In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Christina Y. Bethin, ed. American Contributions to the 14th International Congress of Slavists, Ohrid, September 2008. Vol. 1: Linguistics. Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 227–44. A Typology of Slavic Menology Traditions* C. M. Vakareliyska 1. Introduction There has long been a need for a taxonomy of medieval Slavic menologies, or yearlength calendars of saints, because of the enormous substantive diversity from manuscript to manuscript in their saints’ listings for most calendar dates. The reason for the lack of consistency is that the medieval Eastern Orthodox Church had no beatification or canonization procedure, so that veneration of particular individuals as saints, and the assignment of specific calendar dates to these saints, varied widely according to century, country, and local tradition. Moreover, some manuscripts traveled considerable distances, so that some East Slavic menologies show heavy South Slavic substantive influence and vice versa. The earliest Slavic menologies, and some later ones, were also heavily influenced by archaic Greek calendars and Latin martyrologies. The subject of this paper is part of a broader project to establish a rough typology of medieval Slavic menology traditions through development of an electronic collation of individual menologies. The corpora, which are currently being processed, consist of an archive corpus over 120 mostly unpublished menology texts that I have collected from archives in Bulgaria, Russia, and England, and on microfilm at the Hilandar Research Library at The Ohio State University, in addition to Spasskii’s collation of Greek and Slavic calendars (1901), Mateos’s small collation of firstedition Constantinople Typikon manuscripts (1962), Kuli!’s collation of medieval Greek calendars (1992), Latin martyrologies, and other published sources.1 Because individual menologies were cobbled together from a variety of sources, simply running an electronic search to identify pairs or small groups of menologies on the basis of the highest number of substantive matches in their saints’ entries for the year is insufficient to determine whether the identified menologies form a true subtradition within the medieval Slavic calendar tradition. Moreover, any menologies that * I am grateful to the staffs of the manuscript rooms at the Hilandar Research Library, the Cyril and Methodius National Library in Sofia (NBKM), the Saltykov-Shchedrin Library in St. Petersburg, and the Russian State Library in Moscow, among others, and to the monks of the Hilandar Monastery for making available microfilm copies of the monastery collection for women scholars and others unable to visit the collection in person. 1 For details of the collation, see Vakareliyska 1996. 228 C. M. VAKARELIYSKA correspond closely with each other only in some of their entries will be overlooked this way. Thus the methodology for identifying the relationship among individual menologies must go a step further: a close comparison must be made of each individual saint’s entry for each day of the year, across all the manuscript texts in the corpora , with attention to any matches in textual formulae, including co-occuring lexical and morphological innovations, archaisms and Graecisms, shared garblings, mistranslations from Greek, misinterpretations of saints’ identities, and, where possible, shared orthographic peculiarities. The emphasis on partial matches between manuscripts, and particularly on matches in individual calendar listings or saints’ entries within a single calendar listing , is based partly upon the fact that the transmission of calendar texts was characterized by continual updating and editing. In addition, some menologies were compiled from the very start by patchworking two or more sources from separate traditions. An example of this practice are the menologies to the Banitsa and Curzon gospels, introduced below, both of which were compiled from the same Slavic short menology reflecting an Italo-Greek version of the Constantinople Typikon tradition, supplemented in each of the two menologies with a different later Slavic calendar. This practice of supplementing one menology antigraph with another, rather than simply copying a single complete menology, suggests that some scriptoria had a preferred “house” menology version that was retained to the extent possible, even if this meant deliberately combining it with a later calendar source in order to produce a full menology. Thus by running detailed searches of the electronic archive corpus, I will seek to identify specific regional “house traditions,” types of compilation methods for multiple-source menologies, and specific patterns in textual formulae that can serve as criteria for a rough taxonomy of medieval Slavic menology traditions. Because electronic mark-up of the archive corpus is still underway, I have relied on manual searches of the corpora for the narrower project described in this paper, but the methodology used here is essentially the same...

pdf

Additional Information

ISBN
9780893578572
Print ISBN
9780893573577
MARC Record
OCLC
705869940
Pages
264
Launched on MUSE
2012-01-01
Language
English
Open Access
N
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.