many anxious hours he was smuggled into the monastery and he spent a week visiting the sacred sites and examining the library. His detailed discussion of the monastery displays considerable erudition over such things as the form of the liturgy celebrated on Sinai and parallels that could be discovered in monastic typika.21 With an eye to the reform of the liturgy back home, Bars'kyj was becoming increasingly preoccupied with establishing the form of the earliest and authentic Orthodox liturgy From Sinai he returned via Suez to Cairo, where he settled in the patriarchal palace. The exact sequence of writing of the second part of the travel journal is difficult to determine in view of the five-year time span. Internal evidence suggests that it was written in the form of diary-like entries arranged in their present order. It is also apparent that Bars'kyj intended to revise the manuscript, because he left certain lacunae in the text for things that he felt he needed to look up and insert. This task was never completed and the manuscript remains unedited.
The third and final part of Bars'kyj's travel journal deals with events that took place between 1730 and late 1744. The final three years of the pilgrim's travels between 1744 and his return to Kiev in September 1747 can only be reconstructed from letters, drawings and miscellaneous documents, as no written account survives. The detailed annotations made on the drawings executed in these last three years indicate that Bars'kyj intended to write up this section, but alas, his premature death, barely a month after his return to Kiev, robbed him of the opportunity to fulfil this task. Any fieldwork notes he may have assembled for this section have been lost, except for a small extract of notes dealing for the most part with Constantinople. The drawings which have survived, mainly dealing with the churches and monasteries of mainland Greece and Crete, are among the most valuable extant documents from the first half of the eighteenth century for art historians working on the Byzantine heritage of Greece.
The fact that the final section was never written indicates the extent to which Bars'kyj's working method had changed. Whereas earlier sections of his travel journal retained the sequence of a diary-like chronicle, studded with specific events from everyday life, rich in local colour and autobiographical detail, and precious for its immediacy, the method and presentation of the third section is quite different, for it required plenty of time to organise the material, plus access to a reasonably good library It speaks for itself that Bars'kyj employed for the surviving fragment dealing with Constantinople at least eight secondary sources. In this final section, specific dates occur rarely and
21 Bars'kyjMs., fols. I94r-205v.
Was this article helpful?