This paper continues the series of publications on the morphology of the dialect of Staroshvedskoye (Sw. Gammalsvenskby), which is the only surviving Scandinavian dialect in the territory of the former Soviet Union. The village of Staroshvedskoye is located in the Kherson region, Ukraine. Its Swedish dialect historically belongs to the group of Swedish dialects of Estonia and goes back to the dialect of the island of Dagö (Hiiumaa). The dialect of Gammalsvenskby is of interest to slavists as an example of a language island in the Slavonic environment. From around the 1950s, the main spoken language of all village residents, including dialect speakers, has been surzhik. Due to the complete lack of studies of the present-day dialect and because of the severe endangerment in which the dialect is currently situated, the most urgent task is to collect, classify, and publish the factual material. This paper introduces comprehensive material on nouns in the conservative variety of the present-day dialect. It lists all masculine nouns of types 1b, c, d, and e together with their cognates from Estonian Swedish dialects; comments on the history of the forms are given as well. The sources for the material presented here are interviews with speakers of the conservative variety of the dialect recorded by the author during ﬁeldwork in the village from 2004 to 2013. We plan to publish nouns of other types in later articles.
The relativization systems of most Slavic languages include relative pronouns that can be conventionally labelled as ‘who’ and ‘which’ and differ in a number of logically independent parameters (etymology, animacy, grammaticality of attributive contexts, and morphological distinction for number and gender). Prior research has shown that the choice between ‘who’ and ‘which’ in Slavic languages is largely dependent on the head type. Some of the languages allow the ‘who’ pronouns to be used with pronominal heads, but not with nouns in the head, while in others, the pronominal heads in the plural are also ungrammatical with the pronoun ‘who.’ The present study aims to complement the available qualitative data on the distribution of the relativizers with quantitative data and to propose a unified account for all the observed tendencies. A corpus-based study was conducted in order to establish language-internal statistical tendencies comparable to the known grammaticality restrictions. The results show much agreement between the qualitative and quantitative tendencies. Thus, the head ‘those,’ unlike the head ‘that,’ is incompatible with the relativizer ‘who’ in Slovak, Polish, Upper Sorbian, and Lower Sorbian languages, while the same tendency is quantitative in Czech, Slovene, Serbo-Croatian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and the older varieties of Russian. Corpus data suggest that there is also a stronger tendency for the relative pronoun ‘who’ to be avoided with the head ‘those’ than with the head ‘all.’ One more relevant parameter is the semantic type of the clause, maximalizing semantics being the preferred option for ‘who.’ I suggest that all these and some other tendencies can be subsumed under a macro-parameter of the extent to which the head is integrated into the relative clause.
The article is devoted to a linguistic analysis of biblical quotations from the collection of sermons “Obied dushevnyi” [Обед 1681], compiled by the first court preacher Simeon of Polotsk (1629–1680). More than one third of all the identified quotations can be characterized as inexact quotations: they demonstrate the author’s interference with grammar, word order, and lexis of the biblical text. Such changes in biblical texts, introduced by Simeon, can be conditioned by several causes, among which are the influence of the revision of liturgical books, the influence of textual models in other languages, and the rhetorics and pragmatics of a sermon as a literary genre. The article focuses on the most significant linguistic changes to the biblical text introduced by Simeon: changes made in the context of the revision of liturgical books, and changes that continue and develop the revision, and apply it in a more consistent way. In addition, changes connected to the rhetorics and pragmatics of a sermon as a literary genre are briefly listed. The linguistic analysis of biblical texts in “Obied” provided in the article forms a base for further complex linguistic and philological research on the language of Simeon’s sermons.
The article offers some corrections to Vassily Adodurov’s Anfangs-Gründe der Russischen Sprache (1731), as edited by S. S. Volkov and K. A. Filippov in 2014. There is one thing to note regarding the quality of this edition. On page 7, the editors list the typographical errors they corrected when working with the original text. The list they present has four items and contains a total of six errors , which are actually misreadings by the editors themselves as well as typos they appear to have introduced during the production of the book (including that they cite pages 49 and 51 of the 48-page original). The work, produced by a team of ten, consists of different sections: four prefatory essays; a facsimile reprint of the 1731 original; a rendition into modern typeset with a Russian translation; two indexes; and three supplements. These multiple parts are poorly coordinated and, overall, can be evaluated as ranging from being somewhat acceptable to being defective. The editors knowingly and without any explicit polemics ignore the original conception of the history of Petersburg Academy’s Russian grammar in the 1720s and 1730s that was offered by Helmut Keipert (2002) and has been accepted by most scholars. Whereas Keipert’s fundamental work presents multiple Russian grammars created in St. Petersburg in this period as the product of collective work, conducted mostly by and for German speakers, the editors of the volume under review tend to see the Anfangs-Gründe as an individual work, an “original grammar produced by V. E. Adodurov.” Any extensive comparison of the Anfangs-Gründe with other early Petersburg grammars would demonstrate the dependence of this short essay on the more profound work of its predecessors. The present edition has almost no commentary; of the five commentaries included in the volume, two are erratic, one is obvious, one shows that the editors are new to the typographical term custos, and only one—dealing with Lomonosov’s use of examples from the Anfangs-Gründe for his Russian Grammar (1755)—makes any sense. The German text in modern typeset is extremely poorly prepared: in the first 23 (of 46) pages there are 34 significant typos and omissions that take the place of the 5 typos corrected from the original. This only underscores the observation that the 18th-century German Gothic typeface is obscure for the editors. The two indexes are partly unusable; not only are both full of omissions (the index of Russian examples omits almost 10% of the forms in the original, including more than half of the words starting with the letter Z as well as most of the examples for superlative and even the verb form bytʹ), but furthermore, the ‘Index of Grammar Terms’ is not what it says it is. The correct title would be ‘Index of Latin Grammar Terms,’ for it does not include German terms, with the result that there are no listings for terms relating to phonetics, normative style, etc. The text of the 1738‒1740 grammar of the St. Petersburg Academy Gymnasium in the final supplement, although carefully retyped from B. A. Uspensky’s book (1975), omits all of its commentaries—both explanatory and textological—which leads to presenting without comment letter sequences such as rereniiakhʺ, imennno, navodishishʹ, etc. The article also discusses principles for the study and publication of the entire body of works that present the St. Petersburg grammatical tradition of the period from the 1730s to the 1750s. Appendices to this article include publication of Adodurov’s note on er and erʹ (1737) and the major corrections to the text of Russian grammar (1738–1740) from the St. Petersburg Academy Gymnasium as published by Uspensky in 1975.
According to the Russian Primary Chronicle, when St. Anthony settled in his cave near Kiev, people joined him and he tonsured them as monks. We know, however, that in certain cases he did not tonsure the newcomers but sent them to be tonsured by a priest (hieromonk). Obviously St. Anthony was not a priest. Why, then, in some cases did he do it himself and yet in other cases, he did not? If he was not a priest, how could he tonsure people? The author of the present article attempts to answer these and similar questions with reference to historical, philological, and liturgical data. The article is devoted to the evolution of the monastic tradition in Rus' of the 11th century.
The paper focuses on the name of the barbarian warlord that appears in the Slavic and (recently discovered) Armenian versions of the Life of St. Stephen of Sougdaia as Бравлинъ and Պրաւլիս /Praulis/, respectively. These forms seem to point to Πραῦλις or Μπραῦλις in the lost Greek Vorlage. None of the previous attempts at constructing an etymology of the name—Slavic бран(ъ)ливъ (Russian copies of the Life), Swedish Bråvalla (G. Vernadsky, N. Belyaev, and O. Pritsak), Indo-Aryan *pravlīn(а)- (O. Trubachev), Spanish Braulio (V. Vasilievsky), or Gothic *Bra(h)vila (N. Ganina)—may be considered satisfactory. Having revisited the historical and linguistic arguments, we suggest that the name given to the barbarian prince humbled by the miracle of St. Stephen in the Greek text of the Life represented, in fact, good Greek: Πραΰλιος or Πραῦλις (from πραΰς ‘mild, humble’); fu ther more, we suggest that the positional voicing of Π- > Μπ- [b] in Late Middle Greek might account for the initial Б- / Պ- (West Armenian [b]) of the attested forms.
This paper analyses the single Greek inscription in the 12th century Holy Transfiguration Church of Nereditsa (Veliky Novgorod, Northern Russia). A mysterious text is reproduced on the scroll in the hand of John the Baptist on the fresco in the conch of diaconicon. Nowadays one can see the following sequence of letters and signs: + ΕVΡΗΚ‖ĀŌΜ. . .:; the photograph made before the destructions of the World War II allows to reconstruct the inscription as follows: + ΕVΡΗΚ‖ĀŌΜĒÌᾱ: (with a cross at the beginning and a final sign) which I will tentatively interprete as + ΕVΡΗΚA[μεν] [τ]O[ν] ΜE[σ]IA[ν]: “we have found the Messiah.” For a long time the epigraph was considered corrupt and there is no published interpretation of it. I will give a description of the epigraph (especially of some remarkable features in the usage of supralinear signs), identify the text as a citation from Jn 1:41, and I will also interpret the inscription in its historical and iconographic context. Not only the language is remarkable (other epigraphs in the church are Slavic), but also the text chosen (Jn 1:41) and the iconographic type of the Baptist (as a prophet). I will argue that there is a semantic connection between the text choice and the commemorative motives in the overall iconographic program of the church, and that the We o f t he G ospel c itation c an b e a ssociated w ith t he t wo sons of the church founder (Prince Yaroslav) — both of them died one year before the church was decorated.
The article contains a critical assessment of two alternative interpretations of the birchbark letter № 724, proposed by the editors (V. L. Yanin and A. A. Zalizniak, 1995, 1996) and by P. V. Petrukhin (2009). According to the former, the document, in which the author describes the difficulties of collecting tribute in the north-eastern periphery of the Novgorod Land, was written in 1161-1167, this dating being based on the identification of Zakharia and Andrei mentioned in the text with Novgorod posadnik Zakharia (1161-1167) and Suzdal’ prince Andrey Bogolyubsky. However, as Petrukhin has convincingly shown, the editors’ treatment of the conflict doesn’t match to the political circumstances of this period as they are known from the chronicles. According to Petrukhin, the document was written half a century later and reflects a routine conflict between local administrators rather than political confrontation of Novgorod and Suzdal’. In the present paper I argue that the editors’ interpretation allows modification in the light of Petrukhin’s criticism which doesn’t presuppose re-dating of the document and retains valid identification of Zakharia and Andrey with historical figures of the 1160-s as well as the linguistic analysis proposed by Zalizniak.
The paper explores the history of public reception of a longstanding friendship between Ivan Andreevich Krylov and Nikolay Ivanovich Gnedich, poets, colleagues, and neighbours. It clarifies this relationship being not a real fact but a specific construct that met a public need of such constituted emotions. The article also demonstrates how Nikolay Gogol accepted and transformed this construct in his Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarrelled with Ivan Nikiforovich.
The article puts forward the suggestion that the mysterious last will of Metropolitan Constantine I of Kiev, in which he ordered that a² er his death his body should be torn to pieces by dogs instead of receiving a proper burial, was inspired by a very specifi c literary text. This text is still used in the Orthodox Christian tradition; it is known as the hymnographical kanon “At the Parting of the Soul from the Body.” While nowadays this kanon is used in the course of an ordinary liturgical rite, in the 12th century, when it fi rst appeared, it was used among some Byzantine in tel lectual and ascetic circles as a particular element of personal piety. The 12th cen tury is exactly the epoch of Constantine's activities, and the descrip tion of а fune ral procedure given by this kanon is very close to the last will of Constantine. The kanon “At the Parting of the Soul from the Body” has close ties to another hymn of roughly the same epoch—the “Penitential” kanon wri¯ en a² er the 5th chap ter of the “Ladder” of John Climacus. Both kanons conceal a didactic story under the structure of a hymnographic pa¯ ern. What is more important, both are from the very beginning intertwined with a distinct illustrative program: each monostrophe is accompanied by a specifi c picture, which discloses the contents of the text. These “comics-like” stories have no parallel among other Byzantine kanons. Finally, both kanons witness the growth of the infl uence of Palestinian and, more gene rally, Eastern ascetic traditions on the monastic practices of Constan tinople and its surrounding regions. This infl uence was associated, most of all, with the Everge tian movement, with its strict disciplinary and fasting rules, etc. Metropolitan Constantine, who was an outstanding representative of the Byzantine intellectual elite of those times, should have been acquainted—at the very least!— with this movement. Moreover, the confl icts of the bishops in his circle with the Russian princes concerning the fasting discipline suggest that Constantine was trying to introduce the new Evergetian ascetic standards among the Russians. Thus, the literal adherence to the provisions of the kanon “At the Parting of the Soul from the Body” at the funeral of Metropolitan Constantine Ι should be in terpreted as a sign of his full confi dence in his ideals.
The article deals with controversial issues of autorship, dating and characteristics of main heroes of the monument of old Russian literature of the 14th century dedicated to the victory of the coalition army of Russian states on the Horde of Mamay on Kulikovo Field,8.09.1380.
The Paper deals with the meaning of the Old Russian pamjati.
The article investigates the ways in which the celebration of the name day (imeniny) of Russian princes or their entourages was presented in the Russian chronicles. The custom of celebrating the name day was firmly rooted in the Russian princely environment. For a chronicle narrative, the very rootedness of this custom and the number of its associated actions plays an important role—it is this rootedness that makes stories told in the chronicles quite opaque to the modern reader. A prince’s Christian name and the day of his patron saint were considered to be important background knowledge for the audience of the medieval compiler. There were, apparently, clear ideas about appropriate behavior for prince or a person from his environment on his name day or on the eve of this day but, on the other hand, such assumptions explain why this kind of “normal” behavior rarely forms the subject of special reflection in the chronicles. It is not only a description of the celebration itself that might be very informative, whether it be a church service, a ceremonial feast with various relatives, or an exchange of gifts, but also the description of acts and deeds that were undertaken specifically on a prince’s name day. Therefore, particular attention is given here to stories about undue or inappropriate behavior on this special day. The paper deals with the function and nature of such episodes in the broader context of historiographical narrative.
The review is an essay on the initial stage of the ethnogenesis of Croats and general problems of reconstruction of the processes of formation of early medieval communities and polities. In particular, the dilemma of two paradigms of interpretation of the genesis of archaic ethnosocial groups is discussed: «primordial» («essential») and « constructivist». The question is the correlation of various ethno-cultures and ethno-linguistic components (Slavic, Avaric, etc.) in the formation of the Croatian identity. The role of external impulses (Franco-Latin, Gothic, Byzantine-Greek, Avaro-Turkic) in the constitution of the Croatian elite is reconsidered. A new version of the etymology of the ethnonym «Croat» and an assessment of the authenticity of the various etymologies of the names of Croatian cultural heroes and leaders are proposed.
In the article the author studies what kind of identity the name rus’ referred to in the earliest chronicles of Kievan Rus’. His analysis is based on the ideas and reconstructions of Alexei A. Shakhmatov who proved that the famous “Tale of By-gone Years” (1100s) included some earlier chronicle or annalistic texts composed in the 11th century. According to Shakhmatov, the “Tale” originated from the so-called “Initial Composition” written in Kiev in the 1090s. The author shows that the writer or writers of the “Composition” placed Rus’ in the world history based on eschatological schemes of the Byzantine chronicles. They understood the Rus’ as a Christian people and as a powerful state and tried to “expand” its identity over local communities. The texts which can be dated back to the mid 11th century considered Rus’ in a different way: their authors’ efforts were to specify its identity in relation to other ethnic or political groups stressing its military victories and ignoring religious discrepancies. The author of the article concludes that the intellectuals of Kievan Rus’ were able to propose a variety of distinct “strategies of identification” and “ethnic projects”.
The article presents a detailed analysis of the poem “Masterica vinovatykh vzorov...” with insights on the poetic technique of Mandel’shtam. Special attention is given to the Mandel’shtam’s use of metaphors, to the interplay of homonymous meanings and to the polyphonic structure of this poem that unifies different voices.