85, 138, 139–40, 158–9, 162, 165, 167, 185, 190; a/ja–ę ​135, 137–8, 146–8, 159, 161; a/ ja–ǫ ​141–6, 159, 197; e–je ​83, 111 n. 23, 124, 137–8, 197, 229–30; e–ĕ ​140–1; e–ę ​83, 154–7, 158, 159, 160, 171, 186–7, 190–1, 289; ĕ–ę ​146–53; ę–ǫ ​159, 165–6; i–y ​13, 82, 136–7, 160; o–omega ​130; u–­ju ​12, 137; u–ǫ ​85, 171–2, 191, 197; ьi–y ​136–7; constraints on ​163–5, 166, 167; reflecting consonant dispalatalization ​13, 82,

02/06/2008 09:21:15

316

index

vowel letter alternations (cont.) 85, 105, 110, 136–9, reflecting phonological leveling of vowels ​141–6, 148, 153, 158, 288; morphosyntactic implications ​158–68; see also a-­elision; case inflections; i-­elision; jers; jusy; orthographic features; vowels; verb forms vowels, denasalization and merger ​12, 83, 84, 85–6, 141–67, 288–90; long ​172; lowering ​140, 146, 162; nasal ​134–5, 190; see also a-­elision, i-­elision; vowel letter alternations Vraca Gospel (Vr)  10, 16, 57, 58, 60, 62, 71, 74, 77 n. 76, 92, 94, 97, 98–9, 110, 111, 135 n. 18, 141, 192 n. 2, 204, 209, 212–14, 217, 219, 220, 223, 239, 275; orthographic and paleographic comparison with Curzon Gospel ​131, 151, 160 n. 81, 166, 167, 172, 190–1, 198 Vrana, J. ​1, 2 n. 1, 5 n. 3, 8, 30 vratarь/vratarica ​21 vrĕtište ​45 vrъtolomej-  172–3, 195 vrъzoblь ​28 Vukan Gospel (Vk)  2 n. 1, 3–4, 5–6, 7, 8, 10, 31, 32, 35–6, 38, 292; and DBC ​42, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 57, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74–8, 88, 93, 94, 102–3, 104, 106, 109, 112, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123; and Curzon Matthew version ​202, 203, 217, 218, 223–4, 212–15, 224; lexical features ​24, 212–15, 224; orthographic features ​ 141, 148, 155, 156, 157, 173, 195; paleographic similarity to Curzon Gospel ​131; rubrication ​34, 111, 291; varia ​123 vyi ​86 vъmĕtajǫtъ ​93 vъnegda ​93 vъnemljej-  92, 125, 196, 200, 214 vъsprositi ​93 vъstan-  21, 39, 113, 198, 213 vъtoroe ​20, 94, 213, 223

curzon_2.indb 316

vъzyvajǫtъ, vъzovati ​126, 214 vъzьmǫtъ, vъzęti ​179 vьnezajapa ​143 vьs-, see vesi Walking on Water lection ​453–8 word order, see syntactic features Wright, W. ​253 n. 65 -xodĕsta/-xoždasta ​16 xotĕti/iskati ​218 xramina ​74 Xristova, B., Karadžova, D. and Ikonomova, A.  xii Xristova, I. ​244, 283 xul-  26, 198, 212 xuždь ​25 zakolьnъ/iskolьnъ ​218 zalo ​140, 162, 185 zavĕtъ ​94 zemlьnъ ​213 zlatica ​21 znajali ​16 Zograph Trephologion (Zogr2)  xiii, 228, 237, 239–48, 249–51, 253, 254, 255–76, 278–85 Zographensis, Codex (Z)  1, 2, 7, 10, 17–18, 24, 25–6, 35, 38, 70 n. 90, 174, 219, 277 -zъvati/-glasiti ​94 že ​17 žezl-  15 židov-  20, 23, 62 n. 58, 70 n. 66, 73, 75–6, 77 n. 77, 93, 113, 119, 227 n. 4, 237 n. 32 životъ/žiznь ​20, 63, 73, 76, 113, 196, 213 žьnǫti ​178 žrьčesk-  133

02/06/2008 09:21:15