{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03626256147102844, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018901004917682276, 'mean_word_length': 4.72484700122399, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 1, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Dream of King Jehoash: A Textual Analysis

The term "apocryphal" has been applied to a broad range of medieval Slavonic texts. Many of them were composed in the Judeo-Hellenistic literary tradition and brought into the Slavic lands, forming a particular textual corpus abundant in a variety of contents and narrative styles. However, there is also a group of pieces regarded as Slavonic apocrypha but whose origin is unclear. The Dream of King Jehoash, a very short story written in Old Slavonic, is one of such texts, copies of which were mostly circulated from the 13th to the 18th century in Russia. This paper compares nine copies of the Dream, including the oldest one, analyzes linguistic and structural features of them, and pres-ents the early transmission pattern of copies. Based on a particular expression reminis-cent of the one found in The Song of Songs, the author concludes that the Dream was a Slavonic creation.


Mitani
Scrinium 14 (2018) 298-317 gives interpretation to each phrase of the dream: купина in the first phrase of the dream, for example, means Jesus; кедр ливански represents a righteous belief for new people; of the two women-heralds, the one with a red face is the Old Testament while the other with a white face is a holy, true faith. After the interpretations of Amaziah, phrases referring to the verses of the Psalms appear and the story ends.

1.2
Copies Copies of the Dream are dated from the 13th century, disseminated in Russia with one exception of Bulgarian provenance included in the "Ivan Alexanderʼs Miscellany." The number of copies are estimated at several tens, but exact enumeration is supposedly difficult; not only because of the incomplete, fragmental copying of the text but also because of its interpolation into totally different texts. 1 The oldest extant copy, marked Q in this paper, is included in the collection Q.p.1.18, RNL (further, Qp18), fols. 1-3v, compiled in the first half of the 13th century in Russia.2 The next oldest copy (O) is contained in the Codex F.205 (the OIDR collection), No.171, RSL (abbreviated as O171), dated the second half of the 13th century.3 The other copies consulted, or referred to, in this paper are the following: • T11 -RSL, the Library Collection of the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra, F. 304, І. No. 11 (abbreviated as TSL11), fols. 57-58v,14th c. 1 S. Ivanov, for example, noticed that the Dream was interpolated into one of Russian recensions of "the Story about the Twelve Fridays": С.В. Иванов, "«Сказание о 12 пятницах» и «Сон царя Иоаса»: взаимодействие двух апокрифических текстов," in: Индоевропейское языкознание и классическая филология -XV. Материалы  should have been written in Greek, was not composed at one stroke but was gradually compiled over years by many writers. According to Istrin, this can explain the disorganized yet still unique textual structure of the Dream. In recent years, М. Babitskaja (1995)12 examined the composition of Qp18 and concluded that this collection, as well as other collections of similar contents compiled in Russia, has an antecedent of East Slavonic provenance; however, no mention was made in reference to the Dream. In a series of works concerning the Slavonic translation of the biblical book of the Song of Songs, A.A. Alekseev more than once touched upon the Dream (Alekseev 1983(Alekseev , 1985(Alekseev , 1988(Alekseev , 2002 and suggested that the Slavonic version might have first been translated in the South Slavic region from a Greek text whereas the interpretation part could have been a creation in Kievan Rus.13 D.V. Kashtanov noticed this story in his study of fragmental texts extracted from the exegesis of Psalms appearing after the Dream in several copies, and guessed in relation to those fragmental texts that the Dream already existed by the end of the 12th century.14 As for the South Slavonic copy, IA, K. Kuev (1981) gave a brief description of the Dream in his commentary to BA,15 whereas, in I. Zašev (2015),16 no particular mention was provided in regard to the Dream.

2.1
Russian Copy Q This section will sketch linguistic features of Q, the oldest Russian copy, and the sole Bulgarian copy IA. The purpose of doing so is to search for clues to the language of protograph, since the possibility of the South Slavic origin of the Dream has been repeatedly suggested, while the copies were mostly circulated in Russia, including the oldest one dating from the 13th century. The reason for our selecting Q as an object of examination among Russian copies is not only because Q is the oldest extant text but also because it looks most reliable in reference to textual quality. Let us compare, for example, O (the second oldest copy) with Q. O lacks the first part of the story, and the following is the beginning of the extant part: O) ...ч(с҃ )тьнаѧ а ѥже възвѣстита горамъ и хълмомъ да сѧ ѡ(т)витають ... ... it (the belief) is honorable (?), and the two announce to mountains and hills that they themselves "otvitajut′"17 This is most likely a part of Amaziahʼs interpretation of the dream, and the corresponding phrase in Q reads: ... чⷭ тая чⷭ тьнаꙗ а иже възвѣстита горамъ и хълмомъ да сѧ ѿвивають ... it (the belief) is pure and honorable, and they two announce to mountains and hills that they themselves "otvivajut′" The obvious closeness of these two indicates that they are copied from a common source; however, the form of the relative pronoun in O, ѥже, obviously disagrees with the verb form възвѣстита, which is in the 3rd person dual present form. Moreover, the verb ѡ(т)витают сѧ ('dwell themselves'?) in O looks to be an error in comparison with Qʼs ѡтвивають сѧ ('disclose themselves') and the similar forms appearing in the corresponding position of other texts (T11: ѡбивають, Т408: обивают, Т122: ѿвиваютъ).
Defects and errors are found in different degrees in other younger manuscripts, too. T11, which is as complete a text as Q, for example, also shows errors in copying, as illustrated below: (Q) обави же сѧ о томь амесии црⷭ ю июдиноу и посла амесиꙗ (T11) обави же сѧ сонотъ амисию с҃ ну июдииу исламесиꙗ Here, о томь in Q is changed in T11 to сонот, which is evidently an error, and амесии црⷭ ю июдиноу in Q is miscopied to амисию с҃ ну июдииу (to Amaziah, Son of Judah"). 17 Сводный These defects and errors in other copies give us good grounds to estimate Q as a copy that is closer than others to the Russian protograph and to take it as an objective of observation. Further, this manuscript will be used for the citation, too.
2.2 IA Let us turn our attention to IA.
Here, medieval Bulgarian innovative features are conspicuous, such as the use of juses in etymologically unrelated positions:27 ѧ for the etymological *ǫ in имѧщи (<имѫщи, Q: имущи), лѣвѫѧ рѫкѭ (acc.sg.);28 ѫ used in place of ꙗ or ѧ: ѫзыкъ (<*ęzykъ, meaning 'people');29 умножишѫ сѧ (aor.3.pl. < умножити сѧ).30 At the same time, old features are retained, for instance, сыи (<сѫтъ [быти]), in spite of the medieval Bulgarian tendency from the 12th century to replace ы with ѫ in the ending of the masculine nominative singular of the active participle present.31 Amongst other features outside phonological ones we may notice: the dative absolute phrase, which correctly occurs in Q, is changed into стачаѫщѫ млѣко. This could be read as a scribe's reinterpretation of the dative absolute in the source text into the usual participial phrase with the nominative singular feminine form of the active participle of the verb стачати ('shed') followed by млѣко as the direct object,32 meaning 'shedding milk'; otherwise it could be a simple error in copying. -one of the two women appearing in Jehoashʼs dream is depicted in Russian copies as "has a red face with black eyes" (Q: ѡчии смаглѣ), but, in IA, the adjective смѣгла modifies the second woman who should be "white," resulting in a formation of the contaminated phrase другаа же смѣгла бѣло лице: "another black(?) woman (has) a white face." Another deviance which looks to be a result of a scribeʼs miscopy is Аминодава же дъщи давидавидамлѣ, whereas, in Q, the corresponding phrase is Difference in lexical selection is scarcely observed between IA and Q, with one clear divergence: прѣльстити in IA and съблазнити in Q: IA: Дїаволъ хотѧ люди прѣльстити и въвести въ мꙋкꙋ вѣчнꙋѩ Q: то ѥсть диꙗволъ хотѧ люди съблазнити и въвести въ моукоу вѣчноую This difference, however, does not provide us with any key to define the place or time of origin of these copies, as both verbs were used in Old Slavonic; i.e., in medieval Bulgarian as well as Russian writings.
Thus, our sketch of the linguistic features of Q as well as IA revealed that both Q and IA show orthographic features of medieval Russian and Bulgarian writings, respectively. To define the language of protograph of the Dream from comparison of these two copies is therefore hardly a promising endeavor. Never theless, some lexical features may indicate the South Slavic origin of the Dream, such as десница 'a right hand' and the use of книга to mean 'a book (of the Bible)': оучение стых книгъ.33 It has been suggested in previous studies, as in Alekseev (1985), that the part of Jehoashʼs dream may have first appeared in the South Slavic region, but the interpretation part could be a later addition in Kievan Rus. However, the linguistic features of Q look to contradict such a hypothesis, as pleophonic forms (голова, заволоченѣ) mostly appear in the dream part, while, in the interpretation part, the South Slavonic forms without pleophony are dominant. If the dream part were of South Slavic composition and the interpretation were a Russian addition, the appearance of pleophonic forms would be opposite. The possibility, as has been suggested by Močul′skij (1868) and Istrin (1898), that the Dream was composed gradually, firstly the dream part and later the interpretation part, cannot be denied; however, it is hardly conceivable that the first appearance of the Dream was in Kievan Rus and that the text was then introduced to the South Slavic region where the interpretation part was added before being brought back into Russia. The simplest way to understand the formation process of the Dream would be that the text as a whole was first composed in a South Slavic region, most likely Bulgaria, and then brought into Russia, where it underwent rewriting in compliance with scribes' habits of Kievan Rus. The reason why the pleophonic forms are more favored in the dream part than in the interpretation part should be examined separately, which is outside the scope of this paper.

Composition and Content of the Text
The Dream is composed of the introductory segment, the main narrative as a core part, and a short coda. The main narrative is two-partite: the narrative of Jehoashʼs dream, and interpretations given by Amaziah.
It has been already noted in the previous study that the Dream was a compilation of biblical books and drew particularly on The Song of Songs, The Kings, and the book of Ecclesiastes. Indeed, as we will see below, the author(s) of this short piece must have made the best use of these books; however, the strategy that the author(s) selected for referring to them is not simplex but ranges from plain quotation, though partial modification, to free adaptation. In addition, not only the biblical books but also the exegeses of the biblical books were used for composing this piece.

Mitani
Scrinium 14 (2018) 298-317 continues as follows: тернъ иже в ливанѣ посла къ кедрови сущему в ливанѣ гл҃ ѧ ... ("The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, say ing ...") What is peculiar in this introductory segment is that, in contrast to the usual way of beginning a story, according to which a narrator provides readers with initial background information on the development of the narrative or the theme of story, the opening phrases of this story function only to introduce the names of two biblical persons: Jehoash and Amaziah. Neither of these two persons plays a crucial role in the development of story, nor does the relationship of the two kings narrated in the Book of Kings have any relevance to the content of the Dream. Still, this peculiarity can be explained if we estimate that introducing the biblical persons at the onset of the story had significance in relating this story to OT and placing it in the tradition of medieval Orthodox-Christian writings formulated around the biblical, as well as other books related to them.

3.2
The Main Narrative The dream part is made up of phrases associated with the biblical texts in various ways. While the beginning phrase of the dream "грьзнъ гл҃ емыи коупина иже на синаии сыи. поустилъ ѥсть кедрови ливаньскомоу" is a direct quotation of 2 Kings 14:9, "тернъ иже в ливанѣ посла къ кедрови сущему в ливанѣ," the successive sentences depicting two women can be characterized as a free adaptation of the Song of Songs. A phrase starting with "ѥдина роумѧно лице имущи," for example, is probably associated with the phrase in Song 1:4-5: "Чръна ѥсмъ и добра … азъ ѥсмъ ѡчрънѥна, ꙗко прѣзрѣ мѧ сл҃ нце." ("I am black, but comely […] I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me."). Relatedness to Song is more clealy seen in the phrases of "роумѧнаꙗ та лѣвоую роукоу подъложить ти подъ головоу а бѣлаꙗ десницею охопить тѧ," as Song 2:6 reads: "Шоуица его под главою ми и десница его обыиметъ мѧ."36 ("His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me.") A curious phrase is ависага же да съгрѣѥть тѧ: the appearance of the name Ависага, which should mean Abishag, a young woman narrated in the Book of Kings,37 looks sudden here, as the narrative obviously drew on the Song. However, "Shunamite," the epithet for Abishag, has been identified in various cultural traditions with "Shulamite," mentioned in Song 6:13 oldest Slavonic translation of the Song, RNL F.I. 461, the said part reads as "Соуламитѣини,"39 but the identification of "Shulamite" and "Shunamite" was surely known in the early literature of Slavia Orthodoxa, the proof of which is found, for example, in the Slavonic translation of Pandects, dated from the 12-13th century: in RSL F.304.12. we read, Рече въ пѣсныхъ соломонъ шестьдесѧтьдєсѧтъ ѥсть цесариць и […] да поищоуть цесарю дѣвицѧ дѣвоѭ. и обрѣтоша суманитѣныню да съгрѥть.40 Thus, it is quite possible that the author of the Dream was acquainted with such identification of "Shulamite" and "Shunamite," and this association was reflected to the occurrence of the name Ависага in the narrative of this work. We should note another interesting phrase: "аминодава же дъщи давидамлѧ. имоуши нозѣ въ сапозѣх." The literary interpretation of "аминодава же дъщи давидамлѧ" would be 'Aminodava, the daughter of Davidam(?),' but the name Aminodava is not known in biblical books. Although a nearly identical expression in the OT, "the daughter of Aminadab," might connect the said phrase to Esther,41 we prefer to offer a different interpretation in reference to another expression akin to the phrase in question, found in the old Slavonic translation of Song 7:2: Чьто оукрасишѧ сѧ стѫпаниꙗ твоꙗ въ сапозѣхъ дъщи Амїнадамова.42 The closeness of the expressions of аминодава же дъщи and дъщи Амїнадамова suggests that the latter was utilized as a model for the former.

Summary of This Section
Our observation in this section enables us to state the following.
The first part of the Dream can be characterized indeed as apocryphal because of the appearance of biblical persons with starting phrases of ambiguous yet apocalyptic implication, although the two biblical figures, Jehoash of Israel and Amaziah of Judah, do not play any role in the story other than as 'a 43 Алексеев, Песнь Песней, p. 76. 44 Алексеев, "К истории русской переводческой школы," p. 186. 45 The Ostroh Bible.
Scrinium 14 (2018) 298-317 dreamer' and an interpreter, and there are no apocryphal stories related to these two Kings. Moreover, the textual structure made up of the dream accompanied by its interpretation is in accordance with other apocryphal stories disseminated in medieval Slavonic literature, such as the South Slavonic version of the Story about Sibyl and the Story of the Twelve Dreams of Shaxinsha. These features have probably led researchers of the previous study to place this text in the Slavonic apocryphal tradition. At the same time, the utilization of the style and contents of biblical exegeses makes this text appear closer to exegetical texts.
In sum, the Dream can be characterized as a unique composition created through the conjunction of apocryphal settings and the style of exegetical writings.

Textual Environment
Investigating the environment in which particular text occurs is important not only for characterizing the function of that text in broader intertextual relationships with other texts, but also for tracing its transmission pattern. This section focuses on this question. The following table shows the textual environments of the Dream; i.e., texts appearing adjacent to the Dream in the miscellany and collections that fall under the scope of our examination. This table clearly shows that the Dream was circulated together with, or attached to, the biblical exegeses and other didactic, and explanatory, texts. In this environment of occurrence, we notice two patterns of adjacency that look to be important for detecting the transmission pattern of the Dream. One of them concerns the occurrence of textual unit consisting of exegetical remarks on three verses of the Psalters, and the other is the appearance of a short story broadly known as "the Story of Solomon's Chalice." The first pattern was noticed by Kashtanov (2006), according to which short explanatory remarks on three verses of Psalms 28:5, 36:35, and 71:16 ("the three remarks on Lebanon") appear immediately after O, V, and R, in O171, V113, and RGD, respectively.46 The occurrence of the same textual unit in the adjacent position would strongly suggest that O, V, and R were on one and the same line of textual transmission.
In this relation, we notice that Qp18 contains an exegesis of Psalters, and the phrases referring to the verses 28:5 and 36:35 in it are almost identical with those found in O171. Compare 28:5. in these two collections:47 As the text in O171 is not a reduced but an extended version compared to the one in Qp18, we may opt to consider the possibility that "the remarks" on Lebanon in O171 were not directly formed from the exegesis of Psalter contained in Qp18 but were transmitted from another, intermediate, source between these two collections. Still, the close connection between Op18 and O171 is indisputable.
Another notable pattern in reference to the textual environment of the Dream is the neighboring appearance of "the Story of Solomonʼs Chalice." The adjacency of "Solomonʼs Chalice" to the Dream is found in BA, Qp18, and TSL408. In TSL11 the Chalice story appears, too; not after but before the Dream, being inserted among various short pieces.49 In RGD, which, like O171, contains the remarks on "Lebanon" after the Dream, the last sentence of "Solomonʼs Chalice" appears after the remarks on Lebanon: "and found (that) from the twelfth year of Solomon's reign to the reign of Christ there (are) nine hundred and nine years."50 "The Story of Solomonʼs Chalice" is a short text, well known in Slavic philology due to its inclusion as the chapter XIII of Vita Constantini (VC).51 Regarding the story appearing as chapter XIII of VC, much discussion has been done, mainly about whether the Chalice episode was an original part of the VC or a later interpolation.52 The Chalice story had been considered a Slavonic creation, probably written by Constantine-Cyril himself, until the discovery by Shevchenko (1967)  this discovery, it became an established understanding that the Slavonic version is a modification of the Greek antecedent. Outside VC, two recensions of the Chalice story are known. One is shorter, containing an interpretation added after the basic text of the Chalice, and the other is longer, showing a further textual transformation such that each verse of the basic text is accompanied by an interpretation and embedded into an exegetic writing of anti-judaistic vein, traditionally referred to as the "Words of the Holy Prophets".53 The copies transmitted with the Dream belong to the shorter version (abbreviated here as SolChalT). As Picchio (1985) notes, SolChalT was transmitted, occurring in various miscellanies of exegetic character, with the total number of copies amounting to around 30. 54 It is notable that the four earliest copies of SolChalT, composed from the 13th to 15th centuries, were included in Qp18, BA, TSL408, and TSL122, emerging in a position neighboring, or close to, the Dream. Of them, those included in Qp18, BA, and TSL408, namely, the copies placed immediately after the Dream, are most likely derived from the same antigraph; this can be confirmed by comparing the starting part of these copies of SolChalT:
The closeness of these three\ copies is well illustrated by the word келия, which commonly appears in them, in contrast to VC, where the word found in the equivalent place is потирь. 55 On the basis of this evidence of adjacency, we can state that Q, IA, and T408 formed one line of transmission.
Thus, from what has been observed, it is possible to restructure an early transmission pattern of the Dream, as below: Scrinium 14 (2018) [298][299][300][301][302][303][304][305][306][307][308][309][310][311][312][313][314][315][316][317] Suppose that X is the protograph of the Slavonic version of the Dream; it should have been included in a collection in which SolChalT was also included, and there a transmission pattern of the Dream followed by SolChalT was formed. The formation of this pattern is not surprising, given a perceptible parallelism between the Dream and SolChalT: both contain apocryphal elements; the story is made up with a message that should be deciphered (a dream, and the verses never read) and its interpretation. This transmission pattern, most likely formed by the end of the 12th century, was further succeeded by Qp18, BL, TSL408. The adjacency of T122 and SolChalT in TSL122 also allows us to place T122 on the same transmission line as Q, IA, and T408. However, TSL122 differs from these three not only in the order of the Dream and SolChalT but also by the textual deviation of SolChalT, as the SolChalT in TSL122 starts: св. Софии есть комора Соломана сына Давида от камени другаго (sic.) сделана, contrary to Qp18 and other two copies, which include келия; not комора. Therefore, it can be assumed that a rewriting, or a modification, in transmission took place somewhere between the original pattern and the TSL122.
In the course of transmission of the Dream, at the same time, a particular set of remarks on Lebanon was extracted from the exegesis of Psalms to form a textual unit and inserted after the Dream. This happened probably when O, or its antigraph, was composed, and the pattern thus made was reflected to V113 and, later, RGD. That R was on the transmission line of Q -IA -R is indicated by the fact that the remarks on "Lebanon" appearing after the Dream in RGD are followed by the last phrase of the SolChalT, which is mostly identical to the equivalent part of the SolChalT in Qp18: