International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Diana Atanassova-Pencheva
Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Sofia, Bulgaria; 
[e-mail]
Multiple Translations and Their Context: 
Praxis de stratilatis 
in the Medieval South Slavic Tradition
My paper focuses on the earliest account of St Nicholas of Myra (
Praxis de stratilatis
) and its 
adaption in the South Slavic literary tradition. 
Praxis de stratilatis 
dates back to the 4-th century AD 
and it was the only narrative of the saint for more than three centuries. Even after the 8-th century 
when the local cult grew and other narratives about the saint appeared 
Praxis
de statilatis 
remained 
one of the most authoritative texts in the literature and the art. The text was translated not only 
once but twice at the dawn of Old Bulgarian literature, probably as early as the 10-th century. The 
appearance of more than one translation is considered as a witness of the specificity of the literature 
translated from Greek in the Old Bulgarian tradition, on the one hand, and of the needs and attitude 

---

306
of the readership, on the other. Different kinds of manuscripts - the 
panegyricomartyrologia 
and 
the 
menologia 
- provoked the double translations of the text. The preserved witnesses of both 
translations show the cultural and literary needs of the readership which turned out to be important 
for copying and disseminating the translated text.
Ivan Iliev
Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Faculty of Theology, Sofia, Bulgaria; 
[e-mail]
The Old Church Slavonic Translation 
of Hippolytus of Rome’s Commentaries on the Book of Prophet Daniel
This report highlights Hippolytus of Rome’s 
Commentarii in Danielem
(CPG 1873), the earliest 
exegetic work by a Christian author, written around 204 AD and translated in the First Bulgarian 
Empire probably in IX-Xth century. There are only few manuscripts, which contain various parts of 
the Greek text to a certain extent, but unfortunately they are scattered among different depositories 
and a complete text-critical edition of the work was made just in 2000 by Marcel Richard’s disciples. 
Nevertheless, when the work on 
Commentarii in Danielem
began more than a century ago, the 
existing complete Slavonic translation helped Bonwetsch’s research in the forming of a first edition 
of the Greek text. So far there are nine discovered Slavonic manuscripts that contain various parts 
of the work, but they are still not examined well enough and most of them do not exist in print. 
Manuscript No. 486 from the Volokolamsk collection, former collection of the Moscow Theological 
Academy, today kept at the Russian State Library in Moscow, comprises the biggest part of the 
Slavonic translation of the Commentary. Its existence was made public in 1874 by Sreznevskij and 
was later used for the Greek text-critical work. The major Greek manuscripts on the other hand 
are: 1) Codex Vatoped 290, from the X-th century; 2) Chalki 11, XV-XVI century; 3) Meteoron 
573, again from the X-th century, and 4) Codex Chigi gr. 36 (R.VII.45), XI-th century. The earlier 
manuscripts can be grouped as a ‘Balkan branch’, while the later Chalki 11 shows some variants 
in its readings, compared to the other three, so it can be placed in a so-called ‘Asian branch’. This 
report will demonstrate how the Greek texts vary and how the Slavonic translation corresponds to 
them. This work will also demonstrate how the literature connections on the Balkans functioned 
and will try to give an answer why this work was translated in first place and how it was adapted to 
Old Church Slavonic.

---

307