Greek borrowings and glosses in the translation of "Epitomy" by Constantine Harmenopoulos, made by Epiphanius Slavinetsky

Ivanova Elizaveta Vyacheslavovna Postgraduate student, Department of Russian Language, M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, assistant of the Department of foreign languages of MIREA - RTU 119991, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, Leninskie Gory str., 1, p. 51, room 950 atonical@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

The relevance of the research topic is due to the need for a more complete and comprehensive study of the translations made by the Russian scribes in the second half of the XVII century, and in particular by Epiphany Slavinetsky.

Epiphanius Slavinetsky is an outstanding figure of the Russian Church of the XVII century. His range of work was very wide: he was engaged in translations of the Bible and other Christian texts, the study of patristic literature, the compilation of church rules. However, his translation of "Epitomies, or a Summary of the Divine and Holy Canons" by Konstantin Armenopoulos remains little studied. This text is of interest both from a linguistic and textual point of view, and its study allows us to more accurately draw up a picture not only of the activities of the Yeifaniy Slavinetsky book club, but also about the history of the Russian literary language.

To achieve this research goal , it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

first, to give a comprehensive description of the use of Greek phrases in glosses;

secondly, to classify the litter and highlight the main goals of each type;

thirdly, to establish the connection of the studied lexemes with the lexicons compiled by Epiphanius Slavinetsky, which will allow a better understanding of the technique of the leader of the Nikon book reference.

The following manuscripts served as the research material:

GIM Sin. No. 129 (State Historical Museum, Synodal Collection, number 129);

GIM Usp. Boom.  91 (State Historical Museum, Assumption Collection, number 91);

GIM. Sin. 383 (State Historical Museum, Synodal Collection number 383);

OR MSU Mur. 45. (Department of Manuscripts of Moscow State University, Muravyov Collection, number 45).

And also the Greek edition of the Epitomium Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Patrologiae Graecae tomus CL, 1865.

Greekisms in Marginalia

In medieval texts marginalia are entries, comments or other notes that are located on the margins of the pages of the manuscript. They are valuable sources for researchers, as they may contain additional information about the author, the original text, translation, the history of the creation and distribution of the work, as well as about the culture and society of that time. Linguistic marginalia in medieval texts can be expressed not only in the form of corrections and corrections of the text, but they also often contain comments, glosses, translations into other languages and explanations of difficult words and phrases, which makes them especially useful linguistic material. Thus, marginalia in the translations and editorial works of Epiphanius Slavinetsky have been repeatedly considered by researchers using the example of key texts, for example, when working on the printed version of the Bible of 1663 ^{[6, pp. 13, 15]}.

In the translation of the Epitomies by Konstantin Armenopoul, performed by Epiphanius Slavinetsky, marginalia can help to find out how the translator understood and interpreted the canonical texts. The description of the specifics of the work of the Moscow reference man with marks also clarifies the methodology of editing and searching for a more accurate translation, and can also shed light on the lexical and grammatical features of translations of the Chudovsky Book School of the second half of the XVII century.

"Epitomies" is a collection of abbreviated canons of church law of the XIV century, owned by Konstantin Armenopoul and is one of the most important works on church law of the Byzantine Empire. The first translation of "Epitomy" into the Slavic language was undertaken  Epiphany Slavinetsky in 1652-1652 (7161), but it was lost during the plague epidemic ^{[2, pp. 82-83]}. As a result, the Moscow scribe was forced to create another translation, the senior list of which in 1677 (Syn. 129) is stored in the GIM ^{[10, pp. 322-323]} and is of particular value, because it was the result of a long multi-stage work of the translator and proofreader. One of the key components for a comprehensive linguistic analysis of this translation is the description of the litter system.

However, first it is necessary to determine the types of marginalia that may occur in the text. For example, O. S. Sapozhnikova classifies litter for the books of Sergei Shelonin, one of the outstanding figures of the Solovetsky Monastery of the XVII century, who was also a contemporary of Epiphanius Slavinetsky and a receiver of the traditions of Maxim the Greek ^{[7, pp. 3-7]}, and identifies the following types of litter for the works of Sergei Shelonin ^{[7, pp. 103 – 104]}:

1. Marginalia of an official nature, which are instructions to scribes. For example: "Here you write about the good princes of Stolpets."

2. Linguistic marginalia, which are often realized in the selection of a synonym.

3. Referential, they primarily include those that indicate the sources of a particular essay or quotation in the text.

Sapozhnikova's classification with additions and changes can also be applied to the analysis of the translation of "Epitomies" by Konstantin Armenopul, performed by Epiphany Slavinetsky. The classification proposed for the works of Sergei Shelonin can be called functional, because it primarily evaluates the role of litter in the text, which is extremely significant in the analysis of the marginalia system. However, the type of language material itself is also important, and its analysis can be approached from different angles.

Litters by language type:

1) grecisms to Church Slavonic words (in rare cases to foreign words;

2) grecisms to Greek words;

3) latinisms to Church Slavonisms;

4) arbitrary litters (Slavic equivalents to Slavic words);

5) adapting glosses (Church Slavonic litters to foreign words).

Litters by the nature of language glossing:

1) lexical;

2) grammatical;

3) lexical and grammatical.

Separately, we will highlight the litters by source:

1) available in the original and translated by Epiphany Slavinetsky;

2) the author's marks of Epiphany Slavinetsky.

It can be noted that these classifications often have intersections, so, for example, the largest number of glossaries, as well as reference droppings and marginalia of an official nature can be attributed to those dictated by the Greek original, which will be discussed in more detail later. If we consider this translation from the point of view of Sapozhnikova's classification, then the most represented in the text and at the same time interesting from a linguistic point of view can be called litters belonging to the second type – linguistic. Marginalia of the first and third types are less represented, but it is still possible to give examples of official litter:

Litter "prazdnika se rule" we find on p. 28 vol. for context, the "Son NOVAG any or Cyprus Konstantinopolsky Yes mother pravedna and ellispontou Yes predsedateley and czeskiego Yes chromones" (SYN. 129, l. 28 vol.).

The source of this notes is the original text: " " / "Ceased to operate this Canon" to "? , " / "the One who belongs to a new Justinopolis or Cyprus to Constantinople, even has the right and chair Gelistete and sets apart in kisike".

As mentioned earlier, linguistic marginalia, which are often realized in the selection of a synonym, are represented in all lists, and in the protograph of Syn. 129 we observe them especially a lot. Let us dwell in more detail on the analysis of adapting glossaries and foreign-language equivalents to words in the main part of the translation, or rather on how Grecisms are implemented in such types of marginalia. Separately, we note that the same glosses in all cases are copyrighted, that is, introduced into the text by Epiphany Slavinetsky. There were 7 adapting gloss-Grecisms, while there were 27 Grecisms for words in the main text, mainly Slavic. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the second type is dominant in translation. Against the background of these droppings are two Greek commentary to the vehicle in the text, due to the original, in which there is clarification: ? , ? , [], / "He who is ordained or made for bribery until in Promovarea [in Paramonia], let him be cut off" – Chromonica or prosody and penzey even *Promenera [*Paramonarchia] let it be overthrown (Syn. 129, l. 23).

[] / "the One in Laodicea that Capatina [Palatine] Phrygian" – By in Lodge ~Katatani~ [~Pakatiani~] fr?giyskya ova is in the Sardis of guilt for the sake of the sitsev? (Syn. 129, l. 18)

As we can see, Epiphany Slavinetsky approaches the transfer of such droppings from the original with all rigor, but there are details that should be clarified. The last context, which describes the local council of the Christian Church, held around 360 in the city of Laodicea, demonstrates which name of one of the parts of Phrygia is more relevant for the author of the Epitomium, it also falls into the Slavic translation.

During the reforms of the Roman Emperor Diocletian (c. 242/245 – 311/312), Phrygia was divided into two provinces: "Phrygia I", or Phrygia Salutaris (which in Latin means "healthy"), and Phrygia II, or Pacatiana (from Latin pacata - "peaceful", which is recorded in the Byzantine version ). Phrygia Salutaris was the eastern part of the region, while Phrygia Pacatiana with Laodicea acted as the western part. Provinces existed until the end of the VII century, when they were replaced by the fem system (from the Greek. ). In the late Roman, early "Byzantine" period, most of Phrygia belonged to the Anatolian fema. It was captured by the Turks after the Battle of Manzikert (1071) ^{[13, p. 251]}. The Turks took full control of it in the 13th century, but the ancient name Phrygia was used until the last remnants of the Byzantine Empire were conquered by the Ottoman Empire in 1453. The name of the parts of Phrygia also remains relevant in connection with the description of historical events, which we observe in the text of Constantine Armenopoulos.

It is necessary to comment on the second variant of the name of Western Phrygia, which we find in the Epitomies. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography notes that occasionally Phrygia Pakatiana is called Phrygia Kapatiana: "sometimes also called Capatiana" ^{[14, p. 620]}. In Thayer's Greek Lexicon we find that this is a later version ^{[15, p. 474]}.

Researchers note that a similar use of this toponym can be found, for example, already in the text "De Thematibus" or " " attributed to Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (905 - 959) ^{[12, p. 174]}, therefore, by the XIV century, when Constantine Armenopoulos lived, the name "Phrygia Kapatiana" it is habitual. What is interesting is not only the original tradition of naming the western part of Phrygia and its other name, "Kapatiana", which obviously arose through metathesis, but also some other variants. In the comments to the First Epistle to Timothy Paul, written by Adam Clark, a British methodist theologian and biblical scholar, we find: "Instead of Pacatiana, some have Pancatiana, Capatiana, and Paracatiana" / "Instead of Pacatiana, some write Pancatiana, Capatiana and Paracatiana" based on the materials of "Common Greek Text, and several MSS (manuscripts)" ^[10]. These examples are notable for their variability, and thus the name that we find in the translation of Epiphany Slavinetsky and which is clearly read as "Katatani" becomes another similar variant. We do not find such examples in other sources, so the use of the word "Katatani" can be considered a hapax in the translation of "Epitomy". He, in turn, may have several explanations: this option may arise due to amphibious assimilation, that is, the influence of the third consonant in the word on the second. You can also see in this form the translator's attempt to endow the word with the Greek common morpheme "-". However, note that this option is not present in all lists. In the manuscript of Usp. 91 (stored in the GIM), there is another reading: kapatianik¿ fr?gyi (pakatianik?) (Usp. 91, l. 2). We cannot talk in detail about the role of this list in the process of translating "Epitomies" in this work, however, it contains a draft version of the translation, probably compiled by by Epiphanius Slavinetsky himself and not subjected to editing. In any case, this reading, on the one hand, tries to bring the word closer to the Church Slavonic, while Katatani repeats the structure of Greekism . On the other hand, it corresponds to the Greek in the matter of the transfer of the root, which, however, does not fall into the final version of the translation.

Returning to the author's marginalia of Epiphanius Slavinetsky, it can be noted that not all Grecisms in litters occur in the text with the same frequency, therefore, it is necessary to comment separately on repetitions in glosses (forms of Greek words are quoted from the original). In addition, for almost every Greek in the glosses there is a dictionary entry from the "Lexicon of the Hellenic-Slavonic-Latin" authored by Epiphanius Slavinetsky (hereinafter Syn. 383 – according to the original manuscript, stored in the GIM, as well as Mur. 45 – according to the list of the XVIII century, stored in the MSU manuscripts department):

1) The word "paraskea" occurs four times in litters in different forms to "p?tok" (Syn. 129, l. 46, l. 46, l. 46, l. 67) cf. Greek. "" 'Friday'. " ? the same as - preparation apparatus pre-preparation praeparatio attached confectio syllable compositio edification aedificatio edification machinatio" (Syn. 383, l. 531) ( 'preparation', apparatus 'preparation', praeparatio 'preparation', confectio 'preparation', compositio 'compilation', aedificatio 'erection', machinatio ‘invention').

              2) Litters are repeated three times:

               economy to ?stroenie and stroenie (Syn. 129, l. 24 vol., l. 26 vol., l. 40 vol.) cf. Greek. "o". "O ? domozakonie domozakon domus lex domostroitelstvo domus administratio domostrolenie domus vectio domonomia" (Syn. 383, l. 491) (o, oeconomia 'household management', domus lex 'house law', domus administratio 'house management', domus vectio 'management home').

               volume to the scroll (Syn. 129, l. 29 vol., l. 30, l. 58) cf. Greek. "". " u the same scroll velumen" (Syn. 383, l. 683 vol.) (, velumen 'volume, scroll').

               and also in various forms, the Greek notebook to the word Wednesday (Syn. 129, l. 46, l. 46, l. 67) cf. Greek. "". ", quaternio quaternio notebook" (Syn. 383, l. 678) (, , quaternio 'quaternio', 'fourth day').

               3) Twice:

               ma?imatik to v?schets (Syn. 129, l. 36, l. 44) cf. Greek. "". "? ucnii docilis uchiteley disciplinis vacans uchitelya doctrinam praebens maniatty mathematicus Makati" (SYN. 383, l. 440 vol.) ( ‘scientist’, docilis ‘scientist’, disciplinis vacans ‘devoting themselves to the teachings’, doctrinam praebens ‘learning’, mathematicus ‘scientist’).

               the demonstration to the bsnc? (Syn. 129, l. 40 vol., l. 55 vol.) cf. Greek. "". " the identity hedgehog bsnes demonst sum daemoniacus naistest insanio kdezto" (SYN. 383, l. 175 vol.) ( ‘raging’, and ‘to rage’, sum daemoniacus ‘I was possessed’, insanio ‘rage’).

               kannonik?v to the rule book?v (Syn. 129, l. 45, l. 49 vol.) cf. Greek. "". ", rule regula measure Milo mensura Vaga libra necklace palus rod virga Issy examen canny canon hell linea" (SYN. 383, L. 368) (, canon ‘staff’, ‘Canon’, regula ‘rule’, mensura ‘measure’ libra ‘Libra’, palus ‘number’, virga ‘stick’, examen ‘weigh-ins’, linea ‘line’).

               4) Grecisms in glosses occurring once:

               nomismata to tsaty (Syn. 129, l. 23) cf. Greek. "v". ", law lex mnne opinio PNS nummus tsata nasmat numisma" (SYN. 383, L. 480) ( ‘norm’, ‘coin’, lex, ‘law’, opinio ‘opinion’, nummus, numisma ‘coin’).

            March to M?chennichestvennits? (Syn. 129, l. 31) cf. Greek. "". " sugiarto testimonium swedelson testificatio" (SYN. 383, l. 443 vol.), as well as "? sugical testis mnt martyr" (SYN. 383, l. 443 vol.) (, ‘evidence’, testimonium ‘evidence’, testificatio ‘testimony’, ‘witness’, testis ‘witness’, martyr ‘Martyr’).

                   hrismi to mazani? (Syn. 129, l. 36) cf. Greek. "". ", masane illitio maxene unctio" (SYN. 383, l. 733 vol.) ( ‘ointment’, ‘smearing’, illitio and unctio ‘namasivaya’).

            semidal to m?k? (Syn. 129, l. 47) cf. Greek. "". " ? pshenichkina semaly similago pshenichnuy chilodonella" (Moore. 45, Vol. 2, l 471 vol.) (, similago ‘flour superfine grinding’).

            hymitiriem to the burning place (Syn. 129, l. 54 vol.) cf. Greek. "". " sleeping place dormitorium tomb of the hierarch caemeterium" (Moore. 45, Volume 2, l. 98) (, dormitorium 'bedroom', coemeterium 'cemetery').

                skink to shpilman (Syn. 129, l. 55) cf. Greek. "". " ? slitely tabernacula ponens chatrny tentorius Sunny umbrosus csny skinna scenicus slovniky spilman (!)" (Moore. 45, Vol. 2, l 482) ( ‘stage’, tabernacula ponens ‘putting the tents’, tentorius ‘clerk for the device tents’).

               to Cameri (SYN. 129, l. 64 vol.). " sale kno cecuta swine louse navc: a, last: Kar: Trava venenum". In the fields of "chemer" (Syn. 383, l. 422) ( 'hemlock juice', cecuta 'cecuta', venenum 'poison'). This litter is the only one written in another language – Greek.

               5) Church Slavonic litters to Greek words, occurring once:

               attached to the EPITOME (Syn. 129, l. 17) cf. Greek. "EP?TOMN". " ? prescene prisana accisio nartana incisio prekraste abbreviatio" (SYN. 383, L. 286) ( ‘cut’, ‘summaries’, occisio ‘prirezanie’, incisio ‘notching’, abbreviatio ‘reduction’).

               similar to the same (Syn. 129, l. 17) cf. Greek. "". "? Synod gathering conventus syleste coitio shibary concilium Synod synodus" (SYN. 383, l. 661 vol.) (, synodus ‘Cathedral’, ‘meeting’, conventus ‘meeting’, coitio ‘gathering’, concilium ‘meeting’).

               bradatom to p?gonat? (Syn. 129, l. 17 vol.) cf. Greek. "". ", ? brada barba sharpness cuspis" (Moore. 45, Volume 2, l. 455 vol.) (, barba 'beard', cuspis 'point').

               nozdror?zanoy k R?notmita (Syn. 129, l. 17 vol.) cf. Greek. "".

               Skopets to her (Syn. 129, l. 30 vol.) cf. Greek. "". " ? the identity hedgehog ? legiimate troini cubile habens drogerie cubile tenens enhy eunuchus, the eunuch" (SYN. 383, L. 306) (Moore. 45, Volume 1, p. 534 vol.) (, , eunuchus ‘guarding the Lodge’, ‘the eunuch’, cubile habens ‘with box’).

               velikiy p?tok to paraskei (Syn. 129, l. 39 vol.) cf. Greek. ‘Friday’.

The first thing to note is that absolutely every given Greek (be it a word in the litter or in the main text) is dictated by the original of Konstantin Armenopoul. In addition, the 19-year-tokens only "PhoNet" / "", "Renumita" / "" and "Marry" / "" 't find a match in designed in three languages lexicon Epiphany Slavinskogo. The first two examples relate to the designations of proper names, so it is not surprising that they are not in this philological work of Epiphanius. As for the lexeme " ", presented in the text of Konstantin Armenopoulos, but absent in the lexicon, it is replaced by the close in meaning " ". Both "" and "" are already found in ancient Greek authors of the 5th century BC, and also act as synonyms. However, "" etymologically includes the words "" – "witness" and "" – "utterance" and thus has a more complex morphemic structure than "", which consists of the base "" and the final –i. By origin, Greek -i and Latin -ium are one formant, and when borrowing Greek words into -i, Latin adapts them to a related tool available in the language –ium. Both morphemes are adjective suffixes by origin, so the words formed with their help were actually substantive adjectives. A direct adaptation of the Greek "" is the Latin version of "martyrium", but we also do not find it in the lexicon of Epiphanius Slavinetsky. But, as mentioned earlier, the Latin equivalent to the Greek "" is also "martyr" (Syn. 383, l. 443 vol.). It is also important that the dictionary entry "martyrium" is present in the "Lexicon Latino Polonicum, Ex Optimis Latinae Linguae Scriptoribus Concinnatum" of 1564, which was compiled by I. Monchinsky and used by the book circle of Epiphanius Slavinetsky ^{[5, p. 222]}. And in it we read: "Martyrium, ?wiadectwo / m?cze?ictwo". In the Slavonic-Latin lexicon of Epiphanius himself, compiled based on the materials of A. Kalepin's dictionary ^{[4, p. 8]}, there is no such dictionary entry, there is only "martyr, holy (l), martyr" ^{[4, p. 264]}.

Thus, it can be concluded that the marginalia in the translation of "Epitomy" corresponds more to the dictionary entry of I. Monchinsky's lexicon ("M?chennichestvennits" is marked "March") than to the instruction of the lexicon of Epiphany Slavinetsky himself. Such examples are especially noteworthy because they stand out from the general range of litters.

The marginalia "Skinik" to "Shpilman" (Syn. 129, l. 55) deserves a separate comment, since it represents a rare case in the translation of "Epitomium" when borrowing is glossed by Grecism, that is, "correct Grecism" from the point of view of Epiphany Slavinetsky. The word shpilman, that is, "actor, actor, dancer", is borrowed from the Old High German spiliman ^{[8, p. 1598]}, formed from spil + man, that is, to sing + man. Sreznevsky's dictionary cites one of the first uses of this word in the Ryazan Helmsman of 1284, which is the only Old Russian list of Helmsmen of the Serbian edition ^{[9, p. 190]}. The choice of this word may be due to the "Greek-Slavonic-Latin Lexicon", since it is in it that we find a similar translation option for Greek. . While other lexicons significant for this period do not give such a lexeme, for example, the "Latin Lexicon" authored by Epiphanius Slavinetsky and Arseny Satanovsky, the "Lexicon of Slavenorossiysky" by Pamva Berynda. So, we can conclude that in the Church Slavonic language, the use of Germanism shpilman, on the one hand, appears quite early, but in the text of the Serbian edition. On the other hand, it is difficult to judge the breadth of the spread of this lexeme, although it survives to the XIX century and even occurs in the text of N. S. Leskov "The Imprinted Angel": "What are you, you kind of shpilman, you have become, go now produce your shpilmanstvo in the end!" ^[3]. Despite this, it cannot be said that it was widely distributed, for example, the creator of one of the last chronologically texts "Epitomies", printed using a hectograph (F. 722., No. 161, stored in the RSL, dated Con. XIX – beginning . XX centuries), fixes this word as "shpilmak" (l. 42, vol.). In the list of Epiphanius Slavinetsky's lexicon of the XVIII century, we find a variant of "shpilpan" (Mur. 45, Volume 2, l. 482), all this suggests that this lexeme was not well mastered in the language and caused difficulties for scribes.

The following remarks relate directly to the frequency of the above litters. On the one hand, the uneven frequency of glosses encountered may be explained by the number of contexts in which the same words occur, however, there are probably other reasons. So, often, the word marked in the text is not glossed in the future. For example, as can be understood from the specifics of the text, the word "synod" occurs on almost every sheet, and because of its high frequency, the scribe and translator probably do not see the need to gloss it every time. On the other hand, words that are rare for translation do not always consistently have marginalia. For example, in most contexts, "economy" marks "built":

, , that ' , ' ' o / "And if they won't do anything for six months, [belonging to their Department] go to someone who can put everything in order, if only they didn't do it on the economy, not negligence," And if ye void untry six mszy story Mohsen priprasti Yes prioridad. But there is nowhere for ~straine (~chamstwo) but not for nerada its se tvori (SYN. 129, l. 24 vol.)

But in some contexts this is not happening: ( sihy and graditi law Krom cokm city strain (SYN. 129, l. 32)

This example also seems to be important also because for most translations to Grecisms in glosses one can find a full equivalent in the "Greek-Slavonic-Latin Lexicon" authored by Epiphanius Slavinetsky (Syn. 383). However, to "o, ?" in the lexicon we find variants: "domus domus domus (genitive) lex domostroitelstvo domus administratio domus vectio domus oesopom" (Syn. 383, l. 491), and not "domostroenie". The closest to the translation in the "Epitomies" is the variant "house building", as well as "house building". They also manifest the principle of the morphemic translation of the word, which is important for the translation practice of Epiphanius Slavinetsky (o – house, v – distribute, count, take care of). Probably, in the contexts of the Epitomies, the translator found the "house-" component superfluous, since "o" is used in them in more general meanings. For example, the first given context refers to the 121st rule of the Council of Carthage and to the 11th rule of Sardis. It refers to a deviation from the resolution mentioned in the rule in the event that it is proved that the convicted bishop acted in some way not out of negligence "negligently", but with the intention of managing the "economy" of the flock.

Summing up the interim result, we can say that the planned trend seems to be as follows: words that occur repeatedly in the text are marked once, and also occasionally this happens with words that are more unique for translation, but mainly if the author has chosen this kind of word for glossing, it will be marked several times.

It is possible to note in the translation also reverse glosses, that is, those that can act as a Greek or as a Slavic equivalent in different contexts. As already mentioned, in different forms there were litters "paraskea" to "petok" and "notebook" to "wednesday", but there is also a reverse litter: "velikiy petok" to "paraskea". In the same context, there is litter "in Velky patyi the" K "in Velky Thursday": ? ? / "If the Annunciation falls on Maundy Thursday or good Friday" – If ye will reach bigoven *in Velky Thursday (*in Velky fifth) or *paraskeue (*Velky paraskeue) (SYN. 129, p. 39 vol.).

Thus, in exceptional cases, the same pair of words can refer to different types of language litter: the adapting and the Slavic equivalent for a foreign word. However, they are united by the translator's need to clarify the meaning of reality.

As mentioned earlier, linguistic marginalia, which are often realized in the selection of a synonym, are found in all lists, but in the protograph Sin. 129 they are presented much more widely, special attention deserves mentioning the only mark in the manuscript in Greek, which we discussed in detail earlier ^{[1, p. 467]}: marginalia "" to the word "what is it" (Syn. 129, vol.page 64) in the context of:

, . ? the , , · / "both in the vegetable and meat food we distinguish harmful or beneficial. And as the juice of Hemlock or henbane nobody in their right mind use will not, and do not need to eat meat kite or dogs, except as required — in this case, the one who ate [the meat], have not committed iniquity" – cu unto selhy tak and unto msexy polezna harmful rossides and ku *chemery or sceneboy not be who snst Oum im tak below GPA or dog konets CI nidau C hedgehog DIY not bessalova.

Conclusion

Summing up, we can say that linguistic marginalia, which are often realized in the selection of a synonym, are widely represented in the translation of Epithomias by Epiphanius Slavinetsky. In turn, subtypes within linguistic litters can have their own central tasks: the main goal of the litter-free, that is, litter in Church Slavonic, related to the Slavic word, is to clarify, concretize the existing concept or bring the structure of the Slavic word closer to the Greek. The latter will be especially often observed in the "Epitomies". They also allow you to present the variability of the original in translation. The adapting glosses represent a more understandable analogue of a foreign word for the future reader, which for some reason the translator did not want to replace with Church Slavonism in the main text. The opposite marginalia, which are the foreign-language equivalent to the Church Slavonic lexeme, bring the text closer to the original. As it was seen from the examples, their source is always the word available in the main text of the Greek original, however, such glosses themselves are always copyrighted, that is, introduced into the text by Epiphanius Slavinetsky. In addition, the studied lexemes in glosses find support in the lexicons compiled by the Moscow Scribes. Whereas the largest number of glossaries, as well as reference droppings and marginalia of an official nature can be attributed to those dictated by the Greek original. In addition, rare types of litters can be distinguished in the text, for example, reverse glosses or the selection of a Greek synonym for Graecism in the main text.