136 IHOR SEVCENKOinexpressible go(odn)ess and bounteous (providence hast bestowed upon usthe good things of the world (and) (pled)gest to us the promised Kin(gd)omthrough the good things Thou hast given (us) already; Who hast cause(d us toa)void all (evil ) in the pa(rt of day) that has passed by; grant that wemay <strong>also</strong> complete without blame that which remains of it (in the face of T)hy(holy glory); to prai(se)IIHow should we assess the Slavic translations? The answer is that, onthe whole, the Slavic faithfully follows its original but sounds natural atthe same time — thus it displays a trait that is characteristic of theearliest translations. In the prayers of the Sixth Hour and of theSeventh Antiphon, the translations are freer than elsewhere; they donot follow the word order of the Greek, and in spots tend to beparaphrases. That is why I was unwilling to fill in all the gaps in theSlavic text in spite of having its Greek model at my disposal.Let us single out some discrepancies between original and translationin the prayer of the Sixth Hour ( = Prayer 2). In line 2, the words'at the present hour' of the Greek are omitted in the Slavic. In line 4,the epithet προσκυνητφ 'adorable', referring to the cross, is replacedby the more familiar cestbnëmb, which usually corresponds to τίμιος'venerable'. In lines 6/7, prigvozdb 'having nailed down' is a pastparticiple, rendering the Greek participle προοηλώσας. The parallelpotrëbi 'blot (or blotted) out', in line 7 is not a participle, however,even though its Greek equivalent έξαλείψας is. To restore the correspondence,I conjecture potrëbb, і 'having blotted out, and' as theoriginal reading; this fits the Greek well, especially since we need an ίbefore пупё to correspond to the και νυν of the Greek. Finally, inline 10 we read the imperative svobodi 'free', which is simple butadequate, whereas the Greek has the more ponderous ελευθέρουςημάς άνάδειξον 'proclaim us free'.Before going any further, let us say a word about the verso of the(1647), pp. 36-37 (2nd ed. of Venice [1730], p. 29), and translated in Arranz, "Lesprières sacerdotales" (as in fn. 6 above), p. 94; cf. <strong>also</strong> Trempelas, Μικρόν (as infn. 7 above), p. 252; Jacob, "L'euchologe" (as in fn. 7 above), no. 60 = fol. 39\and modern Greek Euchologia (e.g., ed. Zerbos [Venice 1869], p. 15), where ourprayer appears as no. 6.
REPORT ON THE GLAGOLITIC FRAGMENTS 137hardly visible folio, which I shall call "folio (X plus A) verso" (fig. 1).Only a few words on that folio are legible. We realize, however, thatthe first four visible lines are the end of a prayer, and that thepenultimate legible line is the beginning of another prayer. The twocapital letters, of which only the агъ is surely legible, indicate that atitle is standing in between. If folio (X plus A) verso is connected withthe last folio of our fragment, it must contain some earlier prayers ofthe beginning of the Vespers. There are, in fact, some similaritiesbetween the visible words of that folio and the Greek texts of theprayers of the Second and Third Antiphon of the Vespers. 30There isno need to belabor the point, however, because sooner or later somescholar will inspect the whole fragment and put an end to the guessing.In the meantime, I am offering the transliteration of the visible part offolio (X + A) verso ( = Prayers 5 and 6).Prayers 5 and 6fol. X + A verso, visible partVespers? Parts of Prayers of the Second and Third Antiphons?(line numbers correspond to the lines of the last folio,verso of the fragments)Pr. 5 4 фепьпа 4 of the day [?]5 proćee d"n(é) 5 rest of the (day)(v'sé)go zbla b•ρ crstyvacatvacat . A vacat(all) evilKingdomPr. 6 10