Talk:Codex Marianus

What do other pedias say on this

The article on Serbian Wikipedia claims that this is "the oldest Serbian book" and that Jagić inferred that "the scribe was in fact a Serb". The article on Bulgarian Wikipedia claims that phonological characteristic of the language indicate "a later stage of the Bulgarian language", and that by mixing of /ǫ/ and /u/ (which also merged in Serbo-Croatian BTW) it is "believed that the codex originates from northern Macedonia".

I think that this explains a bit some of the problematic recent edits - this manuscript is appropriated by several nations of as a part of their cultural heritage. I urge everyone to keep NPOV in mind. Modern nation-states have absolutely nothing to do with 11th-century manuscripts, and statements such as "Bulgarian, i.e. Macedonian" reek of Pan-Bulgarianism. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• It appears that the only thing of interest to a number of editors here is whether the scribe who copied the codex spoke a Slavic idiom ancetral (with respect to certain sound changes) to modern-day Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian od Macedonian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Damjanović

I haven't checked everything in detail, but multiple sentences of the Linguistic analysis section are just translations of Damjanović's Slovo iskona (2006), pp. 79, without clear attribution and too extensive to not count as copyright infringement. (My last edit slightly obscures this fact, as I changed a few minor details, before I noticed it's all just translated.) This same problem occurred on Psalterium Sinaiticum, where I just deleted the problematic section. Evidently user Ivan Štambuk created articles on OCS manuscripts in this manner regularly, by translating passages from the same book, which is a serious problem. All OCS MS articles should be checked and possibly rewritten with this in mind... — Phazd (talk|contribs) 17:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

National claims

@Mariunas3 You've restored a sentence (The book is enumerated in the Bulgarian and Serbian historical literary corpus.) with two previously existing sources and added one more source. Have you checked the two older sources? What part of your new source supports the sentence? — Phazd (talk|contribs) 17:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps a more neutral wording could end the edit war? Something like "The codex has been featured in Bulgarian and Serbian literary anthologies". Then provide a number of anthologies as sources. Ⰻ̆ⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳ҃ⰾ) 05:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it hasn't been featured in any Serbian literary anthologies, as far as I know. On the contrary, when it comes to Serbian publications, it is found in S. Nikolić's OCS reader... I understand where the Bulgarian claim comes from (it's already pre-packaged in the "Old Bulgarian" name of the language), but the Serbian claim is a weird new theory I've never heard of before. The most neutral wording is already found in the article, where it discusses the dialectal/linguistic features of the text without trying to ascribe it to a nation and fit it into a national literary tradition. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 05:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it could be useful to list some of the anthologies that have excerpted it. For example, Grammatika jazyka starobulharského pp. 50–52; Čitanka iz književnih starina staroslovenskih, hrvatskih i srpskih za VII. i VIII. razred srednjih škola pp. 65–66 (1923 ed.) etc. Đuro Šurmin listed it among Croatian (!) literary monuments in Povjest književnosti hrvatske i srpske p. 48. Whatever their legitimacy, the status of the text in the literary canons of the nation-building era seems relevant. Let me know if you need help. Ⰻ̆ⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳ҃ⰾ) 06:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I assume Šurmin's logic was the same as F. Iveković's, if you've read the introduction to Broz-Iveković Croatian dictionary, where I. assumes absolute synonymity between "Croatian" and "Serbian" (languages), and uses the different names only for pragmatic reasons for different audiences. Thus, since Jagić had already recognised certain Serbisms or, better put, Štokavisms in the text, Šurmin can automatically say the elements are Croatian as well. (I don't know anything directly about Šurmin's views on linguistic and national affiliations, admittedly, this is just how I'd make sense of the text.) However, Šurmin's formulation is relatively modest: he says Mar and Cloz "show traces" of Croatian language. Which is far from outright claiming them as a part of the Croatian literary canon. This is effectively the same problem as that with some of the sources provided by the anonymous editor, they talk about the dialectal characteristics more than the national canon, which is left more as an implication. And for what it's worth, I don't think the text published only in 1883 in Russia could have had much of a role in Serbian nation-building and literary canon (Novaković's comparison with Ostromir's Gospels thus seems exaggerated). Perhaps it had more of a role in Bulgaria?

The presence of the text is IMO trivial in most of these chrestomathies, it's a notably archaic OCS text and thus has its place in them no matter the national character of the text. I'd be more impressed by a list of post-1883 OCS chrestomathies without a selection from Mar! :) So I wouldn't spend much time tracing them all down, e.g. I can add Jagić (Specimena), Hamm, Vaillant, Auty, Diels, Leskien, Seliščev, Janakiev-Stojanov... but they're all just reproducing bits of Jagić's text, I believe? And since the context of these is teaching/studying OCS in various places, it doesn't seem relevant for the text's national affiliation.

As far as I can tell by checking some other sources, the current article, even if not quoting the foremost experts at all points, does cover the basic problem of whether it was written in Bulgarian/Macedonian or Serbian dialectal area. In what regard would you than expand the article, do you have some specific new references/sources in mind?

— Phazd (talk|contribs) 04:26, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply! Yes. Šurmin, Broz, Jagić et al. were all proponents of either "Serbian or Croatian" or "Serbo-Croatian" for the name of the language. All three were Yugoslav integralists. Admittedly, Šurmin did eventually join the Zajedničari, but as its most Yugonationalist member, joining that federalist party only because he believed it was the only politically viable option, advocating for the eventual assimilation of the various separate "tribes" over the generations into a single Yugoslav identity.

As for your question on the degree of influence Jagić 1883 had in Serbia vs. Bulgaria, unfortunately answering this problem precisely requires a library-by-library catalogue analysis (very time-consuming). But yes, Novaković was likely exaggerating in his comparison to the Ostromir Gospels' importance in the Russian manuscript canon.

Regarding the chrestomathies, since so many of them reproduce the text from previous works rather than directly from Marianus itself (or one of its facsimilies), we could simply list those with original selections, followed by the comment "Reproduced by [Surname Date],<ref>{{harvnb|Surname|Date|pp=}}</ref> …". The majority of grammar manuals, for instance, simply lithographed older chresthomathies. So a complete list should still fit. But I'd be very interested in the textual relationship between these manuals. Ⰻ̆ⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳ҃ⰾ) 15:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

P.S. Curta isn't a linguist and Lunt suffered from a lack of resources. It would be nice if someone could update the linguistic provenance paragraph. Ⰻ̆ⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳ҃ⰾ) 06:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hamm's Čitanka gives a solid summary of the problem, I guess? (I have in mind the 1971 ed., the 1947 has a more dubious formulation where it's ascribed only to Croatian area.) Do you think he's acceptable for this purpose? — Phazd (talk|contribs) 04:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hamm 1971 is a fairly objective presentation of the dialectal problem. Certainly acceptable. Ⰻ̆ⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳ҃ⰾ) 15:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)