Translations from Popular Medieval Russian Compendia

Background:

Prólog was one of the most popular books in mediæval Russia. There are no less than 77 ‘Slavonic-Russian’ Prologs and their parts from the late-12th to the 14th centuries extant in post-Soviet archives. (Compare to the 55 or so Psalters of various types; although these did not survive as well, having undergone more extensive use.[1]) The total number of ‘Slavonic-Russian’ books from that era in post-Soviet archives and libraries is approximately 1500. In all, over 3000 manuscript Prologs survive in these archives.[2]  

The Slavonic Prolog (sometimes translated as, Lectionary), or at least its earliest extant manuscript, РНБ, Соф. 1324, was according to A. M. Pentkovskiy translated from the Greek in the 11th century. He argues that this was likely done in the Ochrid Archiepiscopate, wherewith Kiev had close literary, ecclesiastical and political ties at that time.[3] The Greek prototype, the Synaxarion - the core, hagiographic section of Prolog - likely appeared in the late 10th century.[4] The composition of the Synaxarion was doubtless related to the proscriptions of the Canon (Typicon) of the Great Church (Aghia Sophia). Ms РНБ, Соф. 1324 was written in the late twelfth - early thirteenth century. It was translated from a text of recension B (by the classification of A. Luzzi), yet it contains many Western (Italian and Sicilian) memories not typical of this recension.[5]

According to S. A. Davidova, the Greek Synaxarion was a liturgical book intended for non-monastic congregations. (Unfortunately, today many Christians are of the opposite opinion.) At the end of the 12th century, Archbishop Antoniy of Novgorod, having traveled to Constantinople, wrote that in Aghia Sophia Prolog is read just prior to the Liturgy. According to a 13th century manuscript of the Studite Typicon, it is to be read during the matins, either prior to the canon or after its third song;[6] later annotations indicate the 6th song. (However, few such instructions survived into the 1642/43 Moscow edition, which was intended mainly for private use. I do not know how often this edition was read as part of the church service, but since the reading thereof was not mandatory, I assume that it was read mainly in the bigger churches and by the more enthusiastic clergy. Today, the Pomortzi and the celibate Fedoseevtzi read it in their houses of prayer.)

A number of theories regarding the name of the book have been suggested. These, however, are mere guesses; all we know is that it is derived from the Greek, προλόγος. There is an old myth regarding a translator who mistook a term meaning “introduction” for the name of the whole book. This is not convincing. A more likely explanation is that the word was understood as: an introduction to the paeans to the various services, not necessarily in sequence, but rather in an abstract sense. (The word “synaxarion” has the following implied meanings: compilation, gathering, celebration, commemoration;[7] it can also mean “summary.”) In a sixteenth-century Russian dictionary of foreign words, prolog is translated as, пролетний - “daily/annual” (see glossary); hense, Lectionary.

There is a great variety among the early manuscripts of the Slavonic Prolog, indicating that they were translated at different times from different prototypes.[8] Some researchers believe that the translators were Russian-speaking, but this opinion is very difficult to substantiate. Some date the formation of the ‘first’ or ‘short’ recension to the early-12th century; others - to its middle; yet others - to its third quarter.[9] Prior to this, researchers argue, there existed a book more akin to the Greek Synaxarion, without many of the didactical articles particular to the Slavonic tradition (the above-mentioned ms. РНБ, Соф. 1324 represents this recension.){C}[10] Prior to this, some unconvincingly argue, there existed a Slavonic translation of the famous Minologion of Basil II.[11] Some of its vitae have doubtlessly been translated, but whether the whole work was made available to Russians is debatable. (The earliest Russian Минеи date to the 15th century - these contain more than 250 proper-length vitae.) The second, ‘extended’ recension of Prolog is sometimes dated to the 13th century, yet many articles entered the book in the 14th and 15th centuries. (These latter are generally more stylized and elaborate; the language contains more vernacular.) Some of these articles were incorporated from other books, such as the various patericons; others are somewhat longer saints’ lives, either abridged from proper-length vitas or translated anew; some of these new translations were made in Russia, others - in the Balkans. In the 14th century both recensions were popular and borrowed heavily from one another.[12] In the late 14th-century, the Stishnoi Prolog was brought over from the Balkans;[13] it contains short verses for many of the saints as well as a new recension of hagiographic section. The 1641 Moscow edition contains verses.

The 1642/43 edition also contains many Russian articles written in the 16th century; these are easily recognizable, being written in the corresponding style. These have naturally attracted the attention of many researchers, as have many of the earliest Prolog articles; in fact, all the articles pertaining to Russian history have been studied to some extent.[14] The majority of the
Prolog texts, however, still wait to be researched.

The hagiographic articles in Prolog commemorate the saints of the corresponding day of the year - either the day of their passion, or termination, or the day of the translation of their relics. These short vitae, of which there are a few for each day of the year, are arranged in rough chronological order: first - those of the prophets and apostles, if any; then - those of the early martyrs and confessors; and lastly - those of the early medieval saints; these are followed by sermons and other didactical pieces. Historical events, such as instances of divine relief from natural disasters, are also memorialized, as are the foundation dates of churches and monasteries. Tales relating to the early 4th century are prevalent. With few exceptions, the latest memories regarding the Roman (Byzantine) Tsardom (Empire) date to the late 10th century. Balkan saints are few in the Russian Prolog. The Russian version of the book influenced that of the Balkans more than vice-versa.

Prolog was popular for a number of reasons: in addition to the hagiographical section, it contains didactical articles added throughout the centuries (these make up about half of the volume of the 1642/43 edition); initially there was one such article, then others were added. (Few of these are translated below, because of space constraints.) Prolog also familiarized Russians with faraway lands and cultures. Many of the articles contain remarkable literary qualities. Even the more structured, pithy and laconic ones about the early martyrs occasionally contain shocking and thought-provoking content. Occasionally there is a theme running through the 4-10 articles for a given day.[15]

In the afterwords of the 1641/42/43 Moscow editions it states that the book is to be promulgated “throughout all the Russian land… for the reading and the hearing thereof by all the faithful…” “…for the benefit of the souls of the entire Christ-titled habitation.”[16] By the way, the 1641 edition was the first not exclusively liturgical book to be printed in Russia. The 1642 edition, which likewise contained the readings for the first half of the year (September to February), was further edited and supplemented by numerous extensive articles regarding the Russian saints and the events of Russian history - arguably for political reasons, as Soviet researchers unanimously agree. The 1643 edition (March to August) likewise contains much Russian material that does not appear in the manuscript tradition.

The cost of any one of these three editions in the printing-house store, without the binding, was 3 roubles[17] - about half of the annual salary of an un-skilled worker (who seldom bought the book). The Moscow Publishing House printed 1200 copies of the first edition, 1200 of the similar second edition, and 2400 of the third. Being a very large book, a Prolog for half of the year was often split into two parts before being bound.

According to E. A. Emelyanova, the late 18th century saw 9 editions, some covering half of the year, others, 3 months. These were printed in Klintzi, Vilnius and in Suprasl’. Funded by Old-Believers, these followed the 1642/43 editions very closely, without further editing. Edinovercheskaya Tipografiya, a publishing house of the ‘ruling church,’ published numerous editions throughout the nineteenth century to meet the demand of a big section of the population. The early twentieth century also witnessed many editions by various publishing houses, as this was legal post-1905. Manuscripts containing all or part of this enormous text continued to be written until that age.

The size of Prolog is indeed impressive. In all, it contains approximately 3,700 pages by modern reckoning - half that number considering that the pages were numbered on only one side, as was the custom. The more than 3,000 articles are of various lengths - from as little as a couple of lines, to dozens of pages. The ones translated below (comprising approximately 1/10 of the total volume of the book) are relatively short or abridged.

In the mid-sixteenth century Prolog and Verse Prolog were used as the basis of the Great Lectionary Meneia of Metroplolitan Makariy - the most massive compilation in Old-Russian history. At least three codices were made in addition to at least three more in the first half of the seventeenth century. Each contains twelve volumes of about a thousand double-sided two-column pages, in folio.     

Note: Omitted are the words “bless father” which follow the titles of the first article for each day (the same goes for Izmaragd), because they refer to all the readings for the day, not only to the ones translated. This translation is not intended to be read aloud to an Orthodox congregation; for this, it would need to undergo additional correction. Occasionally, the words “on the same day,” before article titles are replaced by the corresponding month and day, un-italicized. All dates are in the Julian calendar.     

[1] Творогов О. В. Древнерусская книжность XI - XIV веков. TODRL, Tome LVI. St. Petersburg: Дмитрий Буланин, 2004. p. 9 - 36

[2] Прокофьева, И. И. Сокровища Древнерусской Литературы: Древнерусская Притча. Москва: Советская Россия, 1991. p. 439

[3] Прокопенко, Л. В. et al. Славяно-Русский Пролог по Древнейшим Спискам. Синаксарь. Сентябрь - Февраль. Tome II. Moscow: Institute of the Russian Language, Russian Academy of Sciences. 2011. p. 661 Together with volume I, this is a very substantial and praiseworthy study of both the Slavonic and Greek Synaxarion.   

[4] It was, according to Давыдова, С. А. Византийский Синаксарь и его судьба на Руси. ТОДPЛ, Tome LI. St. Petersburg: Дмитрий Буланин, 1999. p. 60, an abridgement of the Minologion, a book containing fewer but longer vitae appended with shorter articles and glosses. Or, perhaps, prior to the 10th century, the Synaxarion existed as a section of the New Testament ‘aprakos’ books, which was enlarged using material from the Minologion, the chief source of future additions.

 [5] Прокопенко, Л. В. et al. Славяно-Русский Пролог по Древнейшим Спискам. Синаксарь. Сентябрь - Февраль. Tome II. Moscow: Institute of the Russian Language, Russian Academy of Sciences. 2011. p 654

[6] ibid. p. 69

Also see, Давыдова, С. А. and Черторицкая, Т. В. К истории синаксаря. ТОDPЛ, Tome XLVII. St. Petersburg: Дмитрий Буланин, 1993. p. 159

[7] ibid. p. 151 - 163

[8] Давыдова, С. А. Византийский Синаксарь и его судьба на Руси. ТОДPЛ, Tome LI. St. Petersburg: Дмитрий Буланин, 1999. p. 68; O. V. Loseva, a foremost expert in this field, argues against this opinion. She also argues against Bulgaria as a likely location for the translation, because in her opinion there existed there, in the 10th century, the full text of the Minologion. See, Лосева, О. В. Жития русских святых в составе древнерусских Прологов XII - первой трети XV веков. М.: Рукописные Памятники Древней Руси, 2009. p. 29, 41

[9] Щапов, Я. Н. ed. Письменные памятники истории Древней Руси. Санкт-Петербург: Русско-Балтийский информационный центр “БЛИЦ,” 2003. p. 214

[10] O. V. Loseva, for example, believes that the so-called ‘primary recension,’ which in her opinion may not be the first, was translated at the end of the 11th or the beginning of the 12th century from a prototype that evolved both from the Minologion of Basil II and the Synaxarion of the Church of Constantinople. The didactical portion, she argues, was added in the 1160s. See, Лосева, О. В., Жития русских святых в составе древнерусских Прологов XII - первой трети XV веков. М.: Рукописные памятники Древней Руси, 2009. p. 25, 77, 80 - 128

[11] Such was also the opinion of L. P. Zhukovskaya.

[12] Лосева, О. В. Жития русских святых в составе древнерусских Прологов XII - первой трети XV веков. М.: Рукописные памятники Древней Руси, 2009. p. 128; In the fifteenth century a version mentioning many Russian saints appeared in Pskov. See Фет, E. A., Новые факты к истории древнерусского пролога. Источниковедение литературы Древней Руси. Д. С. Лихачев et al. ed. Ленинград: Наука, 1980. p. 53

[13] Турилов, А. А. Slavia Cyrillomethodiana… Москва: Знак, 2010. p. 340

[14] O. V. Loseva identifies at least 45 Russian articles that appeared prior to the beginning of the 15th century. See, Лосева, О. В. Жития русских святых в составе древнерусских Прологов XII - первой трети XV веков. М.: Рукописные памятники Древней Руси, 2009. p. 10

[15] Демин, А. С. Первое издание Пролога и культурные потребности русского общества 1630 - 1640-х годов. Русская старопечатная литература XVI - первая четверть XVIII в. Литературный сборник XVII века, Пролог. Москва: Наука, 1978. p. 54

[16] Елеонская, А. С. Политические цели второго издания Пролога 1642-1643-х годов. Русская старопечатная литература XVI - первая четверть XVIII в. Литературный сборник XVII века, Пролог. Москва: Наука, 1978. p. 76 (The quotes are taken from the 1641 ed. (p. 896) and the 1642 ed. (p. 906).

[17] Дадыкин, А.  В. Бытование экземпляров дониконовских московских печатных прологов в старообрядческой среде. Мир Старообрядчества. Выпуск 5. Москва: Издательство Московского Университета, 1999. p. 77