Anda di halaman 1dari 30
CATALOGUE OF BYZANTINE MANUSCRIPTS IN THEIR LITURGICAL CONTEXT Subsidia CHALLENGES AND PERSPECTIVES Collected Papers, resulting from the expert meeting of the Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts programme held at the PTHU in Kampen, the Netherlands on 6th-7th November 2009 Edited By Klaas Spronk, Gerard Rouwhorst & Stefan Royé & BREPOLS Cover illustration Arkivi Qendror i Shretit, Tirané (Albanian Central State Archive, Tirana) Codex 96 of Korga, folio 3r “Ena eal Ex dy elpyy Tod Kuplow BenBauev (Again and again, in peace, let us pray to the Lord) Beginning ofthe second short Litany of the Divine Lieurgy of Saint John Chrysostom Cover design by Hilde Verhelst © 2013, Brepols Publishers n.., Turnhout, Belgiam All reserved. No, ‘shits, be: stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any Fors iy means deo ben Pat sei eteapiey dng obese wits ria perms oft ‘publicer D/2013/0095/113 ISBN 978-2-503-54895-1 (printed version) ISBN 978-2-503-55116-6 (online version) Printed in the E.U. on acid-free paper ‘The Gospel Book and its liturgical function in the Byzantine-Slavic tradition Marcello GARZANITI (Florence) Abstract “This article explores the development of the Gospel leonay and the Teecaevangelion in the Slavic regions. After a brief summary of che history of research an excursus is given of the structure of che Tetraevangelion and lection- ‘ay The development and varity ofthe luriel mater nthe Gospel books is discussed and an explanation is given of eexcual variations by the underlying Greek eradicion and subsequenc mixrure between manuscripts. Ic is stressed chat all forms of the Slavic Gospels are not only dependent on the Byzantine tradition but also have influ- enced each other. The Slavie Gospels ae pare of che complex history of the development ofthe licurgical books. 1. Introduction From the fifth to the sixth centuries, when the series of pericopes from the Gospels read on the most im- porcant feasts of che liturgical year had alteady been accepted in various traditions, the necessicy arose in both the East and the West to organise these readingsin a clearer manner than hitherto found in che book containing che continuous Gospel texts, know! Greck as the Tetracvangelion. Initially the scriptoria located in the episcopal sees, and especially in che monasteries, enriched the Tetraevangelion codices wich licurgical annorations, or created separate lists of pericopes. Lacer they began to produce a new type of book ~ the lectionary - which contained pericopes from the Gospels arranged according to the order of the liturgical year. This complex system of readings was based on the model of the local Jerusalem licurgy, but over time this changed in various areas’ In the tradition of the Byzantine liturgy, the Gospel lectionary begins with the reading from the Pro- logue of John used on Easter Sunday. An analysis of che complex system of lections shows that its seruc- tute reflects the tradicional principle of the ancient system regulated by lectio continua. The continuity of the text, based on selections of readings from che evangelists, is evident in such a way that we can still speak of a cycle of John, Matthew, Luke and Mark. The complexity of the Byzantine lectionary system stems in the firse place from the distinction between movable and fixed feasts, as they follow either the lunar calendar (i.e. Easter) or the solar calendar (i.e, Christmas). Secondly the complexicy stems from the gradual formation of the various cycles, in which a process of stratification is manifested, reflecting liturgical history. In some cases, however, the selection of pericopes illuserating the events commemo- rated during the liturgical year prevails. For example, in che cycle of John chae contains the scadings for the Easter period, che pericope for che Tuesday after Easter isa text from the Gospel of Luke (24. 12-35). Fora general aucline ofthe formation ofthe various liturgical traditions see che now classic seudy by A. BAUMS ARK, Limugiecomparie, Prinipes et méthodes pour létude historique de linugics chrticnnes, Troisiéme édition revue par Dom B. Botte 0.8. B, Cheverogne-Patis, 1953. Cotslegue of Bysentine Manusorpn. in Tice Eatangual Ca (renbat 2093) ps8 © BREPOLS & PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.CBM.1.101389 ote Subs Faaad Bys Klass Sov, Goranh Rovulrs &> Sutin Reyé MARCELLO GARZANITI which thus interrupts the readings from John. In a very old Jerusalem tradition the episode of Emmaus, told therein, was probably already attached to a stational liturgy celebrated on the third day of Easter’, ‘When Cyril and Methodius translated the Gospels from Greek into Slavic becween the years 860 and 870, before and/or during their mission in Moravia, the Byzantine liturgical year and the corresponding. system of pericopes were definitively fixed. The question remains, however, whether these brothers from. i in the first instance translated a lectionary or a Tetraevangelion’. The first handwritten testi- monies both to the lectionary and the Slavic Tetraevangelion only date back to the tenth to eleventh cen- turies, while in the Bulgarian and Macedonian region, in Preslav and Ochrid, and subsequently in Rus’ (Kiev) and medieval Serbia, the episcopal sees and monasteries were already transmitting the translation of the Gospels by Cyril and Methodius. More than a century after the first version, these testimonies fea- ture revisions and adjustments, according to new geographic-linguistic contexts, and corresponding to the different book forms and liurgical traditions from across the Byzantine world. “The organisation of liturgical celebration in the Byzantine-Slavic area was dominated from the very beginning by the influence of the solemn liturgy of the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Constantinople (Great Church), From an early stage this had been replaced by the liturgical model from monastic tradition, when the Constantinopolitan Studie Typikon played a fundamental role. It was only from the thir- ‘teenth to the fourteenth centuries onwards that the Sabaite or Jerusalem Typikon, which adhered more directly to Palestinian tradition, was imposed. In this book (the Typikon), which organises the whole livurgical yeas, a central place is given to indications of the biblical peticopes that are co be used during licurgical ceremonies, carting with the readings from the Gospels pronounced in che licargy. Throughout different historical periods this book has influenced the forms of the Gospel book, thereby determining evolutions and changes. 2. History of studies Until recent times the liturgical function of the Gospel book, which is reflected in ies various forms, had not attracted the attention of researchers, At the end of the fourteenth century, M. Speranskij, upon. reviewing the studies of G. A. Voskresenskij, already encouraged a comparative study of the Greek and Slavic Gospels, in terms not only of their textual differences, but also of the different forms in which the Slavic version of the Gospels had been handed down‘, However, it was not until the second half of the cwentieth cencury that a systematic study was made of the structure of the Gospel lectionary and the ‘Tetraevangelion in the Slavic region. The results are an important contribution natonly to our knowledge of the Slavic version of the Gospels, but also to the study of the Byzantine book. One of the frst scholars to acknowledge the importance of the structure ofthe lectionary for the study of the texeual tradition of the Gospels was L. Moszytiski As early as the 19 50s the Polish scholar offered alist of pericopes found in 2 Forthe history ofthe formation of che lisurgica! Byzantine calendar, with specific attention to the Byzantine lectionary (Govpa, Apostle tnd Pucinarion of he OT) al is ddason i the Sac ction sce hela yahas of AA Ala Biblia the insertion of che reading secetp loca waza, which prponed the een co tne eye fer Eater (A A. ALES. p68). The Gone paamge indeed he Emmaus episode: ‘Altogether three days have pased since allthis happened? (Luke 24.21). 3° This queaon was meaed mote eenly by Amol Aksoy onthe occasion of ein ofthe Gompeloffohn In he Slavic translation (A. A. ALEKSEEY, A. A PIéCHADzs, M. B. BABICKAJA, LY. AZAROVA. E. L, ALEKSEEVA, EI. Vanceva, ‘A.M, PenTKovsii, V. A. ROMODANOVSKAJA, T. V. TRACEVA, Eoangelic of Joanna v slanjantka/ radii, Sanka Pererburg, 1998, pp. 19-21), but the question remains unanswered, * (CAN Seaman Receaa M. ‘Speranskogo na trudy G. A. Voskresenskogo, Zapishi Impenatorskoj Akademi Nauk TOL $ (1899). 65. 36 ‘THE GOSPEL BOOK AND ITS LITURGICAL FUNCTION IN THE BYZANTINE SLAVIC TRADITION the oldest Slavic lectionaries and Tetraevangelia’, even though they were still ised by evangelist. In the 19708 Lidia P, Zukovskaja and Yvonne Burns made a decisive contribution, ja classified the various forms of the Slavic ecclesiastical lectionary on the basis of the arrangement and contents of the -pericopes in the section of movable feasts of the Synaxarion, but she deliberately left aside the fixed feasts of the Menologion, rich in variants and stratifications in the liturgical commemorations, that testify to the diversity of the structure of the lectionary. Although Zukovskaja was unaware of the results achieved by the Colwell school in Chicago, she was able to provide the basis for research into the structure of the fectionary and her results are extremely useful for studying not only the Slavic but also the Greek manu- script tradition‘, Bums, on the other hand, systematically compared the arrangement of the lectionary in the Greek and Slavic manuscript traditions. Not having any general results at her disposal either, the Eng- lish scholar gave substance to the idea that the study of the Slavic version could lead to an understanding ofthe structure of the whole Byzantine lectionary’. In the 1990s, E. Dogramadsieva studied the structure of the Gospel book, both the (Gospel) lectionary as well as the Tetraevangelion forms, analysing certain clements with a liturgical character in particular, and for private reading’. ‘Today the first results in this field can be enumerated: the catalogues of Cyrillic manuscripts nearly always indicate the form of the book (Gospel lectionary, Tetraevangelion); editions report the marginal annotations, which generally reflect the liturgical use of codices, and offer tables providing the scruc- ture of the text in a way that is more or less complete. Hypotheses about the reconstruction of the old- est manuscript tradition also consider the chronological relationships between the various forms of the Gospel book. However, it has to be said chat a great number of lectionary editions only contain a list of| ericopes in the appendices, arranged by evangelist, which are required to trace a certain verse or Gospel chapter. An exception is the edition of Vakan Gospel (Vak.), edited by J. Vnawa, which provides alist of pericopes together with an indication of the liturgical timetable. Moreover there are tables attached including an index of the text according to the traditional order of the Gospels (J. VRANA, Vickanovo Evandjelje, Beograd, 1967). ‘A closer look, however, reveals widespread terminological uncertainties and a limited understand- ing of the liturgical tradition vo which these refer, which makes ie difficule to distinguish the struceural that occurred throughout the centuries, It would therefore be fandamentally imporcant to learn ‘more about the Greck lectionary and the Greek version of the Gospels in the Byzantine period in general. ‘This requires further in-depth research. Often, as in the case of Burns and Dogramadzieva, scholars have tried to fill the gap with their own personal research. Therefore, analysts of New Testament Greek have to date made a great critical effort vo textually reconstruct the archetype, but in the process, because of its secondary importance, they have disregarded its history and especially the origin and development of the Gospel lectionary". 1 LMoszrees Sur-cerkewno showin apenot, Sade fle pli sowie (957) 37999s M. Ganzantrt, Die allslevische Version der Taplin Bechet echke end setgaache Recher lo Wimantvien con pp:214-238. 7” M.GARZANITI pp.229-234. * M.GanzantT, pp. 248-252. > For the abbreviaions used to indicate che manuscripts, sce the li of codices of Slavic Gospels published in Marcello Ganzanrri, Die altslavische Version der Evangelien, 2001, pp. 309-384. 7 ofesune macnn allo sa nto ech ofthe Brom owe le “The introduction to the study of the Gree lectionary dating fom the beginning ofthe cen the sen aby Grecort, Teak de New Teen als Legs go 1909 la, placer has be pad the chapet nh cer ich contain a call the lecrionary readings based sparc PosasedncsoP eT (CR. Guasonel spec. 307300 Foliage here bela of mance the leetion- aries (C. R. Grecon, I, 1900, pp. 387-464) and some notes a the end on new manuscriprs (C. TR Guscerr Ue i9oy Pi rant-1292), Fora: ion a che matter of the leceure system in che Byzantine liturgy, se P-M. Gy, ‘La question des ecrures de a lieargle byzantine,in Miscellanea liturgica in onore di SE. G. Lercaro,1l, Roma (1967), pp. 251-261. 7 MARCELLO GARZANIT For a description of che structure of the liturgical books containing pericopes from the Gospels it is bese to follow the traditional terminology used in New Testamenc studies. In particutar we speak of the seructure and the forms of a book, and not of the ‘type’ even though this term is widely used nowadays in Slavic studies, since Zukoyskaja’s research. This could be confusing, For, wichin the scope of New Testa- ment studies, the term ‘text type’ is used for the principal textual forms provided in the Greek manuscript tradition. 3. The division of the Gospel text into chapters Particularly complex, but of fundamental imporrance for the scudy of the manuscript tradition of che Gospels, is the division of the Gospel text into chapters. Uncertainties of terminology have further com- plicated this marcer, In manuscript tradicion we observe a threefold syseem 1. The sections of Eusebius, also called ‘chapters of Ammonius' or ‘small chapcers, are of ancient origin. According to tradition che Gospels were divided inco numerous sections, around 220 of which were by Ammonius of Alexandria, The sum of these chapters amounts to 355 for Matthew, 253 for Mark, 342 for Luke and 232 for John. There are, however, differences between these enumerations in Greek tradition as well as in Slavic eradition. In the fourth century Eusebius of Caesarea ingeniously creaced tables on the basis of this division, divided inco 10 canons, in- dicating the parallel passages of che Gospels, each accompanied by a leecer'®. Widespread in che Greek Tetracvangelia between the end of che ninth and che eleventh cencuries, these cables rarely appear in the Slavic Terraevangelia, In general, the sections by Euscbius are present not only in che Tetraevangelia, but also in the Slavie Gospel lectionaties, while in the Greek Gospel lection- aties they are far more exceptional", Normally in che Gospel lectionary only che first chapter is indicated, 2. The ‘great chapters’ (nea) are also of ancient origin and likewise show separate numbering per evangelise: Matthew is divided into 68 chapters, Mark into 48, Luke into 83 and John into 18 chapters, In the past there has been confusion between the indication of these chapters and the sections of Eusebius, under the name ‘chapters of Ammonius". In the Tetraevangelia a lise of chaprer headings is usually offeted before each Gospel, In the margin of the cext an indication of the headings, or only the number of the chapters is also inserted, This enables che reader to verify textual differences beeween the headings indicated in the margins and those in the peecedingists 3. From the second half of the fourecenth century, pericopes were numbered in the Slavic manu- scriptsin che order in which they appeared in the Terracvangelion, and not according to the order of che liturgical year, thereby zendering the sections of Eusebius superfluous, The numbering of ‘An updated introduction co the formation and the structure of the Byzantine lectionary was recenly published by D. M. Perras, ‘The Gospel Lectionary ofthe Byzantine ChnrehSt Vladimir's Toological Quarterly, 4. 9p. t15-140.For 1 satus qusestionis and possible seady perspectives sec E. VELKOVSKA. ‘Lo studio dei leionati bizancni, Eels orans 13 (1996). pp. 253-271 "CR, Grecony, Texthitit des Neuen Testamentes 1960-19091, 190% pp. 861-872. "For the edition ofche Greek vext see NA27, p 84'-89", CR, Gregory, Texthritil dey Neaen Testamentes 900-1909, 1900. 340. “HLE von SopeN already identified che sections of Eusebius with indications of cis different subdivision into chaprers (HE von Sopen, Die Sebrifien des Neuen Testumenes in ihrer dltesten erreichbaren Testgetalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Texigeachiebte, Gottingen, 1911-19131, typp. 388-432),a cause oferor in other scholarssuich a8 J. VARS (J. VJs, Ammoniova a Euschiova xepidleut v evangelijnich Kodexech staroslovanskych, Casopis Karolicktho Duchouensts, 69 (94). 3 (1928). PP: 257-265), See C. R. GREGORY, Texelrtik des Newen Testameste: 960-1909. Il, 1903, p. 859-861 38 ‘THE GOSPEL BOOK AND ITS LITURGICAL FUNCTION IN THE BYZANTINE SLAVIC TRADITION the pericopes is inserted in the margins of che text: Matthew generally contains 115 pericopes, Mark 71, Luke 114 and John 68, “There numbers have been given the name eaalo Gopi) a ron that later assumed the meaning of pericope. In the Tecraevangelion the combination of the three different types of numbering systems is very ex ceptional: while in the more ancient codices the ‘great chapters’ and ‘sections of Eusebius are found, in later codices the numbering of the pesicopes only accompanies the great chapters". The introduction of pericope numbering definitely led to a preference for che Tetraevangclion thereby making the Gospel lectionary book increasingly exceptional. 4, The Slavic Tetraevangelion Over che cenruries the Tetracvangelion, containing the Gospels in the traditional order, became enriched vith numerous elements (teal and nuaeial) that cn be diinguished inco ro groups, depending con whether they were composed in their inal form for the liturgy or for private °, Recognising the impossibility in the current state of research of determining the chronological limits of single ele- ments, Dogramadicva observes that in the Tetraevangelion some elements have probably been from the beginning (such as the Synaxation (v. fiz) and Menologion (v. inf) tables, and the tables for the cleven Sunday morning readings) and that other elements were added ata [ater stage. From the four- teenth century onwards, simultaneously tothe diffsion of the Jerusalem Typikon, a model was gradually imposed that provided new elements, such as prayers, or comments on the texts, which are found only in a few manuscripts and offen originated from other liturgical or para-livurgical books". This paper only ‘mentions the main components of the most widespread forms of this book, taking N. Nikol skis ever useful observations into account”. 1, Theintroductions to each Gospel by Archbishop Theophylact of Bulgaria and the closing formu- Jas that depend on them. We encounter them from the fourteenth century onwards. 2, The list of chapters (xedéAaua). The indication of the chapter, at times with numbers only, is also present in the margins of the Gospel text. 3. The letter of Eusebius of Caesarea and the sections of the canons of Eusebius. There are Tetraevan- gelia, as Zographensis (Zogr.), for example, which contain che number ofthe sections and canons of Eusebius in che margin of the text. The Gospel of Galizia (Gal, 1144) is the oldese Tetraevan- gelion containing the letter of Eusebius, with an explanation of the principles for understanding the table of canons, but not the table itself (sic!). 1 Docnaaananns hs sil dh ie ope of cl ron onthe bof shee Si cs (X-XV1 century) and six Greck codices (XEXV century) (E Docraqapzgva, "Tipove nomeracivkalendara na sednove- kviteslavjankl evveroevangeli, in Childs iosemdeset gedit ot smart na sx Naw Ochrids, ed, by M. BKEVAROV, E. DoGRaMAD2IRVA,S. NIKOLOVA, Sofia, 1993, pp. 173- a 4% E DoGraMabZinva, ‘Slavjanaijataprakos sled vivebdaneeo na jerusalimskija ustav; in Problems na Kirilo-Metodé- voto dela na Bilger katara rez XIV ve, Sofi, 2007 pp. 180-190 (Kirile Metodievst studi 7). eit In tis bok in Chor Shnithcrowed Grek te andi abbreviation general we tren ) and ( tetra (cewo), from G (rerpasvtyydion), bur denotations such as scent and exrebupee sess sand Mores Woe td oe te mane uaditon vay ve mica canbe bere. See Mats, Tes range eet 3-34 (303) 9B 430-467. ™ E.DocrAMADZIEVA, Sry na lyn kop éerveroevanglij Palacobulgarce,XVUL 3 (1993 1993), PP- 3-22- pe ME NaRoL a. Obed beat nig pense cok ocinlen b staou, Sane cerburg, 1858, pp. 310-316, 39 MARCELLO GARZANIT! 4. The indication of the pericope in the margins, pointing out the liturgical moment, the incipit and the beginning of the pericope. From the second half of the fourteenth cencury the pericopes be- ‘gan to be numbered in the order in which they appeared in the Tetraevangelion. The numeration of the pericopes was inserted in the margins of the text (v. supra). 5. Thedivision of the Gospel cexe into five parts corresponding to the five days ofthe week. From the end of the fourteenth century certain Tetraevangelia show this division, useful for private read- ings of the Gospels. 6. The list of Menologion and Synaxarion pericopes (v. infra) includes the eleven Sunday morn- ing readings and the pericopes for different occasions. For cach reading, the text indicates: the licurgical moment (day and week), the evangelist, the number of the Eusebius section (until the fourteenth-fifteenth century) or the number of the pericope (from the fourteenth century), the incipit, and the beginning and the end of the reading. The Synaxarion list begins with the peri- cope provided for Easter, bur there are cases in which the first pericope is che one for the Sunday of the Publican and Pharisee or the Sunday of All Saints, which is the first Sunday of Marthew (the Matthew cycle). ‘The same list can be presented in two separate parts. From the eleventh century, according to O. V. Loseva, the list of Synaxarion and Menologion pericopes began to be inserced at the beginning of the Tetraevangelion and the Praxapostolos in the Greek region, while in the East Slavic region this list was, up until the fourteenth century, always to be found at the end of the book”. 7. Tn later times, roughly fromm the fourteenth-fifteenth century, ables with additional information ‘were added co these lists (the aleduiarii, the cone of the Octocchos, etc.) or other lists of pericopes, arranged by evangelise, of the Synazarion or other parts, and with the pericopes of particular feasts and occasions, 8. Various hymnodic elements. 5. The Slavic Gospel Lectionary ‘The Gospel lectionary consists of pericopes arranged according wo the Byzantine liturgical year, Taken all together, even with the significant differences between the different lectionasies, the pericopes never contain the whole text of the four Gospels, ‘Asnong the more widespread prejudices concerning the structure of the Gospel lectionary, there is one that considers the pecicope system to be a rigid one that has undergone very few mutations. But, on the contrary, the peticope system has undergone numerous changes and adjustments, especially in the petiod of its formation within Greek tradition. In fact, in the Byzantine Gospel lectionary the series of Sunday readings, Saturday readings and the readings for weekdays were formed in subsequent periods, causing an internal stratification in the lectionarics. As a result, for example, textual differences can be observed ‘when a pericope is repeated in one and the same lectionary". With these structural mutations, there are also errors in the sequence of pericopes, the omtission of a certain pericope (or its repetition) and the ‘ensuing corrections", A. oda demerasich mejcsovoy XXIV v: Den Rat (4) (n01) p20 2 Whichis inevitably ako reflected inthe Slavic edition, and some even presume that similar developrnent took place Inthe conte sor ofthe Save wadon x was proposed by Ju Taman (M. GARZANITY, Die lade Vein der 2001, pp. 240-2 Fora shore, unsystematic excursur ofthe errs omissions and mutations in the sequence of pericopes inthe same seadingand in the rable see. P.ZUKOVSKAJA, Teksolopi jy dreoneich sand pamjatilos, Mose, 1976. 10-933. ‘THE GOSPEL BOOK AND ITS LiTUGICAL FUNCTION IN THE BYZANTINESLAVIC TRADITION In Slavic studies this book is generally called apnakos, which, in manuscript tradition, designates the lectionary containing readings from the Gospel or from the Epistles of Saint Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. The term aprakosis (prakosit) is derived from the Greek énpaxcrog, and is contained in the Greek expression that indicates the feasts (dmpaxcrot jépes), but in Greek the term has not been maintained in this form, nor with this meaning, In Slavic manuscript tradition the term evangelie icbornoc is also used, already attested to in che Codex Assemanianus (As.)”. “The matter of terminology is of great relevance considering that we are still in the phase of classifying the material. Following the tradition of New Testament studies, we will call the part of the Gospel lec- tionary that consists of pericopes for movable celebrations ‘Synaxarion, and the part with pericopes for fixed celebrations ‘Menologion’ Regarding the lists of pericopes of the Tetracvangelion (v, supra) - often ‘genetically called ‘Synaxarion’ and ‘Menologion’, creating confusion with the single parts of che Gospel lectionary ~ we prefer to speak of the lists of peticopes’ of the Synaxarion or the Menologion. Litur- sists and hagiologists have adopted a different terminology, adhering more generally to manuscript tradi tion, but with the risk of creating confusion™. Despite these terminological difficulties and uncertainties, which can not be ateributed only to scholars, bur also to the variety of terms that are present in the codices themselves, we should keep striving for a universally accepted definition of terminology. ‘The Slavic Gospel lectionary has two fundamental forms, detetmined by the extension of the first part, the Synaxarion, which contains the cycle of the movable feasts starting from Easter: 1. The Lectionary for Saturdays and Sundays (desk; in Russian generally krathsj apnakos ‘short aprar kos’), which contains the readings for the Saturday and Sunday of each week (oeBBaroxvpuaxal). ‘Readings for each day are only provided (®3ouABer) for the period from Easter until Pentecost; 2, The lectionary for weekdays (le; in Russian generally poly aprakes ‘complete aprakos’), which also contains the pericopes for weekdays (éBopdbec). However, for the period of Great Lent it only offers the readings for Saturday and Sunday". In addition to this form there is a heterogeneous group of testimonials, which we generically call ‘festival lectionary’ (/sk, dk; in Russian generally aprakos prazdnitnyi or voskresnyi, which means ‘festival apra- kos’or ‘for Sundays’) chat contains the readings for Holy Week and only for the Sacurdays and Sundays 2} The authoritative Slovnik jazyka sarosloodnsktho to the ieborind voice, quoting the actual testimonials of As. mistak- tans the oii fh eta in che GreckEnpreng (xp) neal he Greckcomesponden (the) eydoy (ee. Kanaviporoutos, “The Origin and the History of the Terms! ongaor! ‘and "Brangeliaion’, Orchodaxes Forum 2a (ig3hap 1783 sep. 181) ln meder mes therm rer nol onde tonne tein recent years in studies by L. P. onovasaje Dono toean Tilo drei ian pera. ‘0, 1976, 2415no31)- In a recent volume Anatoll ALEKSERY, on the tall of New Testament studies, rn dion fee Laan etme even hgh eds oe eons the eons sat ( (A. A. Auexsexy, Biblia v bogoluzenit i ekcionarij, 1008) * "For a short lst ofthe terms used among livurgiss, the study of Archbishop Sergi is sil valid (Archiepiskop Sergi Poly mesjaceslav Vostoka, vol. 1. 1 Vstotnai agile Vedi 1901, particularly pp. 3~ Mc hoogh ee defeiion of ince peal meaning of calenda ieot ling, OF pa eee che pea index nthe append teed sion ofthe Typikon of Messina (M. ARRAN2, Le Typicon lu monastre du saint-Sauveur & Messine. Cadex Messinensis 115 (121), Rama, 1960, pp 37649) According te gis he is of copes for dh mor ea as the ane “Canonazion while the is forthe fixed feass is termed'Synaxarion, in which can be distinguished te ‘complete Synaxarion book that contains, apart from the mention ofthe sain, also a small Vita of each saint. Together the ‘Canonation’ and the ‘Sarco’ comprise the agi calendar wih orb and ed parc and represent he principal cor ofthe Tpion. precy camee pede Ls costa dodcion tresce meen bea ofan ‘schol. ars, term end pecs ca ‘Codex Suprasiensis, the Mstislav Gospel, Stee) PP- 7-76, $¢¢ pp. 40-42). -cxciclses this definiion, because ic suggests the eristence ofan ‘abbreviated’ ‘shore aprakos (H. G. Lut, Ong Ey Sve mena the Case of and the Banica Gospel, International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics (MARCELLO GARZANITI (cxBBaroxuptaeal), or only for the Sundays (xupuexal) of each week of the liturgical year, usualy starting at Easter, but sometimes at Lent or Holy Week. There isa varied choice of readings. This lectionary often contains readings from the Epistles of Saint Paul and the Acts of the Aj , In Slavic manuscript tradition, as in Greck tradition, we have been handed down a book that contains readings from the Epistles and the Gospel ~ the so-called ‘Aposcoloevangelion’ (érootohoevaryioy, érroorohosuryy2ev). This book has substantially che same forms as the lectionary with pericopes from the Gospels. Following the tradition of New Testament studies, one can distinguish the gelion for Sarurdays and Sundays (Pest), che Apostoloevangelion for weekdays (Me) and che festival ‘Apostoloevangelion (sk, k). On the basis of the catalogues of Slavic manuscripts that have allowed us to construct a preliminary list of Slavic Gospel manuscripts, for many lectionaries containing pericopes from the Epistles of Saint Paul and Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel, we have been unable to say to which of these forms they belong”. 6. The Synaxarion “The Synaxarion"* contains the readings for the feasts of the liturgical year with a movable date, chose which follow the lunar cycle, starting from Easter. The readings are divided according to diverse cycles. 1. From Easter to Pentecost the readings provided are almost exclusively from John”. The cycle consists of seven weeks, containing eight Sundays, In the Byzantine Gospel lectionary different ‘ways of numbering these Sundays from Easter to Pentecost can be identified, reflecting the his- tory of this book, Following ancient tradition the oldest Slavic Saturday and Sunday lectionas- ies number the Sundays from one to eight, while the Saturday belongs to the preceding week. the name of Easter, the Greek codices prefer to call it ‘Resurrection Sunday, whereas the Slavic codices speak of the ‘Sunday of Light. Furthermore, the Slavic lectionaris also preserve % LP. Zuxovsnays, followed by other scholars, prefers o use the definition ‘very shore aprakos (wereld) (L_P. Ponovscat, Tlie tay donc centh penal, 1576 “ai we M Pecan ig ‘himself on definitions from New Testament studies (Sacurday-Sunday, Sunday, gives the firsta stricter meaning than the ta- ditional one, and uses the term ‘festive aprakos' for the lectionary with selected pericopes (Ise), which isnot, however, found Inthe Slavic area (A. A. ALExsERy, A. A PISCHADZE, M.B. BABICKASA, IV. AZAROVA, E. L. ALEKSEEVA. I. Vanceva, A. M,Pewrxovsny, V. A. RomoDaNovskaja,T. V. TkAcvA, Enanglic ot oenna vslayjansh tradi, 1998, Appendix Lp. 14), The presence of Apostle readings and the structural diversity ofthe known codices, regardless of linguistic arguments, in- duce one to reject the ancient origin, and even to question the very homogeneity of the group. Regarding the Greek lectionary C’R.Guacony mentions the exitenee of codices that contain only Seurday and Suntay ea readings (or only Sunday) oven only! iy ans fr way nd oberecona with ceed edi (C- Re Grecors, Ze 1909-19091. 340) \GaRzANITI, Die alislaische Version der Evangelien, 2001, pp. 09-584. % Recollecting the testimony of numerous Slavic (290) and Greck (6) codices, E. DoGRAMADEIBVA presents diferent Slavic lemmas present in the Tetraevangelion that define the ewo principal sections of the liturgical calendar, the Synaxation tod she Menolgion, bot in che lecioary. as inthe ables ofthe readings. Without dsngubhing becvee the lecdonais sod she Teracrangeli che chou ba identi etie offemas prsent inthe abi, which can desigats seins both ‘he Syarain (sven mms) or the Menolgin (ten Imma) In ance pesiod the tm snr was expecially com mon forthe Snazarion, and the lemma mar, withthe same ror, was tzed to indicae the Menologion. After the XIV cen- sury other terms such as skacanie(Bj\aow) and wher became customary too. From the XV century onvwards the term skazanie iseuomarly fond forthe Synaxaron, and siborni (oaper) fr the Menologion (E. Docamabzizva, Naxranij. kalendari skin cana lars, LXL (1952) Bp 45-434) wee Thee are hee exepdor of hich we ral he rice of he Tucan et Paes See GR. GREGOR, Trae ha Neuen Tatamente, 190-1909 1.9336,0-1, % HLM. Buck, The Johannine Lesions in the Greck Gospel Lectionary. (Studies inthe Lectionary Text of the Greck New Mme ancient name seventy sunudy ror reMLcvOse aN UIE puaLtice UE Casa UL eau GUS pel’ (evangelie), as is done in only a few of thé more conservative Greck codices (edayyihiov)", ‘When analysing the numbering and the designation of the Sundays in eighty-three codices of the Gospels (X-XIV century), Dogramadzieva encountered two different numbering systems in the cycle of John, whereby the counting searts either from Easter or from the week after Easter. Only certain Sundays that precede or follow the feast of Easter have their own designation”. The cycle is indicated with the name of John, 2, From the Monday after Pentecost until che New Year, in mid September, there is a series of peri- copes from Matthew for the feasts. In the lectionary for weekdays, readings from Matthew are provided for the weekdays of the first ten or cleven weeks, while pericopes from Mark are used in the following weeks. The cycle consists of fifteen to seventeen weeks. The cycle is indicated with the name of Matthew. 3. From New Year up until the period before Lent, a series of pericopes from Luke is provided for the feasts, with some exceptions. In the first twelve or thirceen weeks, readings from Luke are read in the weekday lectionary, while in the following weeks pericopes from Mark are read. This cycle consists of sixteen of seventeen weeks and is referred co with the name of the evangelist Luke, Zukovskaja has identified and analysed the principle differences in che scope of the cycles of Mat- thew and Luke, particularly focusing on the weekday readings for the seventeenth week and the choice for the first day of the week. The scholar presents a detailed scheme on this subject, based on the Mstislav Gospel, the codex GPB FP.L7 and the Miroslav Gospel”. In the same context Bums develops the analysis that identifies certain elements in Slavic tradition, which characterise the different forms of the Greek weekday lectionary, identified by W. C. Braithwaite, The dif- ferences in the numbering of the weeks, in the choice of the first weekday, the inversions in the order of readings, and the presence of supplementary pericopes that are found in the broad Slavic manuscript tradition, make this research a very complex one that has not yet achieved definitive results, 4. The period preceding Lent provides readings for the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee, che Sunday of the Prodigal Son, the Sunday of abstention from meat and the Sunday of abstention from dairy products. At times this cycle is closely united with the preceding one. 3 ¥. BURNS, “The Numbering ofthe Johannine Saturdays and Sundays in Early Greek and Slavonic Gospel Leetonaries, Palco,» 3 (1977) PP. 43-55. E, DoGRAMADBIEVA, ‘Ozaglajaneto na nedelnite dni v rannite slavjans evangelski kalendari; Palecobulgarica, xd, aa 13. cds with che Sundy flowing 14 Septem the ea ofthe Exon ofthe Cros adi placed ona dart fl bree the begining ofthe Byantine calzndar— he Spree and 2 September the dtc which he Birth ofJobn the Baptist is celebrated (Ch.. HANNICK, ‘Liturgiche Meckmale einer Besimmung der kirhlichen Einflisse inder Kiever Rus’ in The Legacy of Saints Cyril and Methodius to Kieo and Maou, ed. by A-E.N. TACHIAOS, Jaguepp 306 3151¢ 315) Weil ot dll on the elvan ofthe dates on an atronomic level orin the sope ofthe ton. % LP. Zuxovsxaya, Tstlogijai jazyk dremejich sanjansich pamjasnikon, 1976,pp. 273-283, able 10. ei jaayh dremel re ® W.C. BRAITHWAITE, “The Lection System of the Codex Macedonianus, Studies, § (1904), pp. 265-274. this manner one can schematise the analysis ofthe American schol. In the cycle of Matthew, the most ancient form, ded by ch Grek leer proves te ti of readings Gam Mathew og ess lowed y 8 wc fed inplna there ng fom ods te ered ect iegeeietee ate ites Matthew for 13 weeks followed by the $ weeks Soy Mac wie hf ole fis wk ria ety wet on ‘Mark (see also A. A. ALEKSEEY, Biblija v bogotlutenii. Vizantijsko-slayjanshij lekcionarij, 2.008, pp. 34-35) a MARCELLO GARZANTTI s+ For Lent, for which pericopes are also provided only for the feasts in the weekday lectionary, the pericopes read are from Mark, with the excepeion of ewo pericopes from John. The cycle com- prises five weeks (six Sundays, including Palm Sunday), This cycle bears the name of the evangelist Marlo, 6. Holy Week: readings are provided for the early morning service and the vespets of each day until the Liturgy of Holy Thursday. For the Washing of the Feet che ewo pericopes from John follow. “Then, usually, the twelve ‘Passion’ readings are presented, followed by the four pericopes for the hours of Holy Friday. Finally we find the eleven readings for che Sunday mornings, which some- times appeat at the end of the Menologion”. In Slavic tradiion, as in che Greek Gospel fectionary, the designation of the Sundays can vary, but we will speak of this when we deal with the lectionary rubric. 7. The Menologion ‘The Menologion” contains the readings for celebrating the feasts and the commemorations of the saints of the lirurgical year that have a fixed date, because they follow che solar cyele, starting at the beginning of the Byzantine calendar, which is "September. Excluding the twelve great feasts, there isa great variety bath in the choice of pericopes and alsoin che saints commemorated and in the feasts celebraved; this is due to different licurgical traditions and local practices of venerating certain saints, as testified by the dedication of different churches and sanctuaties. From a quantitative perspective also, there are major differences between the Menologia: some only con- tain the most important commemorations and feasts, while others provide them for almost every day of the year, When determining the origin of codices, references co local saints and sanctuaries in particular can be very useful”, “The systematic study of the commemorations of the saints in the Menologion, which can be quite useful for identifying the atea of origin of codices and of ecclesiastical tradition, has only recently started. In the more recent history of these studies, J. Vrana was one of the first to study che commemorations of the Menologion in order to reconstruct the manuscript history of lectionaties, also comparing the indications with the lirurgical apparacus of the ‘Tetracvangelion. Even more secendly E. Dogramadiieva, . Vakareliyska and O. V. Loseva have been working in chis field. The former published the results of her research in @ monograph®, In addition we should mention the numerous studies on the Menalogia of the single codices of of single commemorations, aimed at studying the veneration of saints and in general % Ac times five pericopes are inserved forthe vigils ofthe Girne week of Lene, called sbaryyDut ely ris marrryyiBug (see C.R- Gnucony, Texthrith des Newen Tete 901909 90.33 338-339, 361). Inthelistsomepaiopes in che appendicibe . Banica Gospel or of che priest Ioann (Ban.) are indicazed in che fotlowing manner: ‘coangelja po wag velery na ‘came mefmonitis Sete ten page dene ith i Cea CM aR inthe se week of Len (sce M. ANRANZ, Le Typicon da monasie di saint Sanneurd Mestn, 1969, 418). "The morning wading sx aoced by Mart ae out n some Saturday and Sunday lectonaries. stead, they ar¢ not imal boot aay andthe wekday krona Th son ofthe engin cour of ly da, which doe oat dow fr rnpingof he cds (Mans, Handa stra On Literatver aus dem ostslavischen in den Flan des 11. boce febendes Beto, pnb cd in the codices to designate his ection of the lectionary v. supra. n.14. » [Dutacy, ee senate Hiner be Noe Eocene atte blige en hommage au R. B.Rdda Rigaus, ed. by A. Descasers, A. D8 HALLEUX, Gembloux, 1970, pp. $09-545- 'Of Doonaatapiieva, Macecdowat dine o alanjnce ndlpin; coangelija (X-XVIT 0), Sofa, 2010. ‘THE GOSPEL BOOK AND ITS LITURGICAL FUNCTION IN THE BYZANTINESLAVIC TRADITION adding ta the knowledge of the history of Orthodox Christianiry. However, in order to reconstruct the history of the Slavic Menologion, one has to consider the broad context of the liturgical Byzantine-Slavic tradition, starting with the influence of the solemn liturgy of the Cathedral of St. Sophiain Constantino- ple, as is confirmed by a comparison with the testimonies of the Typikon'*. From the moment that the pericopes from the Menologion overlapped with the readings from the Synaxation, they were no longer presented in their entirety, but referred instead to the cycle, the week (or ‘Sunday) and to the day of the Synaxarion, citing the beginning (and the end) of the reading. Not infre- quently, however, che reference is incorrect, or it reflects the use of different models, There are also cases of internal references to the Menologion, and in some exceptional cases internal references are also found im the Synaxarion, This naturally reflects on the dimensions of this part of the lectionary. ‘Ashe end of the Menologion a special section is usually found containing alist of readings for various ‘particular occasions (na visdke potrébo, the dedication of a church, sickness, etc.), but also the common readings for certain categories of feasts. On the basis of eighty manuscript testimonies from the eleventh to the sixteenth centuries, especially present in Bulgaria, Dogramadiieva reconstructs the structure of this section, trying to identify che transformations that evolved in the course of centuries, After having considered the variants in the titles of the sections that are usually found after the Menologion, the differ- ‘ent occasions for which a liturgical celebration is provided are analysed in detail. In the history of this sec- ‘tion two periods can be distinguished. From the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries this section offers fewer liturgical services, the different occasions are joined under the same title and there is a great variety in the presence, indication, order and number of readings, which frequently reflects the Constantino- politan liturgical cradition. From the fourteenth ro the sixteenth centuries, a gradual process of stand- ardisation can be observed, related to the diffusion of the Jerusalem Typikon. The section that presents a more complex title, arranges the numerous occasions.with more permanent titles in four blocks: for the anointment of the sick; for certain categories of commemorations, already indicated in the Menologion; for certain rites, such as the monastic profession, the consecration of church etc; and finally for natural disasters, for special events and for confession. A tendency to standardise is also present in the contents and in the indication of the readings, which are referred to simply by the name of the evangelist and the ‘number of the pericope. In the great variety observed in chis section, the repetitions and errors are also of considerable interest”, fFocapelininay ners M.Gaxzan iodine Si ood alae di Vargo ‘Prima pare’ in Litugia eagiognfi tra Roma e Castantinoplt. Atti del Ie Seminario di studi. Roma ~ Grot- ‘aferrita 2000-2001, €4.by K, STANCHEY, S. PARENT, Groceaferrats, 2007, pp. 89-108 (the author has not revised the drfis!). Foran anal ofthe linrgal commmemoradons ofthe moet anit radon ofthe Slavic Gospel and ce Slavic “Apostle, ee M. Ganzanrry ‘Il culco del sand nella Slavia orcodossa: Is terimonianza dei libri del Vangelo ¢ dell Aporclo, ‘Svilupp store difasione geografc: Feredc bizancina ela formazion¢ della prima trdiaione manoscrtea(X-XL se) in ‘tempo dei santi na Oriente e Ocldente. Liturgiaeagiagrfiadaltardoansio al Conclio di Trent. Asti del 1V Convegno di studio (Libtseicione alan pelo sudo delle seni dee dellgingai. Prone 262 ire sone, by BENVENUT, ‘M.Ganzantr, Roma, 00s, pp. 317941 Forde ler eden of fe lecionare ss E. DOGRAMADEAEVA sled viveBdaneco ma ijaustav’, 2007, Recently C. VAKARELIYSKA compared the menologies ofthe Banica Gospel andthe Corson Gospel witha wide manscinscrpas(C. VAKARBLIVGRA, Te Carson Goel tn notated Ed Sin ing and Tdi New Yeh sp 689) e Wie * wit ee ee should be examined ethno any empl le the eiony fhe Conrnoplin pin wcll of} Maraos Manos, Le opto dele Grande Egle Me Suite Cros nyo te dade tnroducon, te ilu, naation nates vols., Roma, 1962-1963). '"E Doonanaptinva, Poca mena rac! na jah perv slerjanhie apo! venga Ss, 198. Ine ape again hol fern ohn a epearincon wth nd he ‘of Eusebios or the: ‘of the pericope and the occasion for which the reading was provided. I follows che ls of Liargical ‘celebrations with chee readings that also offers an approximate chronological indication of ther use. 45 MARCELLO GARZANITI , 8, Lectionary rubrics In the study of the structure of the Gospel lectionary, rubrics are of particular importance, representing its principal liturgical apparatus. Usually written in ted, rubrics indicate che day and the week for which the reading is provided and the Gospel from which the reading is taken. Generally the weeks (or the Sundays) are designated with a progressive number, while the days are designated by their names, unlike in the Greek which indicates them with a number, The first day of the week can be a Sarurday, Sunday or ‘Monday, also corresponding to the different cycles. A gradual tendency for standardisation can, however, be observed. In certain cases the feasts have a specific name“. In the rubrics the pericope is called ‘Gospel’ (stayy#tov), according to an old tradition found in only a few of the most ancient Greck lectionaries (eighth to tenth cencuries)". To this indication the number of the section of Eusebius (v. supra) is usually added, On certain occasions the prokimenis (mpoxelyevey) or the aleluiarit (&2x)\owdpioy) are also added; these are composed of one or more verses usually derived from a psalm, that precede the readings from the Holy Scripture. The aleluiarii specifically precede the Gospel reading. If'a second verse follows, the rubric introduces it with the term stichit (ottyos). Usu- ally the verses are not set out in fall: only the beginning is cited, sometimes the beginning and the end. Normally there is also an indication of the tone, or mode (glast, yos), which is the melody, according to which these verses are to be chanted, ‘Asseries of errors can frequently be found in the rubrics: errors in the day and the number of the week, errors in the numbering of the sections of Eusebius, in the aleluiarii, the name of the wrong evangelist in the Synaxarion and of the months in the Menologion, errors in the references in the Menologion. Such errors in the references could be very useful for understanding the structure of the lectionary and an im- portant element for the study of cheir manuscript tradition”, + Regarding the name of the first Sunday (or week) after Eater inthe Greek and Slavic lecclonary, see the interesting obseevations of Y. BURNS and H. . Lunt (Y. BURNS, “The Numbering of the Johannine Savurdays and Sundays in Early Greek and Slavonic Gospel Lectionaries, 1977, p. 53: H. G. Lun, ‘On Editing Early Slavic manuscripts, 1984, pp. 55-56). On this subjecr, see also the study of L. Moszyiski, which analyses the names of the feasts, days and months in AS. the Sevvina Book (Sk) and the Gospel of Ostromir and in the notes in che margin of the Tecraevangelia Marianus (Mar) and Zogg. (L. Moszyési, ‘Nazwry éwigechrzeleijafckich w najstarszych staro-cetkiewno-slowiafiskich rekopisach ewangel- jnych;, Filologia Polska, X. Jezykoznawstvo (1973), pp. 105-116) and the thoughts of Ch. Hanwicx about the days of che weck and the meaning of nedéfiz (Sunday and Saturday) in the context of the liturgical calendar (Ch. HaNNICK, ‘Za denslavschen Bezeichnungen Ri de Wochentage in Ar Pilogice Sion. Fesscrif fr Heinrich Kanarmann, eb V. SETSCHKAREFF, P. REHDER, H. ScHMID, Minchen, 1988, pp. 161-165). In che sixteenth-seventeenth centuries, in the ‘Russian area the term voskresenie (‘resurrection’) assumes the meaning of ‘Sanday, while in the same area nedélja comes to ‘mean only ‘week! ‘© Y, Burns, “The Numbering of the Johannine Sevurdays and Sundays in Early Greek and Slavonic Gospel Lectonasies, 197, PS ‘© "For an analysis of the psalm verses of the prokimenz and che aleuiari that are present in the most ancient Gospels and ‘Apostle codices, se Marcello Ganzanrri,'Psalmy tich perevod v Evangeili Apostole (X-XI w.); in Mnogokratnite prevodi @ sredncvchovie. Doklad! ot metdunarodnata kanferencij. Sofi 79 jul 005 g. ed. by L. TASEVA.R. MARTI, ‘M.Jovenva,T. PENTKOVSKAJA, Sof, 006, pp 57-90. ‘© “The matter ofthe Mstislav Gospel (Ms.) was noted by Lunt (H. G. Lun, ‘On Editing Early Slavic manuscripts: the (Cac ofthe Codex Supaicnsi the Metey Gospel and che Banica Gospel 198 pp. 4-43) 46 ‘THE GOSPEL BOOK AND ITS LITURGICAL FUNCTION IN THE BYZANTINE SLAVIC TRADITION 9. Lectionary pericopes ‘The pericope features initial or introductive formulas, of which the following six reappear most often**: 1. Vitono vreme (Ax thas time) WL. Rete gospodi svoimiz ucenikomis (Said the Lord to his disciples) TIL Rete gospodt kt pritidiastit kit nem: iudeomis (Said che Lord to the Jews that came to hima) IV. Rete gospodt kit vdrovaviisiimis kit nemu ijudeomii (Said the Lord to the Jews thar believed in him) V. Rete gospodi (Said the Lord) VL. Rete gospodi prititosijo (Said the Lord inthis parable) In addition to these there are other incipits that introduce particular readings. In the pericope, especially in the first verse, a series of adjustments occurs compared to the continuous Gospel text. Here, the beginning and the final verse may be summarised, or partly omitted. The adjust- ments, compared to the continuous text are called Ticurgical variants", In the study of the pericope, not only do the ixcipit and the explicit of the pericope acquire impor- tance, but also the composition of the pericope that generally contains a homogeneous fragment of the Gospel. In some cases, however, we find a composition of different passages. In book tradition changes in the contents of the reading can be observed, with additions, omissions or rearrangements". 10. Other elements of the lectionary structure Other elements in the structure of the lectionary can be observed. The division of the text may be in- dicated by miniacures, frames, tiles, initials etc... Unforvanately, studies of the ornamentation of texts frequently fail to consider its internal function in the coder, at times making the interpretation more SecA. b Ausenney, Die bopulatnt Vecantisho slajensijlekionar, 2008, p59. For the Greck text se DH, Droosren, Proems of Liturgical Lections and Studies, 1 (1904), pp-99-t07, but also E. C. Couwett, D. W. RIDDLE, Seudis inthe Lectionary Text ofthe Greck New Tesamment,1. Prolegomena tthe Study of theLection- 127 Ts ofthe Gare, Chicag, 1933p. 84 © Wehave patty laborated the observations of E.C. Couwat1, D. W. Rippizand A. A. Aexseav (E.C.Couwet, D,W. RipDLe, Studies in the Lectionary Tex ofthe Greck New Testatens, 1933, P- 2s A. A ALRKSEEY, ‘Grebeskl ekcionaaij { slavjanakj aprakos, in Litterae slavicae Medii Accs, ed, by J. REINHART, Minchen, 198s, pp. 11-17, ¢¢ p. 13), which can be summarsasfelowed: the subsnton ofthe pronoun withthe proper name) ie dropping of conjunctions, emporal adverbs, emporal objects or clauses; c che addition of the subject and the object co the verbs, and firs ofall che name of Jesus ‘othe verbs tha expres enunciation dl) the placing ofthe subject afer che verb % Following K. HORALEK, who speaks of ‘exrual eritical variant’ and of linguistic variants, A. A. ALEKSEEY distin. earual varianc' that date from original Greek, and ‘lexical varianc in which the Slavic version of the Gospels abound, ‘According to A. A, ALEXSzzV, from the moment the lirgical rariants appear in original Greek, chey ae counted a textual variants (A. A. ALEKSERV, N."Gretesilekctonae kj aprakos, 1985, pp 113) 15). In reality, however, the distinction berween ‘texeual variants’ and lexical varianes is noc ehae rigid. As was observed by Lunt, che key co certain lexical variants can also be found in the Greek text (H. G. Town ‘On Eling aly Save manusedp the Case of the Codex Suprastienss the Mesay Gopal and the Bana Goel 984) boctate foc th Fray of te oly Weck for example undergoes progreniv rerngemen: fi Lak 23.39-4} hea Marhey 1 avis ime which necraa eesonreshowere found in bbc jazyk drevacjich slavjanskich pamjatnikon, 1976, pp. 215-222). For some inceresting a vbogodutens. Vicenthes lekionary, 2008, pp. 7476. suggested extending the reset of miniarures and inkals 47 ‘MARCELLO GARZANITI In certain old lectionaries such as the OE and the Novogorod Folia (Kupr), ‘ecphonetie notation’ is present (From buhdivyons ‘read out loud’) for the ecto solemnis of the pericope. 11. Variants of the liturgical apparatus “This brief excursus through the structure of the books that contain the Slavic version of the Gospels re- veals the complexity ofthe liturgical apparatus of both the Terraevangelia and the Gospel lectionaries. An ‘examination of the manuscript tradition shows that che margiral liturgical notes, starting with therabric, offer an extraordinary amount of variants, displaying the gradual formation of Byzantine liturgical tradi- tion, which is reflected by the Slavic tradition. These variants of lirurgical apparasus, as textual variants, are nor only transmicted from codex to codex, but also ‘horizontally; when more than one antigraph is cused, when lists of pericopes are consulted, or when other liturgical books are used. This contamination, or total or partial collation of different models, leads co the phenomenon of ‘conflation, which makes it practically impossible to regroup the codices into families, Already in the most ancient tradition, a series of variants in liturgical apparatus can be observed. We have particularly examined the Synaxarion of the oldest lectionaries: che Glagolitic Gospel As. and the Cyrillic codices, Sk and OE. To these we have added the Vatican Palimpsest (Pal, Vat.) but also the Gos- pel of Arkhangelsk (Arx.), Here we are dealing wich Saturday and Sunday lectionaties. Ir would be very interesting to make a comparison of thelr structure with the marginal livurgical notes of Mat. and Zogr, and the list of peticopes thar are found at the end of CGADA Sin.tip.s of the XII century". Ina comparison of the structure of Sav., As., OE and Arch., Zukovskaja has already observed some of the principle differences: the inversion of the pericopes of the 6and 7 Sunday of the cycle of Luke in Sav. and Arch, compared to As, OE; the presence of different readings on the 174 Sunday ofthe same cy- cle (in Sav. the pericope is missing); the presence or absence of morning readings for Holy Week's. Even, variants in the indication of che incipit can be observed Here, however, we have only deale with the most evident differences, accompanied by a great number of variants. For the moment we will just offer a few examples of these in the appendix to shows the com- plexity of this analysis. craps in OE. The comparison with Greek lectionaries, mentioned only on the subject ofthe initials (but immediately de- essed genet caploraion (LP. 2uxovseay, Sf ney north steko pam io iskasstoa. Rakopisnaja kin. Sbornik otorg, ed. by V.N, LaZAREY, 0.1. PoDOREDOVA, S, O. SMIDT, Moskva, 1974, pp. 58-65). 3°G.P Storia della tradizionee critica del teste, 2° ed, Firenze, 1952 p-XV. 4 ALA-ALzKsetv, A.A PIocHADZE, M.B.BABICKAJA, LV. AZAROVA EL. ALEKSEEVA, EI. Vancevs, A. M,PENT- xovsxny, V. A. ROMODANGVSxEASA. T.V. Traceva, Evangelic of oanna vsayjanshaj adic, Sanka Peterburg, 1998, pp. a5 5” LP. 2uxovskaya, Teksrologiteskoeisledovanic nasledia Kirilla Flosofi in Konstantin Kil filosof Dolladi ot Sim- peciuma, pesveten na 1100-godilninata ot sudrtia mu, ed by B, St. ANGELOY, D. ANG2LOV, E. GEORGIEY, P, Divexov, K. 'M. Kozy, K. Minesy, Sofia, 1971. pp. 31-40 % Inthe past some variants in this field had already been observed. For example in Lk. 16, 19-31 As. and OE have the Sh ncpi while ip Sar. and Vok. thesia provided for). 30-, x OE asthe thir, where As and ak, prod the Gurth, In the first and second incipic in OE there is often an inversion in the order ofthe words, for which we ‘ween incipie I and incipn la (M. GaRZANTT!, Die aludersche Version der Evangelien, toonnappendr Themes nthe Serine wa prevosy noted by HG. Lr (3. Go, On Eng Eat Shave manusspe: he Cae ofthe Codex Soprastiensis, ‘and the Banics Gospel, p. 56). The presence ofthe second and ih incpi, che inversion inthe scondinc ptand he weaker cf ec nip rel our wetkoy lcoonares on coke hand er abeeved by LP. mre (BZ UROVREALA cs eagle vkrugeroderenaych pelt n edo ‘issoénikow po. a jazyka i pis mennesti, ed. vy 5. P. ZUKOVSKAJA, N. I. TARABASOVA, Moskva, 1966, pp. 44-76, Sce pp. 34-60, 68-70, oon B ‘THE GOSPEL BOOK AND ITS LITURGICAL FUNCTION IN THE BYZANTINE-SLAVIC TRADITION, 12. Conclusions From the beginning of the history of the Tetraevangelion and the Gospel lectionary certain variants and modifications have clearly emerged; when we stady them diachronically, we can make an adequate classification of the marctial. Of course this research must not only be limited to the Slavic domain, but should consider the broader context of manuscript tradition in the entire Byzantine region. ‘The history of each form of this book is not axsonomous; not in its origin, because from the very beginning one form has depended on the other; nor in its development, since in the course of textual tradition, all forms have influenced each other and have participated in the very complex history of the development of the liturgical books. In the Slavic region, alongside che controversy about the book form of the first translation of the Gospels, experts are still discussing the origin of the weekday lectionary. According to some, this is the original form (J. Vana), for others it originated in Russia at the end of the eleventh, beginning of the twelfth century (Voskresenskij and Zukovskaja). Others again believe that it had already been formed in the Bulgarian region in the tench cencury, and that from there it spread into Russia and Serbia (Dobrev, Alekseev). Our knowledge of the so-called festive lectionary is still too limited. Ir does, however, concern «a form of later origin, common in the poorer communities that could not afford two separate books; a Gospel and the Epistles of Saint Paul and Acts of the Ay ‘The role that the lists of pericopes found in the Tetraevangelion and the ‘Typikon have played from the beginning, for the entire liturgical year, should not be forgotten: the struccure of the first Slavic lectionary and the following modifications probably go back to these lists. According to Burns, the starting point of Slavic tradition could have been an actual list of pericopes and the Tetraevangelion text, after which additions were made on the basis of other lists. The presence of the numbers of the sections of Eusebius in the lectionaries, whiich appear to be useless in this book, would testify to this”. Given the complexity ofthe operation, K. and B. Aland observe that save some rare exceptions, this could have happened only in the initial phase of manuscript tradition’*, In the Saturday and Sunday Gospel lectionary the influence of the Typikon of the Great Church in Constantinople is evident, while the weekday lectionary in its archaic form (Mir.) depends on the liturgl- cal Tetraevangelion. On the other hand, its innovative form (Mst.) is based on the Saturday and Sunday Iectionary. Anyway, due attention should be paid co the relationships between the Gospel lectionary and the ‘Tetraevangelion and the whole complex of liturgical books, first and foremost the Typikon. In the light of this reflection the study of the Gospel manuscripts assumes a new orientation: the single ‘verse can no longer be considered che only reference unit, but also the division into chapters, the division into pericopes. The need emerges to analyse the materials offered by the rubrics, che liturgical notes and the appendices. The elaboration of these data will contribute to the reconstruction of the structure of the books, identifying the fundamental stages of the Slavic version of the Gospels in the broader context of the Byzantine tradition with greater certainty. ( 5 Y, Burns, ‘Some Aspects of Slavonic Gospel Manuscripts and Their Greek Counterparts; Polata Kitnigopisnaja, 7 1983), pp. 77-85. Seep. 82. "at Rratan, Baan, Tg Tet ofthe New Tcament tn Inirdustion a be Cra Eitons and the Totory and Pac te of Modern Textual Criticion, Grand Rapids-Leiden, 1987, pp. 165-166. 49 MARCELLO GARZANITT Remarkable variants of the liturgical apparatus in the most ancienc Sl Appendix lectionaries Codex] Chapter [ Pericope Name fease Tncipie John Sunday 2 Sk agversy. Jh Shao. 09-31 ‘Apostle Thomas Seigju pat). pozdé As ovo. Jha [Jha 2 Antipascha Sobeju poadé PalVac J rsaeriav.(3-4) [fhar3 |Jh.20, 19.26 2 Antipascha Selsju poulé OF town, Jhaty |Jhotgs1 1 ApostleThomas Settju pozdé Friday 5 As 33-23%, how Jh.t0, 17+ [Friday 5 1 Palvac | asv48-a8u Jhoz Jb. 10,17-50 Friday 5 ut (28-30) OE 3657 Jhoz Thi10, 17-28 Friday 5 HL Bex |6va7 Jha Throy 17-36 Friday 5 0 Sunday 7 Sk Jhi93 (Jhrz.ery Sunday 7 I As Jh. Shays Sunday 7 Fathers of Nicea_| 1 OE Jhass [Shapers Sunday 7 la Are Jhesy [Shanes Sunday 7 318 Fathersof —|1 Nicea Matthew Sunday 1 ater Pencecoste Sk 33033 M8; | Muro32. Sunday 1 after Pentecost. | Tl 3437-39.40% 19, | All Saints 27-30 As Sea Mr Mc.10. 32°33:37-39% | Sunday # after 50. All Saines | 17 19,27°30 Aleluiarii PalVat | g-ov.31 (43-45) | Megs ‘Mc-10, 32-33.37-385 | Sunday 1 dopo Pentecost | Ha, 19,3730 (here follow two illegible lines) OE sivgon Me93 Me.to, 32-53.37-38: | Sunday 1 after 50. All Saines | a 19.3730 Arc 25726 Mr Me.10, 32°33. Sunday 1 after Pentecose. | II AllSaines. Aleluiarti 50. ‘THE GOSPEL BOOK AND ITS LITURGICAL FUNCTION INTHE BYZANTINESLAVIC TRADITION Codex Chapter] Pericope Name feast Tncipic Sunday 9 sk fon Med. 23-25, 25-34 | Sunday 9 1 AS sivoga Me [Mera ays Sunday 9 afer 50 L OF [gen Meea7(r48)| Meng 23-34 Sunday 9 after 50 b Am [36537 Mes | Meigaa-34 Sunday 9 I Sunday 15 Sk 49-49%. Me. Mes, 35-46 | Sunday 15 I AS 49-49% Mezzg | Men. 35% Sunday 15 afer 50 I PalVac__| 16v.57(s8-s9) | Mezz4 Me 22 35-46 Sunday 15 after 50 I OE [8-85 Measo® | Mes2.35-46 Sunday 15 after 50 la Ace [46-46 Measa® [Maa 35-46 Sunday 15 I Luke Sunday 6 Sk Lk Lks, 41-56 Sunday 6 T As Lk 83, Lk.8,27-35.38-39 | Sunday 6 of the New Year_| I OE Lis} Lk8.37-39 Sunday 6 of the New Year _| Ta Are Lk Lke8, 45-56 Sunday 6 I Sanday 7 Sk sne57 Lk 1k8,3759 Sunday 7 I As 57-58 Lk 8s Lk. 841-56 Sunday 7 of the New Year| OF | to0-101%. Lk 8s Lk. 8. 41-56 Sunday 7 of the New Year| la Acs | $557 Lk Lks 1739 | Sunday7 1 Sunday +4 Sk 66-66y. Lk22y | Lkry.3-10 Sunday 14 v AS 65-655 Lana | LkaS.35-43 Sunday 14 of the New Year| 1 PalVac | G3y. (70) Lkaay | Lea8. 35-43 Sunday 14 of the New Year_|1 08 [rev Leas | Lkr8 35-43 Sunday ryoftheNewYear [Is | Are 66x67 Lka24 Lka8, 35°43, Sunday 14 1 In the apparacus: st isexplained that che chapter refers to the Sunday 1 afer Pentecost. “The numbers confused with the one in the subsequene cubic. “The editor has not read the last letter coreeetly which has co bed (4) and not 1 (30) Codex & Chapter [Pesicope Name feast | Incipit Sarurday 15 ‘Sk J 66x87 Lk Lk.18, 2-8 Saturday is | VI As 65¥-56 Lk 15(?) Lkay.3-10 | Saturdays of ]V 1 the New Year PalVae 62x.(70) Lk 198 Lk17.3-6 Sarurday 13 of |V the New Year OE Tavisy |Ukige Lkaz.s-t0 | Saturday 15 of |V the New Year Are 67-468 Lkia4 Lka7.3-10 |Sarurdayts _|V | Mark Holy Tuesday sk 90¥-93%. jJn(sic!) 260 [Meaa.sé-s1: | Tuesday ofthe ] IT as. 131% Great Sunday As B4y-87 Me 207 Me4.36-51; |Tucsdayofthe | Ia 25) 1-315 26, ‘Holy Sunday 12 PalVar a2-22v. (95-96) | Mta6o Mead. 36-51; | Tuesday ofthe | Ila as, sat Hoty Sunday OE vaswisan, | Me26o Me24,36-43; | Tuesday ofthe [IT "| asv1-3a:26, | Great Sunday at Ar 85-86%. : Mr. 25, 26-46% | - Literature KK. ALAND, B. ALAND, The Text of the New Testament. An Introduction to the Critical Editions and the Theory and Practice of Moder Textual Criticim, Grand Rapids-Leiden, 1987. A.A, ALEKSBEY, 'Greéeskij lekcionsrij i slavjanskij aprakos, in Literae slavicae Medti Aevit, ed. by ). REDWKART, Mimchen, 1985. pp. 11-17. A.A. ALEKsEEV, Biblije v bogosludenii. Vizantijsko-clavjanshjlekcionari, Sankt-Peverburg, 2008. tnchemargin of 2s. 1 anincipieisindicated (fr che Sacurday 15 of Marthew). Ths verse begins with the capital (letcer) T.Atv gabe exliceof te reading tndleted inthe margin. Inthe vre hereare ow capt (Pn che se place he incipic of che Sunday 16 of Matchew is indicated. ln dhe margin of verse 29 the explicic isindicared. Before v 31 one can read ‘ashore rubric with the indication ‘and this explicic for the Sunday of the abstention of meat. © In 24. 42 one can observe a: 'B. In the margin of 24.48 an explicie is indicated. The verse begins with the capical ‘In che margin of 2s 1, an incipivis indicated. In che margin of 25,29 an explicc is indicated, and in the margin of 25.31 an incipicis indicated. After v.31 one can fead a shore rubric With the indication ‘written forthe Sunday of abstention of meat sock it chere. And add this atthe end? “These are the verses the editor has deciphered. In che margin of 24, 42 is indicated an ineipl. © Marthow. 5.1 begins with the decorated letter (capital) T; Matthew 25.14 with the decorated lercer Jas Marthew. 25. 31 with the decormed leer Je. “The lacunaisincerropted at Matthew 25.26, 52 ‘THE GOSPEL BOOK AND ITS LITURGICAL FUNCTION IN THE BYZANTINE-SLAVIC TRADITION AA. Aunaseev A Pecmuses, M.B. Banicxaya, LV. Azanova, E. L. ALEKSEEVA, E. L VANEEVA, A. ENTKOVSKY, V. A. ROMODANOVSKAIA, T. V. TkAGeva, Evangelie ot Joanna v slavjanskoj radia, Sanke-Peterburg, 1998. ° M Annan, Le Tipo dt mast du int Senver 4 Mein. Codex Messinensis gr.r1s (aD. 1132), Roma, 1969, ‘A. BAUMSTARK, Liturgie compante, Principes et méthodes pour Fétude historique des liturgies chrbtiennes. Troisiéme dition reoue par Dom B. Botte O. S. B., Cheverogne-Patis, 1955. ‘W.C. Bratrnwarrs, “The Lection System of the Codex Macedonianus, Journal of Theological Seudies, 5 (1904), P-265-274. H.M. Buck, The Jobannine Lessons in the Greek Gospel Lectionary, (Studies ix the Lectionary Text ofthe Greck New- Testament, vo. Il, . 4), Chicago, 1958. Y. Burns, “The Numbering of the Johannine Sacurdays and Sundays in Early Greek and Slavonic Gospel Lection- aties, Palacobulgarica, 2.2 (1977), pp. 43-55 Y¥. Buans, ‘Some Aspects of Slavonic Gospel Manuscripts and Their Greek Counterparts, Polata Kiinigopisnaja, 7 (1983), pp. 77-85. E.C. Couwets, D. W. RIDDLE, Studies in the Lectionary Text ofthe Greck New Testament, |. Prolegomena to the Study of theLectionary Text ofthe Gospel, Chicago, 1933. E, DocraMAb2ieva, ‘Nazvanija na bogosluzebnice kalendati v slavjanckite rikopisni evangelije, Slavia LXL4 (1992), pp-425-434 E, DocraMAbZieva, ‘Tipove nomeracii v kalendara na srednovekoviteslavjanski éerveroevangelij, in Chifja- dai asemdeset godini ot smarixa na sv. Naum Ochridsk, ed. by M. BACVAROY, E. DOGRAMADZIEVA, S. NiKoLova, Sofija, 1993, pp. 173-178. E, DoGRAMADZIEVA, ‘Sistav na slavjanskite rikopisi derveroevangelija, Palaeobulgarica, XVIL 2.(1993).Pp- E. DocRAMADZIEVA, ‘Ozaglavjaneto na nedelnite dni v rannite slavjanski evangelski kalendari, XXIL 2 (1998), pp. 3-13. " E. Docramanzigva, Pakecalecét toangelija razlitni na vsjaka potreba’v savjanskiterikopisni evangelija, Sofa, 1998. E, DogramaD212VA, ‘Slayjanskijat aprakos sled viveLdaneto na jecusalimskija usta, in Problem na Kiril Me- todievoto deloi na Balgarska huleura prea XIV vek, (Kirilo-Metedieuski studit 17), Sofia, 2007, pp. 180-190 E. DoGramap21eva, Meseceslounite Cerioa v slavjanskite rakopisni evangelija (X-XVII v.), Sofia, 2019, P.H. Droostan, ‘Proems of Liturgical Lections and Gospels, Journal of Theological Studies, 6, x (1904). PP-99- 107. J-Dur1acy, ‘Les lecionnaires et 'édition du Nouveau Testament grec; in Mélangesbibliques en bommage au RB Béda Rigaux, ed. by A. DescaMps, A. DE Hattzux, Gembloux, 1970, pp. 509-545. M.Ganzantrs, Die alslavische Version der Evangelin. Forschungigeschichte und zeitgenésische Forschung, KSln- ‘Weimar-Wien, 2001. M, Ganzanrrt, ‘Il eulto dei santi nella Slavia ortodossa: la testimonianza dei libri del Vangelo ¢ dell Apostolo, Sviluppi seoricl e diffusione geografica: leredieA bizantina ¢ la formaxione della prima tradizione mano- scriea (X-XI sec); in Il rempo dei santi tra Oriente ¢ Occidente. Liturgia e agiografia dal tardo antico al Concilio di Trento! Asti del IV Convegno di studio deltAssociazione italiana per lo studio della santita, dei caltie dellagiografia, Firenze 26-28 ottobre 2000, ed. by A. BENVENUT!, M. GARZANITI, Roms, 2005, pp 31rs4t ‘M.GARzaNrTI, 'Psalmy iich perevod v Evangeliii Apostole (X-XIvv.);in Mnogoknaniteprevodi vjutnaslavjanskoto sredncvckovie, Dokladi of mekdunarodnata honferencha. Sofa 7-9 juli 200s ged, by L. TasEVA, R. MAR- ‘TLM. JovGEvA, T. PENTKOVSKAJA, Sofia, 2006, pp. $7-90. ‘M,Garzanr71, ‘ll culo dei santi nella Slavia orvodossa alla luce dei libri del Vangelo e dell Aposcolo. Prima parte; in Liturgia e agiografia ¢ tra Roma ¢ Costantinopolt. Atti del Ie LI Seminario di studi. Roma — Groteaferrata 2000-2001, ed. by K. STANCHEY, S, PARENTI, Grottaferrata, 2007, pp. 89-1 C.R.Grecony, Texobritik des Newen Testamentes, 3 vols, Leiprig, 1900-1909. 3 MARCELLO GARZANITI PeM, Gr, ‘La question du systdme des leeeures de la licutgie byzantine’ in Miscellanea liturgica in onore di S. E. G. Lercaro, II, Roma (1967), pp. 251-261. ‘Ch. HAnNrcK, ‘Zu den slavischen Bezeichnungen fis die Wochentage, in Ars Philologica Slava. Festschrift fir Heinrich Kunssrann, ed. by V. SeTSCHKAREFF, P, REHDER, H. SCHMID, Miinchen, 1988, pp. 162-165. Ch. Hanwicx, ‘Linurgische Metkmale einer Bestimowung der kischlichen Binfldsse in der Kiever Rus’ in Tbe Legacy of Saints Cyril and Methodius to Kiev and Moscow, ed. A-B, N. TacutA0s, Thessaloniki, 1992, 306-519, L.Kanaviborowuas,"The ‘Origin and the History of the Terms ‘Evangelistarion’ and ‘Evangeliation’, Orthodaxes Forum 7, 2.(1993)s pp. 177-183. (0.V.Loseva, ‘Periodizacija reverusckich mesjaceslovov XI-XIV vi Dreunjaie Rus's (4) (2001), pp. 15-56. HG. Lun, ‘On Editing Early Slavic manuscripts: che Case of the Codex Suprasliensis, the Mstislav Gospel, the Banica Gospel’, International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics XXX (1984), pp. 7-76. R.Marrt, mt Hendsf Text - Textgruppe - Literatur, Untersuchungen zur inneren Gliederung der frdben Literatur 5 dem astslavischen Sprachbereich in den Handschriften des 11. bis 14. Jabrbunderts, Betlin, 1989, R Mann, "Tea Evangelist; Starobdlgarskata literatura, 33-34 (2005), pp. 458-467. J.Marzos, Le typican de la Grande Eglse. Ms, Sainte-Croix n°4o, X-esitle, Introduction, texte critique, traduction «et notes, 2 vols., Roma, 1962-1963. L.Moszyfisxr,‘Staro-cerkiewno-slowiafski aprakos in Studia zfilologii polskiej i slowiatskie}, > (s987).p. 373° 395. LL. Moszxiiskr, ‘Naswy éwige chrzelcijaishich w najarszych staro-cerkiewno-slowia“skich rekopisach ewangeli- jnych, Filologia Polska, X. Jezykoznawstvo (1973), pp. 105-116. nN Naxos, boone bp lig proved roe rl po omaeni ic exkomnome wt, Sankt Peterburg, 1858, pp. 310-316. G. Pasquats, Storia della tradivione e critica del testo, 2° ed. Frente, 1952. D.M. Petras, The Gospel Lectionary ofthe Byzantine Church, St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 41,2-3 (1997) pp. 133-140- Archiepiskop SerGu, Poly) mesjaceslov Vostoka, vol. 1 Vstotnaja agiologij, vol. SyjatejVastok, Vladimir, p01". HL.E-von Sopen, Die Schrifen des Neuen Testaments inibrer ilsesten erreicobaren Texigestalt hergestelltaufGrund Ahrer Textgeschichte, Gottingen, 1911-1913. M,N. SPERANSKAJ, ‘Recenzija M. Speranskogo na trudy G. A. Voskresenskogo’ Zapiski Imperatorskej Akademii Nauk I, 5 (1899), pp- 27-151. J. Vays, “Ammoniova a Busebiova xegd\a v evangeliinich kodexech staroslovanskjch, Casopis Katolicktho Ducho- vensins, 6 (94), 5 (1948), pp. 257-263. C.Vakarstrysxa, The Curzon Gospel, 1. An Annatated Edition, I..A Linguistic and Textual Introduction, 2 vols. New York, 2008, E. VELKOVSKA, ‘Lo studio dei lezionari bizantin!, Eelesia orans, $3 (1996), pp. 253-271- J. Vrana, Vikanovo Evandjele, Beograd, 1967. L. P, ZuKovskaya, ‘Jurevskoe evangelie v krugu rodstvennych pamjamikov; in Ieledevanie istoénikou po istorii russhogo jazyka i pis mennosti, ed. by L. P. ZuKkovsKaja, N. I. TARABASOVA, Moskva, 1966, PP. 44-76. LP Zonovseaa, ‘Sit inutenija izobrazieelinych sredstv i tekstologii pamjatnika’ in Drevnerusshoe iskusstvo. niga, Sbornik vioroj, ed. by V. N. Lazanzy, O. L Poposgpovya, S. O, Ssapt, Moskva, 1974 pp. $869. L.P.Zuxovsxaya, Teksologiéeskoeissledovanienasledija Kila Filosofs in Konstantin-Kiril fletof Dobladi ot na 1100-gedibninata ot smértia mu, ed. by B, St. ANGELO. D. ANGELOV, E. GEOR- tev, P. DINexov, K, M. Kuzy, K. Mintz, Sofi, 1974, pp. 31-40- L.P. Zucovsxasa, Tekstologija i jazyk drevnejtich slayjanskich pamjatnikov, Mska, 1976, Greek and Slavic manusciipits‘with biblical content Annotations toward the construction of new catalogues Marcello GARZANITI (Florence) Abstract ‘There area number of shortcomings in traditional catalogues of Gieek and Slavic imanuscripes with biblical con- ‘tents, for exarnple the focus on linguistic feanures that point to a codex’s national origin eg: Bulgarian or Macedo- nian. A new approach to cataloguing these manuscripts is offeted. Since che lirurgy was the nacaral secing ofthese codices, they should be catalogued according to their liergical function, Greek and Slavic manuscripts should bbe catalogued together because they share the same liacgical function, Their comparison will lluminate specific aspects and forms of manuscripe tradition. Some ideal features ofthis new codico-lirurgical catalogue are listed, including the construction ofa hierarchy of codices according to thei lieargical function, The arvcle finishes with some suggestions for those who may embark on constricting such a catalogue. 1. The aim of traditional catalogues ‘A new classification of Greek and Slavic manuscripts of biblical contents from a liturgical point of view represents an important step in out knowledge ofthe Christian Bast. This point of view reflects the idea of sacred sctipeare in the Eastern churches, developed during a long-established tradition, especialy in the monastic environment. cred scripeure is not oily a bodle for personal reading, but is contained in ‘fragmentary form in a complex system of books, with a mainly liurgical use or function, Traditionally, the place of proclamation and inverpretaton of sceipcure sche liturgical celebration, My focus heres the Slavic orthodox world, but itis possible to extend this idea to the whole ofthe Christian Ease: “In Church Slavonic liceraeure the ist works to be translated and spread had a licurgical or paraliturgical function. This created a general perception of a body of holy books (sylaHlennye knig) chat extended far be= yond the Holy Seriprures, to the extent that the distinction sometimes became blurred. The core elements of this body of liturgical and eanonic books were the Gospel, che Apostles and the Psalter, but ir gradually x- panded to include all the writings which in some way commented on and actualized the Christian message ‘At lease in an easly phase chis body of works must have included numerous Apocrypha, a is testified by the manuscripe tradition and the abundance of citations in Church Slavonic literature (..). Even specifi cally anonic books like the Nomocanon, traditionally assumed to have been translated by Methodius, was one of the ‘holy books. Of fundamental importance forthe creation and development of the ecclesiastical ingriution, these books were essentially based on che Holy Seripeures. They represented an artempt to make the Scripaures historically eopical and atthe same time were an indispensable tool for the realization of the sacramental and liturgical life oflocal churches. Following che interpretation of. Goldblare with regard co the Skazanie o pismenech of Konstantin Kesteneckij, the whole body of scripeutal and licurgical books could Catalogue of Bycancine Manuscripts a Ther Litgleal Comet: Sibi 1, Edt Byt Klaas Sprook, Gard Reasbort & Siefion Reyé (CFiernbowt 013) pp. a81-248. ‘©BREPOLS & PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.CBM.1.101399 MARCELLO GARZANITE be defined as the book of the Slavs". Specific esearch needs co be carried out into the notion and evolution of complex of holy books' in the literary tradition of Slavia Orthodox. “The idea of a biblical canon chat is distinguishable from the complex of liturgical and canonie books, and ‘of an exegetic literature distinct from homilecics and apologetics, only became esablished ina later age with the emergence ofa learned monasticism. If-we look at the traditional catalogues of Greck manuscripts of biblical contents, we observe that the dominant aim in the classification of manuscripts is the reconstruction of the original text. From this point of view the fundamental question is co indicate the date and the form of the codex. Generally, preference will be given to the most ancient manuscripts, especially chose with continuous text, hypo- thetically nearer to the form of the original text. From there derives the fundamental role of papyri and the attribution of secondary value to other textual forms and co other versions. ‘There are also other clas- sification criteria with different aims. These may be codicological criteria or artistic criteria (for example the presence of miniatures). This shows the dominance of differene disciplinary interests in the analysis of Greek manuscripts of biblical contents, even though their function remains principally of a liturgical kind. There are naturally exceptions, such as che catalogue ediced by Herbert Hunger and Christian Han- nick'. ‘The main aim in the research on Slavic manuscripts, regardless of the reconstruction of an oldest ver- sion, are the linguistic Features of the manuscripts as witness to the ‘national origin’ of the codex. The codices are ordered according to their national affiliation: Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian, Russian et cetera, Textual reconstruction plays a secondary role, also because the possibility of reconstructing the ancient Cyrillo-Methodian version is quite remote. Moreover, in the field of the Slavic manuscripe tradi- sion, chere are various classifications on the basis of disciplinary criteria, instead of functional criteria. In the past [ have expressed my opinion on the limiced usefulness of catalogues of Slavic manuscripts: “Von groBem Nuczen beim Studiom der Serukeur des Evangelienbuches konncen die Handschriftenbe- scin, die sich in den zahlreichen in den leezten Jahren erschienenen Katalogen finden. Zivar wie in der Einleicung erwihne, niche einzeln behandelt werden, doch mu leider allgemein fesegestelle werden, da8 sie 20m groBen Teil unzurcichend und gelegentlich unpriaise sind. Zumeisc be- schrankt man sich daraufanzumerken, ob es sich urn cin Tetraevangelium oder um einen, ‘Aprakos' handel, die linguistische Redakcion anzugeben, denen die Handscheif. angehdre sowie natirlich das Material, die Datierung, die Ausschilickung usw. In der Meh2ah! der Fille ist es unmdglich, eine Vorstellung vom In- hale des Buches 2u erhalten, der, wie wir geschen haben, in der Serukeur becrichdliche Varianten aufweisen kann, Auch die besten Bescheeibungen geben der Strukeur des Buches nur knappen Raum und beschranken sich zumeise auf den paliographischen Aspek«, der der Bestimmung von Entstehungszcie und -ort dient. Niche cinmal der von Tichomirov herausgegebene Handschriftenkatalog bildet eine Ansnahme, der mit \ H.GotpnLarr, Orthography and Onadoxy. Constantine Kosenethis Teatse on the Letters, Bitenae, 1987, p- 227 » G. Fedotov’s opinion is generally quoted soda: tn Russa, the notion of che Biblical eanon, distinguishing strongly beeween inspiced Moly Seriprureand the works ofthe Fathers. never existed. Al religious writings were called saced and divine insofar as they were not heretical’ (G, P. FEDOTOv, The Russian Religions Mind, I. Kievan Christianity, Cambridge MA, 1946, 43). In face the question deserves deeper seudy, staring with the impact of che patristic tradition on the biblical canon and the spread of the so-called Indexes oferuc books (I. M. GRICEVSK AA, Indelsyistinnych knig, St, Peterburg, 1003) > M.Garzanti, ‘Bible and Liturgy in Church Shvonic lierarare. A New Perspective for Research in Medieval Sl- vonie Studies in Medieval Slavonie Studies, New Perspectives for Research. Eudes saves médievaler, Nouvelle: perperives de recherches ed by |. ALVAREZ-PEDROSA, 5. TORRES PRIETO, Paris, 2009, pp. 127-148, See pp. 134-135 4H. HUNGER, Ch. Hantcx, Katalog der griedischen Handschrifin der Osterrihischen Navionalbiblinbek. Tel 4 Supplementuan Graccum, Wien, 1994. ‘GREEK AND SLAVIC MANUSCRIPTS WITH BIBLICAL CONTENT Denilreicheum und wertvollen Hinweisen auf die Forschungsgeschichte 20 Handscheiften des 11.-12,Jah- shunderes der Russischen Staatsbibliothek in Moskau untersuche”, Based on this point of view, the manuscript cataloguing ofthe Slavic version and the Greek original was developed separately. If we consider the liturgical purpose ofthe books and their structure, the fact that they belong othe same tradition even ifthey are in dférene languages, plays an important role and theit comparison can enlighten specific aspeces and forms of manuscript tradition, Unforrunately only a few researchers have been engaged inthe comparison of textual forms of Greckand Slave manuscipe ad tions with their licargical use 2. The new aim: the liturgical function of the book “The sacred scripeures are principally contained in books with a liturgical function. There are also readings and entire biblical books in codices without 2 lirurgical purpose, for example, catena and commentary manuscripts. In these cases itis possible to use the definition ‘paraliturgical books, because, even if they were not used directly in worship, they accompanied its preparation and represent important tools for its comprehension and achievement. The greater part of the manuscript heritage of the Christian East. has liturgical or paraliturgical functions’, The Gospel book occupies the central position in manuscripe production, the other books find their place with a different role in a system regulated in the second mil- lenary by a special book, the Typikon. ‘Why then should one cake the lirurgical function as a guiding principle for cataloguing instead of textual or codicological criveria? The answer is simple. Every book must be analysed within its natural ‘context: The lirurgical books were principally not read in libraries, or for personal purposes, but were used in the celebration. The reading of paraliturgical books was also intended for the celebration..From this point of view it is possible to compare the liturgical books with icons or frescos, whose comprehen- sion, on an artistic level, depends on the space where they were conceived. in the most recent years art historians have concentrated on the idea of sacred space’. The liturgical book also carries out its function. in the sacred space of the liturgical celebration and has not been created for reading in an abstract church, but fora historical community, a church or monastery. Only from this point of view is it possible to un- derstand certain differeaces between codices, especially their individual characteristics. Ic is importane to underline ‘the mediation of the lieurgy in the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. Ifwe bear in ind that, especially in the monastic eicles from which the majority of Church Slavonic writers came, the daily licurgical offices were the key moments of community life, it is not hard to imagine that the liturgy, in particular liturgical books, muse have represented the natural contezr for developing an approach to che Holy Scriprures. Even + M.Ganzanrrs, Dic allalavisce Version der Evanglen, Fochungygebiche und aigensuicheForhung, KBla Wel- ‘mar Wien, 2001; 25 nel ie eal hen of Woon ams Yas Dan en emi den mich Vergleich der Petkopenordnung des Letionars in der und davischen ‘begonnen i habex, Obgich se nicht n Exe Renken lar Bg he den die ‘Unrersuchung der slavischen Version zur Kenntnis der Strukeur des byzantinischen Lektionars in seiner Gesameheit leiscen seni ic mata a for comple Masa Hance 7 About the Slavic manuscript ition see, | R. Marri, Ha ego tener Gira dees er da eerie See hr Hendin de 14 Ths \ 1989. . 2st ofhenpy in A. Lavo New fens Hey nd mpi fred pcs Mencon.309 283 MARCELLO GARZANITI for the hermit monk, reading the Psalter aloud (sometimes in its entirety in the course of single day) was a way of pareicipating in the rerrestralliergy, the mirror of the celestial liergy. The Psalter, the li book consisting of psalms and Old and New Testament canticles, was the tool with which monks first learnt to read and was usually leamt by heart, becoming an essential point of reference in literary production”. On this level a better textual criticism will be developed: Not only the texts seructure, but also the textual form complics with the different purposes and contexts. See for example the incipit of Gospel pericopes in the lectionary, wich their six different forms, or the frequent adaptations in the desinit of the pericopes ‘with additions or omissions". The relationships between liturgical and paraliturgical books, which influ- ence each other on a textual plane, deserve particilar mention, There is for example an interplay between Gospel lectionary, licurgical tetra and commentary Gospel in the Slavic manuscript tradition". ‘The adoption of this new point of view may afford a berrer uriderstanding of the different exegetical approaches that were adopted towards the texts. Together with liturgical apparatus, the codices often show different marginalia which were intended to'help solving questions of textual interpretation. In the Byzantine-Slavic world there are Gospel books with the Sections of Eusebius of Caesarea (also called ‘Chapters of Ammonius) indicated in the margin: This was an ingenious textual division which, on the basis of the Euscbian canon tables, enabled identification of parallel passages. Ie was used ever since the patristic age to enable a better understanding of the Gospels, and involved interpreting each section of the vext with the help of parallel passages. This system exerted a significant influence upon the develop- ‘ment of commentaties and homilies. “The new classification does justice'co and, at the same time, can fuircher a better understanding of li- rurgical history as it eakes into account the continous development of Christian worship and ies adapta- tion to specific communities. There are also concrete limits to the theoretical reconstruction of an event, which never repeats itself perfectly. This may help us to take into consideration the centripetal force of the major liturgical traditions, for example the liturgy of the Great Church, or of the Anastasis Church in Jerusalem, and also the process of homogeriisation that developed from Mount Athos, especially with the diffusion of the Jerusalem Typikon. The tk finding useful criteria wo summarize theLeargical appara tus and notation remains”. The Pinakes of Byzantine Synaxarion & Menologion avaluable provisional starting-point for the analysis of books that have biblical contents. TTweallbe bes ter, however, to present the pilot series with the traditional abbreviations of biblical and liturgical studies and to give the possibility of adding other elements of liturgical apparatus and notation, “The new catalogues will be useful for a better comprehension of Byzantine and Church Slavonic lit- erature, especially of writings which have a monastic origin or have been composed with catechetical ‘purposes. This approach helps to overcome the artificial division inco literary genres, for example the distinction becween hagiographic and homiletic: In che original writings, biblical quotations usually play a fundamental role. Their deepest significance becomes easy to petceive not only in the light of their position in the biblical text, but also considering their place in the licurgical books and their role in the liturgy. “Over the centuries a common system of references and associations was created through the liurgy; these informed the minds of successive generations and found thelr way into litargial and paraliturgical books. > M.GaRzANrTt 2009, p. 136. See M.GARZANITI 2001 pp. 41-43. " SecA. A. ALBKSEEY, Tkstologia slayjanskaj bib, St. Peterburg, 1999. " §, Ros, ‘An Astessment of Byzantine Codex and Catalogue Research, Toward the Construction of New Series of ‘of Byzantine Manuscripts in Sacris Erudii, 47 (2008), pp. $-145,8¢¢ P35. Publication in preparation by Stefan Roy, 284 ‘GREEK AND SLAVIC MANUSCRIPTS WITH BIBLICAL CONTENT. Contemporary sociology has developed the notion of ‘collective memory’ co define this phenomenon, though in this case it would be more accurate to calk in terms of ‘memoria ecclesia’, because it developed and was rooted in the Church, in the ongoing dialectic between the local Churches, with their own specific traditions, and the universal Church. This memoria eclesiae, which is first and foremost ‘memory of the ‘Word, developed as part of a celebration, in which an important role was played by iconography, music, architeceure and even paraments and sacred furnishings, together with the liturgical books, in the con- text of liturgical action consisting of gestures and movements. This ‘miemory’ was gradually entiched and transformed, becoming over the centuries a solid ‘archive’ of references and citations that can be found in (Church Slavonic tems, even in those without a direct limgical function, This served to interpret historic and persona! reality, and was capable of subsuming individual events within a universal ‘economy’ (..) The reconstruction of this ‘collective archive’ is very important for a'correct interpretation of Church Slavonic literature. We are in fact accustormed to placing biblical citations, but also apocryphal, patristic ones, within individual works, as ifthe medieval wriver had ehe same libraries and critical tools char we have, i them into a very diferent context to thar of che medieval writer. ris dificult to imagine, in so far as people have no experience oft, che power and stratification of meanings recalled inthe icurgical context. The only comparable phenomenon nowadays might be the system of references and associations set in motion by ‘modem means of mass communication’, Inhis recent book on early Rus homiletics, F Romoli clearly demonstrated the fundamental structural role of scripeural citations in homilies, which were constructed according co the rules of rheroric inher- ited from Byzantium and which had an evident pragmatic function. The project ofa catalogue of biblical quotations in the original writings formulated in the past, may find a better sense in relation to the’new series of catalogues. 3. The desired qualities of the new series of catalogues and the perspectives “he of research. ‘The codices will be classified on the basis of known data according vo the icurgical or paralirurgical fune- tions, considering the difficulty of indicating a clear boundary and the individual character of the manu- scripts". Iris not exclude the presence ofa codexin different lists of manuscripts, naturally with appropri- ave references, The structure of the codices can be complex, 2s for example in the Church Slavonic tradition, that of the Codex Hankenstein"* or the socalled [ina kniga”. Iti also possible to adope the ‘retrospective |isvorical approach, focusing in the frst phase on modern printing, Ir must be underlined, howeves, that afer the diffusion of printing, the manuscript and book tradition underwent significant changes. In the list of codices of scriptural contents, itis important to establish a hierarchy according to their liturgical function. Ae the beginning one finds the Gospel book, lecrionary and lieurgicalceera and then come the other books. After the liturgical and paraliturgical books, che other books with different pur- poses may be presented, but always those with a religious and educational function”. Deeper reflection “4M. GARZANITI 2009, pp. 137-138, ® BRonott,Predicatrl nelle terre slavo-erientali (NEXI sc). Retorkca estragle comunicatve, Prenat, 2009. '$. Rovs 2008; pp. 79.81. ® S.Rovs 2008, p. 100. Jen by G.Bucresen, Codes Hennes Coder Vndboemi davies 57. Nettie Proper Be lin-Hamburg.-Miinster, 206 lon: * VB Kaysno (el) tne big Rup RGADA, Tip 11 Lingvstteshoe ledanie, podgotooe greteshogo tekst, slovoubaceteli, Moskra, 2005. > Sec for examplethe presence of OH Tearent books in the codices of East Save Chronicles. 285