Editing in a Sixteenth-Century Serbian Manuscript (HM.SMS. 280) a Lexical Analysis with Comparison to the Russian Original Diss
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Editing in a Sixteenth-Century Serbian Manuscript (HM.SMS. 280) A Lexical Analysis with Comparison to the Russian Original Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By !ivojin Jakovljevi", M.A. Graduate Program in Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Daniel E. Collins, Adviser Dr. Charles Gribble Dr. Predrag Mateji" Copyright by !ivojin Jakovljevi" 2011 ABSTRACT This study encompasses an analysis of the language found in the first Serbian copy of The History of the Jewish War (HM.SMS.280) compared to its Russian original (HM.SMS.281). This research follows the clues in the colophon written by the Serbian scribe, the hieromonk Grigorije Vasilije, in which he states that the Serbian people could not understand the Russian words of the original manuscript. For this reason, Grigorije Vasilije states, he had to “translate” the unknown words into Serbian. Since the Serbian manuscript consists of a large number of folia, 255 of them, a sampling approach was used, whereby eight folia from six sections were extracted and analyzed. The results of the findings identify a number of lexical variations which were distinctive in Serbian and the Russian recensions at the end of the sixteenth century. Some of the lexemes found in the Serbian manuscript are attested for the first time, and as such they make an addition to our knowledge of medieval Serbian lexicography. The findings of this research show that many of the hard-to-understand words were very specific technical terms from military vocabulary—not words that a monk (or most laymen) could be expected to know. These lexemes pertain to siege warfare, military installations, court expressions, social interactions, and non-Orthodox ecclesiastical concepts. The collected data, consisting of the samples from the Russian and Serbian manuscripts, indicates that almost 80% of the lexemes which appeared be foreign or ii ambiguous to the Serbian scribes are either not listed in the Serbian dictionaries that were consulted, or else were not attested in the meaning found in the Russian original. The remaining 20% of the lexemes appear to be due to synonymy, avoidance of figurative language, concrete vs. specific terminology, censorship, and scribal errors. Some of them could only be explained by extra-linguistic factors, specifically by the scribes’ attitude toward certain religious issues and views, particular to a strict Orthodox monk and ascetic. In addition to reconstructing the biography of the main Serbian scribe, the hieromonk Grigorije Vasilije, this study provides evidence that was a second Serbian scribe, who worked on one segment of the Serbian manuscript. Although the identity of this scribe could not be ascertained for certain at this time, this study provides the material and suggests a possible answer. Based on the style and hand-writing, which closely resembles the writing found in the segment of the Serbian manuscript written by the second Serbian scribe, this study indicates a possibility that this person could be one of the scribes who was involved in copying in the Karyea cell of Hilandar Monastery close to the time the copy of The History of the Jewish War was created. iii Dedication Dedicated to a great friend and Bishop, Dr. Sava (Vukovi"), Bishop of #umadija, for his unselfish support, guidance, and encouragement to advance and pursue a higher education. May the Lord rest his soul! iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am very grateful to Hilandar Monastery and the Hilandar monks for treasuring their medieval manuscripts for centuries, and for giving me an opportunity and permission to use two of those manuscripts in my research. In addition, I would like to use this opportunity and thank my advisor, Dr. Daniel E. Callins, without whose continual guidance and mentorship it would have been impossible to undertake and complete this dissertation. His knowledge, expertise, devotion to scholarly work, and a wholehearted willingness to share it, will always be appreciated. Likewise, I would like to express a sincere gratitude to my first advisor, Dr. Charles Gribble, for spending many hours with me preparing me for the Candidacy Exam, for his dedication in helping me exceed my potential, and for always showing me warm hospitality at his home. Along the same line, my research and study would not be possible was it not for Dr. Predrag Mateji" and his father, V. Rev. Dr. Mateja Mateji", who sacrificed themselves, undertaking long trips to Mount Athos, and making hundreds of thousands of copies of the Hilandar manuscripts, in order to establish the Hilandar Research Library at the Ohio State University. I am grateful to Dr. Predrag Mateji" for providing me with a valuable material for my reasearch, for his imput and guidance during my reserach, as well as to V. Rev. Dr. Mateja Mateji", for providing me with an opportunity to study at the University, and for always being there as my spiritual father, mentor, and friend. v I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Mary A. Johnson, presently archivist at the Newcomb College Center for Research on Women, Tulane University, for providing me with numerous books and articles during my research, for her wholehearted and selfless support, insights, and an enormous help in the reading and commenting on my dissertation. I am also grateful to Daria Safronova, Hilandar Library graduate assistant, for her help in taking my dissertation draft to the Graduate School, as well as making the necessary copies of my dissertation for the Examination Committee Members. I would like to thank my Bishop Dr. Mitrophan for his continual support and encouragement, for allowing me to take time off from the parish duties, and focus on my research. Also, I am very thankful to my professor, protodeacon Dr. Stanimir Spasovi", a great friend and teacher at the Saint Sava Seminary in Belgrade and the School of Theology in Libertyville, Illinois, for his numerous telephone calls, his concern and encouragement during the entire period of my graduate studies. I am also very grateful to my friends Dr. Stevan “Rick” !ivi", Ann Tulevski, and Emilia Tulevski, for their help in reading and correcting number of segments of my dissertation. Many thanks to Milo$ Markovi", the head of the Foreign Literature Department at the Cleveland Public Library, and Melanie McCarter of the Interlibrary Loan Department, Cleveland Public Library, for helping me in obtaining numerous books from the libraries across the United States. Finally, many thanks to my wife %ur&ica, daughter Marta and son Marko, for bearing with me during the entire time of my studies and research. vi VITA May 4, 1968……………………………………….…Born, Vrago!anica, Valjevo, Serbia 1988...........................................................Diploma, Saint Sava Seminary Belgrade, Serbia 1992...........................................Diploma, Saint Sava School of Theology, Libertyville, IL 1994.........................................................M.A., Lutheran School of Theology, Chicago, IL 1999................................................................M.A., Ohio State University, Columbus, OH FIELDS OF STUDY: Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………………...iv Acknowledgments……………………………….……….………...……………………..v Vita………………………………………………………………………………………vii Chapters: Page 1. Introduction………………………...……………………………….……………....1 1.1. Extent and goals of this study……………………….……...………………….1 1.2. Description of the manuscripts………………………………………………....5 1.3. The Josephus tradition………………………………….………………………7 1.4. Profile of the hieromonk Grigorije Vasilije……………..…………………….12 1.5. Literature review……………………………………...……………………….19 2. Lexical variations due to recensional editing.………………..…………...……….25 2.1.Introductory remarks……………………………………………………….….25 2.2. Discussion of the lexemes…………………………………………………….26 2.2.1. lix- and zlo-………………………………………………………………….26 2.2.2. dik- and dijav-……………………………………………………………….29 2.2.3. versta and popri!"e………………………………………………………….31 2.2.4. dumati and s”v#tovati……………………………………………………….34 2.2.5. medliti and kasn#ti…………………………………………………………..36 2.2.6. obraziti and poraziti…………………………………………………...……38 2.2.7. !atatisja and voznositi se………………………………………………….40 2.2.8. strojenije and smotr!nije……………………………………………………42 2.2.9. peresko"niki and pr#beg!i…………………………………………………..44 2.2.10. vdatisja and pr#dati se……………………………………………………..46 2.2.11. dlja and radi…………………………………………………………….….49 2.2.12. potosnetisja and pot’!tati se……………………………………………….51 2.2.13. dostrojiti and s’tvoriti……………………………………………………...52 2.2.14. !eika dr#venaja and plod od dr#ves………………………………………..54 2.2.15. l#sti and iz’lazyti…………………………………………………………...58 2.2.16. vazn- and "#st-……………………………………………………………..59 viii 2.2.16.2 blagovazniv” and blago"’stiv’……………………………………………62 2.2.17. podu"ivati and podostrevati……………………………………………….63 2.2.18. syn” and pyrg’…...………………………………………………………...66 2.2.18.2. syn” and polata………………………………………………….69 2.2.19. r#zati and s#"i……………………………………………………………...71 2.2.20. svadba and pir’…………………………………………………………….74 2.2.21. podxupiti and ukr#piti……………………………………………………...76 2.2.22. lz# and mo!"no……………………………………………………………..79 2.2.23. tovari!"” and drug’……………………………….……………………….81 2.2.24. trux- and dr#h-……………………………………………………………..83 2.2.25. kacija and ru"ka…………………………………………………………...86 2.2.26. rodostoma and rufizna voda……………………………………………….88