Ekaterina Dikova. A Byzantine Poetic Form in a Ninth-Century Bulgarian Poem. –  Studia Metrica et Poetica – 9/2 (2022): 63-91.

The paper measures the extent to which the most characteristic features related to the so-called Byzantine dodecasyllable are applied in buchna molitva (‘Alphabetic Prayer’) noted to be written in dodecasyllabic verses. This alphabetic acrostic is dated back to the very end of the ninth century and is attributed to Constantine of Preslav. In this article its text is given after its earliest copy, MS Syn. 262, as it is the only representative of the version closest to the Glagolitic archetype, now lost. The piece is studied in comparison with St Gregory the Theologian’s alphabetic acrostic (as published in PG 37) which Constantine of Preslav quotes just after the end of his poem and which is considered its rhythmical model. The main conclusions are that the Alphabetic Prayer is an early replica of the Byzantine dodecasyllable, follows its rhythmical peculiarities to an extent similar to St Gregory’s alphabetic acrostic, all the previously supposed deviations are motivated by genre peculiarities and rhetorical requirements, which reveals Byzantine schooling of the Old-Bulgarian writer. Nevertheless, the content and intention of the poem indubitably target the neophyte Slavonic audience.

Ivan P. Petrov. The Greek Sources of Učitel’noe Evangelie Revisited: Sermon 20. –  Palaeobulgarica – 46/2 (2022): 3-29.

The article presents the Greek text of sermon 20 from Constantine of Preslav’s Učitel’noe Evangelie (UE) based on the standard Cramer’s edition of the Greek Catenae, yet, extended by the text of ten other manuscripts. The Greek text is juxtaposed to the Old Bulgarian one and the text of the relevant John Chrysostom’s Homily. A detailed analysis is provided for all passages where the newly adduced variant readings correspond better to the UE’s text. Often, the UE’s compiler seems to have used the text of the Homily. In other instances, however, it appears that the Catena and the Homily texts were used simultaneously by him. Cramer’s text is further rechecked after the primary source of the edition (Cod. Coisl. 23) together with the witness used by Cramer for the Supplementum to its edition – Bodl. Auct. T. I. 4. Thus, the Greek text corrects some misprints in Cramer’s edition while at the same time provides new readings that stay closer to UE’s text. In conclusion, some observations are drawn regarding the relations between the witnesses of the Greek tradition that might be useful in a future critical edition of UE’s Greek Vorlage.

Georgi Mitov. Byzantine New Testament Catenae and Constantine of Preslav’s Uchitel’noe Evangelie (‘Didactic Gospel’): From Catena to Homily (Some Preliminary Remarks). [IN BULGARIAN] –  Palaeobulgarica 46/2 (2022): 29-43.

The paper focuses on the Greek New Testament catenae and the ways Constantine of Preslav utilised them as the main sources for his Uchitel’noe evangelie (‘Didactic Gospel’). In the second half of the 19th century, it was convincingly demonstrated that for the largest part of his homilies in the Uchitel’noe evangelie Constantine of Preslav had extensively borrowed material from the Greek New Testament catenae. In most of the cases the translated texts from Greek into Slavonic remained unaltered and, thus, formed the exegetical core of the homilies. Nevertheless, in order to present a more expressive homiletic text, Constantine of Preslav added some salutations, rhetorical questions, and exhortations addressed to his audience to the introductory and concluding parts of his homilies. In addition to that, the some of the homilies contain extensive catechetical sections, e.g., the one on the significance of the Eucharist (homily fifty-one), as well as prayer texts, e.g. the short opening prayer in the third homily, which are deemed to be originally composed by Constantine of Preslav himself.

Ivan P. Petrov. The Greek Term Διανοια in Učitel’noe Evangelie and the Classical Old Church Slavonic Texts. – Балканско езикознание / Linguistique balkanique 61/1 (2022) 49-67.

The article analyses the translations of διάνοια in the Old Church Slavonic texts considered to be translated in the first literacy period, i.e. 9-11 century. The Greek term is positioned in its development in the Classical and Post-Classical Greek culture. Except for the data provided from the lexicological manuals and databases, the paper presents excerpted Slavonic material from sources that are not supplied with Greek-Slavonic indices, such as Symeon’s Miscellanea of 1073, the Hexaemeron translated by John the Exarch, Athanasius Alexandrinus’ Third Oration against the Arians, and the Didactic Gospel, the last two translated by Constantine of Preslav. Conclusions are drawn based on other early texts preserved in later copies.

Lora Taseva. The Chronotope of the Old Church Slavonic Composita with ин- ‘one’. – Palaeobulgarica 46/1 (2022) 51-80.

The article summarizes the data about compound words with the first component ин- ‘one’ in the Slavonic literature up to the fifteenth century. The sources used are both texts from the Old Bulgarian time (including those preserved in later copies) and later medieval translations. The systemized material is analyzed from the perspective of the type of works in which the lexemes are attested, the chronology of their appearance and their presence in the manuscript tradition. The research confirms the existence of 30 lexemes of the type, which belong to 15 word-formation nests. They are found in written sources of various genres but their distribution is not uniform and many of them are hapaxes. No data are obtained on the regional distribution of this type of words but it is confirmed that, as a whole, the compound words with ин-, meaning ‘one,’ belong to the archaic lexical layer. Their place was gradually occupied by other two-root models (mostly with ѥдин‑). The morpheme ин- ‘one’ completely lost its derivational ability and remained attested only in copies of early texts. Among the three relict uses in translations of the post-Old Bulgarian time – ѥнодоушьно, иночѧдъ and инорогъ – only the latter appears more than once and in more than one work and its longevity is to be explained with the fact that it is known from the Bible.

Dobriela Kotova. Sermon 19 in Constantine of Preslav’s Uchitel’noe Evangelie (Didactic Gospel) and Its Greek Sources. – Palaeobulgarica 46/1 (2022) 3-28.

The article discusses the question of the original or translated nature of the commentary part of Sermon 19 in the Uchitel’noe Evangelie. This part contains passages which have been thought to be of Constantine of Preslav’s own authorship, since they have no counterparts in his main Greek source, that is the catenae – i.e. the excerpted and compiled fragments of John Chrysostom’s commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew. Indeed, the examination of twenty manuscripts which attest catenae C110.1 and C110.2 but which differ from C110.4, published by Cramer, being usually compared to the Slavonic translation, confirms the lack of a parallel text. Yet, the homiletic nature of the main part of Sermon 19 directs the search for a parallel Greek text to John Chrysostom’s 61st homily on the Gospel of Matthew.

The analysis undertaken shows that the commentary part of Sermon 19 is entirely a translation. Homily 61 is the Greek source text for all the passages attributed to Constantine of Preslav . He knew and actively used the text of Chrisostom’s homily. In the shortened commentary in the catena, which was also simplified regarding rhetorical devices, he incorporated passages, phrases, and words from the original homily. His own thoughts – and words – also found their place in this newly-created compilation. Their character, the specifics of the translation and the way in which he achieved a kind of symbiosis between the fragments of the two sources to accomplish a coherent and impressive text, reveal the great artistic knowledge and skills of the prominent Preslav bishop.