«Страсти св. Сусанны» (BHL 7937) как языковой памятник: к датировке версий текста
The paper suggests that the assumption of M. Lapidge in his 2018 translation of the Passio Susannae (BHL 7937, late 5th – early 6th cent. AD) on the equal relevance of both published versions of the work for establishing the text is mistaken. One of the two versions, that of B. Mombrizio’s 1478 edition, is shown to be a late medieval classicizing recension closely related to two 12th century manuscripts (Par. lat. 5290 and Vat. lat. 9668) and consequently not equal in value to the sources of the 1658/1735 Bollandist edition that included two 9th century manuscripts and presented essentially the original unclassicized version of the text. This version is characterized by a set of unusual and sometimes clearly substandard features of vocabulary and syntax that are not to be emended away. These features include the adverb famate, not attested elsewhere and not mentioned in the standard dictionaries of Latin, the use of eo quod clauses for reported speech, the use of de in partitive sense without the separative idea; the text also clearly has examples of the use of the Accusatiuus absolutus and Nominatiuus absolutus constructions, third
person present indicative with future reference, and several poorly attested words noted already by M. Lapidge (deunculus, clarefacio). A particularly complicated question is whether the spelling zius is to be associated with the original version of the text, since it would contradict P. Aebischer’s reconstruction of the phonetic development of this word. It is argued that Aebischer’s dating for the sound change tio > zio in Italy is anyway almost certainly contradicted by the attestations of the spelling zius in the early manuscripts of the Passio Susannae; possible alternative explanations of the phenomenon are discussed.