Search

[Rev. of: Mošin V.A., Vasiljev Lj., Bogdanović D., Grozdanović-Pajić M., Manuscripts of the Museum of the Serbian Оrthodox Church: Collection of Radoslav M. Grujić, Book 1: Archeographic description, Vol. 1, Belgrade: Retro print, 2017, 270 pp., illustr. — (Description of South Slavic Cyrillic manuscripts, Vol. 7) — (in Serbian)] The article discusses the first issue of the catalogue titled “Manuscripts of the Museum of the Serbian Orthodox Church: Collection of Radoslav M. Grujić”. This manuscript collection, which serves as the basis of the manuscript corpus in the Belgrade museum, was gathered by Radoslav M. Grujić, an outstanding Serbian historian, whose name it now bears. A large project aimed at detailed analytical description of Grujić′s Collection was initiated more than half a century ago by Vladimir Mošin, the founder of the Serbian school in medieval palaeography and diplomatics. Most of the two hundred manuscripts from the 14th–19th centuries described in the catalogue are now presented for the first time in the edition under review. Many of these manuscripts are not only important as valuable sources for the study of Serbian culture but will also foster new research on the history of inter-Slavic and other European connections. The book is of great interest to historians, philologists, theologians, as well as to archivists. DOI: 10.31168/23056754.2020.9.1.18

The article addresses the issue of dating a Church Slavonic translation from Greek of Pope Leo the Great’s Tome to Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople (449), confirmed by the Fourth Ecumenical Council as an essential document of dogma (451). So far the translation has been dated as widely as the 12th century. The existing interpretations were mainly concerned with the biography of the translator, a monk Theodosius, who lived in the Kievan Rus' in the 12th century and is thought to have been an abbot of the Kievan Caves monastery (A. Shakhmatov’s version) or a cleric under the metropolitan (E. Golubinski’s version). Dwelling on the second of these suggestions, and adding his own hypothesis that Theodosius was educated in Byzantium, at the Orphanotropheion of St. Paul, the author of the article goes on to elucidate an obscure passage in Theodosius’s introduction to the Slavic translation of the Tome with a mention of an unnamed patriarch and to further hypothesize about the date of the translation: supposedly the translation activities took place at the time when Kliment Smoliatich was the nominal head of the Kievan metropoly and thus can be dated between September 1149 and April 1151. The final part of the article addresses the issue from a different perspective, discussing Theodosius’s introduction in the context of Old Slavonic hymnography. It interprets the phrase about the unnamed ʽPatriarch’ in the view of the Slavonic text of a church service devoted to Pope Leo and held in monasteries, thus producing a more exact date for the translation, February 18, 1151. DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2018.7.2.1

The article focuses on a literary monument presenting Christological debates of the 5th century and the circumstances of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (the Council of Chalcedon), its sources, and the history of dissemination in the Slavic manuscript tradition. It introduces a list of forty-two East Slavic manuscripts of the 15‒17th centuries, including The Word on the Council of Chalcedon, a work on the history of Christianity and its dogmas. In thirty-nine of the manuscript copies, the literary monument serves as an introduction to the Slavic translation of Pope Leo the Great’s Tome to Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople (451), confirmed by the Fourth Ecumenical Council as an essential document of dogma. Judging by the provenance of the manuscript sources, in the 15‒17th centuries The Word on the Council of Chalcedon, along with the translation of Pope Leo’s Tome, were widely read and copied in the monasteries and churches of Moscow, Volok Lamsky, Pereyaslavl-Ryazansky, and Novgorod Veliky, as well as those of northern Russia. As its first researcher, O. M. Bodianskii, showed in 1848, the Slavic translation of the pope’s Tome was made from Greek by the monk Feodosii (“Theodosius the Greek”) in the 12th century. However, the attribution of The Word on the Council of Chalcedon to the same translator remains to be proved. The present work shows that the anonymous compiler of The Word on the Council of Chalcedon was well aware of the church history of the 5th century, remembering many historical details he would most probably have come across in Greek rather than in translated Slavic sources. On the other hand, several historical mistakes made by the compiler suggest that he lacked the texts necessary to verify the facts and had to rely on his memory, which occasionally failed him. Nevertheless, despite occasional factual errors and a compilative narrative structure, The Word on the Council of Chalcedon is in some ways more informative than many Byzantine chronicles.