The Bogdan Glosses

Ioan Bogdan (1864-1919)
(http://www.saguna.ro/web5/personalitati.html)
no copyright infringement intended

(click here for the Romanian version)

I heard first time about Ioan Bogdan while in high school: our history teacher quoted him to stress out the importance of the Slavonic factor in the evolution of Romanian language. The teacher explained us on that occasion that besides its origin (imposing the lion's share in vocabulary and grammar) any language had a so-called substratum (Dacian for the Romanian language), and a so-called superstratum (for Romanian being mostly Slavonic). Later I learned also about adstratum, but let's not digress now.

Ioan Bogdan was the creator of Slavonic-Romanian philology: study of Slavonic manuscripts (especially those authored in the Romanian countries), to pull out relevant information about the medieval Romanian history and about the evolution of Romanian language. Like Erbiceanu (a distinguished Hellenist who studied the Phanariote documents on the same purpose as Bogdan did in the Slavonic area), he realized the vital role of the regional context in the history of a nation and of a language.

Ioan Bogdan discovered and edited the chronicles of Macarie, Eftimie and Azarie, among other documents, covering a whole epoch in the history of the principality of Moldavia: the epoch of Petru Rares and his successors. These manuscripts had been created in Moldavian monasteries (the Neamt abbey would later get the renown of a National Library of Moldavia - Macarie had been the abbot there for a while, before becoming bishop of Roman). From these monasteries each of the manuscripts continued a life of its own, traveling to Iassy or Kiev, Kraków or Vienna, Moscow or Sankt Petersburg, changing gifts between the princes and sovereigns of those places. A manuscript from Neamt made the journey up to Oxford: it is now at the Bodleian Library.  And Bogdan, a member of the Romanian Academy and professor at Bucharest University, also a member of the Muscovite Society of History and Antiquities, traveled in search of these documents across libraries and monasteries all over the place.

page from the Chronicle of Azarie
(http://www.moldovenii.md/section/174/content/965)
no copyright infringement intended

The results Bogdan obtained are of interest for various disciplines: history, philology, and linguistics. To have a glimpse into the specifics of his domain,  let's talk a little bit about the so-called Bogdan Glosses. It's about the annotations made on a manuscript found by Ioan Bogdan in an exhibition in Moscow, in 1890. The manuscript was a Slavonic translation of a famous Byzantine collection of Ecclesiastical and Civil law: the Syntagma Canonum, that Matthew Blastares had compiled in 1335.

image of Matthew Blastares
(http://www.zeably.com/Blastares)
no copyright infringement intended

Several Slavonic renderings of the Syntagma  have been done during the years (one of them by Macarie, in 1556). The manuscript found by Bogdan was one of these translations (not the version of Macarie, just another one). What made it of unique value were the annotations: small comments on the text of the manuscript or just translations of various words from there. These annotations were 70 in Slavonic and 662 in Romanian. It was one of the first proofs of written Romanian in history. They remained known as the Bogdan Glosses.

There is no consensus regarding the date these annotations have been made. The estimates could have been made only indirectly, based on filigree and rhotacism considerations. Let me explain.

Firstly the specialists tried to determine the date for the manuscript itself. The analysis of the manuscript filigree allowed a rough estimation: between 1516 and 1536 (apud Magdalena Georgescu, who produced an edition of the manuscript in 1982). R. Constantinescu advanced a more precise date: around 1520. As for the glosses, the general opinion is that they have been written later (though not all the scholars are unanimous: for R. Constantinescu, both manuscript and annotations were written in the same time).

Now for the glosses, the presence of rhotacism in the Romanian words led to the conclusion that they could not have been written after 1616/1631 (as around that date the rhotacism mostly disappeared from Romanian language). Thus the date of the Bogdan Glosses was situated approximately after 1516/1536 (the date of the manuscript) and 1616/1631.

As for the origin of those glosses, Ioan Bogdan (based on calligraphy and linguistic particularities) considered that they had been probably written at the Neamt monastery (anyway in Northern Moldavia). His opinion was shared by Magdalena Georgescu, while Alexandru Rosetti suggested another localization (Northern Transylvania). Philosophi certant.

What is interesting, another Slavonic manuscript (from the 17th century, discovered in Moscow by R. Constantinescu) contains the same glosses! Thus led other two scholars (Ion Ghetie and Alexandru Mares) to consider the Bogdan Glosses not as simple annotations, rather as an original literary text in its own right: literary work in form of annotations.

(Some of the information above was provided by Wikipedia, also by Asistentul Judiciar)

(A Life in Books)

A Romanian Book on Bishop Wulfila

source: Erbiceanu family archive
(http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi%C8%99ier:Ulfila.JPG)
no copyright infringement intended

(click here for the Romanian version)

I would love to have access to this book, only it is very hard to find it: a book published in Bucharest in 1898, and carrying a pretty long title, Ulfila, Viata si Doctrina lui, sau Starea Crestinismului in Dacia Traiana si Aureliana in Seculul al IV [Ulfila, His Life and Doctrine, or The State of Christianity in Dacia of Trajan and Aurelius in the Fourth Century]. At first view, it seems that the author intended to tackle together two very different subjects. Wulfila was the bishop of Goths and translated the Bible in their language (the manuscript is kept today in Sweden, at Uppsala University). As for the Romanized Dacia of the fourth century, the native populations were everything but Goths.

Actually there was a connection between the two subjects, and the author considered important to stress it out with an annotation on the book cover, on the copy that remained in his family archive: Carte foarte importanta pentru existenta Crestinismului la Romani, C. Erbiceanu [A very important book for the existence of Christianity at Romanians, C. Erbiceanu]. You can see it in the image above, a hand written phrase.

A few details about the author. Constantin Erbiceanu, who lived from 1838 to 1913, was a historian, theologian and Hellenist. He was a member of Junimea, the famous literary circle from Iassy, also he was a member of two scholarly associations from Constantinople, Hellenikos Philologikos Syllogos and Hetairia Mesaionikon Spoudon. He also was a member of the Romanian Academy. The title of one of his books explains very well the main area of his preoccupations: Cronicarii greci care au scris despre romani în epoca fanariota [Greek Chroniclers Who Wrote About Romanians in the Phanariote Epoch]. He dedicated most of his life to the study of Greek manuscripts from the Phanariote epoch, looking there for any information relevant for the Romanian history. He was the road opener (wiki) in the systematic approach of the Phanariote epoch in the Romanian countries, also in the Romanian church history.

Constantin Erbiceannu (1838-1913)
(http://www.fundatia-erbiceanu.ro/index.php?pag=2&id=-600)
no copyright infringement intended

A comparison comes to mind, with one of his fellows at the Romanian Academy, the philologist Ioan Bogdan. What Erbiceanu did in the field of Hellenistic studies, did Bogdan in Slavistics - search of Slavonic manuscripts to find there information relevant for the history of Romanian language. Both of them realized the paramount importance of situating the studies of Romanian history (language and culture, church and society) in the regional context: a national space is not closed, it is evolving in conjunction with its neighbors, there are continuous influences, and all that happens in the history of each of them echoes in the whole region.

So, coming now back to Erbiceanu's book on Wulfila and the Christianity in Dacia of the fourth century, the connection becomes obvious, I think. Bishop Wulfila lived many years in Nicopolis ad Istrum, in the South of Danube, and the Goths were the rulers of the region for some time. It was at Nicopolis ad Istrum that Wulfila worked on his translation of the Bible. Dacia had been modeled by the epoch of Roman rule, from Trajan to Marcus Aurelius. It was, as Erbiceanu named it, Dacia of Trajan and Aurelius. It was the fourth century, Wulfila was translating the Bible in the Gothic language on the South of Danube, the Romanized population on both sides of the river was in some stage of becoming Christian, all this was happening in the same regional context. Studying one of the subjects brings lights on the other one.

And there is another important thing: after the Tristia and the Epistolae created by Ovid during his exile at Tomis, there was no other literary work produced in this region, till Wulfila's translation of the Bible.

More I cannot say on the book of Constantin Erbiceanu. Could it be today a bit outdated? Well, the science of history is evolving and some of yesteryear's ideas do not hold any more, that's the way with any science. It would keep in any case the importance of a road opener. I have to find it, then I'll come back.


(on the life of Consatntin Erbiceanu, see also Istoria Familiei Erbiceanu, pagina din Crestin Ortodox consacrata lui Erbiceanu, articolul din Dictionarul Teologilor Romani, Vieţa şi activitatea literară a protosinghelului Naum Rîmniceanu: Discurs de receptiune la Academia Romana, rostit la 17 (30) martie 1900)



(Bishop Wulfila)

Constantin Erbiceanu

sursa: arhiva familiei Erbiceanu
(http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi%C8%99ier:Ulfila.JPG)
no copyright infringement intended

(click here for the English version)

Mi-as dori mult sa ajung sa citesc cartea aceasta, numai ca e foarte greu de gasit: o carte publicata la Bucuresti in 1898, si purtand un titlu deosebit de lung, Ulfila, Viata si Doctrina lui, sau Starea Crestinismului in Dacia Traiana si Aureliana in Seculul al IV. Pare la prima vedere ca autorul a vrut sa se ocupe deodata de doua subiecte foarte diferite. Ulfila a fost episcopul gotilor si a tradus Biblia in limba lor (manuscrisul este pastrat in Suedia, la Universitatea Uppsala). Cat despre Dacia romanizata a veacului al patrulea, populatiile native erau orice, numai goti nu.

De fapt intre cele doua subiecte era o legatura, iar autorul a considerat important sa o evidentieze printr-o adnotare pe coperta cartii, pe exemplarul care a ramas in arhiva familiei: Carte foarte importanta pentru existenta Crestinismului la Romani, C. Erbiceanu. O puteti vedea in imaginea de mai sus, o fraza scrisa de mana.

Cateva cuvinte despre autor. Constantin Erbiceanu, care a trait intre 1838 si 1913, a fost istoric, teolog si elenist. A fost membru al Junimii, de asemeni a fost membru in doua asociatii de carturari din Constantinopole, Hellenikos Philologikos Syllogos si Hetairia Mesaionikon Spoudon. Si a fost membru al Academiei Romane. Tiitlul uneia din cartile sale explica foarte bine aria sa principala de preocupari: Cronicarii greci care au scris despre romani în epoca fanariota. Si-a dedicat cea mai mare parte a vietii studiului manuscriselor grecesti din epoca fanariota, cautand in ele orice informatie relevanta pentru istoria Romaniei. A fost un deschizator de drumuri (wiki) in abordarea sistematica a epocii fanariote din Tarile Romanesti, de asemeni in istoria bisericii noastre.

Constantin Erbiceannu (1838-1913)
(http://www.fundatia-erbiceanu.ro/index.php?pag=2&id=-600)
no copyright infringement intended

O comparatie imi vine in minte, cu unul din colegii sai dela  Academia Romana, filologul Ioan Bogdan. Ce a facut Erbiceanu in elenistica, Bogdan a facut in slavistica - cautare de manuscrise slavone ca sa gaseasca in ele informatii relevante pentru istoria limbii romane. Amandoi au inteles importanta uriasa a situarii studiilor de istorie romaneasca (limba si cultura, biserica si societate) intr-un context regional: un spatiu national nu este inchis, ci evolueaza in conjunctie cu vecinii, exista influente continue, iar tot ce se intampla in istoria unuia are ecou in intreaga regiune.

Asa incat daca ne intoarcem acum la cartea lui Erbiceanu despre Ulfila si crestinismul in Dacia celui de-al patrulea veac, legatura devine evidenta, cred. Episcopul Ulfila a trait multi ani la Nicopolis ad Istrum, in sudul Dunarii, iar gotii au fost stapanii regiunii pentru o bucata de vreme. La Nicopolis ad Istrum a lucrat Ulfila la traducerea Bibliei. Dacia fusese modelata de epoca stapanirii romane, de la Traian pana la Marc Aureliu. Era, asa cum Erbiceanu a numit-o, Dacia Traiana si Aureliana. Era veacul al patrulea, Ulfila talmacea Biblia in graiul gotilor la sud de Dunare, populatia romanizata de pe ambele maluri ale fluviului era intr-un anumit stadiu al lungului proces de adoptare a crestinismului, totul se intampla in acelasi context regional. Studiul unuia din subiecte aducea lumini noi asupra celuilalt.

Si mai e ceva important: dupa Tristiile si Epistolele create de Ovidiu in timpul exilului la Tomis, nu a existat o alta opera literara produsa in aceasta regiune pana la traducerea Bibliei facuta de Ulfila.

Mai mult nu am ce sa spun despre cartea lui Constantin Erbiceanu. Ar putea fi depasita? Sigur ca stiinta istoriei evolueaza si unele idei de odinioara nu mai rezista timpului, asta se intampla in orice stiinta. Cred totusi ca lucrarea aceasta isi pastreaza importanta de deschidere de drumuri. Trebuie sa o gasesc, apoi voi reveni.


(despre viata lui Consatntin Erbiceanu, vezi si Istoria Familiei Erbiceanu, pagina din Crestin Ortodox consacrata lui Erbiceanu, articolul din Dictionarul Teologilor Romani, Vieţa şi activitatea literară a protosinghelului Naum Rîmniceanu: Discurs de receptiune la Academia Romana, rostit la 17 (30) martie 1900)


In fotografia facuta in 1912 la Academie, Constantin Erbiceanu este al treilea in randul din stanga al mesei din dreapta (in spatele lui Nicolae Quintescu si in fata lui Andrei Barseanu).



(1912: Sedinta la Academia Romana)

Ioan Bogdan

Ioan Bogdan (1864-1919)
(http://www.saguna.ro/web5/personalitati.html)
no copyright infringement intended

(click here for the English version)

Prima oara am auzit de Ioan Bogdan in liceu: profesorul nostru de istorie il cita pentru a evidentia importanta factorului slavon in evolutia limbii romane. Ne-a vorbit atunci profesorul despre substrat si suprastrat. Orice limba, in afara originii sale (care isi impune partea leului in lexic si gramatica - latina in cazul nostru), mai contine doi vectori: asa numitul substrat (limba daca in cazul romanei) si asa numitul suprastrat (in majoritate slavon in cazul nostru).

Fiu al Brasovului (asemenea colegilor sai de Academie Teclu si Barseanu), Ioan Bogdan a fost creatorul filologiei slavo-romane: studiul manuscriselor in limba slavona (in special cele originare din Tarile Romane) pentru a extrage de acolo informatii relevante despre istoria romaneasca medievala si despre evolutia limbii romane. Ca si Erbiceanu (un distins elenist care si-a dedicat viata studiului doumentelor fanariote, cu acelasi scop pentru care Bogdan a lucrat in aria slavona), el si-a dat seama de importanta vitala a contextului regional in istoria unui popor si a unei limbi.

Ioan Bogdan a fost cel care a descoperit si editat cronicile in limba slavona ale lui Macarie, Eftimie si Azarie, acoperind o intreaga perioada din istoria Moldovei: epoca lui Petru Rares si a urmasilor sai. Aceste manuscrise fusesera create in manastirile moldovenesti (Neamtul si-a castigat renumele de Biblioteca Nationala a Moldovei - iar Macarie a fost egumen acolo pentru o vreme, inainte de a deveni episcop al Romanului). Din aceste manastiri fiecare manuscris si-a continuat viata pe cont propriu, calatorind la Iasi sau Kiev, Cracovia sau Viena, Moscova sau Sankt Petersburg, schimburi de daruri intre principii si suveranii acelor locuri. Unul din manuscrisele dela Neamt a calatorit pana la Oxford: se afla acum la Biblioteca Bodleiana. Iar Bogdan, membru al Academiei Romane si profesor la Universitatea din Bucuresti, de asemeni membru al Societatii de Istorie si Antichitati din Moscova, a calatorit pe drumul acestor documente, cautandu-le urma prin biblioteci si manastiri si muzee.

pagina din Cronica lui Azarie
(http://www.moldovenii.md/section/174/content/965)
no copyright infringement intended

Rezultatele obtinute de Bogdan au importanta in mai multe discipline: istorie, filologie, lingvistica. Ca sa ne facem o idee despre specificul domeniului sau stiintific,  hai sa vorbim un pic despre asa numitele Glose Bogdan. Sunt adnotari facute pe un manuscris gasit de Ioan Bogdan la o expozitie dela Moscova in 1890. Manuscrisul era o traducere in slavona a unei faimoase colectii bizantine de legislatie ecleziastica si civila: Sintagma pe care Matei Vlastaris a alcatuit-o in 1335.

icoana infatisandu-l pe Matei Vlastaris
(http://www.zeably.com/Blastares)
no copyright infringement intended

De-a lungul vremii s-au facut mai multe talmaciri in slavona ale Sintagmei  (una chiar de catre Macarie, in 1556, la porunca domnitorului Alexandru Lapusneanu, trimisa apoi in dar tarului Ivan cel Groaznic). Manuscrisul gasit de Bogdan era una din aceste traduceri (nu versiunea lui Macarie, ci alta traducere). Ceea ce ii da o valoare unica sunt adnotarile: cateodata mici comentarii pe marginea textului, alteori traducerea cate unui cuvant din text. Cel mai frecvent este vorba de unul sau doua cuvinte, mai rar cate o fraza. Este vorba de 70 de adnotari in slavona si 662 in romana. Este una din primele marturii de romana scrisa in istorie. Au ramas cunoscute sub numele de Glosele Bogdan.

Nu exista un consens in privinta datei la care au fost facute adnotarile. S-au putut face doar estimari indirecte, bazate pe consideratii legate de filigran si de rotacism. Sa ma explic.

Mai intai specialistii au incercat sa determine data la care a fost scris manuscrisul propriu zis. Analiza filigranului paginilor a permis o estimare aproximativa: intre 1516 si 1536 (opinia Magdalenei Georgescu, care a produs o noua editie a manuscrisului, in 1982). R. Constantinescu a avansat o data mai precisa: candva in jurul lui 1520. Cat despre glose, opinia generala este ca au fost scrise mai tarziu (desi nu toti cercetatorii sunt de acord: pentru R. Constantinescu, atat manuscrisul cat si adnotarile au fost facute in acelasi timp).

Prezenta rotacismului in adnotarile romanesti a condus la concluzia ca glosele nu puteau fi scrise dupa 1616/1636 (data la care avem ultima atestare a fenomenului de rotacism in limba romana).  Astfel data la care s-au putut face adnotarile a putut fi situata intr-un interval aflat intre 1516/1536 (data manuscrisului propriu zis) si 1616/1631.

Cat despre locul de origine al acestor glose, Ioan Bogdan (bazat pe caligrafierea cuvintelor si pe particularitati lingvistice) considera ca ele au fost probabil scrise la Neamt (sau oricum intr-o manastire din nordul Moldovei). Opinia lui a fost impartasita si de Magdalena Georgescu, in timp ce Alexandru Rosetti sugera alta localizare (Maramures, nordul Transilvaniei). Philosophi certant.

Interesant este ca alt manuscris slavon (din secolul al XVII-lea, descoperit la Moscova de catre R. Constantinescu) contine aceleasi glose! Aceasta i-a condus pe alti doi cercetatori (Ion Ghetie si Alexandru Mares) sa considere Glosele Bogdan nu ca simple adnotari, ci ca text literar original in toate drepturile: opera literara in forma de adnotari.

(majoritatea informatiilor le-am gasit in Wikipedia si Asistentul Judiciar)


O strada din Brasov ii poarta numele. Strada nu se afla in Schei, unde s-a nascut, ci inspre Gara Bartolomeu (deci aproape si de Biserica Bartolomeu).

In fotografia facuta in 1912 la Academie, Ioan Bogdan este ultimul in randul din stanga al mesei din dreapta (in spatele lui Andrei Barseanu).


(1912: Sedinta la Academia Romana)