Once again about the translation principles of Epiphanius Slavinetsky and Euphemia Chudovsky (based on the material "Epitomy")

Ivanova Elizaveta Vyacheslavovna Postgraduate student, Department of Russian Language, M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Assistant of the Department of foreign languages of MIREA - RTU 119991, Russia, Moscow, Leninskie Gory str., 1, p. 51, room 950 atonical@mail.ru Other publications by this author

"Epitome" or "Brief account of the Divine and Holy canons" (gr. ) – a collection of the canonical Church law, owned by Konstantin Armenopoulos. The text was compiled in Byzantine Greek in the 14th century, and the translation into Church Slavonic was carried out in the 17th century by Epiphanius Slavinetsky as part of the Levenclavian Collection, a Greek-Latin diglotta. The work on the Epitomies belongs to one of the early works of Epiphanius in Moscow, since its Kiev scribe began in 1652-1653. We gave a more detailed history of the Slavic translation and a description of the draft of Epiphanius in ^{[7, pp. 88-89]}.

The analysis of the Epitomium material not only allows us to reconstruct the history of the text, but also has fundamental linguistic significance. It makes it possible to summarize the general and highlight the differences in the linguistic features of Epiphanius Slavinetsky and his pupil Euphemia Chudovsky. It would seem that we know a lot about how scribes worked with translations, for example, with the text of the New Testament ^{[6, pp. 79-80]}, but we cannot always separate the principles of the teacher's work from the principles of the student's work. For historical Russian studies, this is not the most trivial task, because not every text makes it possible to separate the usus of Epiphany from the usus of Euphemia. The material of the Epitomies allows this to be done taking into account the main source – the draft of Epiphany Slavinetsky, Usp. 91.

In the course of the analysis, we considered both the earliest discovered lists of "Epitomies" and later ones (up to the end of the XIX – beginning. XX centuries). A word-by-word proofreading of the main lists led us to the following:

The manuscript of Usp. 91 (GIM) is a draft by Epiphany Slavinetsky. We have not been able to find scientific literature that would cover this manuscript, with the exception of the inventory, which says that Usp. 91 is written in Ukrainian cursive and belongs to the XVII century ^{[8, p. 118]}. According to the nature of the handwriting and linguistic features, we attribute this manuscript to Epiphanius Slavinetsky ^{[7, p. 89]}.

Und. 40 (RGB) – records the active editorial changes made by cinnabar according to what was written. Thus, the lower layer reflects the revision that arose as a result of proofreading the text from the original Greek and differs from that contained in the draft of Epiphany. The most serious revision of the translation was precisely this first one, at the stage between Usp. 91 and Und. 40, whereas at other stages the text was reinterpreted more pointwise.

The edit layer of Und. 40 is being developed in the manuscript of Sin. 129, which at a certain stage became the final version, which was created for the purpose of printing. Its copyist was Euthymius Chudovsky, who was also supposed to participate in the compilation of the preface and table of contents for Sin. 129. He also carried out the editing of the text, which took place in multi-stages, he repeatedly addressed the editing and proofreading of the text in Greek.

The final translation of the Epitomies as part of the Levenclavian Collection, reflected in Sin. 129, corresponds to the language guidelines developed by the Russian scribes in the second half of the XVII century and characterizing the so-called learned Church Slavonic. However, after the death of Epiphanius Slavinetsky, Euthymius Chudovsky continued to edit the text. This result is reflected in the list of Syn. 226. In it, the Epitomies are presented separately from the Levenclavian Collection, in which Epiphanius translated the work of Konstantin Armenopoulos. It is also known that later, Euthymius Chudovsky sought to create a complete collection of his translations of church canons. He considered the collection presented in the manuscripts of the Sin to be the completion of his work.. 223, 224, 225, 226 ^{[2, p. 300]}, according to the filigrees, they are dated no earlier than 1681 ^{[10, pp. 99-101]}. The last text, placed in Syn. 226, is "Epitomies". For further research, it is important that the text of the Epitomium in Sin. 226 is presented separately from the Levenclavian collection, thus the translation acquires independence from the collection and is regarded as an independent text.

The material considered made it possible to identify common and different things in the translation techniques of Epiphanius Slavinetsky and Euphemia Chudovsky.

I

The features of the archetype of translation reflected in the draft of Epiphanius Slavinetsky Usp. 91 are manifested at different levels. Thus, the orthographic regionalisms characteristic of the Ukrainian-Belarusian derivation of Church Slavonic are fixed:

1.1. Sporadic exchange, which may become more stable in individual lexemes (witness, witness, witness; forms of many places. all of it);

1.2. Mixing of I and s (with bulls – with bulls, wine);

1.3. Reflection of the hardening of p: razdryshity, razdryshity – allow. See more about this ^[7].

At the vocabulary level:

1.4. In church terminology, either Slavic lexemes prevail (the first reading is Usp. 91 and the second is Sin. 129): a clerk, not a cleric – a cleric, a service, not a litany – a service, a novice, not an exarch – an exarch, a holy one, not a priest – a priestly one, a priesthood, not The priesthood is the priesthood, or more adapted borrowings: a monk, not a monk, is a monk.

In most examples, the ecclesiastical terms in the draft of Epiphany are translated by Slavic analogues and are subject to Grecization at later stages of working with the text.

1.5. Updating the use of individual words (prez – through) and the meaning of lexemes (urd – power) in the Ukrainian and Polish languages. Here are some examples of contexts:

Prez: ? – christopherjones pre^s Gite Yes places (USP. 91, 49 L.) – XP^withumetnik pre^z (hand of the editor – elec^z) Gite Yes replaceitem (Und. 40, l 190) – chrstianity crazy Gite Yes replaceitem (SYN. 129, 62 L.) – rejected Christ for life crying.

Uryadov: – power (Orgy) im dacey (USP. 91, n. 23 vol.) – offco (rank) im dacey (SYN. 129, L. 38) – deacon, having the rank / position.

In grammar:

1.6. For the expression of possessive values are widely used possessive adjectives, not gen. posessivus: ? – aplle Bo rule (USP. 91, p. 3) – aplv Bo rule (SYN. 129, l. 19) – the Apostolic rule.

1.7. Despite the absence in the Greek language Dualis, these forms are in the draft of Epiphanius prevail within contexts associated with the free and the dual number, that is, when fixing the pair of objects and nouns with the numerals two: – but RC Postira (USP. 91, l. 40 vol.) – but rki Postira (SYN. 129, L. 54) – not stretching out his hands; at two two gusenicy best rank (USP. 91, 43 L.) – two gleamy^x were Chini (SYN. 129, L. 56) – two of the catechumens rank.

As is known, Meletius Smotritsky collected the remains of the DV in the Grammar of 1619.ch. into full-fledged paradigms with differentiation of generic and case forms in different parts of speech, which was preserved in the reprint of 1648. In addition to the forms themselves, Grammar gives indications of the need to coordinate the noun and verb, therefore dualis is represented in it at the level of an active morphological means ^{[11, p. 52]}.

Thus, in this case, the grammatical rules were the priority for Epiphanius, and not the structure of the Greek language. For the editing of Euphemia, the rejection of dv.ch. in favor of mn.ch. says the opposite – the exact transmission of the Greek text was more important than the grammatical tradition of Church Slavonic.

1.8. Occasionally, the particle C?, separated from the verb, is fixed, the appearance of which can either be a grammatical archaism for the XVII century ^{[5, pp. 192-193]}, or be supported by the grammar of Polish and southwestern dialects of the Ukrainian language ^[4]: yes, there is a C? (Usp. 91, l. 7) - yes, it is counted (Und 40, l. 13) – yes, it is the same (Syn. 129, l. 22).

1.9. Reflection and expansion in mn.CH. M. R. and Ms. R. for Example, – co in selahy (USP. 91, l. 51 vol.) – ku unto salihy (SYN. 129, l. 64 vol.) – in potions.

II

It is possible to identify common features of the language of Epiphany Slavinetsky and Euphemia Chudovsky, characteristic of the learned Church Slavonic. These primarily include those positions that have not been subjected to serious revision and special linguistic reflection, since, apparently, in their regard, the methods of translation were developed by the previous tradition. They relate primarily to the syntax, which often turns out to be the most stable during the period under review. For example, as the researchers note, at the syntactic level, a simple mov may not be opposed to the Church Slavonic language at all ^{[12, p. 389]}.

2.1. A single negation corresponding to the syntax of the Greek text. The discrepancies in the manuscripts can only be in which word the negative particle refers to. Differences Und. 40 and Blues. 129 from USP. 91 explains more accurate reproduction of the order of the words in the original text: the – knee Yes, no one prikloni^t (USP. 91, 54 L.) is a tribe who tends Yes, no (Und. 40, L. 214) – elbows who tends Yes, no (SYN. 129, L. 67) – knees nobody prichlenyaet; ? – - epsp not produced (USP. 91, l. 24 vol.) – no : EP^withPA produced (SYN. 129, l. 38 vol.) – produced by don Bishop.

2.2. Transfer of infinitive constructions such as the substantive infinitive and accusativus cum infinitivo. The first of them occurs 26 times, and the substantive accusativus cum infinitivo – 7, and at all stages a complete tracing paper of hedgehog + inf., known already from the oldest Slavic translations, is found in the Slavic text ^{[1, p. 375]}.

Subst. infinitive: – honor unto the hedgehog (USP. 91, l. 31 vol.) – read unto the hedgehog (SYN. 129, vol. L. 45); Subst. acc. cum inf.: , , – harbored many of the same, for hedgehog post in subbot nabaviti, or knee prekladu (USP. 91, 54 L.) for hedgehog post in savvat not byvat (Und. 40, L. 214) – harbored many of the same, for hedgehog post in savvat not byvat, below knee cloth (SYN. 129, L. 67).

However, it is necessary to note separately the general trends in the usage of scribes, which, for various reasons, are implemented differently.

2.3. The principle of morphemic translation, calculus of Greek words and the introduction of composites into the text by analogy with the composite words of the Greek language are characteristic of usus and Epiphanius Slavinetsky and Euphemia Chudovsky, but it is the latter who implements them most accurately and pedantically. If Epiphanius' translation outlines these trends, their refinement and final vision belongs to Euphemius. For example, regarding the draft clarifies the translation of many composites (first reading – USP. 91, the second Sin. 129): blackradish – krajobrazy – the one who is looking for love outside of marriage; – isolatoren – invergowrie – abortire tool where – to suspend, expel + 2 Formanta: - and . Or a composite is introduced for a non–compound word in the draft: – lovitva – pselovitva - dog hunting.

2.4. Lexical vehicle are introduced in the text the two scribes, but the attitude towards them is not quite the same: if Epiphanius often prefers them to rare tokens (first reading – USP. 91, the second Sin. 129): – alohon – Borodino; , , – Netti, geti, and flacari – biocognitive, and czarownicy, and hraniteli; – perversity – ctory; – hraven – Holy, for Euphemia in General, precisaria text becomes the guiding principle of editing, covering the different types of words (see point 1. 4.) It also extends commenting lookup tools due to the vehicle the gloss.

2.5. In the draft of Epiphany, variants appear that are actualized by a simple usage (restoration – in the meaning of resurrection, crutching – playing dice), but they are more actively introduced into the text during editing, which, apparently, could be done through the prism of understanding the authorship of the translation.

In grammar:

2.6. The use of the demonstrative pronouns to, ta, to as pronouns of the 3rd person for the translation of Greek. is already outlined in the draft of Epiphany, but is expanding. For example, in chapter 1, for 42 contexts with different forms of places. in the draft, only in 11 cases Epiphanius refers to the forms of places. the one in Sin. 129 – they become 27: – in no time ^t (Usp. 91, l. 9) – in them, let time exist (Sin. 129, l. 24 vol.) - continues / abides in them.

Euthymius also introduces a clear distinction between the Greek. , , and. For , the connection with the pronoun on is consistently traced, but not at all stages of working with the text. For example, in the framework of the 1st chapter of 16 contexts from Greek. places. in different forms in the draft of Epiphanius 11 examples corresponds to the specified distribution (5 – not), whereas in the Shin. 129 this applies to all 16 of the context: , – ashche same way eparchy single samye ascopy octaves and the ) Mitropolia swany (USP. 91, l. 3 vol.) – if the same ncoi eparchy single samye EP^withp staves and he ) Mitropolia swany (SYN. 129, l. 19 vol.) – if in any diocese of the Bishop himself will leave (fast), and he called the Metropolitan. A similar distribution was noted by I.V. Werner for the translation of the New Testament, the key work of the Jewish scribes ^{[2, p. 33]}.

2.7. The unification of the forms of the comparative adjectives with the help of a means marking this form -w- was started in the draft. However, in Syn. 129 it also expands to adverbs, which makes it possible to unify the forms of the comparative in general: – ancient (Usp. 91, l. 1 vol.) – elders > elders (Und. 40, l. 3 vol.p.) – elders (Syn. 129, l. 17 vol.); - convenient (Usp. 91, l. 53) – convenient (Und. 40, l. 210) - more convenient (Syn. 129, l. 66).

III

The features peculiar to the editing of Euthymius Chudovsky can also be noted at every level, for example, in spelling:

3.1. Writing a common noun words, and the names and place-names in accordance with the Greek, often bordering on the transliteration (first reading – Sin. 129, the second – USP. 91): – sawata, not sbot; , – grammati, not literacy; – any, not ARD; RMJ, not Rome. It is also known that for Euphemia Chudovsky and his disciples, the spelling of Rm was characteristic ^{[9, p. 74]}.

In the vocabulary:

3.2. The tendency to consolidate the Slavic equivalent for a certain Greek lexical unit or its separate specific meaning. The same applies not only to tokens, but also to the roots and foundations. The fixation of elements is expanding, the use of which can be supported by a simple usage: people, power, evil. In a significant part of the examples, this is explained by the desire to compare different Greek. lexemes or their options: power – – in the sense of power, power and power – – violence; for sloto and for the gold.

3.3. Euthymius Chudovsky searches for stylistically more bookish or neutral options (the first reading is Usp. 91, the second is Sin. 129): animal life – life; brashness – food; kromitsy – broken pieces.

In grammar:

3.4. Rejection of dualis forms that do not correspond to the Greek language, despite the fact that in several contexts of reading from dv.ch. they have been preserved from the archetype of translation, in most examples they have been edited, see the example in paragraph 1.7. 

3.5. The expression values of prityagatelnost often pushed by the peculiarities of the Greek language, in which there is no possessive adjectives, and possesive value is expressed mainly by the shape of the rod.p.: – CRV Gradski (USP. 91, l. 16 vol.) – crew castle (Arkhang. D. 434, L. 46) – crew castle (SYN. 129, l. 31).

3.6. If in the draft of Epiphanius Greek verbs are often translated chaotically without strict reference to the grammatical category of time (especially in prescriptive contexts), then the edit of Euphemia is aimed at observing the correspondence of the forms of Slavic and Greek verbs: the form of the Greek chapter in fut. – slav. the verb sov. v. present. vr. in the meaning of bud., the form of the Greek chapter in praes. – Slav. Chapter nesov. V. (first reading – Sin. 129, the second – USP. 91): – Yes nagaets (l 10) – Yes nakasec (l 25); – prisons (l 12 vol.) – prizyvaet (l. 27 vol.); o – soglasis (l 12 vol.) – spyglass (l. 27 vol.); – lits (l 12 vol.) – lets (l. 27 vol.).

Conclusions

Summing up, it can be stated that the linguistic guidelines and the methods of translation of Epiphanius Slavinetsky and Euphemia Chudovsky are not the same, at least in relation to the work on the "Epitomies" by Konstantin Armenopoul. The basis of the Epiphany idiolect originates in the Ukrainian-Belarusian translation of the Church Slavonic language, which can be especially clearly traced in the archetype of the translation of "Epitomy". For the draft of Epiphany, it is often more important than the original to refer to the language settings set by the grammars of the Slavic language. The main reference point of Euthymius Chudovsky is the Greek language and the original text. In those positions where the choice of language means is exclusively in the field of Church Slavonic, the Moscow reference specialist can note greater attention to the recommendations of grammars.

The task of Euthymius's editorial work is, firstly, to eliminate a significant part of the regional elements that do not correspond to the Moscow norm of the Church Slavonic language, and secondly and most importantly, to actually Graecize at different levels. However, the editing of Euphemia is not limited to just understanding the specifics of the Greek text: in some cases, readings of the primary work of Epiphanius turn out to be significant, while in others one can see a repulsion from the draft and the introduction of opposite options.

The Epitomies of Konstantin Armenopoulos were translated during a crucial historical period for Orthodoxy in Russia, when the need for translated church and legal texts could be felt especially. At the same time, the analysis of the language suggests that the editor saw his task as primarily philological work, since the work on the text was carried out not with an orientation towards a possible reader (only if this reader was not an excellent connoisseur of Greek), but based on the principle of literalism.