Copies representing the Second translation of the Byzantine Physiologus
are listed on this page. They are ordered alphabetically and referred to by a siglum and a brief
name. They can be viewed by clicking on the + sign. In the section devoted to each copy there is
a subsection headed About the copy with information about its location, contents and main
features, about research pertaining to it and editions of its text.
There are at least two tables in each section: the first lists the
chapters in alphabetical order and the second indicates their order in the manuscript,
most often in comparison with other copies within the same translation.
When a copy has a more complex composition (in some cases copies contain
two versions of the Physiologus belonging to different translations), tables relating
to both translations are given in the interests of clarity.
The Second translation includes the largest number of copies - П, W, Г, Н2, К2, Š, Бел, Д, Е, and С. The Russian copy Х also belongs to this type. Besides being numerous, the copies of the Second translation also present a variety of textological features and may be subdivided into three groups. The differences among groups are on the level of composition and structure, as well as on the level of language, phrasing and style (see Стойкова 1994: 68-77). So far no close equivalents to these copies have been reported among the preserved Greek texts
of the Byzantine recension. The chapters about the griffin,
the ox and the bee are encountered only in the Second translation.
The first group comprises six copies. Three of them (П, W and Г) are relatively close in their composition and structure to two Greek copies of the Physiologus from the 16th and the 17th century (Parisinus gr. Coislin 344 and Athoniticus Vatopediou 279) published by F. Sbordone (Sbordone 1936: cv). Нe classified these copies, which he referred to as Р and У respectively, as representatives of the third recension of the third type of the Byzantine recension of the Greek Physiologus (Sbordone 1936: xxii, lxxxvi-lxxxvii). The similarity between these Greek copies and copies П, W and Г seems to be the only certain indication of the direction in which to search for the archetype of the texts preserved in the Second translation of the Slavic Physiologus. That is why I assume that these copies form the main body of the Second translation and indicate its major characteristics. The rest of the copies in group I, as well as those in the autonomous II and III groups, show even greater deviations from the Greek text. For that reason I consider W (NL Vienna 149) the basic copy of the Second translation of the Slavic Physiologus of Byzantine recension and collate the rest of the copies on its basis. •