Three Layers of Lexical Editing in Codex Zographensis

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.