C.M. Macrobert - A Missing Link in The Early Tradition of The Church Slavonic Psalter (1993)

A Missing Link in the Early Tradition of the Church Slavonic Psalter (the Tolstoy, Sluck,
Eugenius and Vienna Psalters and MS 34 of the Moscow Synodal Typography)

Author(s): C. M. MACROBERT
Source: Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, Vol. 39 (1993), pp. 57-81
Published by: Harrassowitz Verlag; Austrian Academy of Sciences Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24748246
Accessed: 15-04-2019 12:26 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24748246?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Harrassowitz Verlag, Austrian Academy of Sciences Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch
This content downloaded from 81.89.200.2 on Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:26:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
С. M. MACROBERT (OXFORD)
A Missing Link in the Early Tradition

of the Church Slavonic Psalter
(the Tolstoy, Sluck, Eugenius and Vienna Psalters and
MS 34 of the Moscow Synodal Typography)
The most noteworthy moment in Pogorelov's study of the psalter manu

scripts from the Library of the Moscow Synodal Typography1 was surely his
discovery that MS 34 (Nq 52 in his description2) followed that version of the
Church Slavonic text, known as 'South Slavonic' or 'Archaic'3, which is
generally assumed to be the earliest one extant and to stand in a close re
lationship to the translation made by SS Cyril and Methodius. Such a pedi
gree makes this Novgorod manuscript of the 14th—15th century remarkable
among Russian psalter manuscripts up to the early 15th century, since their
closest affiliation is normally to the so-called 'Russian' redaction, whose first
extant representative is the recently published 11th-century MS Sinai 64, the
continuation of the Byôkov Psalter5. The 'Archaic' redaction is more widely
familiar to scholarship because it is represented by such well-known published
sources as the Sinai Glagolitic Psalter6 and the 13th-century Bologna and Po
godin commentated psalters7; but the manuscripts which bear witness to this
tradition are relatively few, and therefore any addition to their number is im
1 V. Pogorelov, Psaltyri, Biblioteka Moskovskoj Sinodal'noj tipografii, б. 1, vyp.

3, Moscow 1901.
2 V. Pogorelov, Psaltyri (fn. 1), 60-68; this manuscript is now in the Central State
Archive of Ancient Documents (ЦГАДА) in Moscow, ф. 381, Ma 34.
3 'South Slavonic' is the term used by Pogorelov; the designation 'Archaic' is
preferred by E. V. Cesko, Vtoroe juznoslavjanskoe vlijanie v redakcii psaltyrnogo tek
sta na Rusi (XIV - XV vv.), Palaeobulgarica v/4, 1981, 79-85.
4 M. Altbauer and H. G. Lunt, An Early Slavonic Psalter from Rus', Cambridge,
Mass., 1978, and I. C. Tarnanides, The Slavonic Manuscripts Discovered in 1975 at St
Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai, Thessaloniki 1988, 283-316; abbreviated as
S6.
5 I. С. Тотн (I. X. Tot), ByCkovskaja psaltyr' XI v., Acta Universitatis Szegedensis
de Attila JôszefNominatae, Dissertationes Slavicae viii, 1972, 71-114 and plates.
6 S. Sever'janov, Sinajskaja psaltyr', Petrograd 1922, M. Altbauer, Psalterium
sinaiticum, Skopje 1971, and I. C. Tarnanides, The Slavonic Manuscripts (fn. 4), 249
28 T abbreviated as Sin.
' V. JagiG, Psalterium bononiense, Vienna-Berlin-St. Petersburg 1907, and I. Duj
Cev, Bolonski psaltir, Sofia 1968; abbreviated as Bol and Pog.
58 С. M. M а с R о b е г t
portant. What is more, as Pogorelov points

have been a South Slavonic manuscript and
vative: it contained, for instance, asigmati
scribe preserved, albeit in garbled form.
As he explains9, Pogorelov was hampe
limited access to sources other than the m
Typography which he set out to describe. In
of the 'Archaic' rédaction with which he c
Glagolitic Psalter. If he had had opportunit
godin Psalter in the Public Library in St
that it contained parallels to several of t
noted10 in MS 34. He would also have rea
modifications to the text of the psalms in M
traditionally ascribed to St. Athanasius of
this manuscript, although it is a psalter int
hymns and prayers after each kathisma bu
ing tradition which goes back to a commen
had been able to compare the variant rea
12th-century commentated Tolstoy Psalter1
nevskij's notes13 on this MS and the llth
Sluck14 and Eugenius15 Psalters, it woul
these four manuscripts reflect one and the
in the 'Archaic' tradition.
The clearest evidence for the antécédents of MS 34 is supplied by those
places where a phrase from the commentary is incorporated into the text of the
psalms or of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32.1-43):
Ps. 39.6: оуподовить тев-Ь ли кто исл-кдовд тдину сл\отреиигд кг©: Ps.
113.20: дронь икр-Ьгд; Ps 135.12: лл-ышьцею иго сьтвори си гако втГ силенъ (The
last word of the versicle, высоком16, and the opening phrase of the comment,
силом во десницм, are missing.); Deut. 32.7: рекуть тев-Ь идвъжи-кте (D зд
8 V. Pogorelov, Psaltyri (fn. 1), 63-64.

9 V. Pogorelov, Psaltyri (fn. 1), viii.
10 V. Pogorelov, Psaltyri (fn. 1), 64.
11 But more probably attributable to Hesychius of Jerusalem, according to V. JagiC,
Ein unedierter griechischer Psalmenkommentar, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akade
mie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Iii, Abhandlung i, 1906.
12 MS F. п. I. 23 in the Public Library in St. Petersburg; V. JagiC, Psalterium bo
noniense (fn. 7), 742-780 and 851-856; abbreviated as Tolst.
13 V. I. Sreznevsku, Drevnij slavjanskij perevod psaltyri, St. Petersburg 1877.
14 1.1. Sreznevsku, Drevnie slavjanskie pamjatniki jusovogo pis'ma, St. Petersburg
1868, 155-165; abbreviated as Sluck.
13 V. V. Kolesov, Evgenievskaja psaltyr', Acta Universitatis Szegedensis de Attila
Jdszef Nominatae, Dissertationes Slavicae viii, 1972, 58-69 and plates; abbreviated as
Eug.
16 Passages from the psalms or commentary which are missing from MS 34 or from
the Tolstoy Psalter are quoted from the Bologna Psalter.
A Missing Link in the Tradition of the Church Slavonic Psalter 59
ллдтер-квшй; Deut. 32.8: егдд рдспростре и по жребию ддгаше племеномъ землю

ии ли си вдс оумилАть (Неге the comment replaces the versicle, егдд
рдзд4л4дше вышнии жзкы.); Deut. 32.35: игдд х°Ч"° с\(-дити вс-Ьмъ газыкомъ
(This comment on the first versicle of the verse appears instead of the second
versicle, въ вр-ЬмА егдд съблдзиитьса ногд и^ъ.)
Confusion of this kind offers a clue to the likely physical lay-out of the
commentated psalter manuscript from which MS 34 is descended. Usually, it
seems, the scribes of commentated psalters were at pains to distinguish the
versicles of the psalms from the accompanying commentary. Where the com
mentary follows immediately after the versicle, it may be signalled by a
change from red to black ink, as in the commentated psalter in the Library of
the Patriarchate in Belgrade17 or by a red initial letter and by smaller writing,
as in the Bucharest Psalter18. Similar means are also employed in that portion
of the Bologna Psalter where versicle and commentary alternate and begin on
new lines; in the greater part of the Bologna Psalter the psalm stands in the
left-hand column on the page while the commentary seems, from its cramped
and uneven appearance, to have been added afterwards in the right-hand
column. In the Sofia Psalter19 the alternation of versicle and commentary is
indicated by différent colours of initial letter as well as by new lines, and in
the Pogodin Psalter the distinction is maximized by the use of new lines,
contrasting colours and différent size of letters. In the Eugenius Psalter
fragment, however, versicle and comment are distinguished only by starting
on new lines; Hamm's description of the Vienna Psalter20 implies a similar
practice, albeit with some use of red initiais, as does Jagic's account of the
Belgrade Psalter21; and in the Tolstoy Psalter differentiation is minimal: the
commentary follows straight after the versicle to which it applies, on the same
line, in the same size of writing, and is marked off only by a point and a
slightly larger initial letter. (The red initiais which appear sporadically have
been added on top of the original black ones.)
This continuous présentation of the text increases the risk of error, above
ail at points of similarity in the wording of psalm and commentary, since the
scribe, especially if he is copying selectively rather than continuously, is liable
to lose his place and so to transfer or omit phrases. In addition to the snatches
17 MS 324, a Serbian Church Slavonic manuscript of the late 14th or early 15th
Century.
18 MS Acad. 205 in the Library of the Roumanian Academy of Sciences in
Bucharest; V. JagiC, Psalterium bononiense (fn. 7), 830-838 and plates xviii-xix.
19 V. JAGid, Psalterium bononiense (fn. 7), 838-839 and plates xv-xvii; ab
breviated as Sof.
20 J. Hamm, Psalterium Vindobonense, Österreichische Akademie der Wissen
schaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Schriften der Balkankommission, Linguistische Abteilung
xix, Vienna 1967, 14-15; abbreviated as Vin.
21 In his introduction to J. Strzygowski, Die Miniaturen des Serbischen Psalters der
Königlichen Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in München, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse Iii, Abhandlung ii, 1906, lxxii.
of commentary listed above, MS 34 exhibits o

naturally occur in the process of producing a s
commentated exemplar: the first versicle of
been overlooked because it would have stood between покллнига at the end of
the preceding comment and покддмиеллъ at the beginning of the following one;
the first versicle of Ps. 23.8, which would have been duplicated in an accom
panying comment; and the first versicle of Ps. 67.9, whose component phrases
would have been repeated in the commentary. Other omissions, which cannot
be immediately explained by phraseological confusion between psalm and
comment, may yet be due to the difficulty of copying selectively: the first
versicles of Ps. 88.17, 104.35 (where confusion could have been caused by the
similar wording of the second versicle) and 148.2 (one in a sériés of identic
ally constructed versicles); the second versicles of Ps. 46.7 (which could have
been omitted simply because it is so similar to the first versicle), 65.16, 66.8,
106.2, 134.10, 136.3 and 147.9; the third versicles of Ps. 78.1 (where again
the scribe's eye could have skipped to the next verse, which begins with the
same word, положишд) and 86.5.22 Omissions, like confusion of text and
commentary, extend to the Canticles: in the Song of the Three Children
(Daniel 3.26-87) the phrase вса сил-ы гна is lacking in verses 60-61, while
verses 84-85 are omitted altogether. The third versicle of Ps. 151.1 is also
missing, but this error cannot be attributed to the difficulty of copying from a
commentated psalter, since the pseudo-Athanasian commentary does not treat
Ps. 151. The omission here is surely occasioned by the fact that the preceding
versicle ends with the same words23. Certainly the scribe of MS 34 was not
unfailingly accurate. Here and there he seems to have left out individual
words, but this phenomenon can be paralleled in many other psalter manus
cripts of the time. The omission of whole versicles is less common and in
dicative of some special difficulty in the process of copying.
The Tolstoy Psalter itself contains comparable mistakes which could be
attributed to the inconvenience involved in copying from a commentated psal
ter in which psalms and commentary were minimally differentiated. For in
stance, in Ps. 22.3 the first versicle is omitted, just as in MS 34. At the end
of Ps. 39.6 the scribe's eye seems to have jumped from оумножпиж ca in the
versicle to the same word in the comment, leading him to write a blend of the
two: оумъыожишл же ca в-крьнии гако числомь не оучисти (This omission im
mediately follows the phrase from the commentary which is included in MS
34.) In Ps. 55.10 the scribe replaced призови ta with the parallel phrase in the
22 The missing versicle has been added in a smaller hand and darker ink between
the original lines of the text.
23 Exactly the same omission occurs in MS Sinai 8, a 13th-century Serbian Church
Slavonic psalter without commentary, published by M. Altbauer, Der älteste serbische
Psalter, Slavistische Forschungen 23, Cologne-Vienna 1979, and I. C. Tarnanides,
The Slavonic Manuscripts (fn. 4), 335-351. The fairly fréquent omissions in this manu
script appear to have been motivated by verbal coincidences with adjacent text.
comment, призовоуть ba, continued with the rest of the comment and went on
to the next verse of the psalm. In Ps. 66.5, faced with вкзыкы нд земи ндстдви
ши followed by a comment beginning жэки прдведных-ь ндстдвивъ, he shifted
from versicle to commentary and back again, producing и газык-ы прдвьдь
н-ыуъ • ндстдвишн. Similarly in Ps. 72.28, after the first word of the versicle,
mn-Ь же, his eye seems to have been caught by иже with which the corres
ponding comment begins, and he went straight on with its text, мън-h же отъ
газ-ыкъ людье прнл-Ьпльше са в-крк • и лювъви вжии, never retuming to com
plété the versicle. In Ps. 128.3 he inserted a phrase from the commentary by
anticipation: зддлъжишга вездконик нд вездконеник иуъ. Perhaps misplaced
concern to avoid such dittography explains why he left out the répétition of
вид-Ьша ta вод-ы in Ps. 76.17; it is interesting that in the same place MS 34
omits the word вод-ы.
Elsewhere verbal coïncidences between the text of the psalm and the
commentary on it apparently induced the scribe of the Tolstoy Psalter to omit
entirely the first versicles of Ps. 67.18 (the comment Starts with the same
word, колесница), Ps 72.17 (the comment Starts with the same word, доидеже)
and Ps. 81.5 (the comment Starts with virtually the same phrase, ne оув-йд-Ьшж
во ни разоула-Ьшж), and the second versicles of Ps. 50.18 (which ends with the
same words, не влаговолиши, as the comment on the preceding versicle) and
Ps. 82.17 (the comment starts with the same word, възыфжтъ).
All these mistakes could be plausibly explained by the assumption that
the Tolstoy Psalter was itself copied from a commentated psalter of similar
lay-out. In other places, the motivation for omitting parts of the text is less
obvious: confusion with the surrounding commentary will not explain the ab
sence of the second versicle in Ps. 36.13, the third versicle in Ps. 98.8, the
second versicle in Ps. 105.46, still less the omission of both the second
versicle and its comment in Ps. 118.9. These omissions of a whole versicle
must reflect moments when the scribe lost his place, whether because his
exemplar was hard to read or through simple failure in concentration.
There is also some evidence that either the scribe of the Tolstoy Psalter
or his predecessor relied on a less than perfect memory of the psalms, which
led to transference of words and phrases. In the second versicle of Ps. 18.8 не
порочьыо is repeated from the first versicle instead of в-крно. Similarly in Ps.
34.3 ороужие и цжтъ duplicates the same phrase in verse 2, and in the second
versicle of Ps. 34.14 оуглждлх'ь is reproduced from the first versicle, though it
is followed by the reflexive pronoun ca which the correct reading, см-Ьр-Ьдх ca,
would have required. In the second versicle of Ps. 134.10 црА is replaced by
газъ1КЪ1 from the first one. These mistakes could of course be due to discon
tinuity in copying, as the scribe's eye shifted momentarily to the wrong place
in his exemplar; but where textual interférence opérâtes at a distance, the only
possible explanation is faulty memory: in Ps. 30.3 the phrase «уждри изати
ma is replaced by оусл-ыши ma, presumably in imitation of Pss. 54.3 and
62 С. M. MacRobert
85.1; in Ps. 67.24, instead of дд шм

роукд твои, borrowed from Ps. 20
Ps. 55.4, appears instead of въ стрд
not живы вь ер' лм-Ь, but the text
which is borrowed from the last v
ed in MS 34, except for the confu
second versicle of Ps. 134.10 is om
It is clear from this review of omissions and errors in the two manu
scripts that MS 34 dérivés from a commentated psalter, probably of similar
lay-out to the Tolstoy Psalter; what is more, that commented psalter was prob
ably either the Tolstoy Psalter itself or its exemplar. The evidence for this
claim consists in the errors shared by MS 34 and the Tolstoy Psalter. Some of
them have already been indicated: the identical omission of the first versicle in
Ps. 22.3; the conflation of second versicle and comment in Ps. 39.6 of the
Tolstoy Psalter and the interpolation of a phrase from the commentary on the
preceding versicle in MS 34; the omission of a phrase from Ps. 76.17 in the
Tolstoy Psalter and of a word from the same phrase in MS 34; and the textual
transferences in Pss. 18.8, 30.3, 34.3, 67.24, 114.9 and 134.21. To these may
be added two more instances of shared location of error: in Ps. 113.20, where
MS 34 includes the comment on дрень, the Tolstoy Psalter has the comment
but not the word itself; and, most curious of all, in Ps. 46.7, the commentary
on the first versicle is supplied in the Tolstoy Psalter, but there is a blank
space where the versicle itself should stand25, and the second versicle and
comment are omitted entirely, while in MS 34 the second versicle is missing.
If one accepts that this degree of coincidence in the location of errors is
greater than can be attributed to mere chance, then the simplest explanation for
them is that the Tolstoy Psalter and MS 34 both dérivé, more or less im
mediately, from the same somewhat illegible and faulty exemplar. There is an
alternative possibility, that MS 34 is descended from the Tolstoy Psalter it
self, and this cannot be excluded out of hand; but it seems less likely, both
because the Tolstoy Psalter contains a number of errors and omissions which
are not reproduced in MS 34, and because, as will emerge in the textual ana
lysis which follows, MS 34 displays a few conservative variant readings
which are not matched in the Tolstoy Psalter.
Pogorelov characterized the text of MS 34 as représentative of the 'South
Slavonic' or 'Archaic' rédaction of the Church Slavonic Psalter26. This State
24 Also in the Vienna Psalter, the Simonovskaja Russian Church Slavonic psalter
(Archimandrite Amfiloxu, Drevle-slavjanskaja Psaltir' Simonovskaja do 1280 goda,
2 ed., i-iv, Moscow 1880-1881) and the 14th-century Russian Church Slavonic
psalters, ф. 728, MS 60 and MS 64, in the Public Library in St. Petersburg.
25 There are also substantial gaps within and at the end of verse 6, and further down
the folium (75r), though without omission of text. I can see no trace of erasure in these
places; possibly the scribe found the parchment inadéquate here.
26 V. POGORELOV, Psaltyri (fn. 1), 63.
ment needs some qualification: although 'Archaic' readings predominate in

MS 34, throughout the manuscript there is a scattering of variants from the
'Russian' rédaction. Most of them are to be found in the earliest extant wit
ness to this rédaction, the lth-century Russian psalter Sinai 6. And ail of them
are supported, for instance, by the 14th-century Russian Jaroslavl' Psalter27;
sometimes they also occur in South Slavonic psalters of mixed rédaction, the
13th-century Deôani28, Grigorovié29 and Radomir30 Psalters. A number of the
lexical variants were regarded by Pogorelov3' as characteristic of 'Russian'
rédaction:
afp, Ps. 17.12 въздушн-ы (Jar, Grig by correction)

aKpoTotioç, Ps 113.8: нес-Ькомыи (S6, Jar)
avaßaXXw, Ps. 77.21; рдзн-квд (S6, Jar)
аира, Ps. 106.29: тишину (Jar, Rad; missing in S6)
ôaipovLOv, Ps. 90.6: в-Ьсд (Jar, Grig)
еукатаХещца, Ps. 75.11: остднокъ (S6, Jar, Deö)
évTecvûo, Ps. 36.14: идпрАгошд (S6, Jar, Deö); Ps. 44.5; ндпрлзи (S6,
Jar, Deö, Rad); Ps 77.9: ндпрАздюфе (S6, Jar, Deö)
èiTLTpLijjLç, Ps. 92.4: струи (Jar; сътренига S6)
epooLßr], Ps. 77.46: ржи (S6, Jar, Deö, Grig, Rad)
ётс, Ps. 77.30: кфе (S6, Jar, Dec, Grig)
GXopievoL, Ps. 67.26 & Ps. 93.15: влизъ (S6, Jar, Dec32, Grig, Rad)
катакартттш, Ps 37.7: см-Ьриуъ (Jar)
катаХостга, Ps. 16.14; остдик-ы (S6; missing in Jar; извиткы Dec, Grig)
катараааш, Ps. 36.24: рдзвькть (S6, Jar, Deö, Grig; also Bol33)
Kpoxacpoç, Ps. 131.4: скрдньиллд (S6, Jar; дкротомд Dec, Rad; код-киотд
Grig)
27 MS 15482 in the Historical Museum in Jaroslavl'; abbreviated as Jar.

28 Ф. 182, MS 17 in the Public Library in St. Petersburg; abbreviated as Dec.
29 Ф. 87, MS 4/M 1687 in the Lenin Library in Moscow; abbreviated as Grig.
30 MS 1.Д.13 in the Zographou monastery on Mt. Athos; abbreviated as Rad. The
contents of this manuscript are known to me from microfilms in the Institute of Patristic
Studies, Thessaloniki, and the Hilandar Research Library, Ohio State University. One
folium of the MS is held in the Public Library in St. Petersburg, MS O.n.I.l 1.
31 V. Pogorelov, Psaltyri (fn. 1), xlv-lxiv. My list of lexical variants is based on
Pogorelov's, but the Church Slavonic forms are quoted from MS 34 or, where ap
propriate, from the manuscript indicated immediately after the quoted form.
32 In Ps. 67.26 the DeCani Psalter seems to preserve the 'Archaic' reading, re
interpreted as an adjective and followed by the 'Russian' one: июдовъ! близь.
33 On the basis of such occasional déviations from the majority of witnesses to the
'Archaic' rédaction, the Bologna Psalter is placed in the same textual group as the
Grigorovic and Radomir Psalters by I. KaraCorova, Käm väprosa za Kirilo-Meto
dievija starobälgarski prevod na Psaltira, Kirilo-Metodievski studii 6, Sofia 1989, 130—
245, especially 201-202. However, it emerges both from her tables of variant readings
(ibid., 184-195, 202-218) and from the material cited in the présent article that, while
the Bologna Psalter certainly shares a range of peculiarities with South Slavonic manu
scripts which have obviously been influenced by the 'Russian' rédaction, its own
textual affinities with that rédaction are relatively slight. It is therefore treated here as a
représentative of the 'Archaic' rédaction.
64 С. M. MacRobert
цаслгуой), Ps. 72.14: бикнъ (S6,

|aupov, Ps. 132.2: Mvpo (S6, Jar,
otKTLp^ioç, Ps. 118.156: федрот-ы
тгХтрсос^, Ps. 27.3: ближними
Grig)
тгХтугош, Ps. 101.5: оугазвенъ (S6, Jar, Grig)
тгоькСХХш, Ps. 44.10, 14: преоукрашенд (S6, Jar, Dec, Grig, Rad; also
Bol)
тгрбрХгща, Ps. 48.5: гдддник (Jar)
ouyyéveia, Ps. 73.8: «родители (S6, Jar)
ouKctfjLvoç, Ps. 77.47: гагодичьк (S6, Jar, Grig)
аицтгтсоца, Ps. 90.6: ср-Ьтенига (Jar, Grig)
сроХту Ps. 77.68: племл (77.67: племене S6, Jar, Grig)
XpoviÇw, Ps. 39.18 & Ps. 69.6: здмедли (Jar; здкьсии Dec, Rad)
Ps. 79.6: ндпитдлъ н-ы кси (ндпитдкши S6, Jar, Grig, Rad); Ps.
80.17: ндпитд (S6, Jar, Grig; ндпитджть Rad)
This list сап be augmented with distinctive grammatical forms and con
structions, which Pogorelov does not discuss in detail, such as the aorist in
Ps. 34.11: въстдшд (S6, Jar, Dec), the prepositional phrases in Ps. 43.12: бъ
сн-кдь (S6, Jar, Deö, Rad) and Ps. 88.13: о имени твокмь (S6, Jar, Dec, Grig),
the singular number and feminine gender in Ps. 57.5: дспидд глух* (S6, Jar),
the choice of conjunction in Ps. 67.4: д прдведници (S6, Jar, Dec, Grig, Rad),
the choice of préposition in Ps. 83.3: къ elf живу (S6, Jar). It is also character
istic of manuscripts influenced by the 'Russian' rédaction that there is a spor
adic use of велик-ь rather than велии, in Pss. 75.2, 85.10 & 13, 110.2, and of
дк-ы to introduce similes rather than гако, in Pss. 36.6 (first versicle), 37.15,
58.7, 101.7. To this influence сап likewise be ascribed the presence in MS 34
of several readings common to the 'Archaic' and 'Russian' rédactions,
especially at those points, discussed below, where the Tolstoy Psalter has un
usual variants.
The presence of the 'Russian' readings listed above is the main feature
which distinguishes the text of the psalms in MS 34 from that of the Tolstoy
Psalter. In principle two explanations are possible: either these variants go
back to the common source of the two manuscripts, but were eliminated by
the scribe who copied the Tolstoy Psalter; or they were introduced later in the
copying tradition which resulted in MS 34, whether by the scribe himself or
by an earlier intermediary. The balance of probability favours the second ex
planation, for the following reasons. First of all, the 'Russian' influence on
MS 34 is relatively superficial, manifesting itself in choice of vocabulary and
phraseology, but not on the whole reflecting the distinctive variants of the
'Russian' rédaction which go back to a Greek original34; only two such readily
34 Enumerated in my article, The Greek Textological Basis of the Early Rédactions

of the Church Slavonic Psalter, Palaeobulgarica xiv/2,1990, 7-15.
identifiable variants have crept into the manuscript: Ps. 50.6: соудитй (S6, Jar,
Dec) and Ps. 84.5: с петлю нлшь (S6, Jar, De6, Grig). Secondly, it is sporadic,
leading to inconsistencies in choice of récurrent vocabulary (в-Ьс-ы - д-Ьмони,
ближним - искрьнии, ндпрАЦ1и - нллАфи), and of grammatical forms, particularly
asigmatic and secondary sigmatic aorists. Given the much greater consistency
over these points displayed by manuscripts of the 'Russian' rédaction from the
1 Ith Century onwards, especially their preference of secondary sigmatic aorists
to asigmatic forms, the variable usage of MS 34 is unlikely to be ancient. On
the contrary, it is comparable to the unpredictable patterns of contamination
between the 'Archaic' and 'Russian' rédactions which one meets in South
Slavonic psalter manuscripts of the 13th and early 14th centuries.
One could imagine that 'Russian' influence had entered MS 34 through a
process of compilatory copying from two manuscripts, the Tolstoy Psalter or
its exemplar, and a manuscript of the 'Russian' rédaction which was the source
of the penitential troparia and prayers incorporated into MS 34 after each ka
thisma. Yet this seems inherently unlikely: why should anyone go to the con
sidérable trouble of copying out the psalms, but not the commentary, from a
manuscript similar to the Tolstoy Psalter, if he had at his disposai another
manuscript of the type which he wanted to reproduce? Perhaps he attached im
portance to the Tolstoy Psalter's version of the text35; but if so, why did he
not follow it more consistently? A more plausible explanation is that
'Russian' variants were introduced, piecemeal and from memory, by one or
more successive scribes, because they were familiar with the 'Russian' ré
daction in their devotional practice36. The act of copying from an early com
mentated psalter manuscript was then an attempt to reproduce an obviously
old and arguably superior version of the text; but that attempt was flawed by
the force of habit.
Some evidence in support of this interprétation is supplied by sporadic
déviations, both in the Tolstoy Psalter itself and in a number of other con
servative manuscripts, from what seem to have been the original lexical norms
of the 'Archaic' rédaction to vocabulary more typical of the 'Russian' rédac
tion. For instance, manuscripts of the 'Archaic' rédaction, even the Lobkowicz
and Paris Psalters37 which represent the Croat Glagolitic tradition of the 15th
Century, normally use the word съкьм-ъ, while those of the 'Russian' rédaction
35 As did the individual who recopied parts of the Tolstoy Psalter afresh on paper
inserts, foll. 136r-7v, 148r—152v, probably in the 15th Century.
36 Most of the manuscripts containing the 'Russian' rédaction which survive from
the period up to the early 14th Century incorporate devotional texts of the kind
described in my article, The Systems of Supplementary Penitential Texts in the Psalter
MSS Pec 68, Belgrade 36, and Pljevlja 80, Oxford Slavonic Papers, New Sériés xxiv,
1991, 1-22, especially 3-4. Widespread liturgical use of the 'Russian' rédaction is also
postulated by I. KaraCorova, Käm väprosa (fn. 33), 184.
37 J. Vajs, Psalterium palaeoslovenicum croatico-glagoliticum, i, Prague 1916; ab
breviated as Lob and Par.
use съворъ; but the following table38 shows

sinuate itself even into the conservative trad
stoy Psalters, and is more fréquent, though
34 and the Deôani, GrigoroviÊ and Radomir P
Sin Pog Sof Vin Tolst MS 34 Deö Grig Rad S6

Bol Lob Par
Ps. 15.4 sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü —
süborü
Ps. 21.17 sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü —
sürilmü —
süborü
Ps. 25.4 sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü süborü süborü —
süborü
Ps. 39.11 sürilmü süborü süborü süborü süborü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü süborü
Ps. 61.9 sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü süborü süborü süborü süborü
Ps. 63.3 sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü razvrastenie
Ps. 67.31 sürilmü sürilmü —
sürilmü
sürilmü
sürilmü
sürilm
sürilmü süborü
Ps. 73.2 sürilmü sürilmü —
sürilmü
sürilmü
sürilmü
sürilmü
süborü süborü
Ps. 81.1 sürilmü süborü —
sürilmü
sürilmü
sürilmü süborü süborü süborü
Ps. 85.14 sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü süborü süborü sürilmü süborü
Ps. 105.17 sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü süborü süborü
Ps. 105.18 sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü süborü süborü
Ps. 110.1 sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü süborü sürilmü sürilmü sürilmü —
(sü
At first
similarly
by a sérié
not спъгг
here and
scribal tr
ошоуть in
was then
Psalter). I
ancient al
but also i
unfamili
bez'uma i
cause the
38 To aid c
Sin Pog Sof Vin Tolst MS 34 Dec Grig Rad S6

Bol Lob Par
asufi bezuma — aSufi bezuma bezuma bezuma bezuma bezuma
spyti (Bol)
aSufl bezuma — aSufi bezuma bezuma bezuma bezuma bezuma
spyti (Bol)
vüsue vüsue bezuma vüsue vüsue vüsue vüsue
vübezdobi (Pog) vübezdobi bezloby

spyti spyti — bezuma bezuma spyti spyti bezuma bezuma
spyti spyti spyti bezuma bezuma spyti spyti bezuma —
(bezuma in Jar)
Ps. 118.161 spyti spyti — bezuma bezuma bezuma spyti — bezuma
Ps. 119.7 spyti spyti — bezuma bezuma spyti bezuma bezuma
Perhaps the most striking example of unsystematic lexical dissém

is provided by the early spread of скоро (and its derivative оускорити
common to all the Slavonic languages, at the expense of Адро (and о
which now survives, with a rather différent sense, only in South S
gorelov suggested40 that the choice between these two words was o
features which distinguished the 'Archaic' rédaction from the 'Russ
and this may originally have been the case; but the prevalence of ско
manuscripts otherwise regarded as unequivocally 'Archaic', as сап be
the table below, suggests that this word was liable to be substituted
irrespective of redactional considérations41. The verb оуддрити (in P
30.3 and 105.13) survived only a little better.
Sin Pog Bol Vin Tolst MS 34 DeC Grig Rad S6

Lob Par
-çdr- -çdr- -çdr- -çdr- -skor- -çdr- -skor- — -skor

-çdr- -çdr- — — — -skor- -skor- -skor- -skor
çdro çdro çdro çdro skoro skoro skoro skoro skoro
skoro (Lob, Par)
çdro- çdro- çdro- skoro- skoro- çdro- skoro- skoro- skoro
skoro- (Pog)
çdro skoro — skoro skoro skoro skoro skoro skoro
skoro (Lob, Par)
çdro skoro çdro skoro skoro skoro skoro skoro skoro
40 V. Pogorelov, Psaltyri (fh. 1), lxiii.

41 V. JagiC, Psalterium bononiense (fn. 7), on whose critical apparatus I r
information about the Sofia Psalter, does not always specify which of these tw
variants appears in the manuscript, but implies that it has -aдр- only in Ps.
presence of -скор- and скоро in Pss. 30.3, 36.2, 68.18 and 105.13 is confirme
KaraCorova, Käm väprosa (fn. 33), 185-187.
68 С. M. MacRobert
Sin Pog Bol Vin Tolst MS 34 Dec Grig Rad S 6

Lob Par
çdro skoro çdro skoro skoro skoro skoro skoro skoro

-çdr- -çdr- -çdr- -skor- -skor- -skor- ?42 ?43 -skor
çdro skoro skoro skoro skoro skoro — skoro —
(skoro in Jar)
çdro çdro çdro skoro skoro skoro skoro skoro skoro
Thus the contention of this article is that elements characteristic

'Russian' rédaction, whether pervasive, as in MS 34, or occasional
Tolstoy Psalter, are adventitious and secondary in comparison with
mental common affiliation of these two manuscripts to the ' Archaic
To demonstrate that affiliation conclusively is not as easy as it mig
not merely because it would necessitate a füll listing of variants, so
beyond the scope of this article, but also because of the numerous s
tual différences between manuscripts of the 'Archaic' rédaction, wh
yield readily discernible patterns of relationship. Thus shared readin
Tolstoy Psalter and MS 34 may agree with any one or more of the S
godin, Bologna, Vienna, Lobkowitz and Paris Psalters while diffe
the rest; corrélations with the later Decani, Grigorovic and Radomir
are similarly unpredictable. A few examples will serve to illustrate th
Ps. 17.18: о^кр-кпишж CA (Bol, Vin; Tolst, MS 34) - оутвръд
(Pog, Sin, Lob, Par. Grig, S6); Ps. 41.2: жел-кетъ (Pog, Sin, Rad;
MS34) - жжддетъ (Bol, Vin, Deö, Grig, S6) - вжедд (Lob, Par); Ps
кнци (Bol, Vin, Grig, Rad: Tolst, MS 34) -'кпльнбыик (Pog, Sin,
Dec, S6); Ps. 52.5: творАштеи (Bol, Vin, Lob, Par, Dec, Grig, Rad
MS34) - д-Ьлджц1еи (Pog, Sin, S6); Ps. 82.6: въкоуп-Ь (Bol, Vin,
Deö, Grig, Rad; Tolst, MS 34) - к' сев* (Pog, Sin, S6); Ps. 104.29
(Pog, Vin, Dec, Grig, Rad; Tolst, MS 34) - изви (Bol, Sin, Lob, Pa
In the above instances the reading of the Tolstoy Psalter and MS
supported by at least two other 'Archaic' manuscripts and is distinct
'Russian' reading as attested in Sinai 6. If the second condition i
examples сап be multiplied:
Ps. 31.7: овишьд'шиих' (Pog, Sin, Grig, S6; Tolst, MS 34) —
швиджштиихъ (Bol, Vin, Rad) — овь^одефи^ (Lob, Par); Ps. 43.8: потр-Ьвиль
(Pog, Sin, Vin, Grig, S6; Tolst, MS 34) - посрдлдилъ (Bol, Lob, Par, Deô,
Rad); Ps. 57.10: рдзоум-ккте (Bol, Vin, Deë, Rad, S6; Tolst, MS 34) -
рдзсл^м-Ьжтъ (Pog, Sin, Lob, Par, Grig); Ps. 73.15: етдм' (Lob, Par), здднъ
(Tolst), кфдмъ (MS 34), кэдмовы (Pog), е«-лмлА (Grig, S6) — нлводъненъпж
(Bol, Sin, Dec); Ps. 104.23: prisai'stvova (Vin, Lob, Par, De6, Grig, Rad,
S6; Tolst, MS 34) - приде (Bol, Pog, Sin).
42 Corrected to стввришж.
43 оукрвтишж CA.
A similar picture emerges from 'Archaic' readings which are preserved in

the Tolstoy Psalter but have presumably been replaced in MS 34 by 'Russian'
or by other shared 'Archaic' and 'Russian' ones:
Ps. 17.24: оц-кфж ca (Bol, Pog, Vin, Grig; Tolst) - съхрднж ca (Sin,
Lob, Par, S6; MS 34); Ps. 64.5: испльнихом' ca (Pog, Vin, Grig; Tolst) -
исплънимъ ca (Bol, Sin, Lob, Par, Rad, S6; MS 34) - испльнить ca (Dec); Ps.
77.47: сукдллиыие (Bol, Vin, Rad; Tolst) - чрьницА (Pog, Sin, Dec) - овофи-Ь
(Lob, Par) - игодичие (Grig, S6; MS 34); Ps. 77.72: въ хжА»жъств'Ь (Bol,
Vin; Tolst) — вь рдзсл(-м-Ьх'ь (Pog, Sin, Lob, Rad, S6) - вь рдзоум-к (Par, Deô,
Grig; MS 34); Ps. 88.31: здв-ктъ (Pog, Vin, Lob, Par, Grig, Rad; Tolst) -
здконъ (Bol, Sin, Dec, S6; MS 34); Ps. 101.5: присвАнжхь (Pog, Vin, Rad;
Tolst) - повиенъ в-ыхъ (Bol, Sin, Lob, Par, Dec) - ©учазвеыъ Б-кхт» (Grig, S6;
MS 34); Ps. 105.35: съм-Ьришж ca (Bol, Lob, Dec, Grig, Rad; Tolst) -
слл-Ьсиша (Pog, Sin, Vin, Par, S6; MS 34); Ps. 139.6: скдыъд-клъ (Sin, Vin,
Lob, Par; Tolst) - съблдзнъ (Bol, Pog, Dec, Grig, Rad; MS 34); Ps. 140.9:
скдн-ъд-Ьлъ (Sin, Lob, Par; Tolst) - skudël' (Vin) - съблдзнъ (Bol, Pog, Grig,
Rad; MS 34) — сьвлдзны д-кль (Dec)44.
The absence of clearly delineated pattern among these unpredictably vari
able corrélations makes any attempt at a principled, objective reconstruction of
the original ' Archaic' rédaction a doubtful, perhaps a hopeless venture. Against
this misty background, however, certain localized features of the textual land
scape emerge distinctly. The presence of common peculiarities in the Tolstoy
Psalter and the Sluck Psalter was noted by Sreznevskij45. More recently,
Hamm46 drew attention to affinities between the Tolstoy and Vienna Psalters
and between the latter and the Eugenius Psalter. The more or less incomplète
State in which all these manuscripts have survived, however, has hitherto made
it impossible to group them together as a distinct textual type within the 'Ar
chaic' rédaction: the Sluck Psalter bore witness only to parts of Ps. 118,
which is entirely lacking in the Vienna Psalter; the highly distinctive variant
readings shared by the Vienna Psalter and the Eugenius Psalter in the Can
ticles cannot be compared with the Tolstoy Psalter, which has lost everything
from Ps. 147 onwards. The missing link in this chain is provided by MS 34.
In spite of sporadic contamination from the 'Russian' rédaction, the text of
this manuscript shares a sufficient number of distinctive readings with the
Sluck, Tolstoy, Vienna and Eugenius Psalters to allow one to draw the con
clusion that they all dérivé from a common source.
Two remarkable features unité the versions of Ps. 118 in the Sluck and
Tolstoy Psalters and MS 34: the sporadic translation of бекаешцата not, as
44 Неге, as in Ps. 67.26 (fn. 32), the Decani Psalter appears to offer an interprétative
conflation of two competing readings.
45 V. I. Sreznevsku, Drevnij slavjanskij perevod psaltyri (fn. 13).
46 J. Hamm, Psalterium Vindobonense (fn. 20), passim; К istorii drevneslavjanskogo
perevoda psaltyri, Kul'turnoe nasledie drevnej Rusi, ed. M. B. XrapCenko et al.,
Moscow 1976, 359-363.
70 С. M. MacRobert
normally in the Church Slavonic te

use of this word in the genitive ca
Czech and normal in Slovene to thi
otherwise found in Church Slavoni
to be significant, in spite of lacuna
in MS 34:
Sluck Tolst MS 34
Ps. 118.5 —
pravida pravida
8 —
opravld opravldanie
12 prav'idy (gen) prav'idy (gen) opravldanie
16 opravldanie opravldanie opravldanie
24 pravïda pravida pravida
26 prav'idy (gen) prav'idy (gen) prav'idy (gen)
27 pravïda pravida pravïda
94 —
opravld opravldanie
112 pravida pravida pravïda
117 opravldanie opravldanie
opravldanie
118 pravida pravida opravldanie
124 —
opravld
opravldanie
135 —
prav'id
opravldanie
141 —
pravida pravïda
145 —
pravida opravldanie
This common pattern confers significance on a number of more trivial

coïncidences, the most noteworthy of which are везоумл in verse 161 and сед
мншьдъ! in verse 164. Taken together, they suggest that the Sluck Psalter de
rived from the same exemplar as the other two manuscripts. Such a conclusion
47 Ed. by В. HavrAnek, et al., StaroCesky slovnik 3, Prague 1971, 319-323. Dr. G.

С. Stone kindly drew my attention to the usage of modern Slovene.
is reinforced by Jagic's observation48 that the Sluck Psalter, though it contain

ed no commentary, was probably copied from a commentated psalter, because
- at one of the few points where it diverged from the Tolstoy Psalter and MS
34 - it incorporated a phrase from the commentary, отъ ср^д моего, into Ps.
118.11. Moreover, there are traces of similarly distinctive wording in the
translation of the pseudo-Athanasian commentary: in the Bologna Psalter the
comments on verses 71 and 93 employ the word прдвьдд - in the dative
plural, not the genitive singular - where the other commentated psalters, inclu
ding the Tolstoy Psalter, have опрдвьддннв.
As Hamm points out49, the Vienna and Tolstoy Psalters share several
unusual variant readings, supported sporadically by the Croat uncommentated
psalters, against the witness of most other manuscripts of the 'Archaic' rédac
tion. It turns out that MS 34 présents the same pattern:
Ps. 39.5: neistov'na (Vin, Lob, Par, Tolst, MS 34) — неистовленил (Pog,
Sin, Grig) - неистовднигд (Rad) - ыестдвднигд (Bol) - гн-кв-ы (S6, De6); Ps.
98.6: us'lisase (Vin, Tolst, MS 34) - оуслишдвдше (Lob, Par) - суслышд (Dec)
- слъпиддше (Bol, Pog, Sin, Grig, Rad, S6); Ps. 104.17: v rabü (Vin, Tolst,
MS 34; De6) - въ рдвотж (Bol, Pog, Sin, Lob, Par, Grig, Rad, S6); Ps.
104.31: s'kinipi (Vin, Lob, Par, Tolst, MS 34; De£) - мъшицл (Pog, Bol50,
Sin, Grig, Rad, S6); Ps. 104.40: or'tigomitra (Vin, Tolst, MS 34, Deô) - крл
ст-Ьли (Bol, Pog, Sin, Lob, Par, Grig, Rad, S6); Ps. 105.43: mnogas'di (Vin,
Tolst, MS 34; S6) - многжфи (Bol, Rad) - множицеиь (Pog, Sin, Lob, Par,
Dec, Grig); Ps. 128.1: mnogas'di (Vin, Tolst, MS 34; Pog, S6) - мыогжцж
(Bol, Grig) - множицбнк (Sin, Lob, Par, De6); Ps. 128.2: mnogas'di (Vin,
Tolst, MS 34; S6) - мъногжфи (Bol, Grig) - множицеьь (Pog, Sin, Lob, Par,
Dec); Ps. 136.7: istas^aite xl (Vin, Tolst, MS 34; Bol) - истьфлите x2 (Pog,
Sin, Lob, Par, Dec, Grig, Rad).
Some of these unusual variants show signs of a wider dispersai among
South Slavonic manuscripts, particularly in the Decani Psalter. Similarly, the
expression ндвлдцш which occurs in the heading of Ps. 151 in the Vienna Psal
ter and MS 34, as well as in the newly discovered fragment of the Sinai Psal
ter, is preserved as ндвллсти in the Pogodin, Bologna, Decani and Grigorovic
Psalters.
A few rare features are shared by the Tolstoy, Vienna and Eugenius
Psalters and MS 34 in the small portions of text which they have in common:
Ps. 103.1: л-кпотж (Eug, Vin?51, Lob, Par, Tolst, MS 34; Grig) - велъл'кпо
тж (Bol, Pog, Sin, Deö, Rad, S652); Ps. 103.8: въ лл-кстд иже (Eug, Tolst,
48 V. JagiC, Ein unedierter griechischer Psalmenkommentar (fn. 11), 2, footnote 1.

49 J. Hamm, Psalterium Vindobonense (fn. 20), 42.
50 In the Bologna Psalter моушице has been added in a différent hand above an
erasure of a slightly shorter word.
51 J. Hamm, Psalterium Vindobonense (fn. 20), 260, interprets this spelling as
v(el')lèpotu\ but this abbreviation is not characteristic in the manuscript.
Apparently corrected later to в' л-кпотоу.
72 С. M. MacRobert
MS 34; Deä) - v mes' té ëze (Vin

Grig, Rad, S6).
More important than these, ho
shared by MS 34 and the Vien
15.1-19) and by these two manus
of Habakkuk (Habakkuk 3.2-19)
three manuscripts, and by impli
from other witnesses to the 'Arc
version of the Prayer of Habak
Cyrrhus's commentary, appears
vonic manuscript of Theodoret's
the Cudov collection53:
Exod. 15.4: oruzie (Vin, MS 3
Sin, Lob, Par, Deö, Grig, Rad);
иджтъ (Bol, Pog, Sin, Lob, Pa
15.19: oruziem' (Vin) - колесни
Rad, S6; MS 34, MS 7/177); Hab. 3.2: междж (Eug, Vin, MS 34, MS
7/177) - по ср-кд-Ь (Bol, Pog, Sin, Lob, Par, Dec, Grig, Rad, S6); Hab. 3.10:
|'знемогжть (Eug, Vin, MS 34) - рдзволАтъ ca (Bol, Pog, Sin, Lob, Par, Dec,
Grig, Rad, S6; MS 7/177); Hab. 3.10: рдсъшдА (Eug, Vin, MS 34, MS
7/177) - рдстдчдж (Bol, Pog, Sin, Lob, Par, Deö, Grig, Rad, S6); Hab. 3.10:
величьствиА (Eug, Vin, MS 34) — привид-книи (Bol, Pog, Sin, Lob, Par, Dec,
Grig, Rad, S6) — величид (MS 7/177); Hab. 3.16: въыиджть (Eug, MS 34) -
вьнидж вь (Deö, Rad) — възюдж въ (Bol, Pog, Sin, Vin, Lob, Par, S6) —
взити мн-Ь (MS7/177). At one other place in the Prayer of Habakkuk the united
witness of the Vienna, Lobkowicz and Paris Psalters agrees with MS 7/177
against all the other manuscripts considered here: Hab. 3.1: uzas'nuh' se (Vin,
MS 7/177) - оуждс' ce (Lob, Par) - дивихъ ca (Bol, Pog, Sin, Eug, Dec, Grig,
Rad; S6; MS 34).
The most remarkable of these variants is оржжие in place of квлесницА in
the Song of Miriam, verse 4 (also verse 19 in the Vienna Psalter), which is
reminiscent of the confusion between Greek аррата and Latin arma reflected
in Ps. 19.8 in the Sinai Psalter and MS 7/17754. Hardly less curious is the
53 Now in the State Historical Museum in Moscow. This manuscript contains two
versions of the Prayer of Habakkuk. The first, which is accompanied by Theodoret's
commentary and is very similar to the text of Habakkuk found in the Ostrog Bible, is
written on foll. 353r-354v in a small, cramped hand. Before it, at the bottom of fol.
352v, the beginning of the Prayer of Hannah is indicated in a larger hand, and after a
blank space in the right-hand column of fol. 354v the Prayer of Hannah Starts again, in
the same hand and position. It then continues on fol. 355r-v and is followed by the
Prayer of Habakkuk on foll. 355v-358r, this time in the version familiar from the
Pogodin and Bologna Psalters, together with the pseudo-Athanasian commentary.
541. V. JagiC, Cetyre kritiCesko-paleografiöeskie stat'i (= Ot6et о prisuzdenii Lomo
nosovskoj premii za 1883 g.), Sbornik Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti
lmperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, xxxiii/2, 1884, 51. This variant is also found in the
reading величьствига or величид in the Prayer of Habakkuk, verse 10, for it re

flects an early divergence in the interprétation of this passage. The closest pa
rallele seem to be the use of величдник in the Codex Suprasliensis55 to render
the word cpavTaaua and the instance of величдшем' as a translation of cpav
racr&eCç in the pseudo-Athanasian commentary on Ps. 13.1.
It is also striking that the exiguous remains of the Eugenius Psalter ex
hibit a closer agreement with MS 34 than does the Vienna Psalter, as сап be
seen above in the Prayer of Habakkuk, verses 1 and 16, and also in Ps. 98.1:
подвижить ça (Eug, Tolst, MS 34) — дд подвижитъ ca (Pog, Bol, Sin, Vin,
Lob, Par, Dec, Grig, Rad, S6).
Beyond this web of textual coincidences, the Tolstoy Psalter and MS 34
display a range of shared variants which set them apart from ail the other
manuscripts of the 'Archaic' rédaction included in this study. Some of these
peculiarities serve merely to confirm the close relationship between the two
manuscripts:
Ps. 34.12: вездрАдье (Tolst, MS 34) - вештждие (Bol, Pog, Sin, Lob,
Par, Dec, Grig, Rad, S6); Ps. 63.6: оуклонишд (Tolst, MS 34) - оу-твръдишж
(Bol, Pog, Sin, Vin, Lob, Par, Dec, Grig, Rad, S6); Ps. 126.4: ota a (Tolst,
MS 34) - wTAT-bix-b (Bol, Pog, Sin, Vin, Dec, Grig, S6) - отрекших ce (Lob,
Par); Ps. 143.14: вълскстлхъ (Tolst) - въ м-Ьст-t (MS 34) - въ ц-кстдхъ (Bol,
Pog, Sin, Vin, Lob, Par, De2, Grig, Rad) - въ прострдмьств-Ь (S6). These are
surely errors which stem from scribal failure to reproduce accurately unfamiliar
expressions. Others of similar type appear, perhaps independently, in a wider
range of manuscripts: Ps. 47.4: въ твдрехъ (Tolst, MS 34; Grig, Rad) - въ
вдрехъ (Bol, Pog, Sin, Vin, Lob, Par, Dec) - въ тАжьсткх"ь (S6); but Ps.
44.9: отъ вдрии (Bol, Pog, Sin, Grig; Tolst, MS 34) - от' с твдри (Lob) - ot
tv(a)ri (Vin, Par, Rad) - Ш ст-кив (Dec) - отъ тажьстии (S6); Ps. 108.10:
въсх<уид|жть (Tolst, MS 34; Pog) — въсхлъпджтъ (Bol, Sin, Vin, Lob, Par,
Dec, Grig) — ввсплдчАт ca (Rad).
It is hardly surprising that the later MS 34 has more instances of incom
préhension than the Tolstoy Psalter: Ps. 71.10: отроци (MS 34; Rad) - штоци
(Bol, Pog, Tolst, Lob, Par) - отыди (Sin, Grig) - острови (S6, Dec); but Ps.
96.1: wtwuh (Bol, Pog, Vin, Lob, Par, Dec, Rad; Tolst, MS 34) - оц'и (Sin) -
wcTpoBH (S6, Grig); Ps. 101.8: нд гн^зд^ (MS 34; Rad) - нд съд-Ь (Bol, Pog,
Sin, Tolst, Vin, Lob, Par, Dec, Grig) - нд зьдднии (S6); Ps. 101.28: тъ (MS
34) - тъжде (Tolst, Vin, Lob, Par, Rad) - сдллъ (Bol, Pog, Sin, Dec, Grig,
Bucharest Psalter and several psalter manuscripts of the 'Russian' rédaction, listed in my
article, Two Lykewake Psalters: The MSS Vasterâs/UUB5/UUB6 and Jaroslavl' 15482,
Scando-Slavica 38, 1991, 112, fn. 14.
55 Ed. J. Kurz et al., Slovnîk jazyka staroslovënského, Lexikon linguae palaeo
slovenicae, i, Prague 1966, sub voce величдник.
74 С. M. MacRobert
S6); Ps. 106.37: животенъ (MS 3

(Bol, Pog, Sin, Tolst, DeC, Grig
The shared mistakes, however,
stoy Psalter and MS 34 stand in
ally conservative even by the stan
The evidence of aorist forms is p
two manuscripts a 3rd person S
Singular is expected:
Ps. 68.8: пригатъ (Tolst, MS
приять (Bol, Lob, Grig, S6) - п
— клась ça (Pog, Sin) — кла^ъ
Tolst); Ps. 94.11: клатъ ca (Tolst, MS 34; Ded) - класъ ca (Pog, Sin) -
кла\ъ ca (Bol, Vin, Lob, Par, Grig, Rad, S6); Ps. 108.23 - отъатъ ca
(Tolst, MS 34) — (CiACh ca (Pog, Sin, Lob, Par) - Я)жхъ «a (Bol, Dec, Grig,
Rad); Ps. 118.106: клатъ ca (Tolst, MS 34) — клась ca (Pog, Sin) - клахъ ca
(Bol, Lob, Par, Dec, Grig, S6); Ps. 151.7: взатъ (MS 34) - възасъ (Sin) -
vzeh' (Vin) - Фььсь (Pog) — Фнкхъ (Bol, Dec, Grig, Rad, S6).
Two features of this list deserve comment. Firstly, the aorist forms are
all based on stems with nasal vowels, for which primary sigmatic aorists are
attested in conservative manuscripts such as the Sinai and Pogodin Psalters. If
one assumes that the Tolstoy Psalter and MS 34 both go back to a manuscript
which contained forms such as класъ, приАсъ, възасъ, it is easy to imagine
how клатъ, приАтъ, възатъ might have been introduced into the tradition as
emendations by a scribe or scribes to whom the old Ist person singular aorist
forms were unfamiliar. The fact that in Ps. 88.4 this erroneous correction oc
curs only in MS 34 is one of the indications that this manuscript was not
copied directly from the Tolstoy Psalter; for there is no reason why the scribe
of MS 34 should have hesitated to reproduce the Ist person singular aorist in
which the Tolstoy Psalter has at this point, if he had had it before his
eyes.
Similarly in Ps. 103.9 the supine покр-ытъ in MS 34, backed by the
Sinai, Eugenius and Vienna psalters, is likely to be a more conservative rea
ding than the infinitive in the Tolstoy Psalter; in Ps. 105.35 ндв-ыку in MS
34, supported by the Sinai, Pogodin, Vienna, Lobkowicz and Paris Psalters,
can hardly be a correction of нлв-ыкноу in the Tolstoy Psalter; and in Ps. 87.14
MS 34 préserves an aberrant reading, вдрит ma, which has been corrected in
the Tolstoy Psalter to the standard вдрить та. Further indirect evidence can be
seen in Ps. 67.7, where и помышлен-ыА in the Tolstoy Psalter betrays a scri
be's perplexity at the unfamiliar иномыслънъиж. Given that this solution made
sense, even if not the right sense, one may surmise that it was not available to
the scribe of MS 34, who replaced an antiquated form with the more correct
innovation кдимом-ысльнъг
Most remarkable of all are those shared distinctive readings in the Tol
stoy Psalter and MS 34 which cannot be put down to scribal error, but pré
serve an otherwise unattested and apparently early tradition within the 'Ar
chaic' rédaction. One of these variants seems to occur only in these two manu
scripts: Ps. 118.37: пжстоши (Tolst, MS 34) - соуетъ! (Bol, Pog, Sin, Lob,
Par, Dec, Grig; S6). The word поустошь has been suppressed elsewhere in MS
34, but occurs twice more in the Tolstoy Psalter: Ps. 143.8, 11: поустошь,
поустошьнл (Tolst) - соуетж x 2 (Bol, Pog, Sin, Vin, Lob, Par, Dec, Grig,
Rad, S6; MS 34). The word поустошъни is also to be found in the translation
of the pseudo-Athanasian commentary on Ps. 113.12, not only in the Tolstoy
Psalter but also in the Bologna, Pogodin, Sofia and Bucharest Psalters, al
though normally (jaxauoç and its derivatives are rendered in the commentary
by соуетьнъ and cognate words, as in the psalms themselves.
A récurrent lexical variant, похоулити rather than оуничижити as a trans
lation of èÇouôevELV, links the Tolstoy Psalter and MS 34 with the Church
Slavonic version of the commentary on the psalms compiled by Theodoret of
Cyrrhus, which survives only in the llth-century Cudov Psalter56 and a hand
ful of closely related but later Russian manuscripts57. In the following table
the oldest of those later manuscripts, MS 7/177, is used to supplément the
considérable lacunae in the Cudov Psalter itself:
Cud MS 7/177 Tolst MS 34
Ps. 14.4 —
ukoriti —
uni
Ps. 21.7 —
poxulenie uniôizenie uniôizenie

Ps. 21.25 —
poxuliti uniôiziti uniôiziti

Ps. 30.19 —
poxulenie unicizenie uniôizenie

Ps. 43.6 poxuliti poxuliti poxuliti poxuliti
Ps. 50.19 —
xuliti
uniôizi
uniôiziti
Ps. 52.6 —
poxuliti poxuliti poxuliti

Ps. 57.8 —
umaliti uniôiziti uniôiziti

Ps. 58.9 umaliti umaliti uniôiziti uniôiziti
Ps. 59.14 umaliti umaliti —
uni
Ps. 68.34 uniôiziti uniôiziti uniôiziti uniôiziti
Ps. 77.59 poxuliti poxuliti uniôiziti uniôiziti
Ps. 88.39 —
umalit
uniôi
uni
Ps. 89.6 —
poxulenie unicizenie uniôizenie

Ps. 101.18 —
poxuliti uniôiziti uniôiziti
56 V. Pogorelov, Cudovskaja Psaltyr' xi veka, Pamjatniki staroslavjanskogo jazyka

c. iii vyp. i, St. Petersburg 1910; abbreviated as Cud.
" J. LÉpissier, Les Commentaires des Psaumes de Theödoret 1, Paris 1968, 3.
Cud MS 7/177 Tolst MS 34
Ps.105.24 — poxuliti poxuliti poxuliti

Ps. 106.40 — poxulenie poxulenie ponosenie
Ps. 107.14 — poxuliti poxuliti poxuliti
Ps. 118.22 — poxulenie uniöizenie uniöizenie
Ps. 118.118 — poxuliti uniöiziti uniöiziti
Ps. 118.141 — poxuliti poxuliti uniöiziti
No obvious rationale suggests itself to explain these variable translations

of èÇooôeveï,v and its cognâtes, which contrast so surprisingly with the con-si
stent preference given to оуничижити in other manuscripts of the 'Archaic' ré
daction. Semantic differentiation is not an obvious motivation. The translation
of the Theodoretic and pseudo-Athanasian commentaries were apparently not
the source of the divergence in translational practice, for though they some
times employ the same word as is used in the translation of the psalm (Pss.
14.4, 30.19, 52.6, 122.3, 122.4 in the Theodoretic commentary; Ps. 14.4,
21.7, 30.19, 59.14, 89.6, 106.40,107.14, 118.22, 122.3 in the pseudo
Athanasian commentary), more often they do not. However, there is evidence
in the Tolstoy Psalter of a connexion between the choice of word to translate
èÇouôevetv in the psalms and in the accompanying commentary, for instead of
the forms of оуничижити which appear in other manuscripts of the pseudo
Athanasian commentary, in three places the commentary employs forms of no
Х©улити: Ps. 106.40: похжлени, Ps. 118.22: похоулл^оу, Ps. 122.3: похжлають.
If пох«¥лити occurred only in the text of the psalms in the Tolstoy Psalter
and MS 34, it might be taken as an indication of scribal familiarity with the
Church Slavonic translation of Theodoret's commentary; apparent sporadic in
fluence of this text was detected by Pogorelov58 in uncommentated psalters of
the 'Russian' rédaction in the 14th Century, and some of the glosses59 in the
Sinai Psalter imply familiarity at a rather earlier date with the characteristic
vocabulary and perhaps even the content of Theodoret's commentary in its
Church Slavonic translation. Yet these are not close parallels, for they involve
a variety of distinctive lexical items, rather than a single one repeatedly de
ployed. For the same reason, the effects visible in the Tolstoy Psalter and MS
34 must be the resuit of a différent type of influence from the pervasive textual
interférence, postulated above, by which scribes who knew the 'Russian' rédac
tion of the Psalter by heart introduced its wording into copies made from ex
emplars belonging to a différent rédaction. It is hardly likely that anyone knew
58 V. Pogorelov, Psaltyri (fn. 1), xxix-xxx.

59 V. Pogorelov, Psaltyri (fn. 1), xviii; also the glosses on Pss. 77.44 and 128.6,
джьвьн-kiiA and нд хрлм-fe, which relate to the commentary on these verses in MS 7/177.
Theodoret's commentated version of the psalms off by heart, nor does the pat
tern of correspondences tabulated above look like the resuit of chance rémin
iscences. Why indeed should anyone, by design or inadvertence, have trans
ferred this one lexical item, похоулити, while ignoring all the other vocabulary
and constructions which so sharply differentiate the translation of Theodoret's
commentary from other early versions of the Church Slavonic Psalter?
Furthermore, the use of пох®улити 'n the commentary on Pss. 106.40 and
118.22 cannot stem from the translation of the Theodoretic commentary,
which does not employ this word in these places. Rather, the occurrence of no
Х«^лити both in the psalms and in the pseudo-Athanasian commentary is com
parable to the distribution of прдвьдд, of величьствие/величдние and of noy
стошь, поустошьнъ, described above, and can be further paralleled by the ap
pearance of р-кснотд, р-Ьснотивьнъ both in the Sinai Psalter and in the com
mentary to Pss. 50.8, 63.9, 108.23 and 140.6 in the Tolstoy Psalter and to
Ps. 14.5 in the Vienna Psalter. Taken together, these words provide crucial, it
vestigial evidence to support Jagic's hypothèses that the original translation of
the Psalter from Greek into Old Church Slavonic was somewhat revised at an
early stage, perhaps while SS Cyril and Methodius were working in Moravia
and Pannonia60, and that a translation of the pseudo-Athanasian commentary
was added either there and then or soon after by someone closely associated
with them61. Other peculiarities of this textual tradition also suggest Western
provenance: the use of крижь62 in the commentary to Pss. 109.2 and 136.2 in
the Tolstoy Psalter and more widely in the Vienna Psalter; and Latin influence
on the translation, not only of the kind to be found in any manuscript of the
'Archaic' rédaction63, but also in the confusion of арцата and arma, noted
above, which unités the Vienna Psalter and MS 34.
It thus appears that the witness of MS 34 assists retrospection into the
development of an early branch of the ' Archaic' rédaction. If MS 34 is not ac
tually a direct descendent of the Tolstoy Psalter, then both manuscripts derive
60 V. JagiG, Entstehungsgeschichte der kirchenslavischen Sprache, Berlin 1913,

249-250.
61 V. JagiC, Psalterium bononiense (fn. 7), 856.
62 V. JagiG, Entstehungsgeschichte (fn. 60), 203, 356; J. Hamm, К istorii (fn. 4
360, who sees this word as evidence that the text of the Tolstoy Psalter derived f
Dalmatia. However, from an early date the use of the term extended beyond the Cro
Glagolitic tradition, for it is attested in the adjectival form крижыл, both in the Pr
Glagolitic fragments and in the acrostich to a cycle of liturgical texts originally
posed in Church Slavonic, as reconstructed by G. Popov, Triodni proizvedenij
Konstantin Preslavski, Kirilo-Metodievski studii 2, Sofia 1985, 121 and 144. T
Vienna Psalter itself may dérivé from a Macedonian manuscript tradition, according
B. Grabar, Osobitosti grafije i jezika glagoljskog Fra56i6eva psaltira, Litterae slav
Medii Aevi Francisco Venceslao Marel Sexagenario Oblatae, Munich 1985,75-96.
63 J. Laurenök, Nelukianovskâ 6teni v Sinajskem zaltâri, Slovanské Studie, Prag
1948, 66-83; J. Lépissier, La traduction vieux-slave du Psautier, Revue des étu
slaves xliii, 1964,59-72; M. PanteliG, Zapadne varijante u staroslovenskim psaltiri
Simpozium 1100-godi$nina od smrta na Kiril Solunski 2, Skopje 1970, 291-299.
78 С. M. MacRobert
from a common exemplar, presum

ting to surmise that the Sluck Ps
the evidence is not sufficient to
sence of пеустоши from Ps. 118.3
médiate common source for the
Psalter must have stood in a clos
the Tolstoy Psalter, and as it w
сору from one64, the textual tra
referred back into the lOth Cent
an indubitable link with the Glag
golitic initiais65 implies that it i
Slavonic Glagolitic manuscript.
bility that the Eugenius Psalter,
emplar of MS 34 and the Tolstoy
given little excuse for the shared
Vienna Psalter confirms the Glag
for early dissémination to the So
If one tries to penetrate further
manuscripts, one is faced with a
sibility is that SS Cyril and Meth
of Slavonic very early in the Mo
was a prime requisite for Christ
others added the pseudo-Athanas
Christian interprétation - and too
the psalms in the light of local u
division in the Croatian Glagoliti
kowicz and Paris Psalters68 and th
in the commentated Vienna Psa
logna Psalters represent a revised
the original uncommentated Psalt
the commentated version more o
riants which the Eugenius, Tolst
MS 7/177, they could plausibly h
Slavonic version of the comment
the translation of Theodoret's com
641. Töth (I. Тот), Russkaja reda

naöale xii vv., Sofia 1985, 12-20.
65 On folia 6r. 18"" and 20<".
66 V. V. Kolesov, Evgenievskaja ps
67 As indicated in Chapter 15 of the
68 Also the psalters included in ot
О prijevodu psalama u njekijem ruko
Rad Jugoslavenske akademije xcv
64.
If however one gives primacy to the witnesses from Macedonia and Bul
garia, a still more diffuse picture of piecemeal modification and revision re
sults. Where the Pogodin and Bologna Psalters differ from each other, it is not
always possible to décidé with confidence which of them is innovatory and
which conservative. The textual peculiarities shared by the Tolstoy Psalter and
MS 34 with the Eugenius and Vienna Psalters on the one hand and the Sluck
Psalter on the other must be of a respectable âge, but could have arisen at
some later time and other place than the Moravian mission; and it is not cer
tain that ail the distinctive variant readings found in these manuscripts have
one and the same origin: perhaps after ail the Church Slavonic translation of
Theodoret's commentaries did exert an influence on the tradition which they
preserve.
Under any interprétation the Sinai Glagolitic Psalter is an enigma. Both
the marking of kathismata and staseis in this manuscript and the character of
its recently discovered liturgical Supplement69 imply that, like the other
Church Slavonic psalter manuscripts without commentary which survive from
the 1 Ith to the 14th Century, it was intended for devotional use according to
the liturgical practice which spread from Palestine and gradually supplanted
the Constantinopolitan order of worship70. Yet among those manuscripts the
Sinai Glagolitic Psalter is unique: like the commentated psalters, it includes
headings to the psalms which derive ultimately from Hebrew; in forty-four in
stances out of a possible total of seventy-two it notes the diapsalmata, which
appear only eleven times in commentated psalters such as the Bologna Psalter
and are lacking altogether from liturgical Church Slavonic psalters; and, as
Koceva71 has pointed out, it follows the Constantinopolitan division of the
text into 2542 verses, rather than the Palestinian division into 4782—4784 ver
sicles which is already found in the 1 lth-century liturgical psalter Sinai 6 and
which tends to result automatically from the altemation of versicle and com
ment in manuscripts containing the pseudo-Athanasian commentary. The Sinai
Glagolitic Psalter thus appears to contain a text derived from an original of the
Constantinopolitan liturgical type, similar to the 9th-century Greek Xludov
Psalter72, but modified to conform in part to the Palestinian model73. Such an
691. С. Tarnanides, The Slavonic Manuscripts (fn. 4), p. 90.

70 For accounts of the Palestinian and Constantinopolitan liturgical psalters, see H.
Schneider, Die biblischen Oden in Jerusalem und Konstantinopel, Biblica 30, 1949,
433-452, especially 442-451, and R. Taft, Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History
of the Byzantine Rite, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42, 1988, 179-194, especially 181—
182.
71 E. Koceva, I. KaraCorova, A. Atanasov, Nekotorye osobennosti slavjanskix
psaltyrej na materiale xi-xvi vv., Polata k"nigopis'naja 14—15, 1985, 25-75, especially
39.
72 M. V. SCepkina, Miniatjuri Xludovskoj psaltyri, Moscow 1977.
73 H. Schneider, Die biblischen Oden in Jerusalem und Konstantinopel (fn. 70),
447, notes that some Greek psalter manuscripts combine Constantinopolitan and Palesti
nian liturgical directions.
80 С. M. M а с R о b e r t
origin would also account for the extended

than the Palestinian series of nine74 - whic
even for the unusual third position which
stead of its normal fourth place after the Pra
This account in its turn, however, faces a
order of the Canticles just mentioned i
Bologna Psalters and in a handful of Gr
number is the 1 Ith-century сору of the ps
Jagic found to be closest to the text of t
Either this feature had a separate origin in
commentated manuscripts, or eise it must
lexical peculiarities noted above, as a Sympt
between the liturgical and commentated
Psalter. Moreover, the direction of contam
the Sinai Psalter may preserve to a large ex
translation of the psalms, it may equally
secondary Moravian linguistic Stratum
Slavonic79 spelling) and its marginal glos
tions may bear witness to accretions at a sti
available do not admit a resolution of these
new discoveries, such as the 1 lth-century
in 1975 on Mount Sinai80, may yet cast fres
In the meanwhile, the findings set out h
only about the relationship between the ma
teraction between the textual traditions of t
Psalter and its counterpart without comme
psalms and canticles were sometimes made
in addition the pseudo-Athanasian comment
early stage the converse process took place,
added to the simple text of the psalms. Ther
was sometimes consulted by revisors of
lation81, and the textual revision of the ps
74 H. Schneider, Die biblischen Oden seit dem

1949 239-272, especially 245-246, 253-260
7 ' O. Strunk, The Byzantine Office in Hag
10, 1956, 177-202, especially 191-193.
76 H. Schneider, Die biblischen Oden im chri
28-65, especially 63-65.
77 V. JagiC, Ein unedierter griechischer Psalme
78 V. JagiC, Entstehungsgeschichte (fn. 60), 25
79 Ps. 24.7: невезествд; Ps. 29, title: освм>це.
801. С. Tarnanides, The Slavonic Manuscript
81 See my article, Translation is Interpretation:
the Psalter from Greek into Church Slavonic u
Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie.
Century was introduced into commentated manuscripts, such as the Bucharest

Psalter82 and MS 324 in the Library of the Patriarchate in Belgrade. It appears
that in Orthodox Slav practice the Psalter was regarded esssentially as a
liturgical and devotional book, even when accompanied by the pseudo
Athanasian commentary: all the commentated psalter manuscripts considered
here include the liturgical directions сЬдллкыл (the Tolstoy and Bologna
Psalters regularly, the Vienna Psalter in the heading to Ps. 85) or клфизмд (the
Pogodin, Sofia and Bucharest Psalters and MS 324); and the Pogodin Psalter
starts on fol. lr-v with the standard troparia and prayer to be recited by any
one intending to 'sing' the Psalter. May it not be that the dual use, in study
and worship, intended for such manuscripts offers a clue to the paradoxical
success83 enjoyed among the Slavs by the pseudo-Athanasian commentary?
Whereas the text of the psalms is integrated into Theodoret's commentary,
which sometimes deals with a passage consisting of several verses, the pseu
do-Athanasian commentary proceeds in a more mechanical fashion, offering a
discrète interprétation for almost each versicle. Thus it could more easily be
read with the psalms or ignored, added to them or, as we see in MS 34, sub
tracted almost without remainder.
Much of the archivai work on which this article is based was carried out
with the support of the British Academy, for which I am as ever grateful.
82 V. JagiC, introduction to J. Strzygowski, Die Miniaturen (fn. 21), Iii—lxxii.

83 J. Lépissœr, Les Commentaires (fn. 63), 2.

C.M. Macrobert - A Missing Link in The Early Tradition of The Church Slavonic Psalter (1993)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

C.M. Macrobert - A Missing Link in The Early Tradition of The Church Slavonic Psalter (1993)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Missing Link in the Early Tradition of the Church Slavonic Psalter (the Tolstoy, Sluck,

Eugenius and Vienna Psalters and MS 34 of the Moscow Synodal Typography)

A Missing Link in the Early Tradition

The most noteworthy moment in Pogorelov's study of the psalter manu

1 V. Pogorelov, Psaltyri, Biblioteka Moskovskoj Sinodal'noj tipografii, б. 1, vyp.

portant. What is more, as Pogorelov points

8 V. Pogorelov, Psaltyri (fn. 1), 63-64.

ллдтер-квшй; Deut. 32.8: егдд рдспростре и по жребию ддгаше племеномъ землю

of commentary listed above, MS 34 exhibits o

85.1; in Ps. 67.24, instead of дд шм

ment needs some qualification: although 'Archaic' readings predominate in

afp, Ps. 17.12 въздушн-ы (Jar, Grig by correction)

27 MS 15482 in the Historical Museum in Jaroslavl'; abbreviated as Jar.

цаслгуой), Ps. 72.14: бикнъ (S6,

34 Enumerated in my article, The Greek Textological Basis of the Early Rédactions

use съворъ; but the following table38 shows

Sin Pog Sof Vin Tolst MS 34 Deö Grig Rad S6

Sin Pog Sof Vin Tolst MS 34 Dec Grig Rad S6

vübezdobi (Pog) vübezdobi bezloby

Perhaps the most striking example of unsystematic lexical dissém

Sin Pog Bol Vin Tolst MS 34 DeC Grig Rad S6

-çdr- -çdr- -çdr- -çdr- -skor- -çdr- -skor- — -skor

40 V. Pogorelov, Psaltyri (fh. 1), lxiii.

Sin Pog Bol Vin Tolst MS 34 Dec Grig Rad S 6

çdro skoro çdro skoro skoro skoro skoro skoro skoro

Thus the contention of this article is that elements characteristic

A similar picture emerges from 'Archaic' readings which are preserved in

normally in the Church Slavonic te

This common pattern confers significance on a number of more trivial

47 Ed. by В. HavrAnek, et al., StaroCesky slovnik 3, Prague 1971, 319-323. Dr. G.

is reinforced by Jagic's observation48 that the Sluck Psalter, though it contain

48 V. JagiC, Ein unedierter griechischer Psalmenkommentar (fn. 11), 2, footnote 1.

MS 34; Deä) - v mes' té ëze (Vin

reading величьствига or величид in the Prayer of Habakkuk, verse 10, for it re

S6); Ps. 106.37: животенъ (MS 3

Cud MS 7/177 Tolst MS 34

poxulenie uniôizenie uniôizenie

poxuliti uniôiziti uniôiziti

poxulenie unicizenie uniôizenie

poxuliti poxuliti poxuliti

umaliti uniôiziti uniôiziti

poxulenie unicizenie uniôizenie

poxuliti uniôiziti uniôiziti

56 V. Pogorelov, Cudovskaja Psaltyr' xi veka, Pamjatniki staroslavjanskogo jazyka

Cud MS 7/177 Tolst MS 34

Ps.105.24 — poxuliti poxuliti poxuliti

No obvious rationale suggests itself to explain these variable translations

58 V. Pogorelov, Psaltyri (fn. 1), xxix-xxx.

60 V. JagiG, Entstehungsgeschichte der kirchenslavischen Sprache, Berlin 1913,

from a common exemplar, presum

641. Töth (I. Тот), Russkaja reda

691. С. Tarnanides, The Slavonic Manuscripts (fn. 4), p. 90.

origin would also account for the extended

74 H. Schneider, Die biblischen Oden seit dem

Century was introduced into commentated manuscripts, such as the Bucharest

82 V. JagiC, introduction to J. Strzygowski, Die Miniaturen (fn. 21), Iii—lxxii.

You might also like