Извод из Епитимијног номоканона у Ковиљском и Софијском препису Душанова законодавства и његов руски предложак. Пролегомена за реконструкцију историје текста млађег Епитимијног номоканона

Abstract

The peculiar feature of the manuscript copies of the later version of the Code of Emperor Dušan – the Kovilj and Sofia manuscripts, made in Belgrade in 1726 and 1728 by Stefan Stojković, episcopal exarch of the Metropolitan of Belgrade and Sremski Karlovci (Karlowitz), is that the text of the Code of Emperor Dušan is followed by a digested version of the Penitential Nomokanon. Apart from several shorter penitential compositions, there are two basic variants of the Penitential Nomokanon in the Serbian manuscript heritage, both translated from Greek: the earlier, Coetelerius Nomokanon or Pseudo Zonaras, and the later, Pavlov’s Nomokanon or Nomokanon in 228 Chapters – which are catalogues of Chris‑ tian sins and the corresponding ecclesiastical punishments, intended to serve as confession manuals for priests. A comparison between the Kovilj-Sofia digest and the Serbian manuscript copy of the Penitential Nomokanon indicates that its distant prototype was Pavlov’s Penitential Nomokanon, translated from Greek into Serbian in the late 15th or the early 16th century. This nomokanon consists of two sections or two nomokanons, whereas the Kovilj and Sofia copies contain a digest (94 out of 228/230 chapters) of the first section. Through printed editions and manuscript copies, the later two-section Peni‑ tential Nomokanon of the Serbian recension came to serve as the prototype for the Russian recension used in the Russian Church since the first quarter of the 17th century. The first Russian edition was published in Kiev in 1620 and was followed by the editions of 1624 and 1629. Since 1639, it was printed in Moscow as an annex to the Great Euchologion. Each new edition is marked by editorial interventions, such as additions, omissions, changes in the content and style of individual chapters. As part of the great liturgical reform under the Russian patriarch Nikon I, the later Penitential Nomokanon underwent significant changes. Nikon’s edition was published in Moscow in 1658, as an annex to the Great Euchologion. What makes it different from previous editions published in Kiev and Moscow is, among other things, the omission of the second part of the Nomokanon and the systematization of materials into 228 numbered chapters. This version was accepted as the official version in the Russian Church and was reproduced in print in the decades and centuries to follow. Manuscript copies derived from a Serbian prototype that is different from the prototype of the Kiev and Moscow editions was also in circulation in the Russian Church. Their peculiarity lies in the fact that they were included in legal compendia, after the Syntagma of Mat‑ thew Blastares and Pseudo Zonaras. The prototype of Russian manuscript copies belongs to the line of Serbian copies, a typical example of which is a manuscript held by the Matica Srpska Library (RR I 17 dating from 1615/1625). A comparison of the Kovilj-Sofia digest with the Serbian manuscript cop‑ ies, the Kiev and Moscow editions preceding Nikon’s version, and the editions of Nikon’s version has unequivocally revealed that the prototype of the Kovilj-Sofia digest of the later Penitential Nomokanon was one of the editions of Nikon’s version included in the Great Euchologion. Textual overlaps between selected chapters in the Kovilj-Sofia excerpt and their counterparts in Nikon’s version are reflected in all indicators: the content and the order of chapters, their numbering, marginal instructions and cross-references, subtitles, the use of cinnabar, punctuation used to indicate syntactic entities. The Kovilj-Sofia digest, relying on a direct model of Russian origin, is a distant offspring of the first part of the later Serbian Peni‑ tential Nomokanon. In other words, the Greek archetype was first translated into Serbian Church Slavonic, then Russified, and then again Serbianized in terms of the selection of chapters. In Nikon’s version, the first part of the later Penitential Nomokanon was included as a supplement to the Great Euchologion. This means that either Stefan Stojković, the scribe who wrote the Kovilj and Sofia manuscripts, or the scribe who had copied the prototype used by Stojković must have come into possession of the Moscow edition of the Great Euchologion. Following a major devastation of Serbian libraries at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries and the attacks on the Orthodox Church, Serbs in the Habsburg Empire pleaded the Russian emperor and church to provide ecclesiastical and school books and teachers in order to help them preserve their religion, national identity and language. In the early decades of the 18th century, Russian books became increasingly available to Serbian read‑ ers owing to the activities of the Metropolitans of Belgrade and Sremski Karlovci and charity collection missions of Serbian monks in Russia, or through purchase from Russian merchants. According to the statistical data derived from reports on the canonical visitations to the dioceses in the territory of the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and Sremski Karlovci, by the beginning of the 1730s, most churches and priests had copies of the Moscow edition of the Great Euchologion. Even the earliest inventories of the library of the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and Sremski Karlovci, dating from the mid-1720s show that the Moscow edition of the Great Euchologion was part of the library holdings. Accordingly, Stefan Stojković or the author of the prototype used by him had ample opportunities to come across the model for the digest of the later Penitential Nomokanon in the territory of the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and Sremski Karlovci. At the end, the study presents the text of the digest of the later Penitential Nomokanon according to the Kovilj manuscript. It also includes alternative vari‑ ants from the Sofia manuscript.

У раду је извршена текстолошка анализа епитимијних номоканона српске и руске рецензије, с циљем да се идентификује предложак на основу којег је начињен извод из епитимијног номоканона (94 правила од укупно 228/230) у Ковиљском (1726) и Софијском (1728) препису Душанова законодавства. Анализом је утврђено да је далеки предак Ковиљско-софијског извода први део млађег Епитимијног номоканона, познатог у науци као Павловљев или Номоканон у 228 правила, преведеног с грчког на српски крајем XV или почетком XVI века. Овај номоканон је русификован и умножавао се у Руској цркви, почев од 1620, путем штампаних издања и преписа. Поређењем Ковиљско-софијског извода с руским издањима и српским преписима утврђено је да је његов непосредни предложак једно од штампаних издања руске рецензије у редакцији патријарха Никона, која је први пут обелодањена 1658. Пошто се у Никоновој редакцији први део млађег Епитимијног номоканона (други део је изостављен) преписује као допунски текст уз Велики требник, на основу података у изворима и литератури утврђено је приближно време када је Велики требник Никоновe редакције стигао у Српску земљу, тј. када је и како могао послужити као предложак за прављење посрбљеног извода. На крају је приређено издање текста извода млађег Епитимијног номоканона према Ковиљском препису, с разночтенијима из Софијског преписа.