Ricerche slavistiche 12 (58) 2014: 373-385

WILLIAM R. VEDER

WHY WISH AWAY GLAGOLITIC?

Malum nascens facile opprimitur,

inveteratum fit plerumque robustius
Ovidius

Scholarship guided by wishful thinking cannot yield reliable results.

Take the assumption in Slavic studies that Slavonic was a language
of the people and, consequently, subject to chronological and topological change: it wilfully ignores the fact that the language was destined to express Gods Word, which will not pass away (Mt 24:35).
Let me present two examples of such wishful thinking, one of which
has stunted the study of Slavonic for almost eighty years.
Wishing a Synod at Preslav in 893/4
Regino of Prm ( 915) in his Chronicon inserted sub anno 868 a
notice on Bulgarian affairs, which mentions the baptism of the people (864) and goes on to say that the king deinde, convocato omni
regno suo, filium iuniorem regem constituit1 afterwards, having convened all his realm, he appointed his younger son king (evidently
not in 868, but we are left to guess when).
Patriarch Nikephoros I ( 828) in his Chronographikon does not
mention this event, but the anonymous continuation (only partially
known in Greek) states sub anno 893/4 that from the baptism of the
Bulgarians to the !"#$%&'()* +,()-, [it is] 30 years, and from the
(1) F. Kurze (ed.), Reginensis abbatis Prumiensis Chronicon. Hannover 1890, p.
95 (= Scriptores rerum germanicarum, 50). On Regino, see W. Hartmann in Neue
Deutsche Biographie, 21 (2003), pp. 269-270.

374

William R. Veder

Seventh Council to the !"#$%&'()* +,()-, 77 years, and from Adam

6405 or 6.2 There is an event, but we are left to guess which.
In 1925, Vasil Zlatarski had no doubt that the dates could be
equated and the events related. He saw !"#$%&'()* +,()-, as the
first official act of the new prince in his new capital city, Preslav
(which may have been no more than a construction site by 894), and
interpreted the Slavonic to refer to either transfer or replacement,
and to Scripture, books, and the collocation to mean either translation of Scripture (i.c. scriptural commentaries) or replacement of
books (i.c. Greek by Slavonic for divine service).3
Out of convocato omni regno suo + !"#$%&'()* +,()-, + 6405
or 6 by sheer wishful thinking was born an event: The Synod of
Preslav of 893/4. German historians would call such arbitrary conflation Geschichtsklitterung making a hotchpotch of history.
Wishing the Synod to Take Action
Six years later, Grigorij A. Ilinskij wholeheartedly embraced Zlatarskijs conflation, taking issue only with his interpretation of the
collocation !"#$%&'()* +,()-,. He pointed out that +,()-. can refer
not only to book or books, but also to letters, and proposed to
read !"#$%&'()* +,()-, as replacement of letters and to refer to the
replacement of the Glagolitic alphabet by the Cyrillic. He even supplied an author of the new letters, Constantine the Younger of Preslav (Zlatarski had simply asked whether a name might have been
omitted after +,()-,), as well as a reason for the replacement: the
(2) On patriarch Nikephoros I, see Alexander P. Ka!dan in Oxford Dictionary of
Byzantium. New York - Oxford 1991, p. 1477; on the Chronographikon and its Slavonic translation, see Elena K. Piotrovskaja in Slovar kni!nikov i kni!nosti Drevnej
Rusi, t. 1. Leningrad 1987, pp. 231-234; for more recent editions of the translation,
see Dmitrij M. Bulanin, Katalog pamjatnikov drevnerusskoj pismennosti XI-XIV vv.
(Rukopisnye knigi). S. - Pb. 2014, p. 360; for misreadings of numerals in the Glagolitic translation (like the 5 or 6 shown), see Maria Spasova, K"m v"prosa za slavjanskija prevod na L#topis$c$ v% krat$c# na patriarx &ikifor, Die slawischen Sprachen, 33 (1993), pp. 81-91.
(3) V. Zlatarski, Stranica iz starata kulturna istorija na b"lgarite, in Sbornik v
'est i v pamet na Lui Le!e. Sofia 1925, pp. 279-302, repr. in Istorija na b"lgarskata
d"r!ava, t. 1, ". 2. Sofia 1927, repr. Sofia 1971.

Why Wish Away Glagolitic?

375

behest of the new prince, who strove to facilitate and speed the process of slavicisation of the Bulgarian church and state.4
The Synod of Preslav of 893/4 had now been wishfully supplied with an agenda and at least one of its executors. More importantly, Slavonic studies had been streamlined, the cumbersome Glagolitic writing confined to the initial fourty years of literacy. All of
this appealed to the common sense of the community of slavists:
many of the articles in the Kirilo-Metodievska enciklopedija (Sofia
1985-2003) show its pervasiveness.5
This is wishful thinking on a grand scale: Ilinskij, in fact, postulated a model of text production and transmission without having any
relevant study to rely on.6 Like his teachers over the previous century and a half, he assumed that, Slavonic being a language of the
people, every scribe was free to write how he wanted, i.e. that text
production and transmission in Slavonic did not differ from that in
Western European vernaculars.7 He even ignored Mixail N. Speranskijs paper of three years earlier on the Glagolitic ancestry of the Evgenievskaja and Tolstovskaja Psalters (11th c.) and other early Novgorod manuscripts.8 So he could not know that, while !"#$%& can in(4) G. A. Ilinskij, Gde, kogda, kem i s kakoju celju glagolica byla zamenena kirillicej, Byzantinoslavica, 3 (1931), pp. 79-88.
(5) It is to the credit of the editors of the Enciklopedija that they avoided devoting an entry to the Synod of Preslav.
(6) The first pertinent study belongs to Josif Popovski. Najstariji par antigrafa i
apografa u slovenskoj pismenosti, destined to be published in Palographie et diplomatique slaves, 3 (1987), but vanished with its archive in Sofia (Viktor M. !ivov, Vosto!noslavjanskoe pravopisanie XI-XIII veka. Moskva 2006, pp. 9-75, perused a manuscript copy); it will be published in Polata knigopisnaja, 41 (2015).
(7) The idea that scribes must have written in their own tongue was first expressed by Mixail M. "#erbatov, Istorija rosskijskaja ot drevnej"ix vremen, 1. S. - Pb.
1770, p. iv, in reference to his Izbornik of 1076; it was given semblance of fact by
the work of Nicolaas van Wijk, who could rely on extensive experience in MiddleDutch text transmission (see my Kirchenslavische Handschriften und Texte im Werk
#icolaas van Wijks, in W. R. Veder, Hiljada godini kato edin den. Sofia 2005, pp.
59-62).
(8) M. N. Speranskij, Otkuda idut starej"ie pamjatniki russkoj pismennosti i literatury?, Slavi$, 7 (1927-28), pp. 516-535; the paper is also ignored in the edition
of Viktor V. Kolesov, Evgenievskaja Psaltyr, Dissertationes Slavicae, 8 (1972),
pp. 58-69 + 40 pp. facsimile.

376

William R. Veder

deed refer to letters (as can !"#$%&# writ, writing, "'() speech
and *+%,% word), it invariably does so in replacing -.*$/0#.9 And he
could not know that Constantine the Younger of Preslav did not produce texts written in Cyrillic.10 Finally, he could not know that the use
of Glagolitic in text production can be traced up to the 12th c. and in
text transmission well into the 17th c.
Glagolitic Features in Text Transmission
Manuscript transmission of texts, like any data processing, is an interface of three components: 1 input ! 2 processing ! 3 output, 3
being the copy, 2 the copyist, or more precisely his language and text
competence, and 1 the antigraph which provides the data for the output. Processing and output are largely determined by the features of
the input:11 if copies from different regions and different times show
the same pattern in their variation, its source should be sought in 1,
not in 2.12 Cyrillic antigraphs yield variation patterns different from
Glagolitic antigraphs.13 The eight components of the latter variation
pattern will be summarily reviewed below.
1 The presence of Glagolitic writing in a copy, be it entire lines
(e.g. 1*2345#| 6789:;< =:>:?<@A Bitolja Triodium Sofia BAN 38,
(9) See e.g. my Variacija v krugu semi O Pismenex!, in Milena Dobreva (ed.),
Text Variety in the Witnesses of Medieval Texts. Sofia 1997, pp. 110-125. A rare text,
in which "#$%&% is translated by !"#$%&# and both "#$% and '&()*+,(- by *+%,%
and -.*$B, is a scholion in the Chronograph, see my Ot edin prevod do O Pismenex
i do Hronografa, Preslavska kni.ovna /kola, 13 (2012), pp. 185-202.
(10) See Georgi Popov, Triodni proizvedenija na Konstantin Preslavski. Sofia
1985 (= Kirilo-Metodievski studii, 2) and his additional editions in Palaeobulgarica, 19 (1995) 3, pp. 3-31, 21 (1997) 4, pp. 3-17, 22 (1998) 4, pp. 3-26; see also my
Utrum in alterum abiturum erat?. Bloomington 1999, pp. 58, 61-87.
(11) Suffice it to recall the principle of data processing Garbage in garbage out.
(12) It would be preposterous to claim that thousands of copyists had the same tics
nerveux.
(13) In the transmission of the Scete Paterikon, the witnesses of text family c depend from a 10th c. Cyrillic antigraph. Their variation can be compared to that of
the other text families (which all depend from Glagolitic antigraphs) in my The Collation of the Witnesses to the Scete Patericon, Polata knigopisnaja, 37 (2006); see
also my One Translation Many Transcriptions, in W. R. Veder, Hiljada godini,
cit., pp. 229-243.

377

Why Wish Away Glagolitic?

f. 43), incidental letters (e.g. !"#$%&%'( )( "*+,)$-. Scala Paradisi

Moscow RGB F.304 nr. 161, f. 26v, from f. 33v on ! more frequently) or single signs (e.g. /0+, # '*1,2"3'456, Izmaragd Moscow
RGB F.304 nr. 203, f. 147v), constitutes proof of its direct contact
with Glagolitic.14
2 Numerical values of Glagolitic and Cyrillic letters are not equal:
1

7
*

9 : ; <
2 G + %

10

= > ? @
H I #
6

20 30 40 50 60 70

J
9

K
10

B C

D E 6
L 1 ' 5

80

20 30 40 50 60 70

Typical variant readings are: <@N ! %KN (transliteration) : HKN (transcription) : IKN (mistranscription) : O# (misinterpretation). They have the
same value of proof as Glagolitic writing.
3 Markers for jotation and palatality were lacking in the original
Glagolitic alphabet15 and had to be added in the Cyrillic copy (P for
jotation of vowels and palatality of preceding consonants, ( for nonpalatality of consonants):
a 7 ! */Q

e < ! %/O u R ! 0/. ! S ! T/( " U ! V/W

# X ! 4/Y

Typical variant readings are: 79Z ! *23 (transliteration) : Q23 (transcription) : 323 (transcription); ;77[@ ! +**$# (transliteration) :
+*Q$# (transcription) : +3*$# (mistranscription); 6<R=< ! 5% 0\%
(transliteration) : 5%.\% (transcription); ]SDF=@ 9S 6S ! )T1,\# 2T
5T (transliteration) : )(1,\# 2( 5T (transcription + transliteration) :
)(1,\#2(^ 5( (mistranscription).
4 Nasal vowels were an endangered species as early as the 10th c.
(see e.g. Mt 19:9 $2,"#$( W [! 4 Vat] _"31.`a $2,"#$#, Jn 21:6
2"Tb3$% 5* +%)5VW c4)$T L,"*`1Q '"3\V [! '"3\4 Zog Ass] #
,`"4d%-$%^ 2"TGV \%^ # L( $,'0 OY _"#213d# 5% ',\**eV), and their
(14) For a comprehensive survey, see Javor Miltenov, Kirilski r$kopisi s glagoli%eski vpisvanija, Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch, 55 (2009), pp. 191-219, 56 (2010),
pp. 83-98.
(15) Original Glagolitic is reflected only in direct copies in Cyrillic (see my The
Glagolitic Barrier, Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 34 (2008), pp. 489501). Attested Glagolitic borrowed from Cyrillic the doubling of the last four vowel
signs (u f/g, ! S/h, " i/j, # X/k), see e.g. the splendidly documented edition of
Heinz Miklas et al. (eds.), Psalterium Demetrii Sinaitici, Bd. 1. Wien 2012, pp. 87111, 129-131.

378

William R. Veder

confusion has nothing to do with regional variety,16 nor is it limited

to the nasal vowels themselves (see e.g. Lk 24:22 !"#$ %&"'$ (&)
#*+) ,!*+-./ [! ,!*+-." Zog] #$). Typical variant readings are:
01-2317 ! 45&- (transliteration) : 4/&- (mistransliteration, see also
the hybrid 46&-) : 4,&- (transcription) : 4)7-&- (transcription with
m from internal dictation); 389:; ! -7)." (transliteration + transcription) : /." (mistranscription with im telescoped by internal dictation); <=>?:? ! #*@/./ (transliteration) : #*@*.* (transcription) :
#*@/.5 (transliteration + mistranscription) : #*@A#)." (mistranscription with n from internal dictation) : #*@A#)."7) (mistranscription
with n and m from internal dictation).
5 Confusion of consonants is rife in copies from Glagolitic antigraphs.18 Most frequent are the following types: (a) B " C e.g. (D*@" :
- E*@", E'F7F#- : D'F7"#-; (b) G " 0 " H " 2 e.g. +)I)J* : +)IA4*,
I)J*J) : I)J*K), E(L#"&"#) : E(L#"J"#), 4FK( : KF&(: &FK(; (c) M " N "
O (Greek #19) e.g. L+* : P+*, P'-+&-Q#) : R'A+&-Q#), E(R,4-&- : E(P,K-&-; (d) 8 " S (Slavic !19) e.g. 7(K-&- : PJ*K-&-, -7FP) : -7*7A;
(e) T " > $ E(+FU"#-% : E(+F@"#-%, E(+F@"#) : E(+FU"#). Here, too,
belong three Cyrillic graphs V, W and X not included in original Glagolitic: Y;Z=[\89 ! +"'*]-7) (transliteration) : +"'*V-7) (transcription); =H;NY=<0Z^ ! *K"R+*#4'A (transliteration) : *K"W*#4') (transcription), CY=H8^ ! E+*K)7) (transliteration with epenthesis of )) :
X+K7) (transcription with retention of Glagolitic s) : X*K7) (transcription).
6 Of the Glagolitic vowel signs (a) four are predisposed to confusion by their very form, viz. e ; " o _ " u ` " " 9: e.g. E'"IJa&"') :
(16) See my East-Slavic Confusion of #asals, Pegasus Oost Europese Studies,
20 (2012), pp. 639-648.
(17) The monograph 1 is attested in Miklas, Psalterium, cit., p. 88 (hand A for
^) and 102 (hand C as variant of ^).
(18) Three of these confusions have unilaterally been ascribed linguistic relevance: 7 b P (in desinences: replacement of possessive Dative plural ! Genitive), P'
! R' and U ! @ (East Slavic dialectisms), but this is an arbitrary interpretation,
since the confusions are bilateral.
(19) Cyrillic copies reflect the functional distinction of the two x-graphs, lost in
attested Glagolitic: in Greek stems x alternates with g k and sometimes r, which
means it was written O (see M : N : Z), in Slavic stems and desinences with m and sometimes v n t, which means it was written S (see 8 : G : < : 2).

Why Wish Away Glagolitic?

379

!"#$%&'("), !"#*+),(-) : !"(*+#,(-), -( : -# : -), ./-#-) : ./-0-),

12340 : 1234), 5( %6*#2# : 5)%6*#2). (b) They are joined by a,
which can be written similar to e:20 e.g. 7,( : 8,(, / 23,/ : 820,(.
(c) Further a 9, y : and ! ; have features, which allow them to be
confused: e.g. 2<$*/ : 2<$*=, -=-6 : -6-7, >=?@ : >6?@. (d) The
letter " A does not only alternate with ), in tense position it alternates with 1 and =: e.g. BACDAEAF : 52"G'H : 52"G'<1 (transliterations)
: 5)2"<'11 (transcription), IJKAF ! -#%H : -#%<1 (transliteration) : -#%=1 (transcription). (e) Finally, L (Greek #) is variously rendered as
1, 0/M or &: e.g. BELNO9 ! 5'1P17 : 5'0P17 : 5'MP17 (transcriptions) : 5'&PQ/ (transliteration).
7 Epenthesis of vowels or consonants in order to adapt clusters to
Slavonic phonotactics or to mark palatality of labials is lacking in
Glagolitic and has to be added in Cyrillic. Typical variant readings
are: (jer) 9RSTB9IUDA ! /+(V/-*") : /+(.5/-)*") : /+(.5/-*)"), OW9IIA ! XY/--) : XY/-Z-), [B9RCA ! !5/+2) : !)5/+)2); (consonants)
D9\D;]F ! "/$"6?1 : "/$*"6?1, UDA\I^R ! *"<$-3+) : *")$*-_+),
[JU9EFKA ! !#*/'1%) : !#*/'+1%); (l after palatal labials) `FKab9
! ,1%34/ : ,1%+7c4/, \SCF ! $(21 : $(2+1, [DFC^EA !
!"1123') : !"182+c'), 9KA ! 7%1 : 7%+<.
8 Anagrams, haplograms and tautograms in copies from Glagolitic
are markedly more frequent than in copies from Cyrillic, because decoding morpheme by morpheme (if not letter by letter) prevents
verification of meaning. Typical variant readings are: (anagrams)
`SI^ ! ,(-3 : -0,3, SRF BS ! 8+1 5( : 5(+1, `d^EA ! ,0c') :
,1'1M; (haplograms) KA KL\9IEO^ ! %) %1$/-'1M : %&$/-<'1M, I9
\9[9UA ! -/ $/!/*) : -/ $/*), [D;UA[JRJ`FEF ! !"6*)!#+#,1'1
: !"6*)+#,1'1; (tautograms) 9TJ ! 7.# : 7.#.# and 77.#, SUFIJ !
8*1-# : 8*1-#e#, EKJDabdSCd ! '%#"@4( 820 : '%#"@4(20 820.
Features 1 and 2 are independent; 3-8 need to occur in combination in order to furnish proof of dependence from Glagolitic. If 2-8
occur independently in the copies, they are made directly from Glagolitic; if they occur in the same places, it is their antigraph which
was copied from Glagolitic.21
(20) See Miklas, Psalterium, cit., pp. 97, 101, 109.
(21) This is the case in text family c of the Scete Paterikon (note 13 above), see

380

William R. Veder

Production of Glagolitic Texts up to the 12th Century

Below I list in chronological order datable texts or versions, the transmission of which exhibits features 2-8:
898-899
antigraph of the Clozianus and the homiliary part of the
Suprasliensis;22
before 900 revision of the Scala Paradisi and the Quaestiones ad
Antiochum;23
before 927 protograph of the Izbornik of 1073;24
before 930 protograph of the Scaliger Patericon;25
ca. 930
protograph of the Knja!ij Izbornik;26
before 935 protograph of O Pismenex;27
ca. 960
protograph of the Izbornik of John the Sinner;26
after 992
protograph of the Synaxarium and its enhancement to
the Prolog;28
996
first update of the Chronograph;29
after 1097 protograph of the Dioptra of Philippos Monotropos.30
my Der glagolitische Archetyp des Paterik Skitskij, in Dutch Contributions to the
Eighth International Congress of Slavists. Lisse 1979, pp. 339-346.
(22) See M. Spasova, W. R. Veder, Copying, Copy-Editing, Editing and Recollating Three Chrysostomian Lenten Homilies in Slavonic, Polata knigopisnaja, 38
(2010), pp. 97-144; Bulgarian: Prepisvane, popravjane, redaktirane i sverka na slavjanskija prevod na tri Zlatoustovi velikopostni slova, Preslavska kni!ovna "kola,
9 (2006), pp. 53-107.
(23) See my Psevdo-Atanasij Aleksandrijski. V"prosi i otgovori k"m knjaz Antioh, tt. 1-2. Veliko T#rnovo, forthcoming.
(24) See my Preslu#vajki edna poxvala, in M. Jov$eva et al. (eds.), P$nie malo
Georgiju. Sbornik v %est na 65-godi#ninata na prof. dfn Georgi Popov. Sofia 2010,
pp. 358-366.
(25) See my Der Stein, den die Bauleute verworfen haben, Die Welt der Slaven, 57 (2012) 2, pp. 293-305.
(26) See my Knja!ij Izbornik za v"zpitanie na kanartikina, tt. 1-2. Veliko T#rnovo 2008.
(27) See my Utrum in alterum, cit., pp. 58, 88-152.
(28) See my Markup in the Prolog, Polata knigopisnaja, 39, forthcoming.
(29) See my Ot edin prevod, cit.
(30) See the splendidly documented edition Heinz Miklas, Jrgen Fuchsbauer, Die
kirchenslavische bersetzung der Dioptra des Pilippos Monotropos, Bd. 1. Wien

Why Wish Away Glagolitic?

381

To these should most probably be added the protograph of the Catecheses of Symeon the New Theologian ( 1022). The copy of the
Glagolitic Scala Paradisi Moscow RGB F.304 nr. 161, f. 6-8v, inter2013. It attests the following variants (small numbers refer to pages): 1 Glagolitic
339 !"#. 3 Confusion of nasals is ubiquitous (esp. in L), incl. confusion with oral
vowels, e.g. 331 $%&'()*+, ! $&'()*-, (# ! .), 341 */*0!$12 ! /*0!$13, (. !
#), 351 45,6,% ! 4573,8 (9 ! #). 4 Confusion in jotation is ubiquitous in hiatus; in
addition e.g. 331 *)8$:&5;5 ! )%$*&5;5, 339 &'*$6733 ! &'6$6733, 345 $<=>6 !
$<=*, 353 )*'67!4% ! )6'67!4, ?-@51&5'/(! ! 1@A 1&5'!B/(, 373 0'- ! 0'1,
385 *!$&'8/:C;5 ! !$&'8/D/**;5. 5 Consonants: (E ! F) 353 *,GH0*/! ! ,1H@*/!
: ,>H@*/!; (I ! J) 351 */5;%,!! ! /5&,!! : /5&,3!, 377 A0?%)*$,3 ! A@?%)*$,3, 395
A,6;K3/L ! A@,6&K3/1; (M ! N) 339 O,<=1 ! O,5?P; (M " Q) 355 *=P:/!:
! ,PKC/>*, **/,5/!! ! */=5/>3, 373 *;5$05=8$,)R ! ;$,)( L; (S) 353 1$?*"=3/>*
! 1$?*"*/>*, 355 /<"=< ! /1"*, 367 '5"=%$,)5 ! '5=8$,)5; (N " T) 337 !/5 !
!?!, 353 0!7*?3H% ! 0!7*/3H; (T ! U) 379 A/*H5 ! A)*H5; (F ! Q) 397 0?5=5H8
! ,'V=5H; (Q ! M) 351 !$,%7!)W! ! !"=!)W!; (Q ! X) 329 /*'!Y*3, ! /*'!Y*3H%; (X " Z) 331 )%B($&*<7!H ! )%B($&*-7!4, 333 )'PH3/34 ! )'PH3/3H8, 359
/*$!?1+H(!H% ! /*$!?V3H(4%, A@!=!HRH% ! 5@!=!H(4, )%$PH% 0'*)3=/(H% !
)8$P4 0'305=@/>!4, 369 )%$PK%$&RH% ! )$6K8$&(4, 371 /@$/(H! ! /@$/>!4, 399 @?[;!H% ! @?[;(4, 400 )P7*-7!4% ! )P7*-73H, 401 0'!,P&*-7!4 ! 0'!,P&*-7!H, )$3H
! )D$P4%; (Q ! \) 359 **/,5/!! ! */D]A/>+; (^ ! I) 359 *='64?12,% ! ='6;?V-,. 6 Vowels: widely confused (L is heavy in % by surfeit of transcription); linguistic explanation fails in (_ " #) 343 :"3 ! 3"3, 347 '(=*/>* ! '!=*/>3, 335 =W[3
! =W[*, 353 *14R7'3/!C ! 14(7'3/>*, 1;5=!* ! 1;5=>3, 1$?*"=3/>* ! 1$?*"*/>*, 355 105&53/>* ! 105&5:/8: : 105&53/>+, 361 =W[3 ! =W[*, 365 K'%)>* !
K'8)>3, 367 )%/ 6"3 ! )% C"3, 371 0'P,)5'3/>3 ! 0'3,)5'3/>:, 375 '*B?<K3/!3 ! '*B?LK3/>*, 377 )%$3?-@!H* ! )%$:?-@!H*, 389 &'*$5)*/>3 ! &'*$5)*/>*, 391 )%B=(4*/!* ! )%BD=(4*/>3, 394 /*0*=3/>* ! /*0*=*/!:, 398 0'5W3/8+ ! 0'5W3/>6,
400 $@3$P=5)*/8+ ! B@3$P=5)*/8:, 401 0'5K3C ! 0'5K*6, ?!Y3 ! ?!Y*; (# " ` " a
" .) 349 ='1;5+ ! ='5;5+, 351 ,)5'Y1 ! ,D)L'YL, 355 )%$4(73/!- ! )%$4!73/>+, 355 @?!B% ! @?!B1, 357 !7<73 ! !7573, 363 '*=5)*/>3 ! '*=5)*/D/5, 377
A$,<0D/!Y! ! O$,50D/!Y!, 385 ,30?P ! ,50?P, 385 *0'5$?8B! ! 0'5$?%B! : 0'5$?3B!,
394 $3 ! $8!, 395 A,6;K3/L ! A@,6;K3/5, 397 /5 ! /3; (# " b " 9) 343 $,!4A)3
! $,>45)%, $,!45)8, 353 *B%?5K6$,8/P ! B?5K3$,/P : B?5K%$,/P, 359 0'P=$,*,3?3 !
0'P=$,*,3?8 : 0'P=$,*,3?6, 367 K6$,! ! K3$,! : K8$,!, 401 @'*,3 ! @'*,%; (a " b)
333 &5/YL ! &5/DY8, 351 $%B=*,3?- ! $5B=*,3?%, 377 A0?%)*$,3 ! A0?-)*$,3, 399
*@1'2 ! @5'-; (c " d) 333 $)P,?P ! $)P,?(; (c ! 6) 355 @5?PB/! ! @56B/!; (e)
353 *,GH0*/! ! ,VH0*/! : ,1H0*/! : ,>H0*/! : ,!HD0/!; (. ! b) 341 *H<='8$,)1273 ! H%='8$,)1-73. 7 Epenthesis: 337 =>A0,'* ! =!f0*,D'*, 355 1:B)P*4< ! 1:BD)?:41. 8 Anagrams: 351 )%$05H!/**4< ! )8$05H3/14, 359 ,PH%
! ,DHP, 361 !$0(,*-,8 ! !$0(,16,D, 401 0'6=3/!: ! 0'3=*/g:. Tautogram: 351
-/(6 ! -/8/(3.

382

William R. Veder

rupts the Epistle of John of Raithou to insert 2 ff. of a catechesis of

Symeon, which the copyist could not recognise as a foreign text because it must have been written in Glagolitic as well.
Transmission of Glagolitic Texts into the 17th Century
Below I list in chronologial order texts, the copies of which individually show the features 2-8:
before 1050 the Pandect of Antioch;31
before 1100 the codex Suprasliensis;32
1175-1450 9 copies of the Scala Paradisi version a;33
1175-1500 6 copies of the Quaestiones ad Antiochum;34
1200-1394 8 South Slavic copies of the Scete Paterikon;35
1275-1520 3 copies of the Scaliger Patericon;36
1275-1600 25 copies of the Chronicle of George Hamartolos;37
1300-1600 39 copies of the Tale of Aphroditian;38
1348
the Ivan-Aleksandrov Sbornik;39
(31) See the edition by Josif Popovski in Polata knigopisnaja, 23-24 (1989), and
his forms index in Polata knigopisnaja, 30-31 (1999). Part of the Cyrillic copy was
copied ca. 1175-1200 into the Troickij Sbornik !r. 12 (ed. Polata knigopisnaja,
21-22 (1988), see Popovski, !ajstariji par, cit.), but f. 1-64 and 158-202 of that
sbornik are copied from Glagolitic.
(32) See Spasova, Veder, Copying, cit.
(33) See my Ploskaja tradicija tekstov, Palaeobulgarica, 36 (2012) 4, pp. 98109 (codd. Moskva RGB F.256 nr. 198 and 199, F.304 nr. 10). From the same Glagolitic antigraph are copied codd. Moskva RGADA MGAMID 452, GIM Sin. 105,
!ud. 218, Uvar. 865 and S.-Pb. RNB Sof. 1214.
(34) Copied in the Trinity-St Sergius Laura from 4 Glagolitic antigraphs, see my
Der Zweite sdslavische Einfluss aus der Sicht der Textberlieferung, Die Welt der
Slaven, 59 (2014) 1, pp. 95-110.
(35) Copied from the protograph at Ohrid, see my Metodievata zla hiena, Kirilo-Metodievski studii, 17 (2007), pp. 783-798.
(36) Copied from the protograph in Volhynia, see my Der Stein, cit.
(37) See my The Trouble with Middle Bulgarian, Polata knigopisnaja, 40, forthcoming.
(38) See my The Slavonic Tale of Aphroditian, T"rnovska kni#ovna $kola, 9
(2011), pp. 344-358.
(39) See my The Trouble, cit.

Why Wish Away Glagolitic?

1350-1600
1380-1620
1390-1550
1390-1700
1400-1526
1400-1700
1500-1650
1590-1650
before 1653

383

16 copies of the works of Dorotheus of Gaza;40

10 copies of the Scala Paradisi version b;41
5 copies of Esther;42
7 copies of the P!ela;43
6 copies of the Scala Paradisi version c;41
3 copies of the Izmaragd in 164 Chapters;44
8 copies of the Epistle of patriarch Photius;37
3 copies of 4-6 Sborniki;45
ch. 69 of the printed Korm!aja.46

Glagolitic Just Faded Away

The 28 texts and their 149 copies listed above are not numerous
compared to the corpus of ca. 8,000 Slavonic texts preserved in ca.
800,000 manuscript books and fragments of the 10th through 20th
centuries. The study of text transmission, even if aiming at no more
than to identify the direct antigraphs of copies, progresses slowly.
Yet they do offer evidence of a type of text tradition foreign to
the postulated Western European vernacular model: a flat tradition,
(40) Of these, 12 were copied in the Trinity-St Sergius Laura from a single antigraph, see my The Trouble, cit. The 3 known South Slavic copies probably depend
from a different antigraph.
(41) Copied in the Trinity-St Sergius Laura from a single antigraph, see my Ploskaja tradicija, cit.
(42) See my Esthers Glagolitic Ancestry, Ricerche slavistiche, Nuova serie 8
(2010), pp. 213-223.
(43) See my A Retrial for the P!ela, Polata knigopisnaja, 38 (2010), pp. 145154.
(44) See my Psevdo-Atanasij, cit., and Gennadius Slavicus in Srednovekovijat
!ovek i negovijat svjat. Veliko T"rnovo, forthcoming.
(45) See my Meleckij sbornik i istorija drevnebolgarskoj literatury, Palaeobulgarica, 6 (1982) 3, pp. 154-165, and Literature as a Kaleidoscope, in W. R. Veder,
Hiljada godini, cit., pp. 102-109. The readings adduced by Marija S. Mu#inskaja
et al. (eds.), Izbornik 1076 goda. Vtoroe izdanie. Moskva 2009, prove that the Lvovskij Sbornik nr. 134 is not copied from the Meleckij Sbornik, but from its Glagolitic
antigraphs; the same will surely hold true for the Uvarovskij Sbornik nr. 157.
(46) See my Avva Anastasij Sinajski. V"prosi i otgovori, t. 1. Veliko T"rnovo
2011, p. 22.

384

William R. Veder

in which all copies belong to the same, the second generation (with
respect to their antigraph). And they do offer evidence of the full validity of Giorgio Pasqualis recentiores non deteriores in the Slavia
slavonica:47 of the 12 copies of the works of Dorotheus of Gaza and
the 16 copies of the Scala Paradisi versions b and c made in the Trinity-St Sergius Laura, the older usually render the antigraph less reliably than the younger.48 Further, they offer a solution to a problem
brought to the fore by the grand master of Slavonic archaeography,
Anatolij A. Turilov, viz. the near-total lack of pairs of antigraph and
apograph:49 after six or more centuries of wear and tear from multiple copying, the Glagolitic antigraphs just faded away. Finally, they
offer evidence that the language of the texts had little in common
with the language of the people: the choice for antigraphs of great
age and the cumulation of copies of the same texts in the library of
the Trinity-St Sergius Laura suggest that they were made for learning (both of the text and its language), rather than for dissemination.
Is it conceivable that the Prague historian and philologist Josef
Karsek (1868-1916) was right when he claimed that Slavonic was a
theoretical, artificial language?50

(47) The overdue reformulation of the dichotomy Slavia orthodoxa ~ Slavia romana (Riccardo Picchio, Questione della lingua e Slavia cirillomethodiana, in Studi sulla questione della lingua presso gli slavi. Roma 1972) in non-confessional
terms as Slavia slavonica ~ Slavia latina belongs to Sante Graciotti, Le due slavie:
problemi di terminologia e problemi di idee, Ricerche slavistiche, 45-46 (19981999), pp. 5-86.
(48) An exception is the youngest copy of the Izmaragd, which suffers from haste.
(49) He complained that this lack impedes the study of the so-called Second
South Slavic Influence (sse my Der Zweite, cit.) in Russian letters: !"-"# $%&'(
$%)*%+% %',-','.(/ *0%12%3(452 3)/ (,,)03%.#*(/ $#6 %6(+(*#)-7%$(/
6080*(0 .%$6%,# -$(6#0',/ . ,%$%,'#.)0*(0 1%)98%+% &(,)# .%,'%&*%- ( :;*%,)#./*,7(2 ,$(,7%. %3*%+% ( '%+% ;0 '07,'#, A. A. Turilov, Vosto!noslavjanskaja kni"naja kultura konca XIV-XV vv. i vtoroe ju"noslavjanskoe vlijanie, in his
Slavia Cyrillomethodiana: Isto!nikovedenie istorii i kultury ju"nyx slavjan i Drevnej Rusi. Moskva 2010, p. 239. It should be noted that the lack of extant anti-graphs
exceeds the time frame given.
(50) Josef Karsek, Slavische Literaturgeschichte, Bd. 1. Leipzig 1906, p. 13, repr.
on demand Bd. 1-2 by Bibliobazaar: Charleston, SC (via <amazon.com>).

Why Wish Away Glagolitic?

385

!"#$%"
&. '. ()*+,-.+/ 1931 0. ,12314+) ,1 )56,7/ 289* -)14+-9+.8, 894:3;+4, <95
,1 =3:-)14-.5> ?5@53: 893/4 0. 0)105)+A1 @7)1 B1>:,:,1 .+3+))+A:/. C,+>19:)*,5: +B8<:,+: 931,->+--++ 28 -)14D,-.+E 9:.-954 25 149 -2+-.1> 47D4)D:9 1.9+4,5: +-25)*B54,+: 0)105)+<:-.505 2+-*>1 ;5 ,1<1)1 FGG 4., 1 21--+4,5: 42)59* ;5 XVII 4.