International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

BYZANTINE LITERATURE IN TRANSLATION ‒ PART 1
Chairs: 
Johannes Michael Reinhart, Viktor Savić
Neža Zajc
, 
Byzantine Literary Models and Patterns of Reception: 
Translation and Transformation in the Slavonic and Middle Eastern Traditions
Aneta Dimitrova
, 
Which Greek Versions of Chrysostom’s Commentaries on 
Acts
and 
Epistles
Were Translated 
for the 10
th
C. Old Bulgarian 
Chrysorrhoas
Collection (
Zlatostruy
)?
V. Rev. Tihon Rakićević
, 
Eschatological Vision of Theodore Stoudite (
Chilandar 387
) in the 
Life of Saint Simeon
of the Typikon of Studenica Monastery (
IX H 8 [Š 10]
)
Zorica Vitić, 
The Mediterranean World in The 
Vita of St. Pancratios of Taormina
Lora Taseva
, 
Tetrasticha des Theodoros Prodromos in einer unbekannten serbischen Übersetzung 
des 14. Jahrhunderts
Polydoros
Goranis
, 
Θεματικές και μεταφραστικές προσεγγίσεις στον κώδικα σερβικής ορθογραφίας 
του 16
ου
αιώνος με τίτλο: «Πανοπλία Δογματική» του Ευθυμίου Ζιγαβηνού
Peter Toth
, 
Visions of the Afterlife between East and West: 
An Unknown Latin Translation of the Greek 
Apocalypse of the Virgin Mary

---

237
Neža Zajc
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ljubljana, Slovenia; 
[e-mail]
Byzantine Literary Models and Patterns of Reception:
Translation and Transformation in the Slavonic and Middle Eastern Traditions
An unusual fact stands out: none of the listed manuscripts was wholly written in hand by 
Maxim the Greek – all Slavic manuscripts of Maxim the Greek were copied or were written from 
his dictation. Only preserved marginalia and author’s interventions were identified as original 
writing of his. Apart from his Slavic legacy, there are some Greek manuscripts with his confirmed 
handwriting (Michael Trivolis as copyist, correspondent, translator); there are also some of his 
notes in Latin. 
That moment of his literary work in Slavic should be examined as following: his 
translational method was significantly different from the previous practice of translating the texts 
in Slavic, known as cyrillo-methodian translations, because it showed not the word-by-word 
translation, but sentence-by-sentence method, where the idiomatic usage was the guiding principle 
of translation, following the words phrases and word combinations. One could conclude that 
this phase was realised by certain Russian scriber – to whom Maxim the Greek was dictating in 
Slavic. On the second stage of the translational process his texts reflected careful studying of each 
single word or expression, but with a special observation on the rhythmical order, very close to the 
wording in Greek (t. i. sublexical morphemic translation correspondences). Within that Maxim 
paid attention significantly on the stress of the word that could have the same stress as in Greek, 
what was dominant for the accentuation in the spoken Russian language of the 16
th
century. It has 
been noticed by now that variations, especially among words that in his prayers obtained the form of 
three stresses what intensified different but not accidently constant pronunciation as it appeared in 
some South-Western Slavic dialects (Slovene and Čakavian, as Antonina Filonov Gove discovered, 
The Slavic Akatistos Hymn, Munchen 1988, 153-155, 93, n. 18) had no such distinction in Russian. 
Additionally Maxim’s language reflected the important attempt to find a correspondence with the 
Greek grammatical constructions, due to his willing to achieve certain accordance with the Greek 
grammatical categories. The second phase of his writing Maxim concluded with his critical reading 
of the scriber’s text within which he was making his author’s corrections on the margins of the 
manuscript pages. Described translational process was familiar to him from the Florentine period 
that he spent in the scholar’s collaboration with Ioannos Laskaris. Such method was extremely useful 
in the translation of the poetical devices and in conclusion the desired effect as the phonetical echo 
of Maxim’s constant prayer was achieved. Not surprisingly Maxim accepted that kind of the textual 
treatment as well in the process of his own writings: he wrote-and-dictated his works, and in the 
following stage, he corrected, and clarified the meaning of each single, theologically decisive word. 
That significantly intensified the condensed stylistic manner and the periodically rhythmical effects 
of his texts, using prominently the constructions, based on anapest accentuation and assonance 
metrical pattern, combined with the caesura ending of the theological denotation of the thought. 
This could be an explanation why not a single text in Slavic that Maxim wrote had been preserved. 

---

238
Maxim the Greek managed to create his own Slavonic language (a significant idiolect) in which 
he expressed his complexed Orthodox theological system, highly marked with biblical studies and 
liturgical path. His works reflected his personal prayers that confirmed his constant monastic practice. 
His willing to purify the Slavic language was the result of his wish to pray properly in the concordance 
with the Greek Orthodox theology. The example of his successful goal of the synthetic theologically-
liturgical prayer, realised in the terms of ‘inner living with Jesus Christ’ represents his Canon to the 
Holy Spirit Paracletos (
Кано= мол6е4=б= къ бжcтвеному и3 покланzемому Паракли1ту
). This long prayer reflects 
several aspects of confessing prayer (especially providing personal speech by the Greek apostrophos as 
an element of prosoidia), known already from the oldest period of Slavic literacy when some prayers 
were directly translated not only from Greek to Slavic, but also from Latin, when in 9
th
century one 
could found single examples of personal (liturgical) prayers. The moment of the prayer that could 
offer the believer a pious end of mortal lifetime could be at the same time crucial also as an iniciatory 
moment for the beginning of the daily writing for personal spiritual purification of Maxim the Greek. 
In the prayer-
poem “Canon to the most Holy Paracletos” Maxim the Greek used the basic principles of 
monastic creating the prayer ‘Akathyst’, and the liturgical chants. After the introduction and repeating 
the 50
th
Psalm there is trinitarian model of short literal formulas that were identified as practice, 
unique for Maxim the Greek. However, similar instructions one could find also in the personal prayers 
among South Slavic manuscript that were dedicated to profound worship the Holy Mother of God. In 
the beginning of “the Canon to the Holy Paracletos” Maxim the Greek contemplated in an authentic 
‘diataksis’ form of the Vatopaidi Monastery 16
th
century prayer (Н. Д. Успенский, Византийская 
литургия: историко-литургическое исследование – анафора: опыт историко-литургического 
анализа, Москва: Изд. Совет русской православной церкви 2006, 212) about the interior of the 
Temple or Church (
“
та• Бг7о раdуи6сz две~р> гcн7z непрходимаz.
”
). The latter was in fact an implicit addressing 
the Holy Mother of God (the icon from Vatopaidi, called ‘Paramithia’ (RGB, Rog. Kladbishe, No. 
302, fol. 432 v.; RGB, MDA, 173/I, no. 42, additional) from the 13
th
century. It was a liturgical rule 
to worship the icon of Vatopaidi before leaving the Church, and the Father superior (an igumen) 
of monastery was every time giving the keys from the doors of monastery to a doorkeeper. Maxim 
the Greek was telling a story about the foundation and the establishment of the Holy Monastery of 
Vatopaidi Icon of the Mother of God in the manuscript (Moscow, GIM, coll. Чуд. № 34, л. 236об. 
-240), but the copy of that icon was firstly transmitted to Russia in 17
th
century on the request of 
the Patriarch Nicon.
The mentioned formula could as well corresponded to the prayer to the Holy 
Theotokos of Iviron, called 
‘Вратарница’
), about which as well Maxim the Greek wrote a legend and 
submitted to Russian the story of the Holy Mount Athos. The latter Ihor Ševčenko had found similarly 
in the poem in the Milan manuscript where represented the decorous temple of the Church of the 
Theotokos Pammakaristos, erstwhile of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate (whereas the verses 
mention of the Patriarch Pachomios dated them between 1505 and 1514, ( I. Š.