scholarly journals Sermon of Nestorius «Against the Heretics, About the Divine Trinity» (CPG 5691)”. Translation from Greek, Edition of Slavic Translation from Greek, Preface and Commentaries by Dmitry V. Smirnov

2021 ◽  
pp. 28-71
Author(s):  
Дмитрий Владимирович Смирнов
Keyword(s):  
Russian Translation ◽  
Critical Reception ◽  
Slavic Language ◽  
General Description ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Cyril Of Alexandria

Публикация посвящена проповеди Нестория, архиепископа Константинопольского, «Против еретиков, о божественной Троице» (CPG 5691), которая сохранилась под именем Василия, архиепископа Селевкийского, и была недавно идентифицирована и издана в древнегреческом оригинале В. Кинцигом. В предисловии даётся общая характеристика корпуса греческих проповедей Нестория, рассматривается текстология публикуемой проповеди и её перевода на славянский язык, анализируются богословское содержание проповеди и её критическая рецепция святителем Кириллом Александрийским. По заключению автора, проповедь имеет скорее риторическую, чем богословскую ценность; вместе с тем она служит важным источником, позволяющим понять внутреннюю связь между триадологическими и христологическими убеждениями Нестория. Предлагается полный русский перевод проповеди; в комментариях к переводу представлен ряд исправлений и уточнений текстологических решений и интерпретаций Кинцига. По рукописям Hilandar. slav. 404, Hilandar. slav. 389 и РГБ. Ф. 98. № 462 издаётся древний славянский перевод проповеди, сделанный в конце XIV в. в кругу святителя Евфимия Тырновского, патриарха Болгарского. The publication focuses on the sermon «Against Heretics, on the Divine Trinity» (CPG 5691) of Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople, which survived under the name of Basil, Archbishop of Seleucia, and was recently identified and published in an ancient Greek by W. Kinzig. The preface gives a general description of the corpus of Greek sermons by Nestorius, examines the textology of the sermon and of its translation into the Slavic language, analyzes the theological content of the sermon and its critical reception by St. Cyril of Alexandria. According to the author’s conclusion, the sermon has a rhetorical rather than theological value; at the same time, it serves as an important source for understanding the inner connection between the triadological and christological beliefs of Nestorius. Full Russian translation of the sermon is offered; in the comments to the translation, a number of corrections and clarifications of textual solutions and interpretations of Kinzig are presented. Based on the manuscripts Hilandar. slav. 404, Hilandar. slav. 389 and RSB. F. 98. № 462 the ancient Slavic translation of the sermon, made at the end of the XIV century in the circle of Euthymius of Tarnovo, Patriarch of Bulgaria, is published.

Sacred, Profane, Troublesome, Adventurous

2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Papanikolaou
Keyword(s):  
Sixth Century ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Cyril Of Alexandria ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Scholarship ◽  
Almost All

This article is concerned with a gigantic unpublished dictionary of Ancient Greek, most probably compiled at Alexandria during the first half of the sixth century ad. The dictionary is ascribed to Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria, an ascription strongly doubted. It is the first Greek dictionary which unites entries (usually rare ancient Greek words) found in Christian as well as pagan writers. The article investigates the ideology of the lexicon, which is strongly Christian, but also displays a warm acceptance of the classical literary past. The lexicon became the most influential in the history of Greek lexicography, having influenced almost all medieval Greek lexica (Hesychius, Synagoge, Photius, Suda, Zonaras and others). The article assembles all the information available today concerning the complicated history of scholarship on the lexicon, whose 200 preserved manuscripts and different surviving receptions have long puzzled scholars.

Saint Cyril of Alexanrian The Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (from the Catenae)

2019 ◽  
pp. 39-117
Author(s):  
Феодор Юлаев
Keyword(s):  
Russian Translation ◽  
Jewish People ◽  
Human Freedom ◽  
Initial Form ◽  
Cyril Of Alexandria ◽  
Holy Trinity ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Of Moses ◽  
House Building

В публикации представлен русский перевод сохранившегося в составе греческих катен«Толкования на Послание к Римлянам» свт. Кирилла Александрийского. В предисловии определяется изначальная форма толкования и с привлечением дополнительных источников делается вывод, что это был экзегетический комментарий, разделённый на «томы». На основании содержания трактата решается вопрос о его датировке и указывается, что отсутствие примет несторианского спора означает, что оно написано до 429 г., а особенности триадологической терминологии позволяют датировать его не ранее начала написания «Диалогов о Святой Троице» (412 или 423 г.). Рассматриваются герменевтические принципы святителя и даётся обзор содержания толкования. Отмечается, что оно посвящено почти исключительно вопросам сотериологии: распространение и действие греха в потомках Адама, бессилие закона Моисея в борьбе с грехом и значение закона, домостроительство воплощённого Слова, Промысл Божий в отношении еврейского народа и язычников, человеческая свобода, которую не отменяет предведение Божие. The publication presents a Russian translation of the surviving part of the Greek Catens «Interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans» St. Cyril of Alexandria. The Preface indicates the initial form of interpretation is determined and with the help of additional sources it is concluded that it was an exegetic comment divided into «volumes». On the basis of the content of the treatise, the question of its dating is solved and it is indicated that the absence of the Nestorian dispute means that it was written before 429, and the features of the triadological terminology allow to date it not earlier than the beginning of writing «Dialogues about the Holy Trinity» (412 or 423). Examines the hermeneutical principles of the Saint and an overview of the content of the interpretation. It is noted that it is devoted almost exclusively to the issues of soteriology: the spread and action of sin in the descendants of Adam, the powerlessness of the law of Moses in the fight against sin and the meaning of the law, the house-building of the incarnate Word, God's Providence towards the Jewish people and pagans, human freedom, which does not negate the foreknowledge of God.

scholarly journals St. Cyril of Alexandria. Answers to Tiberius the deacon and his brethren

2015 ◽  
pp. 342-379
Author(s):  
Е. А. Заболотный ◽  
Ф. Юлаев
Keyword(s):  
Russian Translation ◽  
Image Of God ◽  
Cyril Of Alexandria ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
Greek Manuscript ◽  
The Image Of God

Публикуемый в русском переводе трактат свт. Кирилла Александрийского содержит ответы на пятнадцать вопросов по различным темам христологии, антропоморфизмам Священного Писания, образу Божьему в человеке и др., которые были предложены святителю группой палестинских монахов. Перевод предваряется предисловием, в котором очерчиваются исторические рамки написания трактата, даются указания по сирийской и греческой рукописным версиям трактата, осуществляется обзор его печатных изданий, а также выясняется его связь с позднейшим компилятивным сочинением «Против антропоморфитов», изданным в 1605 году фламандским гуманистом Бонавентурой Вулканиусом, которое является в своей основе переработкой трех догматических сочинений свт. Кирилла: «ОтветыТиверию диакону с братией», «Разрешение догматов» и «Послание Калосирию епископу Арсеноитскому». The publication of the Russian translation of a treatise of St. Cyril of Alexandria contains the answers to fifteen questions on different topics of Christology, the anthropomorphism of Scripture, the image of God in man et al., which have been posed to the saint by a group of Palestinian monks. The translation is preceded by a preface, which outlines the historical framework for writing the treatise, provides guidance on the Syrian and Greek manuscript versions of the treatise, carries out a review of its publications, and explores its connection with the later compilation “Against anthropomorphites” published in 1605 by the Flemish humanist Bonaventura Vulkanius, which is basically a reworking of the three dogmatic works of St. Cyril: “Answers to Tiberius and his Companions", “Doctrinal Questions and Answers" and “Letter to Calosirius".

scholarly journals COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS OF DECIPHERING THE MIDDLE TEXT ON THE ROSETTA STONE

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tome Boševski ◽  
Aristotel Tentov
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Ancient Egypt ◽  
Slavic Language ◽  
Greek Text ◽  
Official Language ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
Rosetta Stone ◽  
State Official ◽  
Different Order

A b s t r a c t: In this text we present comparative analisys of the words and the expressions obtained after reading of complete middle text on the Rosetta Stone [15], by implementing our origtinal methodology presented in [12]. We have identified over 420 different words and expressions which preserve their meaning in contemporary Macedonian language and its dialects, but also they keep their meaning in archaic or contemporary in other Slavic languages. Identification and analysis of sentences and their structure will be subject of further researh. Going further in depth with analysis and comparing our reading results of the middle text on the Rosetta Stone, [15], with well known previous results of reading so called ancient Greek text, presented in [4], [5], [6], and [9], one can easily conclude that two texts, so called demotic text, and so called ancient Greek text are identical only by their content of the pharaoh’s orders. By all means, these two texts have different sentences structures, and different order of words within it. This fact is very logic and obvious in all cases where we compare two identical texts written in two different languages, and it is valid even today. Based on our research we can further improve this conclusion in the direction that the pharaoh’s decree on the middle text is written on the language of the Ancient Macedonians, with the script (signs) of the living masters in that period of Ancient Egypt. These language and script were state official language and official script in year 196 BC, after more than 100 years of the rulling of Ptolemaic Dynasty over Ancient Egypt. The language that we identified on the middle text on the Rosetta Stone definitely poses characteristics of a Slavic language. Many words that we identified in the middle text still exist in modern Slavic languages, or in their archaic forms, in respective Slavic language. Respectively, in lexical sense, we can identify that this language has very strong Slavic characteristics. This becomes more obvius after careful reading of presented multi-language dictionary.

scholarly journals Some Notes on the Translation of De liberis educandis Made by S. I. Pisarev

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 322-330
Author(s):  
Sofya A. Kharlamova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Russian Translation ◽  
17Th Century ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Discernible Difference

The article covers the translation of Plutarch’s treatise De liberis educandis made by S. Pisarev, which was the first Russian translation of Plutarch’s works from ancient Greek (1771). In trying to find out what editions were used by Pisarev for his oeuvre, the author focuses on some particular features of his translations, such as the use of italics in marking the poetic quotations. Though the marking is not uniform, its style, as compared to the editions and Latin translations of the treatise in the 16th — early18th century, allows supposing that Pisarev used a bilingual edition, either within a collection of Moralia or as a separate book. Theoretically, seven such editions could have been employed. Further analysis of variae lectiones in these editions as reflected in Pisarev’s translation leads to the conclusion that we have to choose between two editions that is, by Rivandrus (1583) and an authoritative Frankfurt ed. of 1599 reproduced twice in the 17th century (1620, and then 1624, in Paris). Since the only discernible difference between them turns to be an inverted word order in a poetic quotation, the author analyses the word order in Pisarev’s text to finally decide in favour of the Frankfurt edition.

scholarly journals St. Petersburg Mythology in an Ancient Greek Poem by F. B. Graefe on the 100-year Jubilee of the Imperial Academy of Sciences (1826)

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 371-393
Author(s):  
Elena L. Ermolaeva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Translation ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Poetic Translation ◽  
Imperial Academy ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

This article deals with a poem by academician F. B. Graefe (1780–1851) written in ancient Greek elegiacs (424 lines) with authorized German poetic translation en regard (1826). The poem was dedicated to the 100-year jubilee of the Imperial Academy of Sciences and printed in a small number of exemplars (für Wenige). The poem has never been republished until now. The article provides the Introduction (54 lines), the Epilogue, and selected passages in Greek and German, with Russian translation and commentaries. The Introduction describes the foundation of St. Petersburg and the Academy by Peter the First. Graefe’s stock images (the marshes on which St. Petersburg appeared; a poor Finnish fisherman with his old net; a tsar demiurge on the bank of the river; etc.), motifs (nature and civilization) and formulas (before — now; one hundred years later; etc.) reflect the official, cosmological St. Petersburg mythology. Three other selected passages of the poem describe the paleontological and Egyptian collections of the Academy museums. The author discusses Graefe’s possible sources, the historical context of his poem, and responces to it in Germany. Graefe’s poem in ancient Greek is a testimony of the Neuhumanismus in Russia.

Virginia Woolf’s Literary Heritage in Russian Translations and Interpretations

2020 ◽  
pp. 132-151
Author(s):  
Maria Bent
Keyword(s):  
Russian Translation ◽  
Critical Reception ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Literary Heritage ◽  
History Of

European countries have been admiring Virginia Woolf’s work since the late 1920s; however, it took over ninety years for her novels to be published in Russia. Initially, Woolf was briefly mentioned in Dmitry Svyatopolk-Mirsky’s 1934 famous volume Intelligentsia, but, after that, she appears to be all but forgotten until the late 1950s. This chapter traces Woolf’s sparse early critical reception in Russia up to the 1970s, followed by the first translations of her writings into Russian, which evolved from publications in the 1980s to the complete editions of her novels in the 2000s. I trace the subtle historical, political and social reasons underlying Woolf’s obscurity in Russia until very recently as politically motivated rather than just an oversight of an overlooked author in the history of Russian translation. My chapter ends with a detailed overview of contemporary academic considerations of Woolf in Russia, and the hope of future scholarship as translations of her work increasingly become more accessible.

scholarly journals New “Russian Translation” of the Treatise “De Adminstrando Imperio” Amid Its Contemporary Studies

2021 ◽  
pp. 292-304
Author(s):  
Aleksei Shchavelev
Keyword(s):  
Roman Empire ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Russian Translation ◽  
Text Structure ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Slavic Language ◽  
Greek Text ◽  
Critical Essay ◽  
Scientific Methods

Introduction. The article is a critical essay about an attempt to translate the Constantine’s treatise “De Administrando Imperio” into an artificially archaic “Pseudo-Slavic” language, made by R.A. Gimadeev. It is shown that his commentaries accompanying this translation are extremely primitive, the author does not follow scientific methods and he is not familiar with modern scientific literature. This is especially clearly seen, since this publication takes place against the backdrop of a fundamental rethinking in modern Byzantine studies of political history and the system of power organization in the “Eastern Roman Empire” of the 10th century. This rethinking of basic Byzantine issues is vastly based on the re-interpretations and new commenting of the classic text of “De Administrando Imperio”. Discussion. In recent years several special articles and monographs have been published, in which the questions about authorship, text structure, stylistics and ideology of the text of “De Administrando Imperio” and related subjects were re-posed. Analysis. For a number of parameters, the text of the introduction and commentaries on the text of the treatise in this new edition made by R.A. Gimadeev is far from the standards of academic writing. His attempts to reason about the paleography of the manuscript and the text’s structure are devoid of formal arguments and arbitrary rhetorical in their nature. The translation of the text into some artificial archaic “Slavic Russian Language” does not convey the pragmatics and stylistics of the original, but leads to a distortion of its perception. The uniformity of the principles of translating special vocabulary is not maintained: in some cases, the translator refuses the usual transliterations, in others – he introduces new ones. The publication practically does not take into account modern historiography, partly, apparently, intentionally, but often, out of unfamiliarity with the necessary studies. Perhaps, some ideas of R.A. Gimadeev will be confirmed and find application in the future, but all his observations require the most careful verification. Conclusions. The considered attempt of a new reconstruction of the Greek text of the treatise and its translation by R.A. Gimadeev are not fully scientific and qualified. As a result, the new edition turned out to be a kind of historiographical deviation, especially evident against the background of modern studies of this masterpiece of Byzantine literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document