Abstract
The article offers a response to Mario Capaldo’s harsh criticism of the author’s research on the Church Slavonic Life of Constantine. It tackles two questions: the stemmatic importance of the 1st Ruthenian group, and the significance of the reading Коцьль кън7sь Блатьньска костела, which can be reconstructed on the basis of the 2nd Novgorodian group. The arguments put forward by Capaldo are shown to be devoid of philological substance and consistency, and the independence of the 1st (and also the 2nd) Ruthenian group from the rest of the tradition as well as the correctness of the reading Коцьль кън7sь Блатьньска костела are confirmed.
