“Origen Did Not Allow Interpreting Books”: Comments and Glosses in the 17th-Century East Slavic Translation of Baronius’ “Annales Ecclesiastici”

Q4 Arts and Humanities
M. Novak
{"title":"“Origen Did Not Allow Interpreting Books”: Comments and Glosses in the 17th-Century East Slavic Translation of Baronius’ “Annales Ecclesiastici”","authors":"M. Novak","doi":"10.15388/slavviln.2022.67(1).82","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article examines marginalia in one of the East Slavic hand-written versions of “Annales Ecclesiastici” by Caesar Baronius (Russian State Library, f. 256, no. 16, 17th century) in comparison with the Latin original, the Polish translation of Piotr Skarga published in 1607, and other Slavic versions from the 17th–18th centuries. Marginal comments of the book apparatus were studied in a pragmatic aspect, which took into account the narrative impact on the reader; glosses were analyzed in terms of lexemes’ interaction, considering their various origins and stylistic status. The author comes to the conclusion that the historical narrative formed through comments has a profoundly original nature. In the analyzed manuscript, the comments do not always follow Skarga’s commentaries: in part, their contents are possibly influenced by the Latin original, and in part, they represent their own emphases and judgments. The linguistic analysis shows that the vocabulary of Polish or Ruthenian origin (both with Slavic and non-Slavic (Greek, Latin, and German) roots) is glossed widely but inconsistently. The words of Greek and Slavic origin, which may have explanatory functions, are stylistically associated with both the literary Old Church Slavonic tradition and business writing. Less often, Polonisms can themselves play the role of explanatory marginalia.","PeriodicalId":33056,"journal":{"name":"Slavistica Vilnensis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Slavistica Vilnensis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/slavviln.2022.67(1).82","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article examines marginalia in one of the East Slavic hand-written versions of “Annales Ecclesiastici” by Caesar Baronius (Russian State Library, f. 256, no. 16, 17th century) in comparison with the Latin original, the Polish translation of Piotr Skarga published in 1607, and other Slavic versions from the 17th–18th centuries. Marginal comments of the book apparatus were studied in a pragmatic aspect, which took into account the narrative impact on the reader; glosses were analyzed in terms of lexemes’ interaction, considering their various origins and stylistic status. The author comes to the conclusion that the historical narrative formed through comments has a profoundly original nature. In the analyzed manuscript, the comments do not always follow Skarga’s commentaries: in part, their contents are possibly influenced by the Latin original, and in part, they represent their own emphases and judgments. The linguistic analysis shows that the vocabulary of Polish or Ruthenian origin (both with Slavic and non-Slavic (Greek, Latin, and German) roots) is glossed widely but inconsistently. The words of Greek and Slavic origin, which may have explanatory functions, are stylistically associated with both the literary Old Church Slavonic tradition and business writing. Less often, Polonisms can themselves play the role of explanatory marginalia.
“奥里金不允许解读书籍”——17世纪东斯拉夫语对巴罗纽斯《传道书年鉴》的译介
本文考察了凯撒·巴罗尼乌斯(Caesar Baronius)的《教会年鉴》(Annales Ecclesiastici)的一个东斯拉夫手写版本中的旁注(俄罗斯国家图书馆,f. 256, no. 6)。与拉丁原文、1607年出版的《彼得·斯卡尔加》的波兰语译本以及17 - 18世纪的其他斯拉夫语版本进行比较。本文从语用的角度研究了图书装置的旁注,考虑了旁注对读者的叙事影响;从词素的相互作用、词素的不同来源和词素的文体地位等方面对词汇进行了分析。作者认为,通过评论形成的历史叙事具有深刻的原创性。在分析的手稿中,评论并不总是遵循Skarga的评论:部分原因是,它们的内容可能受到拉丁语原版的影响,部分原因是,它们代表了自己的重点和判断。语言学分析表明,源自波兰语或鲁塞尼亚语的词汇(既有斯拉夫语词根,也有非斯拉夫语词根(希腊语、拉丁语和德语))被广泛地修饰,但不一致。源自希腊和斯拉夫语的词汇可能具有解释性功能,在文体上与古教会斯拉夫语的文学传统和商业写作都有联系。不太常见的是,polonism本身可以扮演解释性旁注的角色。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Slavistica Vilnensis
Slavistica Vilnensis Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信