Славянский мир в третьем тысячелетии (Dec 2023)
Findings on the Translation of the Liturgical Commentary in the Contents of mss RGADA 88 and BOGISHICH 52. The Use of Participles and Participle Constructions
Abstract
This paper focuses on the peculiarities in the translation and the syntactical use of participles in the recently identified article in the contents of two 16th century Serbian codices which represent a recapitulative Southern Slavonic version of the treatise “Ἑρμηνεία περὶ τε τοῦ θείου ναοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ἱερέων τε περὶ καὶ διακόνων, ἀρχιερέων τε καὶ τῶν ὧν ἕκαστος τούτων στολῶν ἱερῶν περιβάλλεται. Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῆς θείας μυσταγωγίας, λόγον ἑκάστῳ διδοῦσα τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ τελουμένων θείως καὶ τοῖς ἐν Κρήτῃ εὐσεβέσι ζητήσασι ἀποσταλεῖσα” (“Explanation of the Divine Temple and of the Celebrants there – Priests, Deacons and Hierarchs, of the Sacred Garments in which each of them is vested, as well as of the Holy Mysteries, explaining the meaning of each Ministration in the Temple, sent in reply to the pious Christians of Crete”) by Simeon of Thessaloniki (with an as yet unknown translator). It is supposed that the main body of these codices was a medieval Serbian manuscript from the first half of the 15th century, the work of a circle of writers around the despot Stefan Lazarevich, and that the translation of the liturgical commentary in the above-mentioned collections was done by Konstantin of Kostenets, referred to as the Philosopher – a Bulgarian intellectual in exile, who worked at the court of the above-mentioned Serbian ruler. The main argument in favour of this supposition is that the commentary in both collections occurs in the midst of works which scholarly research has proved to be by Konstantin. The examination of the language of the relevant article from mss RGADA 88 and Bogishich 52 is essential to establishing the translator’s style to the established techniques in the translations and versions familiar to us by the Athonite, Turnovo and Serbian scribes of the 14th century, and therefore it is essential also to the establishment of its possible authorship. The observations show the high degree of similarity between the verbal means used by the unknown translator and those employed by the scribes of the Turnovo school of the fourteenth century, as well as the general tendencies in the usage of participles instead of finite verbs, and vice versa, of finite verbs instead of participles. The characteristic features of the translation – a remarkable linguistic competence and the living bond with the language of the writers of the Tarnovo Patriarch Eutymius’s circle – fully correspond to Konstantin of Kostenets’s profile according to what we know about him now. With the addition of further arguments these findings would support the claim about his possible authorship of the article in RGADA 88 and Bogishich 52, whose translator remains as yet unidentified.
Keywords
