CC BY
45
The Novgorod
Antiphonal
Psalters: Their
Orthographical
Peculiarities
and Textological
Significance*
Новгородские
антифонные
псалтыри:
орфографические
особенности и
текстологическое
значение
Catherine Mary MacRobert
University of Oxford
Кэтрин Мэри МакРоберт
Оксфордский университет
Abstract
The thirteenth-century Novgorod antiphonal psalters were written for liturgical use by two choirs or readers in alternation; consequently each of them contains an incomplete version of the psalms, and they complement each other only in part. Nevertheless, they are of interest both in relation to the development of Church Slavonic norms of orthography and orthoepy as well as from a textological standpoint. In one of them, the older of the two, the infiltration of dialect pronunciation into the Novgorod variety of Church Slavonic can be detected (a list of the various different examples of cokane in this manuscript is provided in the appendix). On the basis of an analysis of the variant readings found in both manuscripts or attested in either of the two sources, it is demonstrated that they belong to Redaction II of the Church Slavonic translation of the psalms, and that they are important witnesses to the dissemination of this redaction among the East Slavs up to the end of the thirteenth century.
* This article is an expanded version of a paper presented at the conference
"И. И. Срезневский и русское историческое языкознание" held in Ryazan, 26-28 September 2012, to mark the bicentenary of the birth of 1.1. Sreznevsky.
Keywords
Church Slavonic psalter; antiphonal psalter; early Novgorod dialect; cokane
Резюме
Новгородские антифонные псалтыри XIII века предназначены для богослужебного исполнения попеременно двумя хорами или чтецами, поэтому каждая из них содержит неполный текст псалмов, и они дополняют друг друга лишь частично. Тем не менее они представляют интерес и в отношении нормирования церковнославянской орфографии и орфоэпии, и с точки зрения текстологии. В одной, более древней, из них прослеживается проникновение диалектного произношения в новгородскую разновидность церковнославянского языка (в приложении дается список разнообразных примеров цоканья в этой рукописи). На основе анализа разночтений, общих для обеих рукописей или засвидетельствованных в одной или другой из них, доказывается их принадлежность ко второй редакции церковнославянского перевода псалмов, а тем самым их ценность для истории распространения этой редакции среди восточных славян до конца XIII века.
Ключевые слова
церковнославянская псалтырь, антифонная псалтырь, древненовгородский диалект, цоканье
The two antiphonal1 psalter manuscripts from the collection of St. Sophia in Novgorod are remarkable for their very existence. Each contains approximately2 half the contents of the Psalter, selected by copying alternate versicles or verses. This expedient results in a text which taken on its own is elliptical sometimes to the point of unintelligibility, and whose sole use is for antiphonal chanting or recitation of the psalms in combination either with a similar but complementary copy of the omitted versicles, or with a full version of the Psalter. Since this method of reciting the psalms survives only vestigially in liturgical practice [Roty 1983 sub voce антифон], it is not surprising that a book of such limited usefulness should be a rarity, both in Church Slavonic and apparently in Greek: the clearest Greek parallel is a manuscript of 1293 in St. Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai, organized in exactly the same way, which the scribe describes
1 In English 'antiphonal' adequately indicates the probable use of these manuscripts; 'антифонный' is unfortunately less transparent because 'антифон' has developed seondary meanings in Eastern Orthodox practice [Дьяченко 1899, Roty 1983, Onasch 1993, sub voce антифон].
2 In each case slightly less than half, because the manuscripts are defective: Sof63 starts at ps. 17:21b and ends with the penultimate versicle of the second Canticle, Deut. 32:43g; Pog6 starts at ps. 17:14a and breaks off at ps. 21:15b, at which point Sof62 carries on with ps. 21:16a, continuing to the end of the Canticles, plus the "psalm without number," which is added in a different hand at the end of the manuscript, no doubt because it was not used liturgically.
Slovëne 2013 №2
as %t,at,v twv ¡ЗфХьЗоб? [Бенешевич 1911: 21, No. 8]; the two psalters
listed in a library catalogue from Patmos as фаАт^р(,а oTtxoXoyia? may have been a pair of similar kind [Parpulov 2005: 34, footnote 3].
As I. I. Sreznevsky pointed out [Срезневский 1861-63: 59], the Novgorod manuscripts are not a pair: they are independent copies of the psalms for antiphonal use, made by different scribes at separate times, probably somewhat earlier than the Greek one on Sinai. Previously Sof63 was thought to date from the fourteenth century, whereas Pog6+Sof62 was ascribed to the late thirteenth century [Куприянов 1857: 29-31; Шмидт 1984: 363-364, nos. 473 and 474]. However V. I. Sreznevsky observed that Sof63 exhibited early features of spelling not found in Sof62 [Срезневский 1877: 60-61], and recently its dating has been put back to the late twelfth or early thirteenth century [Шмидт 2002: 653-653, no. д61]. Indeed, against the background of similar layout and style of lettering the orthographical differences between Sof63 and Pog6+Sof62 reflect in a striking way the direction of change in norms during the thirteenth century.
In Sof63 the influence of early South Slavonic orthography can still be detected, whether as a result of direct inheritance from a South Slavonic exemplar or more probably through dissemination in East Slavonic scribal practice; for instance, the conventional use of ж in place of oy in the rubricated initials жширилъ (1v), ж.ньци (4v), жслъ1ши (9r), жтвьржАКть (18r), жмножнлъ (102r), and also once in the line, млднлмж (57v), is clearly an East Slavonic feature. Doubled vocalic letters occur frequently in the genitive singular masculine of definite adjectives or participles, e.g., съБрьшАНщдлго (10v), сп1лющАдго (77r), ДДЮЩЛАГС (108v), рожьшАлго (112r), прънсподьндлго (112v) and in imperfect tense forms, e.g., при^ождл^О (52v), рлсх^щАл^оуть (63r), тлялше (79v). As indicated by these examples, the consonantal letters жцчшщ tend to be followed by the letter д in preference to л. The distribution of ъ and ь is to a large extent etymologically correct:3 their replacement by о or е is rare and is treated as a mistake in the scribe's corrections of язъ1комь to язъ1къмь (53r), рого to рогъ (83v); but there is considerable inconsistency in the representation of syllables containing ъ or ь and a liquid, e.g., ^лъмъ1 (38v), ^ълмъ1 (45v), оутвьрженнк [...] нл врь^оу горъ (46r), and sequences of liquid followed by ъ or ь are common, e.g. млъння (51r), отъврьгошд (53v), оплъуд^оу (103v). The letter и appears for the most part in conformity with etymology both where it would occur in East Slavonic and also in South Slavonic spellings such as пръдъ (2r, 20v and elsewhere), пръдлю (11v), во връмд
3 In East Slavonic terms: third person singular and plural non-past forms of verbs regularly end in ть, not тъ.
потр^Еьно (13r), поср^д^ (70v); confusion with е, e.g., in the dative сене (74r), is rare.
At the same time Sof63 contains a large number of local spelling variants, some of which are simply East Slavonic, e.g., олени (1v), дъжь (40v), уижи^ъ (112r), as well as the hybrid щюжии (2r, 56v, 106v) and зижющии (87r, 97r), while others are specific to the north-western part of the East Slav area, e.g., дъжгь (45v with superscript г to correct from дъжь, 109r) and дъжгд (76r), чкжгии (81r), жижеми (71v) and жижемъ (95v). The most prominent local feature is cokan'e. This is not applied consistently, and variants can be found in close proximity, e.g., оцисти (30r x2) but очнщю сд ibid., пицю (74r) but пищю ibid., нАцинАнУи^ъ (77v) but науинании^ъ (78r), цьто (95r) but rubricated чьто ibid. Nevertheless, the scribe's predilection for ц is patent: I have noted 120 instances of ц in place of ч, including the correction in ps. 19:6b of възвеселимъ сд to възвелицимъ сд (3v), and only 4 with the reverse substitution of ч for ц. What is more, the scribe of Sof63 betrays no familiarity with the contextual rules which have been posited [Живов 1984: 267-268 and 2006: 105-106] to explain how other copyists determined the distribution of у and ц: he writes ц instead of ч x76 in places where only the first palatalization of the velars could apply, x42 in contexts where the conditioning of both the first and the third palatalizations is present, and x2 in place of *tj. The list of examples in the appendix to this article suggests that the scribe of Sof63 had no reliable way of deciding where to write ц or ч and that he made no distinction in this respect between more and less familiar lexical items.
It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that he was a poorly trained or negligent copyist. On the contrary, he was on the whole a careful writer who corrected his own mistakes, as can be seen from the examples mentioned above and from the places where letters have been deleted in the middle of a word or phrase which is then completed.4 It must be concluded that the orthographical tradition in which he wrote allowed a significant measure of flexibility; if in addition orthoepy played a part in the graphical representation of well known liturgical texts such as the psalms [Живов 1984: 285, footnote 10 and 2006: 88-89, footnote 10], it may be inferred that in Novgorod at the turn of the twelfth to thirteenth century the distinction between ч and ц was not observed in Church Slavonic pronunciation any more than it was in the vernacular.
The orthographical habits reflected in Pog6+Sof62 5 are a different matter. They contain no instances of ж, doubled vocalic letters are rare, the consonantal letters жцчшщ are normally followed by а , and sequences of liquid plus ъ
4 On folia 6r, 7r, 10r, 39v, 40v, 49r, 56v, 72v, 78v, 84r, 88v, 97v.
5 In citations from these manuscripts, folio references are to Sof62 unless Pog6 is specified.
or ь occur only in conjunction with line end, e.g., пръмълъ|чншн (8r), нзвьрь|же (39v), зъ|лъчн (177r). Thejers are omitted in weak position more often than in Sof63, and there is occasional confusion of ъ with о, e.g., пръмолчн (18v), the aorist погрдзъшл (172v) and the corruption of прлвьдьнъ съ1 to прлвьдьносн (180v). The letters ъ and е are used indiscriminately, not only in Church Slavonicisms such as посредъ (44v, 76v, 127r, 132r, 172v), предъ (Pog6 1v, 2v; 58r), потренншн (43v), пресллвьно (89v), престолъ (110v), времд (180v), онлече сд (99r, 111r, 126r), but also in words and forms current in East Slavonic, e.g., семене (22v), чЛвекъ (76v, 125v), члвекомъ (Pog68r; 169r), нсповъддть сд тене (43r), пожроу тене (43v), лде прнБлнжн сд (90r). There are some East Slavonic or even local spellings, e.g., чкжнн (43v, 125v, 174v) as well as щюжнн (Pog64v, 6r; 165r), дрожгня (71v), одъжгн (76v), дъжгь (169r, 173v), but the standard Church Slavonic знждемъ (147r) is preferred to the dialect treatment found in Sof63. Evidence of cokan'e is minimal: ц instead of ч x3 in various forms of the possessive adjective гръшьннцл (20r, 43v, 124v) and the reverse substitution x4, ч in place of a ц which may result either from the second palatalization, in очьтл (62r) and члвче^ъ (79r), or from the third, in лнче (171v) and стлрьчемъ (176v). From this small number of examples it is difficult to draw firm conclusions. It is possible, for instance, that through training, experience and a good visual memory the scribe of Pog6+Sof62 was usually able to arrive at the etymologically correct distributions of ч and ц even though he had no basis in pronunciation for distinguishing between them. Another conceivable possibility is that this manuscript was produced by a well trained scribe working from an exemplar characterized by cokan'e which he managed in most though not quite all instances to eradicate. On this hypothesis Pog6+Sof62 would be representative of a shift towards a supradialectal norm of Russian Church Slavonic spelling in the later thirteenth century.
However, there is a third possibility, that the scribe of Pog6+Sof62 copied from an antigraph which was unaffected by cokan'e and that the occasional instances of this dialectal feature betray his own local pronunciation. This interpretation deserves to be weighed along with the others because in general the manuscript is not as carefully written as Sof63. Although the scribe's hand is clear, it is larger and less elegant than that of the older manuscript. Mistakes in copying are somewhat more frequent and are left uncorrected, e.g., поношеннк прочля instead of поношеннк прнчл (61v), оукншлсд in place of оуглоунншлсд (98v), проввлкть сд as a corruption of прогнъвлкть сд (129r). The impression of work carried out hastily or inattentively is compounded by blatent errors in rubrication, e.g., нръхоплдлння for гръ^оплдлння (Pog65v), нъ for тъ (37r),
HT! tAAEH for 0T1 CAAB1I (38r), nAK!I WA^XtH for H AKH wgtxiH (109r). Even when the rubricator realised that the initial letter which he had inserted at the beginning of ps. 111:2b was wrong, his attempt at emendation by adding a superscript letter was misguided and resulted in a superficially plausible corruption: rfoA! npAB^iH^! instead of pog! npAB^IH^! (128v).
Such disparities between manuscripts of similar date, provenance, type and content offer a salutory corrective to a priori assumptions about how orthographical norms developed and were applied in the period before reference works or spell-checks became available. On the one hand, ostensible consistency in some point of scribal practice is not necessarily a guarantee of general competence or attentiveness to the task of copying; on the other hand, inconsistent spelling may be a sign not of incompetence or carelessness, but of an orthographical system which permits specific kinds of variable usage.
I. I. Sreznevsky's conclusion that the two Novgorod manuscripts are not a pair was not based simply on the palaeographical and orthographical differences between them, but above all on discrepancies in their contents. In 92 psalms6 Sof63 and Pog6+Sof62 contain largely complementary selections of versicles; this means that their combined witness supplies an almost complete text of those psalms. In 42 psalms,7 however, these manuscripts contain largely or entirely the same selection of versicles; they therefore cover approximately half the text of the psalms in question. Sometimes they differ in the way they divide the text, especially when division is into full verses8 rather than versicles. In such cases they may coincide for part of the text, e.g., in ps. 117, where they both start with even-numbered verses but diverge at verse 22, because Sof63 goes from 22a to 23, omitting 22b, and so switches to odd-numbered verses, whereas Sof62 continues with even-numbered ones throughout. Conversely in ps. 118 Sof63 starts with even-numbered verses, Sof62 with odd-numbered ones, but they agree between verses 73 and 112; in Canticle 2 Sof63 starts with odd-numbered verses, Sof62 with even-numbered ones, but they converge from verse 15 onward.
These facts are significant for several reasons. Firstly, they suggest that each manuscript originally had its pair, thus doubling the putative number of such books. Secondly, they imply that there was an ongoing liturgical need for antiphonal psalters. Further support for such an inference may be found in Sof62: at the beginning of pss. 26, 47, 65, 92 and 131 no heading or number
6 Pss. 18-24, 27-38, 40-43, 46, 49-75, 77-97, 101-107, 109-115, 118, 135, 136, 139, 146, 150, plus Canticle 2.
7 Pss. 17, 25, 26, 39, 44, 45, 47, 48, 76, 98-100, 108, 116, 117, 119-134, 137, 138, 140145, 147-149; in addition Sof62 supplies half the text of Canticles 1 and 3-9.
8 Pss. 50, 117, 118 and Canticle 2 in both manuscripts; pss. 140 and 148-150 in Sof63; the other Canticles in Sof62.
is supplied,9 so that the text runs on without break from the preceding psalm. Such oversights might perhaps occur more readily in copying from a preexisting antiphonal psalter10 than from the full text of the psalms, especially as only the even-numbered versicles of pss. 26, 65 and 92 are supplied and the copyist therefore would not have had the initial versicle to prompt his memory. If this is what happened, there must have been at least a third pair of antiphonal psalter manuscripts in thirteenth-century Novgorod, for Sof62 cannot have been copied from Sof63, which contains only the odd-numbered versicles of pss. 65 and 92.
More importantly, the partial coincidence between the texts in Sof63 and Pog6+Sof62 makes it easier to demonstrate that both manuscripts follow the same textual redaction. Where they coincide, each manuscript corroborates the other's witness, and they do this with a high degree of consistency, indicating unambiguously their joint affiliation to what is currently known as Redaction II of the Church Slavonic Psalter [Thomson 1998: 810, MacRobert 1998]. This is the version which was provisionally termed 'Russian' in the monographs by V. I. Sreznevsky and V. A. Pogorelov [Срезневский 1877, Погорелов 1901] because they met it attested in manuscripts which follow an East Slavonic orthographical recension (izvod); and the designation has been redeployed recently [Ostrowski 2009: 226-227, footnote 24], presumably because the earliest witness found so far, which goes back to the eleventh century, is likewise East Slavonic [Altbauer, Lunt 1978, Кривко 2004]. However, it does not necessarily follow that the textual Redaction II originated in the East Slav area; a Bulgarian provenance in the tenth century has also been mooted [Thomson 1998: 813814]. The question of local origin remains open [MacRobert 2005], and it has become clear in recent years that this redaction is attested not only in East but also in South Slavonic manuscripts of the thirteenth century, in association with vestigial spellings of Middle Bulgarian type [MacRobert 2008: 342].
The following examples comprise the main variant readings characteristic of Redaction II which are to be found in Sof63 and Sof62. Each is given together with the Greek expression which it translates and is followed by a list of supporting witnesses, notes of any lacunae or corrections, and the contrasting variant from Redaction I, the other version in widespread use up to the fourteenth century. Uncertain or corrupt readings are indicated with a question mark. The two earliest witnesses used, the East Slavonic Sin6 Har, are cited first, followed by four South Slavonic manuscripts, three of the thirteenth century, Sin7 Plj Bel,
9 Perhaps as a consequence, the numbering of pss. 133-149 is incorrect in Sof62.
10 The inclusion of hypopsalmata to Canticle 2 in Sof62 [MacRobert 1996: 168 and 175] is a further indication that the antigraph of this manuscript was intended for liturgical use [Onasch 1993 sub voce Responsorien]. The refrains are written immediately after the appropriate versicles, sometimes without even a point to mark them off; it is possible that the scribe of Sof62 did not realise that they were extraneous to this little used text.
and the somewhat later but conservative Ath. Of these, Plj Bel offer the clearest supporting evidence for Redaction II, agreeing to a large extent with Sin6 Har, but unfortunately they both have substantial lacunae in the first third of the psalter text. Sin7 Ath are more nearly complete, but have been sporadically corrected, usually to readings of Redaction I which were reinstated in the later revisions of the fourteenth century; the fact that these corrections were made suggests strongly that the original readings in Sin7 Ath were those of Redaction II. After them come three fourteenth-century East Slavonic manuscripts, Jar Fnll Sof60, which have been selected as relatively pure examples of Redaction II. The readings of Amf, the Simonovskaja Psalter published by Archimandrite Amphilochius [Амфилохий 1880-1] are included in spite of their occasional idiosyncrasies [Погорелов 1901: xxxii-xxxiii, MacRobert 2010] because this manuscript was used as a source for Redaction II by Jagic [Ягич 1884] and Pogorelov [Погорелов 1901] and remains one of the few representatives of that redaction easily accessible today.
The readings attested in both Sof63 and Sof62 can be divided into three types, each of which reflects a different aspect of the revision which produced Redaction II. The first consists of simple lexical or occasionally syntactic variation, where one expression is preferred to another of broadly similar meaning or function:
100:4b too novnpou—л^кдвлго Sof63+Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj BelJar Fnll — зъллго I Ath Sof60 Amf;
102:13b oimpst,—оущедрить Sof63+Sof62 Sin6 Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf - помнлоуетъ I Har Sin7 Plj Bel;
131:4c toic, кротафо!^—скрлннямА Sof63+Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Jar Fnll? Sof60 Amf (Plj Bel lacuna) —кротофомА I—кол^номд Ath;
131:7a oK^vw^aTa— с^нн Sof63+Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Fnll Sof60 Amf (Plj Bel lacuna; Ath corrected to I) — села I Jar;
132:2a |i6pov—миро Sof63+Sof62 Sin6 Sin7 Plj Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Har Bel lacuna) — хрнзмл I;
132: 2c Mav—подолъкъ Sof63+Sof62 Sin6 Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Har Bel lacuna; Ath corrected to I) —омети I Sin7Plj;
146:8d dv^pwiMv—члвкмъ Sof63+Sof62 Sin6 Sin7 Plj? Bel Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Har lacuna)—улов^чьст^ I.
Such adjustments could either have been made in the process of checking against Greek or have arisen subsequently within the Church Slavonic textual tradition; consequently they tend to constitute supplementary rather than decisive evidence for a particular redaction.
The other two types of variant can only be explained by reference to the Greek text of the psalms. Some of them arise from divergences between Redactions I and II in the interpretation of polysemous Greek words:
39:5b ^avia^—гн^въ1 Sof63+Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Plj Bel lacuna; Ath corrected to I) — ненстовлення I;
39:8b KS^aXiSi pipXioo—гллвнзнъ кннжнън Sof63+Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Jar Fnll Amf (Plj Bel lacuna) — съвнтъцъ къннжьнъмь I Sof60;
68:21a TaXatnwpiav—оклньствл Sof63+Sof62 Sin6 Har Plj Bel Ath Sof60 (Sin7 Ath corrected to I) — стрлстн I Jar Fnll Amf;
81:2b Xa^pdvBTS—прннмлкте Sof63+Sof62 Har Amf прнкмлете Sin6? Jar (Sin7 Ath corrected to I) —оннноунте сд I Plj Bel Fnll Sof60;
108:23b aKpiSs?—лнръдьк Sof63+Sof62 Har Jar (Sin6 Bel lacuna; Sin7 Ath corrected to I) — проут'нын концн Plj Amf?— пржзн I Fnll Sof60;
138:3b nposiSs?—пръдъвндъ Sof63+Sof62 Har Sin7 Plj Bel Jar Fnll Sof60 (Sin6 lacuna) —пръдъзре Ath Amf—прозръ I.
On the whole these variants suggest a more literalistic approach in Redaction II than in Redaction I, but the reading in 108:23b may be an exception: the meaning and etymology of лвръдьк are a matter of debate, but the gloss provided in Plj and garbled as проугнн нконоу in Amf suggests that the word was understood to refer to plants rather than insects [MacRobert 2010: 427].
The third type of diagnostic readings reproduces variants within the Greek textual tradition. Several of these are reminiscences, phrases transferred from similar contexts in other psalms; in principle such transferences could take place as readily in the Church Slavonic textual tradition as in Greek, but the regularity with which these readings appear in manuscripts containing one or other redaction suggests strongly that they go back to the Greek version from which their redaction derived. Some of the others betray misinterpretations of Greek and may indicate that Redaction II was based on a less competent knowledge of Greek than Redaction I:
39:9b KOiXia?— оутронъ Sof63+Sof62 Har Sin7 Jar Fnll? Amf—чревл Sin6 Sof60 (Plj Bel lacuna; Ath corrected to I); KapSia?—сръдьцл I
46:9a ¿ni та sftv^—нлдъ язъ1къ1 Sof63+Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Bel Jar Sof60 Amf; ¿ni navTa та sftv^11—нлдъ вьсъмн мзъ1къ1 I Ath Fnll;
68:14b Sova^sw?12—снлъ Sof63+Sof62 Sin6 Har Plj Bel Ath Fnll Sof60 Amf; ¿Xsoo?—мнлостн I Jar Sin7;
97:5a тй Kuptw—гдвн Sof63+Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Bel Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf; тй ftsw '"ноу нлшемоу I;
97:6a ¿ХатаГ? confused with ¿Xauvai??— древднл^ъ Sof63+Sof62 Sin6 Har Plj Bel Ath Jar (Sin7 corrected to I); ¿ХатаГ?— ковлыл^ъ I Fnll Sof60 Amf,
98:4b ёбОш^та?—прлвьдъ Sof63+Sof62 Sof63 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Bel Ath Fnll Sof60— прлвннд Amf; ёбОт^та—прлвннж I прлвдоу Jar;
11 Cf. 46:2a.
12 Cf. 32:17b and 65:3b.
13 Cf. 46:7b.
108:23b mistakenly associated with ¿ktsivw?—прострочи
ca Sof63+Sof62 Har Plj Jar (Sin6 Bel lacuna; Sin7 corrected to I) — съпрострохъ ca Amf; ¿^STtvax^nv—ситрАсо^ъ ca I Fnll Sof60.
While the number of these shared readings in Sof63 and Sof62 is inevitably limited, their evidence for affiliation to Redaction II is unambiguous; there is only one problematic variant:
140:9a ouvEOT^aavTO—състдвншд Sof63+Sof62 Sin7 Plj Bel Ath Amf (Sin6 Har lacuna; Jar corrected); sx.p^av14— съкръ1ША Fnll Sof60. The absence of the readings for Sin6 Har makes it difficult to determine whether the variant съкръ1ША, which is found in a number of fourteenth-century East Slavonic manuscripts, was original to Redaction II [MacRobert 1998: 932] but was ousted in South Slavonic manuscripts by the reading of Redaction I, or whether it was a later modification.
Divergence between Sof63 and Sof62 is also rare and can be explained by the relative conservatism of Sof63. In particular, in the headings to the eighth and nineteenth kathismata15 Sof63 retains in abbreviated form, ctA , the early Church Slavonic translation of the term с^днльнл or съднльно, which is otherwise found mainly in association with Redaction I; but Pog6+Sof62 has throughout the abbreviation к/ of the more widely used Greek equivalent kathisma, as does Sof63 elsewhere. Another example of possible conservatism in Sof63 occurs in 150:4a, where the equivalent supplied for TU^navw is not the loanword тоумъплнъ found in Sof62 and most other Church Slavonic psalter manuscripts regardless of redaction, but кумплн^, which, if it is not merely a slip of the pen, can be paralleled only by кемъпн^16 in the second Glagolitic psalter from Sinai [Miklas 2012].
On the textological foundation provided by those portions of Sof63 and Pog6+Sof62 which coincide textually it is possible to build up a fuller picture of Redaction II by taking into account diagnostic readings attested only in one of the two manuscripts. The same three-fold division can be applied. The lexical variants, even when they only occur once, speak for a different approach to translation from that of Redaction I, for instance in the use of of native words rather than loans:
17:39a об SovwvTat,—не могоуть мощ1 Sof63 Sin6 Sin7 Plj Bel Fnll Sof60 Amf (Har lacuna) —не нмжть мощи I—не вьзмогУть Ath Jar;
30:23b ansppt^^at—шрнновенъ Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Bel Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Plj lacuna) — швръженъ I;
14 Cf. 30:5a.
15 At pss. 55 and 134.
16 The same word occurs, but as a translation of 150:5 Ku^paXoi^, in the second Glagolitic psalter and the Vienna Croatian Glagolitic commentated psalter [Hamm 1967]; this may be echoed in the reading звон^^ь found in Plj Bel Ath [Трифуновиъ 2000; MacRobert 2010: 429].
48:21b àvo^TOiç—NipA3oyML,N^ix^ Sof63 Sin6 Sin7 Plj Ath Jar Fnll Amf (Bel lacuna) —Hec^M^icAtH^ix^ I Har Sof60;
61:11c pé^—np^TfKAKTL Sof63 Sin6 Plj Bel Fnll Sof60 Amf— mhmotîkasti I Har Sin7 Ath Jar,
62:12c èvs^pâyn—3ArpAAHmA ca Sof63 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Bel lacuna) — 3A^.mA ca I;
73:8a ooyyévsia—c^pogÏTeAH Sof63 Sin6 Har Plj Bel Ath Jar (Sin7 corrected to I) — ci^^hkh Amf— xxhkh I Fnll Sof60;
83:3b ¿ni ftsov ÇœvTa— k^. "coy «Hsoy Sof63 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj BelJar (Amf without k^) — o es« xhe^ I Fnll Sof60 Ath;
85:4b ^pa—B^3ABHrox^ Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Bel Ath Jar -E13AX1 I Fnll Sof60Amf,
92:3b ¿ntTpi^stç—cT(Bo)peHHm, i.e., c^TptHHw Sof62 Sin6 Sin7Plj Bel Fnll (Ath corrected to I) — cTpoyra. Jar Sof60— cTpoyr^i I Har Amf,
101:8b Sw^an—3^aahhh Sof63 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Bel Ath Jar Fnll S60— I Amf;
101:28 ¿KXsinouatv—ocKoyg^WTt Sof63 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Bel Ath Jar Fnll Sof60— hckohlyabti ca I Amf
105:42a sftAi^av—ocK^pH^ma Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Bel Ath Jar Fnll Sof60— c^T^^HmA I Amf;
113:8b àx.pGT0|i0v—hcc^kom^ih Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Bel lacuna) — AKp0T0M^ I;
138:15b unooTaotç—cictabi Sof63 Har Sin7 Plj Bel Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Sin6 lacuna) —vnocTAct I;
140:7b StsoKopnio^n—pac^inamA ca Sof63 Sin7 Plj Bel Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Sin6 Har lacuna) — pacoymA ca I.
Parallels can be found to the lexical choices recorded in both manuscripts: 42:3c oK^vw^axa—c«hï Sof63 Sin6 Har Bel S60 Amf c«hl Jar (Plj lacuna; Ath corrected to I) — ceaa I Sin7 Fnll ;
105:46a oEmp^oôç—ipegpoT^i Sof63 Sin6 Sin7 Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf-MHAocTL I Har Plj Bel;
118:156a oÏKTip^oi— ipegpoT^i Sof63 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Bel lacuna) — mhaocth I.
Repeated attestations in one or other of the two manuscripts similarly reflect lexical preferences either in Redaction II itself or at any rate in the period during which this version was in use:
18:2 noinoiv—c^TBopeHHK Pog6 Sin6 Har Plj Bel Fnll Amf—TBapt I Sin7 Ath Jar Sof60;
63:10c not^^aTa—c^TBopeHHm Sof62 Sin6? Har Sin7 Plj Ath Jar Fnll Amf (Bel lacuna) — TBapH I Sof60;
65:16a Stny^oo^at—съклжи Sof62HarSin7PljBelJarFnll Sof60 Amf (Ath corrected to I)—пок^мь I Sin6?;
72:15a Stny^oo^at—сгкджн Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Bel Jar Ath Sof60 Amf— повъмь I Fnll;
77:67b фоА^— племене Sof62 Sin6 HarJar Fnll Amf Sof60— кол^нд Plj Bel Ath;
77:68a ^uÀ^v—племА Sof63 Har Sin7 Plj Bel Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf— колено I Sin6 Ath;
90:6b au^xTM^aTOÇ—сър^тении Sof63 Bel Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf— сръщА I Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Ath.
To these may be added a range of recurrent features, too frequently instantiated to be listed individually, whose preponderant or systematic use in manuscripts of Redaction II helps to distinguish them even from the later representatives of Redaction I [MacRobert 2005: 41-42]: the absence of asigmatic aorists, the use of дкъ1 (x29 Sof63, x23 Sof62) rather than яко to introduce similes, велнкъ (x4 Sof63, x1 Sof62) rather than велнн, and the lexical items везоумд (x3 Sof63, x4 Sof62), ндпрАщн (x2 Sof63, x3 Sof62), съборъ (x7 Sof63, x3 Sof62) instead of дшоуть or спъ1тн, ндлАщн, съньмъ in Redaction I.
Direct discrepancy between Sof63 and Pog6+Sof62 cannot of course be detected in those portions of the text where the manuscripts complement each other, but there are two examples of indirect inconsistency. One of these is probably an instance of linguistic updating independent of redaction:
69:6b xpovia^ç—здмоудн Sof63I Sin6HarSin7Amf— здкьснн Plj Bel Ath— здмедлн Jar Fnll Sof60
39:18b xpovia^ç здмедлн Sof62Jar Sof60— здмждн I Sin6 Har— здЕ^дн Sin7 Fnll Amf— здкьснн Ath (Plj Bel lacuna)
The corruption of здмждн to здбоудн in both South and East Slavonic manuscripts is in itself an indication that здмжднтн was not in current use, and its replacement by здмедлн in Sof62, as by здкьснн in Plj Bel Ath, merely confirms this. The other instance of lexical variation in Sof63 and Sof62, between the Latin loanword олън and the Greek ел^н, is more problematic: Sof63 has елън x2 (108:24, 140:5) but also an instance of олън (108:18); Sof62 has елън x5 (22:5, 54:22, 91:11, 108:18+24) but presents шлън x2 with a rubricated initial (88:21, 140:5) and also x2 in line (103:15, Deut. 32:13d). In Redaction I, in the South Slavonic Sin7 Plj Bel Ath and in the East Slavonic Jar олън is found to the exclusion of ел^н, but Sin6 Har Fnll Sof60 Amf employ an unpredictable mixture of both, with мдсло as a further occasional option in Sin6 Sof60 Amf. It is not impossible that Redaction II was inconsistent in this respect from the outset, since it seems to have come into existence through a process of checking and correcting Redaction I against Greek.
The character of that process is once again brought into sharp focus by instances of a distinctive approach to translation in Redaction II, sometimes literalistic, sometimes interpretative, which are attested either in Sof63 or in Sof62:
34:6a oXioOni^a— съблазнъ Sof62 Sin6 Har BelJar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Plj lacuna; Sin7 Ath corrected to I) — плъзъкъ I;
54:23b oaXov—смАтення Sof62 Sin6 Sin7 Plj Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Har Bel lacuna)—млъвъ1 I;
63:3a ооотроф^ novsopo^évwv—рдзвращення лоукАвьствоу-ющин^ъ Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Bel lacuna) — съньмА зълОБНБЪ1хъ I;
70:14a Stà navTÔç—о всемь Sof63 Sin6 Har Plj BelJar Ath Sof60 Amf— Бъшж I Sin7 Fnll;
72:7b SiâSeoiv—рАзмъ1шлення Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7orig. Plj Ath Jar Sof60 Amf (Bel lacuna; Sin7 corrected to I) —любъве I Fnll;
73:4b syvwoav— укша Sof63 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj BelJar Amf (Ath corrected to I) — познаша I Fnll Sof60;
91:8b Stix^av—пр^клоннша са Sof63 Sin6 Har Plj Bel Ath Jar Fnll—възннкошА I Sof60 Amf оуннкоше Sin7;
92:4b ^STSwpto^oi—запрещения Sof63 Sin6 Har Plj Bel Jar Fnll Sof60 (Sin7Ath corrected to I) —въгсотъ1 I Amf;
93:9b Kaxavost—разоумекть Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Ath Fnll Sof60 (Bel lacuna) —смотрнть I Plj Amf (Jar corrected from сматракть?);
106:29a aopav—тишину Sof62 Har Sin7 Plj Bel Ath Fnll Sof60 (Sin6 lacuna) — хладъ I Jar Amf;
108:21b xpnoTÔv— щедра Sof63 Har Plj Fnll Sof60 (Sin6 Bel lacuna; Ath corrected to I); Jar corrected—блага I Jar? Amf Sin7;
109:3a àpx^—начальство Sof63 Har AthJar Sof60 (Sin6 Bel lacuna) — владъ1уьство I PljSin7Fnll Amf;
136:3b u^vov—хвалоу Sof62 Har Plj Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Sin6 Bel lacuna; Sin7corrected to I) — песннн I.
Although some of the manuscripts adduced here deviate occasionally in the direction of Redaction I, the majority reading of Redaction II is in most cases clear and is usually supported by the earliest witness, Sin6. The same can be said of those variants which can be referred back to the Greek textual tradition:
33:23b Kaxatoxuv^^oovTat17—постъ1ДАть са Sof63 Sin6 Har Bel (Plj lacuna) Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf; nXn^^sX^oouotv—прегрешАтъ I Sin7 Ath;
17 Probably a vague reminiscence of similar wording in 33:6b, 36:19, 68:7a.
34:11 àvéoTnoavP—въстдшд Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Bel Ath Jar Fnll Amf Sof60 (Plj lacuna); àvaaidvxeç—Бъстдвъшнн I;
49:18b ^01Хо5-пр^лмбод^кмь Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Ath Jar Sof69 Amf (Bel lacuna); iioi^ôv—пр^лнбод^н I Fnll
57:5b àaniSoç kw^ç—дспндд глоу^д Sof62 Sin6 Sin7 Plj Bel Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Har lacuna); àaniSwv kw^ôv—дспндъ глоу^ъ I;
57:6b фар|лакоита1 ^ap^aKSUG^évn пара ao^oS?—оедбдкмд оед-вдющн са ш пръмоудрд Sof62 Sin6 Sin7 Jar Fnll Sof60 (Har lacuna); ^ap^aKoS тг ^ap^a^oo^év^ пара ao^oS?—оедбдкмд ш обдвьннкд пръмоудрд Plj Bel— оедбдкмд ш обдвдющдго ш пръмУдрд Amf— ш пръмоудрд обдвьннкд оедбдкмд I Ath;
70:19a ftao|iâaia18—чкдесд Sof62 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Bel Jar Amf; ^гуаХг?а—велнчьствня I Fnll Sof60 (Ath corrected to II?);
70:20c а^уауг?—възведе Sof63 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Bel Jar Amf (Ath corrected to I); nâÀiv а^уауг?— древле възведе I Fnll Sof60;
73:17a opta misread as орга?—горъ Sof62 Sin6 Har Plj Bel Jar Sof60 Amf (Sin7 corrected to I); opta— пр^д«лъ1 I Ath Fnll;
83:11c otmv ^г— жнтн мн Sof62 Sin6 Sin7 Plj Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 (Har lacuna); otmv—жнтн I Bel Amf;
84:5 ашт^р спснтелю ндшь Sof63 Sin6 Har Sin7 Plj Bel Ath Jar
Fnll Sof60 Amf (Plj corrected to I); awT^piwv спсеннн ндшн^ъ I;
104:42b tos npoç A^paa^—нже къ дврддмоу Sof62 Sin6 Har Ath Jar Fnll; ov SisO^to тй A^paa^—еже нмъ къ дврддмоу I Sin7 Plj Bel Amf Sof60;
138:20a ¿pгïç saTai?—рече Еоудеть Sof63 Fnll Sof60 (Sin6 lacuna; Sin7 corrected to III); ¿pгïтг saTai?—речете Еоудеть Har Plj BelJar Amf (Ath corrected to I); ¿pгïтг—речете I; èpiaTai ¿aтг—ревннвн ксте III.
As before, in the case of 140:9a discussed above, there is only one problematic reading:
52:2b àvo^taiç—Еездконнн Sof62 Har—¿niTn<^ô|iaai19—ндчннд-ннн^ъ Sin6 Plj Bel Ath Jar Fnll Sof60 Amf (Sin7 corrected to I) — Еездко-ннн^ъ I Jar.
Here the support in other manuscripts for ндчннднннхъ as the reading of Redaction II is strong; the minority preference for Еездконнн(хъ) could have any of several possible explanations: sporadic influence of Redaction I, sporadic consultation of Greek at some early stage, or simply the appropriateness in context of Еездконнк, which occurs much more frequently in the psalms than ндчнндннк.
18 Cf. 70:17b.
19 Cf. 13:1b.
Apart from these isolated deviations and a few omissions from both manuscripts,20 Sof63 and Sof62 taken together present a pattern of readings which corresponds closely to the set of diagnostic variants posited for Redaction II [MacRobert 1998: 929-933]. They also follow Redaction II almost without exception in agreeing with the liturgical rather than the commentated version of Redaction I where those two traditions diverge [MacRobert 1998: 933-935].21 Of the three exceptions, the one in 106:19b, where Sof63 agrees with the commentated tradition, is probably a reminiscence of 106:13b; in the other two cases, the omission from 136:6b of mko in Sof63 and the reading Deut. 32:43 ^KptnATL h in Sof62, the variant reading is a minority one, not widely enough supported to be typical of any redaction.
Thus the antiphonal psalters from S. Sophia in Novgorod are important in three respects: they preserve evidence of a liturgical practice which is otherwise sparsely attested; in both of them, but especially in the older manuscript, Sof63, the interaction of local pronunciation with Church Slavonic can be clearly detected; and their joint witness lends weighty support to the inference, otherwise based mainly on manucripts of rather later date, that up to the period of Second South Slavonic influence the version of the Psalter most widely known and used in Rus' was Redaction II. Moreover, in some points they agree with the earliest witnesses to that redaction, Sin6 and Har, against the later and more heterogeneous tradition found in the fourteenth century. The combined witness of Sof63 and Pog6+Sof62 provides the fullest East Slavonic version of Redaction II extant from the thirteenth century22 and the earliest manuscript evidence for this redaction to have survived continuously in Russian archives.
Appendix: Confusion of ч and ц in Sof63
Multiple instances of type I ч > ц (x62):
оуц - x15: forms of нлоуцнтн (7r, 66v, 87v, 88r, 90r x3, 91v, 92v, 93r, 106r), forms of пооуцнтн (50v, 93v, 105v), пооуценУе (94v);
цнст- x6: цнстотъ (1r), forms of оцнстнтн (30r x2, 81v), оцнщеннк (63r, 98r);
цьто x4: ннцьтоже (20v, 62r), не о цемьже (33v), цьто (95r); ллцющ- x4: (78v, 79r, 80r, 108v;)
20 43:8b, 44:9, 47:4, 62:2, 107:10; 134:6, Isa. 26:20.
21 In 21:9 Sof62, 24:17 Sof63, 26:9 Sof63, 34:8 Sof62, 39:15 Sof62, 39:18 Sof62, 91:15 Sof63, 107:5 Sof63, 107:9 Sof63, 111:8 Sof63, 118:127 Sof62, 134:12 Sof63, 138:24 Sof62, Deut. 32:39 Sof62; in 103:27 Sof63 Sof62, like other witnesses to Redaction II, prefer the reading found in the commentated version of Redaction I.
22 The thirteenth-century psalter manuscript in RGADA [Автократова, Князевская, Шмидт 1988: 104-106, no. 40] is unfortunately incomplete: it breaks off at ps. 103.
мълц- x4: forms of пръмълцнтн (9b, 29r), омлъцн (20v), нзмъ|лце (42r);
чловъцьск- x4: (56r, 79r, 107v, 108r); оцн x3: (88v, 96r, 98v); пдце x3: (30r, 103r, 105r);
ръц-/рец- x3: ръцн (2v), рецеть (59r), вельръцУв (31r); мьрц-/мрдц- x2: мьрце (75v) омрдцнть са (102v); ндцнн-/ндцА- x2: ндцннднУнхъ (77v), ндцало (101v); оеддц-/оел^ц- x2: облдцьнъ (70r), оел^це са (81v); плдць x2: (10v, 71r);
с^ц- x2: отъсъцетъ (50v), съць (77v); тоуцьнъ x2: (4v, 41r); цнсло x2: (22r, 109r);
цаст- x2: прнцАстншА са (77v), цасть (111v). Single instances of type I ч > ц (x14):
вецерд (74r), зълцУ (113r), нстоцьннкъ (41v), пдоуцнноу (21r), отълоцншн (40v), мець (34r), оумоуцн (2r), непороцьноу (70v), прнтъцю (42v), нс^цн (48r), рдстоцн (83v), цръвд (99r), нецьстнвъ1мн (7v), цюдесд (79v).
Multiple instances of type I' ч > ц (x36):
оуннцьж- x12: forms of оуннцьжнтн (5v, 24v, 43v, 34v, 71v, 77v, 89v, 92r), оуннцьженнк (12r, 89r, 96r x2);
велнц- x8: възвелнцАя (2r), forms of възвелнцнтн са (22r, 34r, 65v, 73r) велнцьствнк (111r), велнцнк (111r), възвеселнмъ са > възвелнцнмъ са (3v);
коньц- x6: forms of нсконьцАтн са (21r, 64r, 74v), сконьцАЮ (112v), коньцннд (35v, 91r);
лнц- x4: forms of облнцнтн (19r, 29v, 104v), облнцьннкъ (47r); гръшьннц- (adjective) x2: (81r, 104v); обьца x2: (adjective 55v, noun 94v); пшеннцьн- x2: (57r, 109v).
Single instances of type I' ч > ц (x6):
дгньцемь (adjective 112r), в^ньцАЮщддго (72r), всАцьскдя (74r), ловьцА (adjective 64v), оцьствня (68r), прнннце (59r).
Single instances of *tj > ч > ц (x2): полецю (32r), пнцю (74r).
Single instance of type II ц > ч:
чрве (7r).
Single instances of type III ц > ч (x3):
скоропнсьчд (genitive, 28r), лнчл (43r), птеньчемъ (109r).
Manuscripts Cited
Amf
State Historical Museum in Moscow, MS Хлуд. 3, East Slavonic, probably 14th century [communication by A. A. Turilov, pace Шмидт 1984: 318-9, No. 384], published in [Амфилохий 1880-1].
Ath
National Library of Greece, Athens, MS 1797, West Bulgarian or Macedonian, 14th century [Харисщадис 1978; Станчев, Джурова 1981: 34-40; MacRobert 2008; MacRobert forthcoming].
Bel
Belgrade University Library, MS 36; Museum of the Serbian Orthodox Church, MS 331; Serbian National Library, MS 589; Library of the Belgrade Patriarchate, MS 314; Museum of Applied Arts, two unnumbered bifolia; Serbian, 13th century [Церниъ 1981: 337 and 346; Богдановиъ 1982: 89, nos. 1221-1224; MacRobert 1991 and 2008].
Fnll
National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg, MS F.n.I.1., 14th century [communication by A. A. Turilov, pace Шмидт 1984: 274, No. 300; Szulc 2000-01]. Har
Houghton Library, Harvard, MS Typ. 221, East Slavonic, 12th-13th century [extract published in Altbauer, Lunt 1978: 146-177].
Jar
Historical Museum in Yaroslavl, MS 15482, East Slavonic, 14th century [MacRobert 1992].
Plj
Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Pljevlja, MS 80, and Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, MS 45.8.263, Serbian, 13th century [Церниъ 1980: 363, no. 13; Богдановиъ 1982: 89, no. 1227; MacRobert 1991 and 2008].
Pog6+Sof62
National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg, MS Погод. 6 and MS Соф. 62, East Slavonic, 13th-14th century; [Шмидт 1984: 363-4; Куприянов 1857: 29-31, Срезневский 1861-63: 59, Срезневский 1877: 60-61]. Sin6
St. Catherine's monastery, Sinai, MS Slav. 6 and Slav 6/N, plus National Library of Russia, St Petersburg, MS Q.n.I.73 (the Bychkov fragment), East Slavonic, 11th century; published in [Altbauer, Lunt 1978, Tarnanides 1988].
Sin7
St. Catherine's monastery, Sinai, MS Slav. 7, Serbian, 13th century [Сперанский 1927: 98; MacRobert 2008]. Sof60
National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg, MS Соф. 60, East Slavonic, 14th century [Гранстрем 1953: 52-53]. Sof63
National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg, MS Соф. 63, East Slavonic, 12th-13th century [Шмидт 2002: 653-4; Куприянов 1857: 29-31, Срезневский 1861-63: 59, Срезневский 1877: 60-61].
Bibliography
Автократова, Князевская, Шмидт 1988
Автократова М. И., Князевская О. А., Шмидт С. О., Каталог рукописных книг Xl-XlV вв., хранящихся в ЦГАДА СССР, 1-2, Москва, 1988. Амфилохий 1880-1
Архимандрит Амфилохий, Древле-славянская Псалтирь Симоновская до l280 года, 1-4, 2-е изд., Москва, 1880-1881. Бенешевич 1911
Бенешевич В. Н., Описание греческихрукописей Монастыря Святой Екатерины на Синае, 1, С.-Петербург, 1911. Богдановиъ 1982
Богдановиъ Д., Инвентар Нирилскихрукописау]угослави]и (Xl-XVll века), Београд, 1982. Горский, Невоструев 1855
Горский А. В., Невоструев К. И., Описание славянскихрукописей Московской Синодальной библиотеки, 1, Москва, 1855. Гранстрем 1953
Гранстрем Е. Э., Описаниерусских и славянских пергаменныхрукописей:рукописи русские, болгарские, молдовлахийские, сербские, Ленинград, 1953.
Дьяченко 1899
Дьяченко Г., Полный церковно-славянский словарь, Москва, 1899. Живов 1984/2006
Живов В. М., "Правила и произношение в русском церковнославянском правописании XI-XIII вв.", Russian Linguistics, 8, 1984, 251-293 (= Восточнославянское nравоnисание Xl-Xlll века), Москва, 2006, 76-130. Кривко 2004
Кривко Р. Н., "Графико-орфографические системы Бычковско-Синайской псалтыри", I-II, Русский язык в научном освещении, 7, 2004, 80-124 and 8, 2004, 17-200. Куприянов 1857
Куприянов И., Обозрение жргаменныхрукоnисей Новгородской Софийской библиотеки, С.-Петербург, 1857.
Погорелов 1901
Погорелов В. А., Псалтыри (= Библиотека Московской Синодальной Типографии, 1:3), Москва, 1901. Сперанский 1927
Сперанский М. Н., "Cлавянская письменность XI-XIV вв. на Синае и в Палестине", Известия Отделения русского языка и словесности Академии наук, 32, 1927, 43-118. Срезневский 1861-63
Срезневский И. И., "Древние памятники русского письма и языка", Известия Отделения русского языка и словесности Имnераторской академии наук, 10, 1861-1863.
Срезневский 1877
Срезневский В. И., Древний славянский nеревод nсалтыри. Исследование его текста и языка порукоnисям Xl-XlV в., С.-Петербург, 1877. Станчев, Джурова 1981
Станчев К., Джурова А., "Археографски бележки от Националната библиотека в Атина", Старобългарскалитература, 9, 1981, 3-75. Трифуновиъ 2001
Трифуновиъ Ъ., "Псалтир светога Саве Српског", Slavia, 70, 2001, 499-503.
Slovëne 2013 №2
Харисщадис 1978
Харисиадис М., "Српски рукописи у атинсюэ]' Народно] библиотеци", Зборник за ликовне уметности, 14, 1978, 205-12. Церниъ 1980
Церниъ Л., "Нека запажааа о српским рукописима у збиркама Леаинграда", Археографски прилози, 2, 1980, 359-64.
Церниъ 1981
Церниъ Л., "О атрибуции средаовековних српских Ьирилских рукописа", у: Д. Богдановиъ (ed.), Текстологи]а средтовековних ]ужнословенских ктижевности (= Српска Академщ'а Наука и Уметности, Научни скупови, ка. x, Оделеае ]езика и каижевности, ка. 2), Београд, 1981, 335-360. Шмидт 2002
Шмидт С. О. и др. (ed.), Сводный каталог славяно-русских рукописных книг, хранящихся в России, странах СНГ и Балтии. XIV в., 1, Москва, 2002.
Шмидт 1984
Шмидт С. О. и др. (ed.), Сводный каталог славяно-русских рукописных книг, хранящихся в СССР. XI-XIII вв., Москва, 1984. Ягич 1884
Ягич В., "Четыре критико-палеографические статьи (приложение к отчету о присуждении Ломоносовской премии за 1885 год)", Сборник Отделения русского языка и словесности Императорской Академии наук, 33, 1884, 37-73. Altbauer, Lunt 1978
Altbauer M., Lunt H. G., An Early Slavonic Psalter from Rus', Cambridge, Mass., 1978. Hamm 1967
Hamm J., Psalterium vindobonense. Der kommentierte glagolitische Psalter der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (= Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Schriften der Balkankommission, Linguistische Abteilung, 19), Vienna, 1967. MacRobert 1991
MacRobert C. M., "The Systems of Supplementary Penitential Texts in the Psalter MSS Pec 68, Belgrade 36, and Pljevlja 80", Oxford Slavonic Papers, ns 24, 1991, 1-22. MacRobert 1992
MacRobert C. M., "Two Lykewake Psalters: The MSS Västeräs/UUB5/UUB6 and Jaroslavl' 15482," Scando-Slavica, 38, 1992, 108-127. MacRobert 1996
MacRobert C. M., "The Classificatory Importance of Headings and Liturgical Directions in Church Slavonic Psalters of the 11th-15th Centuries," Byzantinoslavica, 57, 1996, 156-181.
MacRobert 1998
MacRobert C. M., "The Textual Tradition of the Church Slavonic Psalter up to the Fifteenth Century," in: J. Krasovec (ed.), Interpretation of the Bible, Ljubljana—Sheffield, 1998, 921-942. MacRobert 2005
MacRobert C. M., "On the Problems of Identifying a «Preslav Redaction» of the Psalter," in: M. Dimitrova, P. Petkov, I. Hristova (eds.), Studia in honoremprofessoris Angelinae Minceva (= Acta palaeoslavica, 2), Sofia, 2005, 39-46. MacRobert 2008
MacRobert C.M., "On the Role of Memory and Oral Tradition in the Early Transmission of the Church Slavonic Psalter Text," in: А. Милтенова, Е. Томова, Р. Станкова (eds.), Християнска агиология и народни вярвания. Сборник в чест на ст. н. с. Елена Коцева, Sofia, 2008, 340-355.
MacRobert 2010
MacRobert C.M., "The Impact of Interpretation on the Evolution of the Church Slavonic Psalter Text up to the Fifteenth Century," in: A. Lemaire (ed.) Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007 (= Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol. 133), Leiden—Boston, 2010, 423-440.
MacRobert forthcoming
MacRobert C.M., "The Enigmatic Athens Psalter (Greek National Library, MS 1797)," in: Ж. Левшина (ed.), "Слова и золота вязь". Сборник статей памяти В. М. Загребина, С.-Петербург (forthcoming), 338-345. Miklas 2012
Miklas H. (ed.), Psalterium Demetrii Sinaiticum (= Glagolitica Sinaitica, 1), Vienna, 2012. Onasch 1993
Onasch K. Lexikon Liturgie und Kunst der Ostkirche, Berlin—Munich, 1993. Ostrowski 2009
Ostrowski D., "Identifying Psalmic Quotations in the Povest' Vremennykh Let," in: R. E. Martin, J. B. Spock (eds.), Culture and Identity in Eastern Christian History (= Ohio Slavic Papers, 9, Eastern Christian Studies, 1), Columbus, Ohio, 2009, 217-247. Parpulov 2005
Parpulov G. R., Towards a History of Byzantine Psalters (D Phil dissertation, Chicago, 2004), UMI Dissertation Services, 2005.
Roty 1983
Roty M., Dictionnaire russe-français des termes en usage dans l'église russe, 2 ed., Paris, 1983. Szulc 2000-01
Szulc A., Leksykalne i slowotwôrcze zrâwnicowanie cerkiewnoslowianskichpsalterzy redakcji ruskiejzXI-XIX wieku, 2 vols. Torun, 2000-2001. Tarnanides 1988
Tarnanides I. C., The Slavonic Manuscripts Discovered in 1975 at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai, Thessaloniki, 1988. Thomson 1998
Thomson F. J., "The Slavonic Translation of the Old Testament," in: J. Krasovec (ed.), Interpretation of the Bible, Ljubljana—Sheffield, 1998, 605-920, especially 797-825.
References
Altbauer M., Lunt H. G., An Early Slavonic Psalter from Rus', Cambridge, Mass., 1978.
Avtokratova M. I., Kniazevskaia O. A., Shmidt S. O., Katalog rukopisnykh knig XI-XIV vv., khrania-shchikhsia v TsGADA SSSR, 1-2, Moscow, 1988.
Bogdanovic D., Inventar arilskih rukopisa u Jugoslaviji (XI-XVIIveka), Belgrade, 1982.
Cernic L., "Neka zapazanja o srpskim rukopi-sima u zbirkama Lenjingrada," Arhejografki prilozi, 2, 1980, 359-64.
Cernic L., "O atribuciji srednjovekovnih srpskih cirilskih rukopisa," u: D. Bogdanovic (ed.), Teksto-logija srednjovekovnih juznoslovenskih knjizevnosti (= Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti, Naucni skupovi, knj. x, Odeljenje jezika i knjizevnosti, knj. 2), Belgrade, 1981, 335-360.
Granstrem E. E., Opisanie russkikh i slavianskikh pergamennykh rukopisei: rukopisi russkie, bolgarskie, moldovlakhiiskie, serbskie, Leningrad, 1953.
Hamm J., Psalterium vindobonense. Der kommentierte glagolitische Psalter der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (= Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Schriften der Balkankommission, Linguistische Abteilung, 19), Vienna, 1967.
Harisijadis M., "Srpski rukopisi u atinskoj Na-rodnoj biblijoteci," Zbornik za likovne umetnosti, 14, 1978, 205-12.
Kniazevskaia O. A., Kobiak N. A., Lifshits A. L., Tikhomirov N. B., Turilov A. A., Shelamanova N. B. (eds.), Svodnyi katalogslaviano-russkikh rukopisnykh knig, khraniashchikhsia v Rossii, stranakh SNG i Baltii. XIV v., 1, Moscow, 2002.
Krivko R. N., "Grafiko-orfograficheskie sis-temy Bychkovsko-Sinaiskoi psaltyri," I-II, Russkii iazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii, 7, 2004, 80-124 and 8, 2004, 17-200.
MacRobert C. M., "The Systems of Supplementary Penitential Texts in the Psalter MSS Pec 68, Belgrade 36, and Pljevlja 80," Oxford Slavonic Papers, ns 24, 1991, 1-22.
MacRobert C. M., "Two Lykewake Psalters: The MSS Västeras/UUB5/UUB6 and Jaroslavl' 15482," Scando-Slavica, 38, 1992, 108-127.
MacRobert C. M., "The Classificatory Importance of Headings and Liturgical Directions in Church Slavonic Psalters of the 11Th-15Th Centuries," Byzantinoslavica, 57, 1996, 156-181.
MacRobert C. M., "The Textual Tradition of the Church Slavonic Psalter up to the Fifteenth Century," in: J. Krasovec (ed.), Interpretation of the Bible, Ljubljana - Sheffield, 1998, 921-942.
MacRobert C. M., "On the Problems of Identifying a «Preslav Redaction» of the Psalter," in: M. Dimitrova, P. Petkov, I. Hristova (eds.), Studia in honorem professoris Angelinae Minceva (= Acta pa-laeoslavica, 2), Sofia, 2005, 39-46.
MacRobert C. M., "On the Role of Memory and Oral Tradition in the Early Transmission of the Church Slavonic Psalter Text," in: A. Miltenova, E. Tomova, R. Stankova (eds.), Khristiianska agio-logiia i narodni viarvaniia. Sbornik v chest na st. n. s. Elena Kotseva, Sofia, 2008, 340-355.
MacRobert C. M., "The Impact of Interpretation on the Evolution of the Church Slavonic Psalter Text up to the Fifteenth Century," in: A. Lemaire (ed.) Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007 (= Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol. 133), Leiden—Boston, 2010, 423-440.
MacRobert C. M., "The Enigmatic Athens Psalter (Greek National Library, MS 1797)," in: Zh. Levshina (ed.), "Slova i zolota viaz'." Sbornik sta-
tei pamiati V. M. Zagrebina, St. Petersburg (forthcoming), 338-345.
Miklas H. (ed.), Psalterium Demetrii Sinaiticum (= Glagolitica Sinaitica, 1), Vienna, 2012.
Onasch K., Lexikon Liturgie und Kunst der Ostkirche, Berlin—Munich, 1993.
Ostrowski D., "Identifying Psalmic Quotations in the Povest' Vremennykh Let," in: R. E. Martin, J. B. Spock (eds.), Culture and Identity in Eastern Christian History (= Ohio Slavic Papers, 9, Eastern Christian Studies, 1), Columbus, Ohio, 2009, 217-247.
Roty M., Dictionnaire russe-français des termes en usage dans l'église russe, 2 ed., Paris 1983.
Speranskii M. N., "Clavianskaia pis'mennost' XI-XIV vv. na Sinae i v Palestine," Izvestiia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti Akademii nauk, 32, 1927, 43-118.
Stanchev K., Dzhurova A., "Arkheografski be-lezhki ot Natsionalnata biblioteka v Atina," Staro-bülgarska literatura, 9, 1981, 33-75.
Szulc A., Leksykalne i slowotwôrcze zrownicowa-nie cerkiewnoslowianskich psalterzy redakcji ruskiej z XI-XIX wieku, 2 vols. Torun, 2000-2001.
Tarnanides I. C., The Slavonic Manuscripts Discovered in 1975 at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai, Thessaloniki, 1988.
Thomson F. J., "The Slavonic Translation of the Old Testament," in: J. Krasovec (ed.), Interpretation of the Bible, Ljubljana - Sheffield, 1998, 605-920, especially 797-825.
Trifunovic D., "Psaltir svetoga Save Srpskog," Slavia, 70, 2001, 499-503.
Zhivov V. M., "Pravila i proiznoshenie v rus-skom tserkovnoslavianskom pravopisanii XI-XIII vv.," Russian Linguistics, 8, 1984, 251-293.
Zhukovskaia L. P., Tikhomirov N. B., Shela-manova N. B. (eds.), Svodnyi katalog slaviano-rus-skikh rukopisnykh knig, khraniashchikhsia v SSSR. XI-XIII vv., Moscow, 1984.
Catherine Mary MacRobert, DPhil
University Lecturer in Russian Philology and Comparative Slavonic Philology
Lady Margaret Hall,
Oxford,
OX2 6QA,
United Kingdom
catherine.macrobert@lmh.ox.ac.uk
