Abstract:
e-ISSN: 2305-6754
p-ISSN: 2304-0785
Indexed in:
.............................................
Creative Commons
.............................................
.............................................
About The Author
Yavor Miltenov
https://ibl.bas.bg/en/struktura/istoriya-na-balgarskiya-ezik/satrudnitsi/
The Institute for Bulgarian Language (IBL), 52 Shipchenski Prohod Blvdr., block 17, Sofia 1113 Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Assoc. prof.
Open Journal Systems
Current Issue Atom logo
RSS2 logo
RSS1 logo
Article Tools
Indexing metadata
Finding References
Review policy
Email this article (Login required)
Email the author (Login required)
Post a Comment (Login required)
User
Username
Password
Remember me
Language
Select Language
Journal Help
Journal Content
Search
Search Scope
Browse
By Issue
By Author
By Title
Notifications
View
Subscribe
Information
For Readers
For Authors
For Librarians
Keywords 15th century 18th century Church Slavonic Enlightenment Novgorod Old Church Slavonic Old Russian Old Russian language Old Russian literature Russian Russian language St. Clement of Ohrid chronicles epigraphy hagiography orthography paleography poetics syntax textual criticism translation
Home About Login Search Current Archives Announcements Editorial Board Publication Ethics Our Languages MM Registration Certificate
Home > Vol 8, No 1 (2019) > Miltenov
Three Layers of Lexical Editing in Codex Zographensis
Yavor Miltenov
Abstract
The article aims to examine Cyrillic and Glagolitic glosses in the OCS Codex Zographensis, inserted by the scribe himself. These notes in the margins are among the earliest examples of editorial work in a Slavonic written monument ever, hence they are an important evidence about the way the lexical editing in the 9th–10th century was applied and about its essence. The study on the glosses is put in the context of previous research on 1) the lexical variants with which the text of Codex Zographensis is opposed to that of Codex Marianus, Assemanianus and Liber Sabbae, and 2) the lexical alterations which in scholarly literature are treated as East Bulgarian. The analysis leads to the conclusion that Cyrillic was the copyist’s usual script, that his daily writing routine might have been in Cyrillic, and that his intention was to replace or explain certain foreign, non-Slavic words. Most synonyms and interpretations he offers are not influenced by the tradition and are probably due to his own initiative, which typologically corresponds to already established processes of lexical editing in 10th century Bulgaria.