До рецепції поглядів П. Й. Шафарика про давність глаголиці на сучасному етапі розвитку палеославістики

The article presents the results of linguatextual observations on several Church Slavonic copies of the Gospel from the 11th–12th centuries. Not all the copies documenting the early translation of the Greek manuscript are directly related; they represent different editions of the text and testify to the use of different Greek copies. The analysis of correlative grammatical forms shows certain changes in the language system of the Church Slavonic language. The subject of the study in this case is the participial forms, some of the most “bookish” ones in the grammatical system of the Russian language, a definitive heritage of the Church Slavonic tradition in our language. The instability of these forms in Church Slavonic and Russian texts, usually associated with a considerably late period in the development of Russian writing, turns out to be motivated by the most ancient manuscripts. Of particular interest are manuscripts that represent translations from Greek, especially those that, on Slavic-Russian ground, provide evidence of repeated references to the Greek text. Church Slavonic texts are of exceptional interest to the history of the Russian literary language. Church Slavonic manuscripts of the Old Russian period (from the end of the 14th to the beginning of the 15th century) deserve unconditional attention, since this was the time of transition from Old Russian bookishness to the literature of the new time, which subsequently formed a national language as a result of convergence with business writing. And, perhaps, the main thing that this century (if we designate this period of time as a century) did with the Russian language is that it provided the verbal culture with the transition from the language-text (which the Church Slavonic language was and remains) to the literary language and prepared the further perception of spoken speech as an object worthy of special attention. The fate of participles, a vivid manifestation of bookish speech culture, in literary and colloquial language is of exceptional interest, but their written history begins with the first (early Church Slavonic) manuscripts, and this must be taken into account. Initial provisions of this study: firstly, the exceptional importance of translated manuscripts for the history of Russian literature. Church Slavonic, which arose as a calque-language from Greek, continued to expand its book (and therefore language) collection largely through written sources of Byzantine origin; secondly, the presumption of a Greek text (since most translations were made from Greek originals). The concept and the term presumption (an assumption that is considered true until the falsity of such an assumption is indisputably proven) are widely used not only in jurisprudence, but also in natural sciences. In this case, we address the Greek copies as a possible source of discrepancies in Church Slavonic copies of the Gospel. The most important source of the development of the Russian literary language was and still is text of the Gospel; it underwent several editions on Slavic basis. For Church Slavonic literature (and later for Russian literature) this was at first a life-organizing, and then a life-forming factor of existence and development. It is in the “lexical environment” of the Church Slavonic Gospel that one should look for the sources of the richest synonymic system of the Russian literary language, and not so much, perhaps, as the fact of the very presence of different lexemes (different Greek translated words or presented by different regional language environments), but as the fact of the very possibility of a diverse verbal presentation of a clear and unambiguous in its definition content. It is obvious that the “grammatical environment” of the Gospel also determined the grammar of the Church Slavonic language as a whole, and the “movements” that occurred in this grammar throughout its entire length were motivated by its original state already in the most ancient manuscripts.

The article analyzes the morphological features of the Privileges of the Kyiv Magistrate. The text of the record is kept in the Central State Archives (f. 62, in. 1, case 1). These documents are a copy of the 18th century. certificates issued to confirm the Magdeburg law of Kyiv for the years 1544–1659, taken from the private collection of Kozma Krychevets. The study reveals the use of old and new endings in the paradigm of the noun, adjective, numeral, and pronoun in individual cases, which reflects the stage of formation of word change in the Ukrainian language. Adjective word change is characterized by the functioning of mainly compound adjectives and singular nouns. Among pronominal declensions, we notice the use of compound and non-compound forms, clipped forms are used sporadically under the influence of the Polish language. The inflection -ago of Church Slavonic origin is common. Fluctuations in the writing of forms are often reflected both in the same word and in different ones, parallelism is often found side by side. The outlined variability is caused by the lack of normalization of orthographic features, the procedural nature of language phenomena in the analyzed period, the preservation of traditions and the influence of the living language element, the interaction of the phonetic and morphological systems of the Church Slavonic, Polish and Ukrainian languages. Individual word forms found in the analyzed text functioned under the influence of a foreign language, in particular, some were strengthened under the influence of the Polish language, while others were borrowed from it. In some places, Old Slavic elements can be traced in word change (inflection -ago in adjectives, participles). Therefore, the analysis of the nominal parts of speech used in the letters of the Kyiv magistrate shows that in the system of declension of this category of words in the 16–17 centuries new (vernacular) forms were established, which later became the literary norm, archaic elements that were a tribute to the book tradition are also attested in a small amount. Along with such variants, foreign language influences are clearly marked – Polish and Church Slavonic languages. It is most likely that Church Slavonic forms were already included in the copy/translation of the 18th century, since such influences did not appear in records of the business style of previous centuries.

The controversy of Constantine-Cyril the Philosopher against the hierarchs of the Latin Church in Venice (VC 16) contains, as is well known, a long quotation from the first epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (I Cor 14). In this passage scholars have especially emphasized the theme of the equality and dignity of all languages to praise God, and therefore the apologetic element in defence of the use of the Slavic language in the divine liturgy as an alternative to Greek and Latin. Taking into account the cyrillo-methodian conception of the linguistic sign and the attitude of the two missionaries towards the option between glossolalia and prophecy (the two “gifts” mentioned in I Cor 14), the article interprets the dispute by shifting the attention to the main theme of the introduction of the new Slavic alphabet, which is considered here more relevant than the question of language itself (some other works of the OCS literature are cited to illustrate this thesis, see e.g. the Treatise on the Letters by Hrabar, the Proglas to the Gospel, the Azbucna molitva). Against the alleged exclusivism of the Latin letters, an implicit accusation of paganism and magism emerges at the address of the Latin bishops, as the term “trijezycnici” (триѩꙁꙑчници) also seems to allude.

he paper discusses the linguistic layers of the Glagolitic text of the Baska tablet (cca. 1100 AD), which is considered the oldest textual monument of Croatian language and literature. This text is placed in a wider sociohistorical (1.1) and linguistic context (1.2, 1.3). Following a brief description of the Baska Tablet and a review of the most important literature (2.1), our discussion turns to the question of the tablet’s foundational linguistic layer (Old Croatian or Church Slavonic) and the thesis concerning the Croatian Church Slavonic language of the text. The argumentation for this thesis is considered and disputed. It is impossible to determine with complete certainty which linguistic data from the text belongs to either of these two Slavic languages, since the basic lexis of both Old Croatian and Church Slavonic is Proto-Slavic in origin. It is possible to identify only some exclusive characteristics of one idiom or the other in the text, and Church Slavonicisms in this highly stylised epigraphic text are stylistically relevant (2.2). The arguments put forth to support the thesis that the language of the text is Croatian Church Slavonic are unacceptable, since the law of open syllables did not hold in the time of the Baska tablet (which uses traditional Glagolitic orthography), and the writing and pronunciation of the phonemes yat and schwa in the early 12th century cannot be considered criteria for differentiating linguistic layers, since the value of these phonemes overlap in both the Old Croatian and Croatian Church Slavonic languages. A potential interpretation of Latin influence in the inscription of some names in the text is provided at the end of the work (2.3). A separate chapter (3) consists of a discussion on two processes (Croatisation and Church-Slavonicisation) and concludes, considering that the text of the Baska tablet was composed as a legal text with specific literary characteristics, that the language used on the Baska tablet is a Church-Slavonicised vernacular, although a classification of linguistic data can only say with certainty that it is a Church Slavonic-Cakavian written hybrid.

Analiza zebranych materiałów z życia Słowiańskich Kościołów prawosławnych, pokazuje, że w niektórych przypadkach język cs. nie jest już aktualnym i zasadnym językiem liturgicznym. Już dawno wprowadzony został bilingwizm lub też język cs. wyparty został przez języki narodowe. Wnikliwa obserwacja sytuacji językowo-liturgicznej w słowiańskich Kościołach prawosławnych pokazuje, że aktualność i zasadność użycia języka cs. jako języka liturgicznego, zależy od kilku czynników. Tak jak w przypadku niekanonicznych Kościołów prawosławnych w Macedonii i na Ukrainie, język cs. zostaje zastąpiony językiem narodowym z powodów czysto nacjonalistycznych. W przypadku Bułgarii i Serbii, czynnikiem wpływającym na zamianę jest traktowanie Kościoła prawosławnego, jako Kościoła narodowego. W przypadku wschodnich, Słowiańskich Kościołów prawosławnych (Białoruś, Polska, Rosja) zmiana językowo-liturgiczna odbywa się najwolniej. Wpływa na to historia Kościołów z okresu XIX i XXI w., temperament i usposobienie Słowian wschodnich. W tym przypadku największym przeciwnikiem języka cs. jest szeroko pojmowana demokracja. Wierni Kościoła prawosławnego w Polsce nadal chcą modlić się w języku cerkiewnosłowiańskim. Warto jest też wspomnieć o tym, że w Kościołach, w których funkcjonuje już język narodowy, język cs. nie został całkowicie wyparty z życia liturgicznego. Powszechny jest bilingwizm językowo-liturgiczny, a w niektórych przypadkach, w szczególności w miejscach z ostoję prawosławia, obserwowany jest powrót do języka cs. (Serbia, Bułgaria).

The school of academician Vladimir Peretz became the basis of modern historical and philological studies of the Russian Middle Ages. Varvara Adrianova-Peretz and Nikolai Gudziy were his students in Kiev and Igor Eremin at Petrograd University. The paper considers the attitude of the older generation of V. N. Peretz’s students to the younger ones by considering the example of I. P. Eremin. The research material is the long-term correspondence of Adrianova-Peretz and Gudziy stored at the Institute of Russian Literature. The letters mainly concern scholarly issues, situation in the Pushkin House, and staff of the Department of Old Russian Literature. Eremin worked in the Department since 1934. In her letters written in the 1930s, Varvara Pavlovna talks about Eremin’s participation in collective works, expresses concern about his personal life and writes about his connections with the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Since 1947, when Adrianova-Peretz took over the management of the Department, her relationship with Eremin became quite complicated. While recognizing Eremin’s talent and efficiency, Varvara Pavlovna expressed her preference in organizing the work in the Department not to V. N. Peretz’s pupils (I. P. Eremin and M. O. Skripil) but to her own, D. S. Likhachev, who became the head of the Department in 1954 to work with his own students. Eremin’s activities limited to the Pushkin House were fully concentrated on Leningrad University where he established his own school in the tradition of V. N. Peretz, with L. Dmitriev, N. Demkova, and E. Romodanovskaya being its members.

Reviewed by: The Bulgarian Orthodox Church: A Socio-Historical Analysis of the Evolving Relationship between Church, Nation and State in Bulgaria Dennis P. Hupchick The Bulgarian Orthodox Church: A Socio-Historical Analysis of the Evolving Relationship between Church, Nation and State in Bulgaria. By James Lindsay Hopkins. [East European Monographs, No. DCCXXVI.] (Boulder: Eastern European Monographs. Distrib. by Columbia University Press. 2009. Pp. xvi, 340. $55.00. ISBN 978-0-880-33624-6.) Bulgaria appears so infrequently in published English-language historical studies that the publication of any such work elicits interest by serious scholars in that field. One that examines the Orthodox Church in Bulgaria is of special interest because of the culturally important role that the institution played in Bulgaria since medieval times. The creation of the Cyrillic Slavic literary language in the ninth century and the establishment of the first autocephalous Slavic Orthodox church organization in the tenth are considered Bulgaria’s seminal contribution to world cultural history by most specialists. Bulgarian cultural identity and Orthodoxy have been partnered intimately through centuries of Ottoman Islamic domination, Western-style secularization/modernization, and communist dictatorship. The exact nature of this partnership over time seldom has been examined in detail. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church by James Hopkins purports to achieve this feat. Unfortunately, it succeeds in doing so only to a limited extent. [End Page 386] Hopkins informs the reader that the primary emphasis of his study is on analyzing the Bulgarian Orthodox Church’s political and social position during the communist and postcommunist periods and that a “new,” more “objective” interpretation of the Church’s history is necessary for full comprehension of that analysis. Truly, the two chapters covering those more contemporary periods are the most informative and insightful of the nine in the book and should have received expanded treatment. Unfortunately, the preceding five precommunist historical and one concluding philosophical chapters should have been summarized in the introduction alone. Hopkins’s “new” historical interpretive perspective rarely moves beyond bursting a string of “straw man” arguments that reflect past and present Bulgarian ultranationalist myths (i.e., Cyril and Methodius being “Slavs”; the Ottoman “Yoke”) that are rejected or long discredited by most serious contemporary scholars. In one of the “newest” interpretations, which depicts the early-medieval Bulgarian church as “foreign” to the Bulgarian “nation,” except for the tenthand eleventh-century Bogomil heretical movement, the author bases his argument on a traditional idea that the Bogomils enjoyed a mass following and fostered social discontent when no primary evidence actually supports such contentions. Another “new” interpretation is the claim that mass “nations” existed in medieval times. An unsuccessful attempt to validate this assertion in the book’s final chapter ultimately demonstrates that the author’s definition of the term is too generalized to take seriously. The historical presentation is colored by a stated preconception that, historically, the Bulgarian church was more often a tool of foreign influences than a native Bulgarian manifestation. Only “highlights” in the church’s history purporting to support the author’s view are presented, rendering coverage selective, sometimes questionable, and spotty, with gaps filled by generalities and conflicting circumstances omitted. Thus, the nineteenth-century Bulgarian National Revival is portrayed as a purely secular affair with the church culturally inactive, ignoring the important linguistic/literary role of clerics such as Neofit Rilski. Furthermore, the historical narrative is marred by factual flaws of omission and commission (such as no mention that Cyril’s Slavic alphabet was Glagolitic, or that Cyrillic was created later in Bulgaria by others; Januarius MacGahan and not James; Eugene Schyler did not write for the Daily News; and it was the Russians and British, not Americans, who met at the 1876 Constantinople conference). Last, the scholarly mechanics of the book are amateurish and rigidly pedantic—each chapter introduces a topic and conclusion and then proceeds to achieve the aforementioned conclusion in its narrative, at the end of which the conclusion is restated as proved. Worse, Hopkins apparently cannot discriminate between primary and secondary sources in the bibliography, labeling all Bulgarian- and Russian-language works “primary” while listing works that most serious historians would consider primary under the “secondary” heading. [End Page 387] Readers interested in...

The paper reflects on the peculiarities of studying Russian literature at the Russian-Armenian (Slavic) University (Yerevan). The relevance of the work is due to the fact that it describes for the first time one of the ways to spread Russian culture in Armenia and integrate Russian and Armenian scientific literary fields. The main activities of the Department of Russian and World Literature and Culture of the Russian-Armenian University, which makes a significant contribution to the strengthening of Russian-Armenian cultural ties, are described. The study was conducted on the basis of materials from the university’s website, news articles and information provided by university staff. The article provides a description of the scientific activities of the department’s lecturers in the field of studying Russian literature, a brief description of the conferences, university courses that promote the development of interest in Russian literature and culture among university students. The analysis shows that interest in modern Russian literature, especially among young scientists, for example, the study of Russian postmodernism, is growing. The literature of the 20th century, from the Silver Age to the 1990s, is defined as the dominant era in the scientific preferences of researchers.

The article deals with the problems of teaching Polish as a Slavic language with the primary objective being to develop the competency of analyzing grammatical forms in a text and analyzing phonetic phenomena in comparison with the facts of the Old Church Slavonic and Russian languages. The study presents various aspects of using a poetic text in the study of Polish as a foreign language. The authors propose an example of a complex assignment on “Linguistic Analysis of a Poetic Text” based on a poem by the modern Polish poet Jakub Eker.

A Slovenian citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Franz Miklosich (1813–91) studied at the University of Graz before moving to Vienna in 1838. Indo-European philology was a growing area of research, and in 1844 Miklosich reviewed Bopp's Comparative Grammar (also reissued in this series) and embarked upon extending the comparative method across the whole Slavonic language family. Miklosich's work marked a watershed in Slavonic studies; in 1849 he became Austria's first professor of Slavonic philology. His publications included editions of historical sources; work on loan words, place names, and Romany dialects; a dictionary of Old Church Slavonic; and a four-volume comparative grammar of the Slavonic languages (1852–74, also available). This etymological dictionary of the Slavonic languages was published in 1886, the year of Miklosich's retirement. It encompasses Old Slavonic forms (where attested), the whole range of modern Slavonic languages, and loan words, and includes an index for 'difficult to find' words.

Introduction. The relevance of the research lies in the fact that historical commenting on linguistic phenomena is an important means of solving the problems of training language teachers, since it allows explaining modern linguistic facts, concepts, patterns by establishing their diachronic properties. The purpose of the study is to test a model of the formation of historical commenting competence in students – future teachers of the Russian language and literature. Materials and methods. The study was conducted from January to December 2020 at the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University. The sample included 90 people. Methods applied: comparative historical analysis of monuments of ancient Russian writing; expert assessments; methodology for determining the formation of linguistic competence of students (E.N. Piskunova); mathematical statistics (χ2-Pearson test). Research results. The program of the courses "Old Church Slavonic" and "History of the Russian literary language" included the study and comparative historical analysis of the monuments of ancient Russian writing. The results of testing the model showed statistically significant changes in the experimental group according to the following criteria: information-cognitive (χ2 = 20.3; p <0.01), activity-semantic (χ2 = 45; p <0.01), professional-communicative (χ2 = 8.5; p <0.05) and practice-oriented (χ2 = 21.1; p <0.01). Discussion and conclusion. A comparative analysis of the research results showed that teaching the historical syntax of the Russian language affects the formation of the competence of historical commenting in students – future language teachers and the level of their training. The developed methodological toolkit provides an analysis of the syntactic field of subject sentences of the Old Russian language and their historical commenting on the basis of the subject of the dictum and the subject of modus.

The paper aims to identify the Greek original of an Old Church Slavonic tale included in the Old Russian Sinodik and known in manuscript copies from the 16th c. Previously, the tale was provisionally ascribed to the Latin tradition and thought to have reached the Old Russian literature via a Polish milieu. Recent attempts to identify its Greek original remained unsuccessful. The author argues that the tale is an Old Church Slavonic translation of the Byzantine text BHG 1449d, a spiritually beneficial writing ascribed to Paul of Monemvasia (second half of the 10th c.). The same translation is presented in East Slavonic manuscript copies of the Patericon, the Plain and Versed Synaxarion, and the Izmaragd. The earliest of the newly identified manuscript copies is dated to the first half of the 15th c. The article also contains an edition of the Old Church Slavonic translation (according to the manuscript copy in Moscow, Russian State Library, Collection of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, No. 701, Patericon, 1469) in parallel with the Greek original according to the scholarly edition of the manuscript version contained in a Greek codex of the 14th c. (ca 1330).

In this paper I present two cases of Romance-Slavic contact: direct contact in bilingual context (Istro-Romanian and Croatian), and indirect contact via translations (old Romanian and Old Church Slavonic). After briefly presenting the syntactic features attested in Istro-Romanian and in old Romanian (but which have disappeared from modern Romanian), I focus on two features: the prenominal position of relational adjectives and auxiliary inversion, features explained by convergence (as they are attested both in Latin/Old Romance and in the Slavonic contact languages, Croatian and Old Church Slavonic). Finally, I make some theoretical remarks on the consequences of contact in syntax.

У статті вперше порушено проблему рецепції чужих мов та запозичень в історично-порівняльному та діахронно-синхронному контексті.Об’єктом дослідження є освітньо-наукова сфера (Міністерство освіти і науки України) на предмет уживання чужих мов та запозичень. Проаналізовано функціювання церковнослов’янської та латинської мов як найпоширеніших в українському просторі в часи пізнього Середньовіччя та Передмодерного часу з проєкцією на сьогоднішнє засилля англійської мови та англізмів в освітньо-науковій царині.Для відображення процесів надмірного і невмотивованого вживання англізмів запроваджено термін англоварваризація як мовно-суспільне і мовно-психологічне патологічне явище, що виникає на переламі історичних подій і сигналізує про відсутність ментального спротиву народу-мови до безпрецедентного потоку запозичень, які стають фактичною заміною своєї мови і творять із неї антикультурний масив підлеглої комунікації; це примітивне заперечення закону рівноваги чужих і питомих слів у фонетичній, словотвірній і граматичній адаптації та етнокультурна неспроможність називати власні поняття питомими словами.Як засвідчує історична ретроспектива, орієнтація на чужі мови як пріоритетні в освітній і науковій царинах — церковнослов’янська, латинська, грецька, польська — та масовані запозичення з них аж ніяк не зарадили українському національному самоусвідомленню та не спричинилися до відновлення втраченої Української Держави в її етнографічних межах. Зовсім навпаки — надмірне циркулювання чужих мов в культурно-політичному просторі України та їхня пріоритетність в освітньо-науковій царині призвело до понад кількастолітнього відставання українських державотворчих процесів порівняно з найближчими і дальшими сусідами. Орієнтація на чуже відчужила українців від самих себе.Історичний досвід циркулювання чужих мов в Україні та надмірних запозичень у своїй мові переконливо спростовує затерту тезу про позитивність явища мовного експансіонізму та глобалізму. Своя держава і нація, попри якнайширшу потребу знання чужих мов, потребує всеохопного та необмеженого функціювання державної мови. Хто не визначає першорядности свого, служитиме чужому.

In our time Church Slavonic is a “language without native speakers,” but it is not in all respects a “dead” one. It is for this reason that the Slavs have given it a great variety of names, the different use of which in philological publications heavily depends on the respective linguists’ connotative purposes (e.g., national and ideological interests and so forth). As a rule, the description of the language is based on the analysis of written or printed texts. Only recently have a few additional corpora been introduced in addition to the well-known group of “classical” Old Church Slavonic manuscripts, which, for all their merits in the history of Slavistics, can give only a vague idea of the rich language tradition of Church Slavonic as a whole, since, as a means of actual (oral) communication, it can nowadays be observed only in the liturgy. The article discusses the main linguistic conceptions applied to Church Slavonic in the past and present (root language, i.e., proto-language, common language, literary language [Schriftsprache], Ausbau language, etc.); singles out binaristic approaches in opposition to vernaculars; gives an overview of the numerous varieties to be differentiated within the language (connected to regions, chronology, functions, individuals, and groups); recalls the role of reconstruction in modern textbooks and the widely neglected construction devices used in early grammars and dictionaries; and, at the end, refers to the possibility of including Church Slavonic as a model for comparative judgments on degrees of diversity in the structural development of Slavonic languages.