Патеричният дял на Лаврентиевия сборник - проблеми на текста
The Paterikon Part of the Lavrentiev Sbornik - Problems of the Text

Summary/Abstract: The subject of the article is the text of the paterikon part of the manuscript F.I.376 from the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg, known today as Lavrentiev (or Ivan Alexandrov) Sbornik from 1348 AD. According to an opinion widespread among scholars, the text of the 13 paterikon tales from the content of the Lavrentiev Sbornik is in a direct dependence on the translation, presented in the so-called Sinajskij paterik (Syn. 551). In the same time a detailed analysis of the textological peculiarities of the reading is not yet available. It would be the only way to give answers to several questions: is the paterikon part of F.I.376 a new version indeed, does it include a new translation and if yes in which cases, and which are the main principles, followed by the writer during the revision of the text. The presented observations help to approach the answers to these questions, without the ambition of reaching a complete solution. They are based on the comparison of the initial two tales of the Lavrentiev Sbornik with their equivalents from the Sinajski Paterik. When needed also parallels with the Florence version of Λειμὠν πνευματικός and the PG collection are provided. In the opinion of the author, the paterikon part of the Lavrentiev Sbornik possesses features which link it in a very convincing manner with the translation of the Λειμὠν πνευματικός, presented in the Syn. 551. Despite of that, the analysis of the variations of the text demonstrates that the protograph of Lavrentij contains certain differences compared to Syn. 551. Furthermore, according to the author's opinion, the compiler was critical toward his protograph, starting with the first tale, which is not "literally" rewritten and does not coincide "completely" with the corresponding chapter of the Sinaijskij Paterik. The liberty of intervention of Lavrentij increases at the second tale, but does not start there. The author holds the opinion that at this stage one could not state categorically that Lavrentij did new translations of certain chapters, but there is a possibility that he was comparing with a Greek original, different from the original, according to which the translation, presented in Syn. 551, was performed. The overwhelming amount of deliberate linguistic changes in the initial two chapters gives the impression that here we have a revision of the text aimed at the eradication of the unclear parts of the text and a linguistic adaptation to the needs of the readers from the time of the compiler.

• Details
• Contents