- Classics, Medieval Studies, Slavic Historical Linguistics, Byzantine Studies, Old Church Slavonic, John Chrysostom, and 35 moreCultural History, Late Antiquity, Translation Greek into Old Church Slavonic, Textual Criticism, Byzantine Literature, Patristics, Textual Criticism and Editing, Medieval Bulgaria, Early Christianity, History of Christianity, Monasticism, Codicology, Codicology of medieval manuscripts, Manuscripts, Paleography, Church History, Palaeography, Patristic Exegesis, Hagiography, Religious Studies, Manuscript Studies, Monastic Studies, Asceticism, Papyrology, Greek Patristics, Late Antique and Byzantine History, Patristics and Late Antiquity, Byzantine monasticism, Cult of Saints, Medieval History, Biblical Studies, Byzantine History, Late Antique Hagiography, Reception of Antiquity, and Byzantine Hagiography(Cultural History, Late Antiquity, Translation Greek into Old Church Slavonic, Textual Criticism, Byzantine Literature, Patristics, Textual Criticism and Editing, Medieval Bulgaria, Early Christianity, History of Christianity, Monasticism, Codicology, Codicology of medieval manuscripts, Manuscripts, Paleography, Church History, Palaeography, Patristic Exegesis, Hagiography, Religious Studies, Manuscript Studies, Monastic Studies, Asceticism, Papyrology, Greek Patristics, Late Antique and Byzantine History, Patristics and Late Antiquity, Byzantine monasticism, Cult of Saints, Medieval History, Biblical Studies, Byzantine History, Late Antique Hagiography, Reception of Antiquity, and Byzantine Hagiography)edit
- Assoc. Prof. for Old Church Slavonic, Sofia University, Department of Cyrillo-Methodian Studies PhD - "Syntax of the... moreAssoc. Prof. for Old Church Slavonic, Sofia University, Department of Cyrillo-Methodian Studies
PhD - "Syntax of the Translated in Preslav Vitae of St. Antony the Great, St. Nephon, St. Theodore of Stoudios and St. John Chrysostom" (2007), supervisor Prof. Dr dr.h.c. Angelina Mincheva
BA Classics (2004, Sofia University)
MA Old Bulgarian studies (2002, Sofia University)
BA Bulgarian studies (2001, Sofia University)(Assoc. Prof. for Old Church Slavonic, Sofia University, Department of Cyrillo-Methodian Studies <br />PhD - "Syntax of the Translated in Preslav Vitae of St. Antony the Great, St. Nephon, St. Theodore of Stoudios and St. John Chrysostom" (2007), supervisor Prof. Dr dr.h.c. Angelina Mincheva<br />BA Classics (2004, Sofia University)<br />MA Old Bulgarian studies (2002, Sofia University)<br />BA Bulgarian studies (2001, Sofia University))edit
This is the full text of the book as it was published in 2016.
Research Interests:
Here is a draft version of the book, some details may differ from the printed book. The appendices are uploaded separately. The book "Syntactic Structure of the Translated Hagiographical Texts" (in Bulgarian) is an edition of the PhD... more
Here is a draft version of the book, some details may differ from the printed book. The appendices are uploaded separately.
The book "Syntactic Structure of the Translated Hagiographical Texts" (in Bulgarian) is an edition of the PhD thesis of the author. It conducts a linguistic (syntactical) analysis of four Saints' Lives, translated from Greek into Old Church Slavonic in 10th-11th c. - the Lives of St. Antony the Great, St. Nephon, St. Theodore of Stoudios and St. John Chrysostom. Thus it is a research into the principles of translation, the Greek syntactical influence, the typical features and the peculiarities of the language both of the stylistically various Greek Vitae and their translations. The thorough investigation of the uses and methods of translation of infinitives, participles and other syntactical constructions makes it possible to distinguish between the styles of the author and the translator and gives criteria for analysing other Vitae as well, translated from Greek into Old Church Slavonic.
The book "Syntactic Structure of the Translated Hagiographical Texts" (in Bulgarian) is an edition of the PhD thesis of the author. It conducts a linguistic (syntactical) analysis of four Saints' Lives, translated from Greek into Old Church Slavonic in 10th-11th c. - the Lives of St. Antony the Great, St. Nephon, St. Theodore of Stoudios and St. John Chrysostom. Thus it is a research into the principles of translation, the Greek syntactical influence, the typical features and the peculiarities of the language both of the stylistically various Greek Vitae and their translations. The thorough investigation of the uses and methods of translation of infinitives, participles and other syntactical constructions makes it possible to distinguish between the styles of the author and the translator and gives criteria for analysing other Vitae as well, translated from Greek into Old Church Slavonic.
The entire volume is available here: https://uchitelnoevangelie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Studia-Balcanica-37-UE-digit-15.05.2024.pdf Abstract: John Chrysostom’s homiletic series De statuis (CPG 4330), addressed to the people of... more
The entire volume is available here: https://uchitelnoevangelie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Studia-Balcanica-37-UE-digit-15.05.2024.pdf
Abstract: John Chrysostom’s homiletic series De statuis (CPG 4330), addressed to the people of Antioch, is known in several Slavic versions whose linguistic features and relationships have not been sufficiently explored. The present article discusses the two complete South Slavic translations – P (presumably from Preslav), which is preserved in Russian manuscripts from the 16th-17th centuries, and the hitherto unexplored version A in a manuscript written by Vladislav Gramatik RM 3/6, 1473, which was translated by a Serbian monk on Mount Athos, according to the colophon. The aim of the study is to highlight some archaic linguistic features of the Preslav translation P (vocabulary, morphology, and syntax) and to compare it with translation A with the help of five unpublished Greek copies. As a result of the study, it can be argued that P and A are two separate complete translations of De statuis corresponding to different Greek versions. However, the Serbian translator of A probably knew the earlier translation P and was occasionally influenced by it.
Abstract: John Chrysostom’s homiletic series De statuis (CPG 4330), addressed to the people of Antioch, is known in several Slavic versions whose linguistic features and relationships have not been sufficiently explored. The present article discusses the two complete South Slavic translations – P (presumably from Preslav), which is preserved in Russian manuscripts from the 16th-17th centuries, and the hitherto unexplored version A in a manuscript written by Vladislav Gramatik RM 3/6, 1473, which was translated by a Serbian monk on Mount Athos, according to the colophon. The aim of the study is to highlight some archaic linguistic features of the Preslav translation P (vocabulary, morphology, and syntax) and to compare it with translation A with the help of five unpublished Greek copies. As a result of the study, it can be argued that P and A are two separate complete translations of De statuis corresponding to different Greek versions. However, the Serbian translator of A probably knew the earlier translation P and was occasionally influenced by it.
Research Interests:
The homily In vanam vitam (CPG 4031 / 4622) was very popular both in the Greek and Slavonic traditions. At least three Greek versions (α, β, γ) are known; they are defined by several significant variant readings and numerous smaller... more
The homily In vanam vitam (CPG 4031 / 4622) was very popular both in the Greek and Slavonic traditions. At least three Greek versions (α, β, γ) are known; they are defined by several significant variant readings and numerous smaller variations. The Slavonic versions (V1, V2, V3, V4) are very diverse as well. Some differences between them correspond to the different Greek versions, other deviations and additions in the text have no parallel in Greek, and yet other passages are identical in most of the versions. The textological analysis shows that the homily was translated into Old Church Slavonic twice, and that one of the translations went through at least three redactions based on different Greek versions as well as through multiple secondary revisions. The Slavonic translations and revised versions became part of several types of manuscripts (e.g., the Zlatostruy collection and some homiliaries) probably as early as the tenth century. The article systematizes the main differences between the versions, groups the known Slavonic copies according to their beginnings and major distinctive features, and discusses the similarities and differences between them in comparison to their Greek sources. At the end, it offers an edition of the homiliary version of the text with an extensive critical apparatus with the variant readings of the manuscripts from the same textual group.
Research Interests:
The article explores the development of the genre kephalaia in the history of medieval Bulgarian literature, especially the changes of its context in the miscellanies in the 10 th c. and later in the 13 th-14 th c. Paraenetic works by... more
The article explores the development of the genre kephalaia in the history of medieval Bulgarian literature, especially the changes of its context in the miscellanies in the 10 th c. and later in the 13 th-14 th c. Paraenetic works by many patristic authors, usually presented as short wise sayings in groups of 100 (centuriae), were translated, excerpted, revised, and translated again-a century-long tradition preserved in many Slavic manuscripts. The survey is focused on two works in this genre-Capita de oratione (CPG 2452) by Evagrius of Pontus and Centuriae iv de caritate et continentia (CPG 7848) by Thalassius of Libya. They were first introduced into the Slavic literatures in the early 10 th c., and with the development of monasticism and the rise of Hesychasm, their renewed and revised translations were included in the monastic miscellanies from the 14 th c. onwards. The linguistic comparison of the versions of the two texts reveals the connections and the differences between them. The analysis of their respective contexts in several manuscripts shows the continuity between the literary traditions of the early and the later period of Slavic literatures.
Research Interests:
The article is a study and a bilingual edition of the pseudo-Chrysostomian homily Exiit qui seminat (CPG 4660).
Research Interests:
The article explores how Old Church Slavonic words meaning 'moustache' (and their derivatives) were used in medieval Slavic literature. The examples show that this type of facial hair was either associated with youth and coming of age, or... more
The article explores how Old Church Slavonic words meaning 'moustache' (and their derivatives) were used in medieval Slavic literature. The examples show that this type of facial hair was either associated with youth and coming of age, or it was seen as a kind of beard.
Research Interests:
[The homily In filium viduae, CPG 4663 - study and bilingual edition] Словото „За сина на вдовицата“ (In filium viduae, CPG 4663) – изследване и двуезично издание. – Кирило-Методиевски четения 2020, София, 2021, 77–115
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The article is focused on the Old Church Slavonic reception of several homilies on Genesis by Severian of Gabala and John Chrysostom in Zlatostruy, partly abridged and revised in the translation. Some of them were translated into Old... more
The article is focused on the Old Church Slavonic reception of several homilies on Genesis by Severian of Gabala and John Chrysostom in Zlatostruy, partly abridged and revised in the translation. Some of them were translated into Old Church Slavonic more than once. Sometimes different translations date back to the same period and are present in other collections such as Symeon’s Florilegium (Izbornik 1073) and Hexaemeron by John the Exarch. The texts, dedicated to the same topic, share numerous common places and allow a thorough comparison of their means of expression. Once again, they reveal the linguistic and stylistic variety of the Preslav literary school in the 10th century Bulgaria.
Research Interests:
The article discusses two rare uses of the verbs žiti + instr. (‘to live’, here – ‘to use’) and tǫžiti (‘to be sad’, here – ‘to demand back’) in the long version of the Old Bulgarian Chrysorrhoas Collection (Zlatostruy). Although we... more
The article discusses two rare uses of the verbs žiti + instr. (‘to live’, here – ‘to use’) and tǫžiti (‘to be sad’, here – ‘to demand back’) in the long version of the Old Bulgarian Chrysorrhoas Collection (Zlatostruy). Although we cannot rule out the possibility of a scribal error, there are strong indications that these verbs had a wider range of meanings, some of which were isolated or obsolete.
Research Interests:
Available at: https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/sceranea/article/view/8937 Abstract. John Chrysostom was not only one of the most prolific and influential authors of late antiquity but also a renown preacher, exegete, and... more
Available at: https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/sceranea/article/view/8937
Abstract. John Chrysostom was not only one of the most prolific and influential authors of late antiquity but also a renown preacher, exegete, and public figure. His homilies and sermons combined the classical rhetorical craft with some vivid imagery from everyday life. He used descriptions, comparisons, and metaphors that were both a rhetorical device and a reference to the real world familiar to his audience. From 9th century onwards, many of Chrysostom’s works were translated into Old Church Slavonic and were widely used for either private or communal reading. Even if they had lost the spontaneity of the oral performance, they still preserved the references to the 4th-century City, to the streets and the homes in a distant world, transferred into the 10th-century Bulgaria and beyond. The article examines how some of these urban images were translated and sometimes adapted to the medieval Slavonic audience, how the realia and the figures of speech were rendered into the Slavonic language and culture. It is a survey on the reception of the oral sermon put into writing, and at the same time, it is a glimpse into the late antique everyday life in the East-ern Mediterranean.
Abstract. John Chrysostom was not only one of the most prolific and influential authors of late antiquity but also a renown preacher, exegete, and public figure. His homilies and sermons combined the classical rhetorical craft with some vivid imagery from everyday life. He used descriptions, comparisons, and metaphors that were both a rhetorical device and a reference to the real world familiar to his audience. From 9th century onwards, many of Chrysostom’s works were translated into Old Church Slavonic and were widely used for either private or communal reading. Even if they had lost the spontaneity of the oral performance, they still preserved the references to the 4th-century City, to the streets and the homes in a distant world, transferred into the 10th-century Bulgaria and beyond. The article examines how some of these urban images were translated and sometimes adapted to the medieval Slavonic audience, how the realia and the figures of speech were rendered into the Slavonic language and culture. It is a survey on the reception of the oral sermon put into writing, and at the same time, it is a glimpse into the late antique everyday life in the East-ern Mediterranean.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article discusses the three Byzantine vitae of St. Theodore of Stoudios (759-826), known as Vita A, Vita B and Vita C, with regard to the information about the Stoudios monastery contained in these texts. The information is very... more
This article discusses the three Byzantine vitae of St. Theodore of Stoudios (759-826), known as Vita A, Vita B and Vita C, with regard to the information about the Stoudios monastery contained in these texts. The information is very similar in all the versions. It includes historical data, data about the hierarchy and the rules of the coenobitical life in the monastery, as well as descriptions of the main types of occupation of the monks. The differences between the vitae are mainly lexical, and there is also some variation in the contents and in the comprehensiveness of the narrative, which are due not only to the textual tradition but also to the literary reception of the events from this period of Byzantine history. Particular attention is paid to Vita A and to its Old Bulgarian translation (in the Vygoleksinskij sbornik, a manuscript from the 12th century). Since the early Slavic monasteries were established on the model of the Stoudios monastery, the Slavic termini technici in the vita are given for comparison. A list of the untranslated Greek words in the Old Bulgarian translation is added st the end.
Research Interests:
The Old Church Slavonic translation of John Chrysostom’s commentaries on Acts of the Apostles (CPG 4426) is attested in 18 ethica and fragments included in the Old Bulgarian collection Zlatostruy from the early 10th-century Preslav. The... more
The Old Church Slavonic translation of John Chrysostom’s commentaries on Acts of the Apostles (CPG 4426) is attested in 18 ethica and fragments included in the Old Bulgarian collection Zlatostruy from the early 10th-century Preslav. The Slavonic homilies have many peculiarities in common suggesting that they were translated together presumably by one translator. One of their common features is the frequent use of double translations (Doppelübersetzungen). In the article, nearly half of the 90 examples in 10 homilies are examined and divided into four groups – proper double translations, complementary double translations, synonyms, and contextual synonyms. The study shows that in several cases the Slavonic translation is notably consistent and repetitive, but more often it aims at variety and clarity. The examples from the Zlatostruy homilies on Acts are compared to other Old Church Slavonic translations (e.g. to the works of John the Exarch and to other homilies from Zlatostruy), but the similarities are not sufficient for identifying the anonymous translator(s). The use of doublets in the examined texts is viewed both as a linguistic device for a faithful translation and as a stylistic feature typical for the translator of these homilies. However, this phenomenon is attested in many other medieval literary traditions, which makes the Zlatostruy homilies part of a larger textual tradition.
Research Interests:
ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA Editing Mediaeval Texts from a Different Angle: Slavonic and Multilingual Traditions Together with Francis J. Thomson's Bibliography and Checklist of Slavonic Translations Front matter, the table of... more
ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA Editing Mediaeval Texts from a Different Angle: Slavonic and Multilingual Traditions Together with Francis J. Thomson's Bibliography and Checklist of Slavonic Translations
Front matter, the table of contents and the general introduction to the volume.
Front matter, the table of contents and the general introduction to the volume.
Research Interests:
(Final draft) HOW TO EDIT BYZANTINE TEXTS – A SCHOLARLY DEBATE FROM THE END OF THE 19TH AND THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH CENTURY ANETA DIMITROVA (SOFIA) (Abstract) This article goes back to the dawn of Byzantine Studies and takes a look at... more
(Final draft)
HOW TO EDIT BYZANTINE TEXTS – A SCHOLARLY DEBATE FROM THE END OF THE 19TH AND THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH CENTURY
ANETA DIMITROVA (SOFIA)
(Abstract)
This article goes back to the dawn of Byzantine Studies and takes a look at several periodicals and prefaces to editions from the years 1892–1904. One of the main objectives of the article is to follow the scholarly debate between Karl Krumbacher (1856–1909) and Ludwig Radermacher (1867–1952) on the methodology of editing Byzantine texts. From Krumbacher’s criticism and Radermacher’s response one can single out the main issues in dealing with Byzantine manuscripts. And since Krumbacher – the founder of modern Byzantine studies – was a prolific and diligent reviewer, his critical reviews and other writings reveal his stand on this topic. This is the other, more general purpose of the paper – to collect and summarize Krumbacher’s editorial principles. They set a standard that is still in use in medieval studies today. At the same time, even 120 years later, new manuals on editing medieval texts keep emerging, addressing practical as well as theoretical problems.
HOW TO EDIT BYZANTINE TEXTS – A SCHOLARLY DEBATE FROM THE END OF THE 19TH AND THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH CENTURY
ANETA DIMITROVA (SOFIA)
(Abstract)
This article goes back to the dawn of Byzantine Studies and takes a look at several periodicals and prefaces to editions from the years 1892–1904. One of the main objectives of the article is to follow the scholarly debate between Karl Krumbacher (1856–1909) and Ludwig Radermacher (1867–1952) on the methodology of editing Byzantine texts. From Krumbacher’s criticism and Radermacher’s response one can single out the main issues in dealing with Byzantine manuscripts. And since Krumbacher – the founder of modern Byzantine studies – was a prolific and diligent reviewer, his critical reviews and other writings reveal his stand on this topic. This is the other, more general purpose of the paper – to collect and summarize Krumbacher’s editorial principles. They set a standard that is still in use in medieval studies today. At the same time, even 120 years later, new manuals on editing medieval texts keep emerging, addressing practical as well as theoretical problems.
Research Interests:
There are many depictions of eating in Roman literature - satires and parodies, but also memories or wise pieces of advice. These descriptions are often accompanied by positive or negative assessments of the quality and quantity of the... more
There are many depictions of eating in Roman literature - satires and parodies, but also memories or wise pieces of advice. These descriptions are often accompanied by positive or negative assessments of the quality and quantity of the food. What is too expensive and what is too cheap for a feast, and how much food is too much? The article brings together various opinions of the Roman authors on these questions.
Research Interests:
There are only three texts in Stanislav’s menology which involve the name of St. John Chrysostom: two homilies – De nativitate deiparae and De sancto hieromartyre Phoca, as well as the beginning of his Vita. In several instances... more
There are only three texts in Stanislav’s menology which involve the name of St. John Chrysostom: two homilies – De nativitate deiparae and De sancto hieromartyre Phoca, as well as the beginning of his Vita. In several instances Stanislav’s menology prefers homilies by other authors to those ascribed to Chrysostom, even if such texts existed for a certain feast. The article discusses the three texts in Ms 1039 connected with St. John Crysostom’s name, and by comparing this manuscript to others with similar contents, it looks for the works of this popular and widely copied author which were not included in this manuscript.
Research Interests:
This is a final draft, the pages differ from the printed version. THE PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMIAN SERMON “DE PSEUDOPROPHETIS” (CPG 4583) IN THE CHRYSORRHOAS COLLECTION (Summary) The sermon “De pseudoprophetis” (CPG 4583), traditionally falsely... more
This is a final draft, the pages differ from the printed version.
THE PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMIAN SERMON “DE PSEUDOPROPHETIS” (CPG 4583) IN THE CHRYSORRHOAS COLLECTION
(Summary)
The sermon “De pseudoprophetis” (CPG 4583), traditionally falsely attributed to St. John Chrysostom, was translated very early into Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) and at the time was very popular in the Slavic literary tradition. It was included in all known versions of the Chrysorrhoas collection (Zlatostruy) where it underwent many changes, transformations and abridgements. In most copies of the full translation of the sermon there is a large interpolation of several folia from the previous homily in the Chrysorrhoas collection. This interpolated version of “De pseudoprophetis” became also the source for one of the readings in another, later collection of edificatory texts, the so called Izmaragd. The article examines in detail the presence of the sermon in Zlatostruy, especially the relationship between the different versions, and discusses in brief the language and the specific features of the translation.
THE PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMIAN SERMON “DE PSEUDOPROPHETIS” (CPG 4583) IN THE CHRYSORRHOAS COLLECTION
(Summary)
The sermon “De pseudoprophetis” (CPG 4583), traditionally falsely attributed to St. John Chrysostom, was translated very early into Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) and at the time was very popular in the Slavic literary tradition. It was included in all known versions of the Chrysorrhoas collection (Zlatostruy) where it underwent many changes, transformations and abridgements. In most copies of the full translation of the sermon there is a large interpolation of several folia from the previous homily in the Chrysorrhoas collection. This interpolated version of “De pseudoprophetis” became also the source for one of the readings in another, later collection of edificatory texts, the so called Izmaragd. The article examines in detail the presence of the sermon in Zlatostruy, especially the relationship between the different versions, and discusses in brief the language and the specific features of the translation.
Research Interests:
This is a final draft, some details may differ slightly from the printed version. The Greek Versions of Chrysostom’s Commentaries on Acts and Epistle to Titus in the Chrysorrhoas Collection (Summary) The article discusses the Greek... more
This is a final draft, some details may differ slightly from the printed version.
The Greek Versions of Chrysostom’s Commentaries on Acts and Epistle to Titus in the Chrysorrhoas Collection
(Summary)
The article discusses the Greek sources of the Old Bulgarian translations in the so called Chrysorrhoas collection (Zlatostruy). A large part of the collection consists of the ethica of John Chrysostom’s New Testament commentaries. They are preserved in hundreds of unedited Greek manuscripts and many of the texts have a “rough” and a “smooth” version besides the numerous variant readings throughout the manuscript transmission. The article investigates which Greek version was translated into Old Bulgarian in the 10th century for the Chrysorrhoas collection. In order to answer this question the Slavonic translations of the Commenaries on the Letter to Titus and on the Acts of the Apostles were compared with their Greek correspondences. The only translated homily from the Commentaries on Titus was based on one of the branches of the rough recension, whereas the translations of ca. 15 homilies on Acts, although closer to the rough recension, diverge greatly from either Greek version. There are two possible explanations for the discrepancies in the homilies on Acts: either the translator’s approach was very free and creative, or a different – third – version of the Greek text was used, a version which is unknown to science or is no longer in existence.
The Greek Versions of Chrysostom’s Commentaries on Acts and Epistle to Titus in the Chrysorrhoas Collection
(Summary)
The article discusses the Greek sources of the Old Bulgarian translations in the so called Chrysorrhoas collection (Zlatostruy). A large part of the collection consists of the ethica of John Chrysostom’s New Testament commentaries. They are preserved in hundreds of unedited Greek manuscripts and many of the texts have a “rough” and a “smooth” version besides the numerous variant readings throughout the manuscript transmission. The article investigates which Greek version was translated into Old Bulgarian in the 10th century for the Chrysorrhoas collection. In order to answer this question the Slavonic translations of the Commenaries on the Letter to Titus and on the Acts of the Apostles were compared with their Greek correspondences. The only translated homily from the Commentaries on Titus was based on one of the branches of the rough recension, whereas the translations of ca. 15 homilies on Acts, although closer to the rough recension, diverge greatly from either Greek version. There are two possible explanations for the discrepancies in the homilies on Acts: either the translator’s approach was very free and creative, or a different – third – version of the Greek text was used, a version which is unknown to science or is no longer in existence.
Research Interests:
Manuscript No 43 from the Museum of the Serbian Orthodox Church (14th c.) contains a unique copy of the Life of St. Antony (by Athanasius of Alexandria, BHG 140) in a translation different from the other two (from Preslav, 10th c., and... more
Manuscript No 43 from the Museum of the Serbian Orthodox Church (14th c.) contains a unique copy of the Life of St. Antony (by Athanasius of Alexandria, BHG 140) in a translation different from the other two (from Preslav, 10th c., and from Tarnovo, 14th c.). This translation dates back to 13th-14th c. and it is known as “the third” translation in spite of the fact that it probably precedes the Middle Bulgarian one. In this article I discuss some linguistic features of this text in comparison to the other two in order to make a more precise assessment of the principles of translation and the estimated date of its origin. The research is focused on some of the ways of rendering the Greek definite article, substantival and declarative infinitives, and participles. Some of the most interesting features of the Middle Bulgarian language are also mentioned. The influence of the vernacular and the inclination towards readability and grammaticality are features the first and the third translations have in common (e.g. postposition of the attributive phrase, or use of predicative participles with a conjunction). It shares with the second translation other characteristics, typical for the Middle Bulgarian period – a very close adherence to the Greek original, use of inflexible and artificial means of expression, etc. (e.g. indeclinable иже, declarative infinitive, constructions accusativus cum infinitivo). The Life of St. Antony in MSPC 43 has probably come into existence in response to the need for a new translation. It is a good, readable translation, but it remained isolated after a new “official” translation appeared in the 14th c.
Research Interests:
Several homilies from the Chrysostom's Commentaries on 1Cor. translated into OCS in 10th c. were part of the Chrysorrhoas collection. The paper examines their language and the main features of the translation, using a set of syntactical... more
Several homilies from the Chrysostom's Commentaries on 1Cor. translated into OCS in 10th c. were part of the Chrysorrhoas collection. The paper examines their language and the main features of the translation, using a set of syntactical and lexical criteria, and compares the results with other homilies from the collection. The analysis shows that there were more than one method of translation, which leads us to the conclusion, that at least two translators worked on the translations in Chrysorrhoas.
Research Interests:
The sermon “De pseudoprophetis” (CPG 4583), traditionally falsely attributed to St. John Chrysostom, was translated very early into Old Church Slavonic and at the time was very popular in the Slavic literary tradition. It is well known as... more
The sermon “De pseudoprophetis” (CPG 4583), traditionally falsely attributed to St. John Chrysostom, was translated very early into Old Church Slavonic and at the time was very popular in the Slavic literary tradition. It is well known as one of the sources for “Oratio contra bogomilos” by Presbyter Cosmas of Bulgaria. The article examines in detail the common places between the two texts. It tries to answer the question whether Cosmas had known and cited the full Old Church Slavonic translation.
Two homilies of St. John Chrysostom (CPG 4396, 4399) about his first exile are presumably preserved only within the text of his Vita by Pseudo-Georgios of Alexandria (BHG 873). In the editions of the Greek Vita the two homilies are either... more
Two homilies of St. John Chrysostom (CPG 4396, 4399) about his first exile are presumably preserved only within the text of his Vita by Pseudo-Georgios of Alexandria (BHG 873). In the editions of the Greek Vita the two homilies are either at the end of the Saint's Life (Savile's edition, 1612), or omitted altogether (Halkin's edition, 1977). In the Old Church Slavonic translation from the IX-Xth century however the homilies can be found inside the Vita (46th and 49th chapter resp.). The article discusses the available data about the original position and the relation of the homilies to the Vita Chrysostomi.
Research Interests:
In the long redaction of the Zlatostruy collection (L) two different OCS versions of a part of the Chrysostom’s De precatione oratio II are included. One of the versions can be found also in the short Zlatostruy (S), as well as in the... more
In the long redaction of the Zlatostruy collection (L) two different OCS versions of a part of the Chrysostom’s De precatione oratio II are included. One of the versions can be found also in the short Zlatostruy (S), as well as in the Izbornik 1076. An assumption has been made that the two versions of the extract represent different translations. In the article they are collated and thoroughly analysed with regard to their structure, lexis, and syntax. The results of the analysis prove that there was only one translation, which was revised so that the new fragment could be used as an independent text in various collections, such as the Izbornik 1076.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
"As Old Church Slavonic (OCS) translations of Byzantine prose are called in question, some of the most debated issues concern the principles of translation. This article draws attention to the importance of analyzing the linguistic... more
"As Old Church Slavonic (OCS) translations of Byzantine prose are called in question, some of the most debated issues concern the principles of translation. This article draws attention to the importance of analyzing the linguistic features of the original as well.
Byzantine Greek and OCS are structurally similar. Syntactic synonymy results in both author and translator having to choose between several options. A close study of their preferences makes it possible to differentiate between the styles of the original and the translation. On the other hand, the two languages differ in various ways. By the 9th century there is already a big difference between spoken and literary Greek so that the authors’ styles depend on their education and purposes, on the genre or the literary trends of the time. OCS, by comparison, is a young literary language, based on the vernacular and occasionally exposed to Greek influence. There are also many linguistic differences between them. In each case of linguistic asymmetry the translator has to pick out between possible solutions and it is on these choices that we can draw conclusions about the style and the methods of translation.
The article gives several examples of how one can draw a conclusion about the author’s or the translator’s style based on linguistic data. The examples are from three Byzantine Vitae (4th–10th c.) translated into OCS during 10th–11th c. and they deal mainly with the use of infinitives and the Greek definite article. At the end some syntactical criteria are derived for analyzing both original and translation."
Byzantine Greek and OCS are structurally similar. Syntactic synonymy results in both author and translator having to choose between several options. A close study of their preferences makes it possible to differentiate between the styles of the original and the translation. On the other hand, the two languages differ in various ways. By the 9th century there is already a big difference between spoken and literary Greek so that the authors’ styles depend on their education and purposes, on the genre or the literary trends of the time. OCS, by comparison, is a young literary language, based on the vernacular and occasionally exposed to Greek influence. There are also many linguistic differences between them. In each case of linguistic asymmetry the translator has to pick out between possible solutions and it is on these choices that we can draw conclusions about the style and the methods of translation.
The article gives several examples of how one can draw a conclusion about the author’s or the translator’s style based on linguistic data. The examples are from three Byzantine Vitae (4th–10th c.) translated into OCS during 10th–11th c. and they deal mainly with the use of infinitives and the Greek definite article. At the end some syntactical criteria are derived for analyzing both original and translation."
The Transmission of Early Christian Homilies from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages, International Conference, Forschungskolleg Humanwissenschaften, Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, June 21st-23rd, 2018
Research Interests:
Conference on John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala (Leuven 7-9.11.2016)
Research Interests:
With translated and transliterated titles.
Research Interests:
The article explores the development of the genre 'kephalaia' in the history of medieval Bulgarian literature, especially the changes in its context in the miscellanies in the 10th c. and later in the 13th-14th c. Paraenetic works by many... more
The article explores the development of the genre 'kephalaia' in the history of medieval Bulgarian literature, especially the changes in its context in the miscellanies in the 10th c. and later in the 13th-14th c. Paraenetic works by many patristic authors, usually presented as short wise sayings in groups of 100 (centuriae), were translated, excerpted, revised, and translated again-a century-long tradition preserved in many Slavic manuscripts. The survey is focused on two works in this genre: Capita de oratione (CPG 2452) by Evagrius of Pontus and Centuriae iv de caritate et continentia (CPG 7848) by Thalassius of Libya. They were first introduced into the Slavic literatures in the early 10th c., and with the development of monasticism and the rise of Hesychasm, their renewed and revised translations were included in the monastic miscellanies from the 14th c. onwards. The linguistic comparison of the versions of the two texts reveals the connections and the differences between them. The analysis of their respective contexts in several manuscripts shows the continuity between the literary traditions of the early and the later period of Slavic literatures.
Research Interests:
The common discussion language of the School will be English. If the participants know a medieval scholarly language (for this edition: Latin, Greek and/or Old Church Slavonic), this would be an advantage, but it is not an essential... more
The common discussion language of the School will be English.
If the participants know a medieval scholarly language (for this edition: Latin, Greek and/or Old Church Slavonic), this would be an advantage, but it is not an essential requirement for participation.
During the selection process, preference will be given to MA and PhD students, but researchers, writers, artists, and non-academic professionals with interest in the Middle Ages and / or History of Science are also welcome to apply.
Available places: The School offers ten places for in-person participants wishing to attend both the lecture and workshop sessions. There is no limit for the number of online participants, but their registration is restricted solely to the lecture sessions.
We cannot offer any financial support to cover travel and accommodation expenses.
There is no participation fee.
In order to apply, please send a short bio and description of what motivates your application (maximum one page altogether). There is no need to submit your extended CV.
Please indicate in your application whether you would like to attend the Summer School in person or online.
Please address your application materials and your informal inquiries to Dr Divna Manolova at manolova.divna@gmail.com.
APPLICATION DEADLINE: 29 APRIL 2024.
If the participants know a medieval scholarly language (for this edition: Latin, Greek and/or Old Church Slavonic), this would be an advantage, but it is not an essential requirement for participation.
During the selection process, preference will be given to MA and PhD students, but researchers, writers, artists, and non-academic professionals with interest in the Middle Ages and / or History of Science are also welcome to apply.
Available places: The School offers ten places for in-person participants wishing to attend both the lecture and workshop sessions. There is no limit for the number of online participants, but their registration is restricted solely to the lecture sessions.
We cannot offer any financial support to cover travel and accommodation expenses.
There is no participation fee.
In order to apply, please send a short bio and description of what motivates your application (maximum one page altogether). There is no need to submit your extended CV.
Please indicate in your application whether you would like to attend the Summer School in person or online.
Please address your application materials and your informal inquiries to Dr Divna Manolova at manolova.divna@gmail.com.
APPLICATION DEADLINE: 29 APRIL 2024.
Research Interests:
We are starting something new and very special. Join us in Veliko Tarnovo, this summer, between 18–22 July 2022 for the Pilot Edition of the HISTORY OF SCIENCE IN THE MEDIEVAL WORLD SUMMER SCHOOL Deadline for submitting an application:... more
We are starting something new and very special.
Join us in Veliko Tarnovo, this summer, between 18–22 July 2022 for the Pilot Edition of the HISTORY OF SCIENCE IN THE MEDIEVAL WORLD SUMMER SCHOOL
Deadline for submitting an application: 29 April 2022.
There is no registration fee.
Full schedule: https://www.uni-vt.bg/res/14892/SSHistMedSci_Final_Program.pdf
Please address your informal inquiries and your application materials to Dr Divna Manolova at dvmanolova@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de.
Summer School Philosophy and Vision
The School studies the wider medieval world of Afro-Eurasia and aims to shed light on Byzantium and the Slavonic world, and their intellectual heritage as agents in the development of medieval science, which, though significant, nevertheless remain largely unknown to the scholarly community. Even though current scholarship is focused on the so-called ‘Global Medieval’, the medieval Slavonic, Byzantine and Black Sea regions remain a blind spot for both the researchers and the general public outside of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe. Thus, the School aims at positioning Byzantium and the Slavonic world on the map of history of medieval science, thus offering the participants the rare opportunity to get acquainted with their respective heritage.
In its pilot edition, the Summer School will problematize the medieval manuscript and approach it as a space and as a territory. Building upon this conceptual premise, the School will also introduce students to the medieval epistemic fields (sciences) which study the natural world (the kosmos) as a space, namely geography, cosmography and astronomy. Students will acquire fundamental knowledge concerning the place and role of the sciences in the intellectual world of the Middle Ages. They will also develop an understanding of premodern science as a spectrum of disciplines wider than the late antique framework of the four mathematical sciences (arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy) and inclusive of all epistemic domains dedicated to the intellectual exploration of the natural world (the kosmos) and of humanity. The School relies on a discussion-based and experiential / experimental format. That is, the School includes workshops, which will guide the students into the use of medieval instruments and maps as preserved in the surviving manuscripts.
The common discussion language of the School will be English.
If the participants know a medieval scholarly language (for this pilot edition: Latin, Greek and/or Old Church Slavonic, but in the future also Persian, Arabic, Chinese, Classical Armenian, and so forth), this would be an advantage, but it is not an essential requirement for participation.
During the selection process, preference will be given to MA and PhD students, but researchers with interest in the Middle Ages and / or History of Science can also apply.
Available places: The School offers twelve places for in-person participants wishing to attend both the morning (lectures) and afternoon (workshops) sessions.
There is no limit for the number of online participants, but their registration is restricted solely to the morning sessions.
We cannot offer any financial support to cover travel and accommodation expenses.
There is no registration fee.
In order to apply, please send a short bio and description of what motivates your application (maximum one page altogether). Please indicate in your application whether you would like to attend the Summer School in person or online.
Join us in Veliko Tarnovo, this summer, between 18–22 July 2022 for the Pilot Edition of the HISTORY OF SCIENCE IN THE MEDIEVAL WORLD SUMMER SCHOOL
Deadline for submitting an application: 29 April 2022.
There is no registration fee.
Full schedule: https://www.uni-vt.bg/res/14892/SSHistMedSci_Final_Program.pdf
Please address your informal inquiries and your application materials to Dr Divna Manolova at dvmanolova@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de.
Summer School Philosophy and Vision
The School studies the wider medieval world of Afro-Eurasia and aims to shed light on Byzantium and the Slavonic world, and their intellectual heritage as agents in the development of medieval science, which, though significant, nevertheless remain largely unknown to the scholarly community. Even though current scholarship is focused on the so-called ‘Global Medieval’, the medieval Slavonic, Byzantine and Black Sea regions remain a blind spot for both the researchers and the general public outside of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe. Thus, the School aims at positioning Byzantium and the Slavonic world on the map of history of medieval science, thus offering the participants the rare opportunity to get acquainted with their respective heritage.
In its pilot edition, the Summer School will problematize the medieval manuscript and approach it as a space and as a territory. Building upon this conceptual premise, the School will also introduce students to the medieval epistemic fields (sciences) which study the natural world (the kosmos) as a space, namely geography, cosmography and astronomy. Students will acquire fundamental knowledge concerning the place and role of the sciences in the intellectual world of the Middle Ages. They will also develop an understanding of premodern science as a spectrum of disciplines wider than the late antique framework of the four mathematical sciences (arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy) and inclusive of all epistemic domains dedicated to the intellectual exploration of the natural world (the kosmos) and of humanity. The School relies on a discussion-based and experiential / experimental format. That is, the School includes workshops, which will guide the students into the use of medieval instruments and maps as preserved in the surviving manuscripts.
The common discussion language of the School will be English.
If the participants know a medieval scholarly language (for this pilot edition: Latin, Greek and/or Old Church Slavonic, but in the future also Persian, Arabic, Chinese, Classical Armenian, and so forth), this would be an advantage, but it is not an essential requirement for participation.
During the selection process, preference will be given to MA and PhD students, but researchers with interest in the Middle Ages and / or History of Science can also apply.
Available places: The School offers twelve places for in-person participants wishing to attend both the morning (lectures) and afternoon (workshops) sessions.
There is no limit for the number of online participants, but their registration is restricted solely to the morning sessions.
We cannot offer any financial support to cover travel and accommodation expenses.
There is no registration fee.
In order to apply, please send a short bio and description of what motivates your application (maximum one page altogether). Please indicate in your application whether you would like to attend the Summer School in person or online.
Research Interests:
review of: Dorotei Getov. A Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts in the National Library “Sts. Cyril and Methodius”, Sofia. Turnhout: Brepols, 2019.