Тълкуванието на Книга на пророк Даниил от Иполит Римски в старобългарски превод

Abstract

The monograph reveals all major researches on the Commentarii in Danielem by Hippolytus of Rome and follows the whole tradition both in Greek and in Slavonic versions. The edition contains a broad review on the relation between the Greek tradition and the Slavonic translation. A special place is dedicated to the question of how many the translations on the Book of Daniel were made in Old Church Slavonic. There is a wide study on the lexemes of the text and many peculiar words are highlighted and their connection with other early Slavonic works. Also, it reveals the following reception of the Commentarii in Danielem in Slavia Orthodoxa and especially their place in the Russian historical books. The book also contains the first complete edition of the text as well as a Slavonic – Greek dictionary that introduces more than 100 new words, never registered in the Slavonic reference books. The monograph is the first of its kind in the Slavonic studies.

Full text

Иван Иванов ИлИев
ТълкуванИеТо
на кнИга на пророк ДанИИл оТ ИполИТ рИмскИ
в сТаробългарскИ превоД
София, 2017
ИНСТИТУТ ЗА ЛИТЕРАТУРА ПРИ БАН

Книгата се издава с подкрепата
на Църковното настоятелство на академичния параклис
„Св. Климент Охридски“ в София
и на проект ДФНИ К02/5, 12.12.2014 г.,МОН:
SCRIPTA BULGARICA Дигитална библиотека
за старобългарска книжнина
Монографията е посветена на Тълкуванието на Иполит Римски върху
Книга на пророк Даниил в старобългарски превод (Х век). Изследването
– първо по рода си, обхваща историята на ръкописната традиция, езиков
анализ на превода и рецепцията му през следващите векове. Приложени
са критическо издание по три основни преписа и речник-индекс на
пълнозначните лексеми с гръцки съответствия.
На корицата: The Great Day of His Wrath, John Martin (1851-1853)
Всички права запазени. Нито една част от тази книга не може да бъде възпроизвеждана
или предавана под каквато и да е форма и по какъвто и да било начин без изричното
съгласие на автора.
© Иван Иванов Илиев, автор, 2017
© Огнян Огнянов Захариев, дизайнер, 2017
ISBN 978-954-509-580-1

3
СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ
Увод ................................................................................................................................. 5
І. Св. Иполит Римски и неговото творчество въввизантийската и в сла-
вянскатакнижнина .................................................................................................... 9
І.1. Личността на св. Иполит Римски ................................................................. 9
І.1.1. Жизнен път ........................................................................................... 10
І.1.2. Творчество ............................................................................................ 15
І.2. Старозаветната Книга на пророк Даниил – съдържание и значение ........ 18
І.3. Същност и структура на Иполитовото тълкувание върху Книга на про-
рок Даниил ..................................................................................................... 21
І.4. Тълкувание върху Книга на пророк Даниил на Иполит Римски във визан-
тийската и в славянската традиция .............................................................. 24
ІІ. ИполитовототълкуваниевърхуКниганапророкДаниил:текстологиче-
скопроучване ............................................................................................................... 41
ІІ.1. Източници ....................................................................................................... 41
ІІ.1.1. Славянски преписи .............................................................................. 41
ІІ.1.2. Гръцки преписи ................................................................................... 49
ІІ.2. Взаимоотношение между славянските преписи ......................................... 62
ІІ.3. Мястото на девтероканоничната книга за Сусана и двамата старци от
гледна точка на текстологията ...................................................................... 83
ІІ.4. Проблематика на стиховете от старозаветната Книга на пророк Даниил в
ИТКПД ............................................................................................................ 91
ІІ.5. Сравнително проучване на взаимоотношението между старобългарския
превод и гръцкия първообраз ....................................................................... 113
ІІІ.ОсобеностинапреводанаИполитовототълкуваниевърхуКниганапро-
рокДаниил ............................................................................................................... 121
ІІІ.1. Лексикална вариативност при превода на ИТКПД .................................... 122
ІІІ.2. Някои характеристики на превода на ИТКПД ............................................ 126
ІІІ.3. Лексеми с неславянски произход ................................................................. 131
ІІІ.4. Някои морфосинтактични особености ........................................................ 136
ІІІ.5. Hapax legomena .............................................................................................. 137
ІІІ.6. Редки лексеми в ИТКПД, характерни за определен кръг паметници ....... 147

4
ТълкуваниеТо на книга на пророк Даниил оТ иполиТ римски в сТаробългарски превоД
І V. РецепциятанаИполитовототълкуваниевърхуКниганапророкДаниил
презследващитевекове ............................................................................................. 160
ІV.1. Текстове с името на Иполит Римски в старобългарската книжнина ........ 160
ІV.1.1. Откъсите с името на Иполит Римски в Симеоновия сборник
(Изборник от 1073г.) .......................................................................... 160
ІV.1.2. Откъсът с името на Иполит Римски в историко-апокалиптичната
литература ........................................................................................... 163
ІV.2. Рецепцията на Иполитовото тълкувание в руската традиция ХІІ–ХІІІ век 165
ІV.2.1. Повест временных лет, трета редакция ............................................ 165
ІV.2.2. Изборник от ХIII век (Q.п.І.18) ......................................................... 172
ІV.3. Рецепцията на Иполитовото тълкувание в руската традиция ХV–ХVІІ век 173
IV.3.1. Ролята на митрополит Киприан за появата на ИТКПД през
ХV век ................................................................................................. 173
ІV.3.2. Иполитовото тълкувание в ръкопис Унд. 1, ХV век (ок. 1423 г.) ... 175
ІV.3.3. Хронографската палея и Иполитовото тълкувание ........................ 179
ІV.3.4. Иполитовото тълкувание в руските хронографи ............................ 179
IV.3.5. Иполитовото тълкувание в Тихонравовия хронограф .................... 187
ІV.3.6. Книга на пророк Даниил във Великите чети-минеи ....................... 191
IV.3.7. Ръкопис от сбирката на Московската духовна академия № 217,
ХVI век ................................................................................................ 193
IV.3.8. Иполитовото тълкувание и старообрядческата традиция .............. 194
IV.4. Рецепцията на Иполитовото тълкувание в Галиция и Молдова през ХVІ–
ХVІІ век .......................................................................................................... 195
IV.4.1. Иполитовото тълкувание в ръкопис АП 138 от Национална науч-
на библиотека в Лвив, XVI век ......................................................... 195
ІV.4.2. Иполитовото тълкувание в ръкопис от Букурещкия държавен ар-
хив №741, ХV-ХVI век ...................................................................... 197
ІV.4.3. Иполитовото тълкувание в ръкопис от Националната библиотека
във Варшава, № Akc. 2743, ХVІ–ХVIІ в. ......................................... 200
Заключение ............................................................................................................... 214
Библиография .............................................................................................................. 224
Съкращения ............................................................................................................... 245
Приложения ............................................................................................................... 249
Изданиенатекста ....................................................................................................... 283
Речник-индекс ............................................................................................................... 389
Резюме ............................................................................................................................ 617

617
THE COMMENTARY
ON THE BOOK OF DANIEL BY HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME
IN THE OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC TRANSLATION
Ivan Ivanov Iliev
The Byzantine tradition of Hippolytus’s Commentary on the Book of Daniel
(CPG 1873) has been studied in the course of several centuries, beginning with
the sixteenth century. Although additional research may also be done, the nal
outcome is a classical critical edition of the Greek text issued in 2000 by the
followers of Marcel Richard, on the basis on his many years of work. The
work is preserved in a limited number of Greek copies (from the tenth to the
sixteenth century). They are fragmented: they contain separate parts of the
Commentary and most of them do not always follow the four-book division by
λόγοι (А, В, Г and Δ). The main copy, the basis of the critical edition, is from
the collection of Vatopedi Monastery (А) and dates from the tenth century, but
actually it is divided into parts and today is located in various repositories. The
order in which this unique complete copy of the Commentary by Hippolytus
on the Book of Daniel is reconstructed as follows: 1) Vatopedi 1213: 15v-20v,
28r-35v; 2) Paris 682: 15r-22v; 3) Vatopedi 290: 140r-147v, 1r-40v; 4) St.
Petersburg 346: 1r-v; 5) Vatopedi 290: 41r-45v. Researchers are also assisted
by three other copies – in a codex from Meteora Monastery 573 (Е), 10th
century; a manuscript from the island of Chalki (Halki) No. 11 (B), 15th-16th
century and from the collection of Chigi gr. 36 (R.VII.45) (J), 11th century, as
well as the catenae (C), which have been preserved in several copies. The fact
that all Greek copies have been preserved in monastic centers or in archives
originating from monastic libraries is signicant. The copies, however, have
their own individual linguistic features and composition, which can be formally
divided into two groups – a so-called “Balkan” branch, to which copies A and
E belong, and a second “Asia Minor” branch, to which copy B belongs. It
is important to point out that copy E from Meteora Monastery is the most
similar to the Slavonic translation, and also that it contains the De Christo et
Antichristo (CPG 1872), which unequivocally draws together the Byzantine
and the Slavonic tradition of transmission of the text.

618
ТълкуваниеТо на книга на пРоРок даниил оТ иполиТ Римски в сТаРобългаРски пРевод
Unlike the history of the text in Byzantium, the Old Church Slavonic
translation of the Commentary has not been studied in detail thus far and has
not been published in full. The manuscript tradition, textology, language and
reception of the translation have not been researched.
There are twelve Slavonic copies used in this study, and most of them are
of Russian origin: the Pogodin Cyrillic-Glagolitic Folia, from the Pogodin
Collection, No. 68 (Po), dates to the 11th to 12th century; the manuscript from
the Chudov collection, No. 12 (Ch), from the 11th to 12th century; manuscript
No. 448 from the Rogozhskoe Cemetery, today at the Russian State Library,
dates to the end of the fteenth century (Ro); a copy from the Kirilo-Belozersk
Monastery, No. 53/1130, dated 1492 (Kb); a copy from the Antonievo-Siiskii
monastery No. 92, today part of the Arkhangelsk collection, No. D 171,
from the end of the 15th to the beginning of 16th century (As); a copy from
Petrozavodsk, No. 74 (71), formerly from the library of the Petrozavodsk
Archbishopric No. 11, from the 15th century (Ka); a copy from the Volokolamsk
collection (f. 113) No. 486, formerly from the Moscow Theological Academy,
today at the Russian State Library, dated to 1519 (Mo); manuscript No. 217
from the Moscow Theological Academy, formerly from the Volokolamsk
collection, today at the State Historical Museum of Russia in Moscow, from
the 16th century (Ма); a copy from the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra No.
782, 16th century (Ts). Fragments of the work are also found in the following
copies: a fragment is included in Ms No. 741 from the National Archives of
Romania in Bucharest, from the 15th-16th century (Bu); miscellany AP 138
from the Lviv National “Vasyl Stefanyk” Scientic Library of Ukraine, circa
16th century (Ga); and a manuscript of similar structure to the Commentary,
No. Akc 2743, formerly 310, from the National Library of Poland in Warsaw,
16th-17th century (Wa). Beside these fragments, manuscripts Ch, Ro, As, Ka,
Mo and Ts also contain the homily De Christo et Antichristo. Three of the
copies – Ro, Ka and Mo – provide the most comprehensive and consistent
version of the original Commentary, although they, too, feature omissions.
Even N. Bonwetsch1 and M. Lefèvre2 paid serious attention to the Slavonic
tradition and included copy Mo and Ch in their critical textual work on the
Commentary. Nevertheless, no comprehensive study of the translation of the
work has yet been done. I. Evseev3 added individual readings from the Mo
and Ch copies to the critical apparatus of his publication of the Old Testament
Book of Daniel. The present study on the transmission of the text shows that
1 Bonwetsch 1897: 2–4, 7.
2 Lefèvre 1947: 64–68.
3 Евсеев 1905.

619
Резюме
the extant variant witnesses complement each other and represent a stable basis
for the reconstruction of the Church Slavonic translation. The evidence for the
uniformity of the translation includes, on one hand, the macro-structure of the
texts (the sequence of chapters) and, on the other – the omissions in the text,
common mistakes and reworkings, which unite the copies. As a result of the
linguistic and textological analysis, the following branches of the copies have
been established: 1) Ch; 2) Ro; 3) Ка and Мо; 4) Kb, As Ма and Ts. The early
fragments Po (directly connected with the archetype written in Glagolitic)
unequivocally indicate the existence of a common error in seven out the eight
copies listed above. The other early witness Ch (which has preserved archaic
readings) helps reconstruct the beginning of the Commentary according to its
prototype, before the text was contaminated when it was copied. Ch and Ro
have an identical initial part (λόγος В), which preserve readings approaching
the archetype of the translation. The copies mutually complement their content:
the beginning of the work is absent in copies Ка and Мо, probably because of
physical damage in the transmission of the text. On the other hand, Ch and Ro
have a beginning similar to that of Kb, As and Ts . The entire part of the text
about Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan 2) and the beginning of the next chapter
(Dan 3) about Daniel and the three young men in the ery furnace was probably
lost in one stage of the manuscript tradition after physical damage. Unlike Ch
and Ro, the part about Nebuchadnezzar’s forgotten dream is entire absent from
the copies Ка and Мо, and the beginning of the next chapter (Dan 3) is lled
with a text from the Prophetologion, which had great authority for the copyists.
The manuscript tradition for the conveyance of the full text was obviously
disrupted between the time of the creation of copy Сh (11th-12th century) and
the archetype of the copies Ка (15th-16th century) and Мо (1519), but the copy
Ro (15th century) has important signicance as it represents a link between
Ch, Ka and Mo. The initial translation of the Commentary has been preserved
in spite of the difference of four centuries between Ch and Ro. By uniting the
witnesses Ch, Ro, Ка and Mo, we are able to achieve a relatively complete and
reliable text of Hippolytus’s Commentary with relatively limited Russication.
For example, the contents of the four copies are entirely identical in the part
entitled Ѡ трѣхъ отроцѣхъ. On the other hand, Ro, as well as As and Ts have
preserved a text missing in Ka and Mo, which was probably present in their
hyp-archetype. The textological analysis of the tradition unequivocally shows
that for the reconstruction of the history of the Church Slavonic translation, it
is necessary to take into consideration the structure and content of every extant
witness.
In the Slavonic tradition, the work is divided into 12 homilies or visions,
separated by 13 independent titles, which is typical only for the Greek
manuscript from Meteora 573 (Е), also containing De Christo et Antichristo,

620
ТълкуваниеТо на книга на пРоРок даниил оТ иполиТ Римски в сТаРобългаРски пРевод
which is also characteristic of the Slavonic tradition. This copy is an important
witness and is closest to the Slavonic protograph of the translation as it has a
textual composition similar to it and, the visions are also supplied with titles,
which is not usual for the Byzantine tradition of the text of the Commentary.
This division by visions in all probability was not an authorial decision of the
Church Slavonic translator, but it is valid more or less also for all later Russian
copies, which contain partial or fuller version of the Commentary.
The Church Slavonic translation relies completely on the Greek text and
a comparison of the critical edition convincingly shows that the translator is
the same. By volume and content the translation reveals similar features to the
so-called “Balkan” branch and undeniably indicates both the location of the
translation and distinctive cultural ties to the Balkans. In addition, the literary
centers from which models were taken for the translated literature were not
associated so much with high style libraries from Constantinople as with the
monastic provincial centers. The Commentary is one of the earliest works of
a Christian author, exceedingly remote in time, and its translation in Church
Slavonic presupposes a special interest of the scribes/copists or those who
commissioned the work in this particular text of Hippolytus of Rome and,
respectively, in nding a manuscript with this specic text as a topic.
The question of the presence of mutual inuences between other translations
or redactions of the Book of Daniel, on the one hand, and the Commentary - on
the other, is quite important in Church Slavonic studies. In the textological study,
examples are quoted from verses of the Book of Daniel in the part about Susanna
and the Elders (Chapter 13) in the Commentary and the so-called Catena in
Prophetas, but without interpretations – a version indicating a Glagolitic original
transcribed by the Novgorod scribe Upyr’ Likhoi in 1047 (using a copy from
the Holy Trinity–St. Sergius Lavra, No. 89, from the 16th century, Tp). The
analysis shows the presence of two translations independent of each other of
the deuterocanonical book, which were made in a temporarily close linguistic
environment. Because of the limited amount of the material, it would be pure
speculation to make any conclusions about the chronology of the translations.
The similar morphological and syntactic characteristics, as well as the known
proximity of the lexical corpus are indicative of a close literary centre.
There was also an analysis done of the verses from the Commentary
against an early full translation of the Book of Daniel (attested in the copy of
the so-called Archivski Chronograph, from the 15th century, Ar), in comparison
with the translation included in Tp, as well as with the liturgical text from
the Prophetologion. The results lead us to the conclusion that there are four
separate translations of this Old Testament book4. Some similarities with the
4 А. Alexeev specically points out that the three parallel versions published by Ivan
Evseev reect different Greek originals (Алексеев 1999:154-155).

621
Резюме
text of the Prophetologion can be explained by the indirect inuence of the
text with a liturgical function because of its repetition in the festal cycle and
because it was learnt by heart by the scribes. In some cases, one can discern
closeness with non-liturgical readings from the redaction of the Septuagint by
Lucian of Antioch, as well as with certain variants in the Greek text, which are
clearly discernible in the Slavonic versions. The translation of the Commentary
is not a lexical or grammatical redaction of the Prophetologion text, nor does it
borrow parts from it, but it is an entirely new non-liturgical translation.
In a review of certain linguistic characteristics of the Commentary, transla-
tion reveals quite a number of lexemes characteristic of early works dated around
the rst half of the 10th century are noted, which indicates the ancient origin
of the translation. The coincidence of a large number of these rare lexemes
with analogous meanings in the contents of Codex Suprasliensis and the First
Miscellany of Tsar Simeon (Izbornik of 1073) show that the Commentary
numbers as one of the early translated works in Church Slavonic literature.
The fact that there is a lexical layer related to the Preslav recension of the tenth
century should not be overlooked. These initial observations conrm the broad
cultural and linguistic area of distribution and scope of early Old Bulgarian
literature: on the one hand, the inuence of the more authoritative literary
tradition related to the mission of Sts Cyril and Methodius and the earliest
translation decisions is noted, and on the other, there is the desire to take a more
novel approach to translation, a characteristic of the Preslav Literary School
– a tendency to translate by meaning, lexical variety, the avoidance of Greek
derivatives, the inclusion of everyday Bulgarian words, among which are a
number of proto-Bulgarianisms. Some examples have also been cited in which
certain Greek lexemes or phrases receive a translation in the Commentary,
which has a meaning different from what is found according to the original.
This leads to the conclusion that the scribe-translator did not try to comply
with predetermined norms, but above all, tried to adhere to the context of the
Greek original. The translation of the Commentary has preserved some original
ideas and translator decisions, and its rich and varied language constitute a link
between the early translations, reected in the Cyrillo-Methodian works, and
the translation models used in Preslav.
The Commentary has a widespread and varied reception. The work is
included in the Russian chronographic tradition and forms the eschatological
basis of the Hellenic and Roman Chronicle Type 2 as it is an integral part of
the concept of history and historicity in Russia during the Middle Ages. The
Hippolytus Commentary is included in Chronicle 2 with texts from the Catena
in Prophetas, the Chronicle of Georgios Amartolos and the Alexandreid, thereby
no longer functioning as an interpretation, but as a source of information about
the world history. It should be noted that the parts from the Book of Daniel
borrowed in the Catena in Prophetas, in combination with the translation of

622
ТълкуваниеТо на книга на пРоРок даниил оТ иполиТ Римски в сТаРобългаРски пРевод
the interpretation of Hippolytus containing similar readings, have no conict
– excerpts from both translations were equally respected and accepted as
authoritative, both individually and together. Thus, the Hellenic and Roman
Chronicle 2 is formed, in the shape we know it, as a polyvalent historical work.
The goal of connecting Old Testament stories with the history of Jerusalem
and Constantinople was achieved through the compilation of various sources,
and all of this material was subsequently transferred to the emerging doctrine
of “Moscow – the Third Rome.” The initial translation is reconsidered as a
historical work. Parts of the Old Bulgarian translation of the Commentary are
included in: manuscript No. 138, the A. Petrushevich collection, from the Lviv
National „Vasyl Stefanyk” Scientic Library of Ukraine, from the 16th century;
manuscript No. 741 from the National Archives of Romania in Bucharest, 15th-
16th century; and in manuscript No. Akc 2743 from the National Library of
Poland in Warsaw, 16th-17th century, which attest to the distribution of the work
in Galicia and Moldova, but in another type of environment – miscellanies of
mixed content.
There are no preserved copies of the Commentary among South Slavs. The
name of Hippolytus can be read in the titles of individual excerpts in the First
Miscellany of Tsar Simeon (Izbornik 1073), but the origin of the Greek source
is different. Along with this, there are places in the in historical apocalyptic
literature, which are identical or close to individual parts of the text of the
Hippolytus Commentary, but these in themselves represent certain topoi, typical
of Byzantium, which often appear in works with themes about the Second Coming
and the Last Judgement, but are not directly related to the Commentary. The
second appearance of copies of the work during the 15th century is supposedly
associated with Metropolitan Cyprian (circa 1330–November 16, 1406), who
introduced the tradition in early translations made in the 9th–10th century.
Evidence of this can be found in manuscripts No. 448 from the Rogozskoe
Cemetery (Ro) and No. 486 from the Volokolamsk collection (Mo), which have
preserved traces related to the life and work of Cyprian. The historical situation
in the Russian lands implies an updating of eschatological expectations and the
copying of works related to them.
One of the most popular and frequently cited ideas in the Commentary is
related to the order of the kingdoms – allegorically represented by the statute
made up of different materials, and also by the images of the four beasts,
associated with the great kingdoms of Antiquity. For Bulgarian readers this
upheld the association of the Roman Empire with Byzantium, which appeared
as one and the same kingdom – Мо 178r-178v: звѣрь страшны и дивныи имѣюще
зѫбы желѣзныѧ. и ногти мѣдѧнїа иже еⷭ. и҃нѣ владѫще и ромеи сѫщи. The so-called
fourth beast constitutes a community of various peoples, sometimes called
“Romaioi” and sometimes “Romans”, which summarizes the notion about the

623
Резюме
last kingdom and the coming of the Antichrist – Мо 198v: и ставить ѡбавленїемь
пришествїа его. ємѫ же еⷭ пришествїе дѣанїаемь сотонинымь (2 Th 2:9). кто ѹбо бо
еⷭ прѣдрьжаи доселѣ (2 Th 2:7). нъ четвертыи звѣрь емѫ же мимошедшю лестьцю.
The quoted passage can be interpreted both in the theological as well as in the
concrete historical sense.5 The Old Testament quotation (Dan 2:31-47) about the
statue, what it was made of and about the stone which destroyed it, nds a place
also in the Vita Constantini in his polemic against the Jews during the mission to
the Khazars. The Apostles to the Slavs followed the view that the pagan Roman
Empire would be replaced by the Kingdom of Christ, which had to prepare
mankind for the Second Coming.6
The Commentary of Hippolytus is a complex work encompassing a broad
spectrum of ideas and it was important to medieval man for several reasons: 1) it
provided a convincing link between the Old Testament and the New Testament;
2) it gives precise and convincing information about calculating the time of
the birth of Jesus Christ and reports on the forthcoming appearance and the
outlook of the Antichrist; 3) it teaches and prepares true Christians for the events
accompanying his coming, instructing them about the salvation of their souls;
4) it refutes heretical and pagan ideas which were upheld and disseminated by
the enemies of Christians in the time of Hippolytus; 5) it outlines the historical
change of kingdoms and their fate; 6) the Commentary indicates the only and
invincible faith in the one God, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit in a
series of homiletic messages featuring interpretative traits and also elements of
sermons.
All these characteristics of the Commentary, which make it a unique work,
can direct us to the answers of the essential questions when, where and why
the text was translated into Old Bulgarian. The most important among these
questions is probably why the anonymous translator specically chose De
Christo et Antichisto and the Commentary of Hippolytus of Rome, which were
most probably translated together and went as a set, because this can also give
us an answer about the time and location the translations were made. In the
rst place, the large volume and specic stylistics of the two works, which are
usually united in one manuscript, are remarkable. The preserved copies of early
Old Bulgarian translated works rarely feature works of such universal character,
with the exception of the Four Discourses against the Arians by Athanasius
of Alexandria translated by Constantine of Preslav, the Hexameron of John
the Exarch, the Theology of John Damascene translated by John the Exarch,
the Dialogues of Pseudo-Kaisarios, and the compilation Zlatostruj (“Golden
5 Николов 2006: 201–205.
6 Климент Охридски 1973: 131.

624
ТълкуваниеТо на книга на пРоРок даниил оТ иполиТ Римски в сТаРобългаРски пРевод
Stream”), as well as the later Sermon against the Bogomils by Cosmas the
Presbyter. In our opinion, the translation of De Christo et Antichristo and the
Commentary was supposedly made in Bulgaria near the end of the 9th or in
the rst decades of the 10th century, which can be supported by the following
arguments:
1) Its scale, compared to the listed works translated for a specic purpose
and at a certain moment, reveals two essential reasons for the purpose of
carrying out this translation: a) a work of such volume was not translated
at random because the liturgical books needed for daily services in the newly
Christianized state were the Gospels, the Apostolos, the Psalter, the Prayer Book
and collections of hymnographic and hagiographic works tied to the Christian
calendar. All of the other theological works not intended for liturgical use
were necessary for an audience much better acquainted with Christian dogma;
b) its contents indicate that it was translated in order to fulll a certain task
resulting from historical vicissitudes of the times. It is known, for example,
that the Four Discourses against the Arians of Constantine of Preslav were
translated in 907, and the Sermon against the Bogomils – during the second
half of the 10th century. Obviously, these works were also not created by
accident – the former serves to consolidate Christianity in Bulgaria and to limit
the occurrence of heresies, and the latter was composed to counter an already
rampant heresy.
2) The opinion that the Commentary of Hippolytus was translated and
written in Glagolitic, as evidenced by 91 Glagolitic letters in copy Ро,7 has
been well established and supported with arguments quite for some time.8 The
use of Glagolitic is indicative of the fact that the translation of the work can be
associated with the early period of Old Bulgarian literature. It is possible that the
translation was made either at the end of the 9th century, or in the rst decades
of the 10th century.9 T. Slavova suggests that the translation was done around
the time of the translation of the Catena in Prophetas.10 The fact that the Catena
in Prophetas omits the interpretations of the Book of Daniel can be explained
by an already existing translation of the Commentary, which therefore rendered
a subsequent interpretative translation superuous. It is suggested that the work
was taken to Kievan Rus’ no later than the 11th century,11 which is indirectly
conrmed by the excerpt included in Povest‘ Vremennykh Let.
7 Милтенов 2009: 191–219.
8 Ильинский 1929: 86–118.
9 Славова 1999: 41–42.
10 Славова 1985: 167–168.
11 Полывянный 2015: 313.

625
Резюме
3) The linguistic features of the translation of the Commentary (see
Chapter 3) reveal both traces of the early Cyrillo-Methodian language and
style, as well as some indications of the new translation models, which were
generated in Preslav. The Preslav literary traditions are not limited to a single
center, and the methods in translation are formed incrementally, not limited
by certain norms, making it impossible for them to be accurately dated.
Certain linguistic preferences began to emerge and mature during the reign
of Tsar Simeon, i.e. the beginning of the 10th century. The translation of the
Commentary has preserved original translator decisions, which reveals it as one
of the examples of Old Bulgarian translated literature, while at the same time,
the wealth and variety of its language serve as a sort of bridge between the early
translations found in the classical Cyrillo-Methodian works and the subsequent
enrichment of literary genres with new content and models. The translation
of the Commentary also reveals a number of innovations in lexical items, as
well as a signicant number of Proto-Bulgarisms, registered in a sufciently
limited circle of other works. At the same time, the vernacular language of
the Slavs in the Bulgarian lands is also present in the translation and, in some
special cases the use of domestic everyday expressions and lexemes could not
be avoided. These characteristics are indicative of the individual preferences
and the schooling of the scribe-translator.
4) Research that has already been done on the biblical verses and the
language of the work has established that the Commentary does not depend
and was not inuenced by other translations, and there is no dependency
between it and the translations of the Old Testament Book of Daniel. The single
exception that can be quoted is the inclusion of a short Prophetologion text
in the manuscript copies Ка and Мо, which, however, has nothing to do with
the translation, but it is rather the reconstruction of structural damage that
originated on Russian soil after the 12th century.
5) The specic features of the work hint at several possible reasons for its
translation, for example, a major historical event accompanied by apocalyptic
trials that had to be met with an appropriate response. If relevant texts were
created to help ght against the Bogomils and the other heretics, then against
which opponent against was the Commentary of Hippolytus translated to
combat? The only historical personage who could be depicted in the image
of the Antichrist is Prince Vladimir I Rasate (who ruled from 889 to 893),
a hypothesis put forward by Nikolai Shivarov,12 who, according to indirect
evidence, tried to resurrect pagan rites. As the chroniclers attest, he not only did
not follow in the footsteps of his father, Tsar Boris the Christianizer, but also
12 Šivarov 1999: 661–700.

626
ТълкуваниеТо на книга на пРоРок даниил оТ иполиТ Римски в сТаРобългаРски пРевод
tried to revise his policy and even to destroy the cultural and literary work that
he had launched.13 The overthrow of Vladimir and the triumph of Christianity
are recorded in the calendar – a menologion in a 13th- to 14th-century Serbian
Apostolos-Evangelion under the date of March 28 on f. 263: Чюдотворца Иларию
ѡ͠ца. И побѣда кнеза бѹгарьскаа. Михаила. ѥгда бѣ сбор на нь Кроⷮста рад.14 A.
Turilov, who discovered the text, proved that it originated in connection with
the suppression of the revolt of the aristocrats against the Christian faith. He
deciphered the word Кроⷮста as a damaged inscription of the word крьстъ in the
meaning of ‘christening.’
6) The content of the Commentary on the Book of Daniel given above,
which interprets the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, forcing the Jews
to serve pagan gods and the rotation of kingdoms, one of which was thought
to be Byzantium and which probably found its own historical analogue in the
newly-Christianized Bulgarian state, support the hypothesis that the works
of Hippolytus were supposedly translated around the end of the 9th century
or a little later.15 The end of the 9th century and the rst decades of the 10th
century were a favourable and historically conditioned time for the creation
and translation of sermons and other interpretative works by Bulgarian authors
such as Clement of Ochrid, Constantine of Preslav, and John the Exarch, in
which is expressed an abhorrence of pagans and heretics, and an explanation
and endorsement of the Christian faith, to which may be added the Commentary
of Hippolytus. Some scholars see an echo of the events at the time of Vladimir
in the Didactic Gospel, written by Constantine of Preslav no later than 894, in
the passage in which Christians are called upon to uphold their faith and stand
rmly against any persecutions, just like the holy martyrs (Sermon 43).16 This
passage, however, is quite general in meaning and cannot be taken literally.
7) One can nd indirect conrmation about the dating of the manuscript
from the presence of a royal miniature in the copy Ch, dated around the end of
the 11th to the beginning of the 12th century, also containing De Christo and
Antichristo. The miniature probably depicts the initiator of the translation or the
one who commissioned it, who some scholars say was probably Boris,17 and this
13 Златарски 1994: 248–252 (discussed and quoted according to Regino 1890: 580);
Николов 2014: 229–237.
14 Турилов 2010: 120–121.
15 Šivarov 1999: 661–670.
16 Учително евангелие, 43–та Беседа: “аще ноужда належить. не боꙗти сѧ ѥмоу ни
ѡтълоучити сѧ ѿ любъве ѥго. нъ съ дръзновениѥмь проповѣдати и молити сѧ ѥмоу....илї гонениѥ или
бѣда или съмьрть” (199ab), Тихова 2012: 397.
17 Уханова 2012: LVII, XCV. It can also be assumed that the ktetor portrait has something
to do with the founding of the royal monastery of St. Panteleimon “at the mouth of the Ticha

627
shows that the text was probably intended for a highly-educated audience with
access to the royal library.
The Commentary of Hippolytus is one of the most remarkable examples
of Old Bulgarian translated literature – the only fully exegetical work that has
survived to this day. The Old Bulgarian writer who made the translation was
highly educated and well schooled in understanding the complicated theological
material. It can be assumed that he worked in a monastic centre with a rich
library. The results of the study of his language, the richness of his vocabulary,
and the masterly technique of the textual transmission are very valuable for
us. The translation of this elite work was probably created in order to ll in
Bulgarians’ knowledge about world history and to serve as its authoritative
explanation.
river” (according to the marginal note in the Four Discourses against the Arians by Athanasius
of Alexandria, translated by Constantine of Preslav). Turilov thinks this is an image of Tsar
Simeon. Турилов 2010: 41. This view is also shared by other authors.
Резюме