We regard the task of investigating the background to the poems of the Vertograd as far from complete. However, it is now clear that the question is no longer whether Simeon relied on specific sources, but rather which sources. There are 2 763 poems in the autograph manuscript A, or 2 496 if one regards the cycle entitled «Vivlia» as one poem[101]. Of this total, well over half have now been traced back to their source in either Faber, Meffreth, the Magnum speculum exemplorum, or the Hortus pastorum of Jacobus Marchantius, another Jesuit priest. The Commentary at the end of each volume of the present edition identifies those sources about which there can be no reasonable doubt, and an Appendix at the end of the third volume will list those sources that have come to light in the course of preparing the text for publication. Thus, the Commentary does not so much provide comment as factual information about the origins of particular poems. This information is so important for an understanding of both Simeon's worldview and his creative process that it has been felt necessary to quote extensively from his sources, especially as these works are not to be found in most university libraries. Although it might also have been desirable to provide translations of the numerous Latin passages quoted in the Commentary, considerations of space have rendered this impracticable. Simeon Polockij was deeply immersed in Latin culture, and a good working knowledge of Latin is a great asset to the student of this remarkable Russian poet. Indeed, the paucity of present-day scholars who bridge the gap between classical and Slavonic studies is one reason why research into Simeon Polockij has not been as exhaustive as it might have been. It is hoped that the present critical edition of the Vertograd will advance that research into a new and productive phase.
Anthony Hippisley
Anthony Hippisley, Lydia Sazonova, Editors» Editors’ Note
The present critical edition of Simeon Polockij's Vertograd mnogocvetnyj is based on a textological study of the following three manuscripts which contain the text: 1. An autograph, undated (Gosudarstvennyj Istoričeskij muzej [Moscow], Sinodal'noe sobranie, No. 659), designated A in the present edition; 2. A scribal copy dated August 1678 (GIM, Sin. 288), designated B; 3. A scribal copy dated August 1678 (Biblioteka Rossijskoj Akademii nauk [St Petersburg], No. PIA 54, formerly Biblioteka Akademii nauk SSSR [Leningrad], No. 31.7.3), designated C. The editors decided to adopt C as the base copy because, although it is not in the author's hand, it represents the final recasting of the text. It was Simeon's own wish that the work be fundamentally re-designed so that the poems would appear under an alphabetised series of titles, and it may reliably be assumed that C displays the form in which he hoped his work would appear in print.
What is presented here is a critical edition of the literary rather than linguistic or historical kind[102]; consequently the editors have in general followed the guidelines laid down in 1955 by the Sector for Old Russian Literature of the Institute of Russian Literature of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR for their projected series of scholarly monographs and editions of works of Old Russian literature[103]. In accordance with these guidelines, the orthography of C has been altered by replacing
obsolete letters by their equivalents in the modem Russian alphabet, as follows:
i /ï ) и
oy )y
ω ) o
ѩ/ѧ ) я
ѵ ) и
ѕ ) з
ѯ ) кс
ѱ ) пс
ѳ )ф
In words of Greek origin the diphthongs aѵ and eѵ have been rendered as ав and ев (Август, Еваггелие, Евва). The words Паѳмос and ѳрон have been rendered as Патмос and трон in accordance with modem spelling conventions. The letter е (jatˊ) has been retained because it conveys a sound of diphthongal origin midway between i and e; in literary Russian jat» denoted the sound e , in Ukainian it denoted i. In the poetry of Simeon Polockij the letter е occurs in rhymes paired sometimes with e, as in the rhymes море : горе, прийде : виде, рече : человече, and somteimes with и, as in the rhymes толице : человеце and превелика: человека. The short vowel й is reproduced as it occurs in C. This letter is written as и in the autograph, though a syllable count shows that the author regarded it as short. The line Авеля праведнаго достойно хвалити ( Авель 3’, 1:1) appears to have 14 syllables as it stands in A, but В and C record the spelling достойно, which yields the correct 13-syllable line. Since this discrepancy in orthography is a regular one it is not recorded as a variant in the footnotes.
The letter ъ (jer) is omitted when it occurs at the end of a word. Titlos are expanded according to spelling found elsewhere in C. Superscript letters are brought down into the line. In cases where a final soft consonant is superscript, the letter ъ (jer») has been supplied. In accordance with the principles of modem word-division prefixes have been printed as part of the following word, whether or not they are written separately in one or all of the manuscripts. Thus, съ сечено ) съсечено, въ скоре ) въскоре, въ ниде ) въниде. Where the particles же and ли are written in C as part of the preceding word, they are printed separately in the present edition. As a consequence of this separation the letter ь has been supplied for words ending in a soft consonant on the basis of examples to hand elsewhere in the manuscript where the same words are written separately, e.g. колже ) коль же, сутже ) суть же. удобже ) удобь же, вонже ) во нь же, нанже ) на нь же, занже ) за нь же, плотже ) плоть же, естже ) есть же, естли ) есть ли. Where in С the particle ся is prepositive to the verb and has been agglutinated to the preceding word, it has been printed separately, e.g. похотся раждает ) похоть ся раждает. In the combinations донели/донеле же, донде же. зане же. иде же, поне же, ни же, та же the element же has been regarded by the editors as a particle and printed separately, although it is possible that in 17th-century texts it was already considered a component part of the word. The conjunction воеже is printed as one word. Relative pronouns with the particle же are normally written as one word in the three manuscripts. The present edition retains this convention for the four short pronouns иже, еже, яже. and юже; longer pronouns are separated into two words, e.g. его же. Variants between the three manuscripts as to whether the particles же, ли and ся are written as part of the preceding word or separately are not footnoted.
101
Even this figure is only approximate and depends upon how one counts the poems. There is, for instance, a poem entitled «Den» i nošč«’ which contains four separate poems called «Dennica», «Poluden»», «Večer», and «Nošč"’. One could count this as four poems under one heading, though in the present edition it has been counted as one poem with four sections or stanzas. The same problem arises when counting epitaphs, captions, and certain other enumerative poems.
102
For an analysis of the various kinds of edition, especially the literary kind, see D.S. Lichačev, Tekstologija. Na materiale russkoj literatury X—XVII vekov, izd. 2-e, Leningrad, 1983, pp. 479—98.
103
See R.P. Dmitrieva, Proekt serii monografičeskich issledovanij-izdanij pamjatnikov drevnerusskoj literatury,’