Slavonic Translations of Early Byzantine Ascetical Literature1

Muriel Heppell

doi:10.1017/S0022046900068093

Slavonic Translations of Early Byzantine Ascetical Literature1

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011

Muriel Heppell

Show author details

Muriel Heppell: Affiliation:
Research Fellow in Slavonic Languages, University of Nottingham

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

‘D'une manière générate, on peut dire que les littératures chrétiennes de l'Orient sont largement tributaires de la littérature grecque.’ This statement of the late Paul Peeters concerning oriental hagiographical literature may equally well be applied to that of the Slavs. At the same time it does not in any way detract from the merits of original Slavonic hagiography to admit its debt to the Byzantine influences which it preserved and enriched. The principal channels by which these influences were transmitted were Slavonic translations of Greek works, mainly ecclesiastical, which were made from the late ninth century onwards. Among these translated works, which formed the nucleus of early Slavonic literature, were the most important Byzantine hagiographical compilations and ascetical treatises produced between the fifth and seventh centuries: the Apophthegmata Patrum; the Ἀνδρν γων ββλος (=The Book of Holy Men); the Lausiac History of Palladius; the Historia Monachorum; the Historia Religiosa of Theodoret of Cyrus; the Pratum Spirituale of John Moschus; and the Scala Paradisi of St. John Climacus. There is also evidence that the Paraenesis of Ephrem the Syrian was translated, and at least one treatise by, or attributed to, Evagrius, as well as the Latin Dialogues of Gregory the Great, this last from its Greek version.

Type: Bibliographical Note
Information: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , April 1954 , pp. 86 - 100

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022046900068093 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 86 note 2} Peeters, P., Le Tréfonds Oriental de l'hagiographie Byzantine, Brussels 1951, 166Google Scholar.

^{page 86 note 3} On the creation of the Slavonic alphabet and the beginnings of Slavonic literature, see Dvornik, F., Les Slaves, By zance et Rome, Paris 1926, 147–67Google Scholar.

^{page 86 note 4} P.G., lxv.

^{page 86 note 5} The Greek text of this work has not yet been edited (see below) and the fullest and best known version is the Latin translation of Pelagius and John the Deacon which forms Books V and VI of Rosweyd's Vitae Patrum, P.L., lxxiii., cols. 851–1022. This work will henceforward be cited as the Book of Holy Men.

^{page 86 note 6} Ed. Butler, C., Texts and Studies, vi., Cambridge 1904Google Scholar.

^{page 86 note 7} Ed. Preuschen, E., Palladius und Rufinus, Giessen 1897Google Scholar.

^{page 86 note 8} P.G., lxxxii.

^{page 86 note 9} P.G., lxxxvii.

^{page 86 note 10} P.G., lxxxviii. See also Corona Patrum Salesiana, Series Graeca, viii., ix., Turin 1941.

^{page 87 note 1} There is no indication as to whether this was Evagrius of Pontus. The treatise in question has little in common with the Evagrian writings in P.G., xl.

^{page 87 note 2} Ed. Yakovlev, V. A., Pamyatniki Russkoy Literatury XII i XIII Věkov (Memorials of Russian Literature of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries), St. Petersburg 1872Google Scholar; and Abramovich, D. I., Kiyevo-Pecherskiy Paterik (The Paterikon of the Kievan Monastery of Caves), St. Petersburg 1911, Kiev 1930Google Scholar. References are to the latter edition.

^{page 87 note 3} Izslědovaniye o Kiyevo-Pecherskom Paterikě kak istoriko-literaturnom pamyatnikě (An investigation of the Paterikon of the Kievan Monastery of Caves as an historical and literary memorial) published in parts in Izvěstiya Otděleniya Russkago Yazyka i Slovesnosti Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk (Publications of the Department of Russian Language and Letters, Imperial Academy of Sciences), vi. (1901), Books 3 and 4, vii. (1902), Books 1–4.

^{page 87 note 4} Abramovich, op. cit., Izvěstiya, vii. Book 2, p. 223.

^{page 87 note 5} Ibid., Book 3, 70.

^{page 87 note 6} Ibid., 73. The full text of the sermon is given in the Slavonic Prolog, (27 October) and in the Velikiya Minei Chetii (Great Menologium) compiled in the sixteenth century by Metropolitan Makariy; see Pamyatniki Slavyano-russkoy Pis'mennosti, Oktyabr 19–31 (Memorials of Slavonic-Russian Writing, 19–31 October), ed. Archeographical Commission, St. Petersburg 1880, cols. 1963–5.

^{page 88 note 1} Abramovich, op. cit., Izěstiya, vii. Book 3, 67.

^{page 88 note 2} Kiyevo-Pecherskiy Paterik, Discourse 20, 118; Discourse 33, 161.

^{page 88 note 3} See Abramovich, op. cit., Izvěstiya vii. Book 2, 229 and the references there cited.

^{page 88 note 4} The term Palestinian Paterikon is an exception, since it is in fact a version of the Book of Holy Men containing anonymous material only.

^{page 88 note 5} See V. S. Preobrazhenskiy, Slavyano-Russkiy Skitskiy Paterik (The Slavonic-Russian Scetic Paterikon), Kiev 1909, 173–232; cf. Abramovich, D. I., Opisaniye Rukopisey S. Peterburgskqy Dukhovnoy Akademii, Sqfiyskaya Biblioteka, Vypusk II (Description of the Manuscripts of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Sophia Library, Part II) St. Petersburg, 1907, no. 1366, 274–7Google Scholar; and Tsonev, B., Opis na Rǎkopisitě i staropechatnite knigi na Narodnata Biblioteka v Sofia (Description of the Manuscripts and Old Printed Books in the National Library in Sofia), Sofia 1910, i. MS. 321 (440), 295–9Google Scholar. Preobrazhenskiy's work, which I have been able to consult by the courtesy of the Library of the University of Helsinki, is devoted to an examination of MSS. of the Slavonic Scetic Paterikon. Although it contains much useful information, notably an inventory of MSS. and some detailed descriptions (173–219), its value as a contribution to the study of the textual development of early monastic literature is weakened by (i) lack of clear arrangement, a serious drawback when the subject matter is so complicated; (ii) failure to co-ordinate the study of Slavonic MSS. with work already done in related fields, especially that of Preuschen and Butler; (iii) a tendency to regard the Scetic Paterikon as synonomous with the Book of Holy Men included in it in some form (see 48, 56, 107, 158–60, 169–72, 175). In the opinion of the present writer, the study of the Slavonic Scetic Paterikon would appear to require thorough revision in the light of the research of W. Bousset and the late Professor N. van Wijk, discussed in this article; unfortunately most of the relevant MSS. are in Russian libraries and are at present inaccessible to Western scholars.

^{page 88 note 6} See Abramovich, Izsledovaniyě, Izvěstiya vii. Book 2, 228–9.

^{page 88 note 7} As Abramovich's work is not easily accessible, a list of the manuscripts cited by him is appended to this article.

^{page 89 note 1} Abramovich, op. cit., Izvěstiya vii. Book 2, 227–8.

^{page 89 note 2} van Wijk, N., ‘Studien zu den altkirchenslavischen Paterika’, Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappcn, Afdeeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, Deel 30, Amsterdam 1931–2, no. 2, p. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 3} Ibid., i-ii.

^{page 89 note 4} The two folios were not consecutive, but appeared to represent the first and last pages of a gathering. (Ibid., 13–4).

^{page 89 note 5} Van Wijk found the Greek text corresponding to the Slavonic fragments in the Histoire des Solitaires Égyptiens published by F. Nau from MS. Coislin 126 (see Revue de l'Orient Chrétien, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1912, 1913), and in the Apophthegmata Patrum. (Van Wijk, op. cit., 15 ff.). MS. Coislin 126 contains most of the anonymous material of the Book of Holy Men although not arranged in books under separate titles.

^{page 89 note 6} Van Wijk does not mention the manuscripts cited by Abramovich, with whose work he does not appear to be familiar, although he does refer independently to MS. 37 (2020) of the St. Sergius Laura of the Trinity. (Cf. N. van Wijk, op. cit., 39, and Abramovich, op. cit., Izvěstiya vii. Book 2, 227, n. 40). Apart from this, the manuscripts examined or mentioned by him are in German, Austrian, Polish, Bulgarian and Serbian libraries. Nor does he allude to the Slavonic manuscripts in the Vatican Library. There are only nineteen of these and none includes the Book of Holy Men. See A. Mai, Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, v. 101–11; and S. Sheyyrev, ‘O Slovenskikh Rukopisyakh Vatikanskoy Biblioteki’ (Concerning the Slavonic Manuscripts of the Vatican Library), Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosvěshcheniya (Journal of the Ministry of Public Instruction), 1839, Part 22, 103–20, cited by E. F. Karskiy, Slavyanskaya Kirillovskaya Paleografiya (Slavonic Cyrillic Paleography), Leningrad 1928, 24. For these references I am indebted to Dr. C. Gianelli of the Vatican Library.

^{page 90 note 1} Cod Slav. Vindob. 152. See van Wijk, N., ‘Dva Slavyanskikh Paterika’ (Two Slavonic Paterika), Byzantinoslavica iv (1932), 23–4Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 2} Ibid., 28–31. Only a brief description of Cod. Slav. Vindob. 152 is available; see Tsonev, B., ‘Slavyanski Rǎkopisi v Viena’ (Slavonic Manuscripts in Vienna) in Godishchnik na Sofiyskiya Universitet, i, Istoriko-Filologicheski Fakultet (Year-book of Sofia University, Historical-Philological Faculty) xxv. 1929, (9) 23 ffGoogle Scholar. From this it appears that the MS. contains only some sections of the Book of Holy Men, but from the titles and incipits given these seem to correspond closely to the Latin text in Rosweyd's Vitae Patrum. I hope to study this manuscript further and to publish a detailed description of it.

^{page 90 note 3} van Wijk, N., ‘Podrobniy Obzor tserkovno-slavyanskogo perevoda Bol ′shogo Limonariya,’ Byzantinoslavica vi (1935–6), 38–83Google Scholar. (A detailed description of the Church Slavonic Translation of the Great Limonarion). Van Wijk also used MS. 726 in the National Library, Belgrade, to supply lacunae in the Berlin manuscript. The Belgrade manuscript is no longer available as the National Library was completely destroyed in the recent war.

^{page 90 note 4} See ‘Podrobniy Obzor’, 42–62.

^{page 90 note 5} See ibid., 62–81. Although there are nineteen titles corresponding to those of the Book of Holy Men in the table of contents of the Slavonic Jerusalem Paterikon described by Professor van Wijk, there is no text after chapter xvii, 0 Lyubvi (= De charitate). It would seem therefore that the text of these MSS. is defective.

^{page 90 note 6} N. van Wijk, ‘Podrobniy Obzor,’ 38–9 (Cf. P.L. lxxiii, col. 852).

^{page 90 note 7} Bousset, W., Apophthegmata, Tübingen 1923, 47Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 8} See his article ‘Das gegenseitige Verhältnis einiger Redaktionen der Ἀνδρν γων ββλος und die Entwicklungsgeschichte des Μγα Λειμωνριον’ in Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, Deel 75, Serie A, Amsterdam 1933. This work, although published earlier than ‘Podrobniy Obzor’ was written later. See ‘Das gegenseitige Verhaltnis’, 23, n. 1.

^{page 91 note 1} N. van Wijk, ‘Das gegenseitige Verhältnis’, 26. T. Hopfner, in his study of the Coptic fragments of the Book of Holy Men, suggests that the Μγα Λειμωνριον contained vitae as well as short anecdotes and apophthegms. (T. Hopfner, Über die koptisch-sa ‘idischen Apophthegmata Patrum Aegyptiorum, = Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenchaften in Wien, Phil.- hist. Klasse, Denkschriften, Band 61, Abhandlung 2, 1918, 2.)

^{page 91 note 2} Van Wijk appears to have been the first to comment on this omission. See the review of Bousset's work in Analecta Bollandiana xlii. 431–4, where the reviewer, P. P[eeters] criticises the absence of any reference to Coptic and Georgian versions of the Apophthegmata but says nothing about Slavonic translations.

^{page 91 note 3} See N. van Wijk, ‘Das gegenseitige Verhältnis,’ passim; analysis of text, 32–65.

^{page 91 note 4} Bousset does not seem to have known of it, and van Wijk was apparently the first student of early monastic literature to realise its importance. The translation appears to be a rare work, and was not accessible to me in England. I have been able to consult it by courtesy of the library of the University of Leiden who allowed their copy, bequeathed by Professor van Wijk, to be deposited for my use in the University of London at Bedford College.

^{page 91 note 5} N. van Wijk, op. cit., 8.

^{page 91 note 6} Ibid., 15–18.

^{page 91 note 7} van Wijk, N., ‘Studien zu den altkirchenslavischen Paterika,’ Part ii; cf. the ‘Slavonic Life of Methodius’, ed. F. Pastrnek, Dějiny Slovanskych apoštolů Cyrilla a Methoda, = Königliche Böhmische Gesellschqft der Wissenschqften, Čis. 14, 1902, 236Google Scholar.

^{page 92 note 1} See van Wijk, N., ‘La traduction slave de 1’ Ἀνδρν γων ββλος et son prototype grec,’ Byzantion xiii (1938), 234Google Scholar. Professor van Wijk gives no details about this MS. and does not even mention the name of the monastery in which it is preserved. He says that this was ‘at Krka’; there is a monastery dedicated to the Archangel Michael on the River Krka in Dalmatia mentioned in the manuscript catalogue of Slavonic MSS. in the Austrian National Library; presumably this was the monastery which Professor van Wijk visited.

^{page 92 note 2} Van Wijk, op. cit., 233–4; idem, ‘Aksl. priležati, πυκτεειν, πυκτεσαι.’ Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie xiii. 1936, 320–25.

^{page 92 note 3} Idem, ‘O proiskhozhdenii Egipetskago Paterika,’ Sbornik v chest’ na Prof. L. Miletich, Sofia, 1933, 361–9 (‘On the origin of the Egyptian Paterikon, Collection in honour of Prof. L. Miletich’), made available to me by courtesy of the Bulgarian Bibliographical Institute; ‘Was ist ein Paterik Skitskj?’ in Mélanges Mikkola = Suomalaisen Tideakatemian Toimituksia, Sarja B, Nid 27 (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, ser. B, xxvii. Helsinki 1932, 348–54); ‘Einige Kapitel aus Joannes Moschos in zwei kirchenslavischen Übersetzungen,’ Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie x (1933), 60–5Google Scholar.

^{page 92 note 4} See the obituary notice of Professor van Wijk in Byzantinoslavica ix (1947–8), 409–11.

^{page 92 note 5} I understand from Professor van der Meulen, Professor van Wijk's successor at the University of Leiden, that no one there is continuing his work. This would indeed require both the technical equipment of a Slavonic philologist and a thorough knowledge of early monastic literature, and would perhaps eventually demand the co-operation of scholars working in different though related fields. I hope myself to continue certain lines of investigation suggested by Professor van Wijk as part of my examination of the influence of translated ascetical literature on early Russian hagiography.

^{page 92 note 6} I. M. Smirnov, Sinaiskiy Paterik v drevne-slavyanskom perevodě (The Sinaitic Paterikon in the Old Slavonic translation), Sergiyev Posad 1917, lent to me by courtesy of the University of Leiden.

^{page 92 note 7} Ibid., 147.

^{page 92 note 8} Ibid., 18, n. 2, 283–5. Smirnov deals only briefly with the question of the additional material; presumably he would have discussed it more fully in his projected study of the content of MS. 551 of the Moscow Synodal Library, which he was unable to complete.

^{page 93 note 1} See ibid., Part II, Ch. 2.

^{page 93 note 2} Ibid., 160–1. So far as I have been able to ascertain the Volokolamsk Paterikon is still unpublished. Its content is briefly described, from MS. 927 of the Moscow Synodal Library, by A. Kadlubovskiy, Ocherki po istorii drevne-russkoy literatury zhitiy svyatykh (Sketches from Old Russian literature of the Lives of Saints), Warsaw 1902, 129–39.

^{page 93 note 3} Smirnov, op. cit., 165–6.

^{page 93 note 4} Ibid., 168–80.

^{page 93 note 5} Ibid., Part II, Ch. 3.

^{page 93 note 6} Ibid., Part II, Ch. 4.

^{page 93 note 7} Ibid., 213–24.

^{page 93 note 8} Ibid., 213.

^{page 93 note 9} Ibid., 231–50.

^{page 93 note 10} Ibid., 273–83.

^{page 93 note 11} Ibid., 283–95.

^{page 93 note 12} Ibid., Preface, p. xviii.

^{page 94 note 1} A. I. Yatsimirskiy, Slavyanskiye i Russkiye Rukopisi Rumynskikh Bibliotek (Slavonic and Russian Manuscripts in Rumanian Libraries) = Sbornik Otděleniya Russkago Yazyka i Slovesnosti, Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk, lxxix (Collection of the Department of Russian Language and Letters, Imperial Academy of Sciences) St. Petersburg 1905.

^{page 94 note 2} Idem, Opisaniye Yuzhno-slavyanskikh i Russkikh Rukopisey Za-granichnykh Bibliotek (Description of South Slavonic and Russian Manuscripts in Foreign Libraries) = Sbornik Otděl. Russ. Yaz. i Slov. Imp. Akad. Nauk (Collection of the Department of Russian Languageand Letters, Russian Academy of Sciences, cxviii, 1921).

^{page 94 note 3} A. I. Yatsimirskiy, Slavanskiye i Russkiye Rukopisi Rumynskikh Bibliotek, 516–54.

^{page 94 note 4} I. P. Eremin, ‘K Istorii Drevne-russkoy Perevodnoy Povesti,’ (On the History of Old Russian Translated Narrative) Trudy Otdela Drevne-russkoy Literatury (Works of the Department of Old Literature), iii (1936), 37–57.

^{page 94 note 5} The manuscripts of the Solovetsk Collection are now in the Leningrad State Public Library.

^{page 94 note 6} Eremin, op. cit., 50–1. In support of the eleventh-century origin of the translation, Eremin suggests that it appears to have been one of the literary sources for the Old Russian Life of St. Theodosius (d. 1074) written towards the end of the eleventh century. (Op. cit., 56–7.)

^{page 95 note 1} It is usual, although not universal, for each anecdote to begin with a red initial letter in Slavonic manuscripts.

^{page 95 note 2} Eremin, op. cit., 38–41.

^{page 95 note 3} I.e. the Latin version of Rufinus in P.L. xxi. On the question as to whether the Greek or the Latin was the original, see C. Butler, Lausiac History i. 10–15 and Appendix I, 257 ff.

^{page 95 note 4} Eremin, op. cit., 46–7.

^{page 95 note 5} Παλλαδιου περ τν τς Ἵνδιας θνν κα τν βραγμνν, ed. Edoardus Bissaeus, London 1665 (Gr. and Lat.). The Bragmanes were a sect of Indian ascetics and ‘philosophers’.

^{page 95 note 6} Eremin, op. cit., 47–8.

^{page 95 note 7} Eremin says that Chapter 61 of the Egyptian Paterikon corresponds to P.G. lxv. cols. 76–84 (= ‘Antony’, 1–27), but the explicit quoted by him corresponds to that of ‘Antony’ 32 (ibid., col. 85).

^{page 95 note 8} Eremin; op. cit., 49. Professor van Wijk, in a short article on the Egyptian Paterikon written some years before Eremin's study, but not cited by him, points out that the incipits of these extracts do not correspond with those of the same items in the Slavonic version of the Book of Holy Men found in Cod. Slav. Vindob. 152 nor with those of the Slavonic version of the Apophthegmata known to him. (van Wijk, N., ‘O proiskhozhdenii Egipetskago Paterika’, Sbornik v chest' na Prof. L. Miletich, Sofia 1933, 366Google Scholar).

^{page 95 note 9} Eremin, op. cit., 48.

^{page 95 note 10} N. van Wijk, op. cit., 365.

^{page 96 note 1} See van Wijk's analysis of God. Berul. Wuk 40 in Byzantinoslavica, vi. 42, 51, 52, 53, 54, 61, 62, 68.

^{page 96 note 2} See Kiyevo-Pecherskiy Paterik, Discourse 8, 21; Discourse 14, 100; Discourse 20, 118; Discourse 33, 161.

^{page 96 note 3} P.G. ciii. col. 664.

^{page 96 note 4} P.L. lxxiii, col. 852.

^{page 96 note 5} Bousset, op. cit., 14.

^{page 96 note 6} For a critical study of the fragments of the Coptic text, see Hopfner, op. cit., passim.

^{page 96 note 7} See Bousset, op. cit., 26–51 and the references there cited. One Syriac manuscript of this work has been translated into English by Budge, A. E. Wallis Sir, The Wit and Wisdom of the Christian Fathers of Egypt, London 1934Google Scholar.

^{page 96 note 8} Bousset, op. cit., 18–22, 51–3; see also the comment of P. P[eeters] in Analecta Bollandiana xlii. 433.

^{page 96 note 9} P. P[eeters] op. cit., 432. Bousset does not mention the Arabic versions.

^{page 96 note 10} See Marr, I., ‘Agiograficheskiye materialy po gruzinskim rukopisyam Ivera,’ Zapiski Vostochnago Otděleniya Imperatorskago Russkago Arkheologicheskago Obshchestva xiii (1900), 1–145Google Scholar. (Hagiographical materials among the Georgian manuscripts of Iviron, Notes of the Eastern Department of the Russian Imperial Archeological Society). Marr describes part of a tenth century manuscript as ‘relating to one family of the Ἀνδρν γων ββλος in the description of Photius', but from the titles of the incipits the correspondence does not appear to be very close. (Op. cit., 9–15.)

^{page 97 note 1} All but one of Slavonic manuscripts cited by Abramovich are dated as fourteenth century or later. (Abramovich, op. cit., Izvěstiya vii, Book 2, 227, n. 40.)

^{page 97 note 2} Bousset, op. cit., 4. Bousset refers to these manuscripts not by their catalogue numbers, but by those under which they are described by Archimandrite Vladimir. See Vladimir, Sistematicheskoye Opisaniye Rukopisey Moskovskoy Sinodal′ noy Patriarshey Biblioteki, Chast′ Pervaya, Rukopisi Grecheskiya (A Systematic Description of the Manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Patriarchal Library, Part I, Greek Manuscripts), Moscow 1894, nos. 345, 344, 342, PP. 505–6, 504, 501–3.

^{page 97 note 3} R. Devreesse, Catalogue des manuscrits grecs. II Le fonds Coislin, Paris 1945, 97, 262, 121. See also Wilmart, A., ‘Le recueil latin des Apophtegmes,’ Revue Bénédictine, xxxiv (1922), 186, n. 3, 193, n. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 97 note 4} C. Butler, Lausiac History, ii. p. lxxiii; Zanetti, A. M. and Bongiovanni, A., Graeca Marci Bibliotheca codicum manuscriptorum per titulos digesta, Venice 1740, 158Google Scholar, and Duensing, H., Christlich-palästinisch-aramaïsch Texte und Fragment?, Göttingen 1906, 16–17Google Scholar.

^{page 97 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 97 note 6} Devreesse, op. cit., 170.

^{page 97 note 7} Vladimir, loc. cit.

^{page 97 note 8} Cf. for example the Latin version in P.L. lxxxiii with the English translation of a Syriac version, Budge, op. cit.

^{page 97 note 9} Bousset's Apophthegmata is still the essential foundation for such work, in spite of the limitations indicated in the review in Analecta Bollandiana xlii.

^{page 97 note 10} Van Wijk brought to light a number of manuscripts which do not appear to have been noted previously; yet he admitted that the survey of relevant material was still far from complete. (‘Dva Slavyanskikh Paterika’), By zantinoslavica, iv. 23.

^{page 98 note 1} Van Wijk's work illustrates this need; he obviously had a detailed knowledge of the content of several Slavonic Paterika, but those on which his articles are based are for the most part inaccessible to the reader; hence it becomes difficult to follow his arguments without carrying in one's head textual equations of increasing complexity.

^{page 98 note 2} The only published translations known to me are Sreznevsky's edition of part of the text of the Sinaitic Paterikon from MS. 551 of the Moscow Synodal Library in Svěděniya i Zimětki o Maloizvěstnykh i Neizvěstnykh Pamyatnikakh (Observations and Notes on unknown and little-known Memorials) No. 4, St. Petersburg 1879, 53–98; and the Life of St. Sabas by Cyril of Scythopolis, edited, together with the Greek original, by I. Pomyalovskiy, Zhitiye Svyatago Savy Osvyachennago, sostavlennqye Kirillom Skithopol ′skim (The Life of St. Sabas the Sanctified written by Cyril of Scythopolis), Obshchestvo Lyubiteley Drevney Pis ′mennosti (Society of the Connoisseurs of Old Writing), St. Petersburg 1890.

^{page 98 note 3} Kiyevo-Pecherskiy Paterik, Discourse 20, 118.

^{page 98 note 4} See Chadwick, O., John Cassian. A study in Primitive Monasticism, Cambridge 1950, 83Google Scholar.

^{page 98 note 5} See the works of Yatsimirskiy previously cited.

^{page 98 note 6} For example the Scala Paradisi is cited by two of the authors of the Paterikon of the Kievan Monastery of Caves (Kiyevo-Pecherskiy Paterik, Discourse 20. 118, Discourse 33, 161), and its influence is also apparent elsewhere in the work.

^{page 98 note 7} The text in P.G. lxxxviii is not satisfactory. (See L. Petit, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, viii. cols. 692–3). The new edition by Père Trevisan in Corona Patrum Salesiana viii, ix (1941) reproduces the text in Migne with only minor alterations (see p. 39). Apparently a critical edition is in progress; see Hofmann, G., ‘Der hl. Johannes Klimax bei Photios,’ Orientalia Christiana Periodica iii, iv (1941)Google Scholar.

^{page 99 note 1} Klostermann, R. A., Die slavische Überliefertung der Makariusschriften, Göteborgs kungl. Vetenkaps-och Vitterhets-Samhälles Handlingar, Sjätte Följden, Ser. A, B and 4, No. 3, March 1950Google Scholar.

^{page 99 note 2} It is difficult to translate this word satisfactorily. The literal meaning is ‘old man’, and it is used in translated ascetical literature as the equivalent of γερών but it also has the more specialised meaning of an experienced and venerable ascetic.

^{page 99 note 3} Yatsimirskiy's survey of the sources quoted above indicates the nature and scope of this work. There is a biography of Paisy Velichkovskiy: Moldavskiy starets skhiarkhimandrit Paisy Velichkovskiy (The Moldavian ‘starets’ Paisy Velichkovskiy) by S. Ghetverikov, Petseri 1938. This is a very useful and interesting work, largely based on Paisy's own memoirs and an account written by one of his disciples early in the nineteenth century, but it by no means exhausts the subject from a scholarly point of view.

^{page 99 note 4} Abramovich, Izslědovaniye, Izvěstiya vii. Book 2, 227, n. 40. Since the Russian Revolution many collections of manuscripts have been moved; for example those formerly belonging to the Moscow Synodal Library are now in the Lenin State Library, Leningrad.

^{page 99 note 5} The Slavonic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library have been fully described by A. Gorskiy and K. I. Nevostruev, Opisaniye Slavyanskikh Rukopisey Moskovskoy Sinodal′ noy Biblioteki (Description of the Slavonic Manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library), Moscow 1855, 1857. The relevant part of this work has unfortunately proved inaccessible to me.

^{page 99 note 6} Abramovich, op. cit., Izvěstiya vii, Book 2, 229. This manuscript is actually called Scetic Paterikon; see A. K. Vostokov, Opisaniye Russkikh i Slovenskikh Rukopisey Rumyantsovskago Muzuema (Description of the Russian and Slavonic Manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum), St. Petersburg 1842, 434–6.

^{page 100 note 1} Abramovich, op. cit., Izvěstiya vii, Book 2, 225. Extracts from this manuscript have been published by Sreznevsky, op. cit.

^{page 100 note 2} Abramovich, op. cit., 226. Other manuscripts containing this work are cited by Eremin, op. cit., 37.

^{page 100 note 3} Abramovich, op. cit., 228.

^{page 100 note 4} Ibid., 229. Abramovich appears to consider that the manuscript he cited here is not really a Scetic Paterikon, but does not say why. In his later work Opisaniye Rukopisey S. Peterburgskoy Dukhovnoy Academii cited earlier in this article he describes four manuscripts with the title Scetic Paterikon; see pp. 274–7, 299–302.

^{page 100 note 5} Abramovich, Izslědovaniye, Izvěstiya vii, Book 2, 229.

^{page 100 note 6} This one of the manuscripts described by Abramovich as a Scetic Paterikon in his description of the manuscripts of the Sophia Library of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy.

^{page 100 note 7} Abramovich, Izslědovaniye, Izvěstiya vii, Book 3, 70.

^{page 100 note 8} Ibid., 73.

^{page 100 note 9} Ibid., 67.

Article contents

Slavonic Translations of Early Byzantine Ascetical Literature1

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests