Extensive life of Saint Ambrose of Milan in the ancient Slavic literary tradition

Ancient Slavic hagiography is one of the most widespread genres of medieval Slavic literature. The lives of saints were perceived not only as didactic religious reading, but also as fascinating stories about the exploits and deeds of people chosen by God, with the help of which every Christian chose for himself the path to salvation and a way of life worthy of imitation. In Orthodox culture, the hagiographic text was an instrument not only of moral and ethical influence, but, above all, of ideological influence, disseminating and approving ideas important for the development of society as a whole. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are numerous hagiographic texts, their different editions, alterations and contaminations within the framework of different hagiographic lists. First of all, it is necessary to emphasize that Slavic scribes adopted hagiographic texts and methods of compiling them from Byzantine literature. The first lives of saints were translated and became models for a number of independent works that made up the untranslated layer of ancient Slavic hagiography. The emergence of Christian literature in the Slavic-speaking environment dates back to the activities of the first students of the Slavic enlighteners Sts. Cyril and Methodius, who after the death of the first Slavic archbishop of Moravia, St. Methodius (April 6, 885), and the failure of the Moravian mission, they moved to Bulgaria, where they were received with great honor by the Bulgarian prince Boris Michael, who baptized the Bulgarians several decades earlier (863/4). As a result, in the capital of the First Bulgarian Kingdom, in Pliska, the first literary school in the ancient Bulgarian language was created, where scribes began to work - the founders of Bulgarian Christian literature and the creators of the Bulgarian artistic language. The center of their interests, of course, was primarily texts of liturgical purpose and texts related to monastic life 1 . From the lives, the Life of St. was originally translated. Anthony the Great and the Life of St. Pankratius of Tauromenia, which, apparently, were intended for the first monks who settled in monasteries in the vicinity of the capital 2. Later, hagiographic material for the entire year appears and is systematized in monthly collections. Revealing the dynamic picture of the growing popularity of hagiographic works in ancient Bulgarian literature, it is necessary to emphasize that this process affected both translated and original works 3. The first Slavic scribes in Pliska, and later in Preslav (where the son of Prince Boris-Mikhail, Tsar Simeon the Great, moved the capital of the First Bulgarian Kingdom) translated primarily stable hagiographic compositions containing lives of the pre-Metaphrast type. This period covers the last decades of the 9th century. and the first half of the 10th century. Few collections of this type have survived to this day, but those that have come down to us in later copies reflect the practice of ancient Bulgarian scribes to translate not a single work or the work of a certain author according to their personal preference, but, on the contrary, to translate the entire collection for each month and thus preserve the ancient editions of hagiographic compositions, which sometimes fell out of use in Byzantium itself and were considered lost forever in the Greek tradition. Such an example could be the famous Suprasl manuscript (mid-11th century), which contains the Chetya-Mineaion for March and the sermons of St. John Chrysostom. This manuscript is preserved in three libraries and is the oldest and largest Old Church Slavonic manuscript, representing an example that arose during the reign of the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon. Its content is unique; at least three Greek sources were used to compile the collection 4. Among other codes of ancient origin, one can point to manuscript No. 1039 (XIV century) from the National Library in Sofia (menaion-chetya for September–November) 5, the so-called Germanov collection of 1358/9 from the collection of the Patriarchal Library in Romania (PBR I) 6, collection from the collection of A. Khludov No. 195 (XIV century) 7 and others. General A feature of all manuscripts of this type is their content - first of all, lives of the pre-Metaphrastian type, which are distinguished by their antiquity. In the XIV century. in Bulgaria, during the Second Bulgarian Kingdom, translations of Metaphrastian lengthy lives already appear, which are included in new lists, sometimes next to old pre-Metaphrastian texts. This applies primarily to those works that are important in their content, or whose translations were considered sufficiently authoritative. They did not require editing or checking the text against the Greek originals. This type of text also includes the lengthy Life of St. Ambrose of Milan. The Slavic translation of this life is a compilation based on the introductory part of the Latin life, written by Paulinus of Milan, and an anonymous Greek life 8. A passage from the life of Paulinus in the Slavic copies is translated from Greek, and this confirms the hypothesis about the presence of such a contaminated Greek copy, which was used by the ancient Bulgarian translators 9. Observations of the translation principles of ancient Slavic scribes, who, as we have already emphasized, translated hagiographic lists as a whole, for each month or for the whole year, lead us to this conclusion. Life of St. Ambrose of Milan has been preserved in a small number of copies, but in two editions, and his fate is indicative of the development of the so-called old texts (this term refers to translations of the early period, primarily pre-Metaphrastian Lives) and their relationship with the new texts that arose in the 14th century. Let us show some interesting observations on the relationship between the Greek original and translation, as well as between the Slavic editions of the life. It is significant that the oldest lists of both editions go back to the 14th century, and the latest - to the 17th century. This fact shows their parallel emergence and long-term use in the Middle Ages. The first list of the so-called lengthy redaction is identified in the Khlud manuscript. 195 (an old version of the Chetya-Minea of ​​the 14th century), in which translations were discovered that arose in Preslav towards the end of the 9th – beginning of the 10th century. Consequently, we can assume with great confidence that the Life of St. Ambrose is part of this ancient Bulgarian translated hagiographic repertoire. The second lengthy list dates back to the 14th century. (located in the National Library in Vienna), WS1 33, this is also an old-fashioned Chetya-Minea. And this manuscript is connected with ancient hagiographical lists, since A. Turilov recently identified it as a continuation of the Dech manuscript. 94 XIV century, from the collection of the Decani monastery. It is also distinguished by the archaic nature of the lives included in it. The first of two lists in 17th-century manuscripts. - Hilandarsky (Hil. 442, 17th century, the so-called Averkiev panegyric) - reveals a close connection with the ancient copies of the 14th century, while the other - Pc 59 from the People's Library in Belgrade - is a compilative late version that contains individual discrepancies. They appeared as a result of comparison with a more correct manuscript, but differ from those that have survived to this day. By the second half of the 14th century. The senior list of the short version ascends - this is manuscript No. 94 from the collection of the Bulgarian Zograf Monastery on Athos, which is a transitional type of chety-minaion, including old and new translations. Old translations have been edited. According to K. Ivanova, this manuscript “is unique in terms of its attempt to include hagiographic material for almost every day of December” 10. In all likelihood, as we will try to show further, the edition of the Lives of St. Ambrose was made without checking the Greek text. The Zograf manuscript is in close connection with the other two manuscripts containing a short version - a manuscript from the collection of the Rila Monastery in Bulgaria (PM4/5, XV century) and manuscript No. 706, XV century. from the collection of the Dragomirna Monastery in Romania. Both editions of the translation demonstrate relatively independent development, if we consider their discrepancies. On the other hand, they differ little in content and volume. This circumstance prompted us to consider, first of all, the main plot motifs and their changes, in order to then trace the evolution of the hagiographic text. Therefore, here we will present the results of text analysis, which are clearly visible in the publication of texts, and not a purely textual analysis. First, we will try to show some features of the connection between the translation in the two versions and the Greek text. From a paleographic point of view, all lists demonstrate an identical division of the text, marking each part (paragraph) with a red main letter (cinnabar) or the ink color of the main text. A comparison with the Greek text in the critical edition, where the division into numbered paragraphs reflects the state of the manuscript tradition, shows a complete agreement in the number of paragraphs (i.e., the number of main vermilion or enlarged letters). The graphic design of the Greek original is accurately preserved in all Slavic lists, in contrast to the accuracy of the text reproduction. As an exception, only § 6 of the short version should be noted, to which one sentence from the next paragraph has been added. From the point of view of accuracy in conveying the content, the translation demonstrates the characteristic manner of Preslav translators to take liberties with the original. It is expressed in changes at the syntactic level, in the abbreviation of individual sentences or in a descriptive abbreviated translation of individual episodes. It can be said that the most accurate translation in relation to the Greek text is in § 1–7 (events in connection with the ordination of Ambrose as bishop), 20–22 (dramatic conflicts between Bishop Ambrose and Emperor Theodosius, the ban on the emperor entering the church, and later the altar), while in the remaining paragraphs it is possible to identify omissions in the text or an abbreviated retelling of individual parts from each episode. The largest cuts can be found in the following paragraphs: § 10 (events after the death of Emperor Gratian); § 15 (there are no mechanical abbreviations in it, since the entire episode is redone in a didactic spirit); § 17 (the names and, accordingly, the deeds of the two emperors are not mentioned, the finale of the episode describing the reign of Emperor Valens, when pagan holidays were resumed, was shortened); § 19 (the overall description of the city of Thessalonica is shortened); § 28–30 (the story about the piety and mercy of Theodosius’s wife, her death and the destruction of her copper statue is shortened). In § 28, only in the manuscript Ps 59 there is an addition that brings it closer to the Greek original. In the Slavic translation, individual words or anthroponymic expressions are sometimes added, which, as a rule, explain the original text (7, 9, 12, 20, 24), but do not change its meaning. Only § 20 provides a more detailed description of the event than in the Greek text. The abbreviations in the short version cover more paragraphs, excluding those already mentioned 20–22 (the conflict between Theodosius and Ambrose). In two versions of the life, a long rhetorical tirade exposing the emperor’s atrocity is preserved unchanged. It was probably perceived as a unique technique when creating the image of a hagiographic character as a guardian of the integrity of the Church. On the other hand, individual parts or expressions that could be difficult to perceive the meaning or give rise to ambiguity are omitted in the second, abbreviated version. The only example of a significant reduction in the plot motif as a whole is the end of § 29 and the beginning of § 30, where the episode about the destruction of the copper image of Empress Flaquilla, which became the reason for reprisals on the part of Theodosius, was omitted, despite the one adopted at the insistence of St. Ambrose law. As a result of the reduction in the short version, the meaning of the events became unclear to the scribe. He had no other, correct list to check the contents, just as he probably did not have the Greek text. Therefore, the following substitution was made: instead of explaining at the end of § 30 that the monks intercede with their prayers for the innocent who suffered under the new repressions of the emperor, the scribe tells us about the monks’ prayer for peace, thus presenting all events as the result of military actions on the part of Theodosius. The misunderstanding continues in the next episode §31, where the messengers of the imperial will are called “elders,” whereas in the lengthy version they are correctly called by their Greek titles, “magister” and “Caesar.” The later, Rylsky, list introduces its own new interpretation, calling them “elders” and, thus, further alienates the translation from the original, where they are called “archons” - the translation in the lengthy version is “Bolyari”. The process of “clarifying” the dark meaning ends only at the end of § 31. In the abridged version, the last sentence was removed from it, since it was no longer related to the events described. The state of the manuscript tradition does not allow us to give a comprehensive answer about the reasons that determined such a semantic obfuscation of the text. Perhaps this is the result of the absence of a sheet in the protograph, an incomprehensible place in the manuscript, etc., but, in any case, we can accept the hypothesis that there was no correct text for checking not only with the Slavic, but also with the Greek list. Despite the examples we have given, the Slavic translation in both of its versions accurately conveys the main points in the Greek text. Small deviations were found in episodes dedicated primarily to historical events or persons not associated with the image of St. Ambrose. The short version does not differ significantly in meaning, but, most likely, was made to clarify some points that are difficult to understand. What remains is the impression of a careful reworking of the text, which does not affect the image of the central hagiographic character, but seeks to emphasize, first of all, his merits and his actions in defense of the Church. As is well known, the anonymous Greek life of St. Ambrose of Milan is closely dependent on the "Ecclesiastical History" of Theodoret of Cyrus. In the Greek life, direct quotations from the historian’s work have been discovered and identified, which cover approximately 80% of the text. The anonymous Greek author tried to shorten the actual historical narrative and carried out a consistent idealization of the image of St. Ambrose. This is a typical hagiographic technique, especially for the second half of the 9th century, when this work supposedly originated: it combined the historical narrative with the hagiographical one and created an accessible and unambiguous image. This method carries an ideological message about the relationship between secular and spiritual power. In the Slavic translation, these semantic levels of the text are precisely demarcated and emphasized through abbreviations in the text and its “subtle” editing. Let us give a few examples: in § 8 of the Greek text about the young Theodosius it is said that he was famous for his noble origin and his courage. The second circumstance was missed in the translation. The translator rendered the adjective onomastotatos as valiant, emphasizing the positive assessment of the character. The episode about how Gratian appointed Theodosius as commander will again be cut. But in the episode that describes how Theodosius went into battle, a new expression is added to the original Greek text in translation: in addition to girding himself with faith, he also trusted in God. This addition also corresponds to another change in the text of the episode: the last sentence describes how the barbarians died not only from the Roman sword, but also killed each other from fear: the translation says that the barbarians were destroyed by other, invisible forces, the Greek word allîlôn was mistakenly translated as others (others), it was interpreted in a theological context. The abridged version retains this mistranslation, but with the explanation that not all enemies died. In § 13, young Valentinian does not listen to Ambrose's instructions, being influenced by his mother Justina, who was an Arian. The episode is shortened, and everything is said in one sentence: the bishop perceived the young man’s waywardness as the games of a baby. But Ambrose's words in the episode when he resists Valentinian's decision to throw him out of the church are conveyed absolutely literally. Both older copies, like the Hilandar one, accurately translate the Greek words: I will not hand over the house of the sheep to the wolves, and the later one, the Belgrade one, explains this expression as the church of the father. In the short version, this place is translated as God's church. An editorial alteration in § 15 is obvious. Emperor Maximus forced Valentinian, who persisted in the Arian heresy, to flee to Illyria. The paragraph begins with the intervention of Theodosius. Only the instructions to the young emperor are briefly quoted, without describing specific events: You lack piety and you flee defeated, while the one who is clothed in piety succeeds and defeats every wicked tormentor. The short version of the story is even more concise. We found another serious change in the text in § 18, where it is said that Theodosius was unable to escape the devil’s snares, and, having escaped from some, he fell into others. Another example of serious abbreviations is § 17. It contains a brief description of the emperors who were apostates from Christianity. It omits the name of Emperor Jovian and attributes his actions to Julian. When describing the reign of Emperor Valens, the Greek text details the restoration of pagan traditions and lists them: public banquets in the forum, processions with dogs, Dionysian and Bacchic orgies. The translation reports only about the restoration of pagan temples, and about all other acts, the description of which takes up most of the episode, it is said in general: they also did other bad and vile deeds. The examples can be continued, but the ones given here are enough to convince oneself of the translator’s desire to make the life more specific. This is evidenced by some other details in the text: in the original Greek the Arian heresy is always called by the name Aria, and the translation speaks of heresy in general, of malice or evil. The enemies of Christian emperors are trash, and the emperors themselves are zealous Christians, always pious, faithful and great, while in a number of cases these definitions are added in the translation and are not found in the Greek text. The image of Saint Ambrose also underwent significant processing. In the original, the epithet divine is often attached to his name. In the translation we have a wide synonymy: in addition to the exact translation divine, valiant, righteous, great, blessed are used. The shortened version uses only two adjectives: divine and great. Here we would like to draw attention to one more feature. In both versions of the life, the Greek word priest is regularly translated as cleanser. This practice is attested to us in the ancient Bulgarian era in the texts of the Suprasl manuscript and is a reliable lexical indicator of the early Bulgarian origin of the translation presented here. The rarely used word ugoneznav has also been preserved, which is also present in the Preslav vocabulary of the late 9th – early 10th centuries. The preservation of these lexical archaisms in all translation lists reinforces the hypothesis of a common primary source, from which two independent editions early developed. How is the Life of St. perceived? Ambrose of Milan in a Slavic environment? The significance of this work in its Greek version, taken from the “History” of Theodoret of Cyrrhus and modified, as researchers have repeatedly emphasized, is to highlight the problem of the relationship between secular and spiritual power in Byzantium. Particular attention is paid to the conflict between Emperor Theodosius and St. Ambrose: he is presented here, according to the unanimous opinion of experts, as a classic example of the relationship between power and authority in this area. For the Bulgarian rulers of the late 9th and early 10th centuries - especially for Tsar Simeon - this problem also arose in the process of Christianization of the state and the formation of state institutions. One very indicative monument in this regard, known as “Zlatostruy”, has survived to this day: it contains texts that have a parallel with the questions posed in the life. It is known that “Zlatostruy” is a compilation collection compiled by order and with the personal participation of the Bulgarian Tsar. The king himself is the author of the Prologue, and the collection includes works written by St. John Chrysostom. One homily touches on the theme of the king’s rage and will: “The only true king is the one who controls rage, envy and voluptuousness, and subordinates everything to the law of God, and keeps his mind free.” This statement is very similar to the ideas of St. Ambrose on a law that required the emperor to wait 30 days before imposing a death sentence. We see the same motive in the “Instructive Chapters” of Deacon Agapit: “Tsar, truly I call you, who controls your passions and abstains. Because you have crowned yourself with the crown of chastity and clothed yourself in the scarlet robe of righteousness.” Suffice it to recall § 15 from the life of St. Ambrose, where it is said that only a king clothed in piety defeats his enemies, in order to understand the set of motives relevant to the image of a Christian prince. The categorically expressed position of St. We also find John Chrysostom talking about the superiority of spiritual power over secular power in another “Word”, “Golden Flow”: “It is true that the power of the priesthood is higher than the royal power, since the king is entrusted with bodies, and the priest with souls.” The same thoughts are attributed to the Emperor Valentinian when he ordered the ordination of Ambrose as bishop. Another quote from “Golden Jet” recalls the reproachful words of St. Ambrose, who denied the emperor access to the altar: “And whoever believes that he can rule over people, serving rage, lust for power and passions, will be the first to be a mockery for everyone..., and his body shines in crimson, but his soul is not adorned.” Such examples can be found in the “Izbornik” of the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon/Svyatoslav in 1073, as well as in the “Catechetical Discourses” of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. They are part of the general ideological background in which the Life of St. Ambrose places unique accents, since it is a narrative and has a certain set of artistic techniques that are inaccessible to other texts. Life of St. Ambrose was perceived by the translator as an important text of great significance, and the translator tried to clarify the image, adapting it to the needs of his audience. The translation not only removes unnecessary information, but also easily models the images of its characters as ideal rulers: it brings to the fore the idealized image of the daring cleric; puts each of the actors in its place in the hierarchy of power. Thus, the hagiography fits into its new cultural environment in order to remain relevant throughout the centuries, in other words, as long as the question of where the limits of the autocrat’s power was raised, and at the same time, the independence of the house of the Almighty, the Church, was not questioned. A detailed description of the translated literature of the time of the First Bulgarian Kingdom is presented in our plenary report at the XXII Congress of Byzantine Studies, see: Dћurova A., Velinova V. Byzantine Literature and Codex in the Reflection of the Slavic Tradition. (Once More on the Relation Model-Recipient) // Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Vol. 1: Plenary Papers. Sofia, 2011. pp. 83–105. Angelov B. St. From the Starat of Bulgarian, Russian and Serbian literature. T. 2. Sofia, 1967. pp. 103–168. Ivanova Kl. Lives of the Old Bulgarian Literature // Old Bulgarian Book Heritage. Sofia, 2002. pp. 70–92. Supraslski (Retkov) collection. T. 1–2: Phototype and typesetting edition of the text along with Greek parallels. Sofia, 1981. Kodov Hr., Stoyanov M. Description of the Slavic manuscript in the Sofia National Library. T. 3. Sofia, 1964. P. 251. Mircheva E. Germanov collection from 1358/59: Research and publication on the text. Sofia, 2006. Nikolova S., Yovcheva M., Popova T., Taseva L. Bulgarian medieval cultural heritage in the collection of Alexey Khludov in the Derzhavnia Historical Museum in Moscow. Sofia, 1999. pp. 83–84. This was established thanks to the publication of Msgr. Pasini, who was the first to identify an anonymous Greek pre-metaphrastic life (see: Pasini S. La vita premetafrastica di Sant’Ambrogio di Milano. Introduzione, edizione critica e traduzione // Analecta Bollandiana 101. P. 101–150. See: Velinova V. Le vite estese di Sant Ambrogio nella tradizione slava ortodossa // Ambrosiana Slavica 2, 2011 (Milano). P. 7–38. Ivanova Kl. Biblioteca Hafiografica Balcano Slavica. Sofia, 2008. D. 73–74.