Slavonic Erotapokriseis:

Sources, Transmission, and Morphology of the Genre

Anissava Miltenova

Texts in the form of questions and answers (synonyms include the term erota-
pokriseis, Gr. ἐρωταποκρίσει, Lat. quaestiones et responsiones) were among
the most widespread formal text structures in both Byzantine and Old Slavonic
literatures. In Byzantine manuscripts such texts were most frequently named
in the title: ἐρωτήσει (“questions”), ἀποκρίσει (“responses”), πεύσει καὶ
κρίσει (“inquiries and answers”), ἀπορία καὶ λύσει (“difficulties and solu-
tions”), ρήσει καὶ ἐρμηνείαι (“fragments and interpretations”), ζητήσει
(“quests,” “researches,” “controversial issues”), or προβλήματα (“questionable
places”), while the term ἐρωταποκρίσει entered into circulation in Byzantium
as late as the twelfth century.1
It is generally accepted that, in Christian tradition, the form of questions and
answers was initially established in the fourth century as a variety of the interpre-
tative (exegetical or catechetical) type of texts.2 However, it can be found much
earlier. Philo of Alexandria (c. 30 bce – 45 ce), wrote allegoric quaestiones et
responsiones explanations of Genesis and Exodus, and the form is attested in
the fragmentary writings of Demetrius the Chronographer, another Alexandrine
Jew, which perhaps date from as early as the late third century bce. As a subor-
dinate literary genre, erotapokriseis were also used in the comments of Clement
of Alexandria (150–215) and Origen (185–254), while as an independent one it
is first evolved with Eusebius of Caesarea (265–340). The erotapokriseis genre
was developed by early Christian exegetes, including St. Ambrose, Bishop of
Mediolanum, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Isidore of Seville, St. Basil of Cae-
sarea (‘the Great’), Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Pseudo-Caesarius, Pseudo-Justin), St.
Hesychius of Jerusalem, Pseudo-Athanaisus, St. Maximus the Confessor and St.

1 H. Dörrie and H. Dörries, “Eortapokriseis,” RAC 6.342–370 at 342, A. Volgers, “Preface,”

Erotapokriseis. Early Christian Question-and-Answer Literature in Context (ed. A. Volgers and

Cl. Zamagni; Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 3–6 at 3–4.
2 G. Bardy, “La littérature patristique des ‘Questions et responsiones’ sur l’Écriture Sainte,”

RB 41 (1932), 210–36, 340–69, 515–37; 42 (1933), 14–30, 84–6, 211–29, 328–52. Cf. OCB,
1.727.
01 Boettrich_DiTommaso_Text.indd (14.12.10)
280 Anissava Miltenova Slavonic Erotapokriseis: Sources, Transmission, and Morphology of the Genre 281

Anastasius the Sinaite, among others.3 Erotapokriseis in the Byzantine-Slavonic 4. Questions and answers of polemic character in defense of dogmatics and
medieval tradition are translated or compiled, and brought together on the basis the liturgical practices of the Eastern Church, the most typical being anti-Latin
of one or more Greek sources. In terms of their content and functions, they may works in both Byzantium and medieval Bulgaria.8
be classified into five groups: 5. Questions and answers of catechetical character, which in most cases are
1. Exegetic-dogmatic questions and answers, where question-and-answer in- short and laconic. In its essence, this type of dialogue is a propaedeutic genre,
terpretations of biblical books belong. These developed on the basis of interpre- which allows readers or listening audience to be acquainted with (or checked,
tative texts pertaining to the Gospel, the Psalter, the Revelation of John, the Song tested) on the basics of catechism or with its more specific details in elementary
of Songs, and the prophetic books that were created by well-established Church form. Only the sacrament of baptism is in the form of questions and answers.
authors. In the period of the initial spreading and absorption of Christianity, these Catechetical erotapokriseis usually includes interpretations of biblical symbol-
erotapokriseis works played the exceptionally important role of propaedeutics ism and the parables in the Holy Writ, inheriting Judaic allegory in this respect.
(from the Gr. προ-παιδεύω: to teach in advance, prepare), an accessible “intro- It introduces readers to the hidden meaning of the text and reveals by interpreta-
duction” to the problems of the Holy Scriptures.4 In Slavonic tradition, one could tion the eternal truths encoded in it. Very frequently in the erotapokriseis of the
also include in this section the translated dialogues of Pseudo-Caesarius, as well Slavonic Middle Ages (as with texts of Origen, St. Augustine, St. Gregory of
as the questions and answers ascribed to St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. Nyssa, and other early authors) interpretation of symbols is targeted at relating
2. Questions and answers as part of the so-called ascetic literature, which are the Old and New Testaments, the symbolic meaning of names and events in the
found in Paterik miscellanies and monastic florilegia.5 This is where, for ex- Old Testament, for example, lead to “revealing” the content and meaning of the
ample, the Dialogues of St. Gregory the Great belong, also known as the Paterik New Testament (“Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet, Vetus in Novo patet”).
Rimskyj (Roman Paterikon),6 which was translated in Old Bulgarian literature There is a practice in historical literary research, chrestomathies, or antholo-
on several occasions. gies of medieval texts, as well as in reference books, to call short quaestiones et
3. Questions and answers dealing with canonical law.7 This part of erotapokri- responsiones most frequently the Conversation of Three Hierarchs (Conversatio
seis literature originated from the practice of writing comments on the provisions trium Hierarcharum). The origin of the term is related to the title Бесѣда трехъ
of the laws or to separate excerpts in the legal literature of the Roman Empire. свѧтителеи which is found in a large portion of Russian copies of short questions
The question-response form was particularly popular in correspondence (the and answers. Traditionally, these are believed to be the conversations between
so-called responsa prudentium), which continued to exist long after the official St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, and St. John Chrysostom, with
recognition of Christianity, with the peculiarity that it gradually restricted its one of these Church Fathers asking the questions and the other answering them.
application in administrative literature and became a productive model in ca- Explanation of the formation of this tradition is sought in the rhetoric contests
nonical law. on popular and ingenious presentation of theological issues in Byzantium – a
historical fact, which was confirmed before the establishment of a feast day
3 G. Heinrici, “Zur Patristischen Aporienliteratur,” Abhandlungen der philologisch-histo-
of the three saints in 1084.9 According to authors like P. P. Vjazemsky,10 short
rischen klasse der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 27 (1909), 843–60, questions and answers were a form of rhetorical exercises for common people
Dörrie and Dörries, “Eortapokriseis,” 342–70, Cl. Zamagni, “Une introduction méthodologiqie and the minor clergy, since these exercises presented the complicated theological
à la littérature patristique des questions et réponses: le cas d’Eusèbe de Cèsarée,” Erotapokriseis problems taught in Byzantine schools of rhetoric in an accessible form. Another
(op. cit., n. 1, supra), 7–24; A.-L. Rey, “Les erotapokriseis dans le monde Byzantin: tradition
manuscrite des textes anciens et production de nouveaux textes,” Erotapokriseis (op. cit.),
explanation for the inception of erotapokriseis literature is sought in samples
165–80, and literature cited. dating from the Early Christian age (third to fourth centuries), which constitute
4 A. A. Alekssev, Tekstologija slavjanskoj biblii. (St. Petersburg: Böhlag Verlag, Köln-Wei-
anthologies of summaries from the Holy Writ with short comments on it. A case
mar-Wien, Dmitrij Bulanin Publishing, 1999), 39–41.
5 M. Richard, “Florilèges spirituels grecs,” Dictionaire de Spiritualité, vol. 5 (1964), cols.

475–512 (497) (= Opera Minora, 1 [Turnholt-Leuven]), 475–6.   8 A. Popov, Istoriko-literaturnyj obzor drevne-russkih polemicheskih sochinenij protiv lat-
6 Ch. Hannik, “Die griechische Überlieferung der Dialogi des Papstes Gregorius und ihre ver- injan (11–15 v.) (Moscow: Tipografija T. Ris, 1875), 238–86.
breitung bei den Slaven im Mittelalter,” Slovo 24 (1974), 41–57; A. Mincheva. “Grigorij Veliki,”   9 I. Y. Porfir’ev, Apokrificheskie skazanija o novozavetnyh licah i sobytijah po rukopisjam

Starobălgarska literatura. Enciklopedichen rechnik. (Veliko Tărnovo: Abagar, 2003), 124–5. Soloveckoj biblioteki (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaja akademija nauk, 1890), 114–16; Sergij
7 H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Handbuch der Al- Archim., Ponyj mjaseceslov Vostoka III 2 (Moscow: Pravoslavnyj palomnik, 1997), 46.
tertumswissenschaft, XII.2.1), (München: Beck, 1959), 537, 654; S. B. Freehof, The Responsa 10 P. P. Vyazemskij, “Besjada treh’ svjatitelej,” Pamajtniki drevnej pis′mennosti, vol. 1 (St.

Literature (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of. America, 1959), 20–2. Petersburg: Tipografija S. Dobrodeeva, 1880), 63–130.
01 Boettrich_DiTommaso_Text.indd (14.12.10)
282 Anissava Miltenova Slavonic Erotapokriseis: Sources, Transmission, and Morphology of the Genre 283

in point is the fourth-century question-and-answer anthology called Joseph’s 1. Question-and-Answer Interpretation of Gospel Parables
Bible Notes (Hypomnestikon), ascribed to Christianus Josephus.11 This prac-
tice was continued in the catechetical literature of the East and the West. Nor This category covers between nineteen and twenty-one parables and sayings
should one overlook the hypothesis of N. F. Krasnoseltsev, who assumed that (logia), each of which is followed by an allegorical interpretation.15 The text
in the fourth to sixth century short questions and answers had the function of structure consists of a quotation from the Gospel (in a shortened form, without
“questionnaires.”12 The correct answer required by a respondent served not only an introductory expression or word), several questions to this quotation (be-
to check his knowledge of biblical canon, but also to establish heretical devia- ginning with the pronoun “who” or “what”) and short answers (the questions
tions at a time when they were a frequent occurrence. are sometimes omitted but they are implied in the answers). The titles vary:
Regarding the Slavonic Middle Ages, texts in the form of question and an- Притⸯчѣ ѥже ѿ еванⸯгелиꙗ; Сказаниѥ словеси ѥвнг҃льскыхь; Въпрашаниꙗ и ѿвѣти
swers had predominantly catechetical functions and belonged to the admonitory еѵ(г)льскихь словесъ сказанⸯна Василиїемъ и Ѳеологомь Григоріемъ; Тлькованиѥ еѵ(г)
(paraenesis) literature. They are either anonymous or else carry the names of two льско и сказанїие; А се протлькь еуаньгльскы ѡ прїчахь; Тлькованиѥ вѣтхомоу и
or more “interlocutors,” and are characterized by considerable simplicity and новомоу; Тлькь ѿ еѵг҃лиꙗ, etc., but the beginning (when the text is complete and
accessibility. In spite of the obligatory impersonal form, the roles of “teacher” there are no missing parts) is almost always the same: Чл҃къ нѣкто съхождааше
and “student” are frequently implied in the dialogues. There are scholars who ѿ Ер(с)лима въ Ерихонъ. и въ разбоиникы въпаде: “A certain man went down from
say that they belong to apocryphal literature, but the majority of the texts are not Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves” (Luke 10:30).
of clearly defined heretical character. Erotapokriseis were mentioned in indexes I have studied the work in fifty-six copies, divided into two groups. Two
of forbidden books as late as the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the hitherto unstudied early copies of the work are of prime importance for the first
fifteenth century, in the so-called Index of Cyprian, which is known from Rus- group: 1) a fragment on an additionally introduced last page (46b) in a twelfth-
sian copies.13 century Slavonic parchment Apostle from the St. Catherine Monastery in Sinai,
This paper is dedicated to catechetical questions and answers, found mainly which was probably written by someone with Russian orthographic habits, but
in South Slavonic (Bulgarian and Serbian) manuscripts. In the cases where they indicating a Bulgarian antegraph; and 2) a text without title or beginning (me-
are important for the reconstruction of South Slavonic tradition, this analysis chanical deficiency), but the remainder features a complete manuscript: Vienna,
also quotes Russian copies.14 Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod. slav. 12, probably written at Chilan-
dar Monastery on Mt. Athos in the second quarter of the thirteenth century.16
Other copies important for the history of the first translation are included in
the miscellany of Father Dragol dating from the third quarter of the thirteenth
century (№ Рс 651, National Library, Belgrade), Raska orthography, as well as
in the fifteenth-century manuscript № 6 (Rumyantsev collection 256, Russian
State Library, Moscow) of Russian origin, with traces of Bulgarian protograph.
Comparison with the Vienna and Dragol copies reveals that the text of the Com-
11
 R. M. Grant and G. W. Menzies, Joseph’s Bible Notes (Hypomnestikon) (SBLTT 41; (At- mentary on the Gospel Parables in the last (Rumyantsev) copy is the most com-
lanta: Scholars Press, 1996). prehensive one, without any omissions or defects, and most probably stands
12 N. F. Krasnoseltsev. Addenda k izdaniju A. Vasil’eva Anecdota graeco-byzantina (Odessa:

Ekonomičeskaja tipografija, 1898), 8–10.

closest to the archetype of the work.
13 A. I. Yacimirskij, Bibliograficheskij obzor apokrifov v južnoslavjanskoj i russkoj When comparing the two groups of copies, I found that they are actually two
pis’mennosti, vyp., Apokrify vethozavetnye. (Petrograd: Rossijskaja Gos. Akadem. tipografija, separate translations of the Commentary into Old Bulgarian. In the first trans-
1921), 54–5.
14 A. de Santos Otero, Die Handschriftlische Überlieferung der altslavischen Apokryphen. 15 Analysis and edition: A. Miltenova, Erotapokriseis. Săchinenijata ot kratki văprosi i ot-

B. II. (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1981), 196–222. The author listed in general 120 govori v starobălgarskata literatura (Sofia: ‘Damjan Yakov,’ 2004), 77–122, 354–80.
texts of Conversatio Trium Hierarcharum in Slavic manuscripts, and tried to give a prelimi- 16 This part of the manuscript is written on bombazine, two-column text, Raška orthography.

nary classification. Important corrections and additions in: F. Thomson, “Apocrypha Slavica The interpretation is featured on fols. 143а–144с, as part of an ancient set of texts (On Church
II,” SEER 63 (1985), N 1, 91–6. The author of present research work takes into account these Organisation and Liturgy related to the work of Constantine of Preslav, a commentary on the
publications, but aims to enlarge the sources with newly discovered witnesses, and, implement- Lord’s Prayer, a penitential nomocanon of Theodore the Studite in 42 points, questions and
ing textological analysis, to revise the conclusions concerning the systematization, origin and answers Constitution of the [Holy] Words and the Sunday Gospel Homiliary by Constantine of
function of the South Slavonic texts. Preslav, tenth century).
01 Boettrich_DiTommaso_Text.indd (14.12.10)
284 Anissava Miltenova Slavonic Erotapokriseis: Sources, Transmission, and Morphology of the Genre 285

lation, investigated on the basis of twenty-three Slavonic copies dating from The second translation of the Commentary on the Gospel Parables is known
the twelfth century to the end of the eighteenth century, the text of the work is from more than twenty-five copies, the oldest of which is a fragment in a twelfth-
composed of three parts: 1) a commentary indicating a Greek source ascribed century parchment tetraevangelion (№ 1, fol. 381, Russian State Archive of
to Athanasius of Alexandria (296–373) (Ρήσει καὶ ἐρμηνεῖαι παραβολῶν τοῦ Ancient Acts, Moscow), of Russian origin. The Bulgarian copies featured in
ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου  –  “Sermons and Commentary on Gospel Parables”); b) a the Berlin miscellany of the beginning of the fourteenth century (№ 48, Berlin
sermon against wordiness in prayer (i. e., to wish power, fortune, and fame from State Library) and Ivan Alexander’s miscellany of 1348 (№ F. I. 376, fol. 560,
God) and c) a commentary on the Lord’s Prayer. Analysis indicates the conclu- Russian National Library, St. Petersburg) are of significant importance for the
sion that, in the case of the sermon and the commentary, the source that was used study. Judging by the content and the archaic linguistic features of these two
was a text from the nineteenth homily of St. John Chrysostom on Matthew (PG copies, one could assume that the translation originated in Bulgaria no later
57, cols. 277–8). than the middle of the tenth century. Additional evidence in this direction is,
The first translation of this erotapokriseis features a number of archaic linguis- for example, the Glagolitic copy in the so-called Tkon manuscript (№ IV.а.120,
tic forms on lexical, morphological, and syntactic levels. When compared with Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Zagreb) of the sixteenth century, which
the work of the Bulgarian writer Clement of Ochrida (†916) under the titles Въ consistently preserves ancient features of the Bulgarian protograph. The second
тъ(ж) дн҃ь сло(в) д҃. ѡ ст҃ѣи тр(о)цѣ и ѡ тварї и о сѫдѣ and Въ тъ(ж) дн҃ь сло(в) д҃. ѡ translation indicates a Byzantine source, which constitutes an abbreviation of the
ст҃ѣи тр(о)цѣ и ѡ тварї и о сѫдѣ, I found a definite similarity in certain passages of answers of Athanasius of Alexandria made on Greek soil. There the volume of
the text. It seems logical, then, to voice the hypothesis that the work of transla- interpretations is considerably smaller, while the Sermon against wordiness in
tion and compilation was compiled before the Homily for the Holy Trinity and prayer and the commentary on the Lord’s Prayer are lacking altogether. In the
the Instruction for the Feasts of St. Clement of Ochrida were written,17 because Late Middle Ages, the second translation was edited by an anonymous writer
the sermon against wordiness in prayer in the two homilies is given in already from the Serbian Monastery of Rača in the first half of the seventeenth century.
shortened and processed form found in the question-and-answer Commentary As a result, a whole series of copies appeared in seventeenth‑ and eighteenth-
on the Gospel Parables. The character of the parallel passage in the works of St. century Serbian manuscripts related to this literary centre.
Clement of Ochrida is secondary in regards to compilation. The living tradition The Commentary on the Gospel Parables was an important part of canoni-
of the oldest Cyrillo-Methodian evangelical translation preserved in the text is cal exegetic literature, spread both among the monks and the literate part of
unequivocal proof of its early origin. In addition to the parallels with the works the population. Most of the copies from either one of the two early periods are
of St. Clement, one should not belittle the fact that in the above-mentioned usually found (in both Southern Slavonic and Russian and Southern Russian
Vienna copy (ÖNB cod. slav. 12), the Commentary on the Gospel Parables is manuscript tradition) in the company of other catechetical texts of similar func-
featured together with the Gospel Homiliary and On Church Organisation and tion. The objective of the Commentary was above all explanatory and “publiciz-
Liturgy that are, in turn, related to Constantine of Preslav. The common spirit ing” – it served as an interpretative manual for key places in the Gospel text in
and the way the text is structured in On Church Organisation and Liturgy, and mastering the Christian faith.
particularly in the Gospel Homiliary (where exegesis is frequently presented in
the form of questions and answers on the evangelical text), are largely suited to
the essence of the Commentary on the Gospel Parables. It is also close to the 2. The Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer
Gospel Homiliary in the use of excerpts from the exegetical commentaries of St.
John Chrysostom, which in both cases are among the prime sources of the Old This commentary is closely connected with the work we have just discussed.18
Bulgarian writer. As one of the most important Christian practices, the subject Old Slavonic literatures feature a number of translated commentaries of the
of prayer as a spiritual communion with God is also discussed in the work of Lord’s Prayer by St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of Je-
Constantine of Preslav (e. g., Commentary № 45). rusalem, Maximus Confessor, as well as anonymous texts. The text that is of
interest here, beginning with: Ѿч҃е нашь. ижь ѥси на нб҃сѣхь. нарекы бо ѿца б҃а.
достоино ѥсть тако житиѥ ꙗвлꙗти (“Our Father in heaven, Luke 11:2, called
17 About the textology of the two homilies see A. Štekin, “Slovo Ioanna Zlatousta ‘o tvari i Father God it is worthy such a life to show”), can be found in independent form,
o sude’ v sbornike RNB OCRK F. I. 4: kratkij variant homilii, pripisyvaemoj Klimenta Ohrid-
skomu,” Se-S 5 (2007), 145–160. 18 Analysis
and edition in Miltenova, Erotapokriseis, 123–50.
01 Boettrich_DiTommaso_Text.indd (14.12.10)
286 Anissava Miltenova Slavonic Erotapokriseis: Sources, Transmission, and Morphology of the Genre 287

but in most of the cases it is added to the question-and-answer Commentary of 3. The Dialogue between St. Basil the Great
the Gospel Parables. The oldest autonomous copy is incorporated in the afore- and St. Gregory the Theologian
mentioned cod. ÖNB slav. 12, of the second quarter of the thirteenth century,
fols. 154b–155e, directly after On Church Organisation and Liturgy. In another This text holds an important place in Slavonic erotapokriseis literature. It is titled
group of copies (e. g., in miscellany № 6, collection 256, Russian State Library, Въпроси и отъвѣти григора богословьца и василиꙗ, and is included in the first Sime-
Moscow, of the fifteenth century and Russian origin), the text is a logical con- on miscellany, known as Izbornik of 1073.19 This work shares the close manu-
tinuation of the Commentary on the Gospel Parables – this is what is said after script tradition of the codex copies, which consistently relates one and the same
the explanation how a Christian should pray for those prayers to be heard (оуча translation. The text was part of the codex as it was initially translated, which has
ны како ны подоба потрѣба молити сѧ. абїе и оумь нш҃ь на нб҃о въз(д)вижеть. и ѿ been well studied. It is characteristic of the work that it mentions only two of the
землѧ възносить. и небескы(х) прилагае(т). велѧ намъ гл҃ати. оч҃е нашь иже еси на “hierarchs,” i. e., the form is closer to the ancient samples of the genre. The text
нб҃си.). Linguistic and textual analysis of the copies brings one to the conclusion has the character of commentary on the incarnation of the Son, the invisibility
that the first translation of the Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer originated in of God, and the essence of the Holy Trinity, illustrated with biblical examples.
Bulgaria around the last decades of the ninth century or the beginning of the The questions and answers have an undoubted connection with the surrounding
tenth. It is characterized by archaic lexical, morphological, and syntactic forms texts and are a good illustration of the role of erotapokriseis literature in that age.
that are typical of the earliest period of Slavonic literature. The source of the text
is identified with the nineteen discourse of St. John Chrysostom on Matthew,
from which short excerpts have been made for every line of the Lord’s Prayer. 4. The erotapokriseis
The question about the authorship of the first translation of the Commentary on “Constitution of the [Holy] Words”
the Lord’s Prayer, however, remains open. The parallels with the homilies of
St. Clement of Ochrida existing in the preceding passage (about loquaciousness This text, which is found in manuscripts under the title ОУстроеніе словесъ Василіа и
in prayer) indicate his authorship. Along with this, one should underscore that, Григоріа ѳеѡлога Іѡанна (variant:Въпроси и ѿвѣти ст҃го глигориꙗ и василиꙗ иѡанна
in terms of content, the Commentary has more similarities with the works of бг҃ословца), is newly discovered. The lexeme ОУстроеніе in the title probably trans-
Constantine of Preslav. lated the Greek σύστασι (“system,” “structure”; e. g., περὶ συστάσεω τῶν
The second Bulgarian translation of the Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer λόγων) or κατάστασι (“structure,” “established order”).20 N. Krasnoseltsev
originated not much later than the first, again within the tenth century, as in- assumes that ОУстроеніе словесъ is a literal translation of περὶ συστάσεω τῶν
dicated by its lexical peculiarities. It was copied as a self-contained work, fre- λόγων, where the word λόγο means “reason” or “wisdom.” The names of
quently with a commentary on the Creed, and included in the so-called “intro- the “hierarchs” in the title are three: St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Basil the
ductory” part of the Kormchaya (a collection of various texts and commentaries Great, and St. John the Theologian, which is why the work has been unfound-
on church law). I know of six copies of this translation, which are included edly included in the so-called Conversation of Three Hierarchs (Beseda Treh
in one of its early versions with a Bulgarian archetype, found in both Serbian Svjatitelej).
and Russian copies (e. g., in the Ilovichska Kormchaya of 1262; in the Ryazan I have investigated fifteen South Slavonic, Russian and South Russian cop-
Kormchaya of 1284, and others). It is interesting that the translation is featured ies of this composition, among which the oldest are: a newly found fragment
in manuscripts of liturgical content, as, for example, the famous Psalter of Tsar in parchment Apostle № 39 from the St. Catherine Monastery in Sinai, dating
Ivan Alexander (№ 2, of the year 1337, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, from the twelfth century, fol. 46a-b (without beginning: ...на нб҃с[…]. отъ.вѣ(т).
fols. 155a–157b). Another type of miscellany that features the Commentary on б҃ъ. и чл҃҃вкъ. въпро(с) чьто сѧ слшать ꙗсли.); a copy in the ÖNB cod. slav. 12,
the Lord’s Prayer (in the translation of the text from the Psalter) is the ascetic of the second quarter of the thirteenth century, originating from the Chilan-
(Hesychast) anthologies compiled on Mt. Athos around the end of the fourteenth dar Monastery, fols. 161a–165b (without title: григори р(ч)е. Рци ми .і҃. словесь ѿ
century. The relation between the second translation and a whole range of texts
of dogmatic-exegetical character, which were probably translated in the tenth 19 Simeonov sbornik (po Svetoslavovija prepis ot 1073). Izsledvanija i tekst (Sofia: Izdatel-

century, is indicative of its high authority. stvo na BAN., 1991), 676–80.

20 It is found in both translated and original early Slavonic manuscripts: оустроени

въселенъстѣмъ (Enina Lectionary Apostle), оустроѥнии црькъвьнѣмъ (Codex Suprasliensis),

оустроѥниꙗ христиꙗньска (Izbornik of 1073), безь оустроѥниꙗ (Monk Khrabr), among others.
01 Boettrich_DiTommaso_Text.indd (14.12.10)
288 Anissava Miltenova Slavonic Erotapokriseis: Sources, Transmission, and Morphology of the Genre 289

ѥуаг҃лиꙗ. васи(л) р(ч)е. а. искони бѣ слово), which so far has not attracted scholarly the Slavonic and the Latin tradition of short questions and answers is one that
attention; and a copy in the miscellany of Father Dragol of the third quarter of calls for separate research.
the thirteenth century, № 651, of Serbian origin (fols. 10b–21a: Въпроси и ѿвѣти The third part  –  some 14 erotapokriseis units  –  features universal themes
ст҃го глигориꙗ и василиꙗ. иѡана бг҃ословца. вьпрос. что се слышеть ꙗсли идѣже лежа on the structure of the microcosm and the macrocosm, as well as human life,
г҃ь.). The Rumjantsev copy in manuscript № 6 (collection 256, Russian State from both the Old and the New Testament. At the end of this third part there are
Library, Moscow) of the fifteenth century is also of prime importance. It has a questions grouped around the meaning of church sacraments (e. g., the origin of
composition close to that of the Izbornik of 1073, and one in which the text has chrism, on baptism and others), about the names of the holy men born with An-
preserved its initial structure. nunciation (which returns readers to the subject of the Incarnation of the Word),
The archetype of the text was constituted as an Old Bulgarian compilation about the names of the myrrh-bearing women, and so on. This part has some
on the basis of translated texts in which several erotapokriseis nuclei were in- parallels in Greek copies (the oldest being in Athos St. Panteleimoni 90, collec-
tegrated. In the beginning of the work (according to the Vienna codex 12) there tion of the St. Panteleemon Monastery on Mt. Athos, written in two columns,
are five question-and-answer units, the first two of which feature an imperative: parchment, from the thirteenth century, fol. 50b). Finally, the Constitution of the
рци ми (Lat. Dic mihi; this formula is encountered quite frequently in Latin [Holy] Words includes an erotapokriseis text about the Creation of Adam (see
copies, unlike the reciprocate construction, εἴπῳ μοι, which is found only in below), which initially could have represented an independent work.
some of the surviving Greek texts). The text begins with a quotation from John The compilation is subordinate to the idea for revealing and adoption of the
1:1–5, which is read at Easter and is a key one for Christian religion as regards harmonious order (оустроеніе) of the Christian word (the “holy words”) – a man-
the incarnation of the Word and the essence of God. The introductory questions ner of ordering the world and its perception as a uniform whole. The function of
and answers also feature a listing and explanation of some principal Christian the text was probably didactic, confirming knowledge of basic Christian notions,
symbols: the tetramorphs and the names of God (separately of the father, the biblical events, and the symbolic meaning of the names of biblical personages.
Son, and the Holy Ghost). The infrastructure used is that of a catalogue, at places So far, the specific rendition of separate words in parts of the work (as for ex-
equipped with short explanations and references to the Scriptures. The text has ample in the catalogue of names in the second part of the composition) has found
partial parallels in Greek copies such as Venice, Biblioteca Marciana gr. 539, fol. separate parallels in both the Latin tradition, which has reached us in copies from
20а (parchment, twelfth century); ÖNB theol. gr. 244 [Lambecius 297], fol. 50a the seventh to ninth centuries (a legacy from early Christian codices), and in
(paper, first quarter of the sixteenth century), among others. partial analogues in fourteenth‑ to seventeenth-century Greek copies. In lexical
The second part of the text consists of seventeen questions and answers, the terms, the text Constitution of the [Holy] Words has two well-preserved ancient
first three of which are dedicated to the Incarnation of the Word and its chronol- layers: the first leading to the Cyrillo-Methodian heritage and the second to the
ogy. The remaining fourteen feature the names of persons and places related to so-called “Preslav” period in the history of Old Bulgarian literary language. The
biblical history. The marker here is the introductory phrase: кто (что) сѧ слыша first, Cyrillo-Methodian, layer is more discernible and prevails in most of the
(слышахоу) or что сѧ сказаета именѣ, in which some authors see a trace of Latin copies. This conclusion, as well as the fact that the copies feature in manuscripts
influence. In the course of looking for possible parallels of this part of the work, of ancient composition, which indicates the time of the First Bulgarian King-
scholars have found a precise analogue in a Latin erotapokriseis text featured in dom, dates the origin of the compilation originated to the end of the ninth or the
a Parisian manuscript from the end of the seventh century (Bibliothèque natio- beginning of the tenth century.
nale de France, lat. 4884, the so-called Barbarus Scaligeri, fols. 50r–54v). Of
Eastern origin, the codex features the chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea, the Al-
exandrian chronicle where the names of the consuls and the short questions and 5. Questions and Answers about the Creation of Adam
answers are given in the form of scholia. M. van Esbroeck voiced the assumption
that they were compiled around the end of the fourth century in a literary centre These questions and answers are of particular importance in Slavonic tradition.
close to the school of Alexandria.21 The question of possible interaction between They are found both scattered among questions and answers on other subjects
and grouped, with or without a special title. The questions and answers about
the elements from which Adam was made and about the origin of his name
21 M. van Esbroeck, “Un dialogue entre Basile et Grégoire conservé en Géorgien,” Christi- (which have a measure of independence) are usually distinguished among the
janskij Vostok 2 n.s. (2001), 56–101. surrounding texts or even feature in manuscripts as an independent passage
01 Boettrich_DiTommaso_Text.indd (14.12.10)
290 Anissava Miltenova Slavonic Erotapokriseis: Sources, Transmission, and Morphology of the Genre 291

under different titles: О Адамѣ; Сказаниѥ како сътвори богъ Адама; Ѿ сколькихъ the time of his inception. The objective of the secondary editing was probably to
частеи созданъ былъ Адамъ etc. In some versions of the indexes of forbidden bring the text into harmony with the context of a newly written Bulgarian work
books, the erotapokriseis about the creation of Adam is ascribed to the Bulgarian like the Razumnik, and in all known copies of the second version the passage is
Father Jeremiah (tenth century). included in precisely this work.
I have differentiated more than thirty Slavonic manuscript copies according The second translation was established and studied on the basis of South
to whether they consider Adam to have been made of eight elements or seven Slavonic copies, the oldest of which is in the Serbian codex № 29 of the Savina
elements. In a separate study I made a comprehensive textual analysis of the Monastery, Montenegro, dating from around 1380. This group is represented by
two groups of copies and argued in favour of the thesis that these are not two Bulgarian and Serbian copies, but the later copies indicate a Bulgarian original:
Slavonic versions (intentional change of the text by the writers) or groups of in the Tikveš miscellany № 677, from the end of the fifteenth century; the mis-
questions and answers that appeared as a result of mechanical rearrangement, cellany of priest Baičo № 13.4.10, Library of Russian Academy, Sankt Peters-
shortening or accumulation of mistakes and reconsideration in the text. Rather, burg, sixteenth century; in a codex from the University Library in Vienna, № I
the questions and answers about Adam are found in two separate works – i. e., 26054, of 1566; in a miscellany from the National Library in Belgrade, Рс 38, of
these are two Slavonic translations from sources that originated in different ages the last quarter of the sixteenth century, and others. The tale of how Adam was
and were different from one another even on Greek soil. made of seven parts is part of another work, ascribed to St. Ephraim the Syrian
There are two versions of the first translation. The first version, as I have al- (see below).
ready mentioned, is included in the erotapokriseis Constitution of the [Holy] The possible sources and parallels of the erotapokriseis tale about Adam
Words. The text, distinguished by a separate title, (О Адамѣ), has two parts: a) a can be placed in a broad context, ranging from the Syrian and ancient Greek
listing of the elements of which the first man is made in relation to his qualities, tradition, through the works of Early Christian authors (Cyprian of Carthage,
and b) an explanation of the elements of his name, consisting of the first letters of Epiphanius of Cyprus and Irenaeus of Lyons, among others), right up to the
the stars brought by the angels from the four corners of the world. Immediately Latin and medieval European literature. One can find samples particularly close
after that there is a question and answer about the “names of the lands from which to Slavonic tradition in Latin and West European manuscripts. The archaic Latin
Adam was made.” Identical texts (with some individual differences) are included copies have been studied in detail by M. Förster in the beginning of the twentieth
in the following manuscripts: Father Dragol’s miscellany of the third quarter of century.22 The principal manuscript he published dates from the tenth century
the thirteenth century, the Scaligeri paterikon of the end of the thirteenth century, (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 326), which has considerable similarities
whose protograph is considered to have originated in Bulgaria in the tenth century with the Slavonic texts of the first version of the first translation.
(the text is independent, without title, in shortened form), as well as in the Berlin Initially there was probably a narrative text about the creation of Adam in
codex of the beginning of the fourteenth century (as a shortened excerpt). Greek, probably with a pre-Christian verbal original, which combined the ex-
The composition of Adam’s name by the four angels from the four corners planation about the origin of the name of the first man with his creation from
of the world is lacking in the second Slavonic version of the first translation. eight parts. This original was based on a contamination of a legend from Syriac
Instead, the eight elements of macrocosm, corresponding to the qualities, abili- and Western Semitic origin (and a similar one from the ancient Greek tradition)
ties and character of man, are related directly to the time of his inception. This about the elements of which the macro‑ and microcosm are made. The text
version is preserved in a number of Serbian and Bulgarian copies (e. g., № 12, preserved in the first Slavonic translation corresponds to a similar early form of
fifteenth century, Grigorovič collection, State Library in Odessa; the sixteenth the work, which disappeared entirely from Greek tradition but was preserved in
century Loveč codex, present location unknown; № 89 of the National Library in Latin copies. The opportunities for its penetration in Old Bulgarian literature by
Plovdiv, sixteenth century; № 53 of the National Library in Belgrade, sixteenth means of Latin mediation (e. g., through contacts with catechetical “grassroot”
century; and the Kotel miscellany № 437, of 1805, at the Cyril and Methodius literature during the Cyrillo-Methodian mission) cannot be rejected entirely. The
National Library in Sofia, among others). Comparison confirms the fact that chronology of the first translation – ninth or tenth century – could correspond
the second version originated as an edition of the first: on the one hand, it was to a similar environment. The second Slavonic translation, introduced in the
simplified and the unintelligible places that have lost their importance have been
22 M. Förster, “Adams Erschaffung und Namengebung. Ein lateinisches Fragment des s. g.
eradicated, and on the other, the “relocation” of macrocosm elements is recon-
slawischen Henoch,” ARW 11 (1907–1908), 477–529; C. Böttrich, Adam als Mikrokosmos: eine
sidered in the spirit of prognostic discourse. The features of the character of man Untersuchung zum slavischen Henochbuch (Judentum und Umwelt, 59, Frankfurt am Main,
and his conduct are placed in dependence of the eight parts of microcosm and of 1995); S. J. Voicu, “Adamo, acrostico del mondo,” Apocrypha 18 (2007), 205–229.
01 Boettrich_DiTommaso_Text.indd (14.12.10)
292 Anissava Miltenova Slavonic Erotapokriseis: Sources, Transmission, and Morphology of the Genre 293

erotapokriseis ascribed to Ephraim the Syrian, originates from a text which, on from New Testament history. For example, when a question is asked about the
the one hand, experienced influence from the Book of Enoch and similar cosmo- first builder of the temple (Solomon), there is an addition of the name of apostle
logical works in a next stage in the development of apocryphal literature (with Jacob (as the first bishop in Jerusalem) and of St. Stephen the Martyr (who was
preserved copies in sixth‑ and seventh-century Latin MSS), and, on the other the first archdeacon of the Christian church). Numbers forty to forty-three are
hand, bears the imprint of Judaic-Christian symbolism of the number seven, a given to the questions and answers related to the heavens, which are inhabited
familiar number indeed from biblical and parabiblical texts. This Slavonic trans- by righteous souls. From question forty-four to the end (question sixty-five) the
lation supposedly originated in a Bulgarian environment around the eleventh or subjects are related to medieval notions about the structure of the universe, its
twelfth century. elements, natural phenomena, etc.
Currently, more than forty South Slavonic copies have been classified with the
Razumnik, a large portion of which were unknown to scholars of the end of the
6. The Work Titled Razumnik nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. In order to approach an
updated analysis I first made a comparison of the existing copies, followed by
Quite popular in the Bulgarian Middle Ages, Razumnik became known to schol- an attempt for their more precise systematization according to textual criteria. In
arship at the end of the nineteenth and the start of the twentieth centuries. On the spite of the great variation of the texts, in which almost every writer introduced
basis of the indexes of forbidden books, A. N. Pypin23 classified it with the works changes and additions, the results of the study show that it is possible to distin-
of Presbyter Jeremia, the Bulgarian tenth century writer. V. N. Močul′skij24 in- guish separate groups and sub-groups. The method used was typology of content
cluded the work in the fifth “version” in his systematization of erotapokriseis according to the presence of “core” and “environment,” which I developed in
works, but mixed it with another question and response book, the so-called the process of analyzing miscellanies of mixed content. The copies are divided
Razumnik-Ukaz. into two main groups: Group A, True Razumnik, and Group B, Questions and
Yordan Ivanov25 allotted it the place it deserved in his fundamental study on Answers of St. Ephraim.
Bogomil literature. He characterised it as an “article” in which questions and Group A. The questions and answers are known under the following titles:
answers are used to give information of the most varied nature: news from bibli- Разоумникъ; А се разоумникь. вьпроси іѡана. и василїа и грїгорїа; Слово ѡ нб҃си и ѡ
cal history (the creation of the world, the angels and man, and the participation земли; Слово ѡ небеси и ѡ земли протлькь; Сказанїе ѿ битїа глаголы Христове; Слово
of the Devil [Satan] in the creation and fate of man), news from the fields of сказанїе ѿ бытиа. From these titles and the content of the questions and answers
astronomy and geography, news of peoples and faiths, and so on.26 In connec- one can conclude that the subject-matter is predominantly cosmological. The
tion with the sixteenth century Loveč copy he published, Ivanov noted the well- core of a work’s questions and answers is reconstructed on the basis of the copies
ordered composition of the text, structured according to Genesis 1–2. Thus the in: manuscript № 12 (38) of the collection of V. Grigorovič, State Library, Odes-
initial ten to twelve questions and answers are dedicated to what God created sa, fifteenth century; the Loveč miscellany of the sixteenth century (of unknown
on Monday (the sky, the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, and the location of location today, the copy was published by Y. Ivanov); the Belyakovo miscellany
the earth above a number of elements supported by the world tree [the oak]); № 309, National Library, Sofia, sixteenth century; and its apograph in manu-
the next twelve to thirty-nine questions, according to Y. Ivanov, encompass the script № 17 from the collection of the Ivan Dujcev Centre for Slavo-Byzantine
elements of macrocosm created from Tuesday through Saturday (Eden, waters, Studies in Sofia. This group also includes several late copies in miscellanies of
animals, Adam, Satan [Samael], the dismissal of Adam and Eve from Eden) and mixed content, which in terms of genealogy originate from the sixteenth century
the fate of Adam’s descendants: Abel, Cain, Seth, Enosh, Methuselah, Noah, Loveič miscellany, but which contain a subsequent stage in the development of
Solomon, Melkhisedek. At this point there is an addition of some parallel events the text (e. g., № 106 National Library in Belgrade, eighteenth century, and the
National Library in Sofia, written in 1805, among others). A separate branch of
23 A. N. Pypin, “Dlja ob’jasnenija stat’i o ložnyh knig,” Letopis’ zanjatij Arheografičeskoj Group A includes the copies in: manuscript № ІХ.H.21 (Š 12) from the National
komissii, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1861), 54; A. N. Pypin and V. D. Spasovič, Obzor istorii slav- Museum in Prague, sixteenth century; № 53 of the National Library in Belgrade,
janskih literature (St. Petersburg, 1865), 72. third quarter of the sixteenth century; manuscript 3.ІІ.9 from the collection of R.
24 V. N. Močul′skij, Sledy narodnoj biblii v slavjanskoj i drevnerusskoj pis’mennosti (Odessa:
Grujic, Museum of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Belgrade, of 1698; manuscript
Tipografija III Voisk Odesskago voennago okruga, 1893), 63–4.
25 Y. Ivanov, Bogomilski knigi i legendi (Sofia: Pridvorna pechatnica, 1925), 257–72. № 49 from the University Library in Belgrade, dating from 1694; and a copy
26 Ibid., 264. from Sremski Karlovci, published by S. Novakovic, as well as other that bear
01 Boettrich_DiTommaso_Text.indd (14.12.10)
294 Anissava Miltenova Slavonic Erotapokriseis: Sources, Transmission, and Morphology of the Genre 295

traces of Latin influence (Inc.: Что прьво изыде изь ꙋсть бж҃їихь. Слово сн҃ь бж҃їи. swers. Questions of St. Ephraim is a text with quite broad functions, which can
Quis prima ex Deo procaesuit? Verbum).27 most generally be defined as didactic and catechetical. The work is written as a
The peculiarities of the True Razumnik from this group characterize it as a compilation by a Slavonic (probably Bulgarian) writer who used Byzantine and
Bulgarian compilation with its content mainly oriented towards cosmogony. local sources. A parallel has been found of the initial passage about the six days
The picture of the universe is organized in a vertical scheme of eight elements, of Genesis in a work ascribed to Epiphanius of Salamis (315–403), as well as
generated by one another – earth, water, stone, four golden whales, a river of fire, in an anonymous erotapokriseis text in a thirteenth-century Greek manuscript.28
a hot fire, a fire twelve times hotter still, and an iron oak – and the Divine Power B. II. Copies of the type of the Tikveš manuscript № 677 of the end of the
on which they are based. The eight elements constituting Adam, which reveal fifteenth century, National Library, Sofia. Here the text again calls itself “Ra-
the harmony between micro‑ and macrocosm are, as I pointed out earlier, recon- zumnik,” beginning with: Вь н(д)лоу сьтвори б҃ь нб҃о и землю. вь пон(д)лкь сл҃нце и
sidered in the spirit of prognostic discourse. There are questions and answers м(с)ць и вса нб(с)наа. The article encompasses forty or forty-one questions and
about the Slavonic alphabet, the possible Greek (or Latin) source of the work answers. Among them there is a short text of dualistic character about coopera-
having been intentionally edited by the Bulgarian writer, original elements hav- tion between God and Satan in the creation of the visible world, which is of
ing been introduced. All copies mention the name of St. Cyril the Philosopher as special interest to scholars. It is absent in the copies of the Savina miscellany
the inventor of the Slavonic alphabet, while two of the copies (in the Belyakovo archaic group and probably became part of the work at a subsequent stage in the
manuscript № 309, National Library, Sofia, sixteenth century, and manuscript history of the text. In Group B. III this text is removed from the content of the
№ ІІІ.а 20 from Library of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Zagreb) questions and answers, probably because of its non-canonical nature. The said
speak of a “Bulgarian book.” These interpolations were noted by Y. Ivanov and passage could serve for some orientation as regards the chronology of the ques-
their original character is not questioned in science. tions and answers ascribed to St. Ephraim. Since it is a borrowing from the cycle
Group B. The text is usually ascribed to Ephraim of Syria: ꙋпьрось. ст҃го of stories about the tree of the cross, ascribed to Gregory the Theologian, in its
ѥфрѣма. ѡ ст҃емь василии, and the beginning starts with a sort of “hexameron” initial tenth-century version, this version of the erotapokriseis could supposedly
about the creation of the world: Въ неделю створи б҃ь нб҃о и землю дн҃ь и нощь have been formed in the eleventh or the twelfth century.
и вьса вьселеньна. In spite of separate coincidences of questions and answers B. III. Copies identical with the text without title in the Panagyurište manu-
with the True Razumnik, this work is a separate one. The cosmogonic subject is script № 433, National Library, Sofia, sixteenth century, which is a voluminous
combined with questions and answers about Christian ethics and the structure compilation of several sources (six have been established), as well as overall re-
of Christian community (the role of the farm-hand, the priest, and the soldier in composition of Razumnik, preserving the connection with the archaic type. The
society: въпросъ. коимы чл҃кы г҃. въсоу землю хранетъ. а҃. попъ молитъ б҃а. за ратаꙗ original probably emerged no earlier than the fourteenth century. It is important
и за воиника. в҃. воиникъ пазитъ. попа и ратаꙗ. г҃. ратаи ѡрътъ. хранитъ попа и to underscore that the purposefully edited text has avoided all questions and
воиника. и тем(и) всеми свѣт стоить) as well as on Christian values. The seven answers containing dualistic notions and cosmogonic motives. The anonymous
days of Genesis are in conjunction with the seven elements from which first man author was well acquainted with erotapokriseis literature as a whole. The exis-
was made; the virtues inherited by Adam as well as the evils caused by Cain are tence of such a voluminous anthology in the Late Middle Ages is indicative of
also seven. There are short explanations about the creation of the visible world the great popularity of the erotapocritical genre, as it “engulfed” a collection of
and the origin of evil, the dualistic elements having found their antithesis. The maxims, a collection of mysteries and parts of the older translations of question
core of questions and answers in Group B is reconstructed on the basis of a copy and answer works, re-composed on a thematic principle.
in miscellany № 29 of Savina Monastery (near Herceg Novi), Montenegro, c.
1380, a monument that has recently been discovered. The copies fall into three
subgroups:
B. I. An archaic type of composition, preserved in the Savina manuscript № 29,
c. 1380, and, at one time, in № 828 National Library, Belgrade, of 1409, which
was destroyed during World War II. The text encompasses 47 questions and an-
28 E. E. Granstrem, “Grečeskie rukopisi Biblioteki Akademii nauk SSSR,” Istoričeskij očerk
27 P.
Meyer, “Joca monachorum. Texte du VIe siécle écrit au VIIIe,” Romania 1 (1872), i obzor fondov Rukopisnogo otdela Bibioteki Akademii nauk, vyp. 2. (Moscow-Leningrad:
483–90 at 485. Izdatel′stvo AN SSSR, 1958), 279.
01 Boettrich_DiTommaso_Text.indd (14.12.10)
296 Anissava Miltenova Slavonic Erotapokriseis: Sources, Transmission, and Morphology of the Genre 297

7. Commentary on the New Testament the Beljakov manuscript the Bulgarian kingdom is placed third). It is added that
the Germans “will crush underfoot” all semi-orthodox nations. The edition of
The copies from group B. II (the Tikveš manuscript of the end of the fifteenth the text of Razumnik-Ukaz may be dated no later than the 1220s but not earlier
century) of the Questions of St. Ephraim are accompanied by an erotapokriseis than 1204, when the Fourth Crusade passed freely through Bulgarian territory.
under the title of the Commentary on the New Testament. It features a selec- The question and answer features a direct reflection of the political ideology,
tion of questions pertaining specially to New Testament personages and events. which was topical at the time and there is an interesting outline of Bulgarian
The title Исправлѥниѥ was not chosen by chance; it means “rule,” “instruction,” political horizon.
“improvement.” The objective of the article is to underline the significance of
the New Testament as the most important book for Orthodox faith, complement-
ing the remaining erotapokriseis works in the miscellanies. The changes in the 9. “Various and Beneficial Issues”
content of the question and answer articles occurred in accordance with the
changes in the miscellanies as a whole. In other words, the texts were formed as The short question-and-answer text entitled “Various and Beneficial Issues”
a result of purposeful re-anthologisation of the miscellanies over an extensive (Въпрошенꙗ различнаа и пользнаа ѿ послѣдованїа оубо тьчнаа ꙗвлаемаа. полѡжена
period of time. же ѡбрѣтенїа ради, incipit: Въпро(с) Когда създа б҃ь Адама. ѿвѣ(т). ко слово съз-
данїа въ шести д҃нь създавает се Адамь) is a translation and is included in the
miscellany of fixed content called Prologue in Verse (arranged by church fests).
8. Razumnik-Ukaz Notably, this is the only erotapokriseis in South Slavonic literature for which
there has been discovered a precise Greek counterpart, which has been published
This text, whose original titles are Сь бг҃омь починаемь разоумникь сіе ѥ(с) оучитель by N. F. Krasnoseltsev.29 Its contents include twenty questions and answers. The
вьсемь словомь х҃а б҃а и сп(с)а нашего і҃(с) х҃а; Слово г҃а нашег(о) і(с)у х҃а о нем кто first seven pertain to Adam, Eve, Abel, and Cain, the next three to Noah and the
когда сътвориль е(с); ОУказь како сьврьши г҃ь нашь Іи(с) Хс҃; Словца избранны о flood, four deal with Moses, the exodus from Egypt, and the fate of the Jews after
чюдесе(х) г҃а ншего ис҃а х҃а; ОУказь за г҃а нашего і҃с х҃а, is a Bulgarian erotapokriseis that, and the text ends with events from New Testament history. In addition to
compilation. Its contents includes: the events in March that are important for the the Verse Prologue under the date of October 15, this translation is found as part
life of a Christian; a listing and gradation of the three Orthodox kingdoms; the of erotapokriseis compilations in later miscellanies of mixed content of Serbian
ranking of books (alphabets) of divine inspiration; the twelve royal thrones on origin (e. g., ІХ.H.16 of 1646 and IX.H.21 of the sixteenth century, National
Earth in accordance with the twelve apostles; the origin of “orthodox,” “semi- Museum, Prague). The translation, which originated in the fourteenth century,
orthodox,” and “infidel” peoples and languages; and the zoomorphic allegorical confirms the thesis of the adoption and use of such works as catechesis, along
characteristics of the nations and tribes and their qualities. The work is known with other instructive readings.
in twenty-seven Bulgarian, Serbian, Wallachian, Moldavian, Russian and South
Russian copies dating from the end of the fourteenth century through the middle
of the eighteenth century, which fall into two versions. The most important fea- 10. The erotapokriseis
ture of the initial version (Inc: М(с)ца мартїа .з҃і. вьскресе х҃с госта своего лазара) is “On Church Organization and Liturgy”
the listing of the three kingdoms on earth in accordance with the Holy Trinity:
Greek, Bulgarian, and Iberian (Georgian), together with their characterization. This erotapokriseis, titled ОУказь за всѫ дари црк҃вниѫ. ѡ вьпросѣ(х) и ѡ ѿвѣтѣхь
The chronology of its appearance is related to the period around the final rift (“Comments on Church Gifts”), is a work composed of short questions and
between the Eastern and the Western Church in the eleventh century, which has answers. It features a symbolic explanation of the ranks of white and black
found a distinct differentiation in the text: the “orthodox” (where the Eastern clergy and their hierarchy (bishop, monk, priest, deacon and so on), their dress,
Orthodox peoples have been included), the “semi-orthodox” (where the Latins as well as the mystic significance of the places inside the church (altar, com-
have been classified), and the “infidel” peoples. The secondary version has a munion table, lectern, etc.) and the liturgical vessels (chalice, patten and so
number of changes in the composition, including transpositions, abbreviations
and additions, but the most important purposeful change is the order and char- 29 N. F. Krasnoseltsev, “K voprosu o grečeskih istočnikov “Besedy treh svjatitelej,” ZINU 55

acterization of the three kingdoms: they are Greek, Bulgarian, and German (in (Odessa: Novorossijski universitet, 1890), 453–56.
01 Boettrich_DiTommaso_Text.indd (14.12.10)
298 Anissava Miltenova Slavonic Erotapokriseis: Sources, Transmission, and Morphology of the Genre 299

on). It is clearly indicated in the title that its plays the role of “instruction”: in St. Petersburg, from the first half of the sixteenth century). The erotapokriseis
erotapokriseis tradition the Old Bulgarian lexeme оуказь corresponds to both interpretations about the organization of the church and the dress of the clergy
the Greek συναγωγή (“meeting, gathering”), and to ἀπόδειξι (“demonstration, usually complement Razumnik and the Questions of St. Ephraim and constitute
instruction”). The main idea is close to that of the “On Church Organisation an indelible part of late medieval “reference” literature.
and Liturgy,”30 translated in a much earlier age, wherein the church on earth is a
mirror copy of the church of the heavens, the ranking of the clergy corresponds
to the celestial hierarchy, and liturgical action contains symbolic elements of 11. Conclusion
the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Unlike this case, the questions and answers are
very short and simplified, and the parallels between the earthly and the celestial The works consisting of short questions and answers are usually defined as a
worlds have been brought down to elementary twos, e. g., іепископь ѥ(с) мѣсто form of allegorical exegesis. It is well known that allegory uses divergence
архаг҃гла, калоугерь ѥ(с) мѣсто хероувима, дїаконь ѥ(с) мѣсто ст҃ыи(х) ѿць, иже (deviation) between corresponding levels of meaning. All sacred texts which
проповѣдаше законь г(с)нь. дїакь ѥ(с) мѣсто сти(х) мѫченикь. The work ends with feature Divine Revelation essentially bear the opportunity for allegorical “un-
a compact excerpt from the initial part of Euangelium Nicodemi in which there wrapping” of their meaning. The text of the Holy Writ itself, which is essentially
is a story about the miraculous signs indicating the essence of Jesus Christ, be- “parabolic” and “iconic,” calls for allegoric exegesis.
fore he entered to speak with Pilate: the messenger who laid a cloth before the The logical and grammatical aspect of short questions and answers in Slavonic
feet of Christ; and the gods (or banners) that bowed to Christ: тог(д)а стѣгове manuscripts is most frequently dubbed “informative.” There both the question
поклонише(с) и покрише х҃а. This episode is an occasion to explain the symbolism and the answer are formulated as shortly as possible: the question consists of
of the light, the banners, and the cloth (the “air”) with which the holy gifts are an interrogative word, a verb form (most frequently “to be”), and an object,
covered. while the answer consists of one word (frequently a personal noun) or a simpli-
There is no doubt this text was translated from Greek, which is found after fied phrase, which includes either one or two verbal forms at most. Logically,
comparison with a text titled: ’Ερωτήματα διάφορα τοῦ ἐν ἁγιο πατρὸ ἡμῶν the questions permit only one possible answer, which is known in advance. In
Βασιλείου τοῦ Μεγάλου πρὸ Γρηγόριον τὸν μέγαν Θεολόγον περὶ ἱερέων. this they are quite different from the dogmatic and polemic type of questions
Inc: Εἰπέ μοι δέσποτα· διὰ τί ἱερεύ καὶ ποίῳ τρόπῳ καὶ τὶ τριχοτομία τῆ and answers, which encompass voluminous evidential material (particularly
κεφαλῆ τοῦ ἱερέω31 (Clavis patrum graecorum № 3068).32 I am familiar with the answers), through which certain of these are proven. In addition, the short
the text from fifteen Slavonic translations dating from the sixteenth through the question-and-answer works include other simple genre forms, most frequently
eighteenth century, among which there is a prevalence of those of Bulgarian conundrums and maxims. The most frequently encountered formal structures in
origin. The copies fall into two groups, which correspond to two versions of the the ten works we have discussed include:
same translation. The primary version, known from seven copies, is featured as 1. The interpretation of text from the Scriptures, an evangelical parable, or
part of the compilation in manuscripts of the Panagyurište Bulgarian miscellany logia; it includes a biblical quotation to which a series of several questions are
(№ 433, National Library, Sofia), dating from the sixteenth century. I assume asked (by type the so-called Wh-questions which begin with interrogative pro-
it originated in the thirteenth or fourteenth century and is related to the origin nouns), followed by short answers. Sometimes the questions are omitted, as they
of the overall set of erotapokriseis works in the said protograph. The second- are implied by the answers. This structure is incorporated in the interpretations
ary version, known from eight copies, was probably the work of Grammarian of catechetical type, widespread in Byzantine literature.
Baičo, a sixteenth-century Bulgarian writer, since its earliest appearance is in 2. Erotapokriseis units, which include a directly asked Wh-question with an
a miscellany compiled by him (№ 13.4.10, Library of the Russian Academy, interrogative pronoun: Who, What, How Much, When (From When), Where
(From Where). The answer is simplified and laconic.
30 F. Thomson, “Constantine of Preslav and the Old Bulgarian Translation of the ‘Historia 3. A popular biblical symbol or topos, whose interpretation is given in the
ecclesiastica et mystica contemplatio’ Attributed to Patriarch Germanus I of Constantinople,” form of an indirect quotation, an allusion, or a conundrum/answer. The model of
Palaeobulgarica 10 (1986), 41–8. this type of structure is considered a product of the so-called allegoresis, which
31 Krasnoseltsev, Addenda, 73–5.
32 In CPG № 3068 the text is mistakenly classified with the short questions and answers is related to the Judaic interpretative tradition and Early Christianity by origin,
featured in the Izbornik of 1073. In fact the description of the Slavonic translation given under from the elementary instructive interpretations at synagogues to the works of
the title of Versio palaeo-slavica refers to № 3067. representatives of the Alexandrian School in the fourth and fifth centuries.
01 Boettrich_DiTommaso_Text.indd (14.12.10)
300 Anissava Miltenova Slavonic Erotapokriseis: Sources, Transmission, and Morphology of the Genre 301

4. A wise sentence (maxim) to which there is a parallel interpretation. Maxims the elements of the visible and invisible world. The numeric symbolism is not
are usually of generalizing character, while the interpretations contain concrete simply a means of structuring the text, but is perceived as an essential spatial-
descriptions of the situation to which the maxim pertains. temporary image of the cosmos in both the profane and the sacred sense. There
This attempt at a summary does not cover all intermediary forms of questions not only numerical sequences are modeled, but also geographical directions, the
and answers, which are exceptionally varied. The primary micro-genre forms four seasons, the parts of day and night, and so on.
that compile them do not enter into contradiction, but rather adapt to one another. As regards Slavonic tradition, one could draw the conclusion that it features
The introduction of the conundrum, the maxim, and the exemplum varies and en- a prevalence of anthological works, which originated on the basis of translated
riches the structure of the genre. These forms offer an additional “test of the wit” and domestic sources. The works consisting of short questions and answers,
of the respondent, of his suitability to be a member of the Christian community. which spread in Slavonic manuscripts from the thirteenth through the eighteenth
The texts from the Scripture (with both direct and indirect presence in the centuries, have an important place in the history of Bulgarian literature as an
questions and answers) are not the subject of interpretation alone. The principle emanation of popular Christian culture. Intended for instruction and exercise
of the “hidden” catalogue of biblical names and symbols, on the one hand, and of the basis of Christian dogma, they also serve as a reference book on biblical
allegorical “deciphering” of the reminiscences of the sacred text, on the other, history and chronology. Their wide proliferation (more than 130 studied South
are discernible in the functioning of the biblical code in Slavonic erotapokriseis Slavonic copies33) in manuscripts intended both for the elite and the literate
works. In either case the biblical code operates both on the principle of me- social circles and in monastic miscellanies is an illustration of a typical aspect
tonymy and on that of the simplified metaphor, frequently by linking the two in education on the Balkans.
as similar as they are incompatible essences. Parallelism is a principal stylistic
figure: similarity, comparison, and contrast. Thus the source schemes of rhetoric
methods from Antiquity and the ancient East are implemented in the medieval
genre with unexpected clarity and power.
The prevalent portion of questions and answers in the “True Razumnik” and
the “Story about the Creation of Heaven and Earth” reconstruct the cosmogenic
myth, which embodies the universal link between all elements of the micro‑
and macrocosm. The main components of the mythical composition suggest
incessant repetition of the cosmogenic myth and the irreversible correspondence
between the divine examples and their earthly analogues. The universe – both
nature and society – are perceived as a strictly ordered and structured universal
system of symbols, images, signs, which can be interpreted only by one who
strives to penetrate into it, i. e., the one who “is learning.” The teacher strives to
reproduce the object in the mind of the student, it is his objective to make him
“recognise” by a question asked that which he already knows. In addition – if we
change the roles of teacher and respondent – when explaining the symbol or the
allegory, he gives a description of a number of qualities of the notions, persons,
and phenomena in his desire to give an explanation by likening. Hence one of the
leading principles in the works we are discussing is the principle of symmetry,
which functions on both the horizontal and vertical planes. Stemming from the
desire to catalogue the universe, this archaic principle is observed at different
levels, from the composition through the stylistic organization of the texts.
It is interesting that the questions and answers very frequently “encode” in
digital formulae all constructive and destructive elements, and the static and 33 Miltenova, Erotapokriseis, 343–352. In comparison, A. de Santos Otero, Die Handschrift-
dynamic characteristics of the visible and the invisible world. This “encoding” lische Überlieferung der altslavischen Apokryphen, 202–22, indicates something about 33
in figures from one to ten is an expression of the powerful affinity to classify South Slavonic copies.
01 Boettrich_DiTommaso_Text.indd (14.12.10)