Content uploaded by Иван Iliev
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Иван Iliev on Sep 26, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Slavonic Versions of Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentaries
on the Book of Prophet Daniel
149
13 / 2014
The Slavonic Versions of Hippolytus
of Rome’s Commentaries
on the Book of Prophet Daniel
Ivan I. Iliev
The work of Saint Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235) covers certain spheres of
dogmatics, polemics, exegesis, homiletics and history, and his texts can be grouped in
several thematic circles. Among the numerous works of Hippolytus, in spite of some
scholarly discussions, the following texts are considered denitely to have come out
under his hand:
Exegesis:
1. Interpretatio cantici cantorum, CPG 1871, translated into Armenian and
Georgian, separate fragments of which have survived to this day in Byzantine Greek,
Armenian, and Syriac manuscripts. In the Slavonic tradition, the work is known from
three manuscripts. The rst is a 16th– century manuscript kept at the Holy Trinity – St.
Sergius Lavra (No. 730, Palaea with additional texts), the second – a 17th-century
manuscript from the Moscow Synodal Library (No. 548), and the third, a codex con-
taining parts of this Commentary of Hippolytus, is a manuscript from the second half
of the 15th century at the Russian National Library – St. Petersburg, Pogodyn collec-
tion No. 81.1 These texts are found in at least two catenae in South Slavonic tradition.
2. De Christo et Antichristo, CPG 1872, which is one of the well-known and
famous work of Hippolytus, enjoyed widespread reception in the Middle Ages and a
large area across in which it has been disseminated. It has been preserved in Georgian
and Ethiopian versions, in Armenian and Syriac fragments, as well as in Old Bulgar-
ian. Some parts overlap with Commentaries on the Book of Daniel and are shared by
the two works.
1 Alekseev 2002: 40–122; Dimitrova 2012: 18. Fragments of the Commentaries are also contained
in manuscript 4/14, of 1456, f. 195b–200a (See Hristova 1996: 16); the South Slavonic copies are not
included in CPG.
Ivan I. Iliev
150
3. Commentarii in Danielem, CPG 1873, which closely corresponds and refers
to the Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, is also very popular and frequently translated
into many languages at various periods. It is an interesting peculiarity of the text that
the original Greek text2 is frequently relayed in a fragmentary form and is controver-
sial in places, although it also exists in full in the collection of Vatopedi Monastery
on Mt. Athos (Vatopedi 2903), it has been preserved integrally in several copies of
the Slavonic translation. In addition, translations into Armenian and Syriac have been
also made.
4. Benedictiones Isaac et Iacob, CPG 1874, which were unknown in Eastern
Europe but were translated among Caucasian peoples.
5. Benedictiones Moysis, CPG 1875, partially preserved in Greek alone.
6. De Dauid et Goliath, CPG 1876, preserved only in Georgian translation.
7. Individual fragments of commentaries on the Octateuch have survived in
Greek, but also in Arabic (In Octateuchum, CPG 1880).
8. Commentaries on the Book of Kings, preserved in Greek and Syriac (Com-
mentarii in Reges, CPG 1881).
9. Fragments on the Psalms, known only in Greek (In Psalmos, CPG 1882).
10. Commentaries on the Proverbs in separate fragments (Commentarii in
Prouerbia, CPG 1883).
11. Commentaries on Ecclesiastes, separate parts (In Ecclesiasten, CPG 1884).
12. A single fragment of a commentary on the beginning of Isaiah (In initium
Isaiae, CPG 1885).
13. A Syriac fragment on Ezekiel (In Ezechielen, CPG 1886).
14. A commentary on the Gospel by Matthew preserved in separate parts in
Coptic, Arabic and Greek (In Mattheum, CPG 1887 et 1888).
15. A commentary on John, fragments (In Iohannem, CPG 1889).
16. De Apocalypsi, CPG 1890 – there are separate fragments in Arabic and Syr-
iac; a translation into Old Bulgarian is known in numerous copies.
17. Capita contra Gaium (Apologia), CPG 1891).
Chronographic and polemic:
1. Comments on the calculation of Pascha, Greek and Syriac fragments (Com-
mentarium temporum Paschatis, CPG 1892).
2. Chronicle, translated into Latin, Armenian and Georgian, but not translated
into Old Bulgarian (Chronicon, CPG 1896).
3. Against all Heresies, a work written most probably at the time of Pope Zephy-
rinus about which there are references in Φιλοσοφούμενα (1. 20), Eusebius of
2 Greek text after Richard 2000.
3 Richard 2000: 260. Richard 1970.
The Slavonic Versions of Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentaries
on the Book of Prophet Daniel
151
Caesarea (Historia Ecclesiae, VI, 22), Saint Jerome (De viris illustribus, 61) and
Patriarch Photius (Βιβλιοθήκη, 121), preserved in separate fragments (Syntagma
contra omnes haereses, CPG 1897).
4. De universo, CPG 1898, known from fragments.
5. Φιλοσοφούμενα – Against all Heresies (Ἔλεγχος or Refutatio omnium
haeresium, CPG 1899) – the issue of the authenticity of Hippolytus’s authorship is still
open, although this work, ascribed to him by Eusebius and Jerome, is dated after 222.
6. De resurrectione ad Mammaeam imperatricem, CPG 1900, survived in Greek
and Syriac fragments.
7. De resurrectione et incoruptibilitate, CPG 1901, known from a single fragment.
8. A polemic work known as Contra Noetum, CPG 1902.
The dubious works (dubia) include:
1. Oratio de consumatione mundi, CPG 1910 – a text which is controversial
from the point of view of its authorship, but which is ascribed to Hippolytus and
which is very popular in medieval Slavonic tradition, also existing in Armenian trans-
lation.
2. Index apostolorum et discipulorum, CPG 1911, a work popular among the
orthodox Slavs, the rst fragment of it is included in the First Miscellany of Tsar
Simeon (Izbornik of 1073).
Several chronicles, erotapocritical works, homilies and other commentaries on
the prophets are ascribed to Hippolytus along with these works.4
As mentioned above, the translation of Commentaries on the Book of Daniel – the
oldest and most comprehensive commentary on part of the Old Testament – is one of
the important works from the early period of Old Bulgarian literature. The work be-
came popular in the recently Christianized Bulgarian state probably because of the fear
of heresies, on the one hand, and of cataclysmic events, on the other. In the years around
the end of the 9th century thousands in Christian Europe expected the Apocalypse and
saw any coincidence with the commented prophets, natural disaster or curious phe-
nomenon in the heavens as an omen of the end of days. Book IV of the Commentaries
contains a reference to the birth of Christ on December 25, about which all Christians
were extremely concerned and Hippolytus is the rst to give such information. Anoth-
er important subject is the chronology of kingdoms in world history and their role in
Christian eschatology. This popular subject is also contained in the excerpt from the
work included in the First Miscellany of Tsar Simeon known from a Russian copy of
1073 (Izbornik) (f. 162c-d–163a-b) – the most representative and signicant 10th cen-
tury book dedicated to the faith, a symbol of the power of Christianized Slav rulers.
4 Bibliography on the life and works of Saint Hippolytus, see in: Richard 1976, more particularly
about his work: col. 537–545.
Ivan I. Iliev
152
The question about the translation of the Old Testament Book of Daniel as a text
in its entirety and as excerpts has not been fully resolved in Palaeo-Slavonic studies.
There is an opinion that parts of the Book of Daniel are the rst to have been includ-
ed in the prophetologion (πρoφητολόγιον, Old Testament readings for vespers) in
the initial Cyrillo-Methodian translation.5 Ivan Evseev compares the translation in the
prophetologion (which he ascribes to Constantine Cyril the Philosopher and terms it
as „Cyril’s translation“) with the translation of the Book of Prophet Daniel included in
the so-called Arhivski Chronograph (f. 181, No.3, 279/658, Central State Archive of
Ancient Documents /РГАДА/, Moscow) (which he calls a „Methodian translation“)
and the text of this biblical book in the so-called prophetic books with commentaries,
which he calls a „Simeonic translation.“6 Next, the translation of the Commentaries on
the Book of Daniel by Hippolytus of Rome is mentioned in the work of Ivan Evseev:7
he quotes excerpts from it among the lexical variants (variant readings) in his publi-
cation of the Slavonic versions of the biblical Book of Daniel, but the content of the
commentaries has not been analysed yet. The author comes up with the hypothesis that
this translation formed the basis of the so-called Old Testament Books of Prophets with
commentaries, translated in the 10th century. In the 20th century and onwards Evseev’s
publication is criticized by Anatolij Alekseev, who underscores that his thesis about the
dependence between the Commentaries and the Old Testament Books of Prophets with
commentaries is unfounded.8 Francis Thomson also supports the same opinion.9
The oldest manuscript containing a fragment of Hippolytus’s Commentaries are
the Pogodin Folia (also known as the Moscow Folia in Cyrillic-Glagolitic) from the
11th –12th century (hereinafter Р), with preserved Glagolitic letters proving the early
date of the Old Bulgarian translation.10 Today the two parchment folios are kept at the
Russian National Library in St. Petersburg under No. 68. They are written on parch-
ment with dimensions 20.8 x 16.4, each with 27 lines per folio. The handwriting is
characterized as small uncial, with straight and compact inscription and a total of 15
Glagolitic letters. The most important linguistic peculiarities include: use of the two
jers at their etymological locations, without vocalisation, ре is written instead of рѣ,
contracted forms of imperfect tense endings are the rule. At one place the genitive
form ничсоже of the pronoun ничьтоже is used as a nominative. These folia contain a
fragment of Book III of Hippolytus’s Commentaries on the fth vision of the prophet
Daniel (about the huge tree) rst identied by Grigorij Il’inskij.11
5 Karachorova 2003: 101-105.
6 Evseev 1905: ІХ–ХХХVІІІ.
7 Evseev 1905: ХХХVІІІ–ХL
8 Alekseev 1999: 160.
9 Thomson 1998: 865–866.
10 Totomanova КМЕ 2003: 177–178.
11 Il’inskij 1929: 86–118.
The Slavonic Versions of Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentaries
on the Book of Prophet Daniel
153
The oldest dated Slavonic manuscript selectively containing a large part of Hip-
polytus’s Commentaries on the Book of Daniel is the famous Chudov 12 (State His-
torical Museum, Moscow), dated at the end of the 11th and the beginning of the 12th
century (hereinafter С), published, described and analysed by Kapiton Nevostruev,
Izmail Sreznevskij and Ivan Evseev12, which – the scholars are unanimous – is a
copy of an original created in Preslav in the 10th century and contains the portrait of
a ruler (perhaps Boris).13 It contains 127 folios (initially 138) on good quality parch-
ment, written in large uncial in two columns. It contains the following two works:
Иполита епискоупа съказаниѣ о христосѣ и ѡ антихристѣ from f. 2 to f. 68, from where
the Commentary begins – Тогоже отъ данила съказаниѥ о видѣнии. д҃., and from f. 87:
видѣниѥ четвьртоѥ данила пророка. о ѡбразѣ и о трьхъ отроцѣхъ. There are traces of
later interventions and marginal notes from the 14th – 15th century. The text features
tangible Russications, the use of the jers is not consistent and Russian continuants
of the Proto-Slavic groups *tolt, *tort, *telt, *telt rarely appear but the Old Bulgarian
original is seen distinctively.
Manuscript No. 92 from the Antonievo-Sijskij Monastery is a later one, today in
the Arkhangelsk collection, Арханг. Д 171 at the Library of the Russian Academy of
Sciences, St. Petersburg, from the end of the 15th – the beginning of the 16th century
(hereinafter А), dated by the watermarks of the paper that was used.14 The manuscript
is in quarto format, including I + 428 + I paper folios, inscribed in semi-uncial with
elements of cursive. It contains Dialogues by Gregory the Great, Vita of the Sev-
en Holy sleepers from Ephesus, the Story about the Holy fathers slain at Sinai and
Raithu, Andreas of Caesarea’s Commentary on the Book of Revelation, Hippolytus’s
Treatise on Christ and Antichrist and Commentaries on the Book of Daniel. The last
two works are recorded in the short description of Aleksej Viktorov,15 but are not
mentioned in the contemporary academic description.16 The copies have not been
studied or published. The orthography is Russian; there are two letters for the nasals
with the letter for the front nasal replacing ꙗ; two jers, with jers in a weak position
being omitted in some places.
The Petrozavodsk manuscript, No. 74 (71), previously from the library of the
Petrozavodsk Archbishopric No. 11 is also created approximately at the same time.
It is dated at the end of the 15th – the beginning of the 16th century according to the
12 Nevostruev 1868: 2–4; Sreznevskij 1874: 4–35; Evseev 1905.
13 Uhanova 2012.
14 The watermarks (most of which are a bull’s head in different variants, from the 1480s and the
1490s, or from the very beginning of the 16th century) were identied and placed at the disposal of this
author by Alexej Sergeev (a researcher at the Manuscript Department of the Library of the Russian
Academy of Sciences), for which I am extremely grateful.
15 Viktorov 1890: 86.
16 Belova, Kukushkina 1989: 228.
Ivan I. Iliev
154
watermarks (hereinafter К). The text is written in semi-uncial, on 179 f. 4º, with di-
mensions 20 х 14. Cinnabar is used for the titles and the initials. There are numerous
marginal notes and separate glosses added in the margins by later Russian scribes.17
The beginning of the manuscript includes Hippolytus’s work on the Antichrist, then
from f. 43 – the fourth vision of The ery furnace; from 63v – the fth vision about
Nebuchadnezzar‘s madness; from f. 78v – the sixth vision about Belshazzar‘s feast;
from f. 81v – the seventh vision about Daniel in the lions‘ den; 91v – the eighth vision
about The beasts from the sea and the Son of Man; f. 117 – the ninth vision about The
ram and the he-goat; f. 121 – the tenth vision concerning the Interpretation of Jere-
miah‘s prophecy of the seventy weeks; f. 128v – Daniel’s last vision about The angel’s
revelation: kings of the north and south; f. 133 – twelfth vision; f. 151 – Daniel’s rst
vision; f. 155 – commentary on the rst chapter of the Book of Daniel about the Cap-
tives in Babylon and about the story of Susanna and the Elders; the manuscript ends
on f. 179v with a late 18th century addition about Hieronymus Abbas.18 The spelling
is Russian, one jus, ѫ being replaced by оу, two jers.
Manuscript No. 486 from the Volokolamsk collection, former collection of the
Moscow Theological Academy, today kept at the Russian State Library in Moscow19
(hereinafter М). It consists of 306 paper folios, in quarto format, written in large
semi-uncial by a scribe with a rm and well-schooled hand, with small changes in
the outline of letters. The Commentaries of Hippolytus are divided into chapters with
large ornated titles in cinnabar. There are 15 lines per folio. There are numerous
additions of the scribe in the margins, correcting his omissions, but there are also
later corrections from another hand in places. This manuscript traditionally includes
from f. 1r: КНИГА ДАНИЛА ПРР҃оКА ВИдѣнїе ипполита. еп҃па папы римска҇⸀ ⱞлъкованїе.
сказанїе ѡ христѣ и ѡ антихр҃тѣ჻, f.79r: ѡ треⷯ ѡтроцѣⷯ како в пещь ѡгньнѫ ввержени
быша. видѣнїе д҃.е., f. 121v: того же ѡ видѣнїе. е҃. ѡ сънѣ еже ѡ дѫбѣ и егда изгнанъ
бысть навходоносоръ., f. 142r: Ѡ шестѣмь видѣніи. и ѡ запѧстїи рѫкы჻ слово. д҃., f. 152r:
ѡ седмѣмь видѣнии и ѡ въмѣтанїи даниловѣ ꙗже въ ꙗмѫ къ львомь. слово. е҃., f. 167v:
того же слово ѡ видѣнии ѡ четыреⷯ. звѣрехъ ჻, f. 204r: ѡ девѧтом видѣнїи и ѡвьнѣ. и ѡ
къзлѣ. з҃. f. 210v: ѡ десꙗтѣмъ видѣнии. и ѡ о҃ седмирицаⷯ, f. 221r: ѡ перьвомьнадесꙗть
видѣнїи и ѡ цр҃ииⷯ ѹжьскыиⷯ. и северьскыиⷯ. и҃. f. 227r: ѡ вторѣмънꙗдесꙗть видѣнїи. слово
ѡ тре(х) цр҃ѣхъ჻ ѳ҃. f. 253v: ст҃аго иполита ѡ данилѣ видѣнїе пръвое჻ і҃ f. 259r: ѡ плѣнѣ
иакима цр҃ꙗ и сн҃овъ. иѹды. їерл҃ѫ градѫ჻ аі҃. f. 268v: Ѡ сꙋсанѣ и ѡ обою старцѫ. видѣнїе
второе⁖ ві҃. Its content is identical to that of the Petrozavodsk manuscript (as the author
of the description Alexander Pigin has noted), but after the works of Hippolytus there
are several legal texts, including a Balsamon commentary on ecclesiastical canons
17 Pigin 2010: 199–200.
18 Pigin 2010: 201.
19 Iosif 1882: 90–91.
The Slavonic Versions of Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentaries
on the Book of Prophet Daniel
155
and a Justinian law. The list of Moscow metropolitans also includes Metropolitan
Cyprian and there is an important marginal note at the end of this manuscript: В лѣто
҂зкз (1519) написана бысть книга сїа въ обители пречистыа владычица наша Богородица,
честнаго и славнаго еа Успенїа въ устроенїи преподобнаго отца нашего Іосиѳа, повелѣнїемъ
пречестнѣишаго господина и отца моего игумена Данила, рукою грѣшнаго черньчишка
Лукы малаго. The marginal note clearly shows the year in which the manuscript was
written which makes this the single precisely dated copy of the Commentaries. Here
this copy is the main object of the current study.
The Commentaries on the Book of Daniel were also copied in a manuscript from
the collection of the Holy Trinity-Saint Sergius Lavra, No. 782, Russian State Library,
Moscow, from the middle of the 16th century (hereinafter Т).20 It is a miscellany written
in semi-uncial including 461 folios. It includes homiletic and hagiographical works.
Among these, the Treatise on Christ and Antichrist begins from f. 79 starting with: Сⱞ҇го
оц҇а. ипполита. къ феоилꙋ. ⱞолкованїе прⷪ҇рчьствⷶ сⱞ҇го прⷪ҇рка. данила. ги҇ бл҇ви ѽ. Помыслившꙋ
ти по истовомꙋ научити сѧ предложеныѧ намъ ѿ тебе главы, брате мои любимыи Феоѳиле,
after which Commentaries on the Book of Daniel follow from f. 128v onward: Ст҃го пр(о)
рока Данила ѡ видѣнїи четверто(м). и сн҃а разрѣшенїе. The end of f. 209 and 210 is miss-
ing. The orthography is Russian, one jus, ѫ being replaced by оу, two jers.
In addition to the already mentioned codices in which the Commentaries on the
Book of Daniel follow Hippolytus’s Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, the discussed
text on the Old Testament book is contained in miscellanies including a translation of
the Story of the Destruction of Jerusalem. Alexander Gorskij and Kapiton Nevostruev
assumed that the Greek story of the Late Middle Ages compiled in Constantinople
in 1398 was translated and copied in Novgorod in 1468, and was later divided into
chapters in 1503.21 In this context, the Commentaries of Hippolytus are also found
in several other copies, as for example No. 217, 16th century, Moscow Theological
Academy collection (former Volokolamsk collection), Moscow, State Historical Mu-
seum; No. 9 (675), 16th century, Cyrillo-Belozer Monastery collection, St. Petersburg,
National Library of Russia22 and others.
In terms of content, two of the surviving manuscripts from the Synodal collec-
tion, State Historical Museum, Moscow – No. 178 and No. 182 – in which we nd copies
of the Menaia for January and July.23 Research of this version of the text is forthcoming.
In addition to these copies, there is also a short fragment kept at the National
Archives of Romania in Bucharest under No. 741 (15th–16th c.) which has been de-
20 Arsenij, Ilarij 1879: 203.
21 Gorskij, Nevostruev 1886: 114.
22 Viktorov 1890: 149.
23 Sreznevskij 1874, Protas’eva 1970: 196–198, 203–205.
Ivan I. Iliev
156
Table 1.
Chapters
Hippolytus of
Rome’s
Commentaries
on the Book of
Prophet
Daniel
1) St.Petersburg,
Russian National
Library No. 68,
Cyrilic and
Glagolitic scrit, 12th
c.
2) Bucharest, No.
741, 15th–16th c.
Fragments
Moscow, State
Historical Museum,
Chudov collection,
No. 12, 11th–12th c.
St.Petersburg, Library
of Russian Academy,
Arkhangelsk
collection,No. Д 171,
the end of 15th c.
(Antonievo-Sijskij
Monastery)
Petrozavodsk,National
archive of Karelia,No.
74 (71), (former
Archbishopric No. 11),
15th–16th c.
(Vygovsky Monastery)
Moscow, Russian
State Library,
Volokolamsk
collection,No. 486,
1519 г. (former
Moscow Theological
Academy)
Moscow, Russian State
Library, Holy Trinity-
Saint Sergius Lavra,
No. 782,middle of 16th
c.
III
F. 68v-87:
Того же отъ данила
съказаниѥ .д҃. видѣниꙗ
Въ лѣто вътороѥ цртва
навѫходосора.
F. 383v:
Стг҇о пр(о)рка данїила ѡ
видѣнїи четветомь и сна
разрѣшенїе.
F. 383: Въ лѣто вторѡе
цр҃тва навхѡ(д)носорѡва.
F. 128v:
Ст҇го пр(о)рка данїила. ѻ
видѣнїи четверто(м) и сна
разрѣшенїе.
В лѣто второе цр҇тва
навхѡ(д)носорова.
IV
F. 87-127:
Видѣниѥ четвертоѥ
данила пророка. о
ѡбразѣ и о трьхъ
отроцѣхъ.
Въ лѣто осмоѥ на десѧте
навѹходоносоръ сътвори
образъ златъ
F. 43:
Ѡ тре(х) отроцех како в
пе(щ) ѡгненꙋ ввержени
быша. видѣнье четвертое. В
осмое на десѧ(т). лѣ(т).
навхо(д)носоръ цр҃ь . створи
тѣло злато.
Л 79:
Ѡ тре(х) отроцѣ(х) како
в пещь ѡгньнѫ ввержени
быша. видѣнїе. д҃е. слово
в҃.
Въ ѡсмое на десѧте лѣто
навходъносоръ цр҃ь
сътвори тѣло злато.
V
Fragment of the Fifth
vision for the huge
tree, inc.: …
(пре)мѹдрость и
словесы повѣдаꙗ
таинѹ христосовѹ нъ
ѹчениѥмь дх҃а и край
– акы добръ врачь
стрѹгы ѥмѹ ⱈотѧ
ⰻцѣ
F. 390:
Ст҇го пр(о)рка данїила. о
видѣнїи пѧто(м), и ѡ
дꙋбѣ. и како изьгнанъ
бы҇ навхо(д)носѡръ цр҇ь,
Навх(д)ѡноръ цр҇ь всѣмъ
людемъ многымь
ѧзыкѡ(м).
F. 63v:
Того же о видѣнии е҃ с(л)ово
г҃ о снѣ е(ж) о дꙋбѣ и егда
изнань бы҃ навхо(д)носоръ჻
навхо(д)носоръ цр҃ь всѣмъ
люде(м). племено(м) и
ѧзыко(м).
F. 121v:
Того же ѡ видѣнїи. е҃.
слово. г҃. ѡ сънѣ еже ѡ
дѫбѣ и егда изгнанъ
бысть навходоносоръ.
Навходъносоръ цр҃ь
всѣмъ людемъ.
племеномъ и ѧзыкомъ.
F. 139v:
Стг҇о пр(о)рка данїила ѻ
видѣнїи пѧтомъ. и ѻ
дꙋбѣ. И како изгнанъ
бѹсть навхѡ(д)нодоръ
цр҇ь из цр҇тва єго.
Навхѡдъносоръ цр҇ь всѣмъ
людемъ мнѡгымъ
ѧзыкѡмъ
The Slavonic Versions of Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentaries
on the Book of Prophet Daniel
157
VI
F. 400:
Ѡ шестѻ(м) видѣнїи, и ѡ
запѧстїи рѫкъ стг҇о
пр(о)рока данїила.
Вал(ъ)тасаръ цр҇ь сътвори
в(ч)ерю великꙋ
болѧрѡ(м)ъ своимъ, и
тысѧщнїкѡ(м)
F. 78v:
Ѡ шестѣм видѣнии
и ѻ запѧстии рꙋкы
валтасаръ цр҃ь створи
вечерю велику болѧромъ
своимъ и мужемъ тысѧщии
F. 142:
Ѡ шестѣмь видѣніи. и ѡ
запѧстїи рѫкы჻ слово. д҃.
Вълтасаръ цр҃ь. сътвори
вечерю великѫ болѧромъ
свои(м) и мѫжемь
тысѧштии
F. 156v:
Ѡ шестомъ видѣнїи и ѻ
запѧстїи рꙋкъ стг҇о пророка
данїила჻
Валтасаръ цр҇ь сътвори
вечерю великꙋ болѧрѡмъ
свои(м) и тысѧщникѡмъ
VII
F. 81v:
ѻ з҇ відѣниї и (ѻ) вмѣтанії
даниловомь ꙗже в ꙗмꙋ.
Прии(м) ꙋбо дарии нарекыи
сѧ
F. 152:
Ѡ седмѣмь видѣнии и ѡ
въмѣтанїи даниловѣ
ꙗже въ ꙗмѫ къ львомь.
слово. е҃. Прїимъ ѹбо
дарїи нарекыи сѧ
VIII
Fragment of the Eight
vision in Bucharest
No.741.
F. 156r-161rи 168v-
169r:
данила прр҇ока видѣніе
ѡ четырех ѕвѣрех
тлъкованїе ѡ ѕвѣрѣх:
Гл҃ть даніиль ѹбо
видѣ
х
F. 404:
Ст҇го пр(о)рка. данїила. ѡ
четыре(х) ѕвѣре(х)
видѣнїе.
В лѣ҇(т) цр҃тва,
вал(ъ)тасара цр҇ѧ
халдѣскаго. данїилъ
сѻнъ видѣ
F. 91v:
Того(ж) слово ѡ видѣнии ѡ
и҇ и ѡ д҇ звѣрехъ—
В первое лѣ(т) црт҇ва
валтасарѧ цр҇ѧ
халдѣискаго данилъ сонъ
видѣ
F. 167v:
Того же слово ѡ видѣнии
ѡ четыре(х). звѣрехъ ჻
Въ перъвое лѣто цр(с)тва
валтасарѧ халдѣискаго.
данилъ сн҃ъ видѣ
F. 163v:
Стг҇о пр(о)рка. данїила. ѡ
четырехъ ѕвѣрехъ видѣнїе.
F. 164: В лѣто црт҇ва
вал(ъ)тасара цр҇ѧ
халдѣискаго. данїилъ сонъ
видѣ
IX
F. 421: (without title)
Въ третїе лѣто цр(с)тва
валтасарова. видѣнїе сѧ
ꙗви мнѣ данїилꙋ
F. 117
:
Ѡ девѧто(м) видѣни(і) и
ѡвнѣ и ѡ козлѣ჻
Въ трети(ї)е лѣто црт҇ва
валътасарева видѣни(ї)е сѧ
ꙗви мнѣ данилꙋ
F. 204:
Ѡ девѧтом видѣнїи и
ѡвьнѣ. и ѡ къзлѣ. з҃.
Въ третїе лѣто црт҃во
валътасарова. видѣнїе сѧ
ꙗви мнѣ данилѫ.
F. 194: (without title)
Въ третїе лѣто цр(с)тва
вал(ъ)тасарова. видѣнїе сѧ
ꙗви мнѣ данїилꙋ
X
F. 424: (without title)
В первое лѣто дарїа сн҃а
асорова. юже ѿ племене
мидїискаго
F. 121:
Ѡ десѧте видѣнии и ѡ о҇
седмерицехъ и ѯ҇в
В первое лѣ(т) дариѧ сна
асорова юже ѿ племене
мидьскаго
F. 210v:
Ѡ десꙗтѣмъ видѣнии. и
ѡ о҃ седмирица(х). и ѯв҃჻
и҃. Въ первое лѣ(т) дарїа
сн҃а (а)сорова юже ѿ
племене мидьскаго.
F. 199: (without title)
В первое лѣто дарїа сн҃а
асарова. иже ѿ племене
мидїискаго
Ivan I. Iliev
158
ХI
F. 128v:
Ѡ аі҇ видѣнии и ѻ цр҇іхъ
ѹжскы(х) и северскихъ.
В третіе лѣто кѵра цр҃ѧ
перскаго.
F. 221:
Ѡ перьвомьнадесꙗть
видѣнїи и ѡ цр҃ии(х)
ѹжьскыи(х). и
северьскыи(х). и҃.
Въ третїе лѣто кура цр҃ѧ
перьскаго.
ХII
F. 133:
ѻ ві҇ видѣнии слово.
Се еще три цр҇и востанꙋть
въ персѣхъ
F. 227:
Ѡ вторѣм(ъ)надесꙗть
видѣнїи. слово ѡ тре(х)
цр҃ѣхъ჻ ѳ҃. Се єще три цр҃и
въстанѫть въ пьрсѣ(х)
І
F. 151:
Стг҇о иполита ѡ данилѣ
видѣние первое჻ Иста лѣта
быв(ъ)шаго плѣна снв҇ъ
изл҇вы(х) хотѧ сказати
F. 253v:
Ст҃аго иполита ѡ данилѣ
видѣнїе пръвое჻ і҃. Иста
лѣта бывшаго плѣна
снв҃ъ исрл҃евъмъ хотѧ
сказати
І
F. 155:
Ѡ плѣнѣ иѡакима црѧ и
снв҇ъ иꙋды и ерм҇у градꙋ.
Въ третье е лѣ(т)
цесарь(с)тва иѡакимима
цр҇ѧ
F. 259:
Ѡ плѣнѣ иакима цр҃ꙗ и
сн҃овъ. иѹды. їерл҃ѫ
градѫ჻ аі҃. Въ третїе лѣто
цр(с)тва иакима цр҃ѧ
ІІ
F. 161v:
Ѡ сꙋсанѣ. и ѡ обою старцю.
видѣ(н)е в҇ е. И бѣѧше
мужь. живыи въ вавилонѣ
именемъ иѡакимъ
F. 268v:
Ѡ сꙋсанѣ и ѡ обою
старцѫ. видѣнїе второе⁖
ві҃. И бѣаше мѫжь
живыи въ вавилонѣ
ими(м) иѡакимъ
The Slavonic Versions of Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentaries
on the Book of Prophet Daniel
159
scribed and published.24 Its contents also emulate the earlier Slavonic copies.
From the existing ve copies with transmission of the Old Bulgarian transla-
tion, the part of Hippolytus’s work known so far can be listed in the following manner
by chapters:
III. Nebuchadnezzar‘s dream of four kingdoms
IV. The ery furnace
V. Nebuchadnezzar‘s madness
VI. Belshazzar‘s feast
VII. Daniel in the lions‘ den
VIII. The beasts from the sea and the Son of Man
IX. The ram and the he-goat
X. Interpretation of Jeremiah‘s prophecy of the seventy weeks
XI. The angel‘s revelation: kings of the north and south
XII. The Last vision about three kingdoms
I. Introduction. Captives in Babylon
II. Susanna and the Elders
The content of all witnesses is presented in Table 1.
The question of the manuscript tradition and the contents of the initial Old Bul-
garian translation of Hippolytus’s Commentaries on the Book of Daniel should be re-
solved by a review of the macrostructure of the individual copies and how they corre-
spond to each other. Comparison of the copies reveals both differences on macrostructural
level and variations at the rendition of the text.25 These are most generally as follows:
a) differences in the order of the chapters;
b) lack of text;
c) common mistakes and reconsideration shared by the different copies. The
results from the preliminary comparison of the ve copies and the parallels with the
Greek text can shortly be summed up as follows:
1. Omissions and additions.
1.1 Omissions: copies К and М lack the entire chapter three, as well as two identical
passages from II.15.1 to II.15.4 and from III. 3.1. to III. 5.2; copies А and Т lack
chapters four and seven, and chapters nine and ten are without titles. In addition
to these major differences, there are sporadic lacks of lexemes at many places,
as for example: II.3.1. ἔν – С omitted, А инѣмъ Т инѣмъ; II. 14.1. ἐλθεῖν – С
omitted, А lacking, К and М приити; III.2.5. μέγας προφήτης – Р великъ, А
пр(о)ркъ, К and М пр(о)ркъ великъ, Т пр(о)ркъ.
24 Iliev 2014; http://www.slav.uni-soa.bg/naum/lilijournal/2013/3-4/ilievi.
25 The content of the individual copies can be seen in Table 1 which shows the order and sequence
of Hippolytus’s Commentaries on the Book of Daniel.
Ivan I. Iliev
160
1.2 Additions: rather rare: II. 14.1. ἀπέστειλεν συναγαγεῖν – С пѹсти събьрати,
К повѣлѣ навходъносоръ цр҇ь собра(т) М повелѣ новходъносоръ ц҃рь събрати.
1.3 Specic features of individual groups: К and М completely coincide in structure
and comprehensiveness and share common omissions, while in parallel А and Т
correspond in terms of comprehensiveness and shared lack of chapters.
2. Grammatical variation:
2.1 Variant readings indicative of time and place of translation or copying
2.1.1 In С there is prevalent use of the Dativus possessivus of the anaphoric
pronoun, as is in К and М, while the genitive is preferred in А and Т, but not consist-
ently: II.1.1 πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ – С дх҃ъ ѥмѹ, А and Т дх҃ъ его; but σύγκρισις αὐτοῦ С
съказаниꙗ ѥмѹ, А and Т сказанїе емѫ (емꙋ). II.19.4 χειρὸς τοῦ βασιλέως – С рꙋкѹ
цр҃ю, К and М рѫкѫ цр҃ю; II.27.5 εὖρος αὐτῆς – С широта ѥмѹ, Κ and М – широта
емѫ.2.1.2 The copies К and М feature only few uncontracted forms of the imperfect
tense, while in С they are more consistently preserved – II.28.4 περικεῖσθαι – С
лежаахѹ, К and М лежахѫ.
2.1.3 All copies feature very frequent use of the ending -ша instead of -шѧ –
III.1.1 εἰσεπορεύοντο – Α прїидоша, Κ and Μ придоша, Т прїидоша.
2.2 Morphological variant readings
2.2.1 Changes of grammatical number – II.1.1 οἱ οἶκοι ὑμῶν διαρπαγήσονται
С домъ вашь разграбленъ бѹдеть, А домы ваша ра(з)граблени бѫдꙋть, Т домы вашѧ
разграблени бꙋдѹ(т).
2.2.2 Changes of person – III.1.1 οὐκ ἐγνώρισάν А не повѣдаста, К and М не
повѣдаша, Т не повѣдаста.
2.2.3 Change of verb form – II.1.1 ἐγένετο С възъбнѹ, А and Т въставъ; II.1.1
καλέσαι С призъвати, А and Т призовите.
2.2.4 Non-systematic variants – III.13.1. ἐπὶ τῷ κονιάματι – А на мазанѣ, К
по мазанѣ, М на памазанѣ, Т на мазанѣ. When not understanding the text the copyist
tries to lend it come meaning and makes deviations from the original text.
3. Lexical variants
The lexical variants are the most numerous. There is a distinctive opposition
between the copies of A and T, on the one hand, and K and M, on the other:
Greek С А К М Т
II.1.1. αὐτοῦ ѥмѹ его – – его
II. 14.1. ἐν χώρᾳ въ земли – во странѣ къ странѣ –
II. 14.1. ἀπέστειλεν пѹсти – повѣлѣ повелѣ –
II. 14.1. συναγαγεῖν събьрати – собра(т) събрати –
II. 14.1. τοπάρχας кънѧзѧ – и мьсьтныѧ мѣстъныѧ –
мѣстомъ кн҇зѧ кнѧзѧ
The Slavonic Versions of Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentaries
on the Book of Prophet Daniel
161
II. 14.1. ἠγουμένους старѣшины – мчтл҇ѧ мч҃телѧ –
III.2.5. εἶχεν – живѧше имѣѧше имѣѧше живѧше
III.3.1. ἔφθασαν – досѧзааше досеже досеже досѧзааше
III.13.1. ἐπὶ τῷ κονιάματι – на мазанѣ помазанѣ на памазанѣ на мазанѣ
III.13.1. τοῦ τοίχου – стѣнѣ вапомъ стѣнѣ вармь стѣнѣ вармь стѣнѣ вапомъ
III.13.1. συνεκροτοῦντο – сгибаста сѧ сбиваста сѧ събиваста сѧ сгибаста сѧ
III.14.5. ἐπὶ τῷ κονιάματι – на помазанѣ на помазанѣ на помазанѣ на помазаннѣ
III.14.5. τοῦ τοίχου – стѣнѣ вапомъ стѣнѣ вармъ стѣнѣ вармь стѣнѣ вапомъ
III.15.5. ἐπαιοδῶν – вавилонѧнѡⷨ балиѧмъ балїамь вавилонѧномъ
Such a comparison makes it quite obvious that copies A and T are close, on the
one hand, and that K and M are similar, on the other, and we can distinguish two tradi-
tions originating from two hyparchetypes, with certain redaction peculiarities which
originated from a single translation.
The closeness of the two groups of texts can be discussed at comparison of some of their
parts and the content of chapters three, four and particularly ve, which exist in more than
one manuscript and can be illustrated in the following manner and in a broader context:
A) Chapter III – Nebuchadnezzar‘s dream of four kingdoms
Greek text С А Т
II.1.1 ἐξέστη τὸ
πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ,
καὶ ὁ ὑπνος
αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ
69 ѹжасе сѧ дх҃ъ
ѥмѹ и възъбнѹ отъ
съна
384 ꙋжасе сѧ дх҃ь
его и въставъ ѿ сна
128v ѹжасе сѧ дх҃ъ
его. и въставъ ѿ сна
II.1.1 καλέσαι
ἐπαοιδοὺς καὶ
τοὺς μάγους καὶ
τοὺς φαρμακοὺς
καὶ τοὺς
Χαλδαίους
69 призъвати
обааньникы и
въвлъхвы и
постѧщиихъ
сѧ. чародѣꙗ, и
звѣздочьтьца
384 призовите ми
ѡбав(ъ)нїкы и
влъхвы, и
постѧщи(х) чѧродѣи
и ѕвѣздочет(ъ)ца
128v призовите ми
ѡбавникы и влъвы,
и постѧщих сѧ
чародѣи и
ѕвѣздочетца
II.1.1 ἐὰν οὖν μὴ
γνωρίσητέ μοι τὸ
ἐνύπνιον καὶ τὴν
σύγκρισιν αὐτοῦ,
εἰς ἀπώλειαν
ἔσεσθε καὶ
οἱ οἶκοι ὑμῶν
διαρπαγήσονται
69d аще ѹбо не
повѣсте ми съна. и
съказаниꙗ ѥмѹ.
погѹблю вы и домъ
вашь разграбленъ
бѹдеть
384 аще не
повѣдите ми сна и
сказанїе емꙋ,
погѫблю вы и домы
ваша ра(з)граблени
бѫдꙋть.
129 аще не
повѣдите ми сна и
скаЗанїе ємꙋ,
погыблю вы и домы
вашѧ разграблени
бꙋдѹ(т)
II.2.4 υπὸ ετερῶν
μὴ νοούμενα 70c невѣдомаꙗ
инѣмї
384v инѣми не
вѣдома
129v инѣми не
вѣдомаѧ
Ivan I. Iliev
162
II.3.1 Ἵνα οὖν μὴ
ἔν τινι πρόπῳ 71v да не ѹбо
нѣкымь нравомь.
384v да ꙋбо не
инѣмъ нѣкымъ
н(ъ)равомъ,
129v да ѹбѡ не
инѣмъ нѣкымъ
нравомъ,
It can be seen from the underscored examples that, although close to the other two, the
text of C has differences in some grammatical characteristics of the translation. On the
other hand, the A and T copies not only follow the general tradition, but are also closer
to the Greek original, as illustrated by the possessive dative in the earlier copy C, later
corrected in the other, more or less Russied copies. The text of copy C reveals a differ-
ent condition of the translation, which has been subsequently reconsidered, additionally
processed and edited by comparison with the relevant Greek text which does not differ
essentially from the source of the initial Old Bulgarian translation.
It can be assumed that the objective of the editorial changes is to avoid ar-
chaic and unfamiliar words and to approximate to the Greek text. The differences be-
tween the two groups are distinct at the level of lexis, grammar and even word-order,
and Chapter III of the Commentaries reveals interesting facts about the translation
when comparing the text of C with the identical texts of K and manuscript M:
B) The ery furnace
Greek text С К М
II. 14.1. ἐποίησεν
εἰκόνα χρυσῆν 87v сътвори образъ
златъ
43v сътвори тѣло
злато
79 сътвори тѣло злато
II. 14.1. ἐν χώρᾳ
Βαβυλῶνος 87v въ земли
вавулоньстѣи
43v во странѣ
вавѵлон(ъ)стѣи
79 къ странѣ вавилонстѣи
II. 14.1. καὶ
ἀπέστειλεν
συναγαγεῖν
τοὺς ὑπάτους,
στρατηγοὺς
καὶ τοπάρχας,
ἠγουμένους καὶ
τυράννους καὶ
τοὺς ἐπ’ ἐξουσιῶν
καὶ πάντας τοὺς
ἄρχοντας τῶν
χωρῶν, ἐλθεῖν εἰς
τὰ ἐγκαίνα τῆς
εἰκόνος
87c и пѹсти
събьрати ѷпаты.
и воѥводы и
кънѧзѧ мѣстомъ
и старѣшины и
владѹщаꙗ на
осв҃щениѥ образю.
43v и повѣлѣ
навходъносоръ цр҇ь
собра(т) ѹпаты и
воеводы и мьсьтныѧ
кн҇зѧ и мчтл҇ѧ сꙋщаѧ
надъ властьми и всѧ
кнз҇ѧ странныѧ прити
на ѡсщ҇нїе тѣла
79 и повелѣ новходъносоръ
ц҃рь събрати ѹпаты и
воеводы и мѣстъныѧ 79v
кнѧзѧ. и мч҃телѧ сѫщаѧ
надъ властьми. и всѧ
кнѧзѧ страны и приити на
ѿсщенїе тѣла
II. 14.1. καὶ ὁ
κήρυξ ἐβόα ἐν
ἰσχύι
87d и
проповѣдьникъ
въпиꙗаше силою
43v и проповѣдни(с)҇
вопиѧше крѣпко
80 и проповѣдьникъ
въпиаше крѣпъко
II. 14.1. ἣν ἂν
ὥραν 88v въ ньже часъ 44а во иже годъ 80а во нⸯже годъ
The Slavonic Versions of Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentaries
on the Book of Prophet Daniel
163
II. 14.1. τῆς φωνῆς
τῆς σάλπιγγος,
σύριγγος τη καὶ
κιθάρας,
σαμβύκης καὶ
ψαλτηρίου καὶ
παντὸς γένους
μουσικῶν
90c гласъ трѹбъ,
и пиполы и гѹсли
и пищаль и пѣснь.
и вьсѧ хытрости
мѫсикнискъꙗ
44 гл҇а трубныи
сургинъ и гусленъ
самбукинъ же и
прегудници согл҇ны(х)
всѧкому родуму
мусикину
82 гл҃а трѫбныи.
сѹргии же и гѫсленъ
самбѹкинъ же
и прегѫдници и
согласныи(х) всѧкомѫ
родѫ мѹ(си)киѵиѫ
II. 14.1. εἰς τὴν
κάμινον τοῦ
πυρὸς τὴν
καιομένην
88v въ пещь огнї
жегомааго
44 в пещь ѡгнемь
горѧщу
80v в пещ:ь ѡгньм’
горѧщю
The hyperarchetype of copies K and M obviously lacked the beginning of the
text and it was restored with a new translation from Greek, reected in the content
of the two copies. The lexemes тѣло and образъ are synonymous at quite distant lev-
els, unlike the nouns годъ and часъ, which are much closer in meaning in the sense
of „this hour“ or the determined time for worship and are synonymous only at the
translation of ὥρα.26 Consulting the Greek text is also given away by the translation
of τυράννους as мѫчители, also found in the Codex Suprasliensis and in other early
witnesses,27 while, on the contrary, a translation like владѫште is not found.28 The
examples quoted above show that the text of copies M and K has preserved some
word-for-word translations and Greek elements, as well as an added part whose or-
igin is yet to be determined, but this is valid solely for the beginning of the chapter
alone which has been probably lost. After this limited renovation in beginning the
text, the two copies totally overlap with that of C:
Greek text С М
II. 15.5. προσεκύνουν
τῇ εἰκόνι 89v покланнѧахѹ сѧ образѹ 80v покланѧхѫ сѧ ѡбразѫ
II. 16.1. ὡς ἂν ἀκούσητε
τῆς φωνῆς τῆς
σάλπιγγος, σύριγγος
τε καὶ κιθάρας,
σαμβύκης τε καὶ
ψαλτηρίου καὶ παντὸς
γένους μουσικῶν
90c да къде слышите гласъ
трѹбы. и пиполы и гѹсли.
пищали. и пѣсни и вьсѧ
хытрости мѹсикнинъꙗ
82 да кдѣ слышите гласъ
трѫбъи пиполыи гѫсли
и пищали и пѣсни, и всѧ
хытрости мѫсикииныѧ
26 Dn 3:5; Petrov 2012: 14, 30–31.
27 Supr. 79.12; 449.29; Mt 18:34 in Codex Assemanius, Codex Zographensis, Codex Marianus,
Savvina Kniga, and Ostromir Gospel.
28 The lexeme τύραννος in this manuscript is encountered in such a translation for the rst time.
Ivan I. Iliev
164
II. 16.1. εἰς τὴν κάμινον
τοῦ πυρὸς τὴν
καιομένην
90d въ пещь жегомѹѹмѹ въ пещь ѡгни 81v жегомаго
II. 18.1.οὐδὲ τὸ πῦρ τῆς
καμίνου καιόμενον
εἰδότες ἔπτηξαν
91d ни огнѧ пещи жегомыꙗ.
не ѹтаиша сѧ
83v ни ѡгнѧ пещи
жьгомымыѧ не ѹтаиша сѧ
II. 24.6. ἐν τῷ πυρὶ
καιόμενοι 101 въ огни горѧщеи 92v въ ѡгни горѧще
II. 24.7. πιστοὶ
μάρτυρες κληθῶσιν 101v вѣрьнии послѹси
нарекѹть сѧ
93 вѣрнїи послѫслѫси (!)
нарекѫт сѧ
II. 28.6. σὺν ἐσθῆτι
καὶ σαραβάροις
διεσώθησαν
108c съ ризами и
бичьмогыи съхраниша сѧ
101 съ ризами и бичьмѡгы
съхраниша(с)
II. 29.6. ἔπειθα
μετῆλθον ἐπὶ τὰς
τροπὰς τοῦ ἀέρος καὶ
τὰ πνεύματα ἅτινα
ἐστιν ἐν μέσῳ τῆς
κτίσεως ὑπάρχοντα
ἀνέμους ὄμβρος τε καὶ
νιφετούς, ψῦχος καὶ
καῦμα, φῶς καὶ
σκότος, ἡμέρας τε καὶ
νύκτος καὶ τὰ ὅμοια
αὐτοῖς
110v по томь преидоша на
премѣнениꙗ въздѹха и
дѹхы еже сѹть, средѹ
зъданиꙗ вѣтри дъжда росы
зимѹ знои свѣть тьмѹ
дьни и нощи и подобьнаꙗ
симь
103 по томъ при(и)доша на
премѣненїе въздѫха и дх҃ы.
єже сѫть зданыѧ вѣтры
дъждѧ рѡсы, зимѹ и знои
свѣ[ть] 103v тмѫ дн҃ь и
нощь и подобнаѧ симь
ΙΙ. 37. 2. δι̉ ἀφορμῆς
τινος κατὰ θεοῦ
πρόνοιαν
ἀπολυθέντας
124 бж҃иѥмь строѥниѥмь
нѣкоторою виною гонезъша
117v бж҃їемъ строенїемь
нѣкоторою виною гонезъша
The translation from Greek ends on folio 80r, with which the lack was cor-
rected, after which the text has not been corrected any longer, following the already
existing tradition. There is a telling example with the translation of the verb καίω,
which is translated as жешти, жегѫ, жежеши eleven times and just twice as горити,
горѭ, гориши, and that is only in the beginning of the text of M. The most distinctive
difference is found in the case of the musical instruments – the rst listing contains
the passage τῆς φωνῆς τῆς σάλπιγγος, σύριγγος τε καὶ κιθάρας, σαμβύκης
καὶ ψαλτηρίου καὶ παντὸς γένους, which in manuscript C is initially rendered as
гласъ трѹбъ, и пиполы и гѹсли и пищаль и пѣснь. и вьсѧ хытрости мѫсикнискъꙗ, while
in M it is гл҃а трѫбныи. сѹргии же и гѫсленъ самбѹкинъ же и прегѫдници и согласныиⷯ
всѧкомѫ родѫ моу(си)киѵнѫ, however, there are no differences between them when
The Slavonic Versions of Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentaries
on the Book of Prophet Daniel
165
they are mentioned the second time. Another interesting point is the use of the archaic
lexeme послѹхъ29 in the two copies C and M, which is evidence of one and the same
translation. The translation of the Greek verb ἀπολύω (‘untie, release’) is even more
symptomatic with the use of the Old Bulgarian verb гонезнѫти, гонезнѫ, гонезнеши,
which is found in Codex Suprasliensis30 and some other early codices (Izbornik of
1073, Uspenskij Codex, Hippolytus’s Treatise on Christ and Antichrist in manuscript
С on another two occasions (ѹгознеть and гонезнѹла) and others), in the sense of „to
save, free oneself“31, and in the text of manuscript M the word is encountered another
six times with different meanings, rendering a broad spectrum of Greek equivalents.
Послѹхъ and гонезнѫти are some of the typical Preslav usages. The other visible dif-
ferences are mainly at phonetic or graphic level and do not reveal hesitation in the
rendition of the text. However, individual changes in the manuscript tradition can be
seen, for example, at comparison of Chapter Five of the Commentaries.
C) Nebuchadnezzar‘s madness:
Greek text Р А М Т
III.2.5. ὃς πνεῦμα
θεοῦ ἅγιον εἶχεν
ἐν αὐτῷ
f. 1 иже д҃ъ
бж҃ии живѧше
въ. немь.
391 дх҃ъ бо
бж҃їи живѧше
вь немъ
124v иже дх҃ъ
сы бж҃їи
имѣѧше въ
собѣ
141 дх҃ъ бѡ
бж҃їи живѧше
въ немъ
III.2.5. ὑπὸ
πάντων τῶν
ὑτοτεταγμένων
τῷ βασιλεῖ
f. 1. въ всѣхъ
иже повиньни
цр҃ю бѣша
391v въ всѣ(х)
повин(ъ)нїи цр҃ю
бѣша
124v въ всѣхъ
иже повиньни
сѫть цр҃ю
141v во всѣ(х)
повин(ъ)ніи
цр҇ю бѣша
III.2.5. μέγας
προφήτης
ὀνομασθῇ
f. 1 великъ
наречеть сѧ
391v пр(о҇)ркъ
нар(ч)ет сѧ
124v пр(о)ркъ
великъ наречет
сѧ
141v пр(о)ркъ
наречет сѧ
III.2.6.
Μεννουθὶμ
τοῦτον
ὠνόμασιν ὃ
ἐστιν
αἰγυπτιστὶ
ἄνθρωπος τοῦ
θεοῦ τὸ γάρ
μεννοῦ καλεῖται
ἄνθρωπος, θὶμ
δὲ θεός
f. 1
меноуѳимь сего
нарекоша· ѥже
ѥсть члв҃къ
бж҃ии· меноуфь
бо члв҃къ
нарицаѥть сѧ
ѥгупьтьскы ·
Фимъ же г҃ь
391v
менѫфїмь сего
нарѣкоша. е(ж)
есть чл(о҇)кь
бж҃їи. м(ъ)нѫ
чл(о҇)ка зовꙋ(т)҇.
єгыпетьслы(м)
же бг҇ь
125
менѫфимъ сего
нарекоша еже
есть члк҃ъ
бж҃їи. менѫ бо
чл҃къ нарицает
сѧ егѵпетьскы
фимъ же г҃ь
141v
менꙋфи(м) сего
нарекоша, єже
есть чл҇къ бж҃їи.
м’нѧ чл҇ка
зовꙋть.
єгѵпетьскым
же бг҃ъ
29 Found in Codex Suprasliensis 241.23 and 216.26, Euchologium Sinaiticum 67v 23 and 83a 23
and in Savvina Kniga in Mt. 18.16; see Slavova 1989: 100.
30 Supr. 238.16, 354.29, 401.6, 440.28.
31 Dobrev 2012: 75–100.
Ivan I. Iliev
166
III.3.1. τὸ ὕψος
αὐτοῦ
ἔφθασαν ἕως
τοῦ οὐράννου
f. 1 высота ѥго
досѧзаше до
нб҃се
391v высота
его досѧзааше
до нб҇се
125v высота его
досѧже до нб҃се
141v высота его
досѧзааше до нб҃се
III.3.1. καὶ ἰδοὺ
εἲρ καὶ ἅγιος
κατέβη ἀπὸ
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
καὶ ἐφώνησεν
ἐν ἰσχύϊ
f. 1v
и҇ [с]е дѹг и҇
свѣтъ
съ нб҃се
съниде и҇
възгласи
вельми
391v
и се дѹга и
свѣтъ нб҃сї
сънїде. и
възъгласи
вельми
125v
и се дѹга и
свѣтъ с нб҃сѣ
(126а) сниде.
и възгласи
вельми рече
142
и се дꙋга и
свѣтъ съ нб҇си
сниде и
воЗгласи
вельми
III.3.1. πρὸς
ἐπιτιμία f. 1v на
ѥпитимию
392 на
ѡпитемїю
missing 143 на
опитемью
III.6.3. τί γὰρ
ὠφελῆσαι
δύναται
βασιλεύς
missing 395 ѹ҇добь
гон҇ьзⷩемь. что
можеть ѹ҇спѣти
цр҃ь
129v ѹдобь
гонезнемь. что
можеть
ѹспѣти цр҃ь.
148 ѹ҇добь
гоньзнемъ. что
можетъ
ѹспѣти цр҇ь
The above examples reveal the common hyparchetype of A and T, as well as the
differences with copy M which, in turn, has parallels with P. The principal different
readings are at grammatical level, but the lexical variants should not be overlooked
either – имѣѧше is not a synonym of живѧше, and further, although synonyms the
verbs нарицаеть сѧ and зовꙋт show a different interpretation of the Greek text. Another
interesting item is the verb досѧшти, досѧгѫ, досѧжеши, which can be found in Codex
Suprasliensis,32 and which has no analogue in other early codices. A shared mistake
such as the lack of фим and the Russied spelling опитемїа in A and T prove the com-
mon genesis of these two copies. The variation at г҃ь and бг҃ъ may be by chance, but at
the same time it could be indicative of a different protograph. Once again we should
pay attention to the verb гонезнѫти, because it is present in an analogous context in
the three copies and without mistakes in rendition, lending an interesting nuance to
the meaning of ὠφελέω (‘to help’) – helping oneself by liberating oneself. This is
one of the earliest usages of this verb with such a meaning in Old Bulgarian literature.
There is an important common mistake in the Old Bulgarian translation of the phrase
εἲρ καὶ ἅγιος, Latin vigil, Hebrew שׂﬢ(Īr) – with дѹга и свѣтъ (Р, А, К, М, Т, in
C the part about the huge tree is missing entirely). The translation in this place was
made in this form because of a mistake in the Greek source with incorrect rendition
and confusion with the word ἶρις33 (rainbow or ‘Iris’, messenger of the gods34). The
translation of this verse into contemporary standard Bulgarian is the following: „…и,
32 Supr. 511.12.
33 Alekseev 1999: 160; SJS, IV:555.
34 LSJ: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A 1999.04.0073%3
Aentry%3Di%29%3Dris
The Slavonic Versions of Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentaries
on the Book of Prophet Daniel
167
ето, от небесата слезе Будният и Светият. Като извика високо…“35 („and there
was a holy watcher, coming down from heaven. He cried aloud and said…“36 In Rus-
sian: „и вот, нисшел с небес Бодрствующий и Святый. Воскликнув громко…“37
What is meant is the angel Ir Vekadish – a watcher and a holy one. According to the
Babylonians, there were two heavenly categories of gods and goddesses identied
with the planets – supreme and secondary. Saint Hieronymus also included the advi-
sory deities in the second group and the angels, always on watch and ready to serve
the Lord himself, are such.38 This is the only case of such specic usage of the lexeme
дѫга.39 The translation, found in all copies, is inherent to the common archetype
of the Commentaries and unequivocally connects the content of the Pogodin Fo-
lia with the rest of the copies, thereby proving not only the archaic identity of the
translation but also the stability of the tradition.
D) The beasts from the sea and the Son of Man:
Greek text А К М Т
IV.6.2. οὐδὲν
γάρ ὅλως
ψεύδεται ἡ
γραφή
408v ничтоже
бж҇їе лⸯжеть
писанїе
96v ничесоже бо
бъщїав(ь)шихъ
(sic!) лжⸯеть
97rписанїе
176v ничсоже бо
бъшїю лъже(т)
писанїе
171v ничтоже
бж҇їе лжеть
писанїе.
This example clearly shows that copy M has not only preserved the text of Hip-
polytus’s Commentaries most comprehensively (in terms of volume and order), but
also preserves rare archaic readings typical of the 10th century literary tradition, such
as the adverb бъшьѭ, which can be found in Codex Suprasliensis.40 This part was
rendered incorrectly in the hyparchetype of A and T, where the word is replaced with
божии, and the copyist of K created a non-existent gloss because of misunderstand-
ing, but as a result of his mistake the reading бъшьѭ (not божии) can be seen clearly
preserved in the hyparchetype of M and K. The adverb is used once again in the same
sense:
Greek text С К М
II. 31.4. οὐχ ἥψατο
αὐτῶν τὸ καθόλου
τὸ πῦρ
115c не прикоснѹ сѧ
бъшию огнь имъ
57v не прикоснꙋ сѧ
бьшью ѡгнь не прико 109 снѫ сѧ
и(х) бьшью ѡгнь
35 Daniel 4:10-11 (Dn 4:10–11).
36 The Holy Bible, 1990: 860 (Dn 4:13–14).
37 Wordproject: http://www.wordproject.org/bibles/ru/27/4.htm#0 (Dn 4:10–11).
38 Valchanov 1975: 52–53.
39 SJS, 4: 555.
40 Supr. 30.1–2, 43.4–5, 338.13, 393.4.
Ivan I. Iliev
168
The existence of бъшьѭ in the oldest known copy С (dated at the end of the 11th
and the beginning of the 12th century) undoubtedly proves its presence in the initial
translation. Its value as a lexical marker41 not only proves the archaic origin of the
translation but also indicates its connection with the Preslav literary circle. Other
linguistic peculiarities including, as mentioned above, the distinctive verb гонезнѫти,
can serve as additional arguments for the localization of the translation.
Two principal structural models of distribution of the work of Hippolytus
emerged in a Slavonic environment – one, in which the rst chapter is the one about
the golden statue and the ery furnace, as recorded in copies С, А and Т, and another,
in which the story about the three companions becomes rst – К and М. The two
traditions differ mainly in the order of the visions, partly in content and in relation
to their linguistic characteristics. Thus, because of the different parts of Hippolytus’s
work which were copied in the manuscripts examined, the comparison at macrostruc-
tural level provides grounds to conclude that K and M are very close, on the one hand,
and that A and T – on the other, share many common readings and that their basis
being was formed by two archetypes originating from one and the same translation.
In a sense, the text of C is separate and does not coincide completely with any one of
the two groups in terms of content, but it preserves archaic linguistic characteristics
and provides important evidence of the initial translation. It seems at rst glance that
there is also a separate fragment, preserved in the Pogodin Folia (Р), which does not
provide enough information for comparison, but has also undoubtedly preserved the
missing part of the text of the hyperarchetype of copies K and M which does not exist
in them but has been recorded in the rest of the A and T copies. This means that there
has been a stable tradition of long standing in at least two branches, leading right
back to the initial Old Bulgarian translation from the Greek original which provides
grounds for its comprehensive research. The initial translation of part of the Com-
mentaries on the Book of Daniel was most probably made even in the last decades
of the 9th century in an East Bulgarian literary centre, supposedly complemented,
revised and expanded in the 10th century, which version has been subsequently dis-
seminated with insignicant changes. On Russian soil, a process of revision of the
text has begun in the Late Middle Ages, but it was neither consistent nor persistent,
and the changes are occasional in character and largely relied on the earlier version.
Copy M has best preserved the initial translation and most probably in its fullest
version, as well as the stages of its complementing, but this is the subject of a future
comprehensive analysis.
41 Miltenov 2006:104–117.
The Slavonic Versions of Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentaries
on the Book of Prophet Daniel
169
REFERENCES
Alekseev 1999: Алексеев, А.А. Текстология славянской библии. Санкт Петербруг, 1999.
Alekseev 2002: Алексеев, А.А. Песнь песней в древней славяно-русской письменности.
Санкт-Петербург, 2002.
Belova, Kukushkina 1989: Описание рукописного отдела Библиотеки Академии наук
СССР. Т. 8, вып. 1. Сост. А.А. Амосов, Л. Б. Белова, М. В. Кукушкина, Москва,
Ленинград, 1989.
Viktorov 1890: Викторов, А. Е. Описи рукописных собраний в книгохранилищах Северной
России. Санкт Петербург, 1890.
Vălchanov 1975: Вълчанов, С. Тълкуване на книгата на пророк Даниил. София, 1975.
Dimitrova 2012: Димитрова, М. Тълкувания на Песен на песните в ръкопис 2/24 от Рил-
ската света обител. София, 2012.
Dobrev 2012: Добрев, И. “За двете готски лексикални гнезда в Супрасълския сборник и
за липсата на една източногерманска лексема в сборника.” – В: Преоткриване: Суп-
расълски сборник, старобългарски паметник от Х век. Съст. А. Милтенова. София,
2012, 75–100.
Evseev 1905: Евсеев, И. Е. Книга пророка Даниила в древнеславянском переводе. Москва,
1905.
Hristova 1996: Христова, Б. Опис на ръкописите на Владислав Граматик. Велико Търно-
во, 1996.
Iliev 2014: Илиев, И. И. “Иполитовото тълкувание на Книга на пророк Даниил в ръкопис
741 от Букурещкия държавен архив.” – Bulgaria Mediaevalis IV, 2014 (in print).
Il’inskij 1929: Ильинский, Г. А. “Погодинские кирилловско-глаголические листки.” – Byz-
antinoslavica 1, 1929, 86–118.
Iosif 1882: Иосиф, иеромонах. Опись рукописей перенесенных из библиотеки Иосифова
монастыря в библеотеку Московской духовной академии. Издание Общества исто-
рии и древностей российских при Московском университете, Москва, 1882.
Karachorova 2003: Карачорова, И. “Паримейник.” – В: Кирило-Методиевска енциклопе-
дия. Гл. ред. Л. Грашева. Т. 3. София, 2003, 101–105.
LSJ: Liddell, K.G., R. Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revied ed. by H. Jones with the assis-
tance of R. McKenzie. Oxford: Calderon Press, 1940. E-version in Perseus Digital Li-
brary Project. Ed. by G.R. Crane. Tufts University, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/
search?redirect=true
Miltenov 2006: Милтенов, Я. “Стб. бъхъ, бъхъма, бъшѭ ‘съвсем, напълно’, бъшьнъ ‘окон-
чателен’ – наблюдения върху етимологията, разпространението и употребата им.”
– Български език 53, 2006, № 2, 104–117.
Novostruev 1868: Невоструев, К. И. Слово святого Ипполита об антихристе в славянс-
ком переводе по списку ХІІ века. Москва, 1868.
Petrov 2012: Петров, И. Названията за време в старогръцки и старобългарски. Магис-
търска теза: Софийски университет “Св. Климент Охридски”. София, 2012.
Pigin 2010: Пигин, А. В. Памятники книжной старины Русского Севера: коллекции руко-
писей XV–XX веков в государственных хранилищах Республики Карелия. Санкт Пе-
тербург, 2010.
Ivan I. Iliev
170
Protas’eva 1970: Протасьева, Т. Н. Описание рукописей Синодального собрания (невошед-
ших в описание А.В. Горского и К.И. Невоструева). Москва, 1970.
Richard 1970: Richard, M. Pour une nouvelle edition du commentaire de S. Hippolyte sur Dan-
iel. Centre National de la Recherche Scientique, Paris, 1970.
Richard 1976: Richard, M. “Hippolyte de Rome.” – In: Opera Minora. Vol. 3. Brepols, 1976,
n. 10, col. 537–545.
Richard 2000: Richard, M. Kommentar zu Daniel. Walter de Gruyter, 2000.
Slavova 1989: Славова, Т. “Преславска редакция на Кирило-Методиевия старобългарски
евангелски превод.” – Кирило-Методиевски студии. Кн. 6. София, 1989, 15–129.
Sreznevskij 1874: Срезневский, И. И. Сказания об Антихристе в славянских переводах.
Москва, 1874.
SJS: Slovnik jazyka staroslovĕnského. Lexicon linguae palaeoslovenicae. Hlav. red. J. Kurz, Z.
Hauptova. Praha, 1958-1997.
The Holy Bible 1990: The Holy Bible. The New King James Version. American Bible Society,
New York, 1990.
Thomson 1998: Thomson, F. “The Slavonic Translation of the Old Testament.” – In: Interpre-
tation of the Bible. Ed. by Jože Krašovec. Slovenska akademija znatnosti in umetnosti,
Ljubljana, Shefeld, 1998, 605–920.
Totomanova 2003: Тотоманова, А.-М. Погодински кирилско-глаголически листове. – В:
Кирило-Методиевска енциклопедия. Гл. ред. Л. Грашева. Т. 3. София, 2003, 177–179.
Uhanova 2012: Уханова, Е. “Палеографические и кодикологические особенности древ-
нейшего Учительного Евангелия Константина Преславского (ГИМ, Син. 262) и ис-
тория его создания.” – In: Тихова, М. Старобългарското Учително евангелие на
Константин Преславски. С детайлното описание от Елена Уханова на най-ста-
рия препис (ГИМ Син. 262). (= Monumenta linguae Slavicae, LVIII), Weiher Verlag,
Freiburg i. Br., 2012.
Wordproject®. International Biblical Association: http://www.wordproject.org/index.htm
About the author…
Ivan I. Iliev is a doctoral student at the Institute for Literature at the
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. He graduated Classical philology
and has a Master degree in Old Church Slavonic at Soa University.
He has been a visiting lecturer in Latin there since 2010. His inte-
rests include manuscript studies, Russian literature, eschatology and
apocalypticism, Slavic studies, Classical Latin, Medieval history and
literature, textual criticism, and etymology.