Lora Taseva

The article analyses the translation correlates of ἀρετη, πολιτεία and φιλοσοφία in Constantine of Preslav’s Didactic Gospel. Their contextual meanings are systemised together with their Old Bulgarian transponents. Other Greek words that are translated by the same slavic transponents are analysed and the data are compared to the information in the major palaeoslavic dictionaries. The observations reveal that φιλοσοφία and ἀρετη are rendered by a wide range of lexemes whose array rivals that in far more voluminous Old Bulgarian corpora. It can be shown that the choice of synonyms for the three polysemous Greek nouns is not arbitrary but consistent with the meaning in a specific context. It appears that there is a tendency towards rendering each meaning of a Greek word by one particular Slavic word, i.e. a tendency to transform semantic differentiation in the source language into lexical differentiation in the target language. There is also a rather clearly noticeable semantic differentiation between the synonymous lexemes житиѥ and жиꙁнь and it is motivated not by the translated Greek words but by their contextual meanings, in which житиѥ refers more often to the earthly life whereas жиꙁнь means the eternal life.

Opinions differ as to whether the versions of the Homily on the Transfiguration of Christ by Proclus of Constantinople (BHG 1980) in the Jagić Zlatoust and in MS HAZU III c 22 represent one translation or two. The present article examines the text-critical arguments in favour of each of these views. The comparison includes the other two known copies of the oration which are attributed by K. Ivanova to the same version. The analysis carried out gives the basis for a firm conclusion that the four copies originated from the same translation. Compared with the other sources, the text in the Jagić Zlatoust contains most variations which resulted not only from some copyist’s negligence but also from a deliberate editorial intervention. There are no text-critical arguments to confirm a closer relation between some of the copies but it can nevertheless be argued that the Jagić Zlatoust has a more isolated position in relation to the other copies in the South Slavonic tradition of this translation of the homily.

Хомилията за Преображение Господне (BHG 1980) в Ягичевия Златоуст и чети-миней HAZU III c 22: един или различни преводи?
Лора Тасева
(Институт за балканистика с Център по тракология при БАН,София, България)

В науката са изказани две различни мнения относно принадлежността към един или два превода на версиите на Хомилията за Преображение Господне (BHG 1980) в Ягичевия Златоуст и в сборник от Хърватската академия на науките и изкуствата HAZU III c 22. Настоящата статия разглежда текстологическите аргументи в полза на всяка от двете тези. В съпоставката сa включени и другите два известни преписа на проповедта, атрибуирани от Климентина Иванова към същата текстова разновидност. Извършеният анализ дава основания за категорично заключение, че и четирите преписа възхождат към един и същ превод. В сравнение с останалите източници текстът в Ягичевия Златоуст съдържа най-много отклонения, които са резултат не само на преписваческа небрежност, но и на съзнателна редакторска намеса. Не се установяват текстологични аргументи за по-тясна връзка между някои от преписите, но все пак може да се твърди, че Ягичевият препис заема по-изолирана позиция спрямо останалите в южнославянската традиция на този превод на хомилията.
 

The objective of the study is to clarify the issue the origin of the source, used for the Slavonic translation of the Vita of Stephen I the Pope of Rome (VS). The five known Slavonic copies – GIM, Undolksij 232 (15th c.), GIM, Synodal collecton No. 997 (1552–1553) and No.183 (1554), RGB, Holy Trinity Lavra of Sergiev Posad No. 680 (16th c.), RNB, No. 1376 of the Hagia Sofia Cathedral in Novgorod (16th c.), both Greek versions (issued by Latyšev 1916) and the Latin text (according to Acta Sanctorum) have been compared. The study showed that most arguments, supporting the Latin origin of the Slavonic translation, as indicated by A. Sobolevsky and V. Mareš, are disputable or even invalid. A part of the so-called traces of a Latin source are errors, occurring in Slavonic environment, which can be found only in Und. 232, or Und. 232 and single other copies, while the other manuscripts keep the correct readings. A number of errors, due to paronymy or omonymy of the Latin words, have parallels in the Greek versions, and therefore they may appear in the Slavonic VS from a Byzantine origin. Other arguments, supporting the hypothesis of a Greek origin of the Slavonic translation of the VS, have also been provided: semantic equivalence of the Slavonic and Greek words, when the respective Latin word shows a partial or complete difference; presence of rare Greek loan-words; Graecisized phonetic form of a number of Latin borrowings.

Der Aufsatz fokussiert sich auf die verschiedenen Vorgehensweisen und Prinzipien der Lemmatisierung, die bei den einzelnen slavisch-griechischen und griechisch-slavischen Wцrterverzeichnissen zu mittelalterlichen Ьbersetzungen benutzt wurden. Schwerpunkt der Untersuchung sind die Wцrterverzeichnisse zu zwei sьdslavischen Texten - zur Ьbersetzung aus dem 14. Jh. der "Quelle des Wissens" des Johannes von Damaskus (nach Weiher 1969 und 1987) und zum Buch Hiob Ende des 14. oder Anfang des 15. Jahrhunderts (nach Hristova-Shomova). AuЯerdem wird umfangreiches Material aus zweisprachigen Indizes zu weiteren 16 дlteren Ьbersetzungen mit bewiesener oder vermuteter bulgarischer Herkunft, die in sьd- oder nur ostslavischen Abschriften tradiert sind, ausgewertet. Es lдsst sich feststellen, daЯ die Autoren solcher Indizes bei der Lemmatisierung auf Probleme verschiedener Art stoЯen. Ihre konkreten Lцsungen bei der Auswahl und der Darstellung der Wцrter hдngen davon ab, ob die Lexikographen ihren Schwerpunkt auf das sprachliche Factum (der Abschrift oder den Abschriften) oder auf das sprachliche Konstrukt (der ursprьnglichen Ьbersetzung) legen. Die Probleme und ihre Lцsungen werden im Rahmen verschiedener sprachlicher Ebenen klassifiziert und erlдutert: lexikalisch-semantische, grammatische, orthographisch-phonetische. Es wird auch analysiert, wie weit die neuen Computertechnologien bei der Lцsung der existierenden lexikographischen Unterschiede, Schwierigkeiten und Probleme behilflich sein kцnnen. Am Schluss wird darauf hingewiesen, dass zweisprachige Wцrterverzeichnisse fьr die Erforschung anderer Bereiche innerhalb der Altslavistik und ьber sie hinaus eine wichtige Rolle spielen, weswegen diese Fragen nach Strukturierung und Gestalt der Lemmata, eine breite Diskussion sowohl mit den Autoren solcher Indizes, als auch mit ihren Benutzern notwendig machen.