Ricerche slavistiche 8 (54) 2010: 101-125

CATHERINE MARY MACROBERT

THE TEXTUAL PECULIARITIES OF THE LUCK PSALTER OF

1384 (ACQUISTI E DONI MS 360, BIBLIOTECA MEDICEA
LAURENZIANA, FLORENCE)

The psalter manuscript written by the priest Ivan in the Volhynian

town of Luck in 1384 and acquired by the Biblioteca Medicea Lau-
renziana in 1932 deserves more scholarly attention than it has so far
received. The description of the manuscript and its contents which
was published by Carlo Verdiani in 19541 touches on most of its
peculiarities, but only two have been the subject of more recent
study: the language of the scribal colophon has recently been ana-
lysed in detail by Krys’ko2 and the unusual practice of commemo-
rating the scribe in the intercalated hymns and prayers is discussed
with comparative material by MacRobert.3 Yet the manuscript is
also of palaeographical importance, above all because it is dated but
also, for instance, because the scribe sporadically employs for the
Cyrillic digraph ѹ the unusual horizontal ligature found in some

(1) Carlo Verdiani, Il salterio Laurenziano-Voliniense. Codice paleoslavo del

1384, “Ricerche slavistiche”, III (1954), pp. 1-29.
(2) Vadim Borisovič Krys’ko, ‘Bjaše veremja ne stroino, no bědno’: zapis’ pi-
sca v Luckoj psaltyri 1384 g., in Slavistika sinxronija i diaxronija: Sbornik statej k
70-letiju I. S. Uluxanova. Ed. V. B. Krys’ko. Institut russkogo jazyka RAN, Mo-
skva 2006, pp. 429-438.
(3) Catherine Mary MacRobert, ‘Remember me in your prayers’: Reading the
Church Slavonic Psalter as an act of commemoration, in Aspects of the Perfor-
mative in Medieval Culture. Ed. M. Gragnolati, A. Suerbaum. (Trends in Medieval
Philology, ed. I Kasten, N. Largier, M. Schnyder, 18). De Gruyter, Berlin - New
York 2010, pp. 39-59.
102 Catherine Mary MacRobert

South Slavonic, especially Bosnian, manuscripts4 and occasionally

in East Slavonic sources.5 It is one of the few psalters to contain the
spiral-shaped design6 probably used in selecting at random the for-
tune-telling inscriptions7 which accompany the psalms and which
are still visible in some places.8 Its peculiarities of spelling and im-
plied pronunciation9 ally it with the manuscripts of Galicia and Vol-
hynia analysed by Sobolevskij10 and illustrate the development of a
local norm of Church Slavonic.
The version of the psalms and canticles contained in this manu-
script is also of textological interest, as can be seen from Verdiani’s
brief remarks on lexical variants and the short excerpt, ps. 118:10-
20, which he provides.11 He went to the trouble of comparing the
text not just with the oldest witness to the Church Slavonic transla-

(4) Petar Đorđić, Istorija srpske ćirilice. Zavod za izdavanje udžbenika Socijali-
stičke Republike Srbije, Beograd 1971, p. 138; Catherine Mary MacRobert, On the
role of memory and oral tradition in the early transmission of the Church Slavonic
psalter text, in Xristijanska agiologija i narodni vjarvanija. Sbornik v čest na st. n.
s. Elena Koceva. Ed. A. Miltenova, E. Tomova, R. Stankova. Iztok-Zapad, Sofija
2008, pp. 340-355, especially p. 342. The ligature of ѹ occurs sporadically
throughout the Luck Psalter, notwithstanding Verdiani’s surmise that the part con-
taining the Canticles derived from an earlier manuscript; his grounds for believing
this were not obvious to me when I examined the Luck Psalter in Florence.
(5) Gerol’d Ivanovič Vzdornov, Iskusstvo knigi v Drevnej Rusi. Rukopisnaja
kniga Severo-Vostočnoj Rusi XII-načala XV vekov. Iskusstvo, Moskva 1980, No.
18, ff. 20r-v, 23v, 24r, 65r; Valentin Lavrent’evič Janin - Andrej Anatol’evič Za-
liznjak, Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste iz raskopok 1990-1996 godov, X. Paleo-
grafija berestjanyx gramot i ix vnestratigrafičeskoe datirovanie. ‘Russkie slovari’,
Moskva 2000, pp. 109-191.
(6) Carlo Verdiani, Il salterio Laurenziano-Voliniense…, cit., pp. 3-4 and plate
1.
(7) Mixail Nestorovič Speranskij, Iz istorii otrečennyx knig, I. Gadanija po psal-
tyri. (Pamjatniki drevnej pis’mennosti i iskusstva, 129). V. S. Balašev, Sankt-Peter-
burg 1899, pp. 5-10.
(8) Ff. 5r, 15r, 24v, 25r, 54r, 56r.
(9) Carlo Verdiani, Il salterio Laurenziano-Voliniense…, cit., pp. 8-11.
(10) Aleksej Ivanovič Sobolevskij, Očerki iz istorii russkogo jazyka, 1. Galicko-
Volynskoe narečie v XII-XV vekax. Universitetskaja tipografija I. I. Zavadskogo,
Kiev 1884, reprinted in A. I. Sobolevskij. Trudy po istorii russkogo jazyka, 1. Ed.
V. B. Krys’ko. Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury, Moskva 2004.
(11) Carlo Verdiani, Il salterio Laurenziano-Voliniense…, cit., pp. 11-13.
 The Textual Peculiarities of the Luck Psalter of 1384 103

tion, the Sinai Psalter, but also with such other psalter manuscripts
as were readily available to him in modern editions: the Pogodin and
Bologna commentated Psalters and the variant readings supplied in
Jagić’s edition from the Tolstoy, Bucharest and Sofia Psalters, the
psalter texts in Vajs’s edition of the Lobkowicz and Paris Croatian
Glagolitic manuscripts, and the Sluck fragment published by Sre-
znevskij,12 which determined Verdiani’s choice of excerpt. This
range of material provides a basis for comparison mainly with the
early Redaction I of the Church Slavonic Psalter and the closely re-
lated translation of the pseudo-Athanasian commentated psalter; as
Verdiani notes, only the Bucharest Psalter, which incorporates vari-
ants from Redactions II and III, shares some of the divergent read-
ings in the Luck Psalter. It is to be regretted that Verdiani apparently
did not have access to Amfiloxij’s edition of the Simonovskaja Psal-
tyr’, which would have provided him with parallels to the only real-
ly distinctive variant in his excerpt from ps. 118, попекѹ сѧ in verse
15. Over the last fifty years, however, a considerable amount of
work has been done on the textual tradition of the Church Slavonic
Psalter and comparative data are available from manuscripts whose
contents and even whose existence could not have been known to
Verdiani. The purpose of this article is to locate the Luck Psalter on
the textological map as it is known today.
The manuscripts cited in this study are listed, with their approxi-
mate datings, redactional affiliations and the abbreviated designa-
tions used to refer to them, in the appendix. Readings from the Luck
Psalter and other individual manuscripts are given in original ortho-
graphy; titla are reproduced but superscript letters are brought down
to the line and enclosed in angle brackets; square brackets are used
to mark erasures. Where a reading is typical of a whole redaction,
this is indicated by the appropriate Roman numeral, and normalized
orthography is employed. Readings which are not entirely certain,
usually because of erasures or alterations, are indicated by means of
question marks.

(12) Izmail Ivanovič Sreznevskij, Drevnie slavjanskie pamjatniki jusovogo pis’-

ma, “Sbornik statej Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti”, 3 (1868), pp. 155-
165.
104 Catherine Mary MacRobert

By the late fourteenth century the textual history of the Church

Slavonic Psalter had developed significant ramifications.13 Redac-
tion I had long since been supplanted in the East Slav lands by Re-
daction II. This redaction is also attested, as well as Redaction I, in
South Slavonic manuscripts of the thirteenth and fourteenth centu-
ry,14 but from the early fourteenth century they both started to yield
place to new revisions: Redaction III, which is known mainly and
widely in South Slavonic manuscripts and early printed books, and
Redaction IV, which is apparently extant only in one manuscript, the
Norov Psalter, but seems to have influenced the development of Re-
daction V, the version associated with Metropolitan Kiprian which
gradually became standard among the East Slavs from the end of the
fourteenth century.15 In the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries,
however, there is also evidence of revived interest, particularly
among the East Slavs but also in the South Slav area (as attested by
the fourteenth-century Sofia Psalter), in the early Church Slavonic
translations of commentaries on the Psalms: the pseudo-Athanasian
catena which was added to Redaction I and the commentary of The-
odoret of Cyrrhus, for which Redaction I had been extensively re-
vised, probably in tenth-century Bulgaria. Thus textual peculiarities
of both these early versions can be found several centuries later in a
range of East Slavonic psalter manuscripts without commentary16

(13) Francis J. Thomson, The Slavonic Translation of the Old Testament, in In-
terpretation of the Bible. Ed. J. Krašovec. Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetno-
sti - Sheffield Academic Press, Ljubljana - Sheffield 1998, pp. 605-920, especially
pp. 797-825; Catherine Mary MacRobert, The Textual Tradition of the Church Sla-
vonic Psalter up to the Fifteenth Century, in Interpretation of the Bible, cit., pp.
921-942.
(14) Catherine Mary MacRobert, On the Problems of Identifying a ‘Preslav Re-
daction’ of the Psalter, in Studia in honorem professoris Angelinae Minčeva. Ed.
M. Dimitrova, P. Petkov, I. Hristova. (Acta palaeoslavica, 2). Heron Press, Sofia
2005, pp. 39-46.
(15) Elena Vladimirovna Češko, Vtoroe južnoslavjanskoe vlijanie v redakcii
psaltyrnogo teksta na Rusi XIV-XV vv., “Palaeobulgarica”, V (1981) 4, pp. 79-85.
(16) Catherine Mary MacRobert, A Missing Link in the Early Tradition of the
Church Slavonic Psalter (the Tolstoy, Sluck, Eugenius and Vienna Psalters and MS
34 of the Moscow Synodal Typography), “Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch”, 39
(1993), pp. 57-81; Id., Alphabetic suspension in Glagolitic and Cyrillic manu-
 The Textual Peculiarities of the Luck Psalter of 1384 105

and above all in a small but highly distinctive group of psalters with
compilatory commentaries.17
In 1384 Ivan could have had been conversant with any of these
versions, except perhaps Redaction III, which is a rarity in the East
Slavonic area; and the textual evidence of his manuscript speaks for
influence from more than one of them. Whether Ivan was acquaint-
ed with them directly, through his own reading and use, or indirect-
ly, through the mediation of his exemplar, is not possible to deter-
mine with certainty, but some tentative conclusions can be drawn
from what Ivan himself said about the process of his copying task
and from the errors and corrections in his text. In the colophon he
explains that the exigencies of the time forced him to write in haste,
and that he was not able to produce as finished a manuscript as he
wished; the picture which he draws of a scrupulous worker opera-
ting under pressure accords well with the product of his labours.
Ivan was a competent scribe who wrote in a clear, well-formed, even
hand. If the peculiarities of his spelling (the confusion of ѣ with е or
и, of въ with ѹ, and his tolerance of vernacular forms such as тобѣ /
собѣ passim, чего f. 70r, полечю f. 69r) are conceded as manifestations
of a local norm, rather than aberrations, then it can be said that he
made rather few careless mistakes or substantive omissions18 in
copying. Indeed it seems likely that to some extent he corrected as
he wrote: although one or two corrections appear to be in a different
hand,19 others appear to be Ivan’s, e.g. in 17:7, where цр͠квы ст͠ыѧ
(V) is written over an erasure, probably of ст͠ыѧ цр͠квы, in 39:3,

scripts, “Slovo”, 56-57 (2007), pp. 319-332; Id., The impact of interpretation on the
evolution of the Church Slavonic psalter text up to the fifteenth century, in Con-
gress Volume Ljubljana 2007. Ed. A. Lemaire. (Supplements to Vetus Testamen-
tum, 133). Brill, Leiden - Boston 2010, pp. 423-440.
(17) Catherine Mary MacRobert, The compilatory Church Slavonic catena on
the Psalms in three East Slavonic manuscripts of the fifteenth and sixteenth centu-
ries, “Slavia”, 74 (2005) 2-3 (= CyrilloMethodiana 2005 ad honorem Zdeňka Riba-
rova et Ludmila Pacnerová), pp. 213-238.
(18) The only substantial omissions, of versicles rather than single words, are:
30:10b, 66:4b, 113:5a-7a, 142:6b, 144:18b.
(19) On f. 99r the word щи<т>, omitted from 75:4, has been added in a later
hand, and on f. 148v въс<прос>ѧть has been introduced as a correction to a different
reading, perhaps въсплачють, in 108:10.
106 Catherine Mary MacRobert

where тиньна has been changed by the addition of superscript letters

to ти<ме>ньна, and in the first of the Canticles, Ex. 15:4, where the
form фараѡнѧвъі must have arisen as a correction from фараѡнѧ to
фараѡновъі. Elsewhere he allows two competing expressions to
stand side by side, in 77:26 ливѹ западенъ, 77:30 ѥдиначе и ѥще and
perhaps also in the composite readings 62:2 множицею простреть and
104:17 акъі рабъ в работѹ. Another instance of a duplicate reading
is the addition between 88:51 and 52 of the phrase и помѧни ѹко-
ризнѹ рабъ твоихъ, if we suppose that Ivan first wrote the traditional
opening words of 88.51 и помѧни поношеньѥ рабъ твоихъ, then real-
ised that his exemplar contained a different version with a crucial
change of noun, and added this as a belated correction. There are
also some corrections by erasure, most notably: 11:7 [пре]ч<с>та,
15:10 [ра]стлѣньа, 103:28 сберѹть [сѧ], 118:94 [сп͠се] сп͠си. Obviously
these cannot be definitively attributed; but the scarcity of later inter-
ventions leaves open the possibility that they were afterthoughts on
Ivan’s part.
What most of these corrections and conflations have in common
is a tendency to replace an early variant, characteristic of Redaction
I or II, with a later one. So in 17:7 ст͠ыѧ цр͠квы is usual in I, II and
the compilatory versions in JB, while IV and V follow the Greek
word order in the literal way characteristic of the fourteenth century.
The same applies to 11:7 прѣчиста in I, II and J versus чиста in IV
and V, 103:28 съберѫтъ сѧ in I, II and JS but съберѫтъ in IV, V and
B; in Ex. 15:4 both фараѡнѧ and фараѡновъі occur in I and II, but
IV, V and JSB prefer фараѡновъі. The erasure in 118:94 can also be
attributed to the purism of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
which removed from this verse the addition сп͠се.20 In some instances
the earlier reading can be referred to a specific tradition: so 77:30
единаче occurs only in early witnesses to I, while еще is preferred in
other redactions; 39:3 тиньна is peculiar to II, and 62:2 како про-
стретъ сѧ is found only in II and JSB, whereas other redactions, in-
cluding I, have коль мъножицеѭ. Even where an earlier reading
might seem to have been substituted for a later one, an alternative
explanation may be available. So in 15:10 растлѣньа is attested only

(20) Catherine Mary MacRobert, The impact of interpretation…, cit., p. 436.

 The Textual Peculiarities of the Luck Psalter of 1384 107

in IV, while other redactions have истлѣниа, but the reading of II is

uncertain because early witnesses lack the beginning of the Psalter.
In 77:26 ливѫ is the majority reading of all redactions, but the vari-
ants западьнъ and западъ, which occur in a few witnesses to I, re-
surface in some East Slavonic manuscripts of the fourteenth-fif-
teenth centuries.21 Similarly in 88:51 поношение is the standard read-
ing from Redaction I onwards, whereas ѹкоризнѹ, although it does
not have an exact parallel in any of the manuscripts consulted for
this study, is in line with a lexical tendency displayed in JSB which
can be traced back to the Church Slavonic version of Theodoret’s
commentary, where ѹкоризна occurs in 30:12. The only aberrant
doublet is in 104:17, where the order in which the variants occur is
reversed: the second element, въ работѫ, is more common in I and II
while the first more literal rendering, (въ) рабъ, comes to predomi-
nate in IV, V and JSB.
Modifications of these kinds could in principle be the outcome of
deliberate textual conflation, and the exemplar which Ivan used may
indeed have been the outcome of such a process. For Ivan’s own
manuscript, however, such an explanation seems implausible: copy-
ing from more than one exemplar concurrently is a laborious under-
taking, in which the need to keep track concurrently and recurrently
of the text on several different pages is bound to hamper and delay
the scribe. Given the time at which Ivan lived and the fact that he
wrote in haste to produce a psalter which could be used in case of
sudden death, including his own, it seems more likely that, while he
set himself to copy an up-to-date Church Slavonic version of the
psalms, he relied partly on memory and so in places reproduced the
earlier version with which he was more familiar. Signs of working
from memory can indeed be detected in his manuscript. For in-
stance, there are several places where he departs from standard word
order:
21:15 таа посрѣдѣ чрѣва моѥго ако воскъ ← ако воскъ таѩ
посрѣдѣ чрѣва моѥго
56:12 и истина твоа до ѡблакъ ← и до ѡблакъ истина твоа

(21) FпI4 Sf64 JSB.

108 Catherine Mary MacRobert

83:11 паче тъісѧщь лѣ<т> въ дворѣхъ твоихъ ← въ дворѣхъ

твоихъ паче тъісѧщь лѣтъ.
The intervention of memory is also betrayed by reminiscences,
where a similarity of wording in two different places in the psalms
prompts the transfer of a word or phrase (underlined in the follow-
ing examples) from one to the other:
13:1 растлѣша и ѡмразиша въ безакониихъ from 52:2
17:35 на брань и перъстъі моа на ѡполчѣньѥ from 143.1
48:14 тма и съблазнъ from 34:6
54:16 посрѣдѣ ихъ неправда from 54:11
67:34 пѹть створите въшедшемѹ from 67:5
72:21 измѣни сѧ олѣа ради from 108:24
93:10 разѹмѹ не разѹмѣѥт ли from 93:9
95:2 сп͠сениѥ б͠а нашего from 97:3
104:31 мѹхъі і поа<ша и> from 77:45
117:15 десница г͠нѧ створи мѧ anticipating 117:15b-16a
118:12 блг<с>внъ ѥси г<с>и бл͠гостью твоѥю from 118:68.
Some of these transfers could have occurred in any redaction, but
others are more distinctive. The forms 77:45 поаша and 108:24
олѣа are typical of Redactions I and II, but alien to the revised ver-
sions of the fourteenth century, which prefer the secondary aorist
form поадошѧ and the Greek loan елеа in IV and V or the native ма-
сла found in many East Slavonic manuscripts including JB. In 52:2
въ безакониихъ is the standard reading of I, IV, V, JSB and some re-
presentatives of II,22 though the variant въ начинаниихъ, which must
go back to Greek, predominates in II and is found sporadically in
later witnesses to I. By contrast, 93:9 не разѹмѣѥт ли occurs only in

(22) Har Sf62 Jar.

 The Textual Peculiarities of the Luck Psalter of 1384 109

II, and the insertion of the phrase тма и before the word съблазнъ in
48:14 depends on the remembered co-occurrence in 34:6 of these
two nouns in II and JS; this demonstrates how memory can conflict
with scribal choice of redaction, for in 34:6 the Luck Psalter actually
has the reading тма и плъзокъ as in I, IV, V.
Thus both types of evidence for textual contamination in the
Luck Psalter, the corrections and the reminiscences, indicate an in-
terplay between older and newer traditions and provide some
grounds for supposing that the version in the back either of Ivan’s
mind or in that of the scribe who provided his examplar was Redac-
tion II. This is further supported by other readings found in the
manuscript which are typical of that redaction. Some of them are i-
solated and highly distinctive variants, e.g.:
39:5 µανίας гнѣвъі as II, cf. неистовлениа I IV V JSB
40:10 πτερνισµόν льсть as II, cf. ковъ I IV пѧтѫ V клевету и по-
носъ JSB
54:23 σάλον смѧтениа as II JSB, cf. млъвъі I IV V
70:14 διὰ παντός о всѣмь as II, cf. въінѫ I IV всегда V о всѣмь
всегда JSB
72:7 διάθεσιν размъішлениѥ as II, cf. любъве I IV JS любовь V B
81:6 ἐστε ѥсте въі as II, cf. бѫдете I IV V JSB
84:5 τῶν σωτηρίων сп͠сителю as II S, cf. сп͠сении I IV V JB
132:2 τὴν ᾤαν подолокъ as II B, cf. ѡметъі I IV V
As can be seen here in pss. 54, 70, 84 and 132, the compilatory
catenas JSB also retain occasional elements from Redaction II23 and
so agree sporadically with the Luck Psalter.
Other features of Redaction II recur in the Luck Psalter more or
less systematically: ὡσεί introducing similes is frequently rendered
by акъі, which is alien to the other redactions; δωρεάν is translated

(23) Catherine Mary MacRobert, The compilatory Church Slavonic catena…,

cit., pp. 222-223.
110 Catherine Mary MacRobert

as безѹма, rather than ашѹть or спъіти of Redaction I, except in

34:7, where тѹне is borrowed from the fourteenth-century revisions;
nine of the twelve instances of συναγωγή elicit the translation съборъ
which predominates in Redaction II, as against three examples24 of
the word сънемъ preferred in I, IV, V. Rather similarly JSB, true to
their compilatory provenance, vacillate between съборъ and сънемъ,
безѹма, въсѹе and испъітати as a corruption of the Redaction I read-
ing спъіти in 118:161. To these unambiguous and pervasive proofs
in the Luck Psalter of a textual background based on Redaction II
we may assimilate some other recurrent usages which that redaction
shares with one or other of the later ones. For instance, certain trans-
lations which distinguish II and III from I, πλησίος as ближьнии
rather than искрьнии and ἐντείνειν as напрѧщи rather than налѧщи,
are found sporadically in IV and V; but their consistent use, apart
from 87:19 искрьнѧго, in the Luck Psalter and also in JSB suggests
that they derive here from Redaction II.
As indicated above, Redaction II is to be expected as the tradi-
tional version which in the East Slav area would have been familiar
from liturgical and devotional practice well into the fourteenth cen-
tury, and the Luck Psalter conforms to that expectation. In addition
the manuscript reflects some lexical preferences which come to the
fore in East Slavonic psalters at this period. One of these is the use
of племѧ rather than сѣмѧ to render σπέρµα in 20:11,25 88:3026 and
104:6;27 this is most prominent in the Church Slavonic translation of
Theodoret’s commentary and in psalter manuscripts influenced by
that version28 but is also found more widely.29 Some lexical choices
are more distinctive, apparently characteristic of a narrower range of
witnesses, notably наслѣдьѥ instead of достоание for κληρονοµίαν in
134:12 x2.30 Other lexical peculiarities are specific to the comment-
ated psalters and a group of manuscripts dependent on them: пѣснии

(24) 73:2, 105:17, 105:18.

(25) 7/177 Vat 8662 FпI2 JB.
(26) 7/177 Sf60 FпI4.
(27) Amf B.
(28) 7/177 x8, FпI4 x3, 8662 x6, Sf64 x3, T28 x3, FпI2 x5, J x4, S x2, B x8.
(29) FпI1 x1, Amf x4, P2 x1, P3 x1, Sf60 x1, Vat x3.
(30) Cf. elsewhere Amf x2, Sf60 x1, FпI4 x4, 8662 x2, T28 x1, FпI2 x2.
 The Textual Peculiarities of the Luck Psalter of 1384 111

replaces псаломьсцѣ for ψαλµοῦ in 97:5,31 похѹлиша appears in

place of ѹничижишѧ for ἐξουδένωσαν in 105:2432 and хѹленьѥ in-
stead of гаждание for ψόγον in 30:14.33 The association with exege-
tical tradition becomes explicit where (по)пещи сѧ rather than (по)
глѹмити сѧ renders ἀδολεσχεῖν x6, in 76:7 and 13, 118:15, 23, 27
and 78;34 this set of departures from mainstream tradition is of im-
portance because it links the Luck Psalter not only with the East Sla-
vonic manuscripts Amf, T28 and FпI2, but also with the South Sla-
vonic psalters Ox35 and Hval.36
Although such innovations clearly place the Luck Psalter in the
group of psalter manuscripts whose text has been sporadically modi-
fied under the influence of the commentated versions, it stands out
among them in two important respects. On the one hand it preserves
more traces than usual of a conservative tradition going back to Re-
daction I. In this respect its closest analogues are those manuscripts
which draw primarily on the pseudo-Athanasian commentated psal-
ter, most obviously T34 and FпI4, to some extent T28 and FпI2, the
last of which agrees with the Luck Psalter in omitting the uncom-
mentated ‘psalm without number’, David’s song of triumph over
Goliath, rather than 8662 and S64, which are more inclined to fol-
low Redaction II. On the other hand the Luck Psalter exhibits a
number of innovatory peculiarities, alien to Redaction I, which ally
it unambiguously with the conflated catenas JSB.

(31) Amf FпI4 T28; Catherine Mary MacRobert, The impact of interpretation…,
cit., p. 429.
(32) Tol 7/177 T34 FпI4 FпI2 JSB; Catherine Mary MacRobert, A Missing
Link…, cit., pp. 75-6; Id., The compilatory Church Slavonic catena…, cit., p. 225;
Id., Alphabetic suspension…, cit., pp. 326-327.
(33) Vat JSB.
(34) Catherine Mary MacRobert, The impact of interpretation…, cit., p. 431.
(35) Catherine Mary MacRobert, The Textual Tradition of the Oxford Serbian
Psalter MS e Mus 184, “Polata k”nigopis’naja”, 35-36 (1994), pp. 146-54; Katarina
Mano-Zisi, Anagnost Jovan, hilandarski pisar druge polovine XIV veka, in Prouča-
vanje srednjovekovnih južnoslovenskih rukopisa. Ed. P. Ivić. Srpska akademija nau-
ka i umetnosti, Beograd 1995, pp. 231-243, especially pp. 233-234 and plate 2.
(36) Jagoda Jurić-Kappel, Die Stellung des bosnischen Psalters (1404) innerhalb
der verwandten slawischen Texte, “Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch”, 38 (1992), pp.
37-52.
112 Catherine Mary MacRobert

Conservatism is manifested in several different ways. One is the

absence of secondary readings which became current in the four-
teenth century: for instance, as mentioned above, the Luck Psalter
prefers олѣи to the Grecizing елеи of Redactions III, IV and V and to
the native Slavonic масло which is used in the translation of Theo-
doret’s commentary and many East Slavonic psalter manuscripts of
the fourteenth century;37 it keeps all four instances of the loanword
ѹпостась, which tends to be ousted in the later representatives of Re-
daction II and in other redactions by the translations съставъ or
бъітие;38 and in 77:28 σκηνωµάτων it retains the reading ѡчерща as
in Redactions I and II, as do T34 and B, rather than кѫщь, found in
a multiplicity of East Slavonic manuscripts,39 жилища in Amf V JS
or селенїи in IV. More specifically, the phrasing in 57:6 ѿ прѣмѹдра
ѡбавника ѡбаваѥма and 67:28 въ ѹмѣ ѹжаснѣ is peculiar to Redac-
tion I, as are the vestiges of asigmatic aorist forms in 24:1 въздвигъ
and 130:2 възнесъ.
A second and more distinctive type of conservatism is represen-
ted by minority readings within the tradition of Redaction I. The un-
usual variant изъѡстритъ, shared with FпI2 and parallelled by
наостритъ in Bon, Hval and JB, for 7:13 στιλβώσει, and the trans-
lation of 108:23 ἀκρίδες as прѹтнии конци40 both reflect early ven-
tures into interpretation. Modifications of this kind merge with a
third type of inherited variant, consisting of actual misinterpreta-
tions. Presumably a misguided attempt at easy intelligibility gave
rise in 131:4 to колѣнома, also attested in some South Slavonic
manuscripts,41 in place of the loanword кротафома in most witnesses
to Redaction I; Redactions II, IV and V opt here for the more accu-

(37) Čud x1, 7/177 x10, Amf x2, P2 x1, Sf60 x1, Vat x1, FпI4 x1, 8662 x8, Sf64
x 2, FпI2 x3, T28 x3, J x8, S x6, B x8.
(38) 88:48 бъітие 7/177 S8 JB, житие S, съставъ IV V; 38:6 съставъ 7/177 Bel
Ox Hval Vat FпI4 8662 Sf64 T28 FпI2 IV V; 38:8 съставъ 7/177 S8 Bel Ox Hval
Vat FпI4 8662 Sf64 T28 FпI2 IV V, бъітие JS; 138:15 съставъ 7/177 Har S7 Plj Bel
Ath Ox FпI1 Jar Amf P2 P3 Sf60 Vat FпI4 T33 8662 Sf64 T28 FпI2 IV V JSB.
(39) Čud 7/177 T27 FпI1 P2 P3 Sf60 Vat T33 FпI4 8662 Sf64 T28 FпI2.
(40) Ban Plj Amf T28 JSB; Catherine Mary MacRobert, The impact of interpre-
tation…, cit., p. 427.
(41) Gri Ath Hval.
 The Textual Peculiarities of the Luck Psalter of 1384 113

rate translation скраниама. Similar perplexity in the face of unusual

words can be detected in 47:4 тварехъ42 instead of варехъ and 71:10
отроци43 instead of Redaction I’s отоци44, even though the Luck Psal-
ter elsewhere follows the translations of βᾶρις / βάρος and νῆσος
usual from Redaction II onward: 44:9 тѧжестии and 96:1 ѡстрови.
Scribal unfamiliarity with the antiquated vocabulary of Redaction I
also accounts for the corruption of 119:7 спъіти to въ пѣтьи, which
has parallels in 68:5 постъідѣша сѧ FпI4 and 118:161 испъітати JB.
Corruption to the lectio facilior is generally not uncommon in the
weakly controlled tradition of Redaction I,45 and therefore in the
Luck Psalter, which has 8:6 чиномь46 instead of чимь and several in-
stances47 where мѹжь кръве is replaced by мѹжь кривъ, as is often
found in manuscripts with a direct or indirect affiliation to the South
Slavonic tradition of Redaction I.48 That South Slavonic transmis-
sion underlies the text of the Luck Psalter is apparent from distor-
tions caused by incongruent orthographical practices: исполни землю
for 118:64 πλήρης ἡ γῆ must derive from исплънъ земла through a
putative intermediate stage *исплънъ землѭ in which the back nasal
vowel was used incorrectly in the Middle Bulgarian manner, and the
same kind of confusion presumably transformed the reiterated geni-
tive singular feminine adjectival form ѹтрьнѧѧ corresponding to
129:6 πρωίας via *ѹтрьнѭѭ into ѹтрьнюють and ѹтрьнюа.49
The innovations which the Luck Psalter shares with JSB differ
sharply in character from the relics of Redaction I. Some individual

(42) Tol Gri Rad S7 T34 JS.

(43) Čud Rad Hval T34 FпI4.
(44) Also found in 7/177 T28 FпI2.
(45) Catherine Mary MacRobert, On the role of memory…, cit., p. 346.
(46) Bon Lob Par T34 FпI4 Hval.
(47) 5:7, 25:9, 54:24.
(48) Sin x1, Tol x1, Bon x4, Ban x3, Gri x4, Dec x2, Rad x3, Lob x3, Par x2, S7
x1, Plj x3, Bel x3, Ath x4, S8 x3?, Hval x5, T27 x1, FпI1 x3, P3 x1, FпI4 x2, T28
x1, B x1.
(49) This confusion can be detected in a number of South and East Slavonic ma-
nuscripts, see Catherine Mary MacRobert, The enigmatic Athens Psalter (Greek
National Library, MS 1797), forthcoming in “Slova i zolota vjaz′”. Sbornik statej
pamjati V. M. Zagrebina. Ed. Ž. L. Levšina. Sankt-Peterburg 2010?, pp. 338-345.
114 Catherine Mary MacRobert

readings can be found, whether by chance or by common proven-

ance, in Redactions IV or V and dependent manuscripts of mixed re-
daction such as Ox, Hval and Ki,50 e.g.:
17:48 ἐκδικήσεις ѿмьщеньѥ as Ki V JB, мьщение Ox Hval, cf.
мьсти I II IV, and 93:1 ἐκδικήσεων x2 ѿмьщеньѥмь as ѿмьщении
x2 IV Ox? V JSB, cf. мьстии x2 I II Hval Ki
30:14 ἐπισυναχθῆναι αὐτούς сбирати сѧ имь as IV Ox Ki V JSB,51
cf. събираахѫ сѧ I II Hval
48:3 γηγενεῖς земнороднии as IV JSB, cf. земьнии I II Hval Ki V
земьсци Ox?
67:13 ὡραιότητι красотѣ, cf. красотоѫ IV, красотами JSB, лепотѣ I
II лепотою Ox Hval Ki V
87:16 ἐξηπορήθην изнемогохъ as V JSB, cf. ѡмѫтихъ I II IV Ox
Hval Ki
109:3 ἀρχή начальствовахъ (sic) as начальствова T33 JS, на-
чальство 8662 Sf64 Ox Ki V B, начало IV, cf. владъічьство I II
владычьствова Hval
118:23 κατελάλουν клеветахѹ as Ox Ki V JSB, cf. глаголаахѫ I
II IV Hval
143:5 καπνισθήσονται въздъімѧт сѧ as IV Ox Ki V JSB, cf.
въскѹрѧтъ сѧ I II Hval, which is retained by the Luck Psalter in
103:32.
Other changes however, especially those which occur recurrent-
ly, seem to reflect a new norm of Church Slavonic which is well es-
tablished in JSB but vestigial or absent in other versions. There are
five instances of всегда instead of въінѹ for διὰ παντός;52 in JB this

(50) Elena Vladimirovna Češko, Vtoroe južnoslavjanskoe vlijanie…, cit.

(51) Other instances of infinitival constructions in imitation of Greek occur in
30:3, 89:2, 100:8.
(52) 18:15 JB, 37:18 J, 49:8 JSB, 72:23 J, 108:15 Amf BS, 15:8 FпI2 JB, 70:14
T28 V JSB, 108:19 T28 JSB, 118:44 V JSB.
 The Textual Peculiarities of the Luck Psalter of 1384 115

substitution is virtually systematic, with 22 out of 24 possible realiz-

ations (17 in the defective sixteenth-century manuscript S). Like-
wise the use of велми instead of ѕѣло for σφόδρα, which predomina-
tes in J and is frequent in S and B,53 is attested four times in the
Luck Psalter, including one instance lacking in J.54 The generaliza-
tion of почто in the place of въскѹю to translate not only διὰ τί but
also eight instances of ἵνα τί has some parallels in JSB55 but occurs
more frequently56 in the Luck Psalter than in the later compilations,
which deploy as alternatives что ради and, especially in B, чемѹ.
Equally, the Luck Psalter’s six examples of ѡкрѹгъ instead of
ѡкрестъ for κύκλῳ or κυκλόθεν are sometimes matched in B57 but
are also found in 11:9, where JSB retain ѡкрестъ, and in 96:3, 78:4,
where some or all of JSB opt for ѡколо.
By no means all the highly distinctive lexical and syntactic fea-
tures of JSB are to be found in the Luck Psalter, but a scattering of
examples add weight to the hypothesis of a common source:

75:12 οἱ κύκλῳ живѹщии ѡкрестъ as JS живѹщии ѡколо B, cf.

сѫщии ѡкрестъ I II, иже ѡкрестъ IV V

77:3 ἔγνωµεν ѹзвѣстиша as T28 JSB, cf. повѣдашѧ I II IV V

93:20 συµπροσέσται σοι приложить ти сѧ as 8662 JSB,58 cf. при-

бѫдетъ тебѣ I II V, придеть тебѣ Gri Deč Hval съприбѫдетъ тебѣ
IV.

There are also examples of lexical commonality without exact

textual parallelism:

(53) In 91:6, 118:43, 144:3 B has the conflated readings велми ѕѣло.
(54) 77:29 JS, 96:9 JS, 104:24 JS, 106:38.
(55) 41:62&122 JS, 42:5 JSB, 73:11 JS.
(56) 4:3, 48:6, 67:17, 87:15.
(57) 30:14, 43:14, 78:3.
(58) Catherine Mary MacRobert, The variable treatment of clitics in 14th-cen-
tury South Slavonic psalter translations, in Mnogokratnite prevodi v Južnoslavjan-
skoto Srednovekovie. Sofija, 7-9 juli 2005. Ed. L. Taseva, R. Marti, M. Jovčeva, T.
Pentkovskaja. GoreksPres, Sofija 2006, pp. 373-395, especially pp. 388-392.
116 Catherine Mary MacRobert

79:7 ἐµυκτήρισαν порѹгаша (as 101:9 ὠνείδιζον порѹгаша JSB),

cf. подражашѧ I II IV V
79:8 ἐπίφανον ави (as 66:2 ἐπιφάναι ави JSB да ѣыть Hval and
118:135 ἐπιφάναι ави JS), cf. просвѣти I II IV V

88:52 ὠνείδισαν ѹкориша x2 (as 21:7 ὄνειδος ѹкоръ B, 68:8 and

20 ὄνειδος ѹкоръ JSB) cf. поносишѧ I II IV V; also 88:51
ὀνειδισµοῦ ѹкоризнѹ instead of поношение, as mentioned above.

These patterns of agreement, albeit incomplete or indirect, sug-

gest that the four manuscripts draw on the same innovatory lingui-
stic and textual type, but that the Luck Psalter reflects a stage in its
dissemination at which it was still constrained or even masked by
the influence of Redactions I and II, while JSB represent more radi-
cal developments.
The most cogent evidence that the Luck Psalter shares the exege-
tical provenance of JSB is of two kinds. Firstly, there are places
where highly unusual wording in the text of the psalm appears to de-
rive from commentary:

20:4 блг<с>вленьи щедротнъіми instead of the usual reading бла-

гословлениемь благостьнъімь is presumably related to the addition
to this verse, и щедротами, in B;

34:13 пакости дѣахѹ in place of ѡгавие творѣахѫ deploys the

same distinctive phrase as the comment on 87:18 in JSB, жидове
пакости дѣюще;

93:1 деръзнѹлъ ѥсть in place of the usual не обинѫлъ сѧ есть is

seemingly prompted by дръзновениемь in the pseudo-Athanasian
commentary on this verse;

102:1 ср͠дчьнаа instead of вънѫтрьнаа, the usual translation of τὰ

ἐντός, is a typical exegetic locution, matched by ѡчи с<р>дчнии
inserted in 68:24 and 118:18 in JSB and by the expression ѡчи
ср͠дчнѣи in the pseudo-Athanasian commentary to 118:18.
Secondly, the explanatory headings which Ivan provided to
psalms 1-8 and 18 are for the most part similar or even identical in
 The Textual Peculiarities of the Luck Psalter of 1384 117

wording to those in J (and B from ps. 4 onward):

ps. 1 поѹченьѥ на благочестьѥ и ѿмѣтаниѥ противнъіхъ, cf. на
бл͠гоч<с>тьѥ поѹщение и на ѿмѣта<н>ѥ противны<х> жидовъ J
(and FnI2)
ps. 2 ѡ стр<с>ти х<с>вѣ, cf. ѡ стр<с>ти х<с>вѣ на жиды J ѡ
стр<с>ти 8662
ps. 3 егда бѣжа ѿ лица авесоломлѧ с͠на ѥго и ѡ въздвижении
адамѹ, cf. ѡ адамѣ J
ps. 4 ѡ авленьи г<с>ни на конець вѣкъ, cf. ѡ авле<н>и г<с>ни на
слн<ц>е в ко J ѡ авле<н>и г<с>ни на слн<ц>е на конець вѣка B
ps. 5 ѡ цр͠кви и ѡ вѣрнъіхъ, cf. ѡ црквы и о люде<х> вѣрнъіх JB
ps. 6 ѡ бѹдѹщемь вѣцѣ и ѡ сѹдѣ also JB
ps. 7 ѡ погыбеньи дьаволи и ѡ исверженьи с н͠бсе, cf. о погибении
діѧволѣ и ѡ съвръжении съ н͠бесъ JB
ps. 8 ѡ цр͠кви и кръви х<с>вѣ и о таинахъ, without parallel in JB,
which here follow the Hebrew heading, в конець о точилѣх.
ps. 18 ѡ ап<с>лѣхъ also JB.
The beginning of the heading to ps. 3 in the Luck Psalter renders
the traditional Hebrew superscription carried over into the Septua-
gint, but the others summarize allegorical Christian interpretations:
the one supplied for ps. 1 is a version of the appropriate Eusebian
hypothesis, while the rest are based on the pseudo-Athanasian com-
mentary. They are in the same laconic style as the headings in S64;59
since this manuscript unfortunately lacks the first 35 psalms, no di-
rect comparison can be made between it and the Luck Psalter, but a
number of its headings are similar to or the same as those in JB.
Finally, the Luck Psalter exhibits a number of singularities, for
which as yet no parallels have been found, though as bold departures

(59) Catherine Mary MacRobert, The classificatory importance of headings and

liturgical directions in Church Slavonic psalters of the 11th-15th centuries, “By-
zantinoslavica”, LVII (1996), pp. 156-181, especially pp. 165-167.
118 Catherine Mary MacRobert

from traditional wording they are reminiscent of JSB. Among the

more striking are:
16:10 συνέκλεισαν исключиша, cf. затворишѧ I II IV V JB
37:9 ὠρυόµην стонахъ, cf. рикаахъ I II IV V JSB ревѧ<х> 7/177
55:2 ἔθλιψεν ѡскерби, cf. стѫжи I II IV V JSB
68:24 σύγκαµψον сгорби, cf. сълѧци I IV V, съмѣри II JSB,
прѣклони II, съломи II, скрѹши Hval
71:3 εἰρήνην смѣрениѥ, cf. миръ I II IV V JSB
77:30 οὔσης бѹдѹщю, cf. сѫщю I II IV V JS
111:8 οὐ µὴ φοβηθῇ ѥже не подвижати сѧ, cf. не подвижитъ сѧ I II
B не ѹбоитъ сѧ Bon 7/177 Ban IV V Hval JS.
The variant in 111:8 can be regarded as emblematic of the com-
plexities underlying the text of the Luck Psalter. It derives from a
minority Greek reading, οὐ µὴ σαλευθήσεται / σαλευθῇ, which was
apparently current when Redactions I and II came into existence, but
was suppressed in other redactions under the influence of the
standard Greek text. In the form in which it appears in the Luck
Psalter, however, it presupposes a rather different wording in Greek,
*τοῦ µὴ σαλευθῆναι, which has been rendered in the literalistic
manner characteristic of the secondary translations carried out in the
fourteenth century.
This review of the Luck Psalter is not comprehensive – more ex-
amples could be adduced at various points – but it aims to be repre-
sentative, bringing into focus this manuscript’s multifarious textual
affinities and highlighting its special relationship to the compilatory
catenas JSB. In this respect the fact that the Luck Psalter is precisely
dated is of particular importance, because it provides a terminus
ante quem for the inception of those revisionist linguistic strategies
which can already be glimpsed in its text and are more clearly in
evidence by the early fifteenth century in JB. Whatever the common
textual starting point for the Luck Psalter and JSB was, it must have
come into existence before 1384.
 The Textual Peculiarities of the Luck Psalter of 1384 119

In other respects, however, the textual character of the Luck Psal-

ter is both problematic in itself and an instantiation of more far-
reaching problems. Its relationship to Redaction II, although un-
doubtedly substantive, cannot be unequivocally termed affiliation,
because at least some of the readings typical of that redaction may
be adventitious, random imports by memory on the part of the
scribe, as in other East Slavonic manuscripts of the same period.
The similarities between the Luck Psalter and various distinctive
textual traditions in South and East Slavonic manuscripts of the thir-
teenth and fourteenth centuries are probably typological, resulting
from independent consultation of Redaction I in commentated psal-
ters, rather than genetic in nature: thus there is no trace in the Luck
Psalter of the highly distinctive grammatical usage which links T34
and FпI4 to the Sluck and Tolstoy Psalters,60 and few, if any, of the
lexical and interpretative elements taken from the Church Slavonic
translation of Theodoret’s commentary which are prominent in 8662
and Sf64 and especially in T28 and FпI2.61 Likewise, the preference
for (по)пещи сѧ over (по) глѹмити сѧ which the Luck Psalter shares
with manuscripts as widely separated in provenance as the East Sla-
vonic Amf, T28 and FпI2, the Serbian Ox and the Bosnian Hval
could be indicative of a single source earlier in the fourteenth cen-
tury, but could equally have a more distant common origin through
unrelated recourse to the pseudo-Hesychian commentary. The signs
of South Slavonic influence in the copying tradition underlying the
Luck Psalter are also capable of more than one interpretation: they
could derive either from an early source, perhaps Redaction I in an
early commentated psalter manuscript of South Slavonic prove-
nance, or from a fourteenth-century South Slavonic revised version
(which itself could very well be a reworking of Redaction I, as the
Norov Psalter probably is).
Above all, the relationships which evidently obtain among the
Luck Psalter, the compilatory commentated psalters JSB and Redac-

(60) Catherine Mary MacRobert, A Missing Link…, cit., p. 70; Id., Alphabetic
suspension…, cit., p. 326.
(61) Catherine Mary MacRobert, The impact of interpretation…, cit., pp. 428-
429, 432-434.
120 Catherine Mary MacRobert

tion V are problematic. Is the Luck Psalter less systematic and rad-
ical in its innovatory tendencies than JSB because it represents an
early stage in their development, or because the lingering influence
of Redaction II has largely suppressed them, or for both reasons?
Where the Luck Psalter agrees with JS against B, or less often con-
tains a reading found in B but not in JS, can these patterns be used to
reconstruct earlier stages in the divergent textual development of
JSB, or are they mere chance coincidences? What is the textological
significance of the variants typical of Redactions IV and V which
occur sporadically in the Luck Psalter, more frequently in JSB? Do
they represent yet another superimposed textual layer borrowed
from the new redaction, associated with the name of Metropolitan
Kiprian, which was later incorporated into the Gennadian Bible? Or
do they go back to the interpretative version underlying the Luck
Psalter and JSB? Did that version take shape in the East Slavonic
lands, antedating the arrival of Kiprian in the 1370s, or was it the
redaction which he introduced to the East Slavs, who then variously
elaborated or extirpated its more radical features? At present we do
not have enough pieces of the puzzle to answer these questions.
Investigation of more South and East Slavonic psalter manuscripts
from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, particularly those in the
State Historical Museum in Moscow, may fill in some of the gaps,
but the Luck Psalter will remain important because it allows us to
glimpse, even if in hazy outline, a crucial part of the picture.
The research for this article was carried out with the support of
the British Academy and the Hilandar Research Library at Ohio
State University. I take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude
to those institutions, and also to the colleagues who commented on
an earlier version given as a paper at the conference A. I. Sobolevskij
i russkoe istoričeskoe jazykoznanie, organized in Moscow by the In-
stitute for the Russian language of the Russian Academy of Sciences
in June 2007.

APPENDIX OF MSS CITED

Tol = the Tolstoj commentated Psalter, MS F.п.I.23 in the Rus-
sian National Public Library in St. Petersburg, 12th century, Redac-
tion I.
 The Textual Peculiarities of the Luck Psalter of 1384 121

Bon = the Bologna commentated Psalter, 13th century, Redaction

62
I.
Čud = the Čudov commentated psalter of Theorodet, 11th cen-
tury.63
7/177 = the commentated psalter of Theorodet, MS 7/177 in the
State Historical Museum in Moscow, 15th century.
Sin = the Sinai (Glagolitic) psalter, 11th century, Redaction I.64
Ban = MS 1 in the Library of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
in Sofia, 13th century, Redaction I.
Gri = the Grigorovič Psalter, fond 87, MS 4 (M. 1687) in the
Russian State Library in Moscow, 13th century, Redaction I.
Deč = the Dečani Psalter, 13th century, Redaction I.65
Rad = the Radomir psalter, 13th century, Redaction I.66
Lob = the Lobkowicz or Prague Breviary, written in 1359, Re-
daction I.67

(62) Vatroslav Jagić, Slovenskaja psaltyr’. Psalterium bononiense. Gerold & Co.
- Weidmann - C. Ricker, Vienna - Berlin - St. Petersburg 1907; Ivan Dujčev, Bo-
lonski psaltir. Bălgarskata akademija na naukite, Sofija 1968.
(63) Valerij Aleksandrovič Pogorelov, Čudovskaja Psaltyr’ XI veka: otryvok.
Tolkovanija Feodorita Kirrskogo na Psaltyr’ v drevne-bolgarskom perevode. (Pa-
mjatniki staroslavjanskogo jazyka, 3:1). Otdelenije russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti
Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk, Sankt-Peterburg 1910.
(64) Sergej Sever’janov, Sinajskaja psaltyr’. Glagoličeskij pamjatnik XI veka.
(Pamjatniki staroslavjanskogo jazyka, 4). Otdelenie russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti
Rossijskoj Akademii Nauk, Petrograd 1922; Franciscus V. Mareš, Psalterii Sinai-
tici pars nova. (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse,
Schriften der Balkan-Komission, Philologische Abteilung, 38, Fontes Nr. 2). Verlag
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 1997.
(65) Ljupčo Mitrevski, Dečanski psaltir. (Makedonski srednovekovni rakopisi,
V). Institut za staroslovenska kultura, Prilep 2000.
(66) Liljana Makarijoska, Radomirov psaltir. (Stari tekstovi, V). Institut za ma-
kedonski jazik ‘Krste Misirkov’, Skopje 1997.
(67) Josef Vajs, Psalterium palaeoslovenicum croatico-glagoliticum, 1. Acade-
mia palaeoslavica Veglensis-Politika, Krk - Prague 1916.
122 Catherine Mary MacRobert

Par = the Paris Breviary, 14th century, Redaction I.68

Har = the Harvard Psalter, MS Typ. 221, in the Houghton Libra-
ry, Harvard University, 12th century, Redaction II.
Sf62 = fond 728, MS 62 in the Russian National Library in St.
Petersburg; eight folia held in the same library as fond 588, MS 6,
13th century, Redaction II.
S7 = MS 7 in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, 13th
century, Redaction II.
Bel = MS 36 in the University Library, MS 331 in the Museum
of the Serbian Orthodox Church, MS 589 in the National Library,
MS 314 in the Library of the Belgrade Patriarchate, and two unnum-
bered bifolia in the Museum of Applied Arts, 13th century, Redac-
tion II.
Plj = MS 80 in the monastery of the Holy Trinity at Pljevlja; se-
ven folia held in the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences in
St. Petersburg, MS 45.8.263, 13th century, Redaction II.
Ath = MS 1797 in the National Library of Greece, 14th century,
Redaction II.
S8 = MS 8 in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, 13th
century, mixed redaction.69
Ox = MS e Mus 184 in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, 14th cen-
tury, mixed redaction.
Hval = the psalter included in the Hvalov Zbornik, written in
1404, mixed redaction.70
T27 = fond 381, MS 27 in the Russian State Archive of Ancient
Documents (RGADA) in Moscow, 13th century, Redaction II.

(68) Ibid.
(69) Moshé Altbauer, Der älteste serbische Psalter. (Slavistische Forschungen,
23). Böhlau, Köln - Wien 1979.
(70) Herta Kuna, Nevenka Gošić, Jovanka Maksimović, Zbornik Hvala Krstiani-
na, 1-2. Svjetlost, Sarajevo 1986.
 The Textual Peculiarities of the Luck Psalter of 1384 123

FпI1 = MS F.п.I.1 in the Russian National Library in St. Peters-

burg, 14th century, Redaction II.
Jar = MS 15482 in the Historical Museum in Jaroslavl’, 14th cen-
tury, Redaction II.
Amf = the Simonovskaja psalter, 14th century, later Redaction
71
II.
Pog2 = fond 588, MS 2 in the Russian National Library in St. Pe-
tersburg, 14th century, later Redaction II.
Pog3 = fond 588, MS 3 in the Russian National Library in St. Pe-
tersburg, 14th century, later Redaction II.
Sf60 = fond 728, MS 60 in the Russian National Library in St.
Petersburg, 14th century, later Redaction II.
Vat = MS Slavo. 8 in the Vatican Library, 15th century, later Re-
daction II.
FпI3 = MS F.п.I.3 in the Russian National Library in St. Peters-
burg, 14th century, mixed redaction.
T34 = fond 381, MS 34 in the Russian State Archive of Ancient
Documents (RGADA) in Moscow, 14th century, mixed Redactions I
and II.
FпI4 = MS F.п.I.4 in the Russian National Library in St. Peters-
burg, 14th century, mixed redaction.
T33 = fond 381, MS 33 in the Russian State Archive of Ancient
Documents (RGADA) in Moscow, 14th century, mixed redaction.
8662 = fond 304/III, MS 8662 (now MS 7)72 in the Russian State
Library in Moscow, 14th century, mixed redaction.

(71) Archimandrite Amfiloxij, Drevle-slavjanskaja Psaltir’ Simonovskaja do

1280 goda, 1-4. 2nd ed. L. F. Snegirev, Moskva 1880-1881.
(72) I am obliged to O. V. Lada for supplying me with the current archival refe-
rence for this manuscript.
124 Catherine Mary MacRobert

Sf64 = fond 728, MS 64 in the Russian National Library in St.

Petersburg, 14th century, mixed redaction.
T28 = fond 381, MS 28 in the Russian State Archive of Ancient
Documents (RGADA) in Moscow, 14th century, mixed redaction.
FпI2 = MS F.п.I.2 in the Russian National Library in St. Peters-
burg, 14th century, mixed redaction.
Nor = the Norov Psalter, 14th century, Redaction IV.73
Ki = the Kiev Psalter, written in 1397, mixed redaction.74
J = MS 15231 in the archive of the regional history museum (lo-
cated in the Spasskij Monastery) in Jaroslavl’, 15th century, compi-
latory commentated redaction.
B = MS 96 of the Barsov collection in the State Historical Mu-
seum in Moscow, 15th century, compilatory commentated redaction.
S = MS 1250 in Saratov University Library, 16th century, compi-
latory commentated redaction.

RIASSUNTO

Il salterio manoscritto redatto nel 1384 a Luc’k (Volinia) e ora conservato presso la
Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana di Firenze è di un certo interesse per gli studiosi
non solo perché la sua datazione e il suo luogo di origine sono conosciuti, ma anche
per le affinità testuali che ha con varie versioni del salterio slavo-ecclesiastico. Il
manoscritto presenta un testo ibrido, che si basa sulla Redazione II – generalmente
in uso tra gli Slavi Orientali fino al tardo Trecento –, ma che incorpora varianti del-
la Redazione V – la quale in seguito ha sostituito l’altra –, tratti residui della Re-
dazione I probabilmente risalenti a un antigrafo slavo meridionale e una serie di ca-

(73) Elena Vladimirovna Češko - Irina Konstantinovna Bunina - Vladimir Anto-

novič Dybo - Ol’ga Aleksandrovna Knjazevskaja - L. A. Naumenko, Norovskaja
psaltyr’: Srednebolgarskaja rukopis’ XIV veka, 1-2. Bălgarskata akademija na nau-
kite, Sofija 1989.
(74) Gerol’d Ivanovič Vzdornov, Kievskaja psaltir’ 1397. Issledovanie Kievskoj
Psaltiri. Iskusstvo, Moskva 1978.
 The Textual Peculiarities of the Luck Psalter of 1384 125

ratteri peculiari collegati soprattutto a catene compilatorie slave orientali del primo
Quattrocento relative ai salmi. Quindi il Salterio di Luc’k è con ogni probabilità un
importante anello di collegamento per risalire al processo di rielaborazione cui la
traduzione slava ecclesiastica dei salmi è stata sottoposta in area slava orientale du-
rante i secoli XIV-XV.

РЕЗЮМЕ

Рукописьная псалтырь, написанная в 1384-ом году в волынском городе Луцке,

а теперь хранящаяся в Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana в Флоренции, представ-
ляет научный интерес, не только потому что ее можно точно датировать и
локализировать, а еще из-за текстологических связей с разными редакциями
церковнославянского перевода Псалтыри. Рукопись предлагает смешанный
текст, в котором, на фоне II редакции, общепринятой среди восточных славян
почти до конца XIV в., выделяются разночтения из V редакции, которая при-
шла на смену ее, остаточные следы I редакции, восходящие скорее всего к
южнославянскому антиграфу, и ряд необычных особенностей, сродних пре-
жде всего с восточнославянскими компилятивными толковыми псалтырями
раннего XV в. Таким образом Луцкая псалтырь, по всей вероятности, ока-
жется важным связывающим звеном при исследовании переработки церков-
нославянского перевода псалмов в восточнославянских землях в течение XIV-
XV вв.