Copies: Second translation
About the second translation

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 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. •

About the copy Бел

Cyril and Methodius National Library, Sofia, (NLCM Sofia 309), second half of the 16th century, f. 160v-163v, 1r-3v.
This copy, together with Д, belongs to the second group of copies (see Стойкова 1994: 73, 87-88). It contains only eleven chapters which generally follow the sequence of chapters in the first group of the Second translation. It is difficult to say why there are fewer chapters than in the first group. Arguments of a textological and structural nature lead to the conclusion that Бел belongs to another branch of the manuscript tradition which became detached from the common protograph at an early date.
The copy was published by Лавров 1899, studied by S. Gechev (Гечев 1938) and used for comparative purposes by G. Svane (Сване 1987). •
Chapters in Бел - alphabetical order
1Eagle
2Fox
3Partridge
4Peacock
5Pigeon
6Sea Urchin
7Seahorse
8Snake
9Stag
10Wolf
11Woodpecker

About the copy В2

University Library, Vienna, (UL Vienna І 26054), 1566, f. 13r-28r.

This copy contains nineteen chapters of the Third translation and one chapter of the Second translation, namely about the bee (f. 27v-28r). As a rule About the bee characterizes only the Second translation, and it was probably borrowed from such a source because it is very close textologically to the same chapter in copies П, W, Г, К2, where it is also available.

The copy has not been published before. •

Chapters in В2 - alphabetical order
1Bee

About the copy Г

Museum of Serbian Orthodox Church, Belgrade, (MSOC Belgrade (Grujić collection) 100), 1628, f. 1r-15v.

This copy was written by Hieromonk Daniil of Etropole in the Varovitets monastery and contains twenty-six chapters. The copy comes extremely close in content and textology to П and W; a comparative analysis shows that they undoubtedly descend from a common protograph, as do the miscellanies in which they were included (see Милтенова 1986). The readings typical only of Г are insignificant and are due to the editorial intervention of the scribe, which, targeted only the language and the style (see Стойкова 1994: 70-71).

The copy has not been published before. •

About the copy Д

Centre for Slavo-Byzantine Studies "Prof. Ivan Dujchev", Sofia (CSBS Sofia 17), first half of the 18th century, f. 29v-34v.

The Physiologus contains twelve chapters and belongs to the second group of copies, as does Бел, from which it was copied (see Стойкова 1994: 73, 87-88). However, Д is better preserved and more complete; that is why its content makes it possible to fill in the gaps in the content of the damaged manuscript Бел. It is not known whether the text of the Physiologus in Бел and Д is preserved in any other copies, but the textological and structural differences between these two copies and the copies of the first group make it possible to classify them as a separate group.

The copy has not been published before. •

Chapters in Д - alphabetical order
1Eagle
2Fox
3Hoopoe
4Partridge
5Peacock
6Pigeon
7Sea Urchin
8Seahorse
9Snake
10Stag
11Wolf
12Woodpecker

About the copy Е

Scholarly Archive of BAS, Sofia, (BAS Sofia 86), 18th century, f. 84v-90v, end missing.

This copy, together with С, belongs to the third group of copies, a classification determined on the basis of textological and structural features. According to the description made by M. Moskov, the Physiologus contained fifteen chapters. At present, thirteen survive, some of them in fragments, and the end is missing. There are remnants of folia with isolated words and phrases from another chapter (About the frog). The copy displays a radically different sequence of the chapters in comparison with the copies of the main body of the first group, which is due to a damaged protograph. However, the sequence in the first nine chapters is similar to that in the first group. The copy was studied in terms of language and in comparison with П (NLCM Sofia 433) in Христосков, Младенов 1957.

It has not been published before. •

Chapters in Е - alphabetical order
1Eagle
2Fox
3Frog
4Hoopoe
5Lion
6Ox
7Partridge
8Peacock
9Stag
10Stork
11Swallow
12Turtle Dove
13Wolf
14Woodpecker

About the copy З2

Library of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Zagreb, Kukuljević collection (HAZU Zagreb ІІІ.а.20), 16th century, f. 13r-31v.

It contains twenty-nine chapters, a compilation of the Second (З) and the Third (З) translations, including four chapters with mixed text: about the lion, the aurochs, the turtle dove and the pigeon (З) (see Стойкова 1991; Стойкова 1994: 78-81). Twelve chapters are attributable to the Second translation, but some of them contain individual phrases or entire sentences from the Third translation (e.g. in About the elephant).

The copy is published in part in by Jagić 1866 and in full in Novaković 1879: 181-203.

This copy was the first one made available in a printed edition and has been used by all researchers interested in the Slavic Physiologus. See, for instance, Polívka 1892-1896, Ягич 1895, Гечев 1938: 76-87, Сване 1987: 285-308. •

Chapters in З2 - alphabetical order
1Bee
2Crane
3Eagle
4Fox
5Frog
6Hoopoe
7Ox
8Peacock
9Snake
10Swallow
11Wolf
12Woodpecker

About the copy К2

Library of the Romanian Academy, Cluj-Napoca branch (RA Cluj-Napoca 25), second half of the 16th century, f. 43r-57r.
The copy contains twenty-five chapters and is a compilation of the First translation and the Second translation. It opens with nine chapters from the First translation (К1), followed by sixteen more from the Second translation (К2). The copy was made from a damaged protograph: the first chapter of the Second translation (About the aurochs), which has no beginning, is situated on the same page (46v) as the unfinished last chapter of the First translation (About the aspide). Only those chapters from the Second translation which were missing from the First translation were added to the chapters of the First translation that had already been copied, so that the resulting copy was as complete as possible (see the table +Comparison of the copies of the Second translation (W) with К1 and К2) (see Стойкова 1994: 83, 86).
Studies: Олтяну 1984, Олтяну 1984а. .

The copy К2 is textologically close to П, W and Г, the differences being mainly in the lexis and in some grammatical constructions (see Стойкова 1994: 71, 83, 86).

Studies: Олтяну 1984, Олтяну 1984а.

The copy has not been published before. •

About the copy Н2

Collection of the Nikoljac monastery, Montenegro, (), at present in the National Library of Serbia, Belgrade, 1485-1495, f. 197v-208v.

This is the earliest copy of the Second translation of the Physiologus. Н belongs to the first group of copies in terms of completeness of the content and main textological features. In some cases, however, its text is closer to the copies in the second and the third groups. Н can be said to occupy an intermediate position between the first group, which seems to be relatively close to the extant Greek texts, and the second and the third groups, which appeared later. It is difficult to say, however, if it shows a transitional state of the text or if it just preserves traces of an earlier text (see Стойкова 1994: 75-76). Н contains twenty-one chapters in the same order as those in W and Г. Two chapters (about the lion and the aurochs) are missing from the beginning, and two others (about the griffin and the aspide) are missing after the chapter about the peacock. The chapters about the ox and the unicorn appear in a reversed order. On f. 212r-213v there are four chapters copied from another source containing the Third translation (Н).

The copy has not been published before. •

About the copy П

Cyril and Methodius National Library, Sofia, (NLCM Sofia 433), second half of the 16th century, f. 1r-11v.

The copy is very close to W and Г in its content and textological features; comparative analysis indicated that they descend from a common protograph, as do the miscellanies of which they were part (see Милтенова 1986). The absence of seven chapters as compared to W and Г is obviously due to folia being lost from the manuscript; however, the nineteen preserved chapters follow exactly the same order. The beginnings of the chapters about the stag and the peacock and the ends of the chapters about the partridge and the aspide mark the beginnings and the ends of the gaps. See Стойкова 1994: 53-54, 70-71, 84.

The copy has long been known to scholars: V. Mochul'skii published three chapters of it as early as 1889 (Мочульский 1889). The entire text was published by S. Gechev (Гечев 1938: і-хііі), who studied it in detail. •

About the copy С

Cyril and Methodius National Library, Sofia, (NLCM Sofia 1078), beginning of the 19th century, f. 83r-89r.

This copy contains nineteen chapters. Although recent, the copy preserves the language of earlier copies to a great extent and their textological features even more so. It is very close to Е, and together they form the third group. Its chapters follow the same sequence as in E, but C is more complete and makes it possible to restore the content of Е. The chapters about the pigeon and the crane, mentioned by M. Moskov (Москов 1904), are now lost in Е, but are at the corresponding places in С. Also preserved here are another four chapters (sea urchin - snake - frog - bee), which surely must have existed in Е also. There is reason to believe that С is a copy of Е, because the differences between them are mainly of a linguistic nature and reflect C's late origin. Comparative analysis demonstrates how a Middle Bulgarian text retains its character in a Modern Bulgarian linguistic environment. See Стойкова 1994: 74-75.

The copy has not been published before. •

About the copy Х

Royal Library, Copenhagen (KB Copenhagen 553с), from the 1640s, f. 1r-30v.

This is a Russian copy of the first group. It is textologically very close, almost identical, to the corresponding texts in copies П, W and Г; the differences are due mostly to the Russian character of the copy (see Сване 1987а: 110; Стойкова 1994: 72-73). The sequence of the chapters appears at first sight to be completely different, but the original order can be reconstructed and it is obvious that the highly fragmented text was initially copied from a damaged protograph, and eventually its folia were positioned in the wrong order (see Стойкова 1994: 86-87). However, by dividing the text into five parts and rearranging them, we can restore its initial structure. All the chapters at the beginnings and at the ends of these parts are incomplete. The last part, the chapter about the aspide, does not fit the main order. A fragment from it was copied at its proper place between the chapters about the griffin and the fox. The scribe probably came across the rest of the text later and wrote it out in full at the end of the Physiologus. The fragment copied earlier and the corresponding part of the last chapter are absolutely identical, which supports this hypothesis.

The copy has been published by G. Svane (Сване 1987а). •

About the copy Š

National Museum, Prague, (NM Prague ІХ. Н. 16 (Š 19)), 1646, f. 240v-254v.

This copy belongs to the first group. Comparison with the other copies shows that extensive additions to the main text and commentaries were made in it. The fact that these additions appear only in one copy, as well as the fact that they are obviously explanations and additions, prove that we owe their presence to the scribe who wrote this copy. On the other hand, the nature of the modifications does not make it possible to treat this copy as a different recension (see Стойкова 1994: 72). contains twenty-one chapters, and, compared to the remaining copies in the first group, their sequence displays the greatest deviation. It is obvious that the text was copied from a damaged protograph from which some folia were missing, whilst the remainder were mixed up. However, groups of chapters clearly emerge which preserve the sequence of   W and Г: stork - partridge - turtle dove; wolf - crane - sea urchin - snake - ox - unicorn; and woodpecker - hoopoe. The last group is very stable in all the Slavic copies without exception. It also appears regularly in the Greek copies of the Byzantine recension. In this group is placed right in the middle of the chapter about the aspide. This is evidence that the group woodpecker - hoopoe was accidentally inserted at a point where otherwise one would see the group griffin - aspide - fox - swallow, as in W and Г. The multiple disruptions of the sequence of chapters and the mixing of some texts as a result of the defects in the protograph are probably the reason for the many editorial additions and explanations typical of this copy.

It has been studied by J. Polívka (Polívka 1889) and S. Gechev (Гечев 1938) and used in variant readings in Polívka 1892-1896. •

About the copy W

National Library of Austria, Vienna, (NL Vienna 149), second half of the 16th century, f. 7a-26a.

One of the most typical representatives of the copies of the first group, extremely close to П and Г (Милтенова 1986), together with them it presents a text relatively close to some Greek copies; their text, content and the sequence of chapters are taken here as representative of the Second translation of the South Slavic Physiologus. Therefore W, as a copy more archaic than Г and more complete than П, has been used here as a standard copy for the Second translation. W contains twenty-six chapters, and it is possible that the complete initial Second translation was limited to these chapters.

The copy was published by V. Jagić (Ягич 1895), but the edition remained unknown to scholars. •