Grusha, Aleksandr Ivanovich. What hides the old writing?

Created Date

Tags: Disputatio / Discussion, GRUSHA A.I., paleography, slavic-russian paleography, Old Russian writing, sources studies

For citation: Grusha, Aleksandr Ivanovich. What hides the old writing? About the article by E. A. Lyakhovitskiy, in Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana. 2019. № 1. Pp. 95-102. DOI https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu19.2019.107.

Title of the article What hides the old writing? About the article by E. A. Lyakhovitskiy
Authors Grusha, Aleksandr Ivanovich – doctor of historical sciences, director, Yakub Kolas Central Science Library of National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., OrcID 0000-0003-2327-3960, SPIN 2817-4719
In the section Disputatio / Discussion
Year 2019 Issue  1 Pages  95-102
Type of article RAR Index UDK; BBK  УДК 930.2:003.072; ББК 63.2 Index DOI  https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu19.2019.107
Abstract The problems raised in the article by E. A. Lyakhovitskiy «To the problem of the Old Russian writing’s typology» are discussed. The following opinions are voiced. Such script characteristics as accuracy, sloppy, simplicity, etc., do not determine the type of writing. In determining the type of Cyrillic writing, one should take into account such constitutive features as the pace of movement; «Weight» of the writing; height and proportions of letters; letters running in more than two lines, and their amount (in the middle of the line); inclination; general form of the pen movement; connectedness, etc. The graphic type of writing is determined by ideological, social and cultural attitudes, value orientations. It is possible to speak about normative, regulated, writing and about systemicwriting, deprived of regulation and any control in terms of finding the best forms for quick execution.The scheme ustav – poluustav – skoropis’ incorrectly reflects the evolution of Old Russian writing. When the skoropis’ came, ustav did not disappear. For a long time, these graphic types of writing coexisted, being distributed over various texts, depending on their purpose and language used. The polarization of the “ustav” and “poluustav” as the early (XI–XIV) and later (XV–XVII) book letters is not justified. At least until the middle of the XVI century. Books were written by script called the “ustav”. The self-value and self-sufficiency of skoropis’ writing asserted in the conditions of expansion of the pragmatic relations scope between individuals. The authority of this writing was due to the institutionalization of secular writing, the development of the bureaucratic management, the growth of professionalization of activity related to the preparation of documents, the importance of operation and credibility of the secular authorities and its administrative capacity. The factor for skoropis’ script was the understanding that the age-old, authoritative, tangible and contemplative tradition of writing could be subordinated, purposefully changed, incorporated into the writing radical innovations, and do it for rational purposes.
Keywords Cyrillic, paleography, ustav, poluustav, skoropis 
Full text version of the article. Article language  Russian
Bibliography
  •  Čremošnik, Gregor. Studije iz srpske paleografije i diplomatike I: Terminologija ćirilske paleografije i vrste ćirilskog pisma [Researches of Serbian paleography and diplomatics. I: Terminology of Cyrillic paleography and kinds of Cyrillic script], in Glasnik skopskog naučnog društva. Otdelene društvenich nauka. 1940. № 21. Pp. 1–19. (in Croatian).

    Farsobin, Viktor Vasil’evich. Istochnikovedenie i ego metod: Opyt analiza ponyatiy i terminologii [Source study and its method: Experience of concepts and terminology analysis]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1983. 231 p. (in Russian).

    Grusha, Aleksandr Ivanovich. Kirillicheskoe i latinskoe pis’mo: obshchee i otlichnoe v istorii i izuchenii [Cyrillic and Latin scripts: common and distinctive in history and studying], in Sosloviya, instituty i gosudarstvennaya vlast v Rossii (Srednie veka i rannee Novoe vremya): Sbornik statey pamyati akad. L. V. Cherepnina. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur Publ., 2010. Pp. 82–91. (in Russian).

    Grusha, Aliaksandr Іvanavіch. Belaruskaya kіrylіchnaya paleagrafіya: Vuchebny dapamozhnіk dlya studentaǔ gіstarychnaga fakul’teta [Belarus Cyrillic paleography: manual for students of historical faculty]. Mіnsk: BDU Publ., 2006. 142 p. (in Belarussian).

    Grusha, Aliaksandr Іvanavіch. Krynіtsy dlya vyznachennya prykmet kіrylіchnaga pіs’ma (paleagrafіchny aspekt) [Sources for definition of Cyrillic script indications (paleographic aspect)], in Molodezh v nauke – 2007. Prilozhenie k zhurnalu «Vestsі Natsyyanal’nay akademіі navuk Belarusі». V chetyrekh chastyakh. Ch. 2. Seriya gumanitarnykh nauk. Mіnsk: Belorusskaya nauka Publ., 2008. Pp. 195–198 (in Belarussian).

    Kotseva, Elena. Razvitie na b”lgarskoto kirilsko pismo prez XIV–XV v. [Development of Bulgarian Cyrillic script in fourteenth – fifteenth centuries], in Paléographie et diplomatique slaves = Slavyanska paleografiya i diplomatika. Sofiya. 1985. [Vol.] 2. Lektsii ot vtoriya seminar po slavyanska paleografiya i diplomatika i dokladi ot nauchnata konferentsiya «Ukrasata na balkanskata r’kopisna kniga do XVIII vek». Sofiya, 1983. Pp. 23-47 (in Bulgarian).

    Lyevochkin, Ivan Vasilyevich. Russkoe ustavnoe pis’mo i ego khronologicheskie parametry [Russian ustav script and its chronological parametres], in Vspomogatelnye istoricheskie distsipliny. Leningrad: Nauka, Leningradskoe otdelenie Publ., 1983. Vol. 15. Pp. 72–78. (in Russian).

    Levochkin, Ivan Vasilyevich. Osnovy russkoy paleografii [Bases of Russian paleography]. Moscow: Krug Publ., 2003. 175 р. (in Russian).

    Mošin, Vladimir. Metodološke bilješke o tipovima pisma u ćirilici [Methodical notes about script types in Cyrillics], in Slovo: časopis Staroslavenskoga instituta u Zagrebu. 1965. No 15-16. Рp. 150–182 (in Croatian).

    Paskojević, Kristian. Razvojni procesi diplomatičke ćiriličke minuskule u dokumentima srednjovjekovne Dubrovačke kancelarije. Doktorski rad [Processes of development of diplomatical Cyrillic minuscule in the documents of the medieval Dubrovnik chancery. Doctoral thesis]. Zagreb, 2018. 384 p. (in Croatian).

    Smorgunova, Elena Mikhaylovna. O pogranichnykh signalakh v skoropisi (nablyudeniya nad grafikoy smolenskikh gramot XVII veka) [About boundary signals in skoropis (the observation of the script of XVII century Smolensk documents)], in Issledovaniya istochnikov po istorii russkogo yazyka i pis’mennosti. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1966. Pp. 176–190. (in Russian).

    Žagar, Mateo; Paskojević, Kristian. Ćiriličke isprave Dubrovačke kancelarije XV. stoljeća između minuskule i kurziva [Cyrillic documents of Dubrovnik chancery of fifteenth century between minuscule and cursive], in Filologija. Zagreb. 2014. No 62. Pp. 221–247. (in Croatian).

 

Print Email

  • Hits: 62