Verfügbarkeit: Pojava i razvoj na pismoto

Pojava i razvoj na pismoto: so posoben osvrt kon početocite na slovenskata pismenost = Origin and developement of writing

Gespeichert in:

Bibliographische Detailangaben
1. Verfasser:	Ilievski, Petar Hr. 1920-2013 (VerfasserIn)
Format:	Buch
Sprache:	Macedonian
Veröffentlicht:	Skopje Makedonska Akad. na Naukite i Umetnostite 2006
Ausgabe:	2. rev. izd.
Schlagworte:	Geschichte Schriftlichkeit Slawen Schrift Slawische Sprachen
Online-Zugang:	Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract
Beschreibung:	PST: Origin and development of writing. - In kyrill. Schr., mazedon. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache
Beschreibung:	391 S. Ill.
ISBN:	9989101728

Internformat

MARC


LEADER	00000nam a2200000 c 4500
001	BV023334447
003	DE-604
005	20100721
007	t
008	080609s2006 a\|\|\| \|\|\|\| 00\|\|\| mac d
020			\|a 9989101728 \|9 9989-101-72-8
035			\|a (OCoLC)254446420
035			\|a (DE-599)BVBBV023334447
040			\|a DE-604 \|b ger \|e rakwb
041	0		\|a mac
049			\|a DE-355 \|a DE-19 \|a DE-12 \|a DE-20 \|a DE-Re13
084			\|a AM 13100 \|0 (DE-625)4106: \|2 rvk
084			\|a KD 1590 \|0 (DE-625)71936: \|2 rvk
084			\|a 7,41 \|2 ssgn
100	1		\|a Ilievski, Petar Hr. \|d 1920-2013 \|e Verfasser \|0 (DE-588)103501126 \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Pojava i razvoj na pismoto \|b so posoben osvrt kon početocite na slovenskata pismenost = Origin and developement of writing \|c Petar Hr. Ilievski
246	1	3	\|a Origin and development of writing
246	1	1	\|a Origin and developement of writing
250			\|a 2. rev. izd.
264		1	\|a Skopje \|b Makedonska Akad. na Naukite i Umetnostite \|c 2006
300			\|a 391 S. \|b Ill.
336			\|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|b n \|2 rdamedia
338			\|b nc \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a PST: Origin and development of writing. - In kyrill. Schr., mazedon. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache
648		7	\|a Geschichte \|2 gnd \|9 rswk-swf
650	0	7	\|a Schriftlichkeit \|0 (DE-588)4077162-3 \|2 gnd \|9 rswk-swf
650	0	7	\|a Slawen \|0 (DE-588)4077491-0 \|2 gnd \|9 rswk-swf
650	0	7	\|a Schrift \|0 (DE-588)4053297-5 \|2 gnd \|9 rswk-swf
650	0	7	\|a Slawische Sprachen \|0 (DE-588)4120036-6 \|2 gnd \|9 rswk-swf
689	0	0	\|a Schrift \|0 (DE-588)4053297-5 \|D s
689	0	1	\|a Geschichte \|A z
689	0		\|5 DE-604
689	1	0	\|a Slawen \|0 (DE-588)4077491-0 \|D s
689	1	1	\|a Schrift \|0 (DE-588)4053297-5 \|D s
689	1	2	\|a Geschichte \|A z
689	1		\|5 DE-604
689	2	0	\|a Slawische Sprachen \|0 (DE-588)4120036-6 \|D s
689	2	1	\|a Schriftlichkeit \|0 (DE-588)4077162-3 \|D s
689	2	2	\|a Geschichte \|A z
689	2		\|5 DE-604
856	4	2	\|m Digitalisierung UB Regensburg \|q application/pdf \|u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016518331&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA \|3 Inhaltsverzeichnis
856	4	2	\|m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen \|q application/pdf \|u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016518331&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA \|3 Abstract
940	1		\|n oe
999			\|a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016518331
942	1	1	\|c 306.09 \|e 22/bsb \|g 4976
942	1	1	\|c 070.9 \|e 22/bsb \|g 4976

Datensatz im Suchindex

_version_	1804137684428390403
adam_text	СОДРЖИНА Список на илустрации ...................................................................................... 11 Предговор ............................................................................................................ 13 Преговор кон второто издание .................................................................... 17 Прв дел ПО JABA И РАЗВО J НА ПИСМОТО І-УВОД 1. Значење на писмото за развојот на цивилизацијата и културата. - 2. Причини за појава на писмото. - 3. Митолошки теории за потеклото на првото писмо. - 4. Сфаќања на монотеистичките религии за појавата на писмото. - 5. Еволуционата теорија на W. Warburton. - 6. Нови сознани- ja од археолошките раскопки за старите нумерички системи како прет- ходници на првото писмо. - 7. Мотиви за проширениот обем во истражу- вањата на историскиот развој на словенската писменост ......................21-35 Π - БРОЖИТЕ ИМ ПРЕТХОДАТ НА БУКВИТЕ 1. Како треба да се разберат зборовите „рески и црти на Црно- ризец Храбар? - 2. Предмети и симболи како мнемотехнички федства за пренесување информации. - 3. Откривање, интерпретација и класифика- нија на сумерските предметни нумерички симболи; терминот tokens на Denise Schmandt-Besserat за предметно броење и зародоци на клинописот. - 4. Графички знаци со нумеричка вредност, почетен период во развојот на писмото. - 5. Историски сведоштва за стариот начин на „предметно и „стадно (групно) броење. - 6. Предалфабетски писма во Месопотамија, Средна Америка и на Крит, - 7. Поважни особености на критско-микен- ските писма и нивниот нумерички и метрички систем ............................36-69 Содржина Ш - ПО JABA, РАЗВО J И АДАПТАЦИЈА НА АЛФАБЕТСКИ ПИСМА 1. Мит и историја за потеклото на грчкиот алфабет. - 2. Северно- семитското (феничанско) консонантско писмо и неговата употреба за тр- говски цели. - 3. Како биле приспособени семитските фонетски знаци за грчкиот јазик. - 4. Кога и каде било позајмено и приспособено феничан- ското писмо од Хелените. - 5. Адаптација на грчкото писмо од други на¬ роди (Етрурци, Римјани и др.). - 6. Словенска реч со туѓо (латинско и гр- чко) писмо „безъ оустроеним . - 7. Нумерички систем со фонетски и дру¬ ги знаци (семитски, грчки, латински, словенски, арапски) ..................70-103 Втор дел СЛОВЕНСКА ПИСМЕНОСТ IV - СОЗДАВАЊЕ НА ПРВОТО СЛОВЕНСКО ПИСМО 1. Вовед. - 2. Политичките услови на Балканот и во Европа во кои била создадена словенската писменост. - 3. Основоположниците на словенската писменост, литература и култура на народен јазик. - 4. Спор¬ ни прашања во врека со настанувањето на словенската писменост. - 5. Критички осврт кон прашањата: имало ли словенска писменост прес Ки¬ рил и Методщ? Kaçe, кога и за кого било создадено словенското писмо? - 6. Оригиналност на првото словенско писмо. - 7. Приматот на глаголи¬ цата пред кирилицата ...................................................................................107-132 V -ГЛАГОЛИЦА ИКОНИЧНО ПИСМО ЗА НАГЛЕДНА ЕВАНГЕЛСКА ПРОПОВЕД 1. Основни принципи врз кои е оформена глаголицата. - 1. Идејна подлога на глаголицата. - 3. Структура на глаголичкиот систем, ред и на- зив на буквите, abecedaria. - 4. Фонетска вредност на знаците одразена во азбучни стихови. - 5. Значење на нумеричкиот систем за вкупниот број на буквите. - 6. Палеографски опис и историско-компаративна анализа на глаголичките знаци. - 7. Графолошки специфики на одделни глаголички знаци („двојни и тројни букви , кратенки, лигатури, дијакритични и други знаци). - 8. Промени во писмото, замена на глаг. со кирилица ........133-195 VI - СОЗДАВАЊЕ НА СТАРОЦРКОВНОСЛОВЕНСКИОТ ЛИТЕРАТУРЕН ЈАЗИК 1. Фонетско-графемска соодведност во глаголицата. - 2. Парале- лизам на палатални и непалатални редови во вокалниот систем и отста- пувања од тој принцип. - 3. Специфики во старословенскиот консонанти- Содржина зам. - 4. Дијалектна база на староцрковнословенскиот јазик. - 5. Создава- ње на староцрковнословенскиот литературен јазик и првите фази од него- виот развој: наследени особености и иновации во лексиката и морфологи- јата. - 6. Преводи и оригинални творби од најстариот црковнословенски период - 7. Име на јазикот. - 8. Значење на Кирило-Методиевото дело за создавање на слов, писмена култура ....................................................... 196-242 νπ - ОХРИДСКИОТ КНИЖЕВЕН ЦЕНТАР И СЛОВЕНСКАТА ПИСМЕНОСТ ВО МАКЕДОНША 1. Увод. Важноста на Охрид како културен и книжевен центар во антиката и во средниот век со непрекинат континуитет. - 2. Причини за „испраќање на свв. Климент и Наум Охридски во југозападна Македони- ја и формираше на Охридскиот книжевен центар. - 3. Азбучното праша- ње (одбрана на словенското писмо). - 4. Основни одлики на Охридскиот книжевен центар. - 5. Јазични својства на Охридскиот книжевен центар одразени во ракописната традиција: а. фонетски, б. морфолошки и в. лек- сички, наспроти особеностите на Преславскиот книжевен центар. - 6. Континуиран развој и внатрешни промени на македонската варијанта на староцрковнословенскиот јазик; улогата на Охридската архиепископија во чувањето на црковнословенскиот јазик. - 7. Заклучок ................243-284 Vm - ЗАМЕНА НА ГЛАГОЛИЦАТА СО КИРИЛИЦА 1. Увод. - Глаголица, писмо со високи квалитети за адекватно предавање на словенските гласови, но и со краткотрајна употреба. - 2. Паралелна употреба на две словенски писма. - 3. Потреба од критичен пристап во интерпретацијата на историски извори за словенските апосто¬ ли и нивните ученици. - 4. „Грешки или тенденциозни интерполации во Краткото Климентово житие од Хоматијан? - 5. Како да се разбере фразата , jiojacnn букви од ова житие. Дали Св. Климент e творец на ки¬ рилицата? - 6. Причини за брзата замена на глаголицата со латиница или кирилица ...........................................................................................................285-296 ЗАКЛУЧОК Западноевропското и словенското писмо помеѓу Библос и Сили- циумската Долина ...........................................................................................297-300 ANNEX + - КУТМИЧЕВИЦА? 1. Увод. Кутмичевица име на областа каде што учителетвувале свв. Климент и Наум Охридски во Македонија. - 2. Како е топонимот 10 Содржина запитан во сочуваните ракописи од Просграното грчко житие на св. Кли¬ мент Охридски? - 3. Лингвистичка и ономастичка анализа на формата Кутмичевица. - 4. Како можела да гласи оригиналната форма на името (основата кутел, котел во македонската и балканската топонимија). - 5. Палеографска анализа на името и начин како можело да дојде до коруп- тела. - 6. Предлог за возможна реконструкција на првобитната форма на топонимот (Кутличина?/Кутлиница?). - 7. Обид за убикација на областа наречена Кутмичевица(?), или Кутличина(?), одн. Кутлиница(?) ...305-315 Ľ - СЛОВЕНСКО ПИСМО ПРЕД МОРАВСКАТА МИСИЈА? 1. Дали кратките житија на Константин-Философ се веродостојни историски извори за кирило-методиевскиот период? - 2. Етимологија на топонимите Крупиште и Баргала. - 3. Методологија при користењето на графити и друг натписен материјал како историски извор. - 4. Опис на графитите врз градежен материјал од црквите во Крупиште и Баргала. - 5. Обид да се прочитаат букви и зборови од графитите според објавените цртежи и неколку фотографии во монографијата Епископијата на Бре¬ галница на Б. Алексова - 6. Датирање на графитите од Крупиште и Бар¬ гала. - 7. Заклучок. Дали овие графити се доказ за оформено словенско писмо од времето пред Моравската мисија? ..........................................316-329 Summary. ............................................................................................................. 331 Кратенки ........................................................................................................... 355 Библиографија ................................................................................................. 357 Indices .................................................................................................................. 373 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF WRITING WITH SPECIAL REGARD TO THE BEGINNINGS OF SLAVONIC LITERACY (Summary) The author s first conception was to write a study about the emer¬ gence of Slavonic literacy as a reaction to views launched recently by some contemporary authors. As they claimed that a proto-Slavonic literacy older than the Creto-Mycenaean syllabic script and even the Sumerian cuneiform writing existed, the question of the origins of the first writing cannot be avoided. It is noticeable that even the monk Chrabar in his famous treatise On letters (ω пнсьмеие^), which in fact represents an apology for Slavonic literacy, could not avoid the attempt to explain how writing came about. There is no shortage of books describing the origins both of writing in general and the beginnings of Slavonic literacy. The literature on these subjects is immense and it continues to grow rapidly, because of the great importance of writing itself, which is a crucial factor for development of hu¬ man civilization. Moreover, recent archaeological finds have thrown new light on the first writing, and have contributed to a revision of the traditional views of how it was created. The new discoveries of some Glagolitic inscrip¬ tions and fragments of manuscripts, on the other hand, have intensified the continuous interest in the oldest Slavonic literacy. Therefore the study of both subjects is here brought up-to-date. The book is divided into three parts: I. Origin and development of writing (chapters 1-3), П. Creation of the Slavonic alphabet, codification of the Old Church Slavonic language, first translations and original works in Slavonic, the Ohrid Literary Centre, the Oldest Slavonic Literacy in Mace¬ donia, and the replacement of the Glagolitic by the Cyrillic alphabet (chapters 4-8), and Ш. an Annexe, where two questions, related to the second part (Kutmičevica? and Slavonic Script before the Moravian Mission?), are dis¬ cussed in more detail. 332 Summary I ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF WRITING In the Introduction (ch. 1), after a few words about the importance of the script for the emergence of civilization and culture, the conditions (eco¬ nomic, administrative, religious, etc.), under which writing appeared are briefly discussed; then the mythological and religious theories about the ori¬ gin of writing (according to which writing is an instant act, as a gift by super¬ natural powers) are reviewed; and W. Warburton s theory, based on three scripts: Mexican paintings, Egyptian hieroglyphs and Chinese pictographs, representing three stages in their evolution, is surveyed. The chapter ends with new evidence from archaeological excavations about numerical systems which, according to Denise Schmandt-Besserat, served as forerunners of the first writing. Ch. 2 under the title Numerals precede letters, essential in the first part, begins with an interpretation of Chrabar s words strokes and notches (урьтшн h pt^đMH YbTb)^ н Г(ГШ)(/ќ, потнн сжцје.), and mnemotechnic means for transferring information with things and symbols are described. More attention is paid to the discovery, classification and interpretation of numerous artefact-counters, called by Schmandt-Besserat tokens , as a pre¬ historic counting device which led to the art of writing, through impressing baked figures on clay envelopes. The counting of people (individuals) and animals in groups (Hdt. IV, 92; ΥΠ, 60), similar to the measures of volume for dry materials, is regarded as a survival and historical witness of such a kind of numbering. At the end pre-alphabetical writing in Mesopotamia, Mexico and Crete, and certain peculiarities of the Creto-Mycenaean syllabic scripts with their numerical and metric systems are reviewed. There is disagreement among scholars concerning the question of what the strokes and notches mentioned in the treatise On Letters (O pisbmenech) by Cemorizec Chrabar represent. In the author s opinion their exact meaning is concealed in the verb forms vbrfep; and г&тщк, the first one wrongly translated by some interpreters as read . The verb уьстн, уьтж, in fact, means count , not read , because, at that stage, when the Slavs, as pagans , used such marks, they did not yet have a writing system. Not only the Slavs, but all the peoples, used such a kind of signs with numerical val¬ ues, usually in tallies, during a long period of their illiteracy, or at least of in¬ sufficient literacy. But tallies are primitive means for remembering some pieces ofinformation, known only to those who notched them. Other people could only guess them, because these signs can be understood in different ways. __________________ Origin and Development of Writing 333 The original meaning of the verb gráphô and its IE corradicals scratch1;, later write , pointe out that the script developed from strokes and notches. However, it did not evolve from the notches of tallies which contain information only for units without specification of goods, but from an another numerical system with more than one dimension. At 1 б sites in the region of the Near East (Iraq, Iran, the Levant and Turkey) archaeologists have discovered numerous special symbols in differ¬ ent shapes. They were baked and used with numerical values long before the oldest ideographic and phonetic script was invented. Denise Schmandt- Besserat, after 20 years of painstaking analyses and classifications of a large number of them, originating from 8000-3000 B.C., found that these clay counters, or tokens , were the first invention of the abstract recording of numerals. They represent the immediate forerunner of writing. The perfo¬ rated figurines were kept stringed on thread, and many more in clay enve¬ lopes with marks of impressed baked figures on their surface, denoting the contents inside. The substitution of signs for tokens was the first step towards writing. Only at the end of the fourth millennium did people realize that the tokens in the envelopes were rendered unnecessary by the presence of signs on the surface of the envelopes, later replaced by plain tablets. The idea that counting precedes writing is not altogether new. It was suggested by some authors in the second half of the ХГХ and the beginning of the XX centuries, but nobody has supported it with such essential arguments as Prof. Schmandt-Besserat did recently, especially in her excellent study Before Writing (1992). Her argumentation for the way in which the oldest cuneiform writing came about from counting in Mesopotamia is logical and convincing. One cannot infer with certainty whether in other places literacy developed in exactly the same way, because similar counters have not been discovered there as yet. However, in principle, one can say that numerals almost always precede the letters. In ch. 3, which deals with the origin, development and adaptation of alphabetic scripts, the following contents are discussed: Myth and history about the origin of the Greek alphabet; the North-Semitic Phoenician conso¬ nant alphabet and its use in economy and trade; adaptation of Semitic pho¬ netic signs to the Greek language; when and where the Phoenician script was adopted and adapted by Hellenes; adaptation of the Greek alphabet to other languages (Etruscan and Latin); difficulties in rendering Slavonic speech with Latin and Greek letters without design (бе:^ оустрошнЪ); numerical systems with phonetic signs and other symbols (Semitic, Greek, Latin, Ara¬ bic, Slavonic, etc). At the end once again the importance of the link between 334 _________________ Summary _______________________ numerals and letters is stressed. There is no doubt that Slavs also used Greek letters first with their numerical values Π SLAVONIC LITERACY In ch. 4, Creation of the first Slavonic script, the following subjects are examined: Political conditions in which Slavonic literacy was created; the founders of Slavonic literacy, literature and culture in the vernacular of the Macedonian Slavs from the surroundings of Salonika; controversial views regarding the beginnings of Slavonic literacy; revision of the traditional views concerning the origin of the Slavonic script; where, when and for whom it was invented; the authenticity of the Slavonic letters, and the priority of the Glagolitic script. The creation of Slavonic literacy in the mid-ninth century was closely related to the acceptance of Christianity by the Slavs from Byzan¬ tium. It is well known that missionary activity was one of the most effective methods of Byzantine policy and it was especially intensive in the ninth century. Through this activity the state and church authorities in Constantin¬ ople extended their cultural and political influence over the whole of the Mediterranean and Near East. It is very likely that similar diplomatic projects had been undertaken involving the Slavs before the Moravian mission. The Byzantine attitude to the Slavs used to change depending on current interests. The Byzantine government had often undertaken incursions against the Sclaviniae on the Balkans in order to conquer them. A systematic Helleniza- tion of the Slavs who lived within the borders of Byzantium was conducted by means of their Christianization in Greek and they were included in Byz¬ antine economic and military life. But, for the Slavonic peoples, as well as for the other nations outside the Byzantine borders, Constantinople tolerated Christianization in their own language. The Byzantine rulers were aware of the danger from the Slavs. There were many incursions by the Slavs into Byzantium (Constantinople) from the north-west by land. The Russian incur¬ sion into Constantinople by sea in 860 was certainly not the only conflict of Byzantium with them. One of the most important diplomatic means used by the Byzantine authorities against their enemies was the cultural and religious mission. When the Moravian Prince Rastislav asked the Byzantine Emperor Michael ΙΠ to give him teachers who would explain the Christian religion to the newly-baptized Moravians, the mission was entrusted to the Salonikean brothers Constantine and Methodius, who had already accomplished success- _________________ Origin and Development of Writing _____ 335 fully several enlightening missions for which they were well prepared. The younger of them Constantine, well educated in the famous Magnaura School in Constantinople (philology with Photius and philosophy with Leo the Wise), he had also displayed his excellent gifts as a poet, philosopher and orator- like his brother he also withdrew several times into monastic peace and quiet (especially important was his stay with his brother in Polychron, on Bithy- nian Olympus, where Methodius was the abbot of the monastery) after their mission to the Khazars. Constantine was often summoned by the state and church authorities from the monasteries when some difficult diplomatic and enlightening mission was to be carried out. Enlightened in the tranquility of the monastery with Godly light, the Brothers Constantine-Cyril and Methodius willingly accepted the invitation from Prince Rastislav to enlighten the Moravian Slavs, to whom nobody had paid heed (nemo umquam curam gessit). They laid the foundations for Sla¬ vonic (especially Orthodox) cultural and spiritual life, creating a written lan¬ guage for liturgical (and later for secular) texts through their translations and original works. Cyril s hagiographer explains: н троудьиь сын н больиь rfc- лсом, сь рлдостію ндоу тшо, ащ нішють воуквы (var. кннгн) въ е^ыкь свои ... фіЛОССОфЬ ptYE: H КТО МОЖЕТЬ Nd БСОДОу БЕГћДОу ПШТН H HEpETHVbCKO НМЕ СЕБЪ OBptcTH? (VC, XIV). First Constantine invented an alphabet, later called Glagolica (because the letters can speak , глагсштн). This was a precondi¬ tion for success in all the fields of cultural development. The manifold ac¬ tivities of Ss Cyril and Methodius were really successful and had far-reaching consequences in space and time, because they were based on sound foundations, two of which are extremely important: a. invention of the first Slavonic alphabet, and b. creation of the Slavonic liturgical and literary lan¬ guage. Chapter 5, under the title Glagolica - an iconic script for visual evangelic preaching, deals with the first one. With regard to the origin of the Slavonic alphabet and the principles on which it was based, several different hypotheses have been put forward. The reasons for such a variety of differ¬ ent, sometimes contradictory, interpretations depends on the scarcity of con¬ temporary data on the Brothers. Their Lives and other sources with apolo¬ getic contents written by their pupils, as well as the Glagolitic manuscripts, survived in copies of later times (the end of the X and the XI centuries). The reconstruction of the oldest phase of this script is, indeed, not easy. The his¬ tory of the first Slavonic alphabet here is examined within the limits of sev¬ eral questions: a. when, b. how, с why, and d. where, the script was invented, and in connection with them the author has come to the following conclu¬ sions: 336 ______________________ Summary ___________________________ a. It was usually believed that the Glagolitic alphabet was created immediately before the Brothers left for Moravia. This opinion is based on the following words from the Vita Methodii (c. V): Immediately (var. then, i.e. when they were entrusted with the Moravian mission by the Emperor Michael ΠΙ and the patriarch Photius), after he (Constantine) arranged the letters and compiled the speech, he left for Moravia taking Methodius . But there are pieces of evidence scattered in the Lives from which one can con¬ clude that this task probably had been accomplished earlier. It is mentioned (cf. Vita Constantini c. XIV) that the Brothers were also accompanied by other followers, which denotes that a team was trained for the preparation of this mission. It is hard to believe that such a difficult task, the invention of an alphabet, which perfectly covers all the Slavonic sounds, and the translation of the most important church services, could have been completed in a short time. When Constantine asked whether the Slavs had their own letters, Emperor Michael Ш answered that his grandfather, and his father, and many others had searched for them, but they had not found any (FC.XIV). This means that the state and church leaders had been very likely thinking about Slavonic literacy long before Prince Rastislav came on the historical scene. During the Khazar mission around the Black Sea the Brothers themselves could easily have realized the need for an enlightening mission among the Slavs. But they might also have been directed by the Byzantine leaders to prepare the ground for such a mission before the opportunity for it appeared. It is remarkable that at the time when Prince Rastislav asked for teachers, the Brothers already had a team of followers for such an enterprise. b. Writing can be borrowed, or adapted, from some older script in¬ vented for another language, or a new one can be invented. According to the very wide-spread Taylor-Jagić theory it is supposed that the Glagolitic alpha¬ bet represents an adaptation of the Greek minuscule script. It would be un¬ wise to deny the Greek influence. The Byzantine Greek script gave the idea for numerous Glagolitic letters, but their forms are so elaborated that the Greek originals are simply not recognizable. The Greek alphabet consists of 24 letters, whereas the Old Slavonic phonological system required 38, i.e. 14 characters more. The Glagolitic script is an original invention. Constantine Philosophus, known also as polyglot, used ideas from different scripts, but the shape of the Glagolitic letters is new. For the Gothic alphabet of 27 char¬ acters Ulphila borrowed unchanged letters: 19 from Greek, 6 from Latin and two Runic. He is only an adapter, but Constantine Philosophus is an original inventor of the Glagolitic script in a genuine style. _________________ Origin and Development of Writing 337 The influence of the Semitic alphabets cannot be excluded. There is communis opinio that the character for š is borrowed with nearly the same shape and phonetic value from the Hebrew alphabet, and some other letters (e.g. for b, к, с) are also related to Semitic writing. The second Glagolitic letter Ľ б is usually thought to be new. Since the Hellenistic period Greek beta had been pronounced v, and for the sound of b a digraph μπ was used. However, some parallel can be adduced from Semitic scripts. There are common features in the shape of the Glagolitic b (a middle mute labial) snap (smooth mute labial), with the Samaritan ІЗ ти : P pe, only turned in the Glagolitic alphabet from left to right. The digraph of these two letters corre¬ sponds exactly to the Byzantine pronunciation of b. Such combinations could have been made only by a great and erudit philologist. Semitic influence is also noticeable in the position of the Glagolitic signs, which seem to hang on the upper line. It is worth noticing that Constantine knew Hebrew, he had translated a Hebrew grammar into Greek and on the Khazar mission he had discussions with Jewish theologians in Hebrew. The question concerning the principles on which the first Slavonic script was created has long been discussed, because the original form of the Glagolitic alphabet has not survived (the earliest Glagolitic manuscripts are documented only from the end of the X and beginning of the XI century). It has been thought that no one could discover the system which was used for its creation. However, the inscriptions in the Presláv Round Church from the ГХ and X centuries give an impression of what Glagolitic was like. Its letters contain the same forms and ductus as the later ones. They are stylized, and in some of them one can imagine whatever one likes, but many others contain well-known Christian symbols, which show the purpose for which the writ¬ ing was created. с At first sight one can notice that the majority of the letters are formed from the basic Christian symbols: the cross, on which Christ died, the triangle - symbol of the Holy Trinity, and the circle - God s perfection and infinity, as G. Tchemochvostov and V. Kiparski have pointed out. From the numerical value of the signs it is evident that the alphabet began with a (1), as did the Greek one. In the Glagolitic writing it is represented by a cross (+). The other graphic systems also begin with a symbol which represents some¬ thing most characteristic for the people concerned and their ideology. The Phoenician alphabet, which is derived from the Egyptian demotic writing, be¬ gins with ãleph, a stylized sign of the bull s head, the image of the Egyptian god Apis, personified in the holy bull in Memphis. In the Cretan Linear A and В scripts the syllabary contains the sign of a double axe, the symbol of Laby- rinthos. Thus, it is only natural that a Christian alphabet should begin with the crass, just as every other Christian work does. 338 _______________ Summary _____________________ The other two signs - the triangle and the circle - are wholly or partly included in a large number of the Glagolitic letters as has been illus¬ trated by structural and comparative analysis of the signs. Thus the Glagolitic writing system to a great degree represents a system of sacred Christian sym¬ bols aiming to preach the Christian faith with almost every one of its signs. Therefore it is here named an iconic script for visual evangelical preaching. In accordance with the enlightening mission of the Brothers the intention was to preach the Christian faith to the Slavs and to give them literacy at the same time. Symbolism has always been widely used in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and it was especially active after the triumph over the iconoclasts (843), just as at the time of Constantine and Methodius. Constantine Philoso- phus had even taken an active part in refuting the iconoclast teaching in a dis¬ pute with the overthrown Constantinopolitan patriarch Jamais (cf. VC, ch. V). The four letters with the initial numerical value of the enneads (1, 10, 100, 1000) particularly contain very rich symbolic meaning. The numerical value of the Glagolitic letters does not coincide entirely with that of the Greek ones. This is natural, because the Slavonic alphabet contains more letters and the alphabetical order is changed. However, the letters with the initial numerical values of the first three enneads are the same as in Greek. Arranged in the form of the cross, these four signs represent the main pillars on which the whole construction of the Glagolitic system is held like Christianity on the four gospels, and the letters can be strung on lines drawn according to the ductus of the Glagolitic signs (cf. above illustr. 18 and 19). The second sign 3? for 10, Greek iota (ι), is especially pregnant with possible symbols. It is perfectly balanced both vertically with two triangles, and horizontally with two eyes corresponding to two dots over iota with diae¬ resis, which might denote the initial of Ιησούς. This letter in Slavonic has two phonetic values: vocalic and semi-vocalic. All these doublings together may symbolize the double nature of God-Man Jesus Christ. The Glagolitic sign with the initial numerical value of the third en- nead (b) = 100, as in Greek, shares some similarities with h¡ (Ь) at the bot¬ tom, the same as b : p at their upper part. Though speculatively it might be assumed that in this sign possibly have been concealed a ligature of HR, used as an initial for Јфнстос. Constantine also introduced the fourth ennead, beginning with a pictographic1 sign 4ř v which, according to the acrophonic principle, denotes the Slavonic sound tsh, symbolizing the eucharistie chalice of salvation, through which the Slavonic multitude is to be united with Christ. __________ Origin and Development of Writing ________ 339 This is only a possible reconstruction. Symbolic explanation is a risky business in the absence of the author s explanation. But bearing in mind the circumstances and time when the Glagolitic signs were invented, such an explanation of their ideological contents and functions may be assumed as a logical hypothesis. Changes in the first Slavonic script. From the surviving Glagolitic manuscripts one can see certain variants in the shape of some letters. This is, in fact, natural, because this kind of writing was widespread over a large ter¬ ritory (Presláv, Ohrid, Dalmaţia, Bohemia, Romania, Kiev, Novgorod, etc.). Changes in the Glagolitic script appeared also in how and where the letters were written: in Kij. they hang on the upper line, the same as in the Semitic script, but in the manuscripts from the Ohrid literary centre {Zogr., Mar., Sin. ps., etc.), a two-line system is used under the influence of the long Greek lit¬ erary tradition in this region. However, the greatest change of the first Sla¬ vonic writing is the replacement of Glagolitic by the Cyrillic alphabet (cf. 8). The phonetic value of some signs also changed depending on the dialectal area where it was used, e.g. the signs shtcha ( W ψ ) and g erv (Ni ћ) with their original value from the South-eastern Macedonian dialect šč/št, and g , turned into с (ts) and ζ in Moravia. Chapter 6 Creation of the Old Church Slavonic Literary Language (OChSl). Speaking about the origin and development of the first Slavonic writing one cannot avoid the question of how the OChSl literary language was created. In fact, the inventor of the Glagolitic script, St Cyril was, to¬ gether with his brother Methodius, the codifier of the OChSl liturgical and literary language, in which the first translations and original works were written. This chapter begins with a discussion of the phonetic-graphemic cor¬ respondence of the Glagolitic script. From the letter names in abecedaria and other alphabetic texts, where the logographs are arranged in acrostic, one can see that the Glagolitic signs perfectly cover the Slavonic sounds, both vowels and consonants, with their peculiarities. It is, in general, an alphabet with one sign for one sound. However, there are cases when two, or even three differ¬ ent signs are used for recording one and the (?)same sound. Thus, the vowel і can be expressed with three signs (Έ, T, 8), and и by a monograph (§·) ižica (Gr. v), double ο (Зђ, and with the letter for the reduced vowel, peller (°§) from Щ u. There are also several variants in the spelling of the consonant/ (Φ, φ), and /ге as a substitute for the Greekph, without the aspirate element (cf. пилил, NHvnoyp), the same as Glagolitic t (от) which was used as a sub- 340 __________________ Summary __________________ stitute for the Greek thêta. There are two signs for x: x¡ (hier) and x2 (spider- like), as well as for о (omicron and omega), under Greek influence in both Glagolitic and Cyrillic scripts, but as the vocalic quantity in Slavonic has dis¬ appeared, both signs (9 and φ) have the same value. On the other hand a di¬ graph of pellir (-a) and iže, in most cases the third iota, is used for jery, repre¬ sented in the Cyrillic alphabet with the monograph (ы). All these and other similar cases represent difficult problems which have aroused a long discussion among the scholars. Bearing in mind the dia¬ lectal basis on which the OChSl was formed, however, one can find solutions for some of these problems. Thus, the digraph for jery < LE м is an adequate spelling of its pronunciation in a South-eastern Macedonian dialect, surviving in the villages of Suho and Visoka near Salonika, where Ш u is reduced to ъ. In the Glagolitic alphabet there is only one sign for the Cyrililicjar (A) and m. It is remarkable that the same pronunciation of these two sounds (t and h) from a different etymological origin, has survived in this Macedonian dialect until the present day. The reconstructed Pre-Slavonic and Common Slavonic features, e.g. the law of open syllables, parallel ranges of soft (front) and hard (back) vow¬ els, palatal and non-palatal pairs of nearly all consonants, absence of pre-iota- tion, etc., are clearly reflected in OChSl. It is noticeable that they have also survived in today s phonological system of the speech in these villages (Suho and Visoka). But in some manuscripts of the eleventh century certain innova¬ tions are also reflected. Some of them, germs of morpho-syntactic Balka- nisms (e.g. the future tense with ^отћтн, da-constructions as a substitute for the infinitive, the nucleus of the postpositive article, frequent use of the dative possessive, etc.) penetrated from non-Slavonic Balkan languages into the South Slavonic dialects, others (both phonological and morphological innova¬ tions), developed on the internal grounds. In the OChSl texts a palatal sound cannot be followed by a hard (back) vowel. However, in the manuscripts from the XI century sporadically some exceptions to these norms occur, e.g.: wro (Cloz.) instead of уьто; тажъско (Supr), instead of тажьско; participial form шъдъ (Mar.), instead of шьдь, etc., which points out that these palatal consonants (v, ж, ш) had hardened. But it is noticeable that in the dialect of Suho and Visoka their palatal quality is still kept. The spoken language is created spontaneously by the people during a long period, but the written language is the result of individual efforts by a gifted and educated author. The OChSl is a feat of Constantine the Philoso¬ pher who laid it on sound foundations. Its development during the oldest pe¬ riod passed through the following three phases: ________________ Origin and Development of Writing ______________341 The First, when OChSl was codified and the first translations were written, very likely in the monastery of Polychron on Olympus in Bithynia. This was a very short, but intensive period of only a few months, after Rasti- slav s envoys reached Constantinople and before the Brothers with their pu¬ pils left for Moravia. The second phase was Moravian. It lasted 22 years (6 years when the Brothers were together until the death of St Cyril in Rome in 869, and 16 years when Methodius alone with his disciples continued the enlightening activity in difficult conditions until his death in 885. The minimal dialectal differences between the South Slavonic from the Salonika region and that from Moravia were not an obstacle to mutual understanding of the mission¬ aries with the local inhabitants, who accepted the written OChSl as a sacred language. Along with lexical Moravisms, spontaneously some West Slavonic phonetic and grammatical features (e.g. the reflex с and z from tj/ktj and dj, instead of ψ and жд, cf. гишоць, да^ in Kij; the case ending -ъмъ for instr. sing, of the o-stems, instead of -омь), penetrated it. The literary activity during the Moravian period was carried out through translations a. complet¬ ing the biblical and liturgical texts, b. church-juridical texts (77ze Synagoge of Fifty Titles, and the Zákon sydnyi lyudem, translated in an adapted form) and с writing original hagiographie, didactic and the Chronographie works. In spite of numerous obstacles, the activity of the Moravian mission arouses admiration with its extent and contextual variety. Of the original works of this period especially important are the hagiographies, known as the Pannonian Legends, in the authorship of which St. Clement of Ohrid un¬ doubtedly took a considerable part. The third phase begins after the return of Methodius followers to the Balkans, where the Bulgarian prince Boris-Michael accepted them gen¬ erously, and gave them good conditions for intellectual work in his country. This period, called the Golden Age, lasted till the end of XI century. It began with a revision of the existing translations of biblical and liturgical books in Slavonic and, especially under the rale of Prince (later Tzar) Symeon, it con¬ tinued with translation of fragments not only by church fathers and teachers, but also by classical Greek philosophers, as can be seen from Svyatoslav s (i.e. Simeon s) Collection with 383 articles, mainly in dialogue form, by 25 authors, and some original works {Encomium to Symeon and the Alphabetic Prayer by Konstantin of Presláv). The language of the oldest Slavonic literary period (from the middle of DC to the end of XI centuries), known as Old Church Slavonic, is repre¬ sented by a relatively small number of manuscripts, divided, according to the alphabet in which they were written on parchment, into two groups: Glagoli- tic and Cyrillic. 342 Summary There are eightteen manuscripts of the first group (cf. above ch. V, n. 38), preserved mostly in fragments, altogether about 1000 folios from the end of the X to the end of the XI centuries. With the exception of Kij, which contains some West Slavonic features (e.g. the mentioned reflex c z instead of ψ ЖД from HjMj, dj) together with South-Eastern ones (e.g. Ktl, dl), and Fragments ofClozianus, presumed to be from Croatia, all the Glagolitic manuscripts originate from Macedonia, from the Ohrid literary centre. The second group of OChSl monuments consists of a few inscrip¬ tions with altogether about 100 words, and ten manuscripts, preserved mostly in fragments (Sava Book, Supraśl, Enina Apostol, Sluch Psalter and frag¬ ments of several others, altogether 465 folios. With the exception of 2 folios of Zographos Fragments, which originate from the Ohrid Literary Centre, all the others are of East Bulgarian provenance. Aimed at use in church services OChSl soon acquired the status of a liturgical language, and according to its functions it became equal to Greek and Latin. This status contributed to its stability and high prestige. After Greek and Latin,, OChSl Ьееаще the third international idiom of the Slavonic peoples in Europe, ¡and enabled them to make their own significant contribu¬ tion to that/World, ι As a, sacred language it had a tendency, tö -.remain ΛΙΠ¬ Modelled, in the linguistic area of the Macedonian? Slavs from the Salonika regioni ÖGhSl Was first put into practice in Moravia anď -Pannónia; where it adopted some; new ;West Slavonic arid Latift elements.· Some changes and innovations were inevitable ih 1 its corpus. But, restricted by its liturgical .functions, as, a saçredvlanguage^owe.yerjiit.rçrnained quite homo¬ geneous,until the eijdo^^^^^ from, ;the;Şouth and. East· Slavoniclanguages had; beguníç penetrate intoihe written ¡Slavoniclanguage, culţaGhwch Slavonic, (ChS^ìjand then;jpcalire¬ censions began to appear;; Bulgarian, Macedonian,,Serbian, Croatian, West Slavonic, and East Slavonic recensions,, of which« the; Russian is especially important, during a period qfjabout 600; and more; years, (Щ^ХЩП centut ries) Çhurch-Slav. ,was the only supranational literary idiom both/for ■liturgi¬ cal and seculari purposes ofOrthodox Slavdom* (similar., tothat of Latin in the Roman. West), until,national languages were^created. The Russian recension of ChSl even today is used as a liturgical language in the. national. Slavonic ej but only OCh Şţ of/the pidêstperiod. .S; in all other languages; vocabulary and syntactic tonstructionsiare the basic component in OChSl too. _______________ Origin and Development of Writing ______ 343 a. Word-formation with about one hundred formatives is the main factor in the quantitative increase and semantic enlargement in the meaning of the words, bi 15 OldChSl manuscripts R. Ceitlin (1977) found 9,616 lexi¬ cal forms, of which 1,778, i.e. 18.5%, are of non-Slavonic origin, mainly ab¬ stract terms of Greek and Semitic provenance. The lexical stock clearly shows that the language in its basis is Slavonic and the specific Christian terminology in such a correlation could not change its character. It is noticeable that terms, most frequently used in the field of the spiritual and cultural life, are inherited from IE and Common Slavonic stems, e.g. еогъ God ; cB-fe-rocTb holiness1; Btpd faith, belief; додъ spirit ; доуіш soul , etc. The main terms related to literacy are also from the same stratum, e.g. воуквы letter , къннга Ъоок , Germ. Buch , письмо written message , etc. bi Christianity these terms attained contents not known before, and numerous new words were accepted. According to E. Vereščagin there are four main ways of increasing the Slavonic lexical stock: a. transposition - adding new meanings to the ex¬ isting ones of some word (e.g. оусънхтн die , along with asleep ); b. bor¬ rowing words from another languages (there are numerous loan-words of Greek, Semitic and Latin origin); c. translating loan words (ε^συνειδός > CbBţcŢb); с. mentalisation, i.e. deliberate intervention in the meanings of some word/s (e.g. σοφία ^ мудрость, man s prudence , and премудрость God s plentiful wisdom ; !b. The first Slavonic texts are characterized by pregnant expressions with syntactic expressions, adequate to the Greek patterns, especially in thè use of the dative absolute, corresponding exactly to.the Greek genitive absoö lute, arid other participial and infinitive constructions. Translations and original works ón OChŚl. A, The translations of Ss Cyril and Methodius are documented only in later manuscripts (from the end of the Ћ century), and the reconstruction of their original form causes great difficulties. However, there is a communis opinio of Slavicists that their translations, laid on sound foundations, were perfectly done. The earliest Sla¬ vonic translations even today strike the reader with their accuracy, syntactic constructions and stylistic variety. ; ; . The Cnristian religion and its sacred books from the very beginning were diffused таатіу in translations. Thanks to Christianirý several national languages (Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, etc.) were created on a vernacular basis. The first Slavonic texts were also translations of books with biblical and Christian liturgical contents: Psalter, Evangelion aprakos (Selected parts of the Gospel), and a selection of the most important church ii, Later in Moravia these translations were completed ,:· ■ > .< ■■.-., н , і, 344 ___________________ Summary ___________________________ In the Christian church of the first centuries translations of the Bible and other sacred texts is set on a theological and mystical basis. Just as the icon of Christ, according to the church fathers is regarded as a visual expres¬ sion of His incarnation, the translation of the Bible should represent a precise reflection of its original. For translation to be as close as possible to the origi¬ nal, some principles were established by church teachers. A fragment of such a treatise in OChSl is kept in a single-folio document, called the Macedonian Cyrillic Folio, very likely from the begin¬ ning of the XI century or a little earlier. A variant of its text is found in the Prologue of J. Exarchus to the Theology ofSt John Damascenus. The ques¬ tion of what exactly it represents has aroused great controversy among pa- laeo-Slavicists. From the numerous suggestions it seems that Mareš (1983) solution is the best argumented. Namely, according to him the text is a frag¬ ment from an epilogue to the Bible translated into OChSl by St Methodius when he was finishing the translation of the Apocalypse, and at the same time of the whole Bible. Here strict instructions are given how the Bible should be translated: Nobody is so bold and forgetful of himself as to dare add or take away a word...the words [are to be] rendered by exactly the same expression. However, we do not need words and expressions, but the meaning.... Wher¬ ever there was agreement between Greek and Slavonic, we translated by the same word. But where an expression was longer [or] was losing its meaning ...then we rendered it with another word . For illustration the author refers to six pairs of words non-corresponding in gender: Greek потшос, лстнр - masculine, and Slavonic ptKd, ^вЪ^да - feminine; cf. also: EdTp^oc m. - ж<ша f.; штолн f. - въстокъ, т.; тлмсса, нмЕра f. - морн, дьнь т. (sic!). It is remarkable that all these words appear in the chapter XVI of the Apocalypse of the Holy Apostle John the Theologian. The first Slavonic translators displayed themselves as very inventive in domesticating both lexical and grammatical Greek expressions. Besides direct borrowings, e.g. Ιερεύς - нЕрєн, διάβολος - дтволъ, they produced skilful loan translations, e g. μεγαλύνειν - βεληυητη, παντοκράτωρ - БЬСЕдръжнтель, etc. Quite often for one Greek word several Slavonic syno¬ nyms are used in translation. For the Greek verb βάλλω 38 different Slavonic synonymic forms are used depending on the context: thus, along with жрЪвнн - ορΐψΗ, MtTđTH, along with вода, bhno - бълнбйтн, etc. В. Of the original works, especially important are the hagiographies (Pannonian Legends), eulogies and other hymns (The Canon to St De¬ metrius, Canon to the Holy Apostle Andrew, Prologue to the Gospefy and numerous church services with original canons by St. Clement of Ohrid and __________________ Origin and Development of Writing __________345 Constantine of Presláv. The poetic qualities and technique are like those of the famous Byzantine poets. Of the Prologue to the Gospel R. Jakobson (1963) states that it is a classical work and masterpiece of Old Church Sla¬ vonic literature; its clear-cut and subtle rhythm, the variability and harmony of its syntactic figures..., and finally, its skill in manipulating parallels, which Constantine s disciples so admired in his works . The Old Church Slavonic literature, both translated and original, being Byzantine in inspiration but Slavonic in language and ideology, from the very beginning reached the level of the Byzantine models. At the end of the chapter it is stressed how the Mission of Ss Cyril and Methodius in the eight-sixties led to the creation of the new Slavonic culture, based on a new European language, OChSl, which became a model for imitation by other European peoples. Ch. 7. The Ohrid Literary Centre and Slavonic literacy in Mace¬ donia. When the enlightening mission of the Slavonic apostles Ss Cyril and Methodius in Moravia, which had begun so well, was violently interrupted, it seemed that the most favourable conditions for its continuation were in the Balkans, where it began. It is very important that some of St Methodius dis¬ ciples, expelled from Moravia, were well received by the Bulgarian Prince Boris, and two of them, Ss Clement and Nahum, were sent as teachers to South-Western Macedonia. The long discussed question why Prince Boris sent these two most intelligent and gifted pupils of Cyril and Methodius to the furthest south¬ western reaches of his state, instead of keeping them as advisers in his capi¬ tal, is still a vital topic. Recently a theory was put forward that this was done by agreement between the Prince and St Clement with the aim that the latter educate Slavonic pupils for the clergy, far from the control of the Constanti- nopolitan Patriarchy and the senior Greek church authorities in the capital (Eastern Bulgaria), bi fact, the real reason is the disagreement of Ss Clement and Nahum with the decision of Boris and especially Symeon, to replace the Glagolitic script by another alphabet, based on the Greek uncial, as Vondrák (1903), Iľinskij (1931), B. Koneski (1957), etc. have explained. Very likely Boris suggested first to St Clement that he adapt the Greek alphabet for the Slavonic language, but the faithful disciple of St Cyril, sticking to the Glagolitic alphabet, could not accept such a task. Neither was St Nahum willing to do that and he refused such an order by Prince Symeon, who al¬ lowed him to go with St Clement. Defending this script they opposed the de¬ cision, taken at the Church-peoples Convention at Presláv in 893. Ια St 346________________________ Summary ___________________________ Clement s encomium to Ss Cyril and Methodius there are indirect proofs of such an attitude. In the encomium the Brothers of Salonika are called new apostles, who built their deed on new foundations, inventing new letters for the new language. These new letters were, in fact, Glagolitic ones. The Apol¬ ogy of Chrabar, which may be a pseudonym for St Nahum, also defends the Glagolitic alphabet, set against that of the so called Cyrillic alphabet. In conclusion one should emphasise that St Clement, who is in fact the chief founder of the Ohrid Literary Centre, is the author of numerous original texts (sermons, eulogies, hagiographies, hymns, etc.), which repre¬ sent the highest achievement of medieval rhetoric according to the Byzantine patterns. His inseparable collaborator St. Nahum is now also known as a gifted hymnographer, as he is presented in the canon of the Holy Apostle Andrew, where he left his signature in the acrostic. They both had a great number of pupils, but historical evidence about them is very scarce. Imitating their teachers, they wrote in the same style, which became the norm of the Ohrid Literary Centre. However, some of their original compositions sur¬ vived, e.g. ths.Iffg andthe, Епсощіищ, to ,Щ. СіещеЩ, Џр Life, ofŞtNatyiţm,, etc.. Situated in â beautiful natural environment beside the! White Lake; on one òf the mdsťimportanťroadš, the Via Egnatia¿ which connected West with East by the shortest route, Ohrid (Lychnidos)ľrepreserited an important administrativo, cultural and commercial centre in ancient times. The numer·* ous objects found in the town and its surroundings show ä stròng Hèllemstic influence. Froiţi ¡the.contents, of about 50 inscriptions, mainly in Greek, one caiţ see .that, educated people,; wriţerŞjanduoeţşs had lived there vŤhe continu¬ ity of its literary tradition wąs not interrupted ^h en.the Slays settled ìli tjiese, regions, With, tlift ęducątipnąlf literary and cultural .activity of, Щ Clement, and IŞÎahum at the end of t%ĽK century and. the besinning f u^ Oh became an even rqpre important Slavonic literary base. , : The OhřidLiterarý Cehtre-is characterized by thë loftg and ous Mstóiy óf its enlightening, literary and cultural activity,· beginning with thè oldest period of Slavonic literacy. Two basic characteristics,1 the: attach^ nient to the Glagolitic script and a1 consistent continuity of1 Ss Cyril and Methodius1 mission,; define its appearance ití the first period: For a long timé it kepť thearbhaid litìguistic features of the! original-Slavonic texts;iTheyäre, iüfact, peculiarities of the Macedonian Slavonic speech from the region of Salonika^ which served as thé basis-fòr the first Old Church Slavonic literary language, and at the same time it represents a particular Macedonian liñgüis- tie variant. Itsi charâcfèristic features are particularly déviant in comparison1 with those of another importantsiavonicc entre at that timé - theTreslaVOne,1 __________________ Origin and Development of Writing __________347 in Eastern Bulgaria. That is characterised by a series of orthographic and lin¬ guistic innovations. In this Centre a new Slavonic script, Cyrillic, based on the Greek uncial, was favoured. Linguistically, the Ohrid and Presláv centres must in the beginning have been very close to each other. Yet in later scriptorial practice they dif¬ fered considerably. The Ohrid Literary Centre was marked by linguistic con¬ servatism due to the fidelity to the Glagolitic tradition of its founder, St Clement. The Ohrid translators were also skilful in finding corresponding Slavonic equivalents to the Greek syntactic structures. The Presláv Centre, by contrast, founded by Prince Symeon himself, was much more dependent on Greek models. This can be observed in its translating practice and the readi¬ ness to abandon the Glagolitic alphabet in favour of the Greek-Cyrillic one. in phonology the two centres differed in their treatment of the inher¬ ited ъ and h. In the texts of the Ohrid Centre these sounds were frequently rendered with о and % while in the texts of the Presláv Centre they were pre¬ sented as ъ and ы. The vocabulary, however, shows the clearest evidence of the difference between these two centres, as A. Vaillant (L964> 13), Z. Ri¬ barova (1986, 62s.), A. Schenker (1996, 1 88)> and many others have: found out,.quoting a list of lexical differences; e.g.;Ohn ropNo, Presi, токъ, Ohr.· ИІЕГШ)(Т>І Presi. ^ATbj etCi α Thè strong influence; of the Ohrid Literary Centre was1 felt not ; only iniViaeèdoM and among the Soűm-Síavoíiic peoples; ЬЛ -also far to the nörth-éast in Russia for triany centuries. It is1 well knöW that the literary and lifiguisïiè experiehce; exerted by St Clement s texts, which wete highly !es- teemed and dnen rewritten; influenced both the language ôf Souťh-Slavonic literacy, and the language of the Old Russian literacy-: But in the history of ä language, the same as in life; itsehţ nothing reñiains ; static, given once and forever; it succumbs ito continuous changes.* Over thé relatively sirìàll .territory of medieval Macedonia frorii thejXr^XVDÏ centuries numerous larger and smaller copyist , oentres are known. Nearly every one. of.íhemis> distinguished, byi some orthographie; and/or ¡dialectal features? However, the. characteristics of theOhrid Literary Centre are laid in their basisjiOpen toi.the orthographic iand linguistic variants.-of . the neighs bouring Balkan Slavonic languages, the Macedonian literary centres tolerated th,e influence of their orthographic and grammatical peculiarities. Therefore, the elements from the Trnövb.Reform of Щ. PatìachÈuthyrniu^.are crossed viathm^ftoni^ noirthern MácedcmiänpUteŕary the Russian ręće%sio\|i;. af ÇÍ^K-Slavònic1 also exerteďan opposite .influence. In .spite óf all these in¬ terferences the ivíacedohiän linguistic variant developed as í a separate idiom, the history of which can be followed during!the whole of á long millennium. 348____________________ Summary ________________________ Ch. 8. Replacement of the Glagolitic by Roman and Cyrillic scripts. Palaeo-Slavicists are unanimous in evaluating St Cyril s Glagolitic script, in¬ vented specifically for the Slavonic language, as a perfect graphic system which in a simple way precisely covers the whole Slavonic phonetic inven¬ tory. But this writing with the best qualities for adequate recording of Sla¬ vonic phonemes was not age-old. Somewhere earlier, somewhere later, it was replaced by other writing systems: in Moravia and Pannonia by the Roman script, but in the Balkans, and later in all the East Slavonic lands, the language was kept, but the Glagolitic script was replaced by the Greek al¬ phabet, supplemented with 14 (viz. 12) Glagolitic signs for the specific Sla¬ vonic sounds. This variant of the Greek alphabet, called Cyrillic in honour of St Cyril Philosophus, favoured by the Prince Symeon, was adapted in Eastern Bulgaria soon after Methodius disciples, expelled from Moravia, arrived at Pliska. The newly discovered Glagolitic inscriptions in northeastern Bulgaria, however, show that the change of the alphabets was not accomplished sud¬ denly; in the beginning both alphabets were in use for some time. In the Ohrid Literary Centre Glagolitic was the official script for about two centuries. Nearly all the surviving Glagolitic manuscripts, as has been already mentioned, belong to the Ohrid Scriptorial tradition. But in the ХП century it was also replaced by the younger and more vigorous Cyrillic script. Only the Croatian Glagolaši from some northwestern Dalmatian mon¬ asteries kept the Glagolitic writing in a changed (angular) form until the be¬ ginning of the XX century. In the XIV century there were two attempts in Bohemia and one in Poland to introduce Glagolitic, but without much suc¬ cess, bi this chapter the reasons for the quick change of the first Slavonic writing system are examined. It has been generally supposed that Glagolitic is a clumsy script, and therefore it was abandoned. D. Chomatianus, the Ohrid Archbishop from the beginning of the ХШ century, in his Short Life of St. Clement of Ohrid writes that St Clement invented clearer letters than those that the wise Cyril in¬ vented . Under the clearer letters the author very likely thought of the Cy¬ rillic ones, which for a Greek like Chomatianus, were clearer . It is not likely that he was interested in the Glagolitic script which had already gone out of use. Even today there are people, insufficiently acquainted with Glagoli¬ tic, who think that it is an awkward and difficult script. In fact, Glagolitic is a very elegant script with signs füll of significant symbols. On the other hand Cyrillic, with altogether 44 letters, six more than in Glagolitic, is more diffi¬ cult. However, transliterations of the Glagolitic texts in Cyrillic were much easier than those with the Latin alphabet. ______________ Origin and Development of Writing ______ 349 While the Cyrillic script was introduced into Slavonic literacy quick¬ ly and efficiently, it took a long time to adapt Roman letters for some specific Slavonic sounds, using digraphs, trigraphs and diacritics. Thus, in Freiz the Slavonic v (vepB-b) was presented in six different ways, and in Old Czech this Glagolitic letter was rendered in as many as twenty various combinations. But, regardless of its practical advantages, Glagolitic was replaced by either Cyrillic or Roman script. Spontaneously a question arises: what was the exact reason for its replacement? Why was Glagolitic so quickly withdrawn from use in spite of its deep ideological significance and the high palaeographic and linguistic qualities for an adequate and simple rendering of Slavonic sounds? The prestige of the Latin alphabet outweighed the practical advan¬ tages of Glagolitic. The Latin script was a symbol of the Western literary culture, favoured also by the Roman Catholic Curia, bi order to withstand in Dalmaţia, Glagolitic had to be proclaimed as St Jeronme s invention. For similar reasons, in the East the Greek alphabet was preferred. Prince Symeon, a Byzantine alumnus, and his circle of intellectuals were de¬ lighted by Ss Cyril and Methodius Mission and its cultural heritage, but not by the Glagolitic script. The prestige of the Greek alphabet, as a symbol of the Byzantian culture, in Symeon s Bulgaria had a privileged role and served as a measure of cultural values. That prestige was the main reason for adapt¬ ing the Greek alphabet in the Slavonic literacy in the Balkans. Several factors also contributed to the quick introduction of the Cy¬ rillic script for Slavonic texts: a. Numerous ancient and Byzantine inscrip¬ tions in Greek from the Ohrid region show that there was a long tradition of using the Greek alphabet in South Macedonia before the Moravian Mission. b. Cyrillic was based on the same principles as Glagolitic and Greek with one sign for one sound, c. Though the outer appearance of the Cyrillic letters was changed, they had the same names as the Glagolitic ones. d. The order of the letters in the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets is nearly the same. All these internal affinities sped the replacement of the Glagolitic by the Cyrillic script, favoured by the state and church authorities in Bulgaria. CONCLUSION West European and Slavonic writing between Byblos and Silicon Valley Today Cyrillic is used in Orthodox Slavdom and some non-Slavonic Euro-Asian peoples former republics of the Soviet Union. However the sphere of its use is continuously diminishing in favour of the Latin script, al- 350________________________ Summary ___________________________ though the first report launched to the stratosphere was in Cyrillic. West- European peoples, open to the Atlantic, from the middle of the second mil¬ lennium, and especially from the end of the XK century, have expanded their cultural, economic and political influence to the whole world. Together with that, the Latin script, adapted to the phonetics of different languages, began to extend to all the continents. Written English, in spite of its orthogra¬ phic complexity, has become dominant in almost all the spheres of contem¬ porary life, especially in the computer technique and industry, developed in an English linguistic environment (Silicon Valley in U.S.A.) in the second half of the XX century. The inclusion of the Cyrillic texts in internet today causes great problems - just like the transliteration of Glagolitic texts with the Latin al¬ phabet. The reasons for the limited use of the Cyrillic today are similar to those that caused the withdrawing of the Glagolitic from use and its replace¬ ment by other scripts with higher prestige and with a longer tradition. It is natural that a script with greater prestige will suppress those with a more limited range. Both Cyrillic and Roman scripts, through different transmutations of the Greek alphabet, in fact, originate from the same root, growing at the end of the second millennium B.C. in the former Phoenicean capital Byblos. From the same origin, in ultima linea, comes the newest graphic device - the computer. It is remarkable that there are some analogies between the ancient Byblos and Silicon Valley, the centre of computer technique and numerous innovations in this field. By/iblos with its invention of the simple consonantal Phoenician alphabet and the production of writing material, papyrus, left deep traces in the written civilization of the whole world, as can be seen from the terms for book(s), derived from the stem ЫЫ-. During the last decades of the second millennium Silicon Valley, through its new writing system became an even more important centre of in¬ novations with revolutionary effects in all the fields of contemporary life. It is remarkable that the development of this kind of writing is similar to the origins of the first writing. As in the beginning writing was preceded by nu¬ merals, computer technique is also based on numerals and dots, turned into signs with phonetic values, which can be sent to the most remote places. The everlasting desire of man for a universal linking of people is reached to a great degree through the WWW device in the Latin script. Un¬ doubtedly this is a very important achievement of contemporary science. However, there is a much higher ideal for a spiritual union in a common __________________ Origin and Development of Writing 351 brotherhood without hypocrisy, based on evangelic love, self-sacrifice and divine justice for all people. That is in fact the ideal preached by the Slavonic apostles through their iconic Glagolitic script, and later by their followers through the Cyrillic script. Ill ANNEX A. KutmicevicaÇ!) It is generally agreed that the first centre for Christianization of the Macedonian Slavs in their native language was the re¬ gion called KutmicevicaCi), where St Clement of Ohrid (after 886), later fol¬ lowed by his inseparable collaborator St Nahum (in 893), carried out the enlightening activity. However, the place-name Kutmičevica (?) is unknown, it does not appear either on any geographical map, or in topographical lexi¬ cons. The name Kutmičevicaf?) is a hapax legomenon, a reconstructed (?) form by Gora (in ace. and gen.), mentioned only in the Life ofSt Clement by Theophylactus of Ohrid, caput 17, and in the surviving Greek manuscripts it reads in several variants: Κουτμιτζινίτζαν, Κουτμινίτζινας in the Ohrid manuscript from the Collection of Grigorovič, now in Moscow, No 113 from the XIV, or XV century), Κουτμιτζινίτζαν, Κουτμιτζίνας (Vatoped. Mon¬ astery of Athos, No 1135, Urbana No 2), in the published editions by Gora in Moskhopole (1742): Κουτμητζιβίτζαν/Κουτμιτζιβίτζας, and by Pamperei in Vienna (1802 Κουτμιτζιβίτζαν, Κουτμιτζιβίτζας. The name is accepted by the scholars as Κουτμιτζιβίτζα (Kutmičev¬ ica), but the fact that it is registered in several different forms shows that this Slavonic name was distorted by the non-Slavonic writer and copyists. As the principles for naming place-names are universal, usually according to their natural features, most frequently according to the configuration of the terrain, the author examines this name from the following three points of view: Io. a comparative onomastic and semantic analysis of the name with the aim of reconstructing its original form; 2°. the etymology of the name with the pur¬ pose of its emendation; it is suggested that the original form was derived from the stem of kutel; and 3°. an attempt is made at locating of the region called Kutlinica, Kutličica, ^Kutlmičica vel sim. В. Slavonic literacy before the Moravian Mission? (Graffiti from Krupište and Bargala). Literary monuments can be used as historical sources only after they are thoroughly investigated and it is strictly defined when, 352________________________ Summary ______________________ where, and why they were written. A detailed textological and comparative investigation of the short Ufes of St Cyril according to this methodological principle shows that they can be sources only for the period when they were written (i.e. the ХШ or XIV century), not for that of Ss Cyril and Methodius. However, some contemporary authors try to support their value as reliable historical sources for the early enlightening activity of St Cyril at Bregalnica on the basis of the newly discovered complex of old churches at Krupishte and Bargala, and especially by the enigmatic signs engraved on some building materials in those churches. The excavator of this significant complex, Prof. B. Aleksova, who also discovered here foundations of an immense church with five apses, sug¬ gested that it was the cathedral of the first Slavonic episcopate of St Clem¬ ent, Velika, where the first educational centre of Slavs in Macedonia was or¬ ganized . In support of the thesis for locating the Velika eparchy, along with the literary monuments mentioned, the short Ufes of St Cyril, an etymological explanation of the place-name Krupište is adduced as if it is derived from krupen with the meaning of something big and large . The aim of this paper is Io to re-examine the etymology of the place- name Krupište, and 2° to scrutinize these enigmatic signs on the building materials. Io The original meaning oí krupen, in fact, is opposite to big, large . It is related to the IE *krm- (cf. Pokorny, IEW, 581, 622, 948s.), OChSl кржпъ = parvus small, short, fragment (for other parallels s. above Tab. 1). 2° On 19 photographs and 24 drawings in the book Epis copy on Bregalnica by B. Aleksova, Prilep 1989, pp. 218-308, about 700 different signs can be counted, but less than 200 are to some degree possible. Judging from the photographs it seems that some of the signs on the bricks and frag¬ ments of marble (non vidi originals), are intentionally engraved, but so far they have not been identified. The discoverer of these graffiti states that only profound investigations can offer reliable proofs for their precise identifica¬ tion. But other authors go much further beyond the facts, declaring that along with some Glagolitic and Cyrillic characters (none specified), on the same blocks and slabs built into the walls, there were symbols from much older writing systems, e.g. Semitic, Linear B, runes, etc., a phenomenon unknown till now. In fact one cannot read a single word from these symbols, en¬ graved in a complete absence of order. The suggestion that they are from the time when, according to UC and SL Constantine Philosophus invented Glagolitic during his enlightening activity at Raven near Bregalnica in the fifties of the DC century, is disproved by a coin of the emperor Leon the Sixth The Wise (886-912), found among this epigraphic material. __________________ Origin and Development of Writing ______________353 The majority of the copied signs are sacred Christian symbols: the cross, circle and triangle. Of the 38 Glagolitic letters, about 20 are recognis¬ able. But there are serious problems with their exact identification. Presented without lines in disorder, the most frequent of them are ambiguous. Thus, the sign from a circle and a triangle (б) can be read either И, or S (S), seen from the opposite side. In the same way V (V) is confused with D (Л); Ж (об) with / (Ж), M Cyrillic (M) with ω (W), depending on the side from which it is read. The sign for Τ (m) can be read О (§) ifit is turned 90° to the left. Therefore, no single word can be read with these signs. Some Glagolitic and Greeki-Cyrillic) characters with the same pho¬ netic value are presented together, e.g.: A, O, D, L, M, etc. If the drawings are accurate, one can conclude that these signs are from the time when the Glagolitic script was replaced by the Cyrillic one. The signs correspond to some degree to those from the Presláv Rotonda (from the end of the К cen¬ tury to the beginning of the X century), as they are also dated by other ar- chaelogical finds. The developed forms of some Cyrillic characters (в, ь, t) on the photograph of a marble fragment from Kale (no. 131, p. 290) show that they originate from much later times, perhaps from the middle of the X century, or later. Thus, the paucity of these graffiti, presented in chaotic dis¬ order, and in the absence of originals, cannot prove in any case the reliability of the mentioned short Ufes as faithful historical sources for St Cyril s life and activity, and for the existence of established Slavonic literacy before the Mo¬ ravian Mission.
adam_txt	СОДРЖИНА Список на илустрации . 11 Предговор . 13 Преговор кон второто издание . 17 Прв дел ПО JABA И РАЗВО J НА ПИСМОТО І-УВОД 1. Значење на писмото за развојот на цивилизацијата и културата. - 2. Причини за појава на писмото. - 3. Митолошки теории за потеклото на првото писмо. - 4. Сфаќања на монотеистичките религии за појавата на писмото. - 5. Еволуционата теорија на W. Warburton. - 6. Нови сознани- ja од археолошките раскопки за старите нумерички системи како прет- ходници на првото писмо. - 7. Мотиви за проширениот обем во истражу- вањата на историскиот развој на словенската писменост .21-35 Π - БРОЖИТЕ ИМ ПРЕТХОДАТ НА БУКВИТЕ 1. Како треба да се разберат зборовите „рески и црти" на Црно- ризец Храбар? - 2. Предмети и симболи како мнемотехнички федства за пренесување информации. - 3. Откривање, интерпретација и класифика- нија на сумерските предметни нумерички симболи; терминот "tokens" на Denise Schmandt-Besserat за предметно броење и зародоци на клинописот. - 4. Графички знаци со нумеричка вредност, почетен период во развојот на писмото. - 5. Историски сведоштва за стариот начин на „предметно" и „стадно" (групно) броење. - 6. Предалфабетски писма во Месопотамија, Средна Америка и на Крит, - 7. Поважни особености на критско-микен- ските писма и нивниот нумерички и метрички систем .36-69 Содржина Ш - ПО JABA, РАЗВО J И АДАПТАЦИЈА НА АЛФАБЕТСКИ ПИСМА 1. Мит и историја за потеклото на грчкиот алфабет. - 2. Северно- семитското (феничанско) консонантско писмо и неговата употреба за тр- говски цели. - 3. Како биле приспособени семитските фонетски знаци за грчкиот јазик. - 4. Кога и каде било позајмено и приспособено феничан- ското писмо од Хелените. - 5. Адаптација на грчкото писмо од други на¬ роди (Етрурци, Римјани и др.). - 6. Словенска реч со туѓо (латинско и гр- чко) писмо „безъ оустроеним". - 7. Нумерички систем со фонетски и дру¬ ги знаци (семитски, грчки, латински, словенски, арапски) .70-103 Втор дел СЛОВЕНСКА ПИСМЕНОСТ IV - СОЗДАВАЊЕ НА ПРВОТО СЛОВЕНСКО ПИСМО 1. Вовед. - 2. Политичките услови на Балканот и во Европа во кои била создадена словенската писменост. - 3. Основоположниците на словенската писменост, литература и култура на народен јазик. - 4. Спор¬ ни прашања во врека со настанувањето на словенската писменост. - 5. Критички осврт кон прашањата: имало ли словенска писменост прес Ки¬ рил и Методщ? Kaçe, кога и за кого било создадено словенското писмо? - 6. Оригиналност на првото словенско писмо. - 7. Приматот на глаголи¬ цата пред кирилицата .107-132 V -ГЛАГОЛИЦА ИКОНИЧНО ПИСМО ЗА НАГЛЕДНА ЕВАНГЕЛСКА ПРОПОВЕД 1. Основни принципи врз кои е оформена глаголицата. - 1. Идејна подлога на глаголицата. - 3. Структура на глаголичкиот систем, ред и на- зив на буквите, abecedaria. - 4. Фонетска вредност на знаците одразена во азбучни стихови. - 5. Значење на нумеричкиот систем за вкупниот број на буквите. - 6. Палеографски опис и историско-компаративна анализа на глаголичките знаци. - 7. Графолошки специфики на одделни глаголички знаци („двојни и тројни букви", кратенки, лигатури, дијакритични и други знаци). - 8. Промени во писмото, замена на глаг. со кирилица .133-195 VI - СОЗДАВАЊЕ НА СТАРОЦРКОВНОСЛОВЕНСКИОТ ЛИТЕРАТУРЕН ЈАЗИК 1. Фонетско-графемска соодведност во глаголицата. - 2. Парале- лизам на палатални и непалатални редови во вокалниот систем и отста- пувања од тој принцип. - 3. Специфики во старословенскиот консонанти- Содржина зам. - 4. Дијалектна база на староцрковнословенскиот јазик. - 5. Создава- ње на староцрковнословенскиот литературен јазик и првите фази од него- виот развој: наследени особености и иновации во лексиката и морфологи- јата. - 6. Преводи и оригинални творби од најстариот црковнословенски период - 7. Име на јазикот. - 8. Значење на Кирило-Методиевото дело за создавање на слов, писмена култура . 196-242 νπ - ОХРИДСКИОТ КНИЖЕВЕН ЦЕНТАР И СЛОВЕНСКАТА ПИСМЕНОСТ ВО МАКЕДОНША 1. Увод. Важноста на Охрид како културен и книжевен центар во антиката и во средниот век со непрекинат континуитет. - 2. Причини за „испраќање" на свв. Климент и Наум Охридски во југозападна Македони- ја и формираше на Охридскиот книжевен центар. - 3. Азбучното праша- ње (одбрана на словенското писмо). - 4. Основни одлики на Охридскиот книжевен центар. - 5. Јазични својства на Охридскиот книжевен центар одразени во ракописната традиција: а. фонетски, б. морфолошки и в. лек- сички, наспроти особеностите на Преславскиот книжевен центар. - 6. Континуиран развој и внатрешни промени на македонската варијанта на староцрковнословенскиот јазик; улогата на Охридската архиепископија во чувањето на црковнословенскиот јазик. - 7. Заклучок .243-284 Vm - ЗАМЕНА НА ГЛАГОЛИЦАТА СО КИРИЛИЦА 1. Увод. - Глаголица, писмо со високи квалитети за адекватно предавање на словенските гласови, но и со краткотрајна употреба. - 2. Паралелна употреба на две словенски писма. - 3. Потреба од критичен пристап во интерпретацијата на историски извори за словенските апосто¬ ли и нивните ученици. - 4. „Грешки" или тенденциозни интерполации во Краткото Климентово житие од Хоматијан? - 5. Како да се разбере фразата , jiojacnn букви" од ова житие. Дали Св. Климент e творец на ки¬ рилицата? - 6. Причини за брзата замена на глаголицата со латиница или кирилица .285-296 ЗАКЛУЧОК Западноевропското и словенското писмо помеѓу Библос и Сили- циумската Долина .297-300 ANNEX + - КУТМИЧЕВИЦА? 1. Увод. Кутмичевица име на областа каде што учителетвувале свв. Климент и Наум Охридски во Македонија. - 2. Како е топонимот 10 Содржина запитан во сочуваните ракописи од Просграното грчко житие на св. Кли¬ мент Охридски? - 3. Лингвистичка и ономастичка анализа на формата Кутмичевица. - 4. Како можела да гласи оригиналната форма на името (основата кутел, котел во македонската и балканската топонимија). - 5. Палеографска анализа на името и начин како можело да дојде до коруп- тела. - 6. Предлог за возможна реконструкција на првобитната форма на топонимот (Кутличина?/Кутлиница?). - 7. Обид за убикација на областа наречена Кутмичевица(?), или Кутличина(?), одн. Кутлиница(?) .305-315 Ľ - СЛОВЕНСКО ПИСМО ПРЕД МОРАВСКАТА МИСИЈА? 1. Дали кратките житија на Константин-Философ се веродостојни историски извори за кирило-методиевскиот период? - 2. Етимологија на топонимите Крупиште и Баргала. - 3. Методологија при користењето на графити и друг натписен материјал како историски извор. - 4. Опис на графитите врз градежен материјал од црквите во Крупиште и Баргала. - 5. Обид да се прочитаат букви и зборови од графитите според објавените цртежи и неколку фотографии во монографијата Епископијата на Бре¬ галница на Б. Алексова - 6. Датирање на графитите од Крупиште и Бар¬ гала. - 7. Заклучок. Дали овие графити се доказ за оформено словенско писмо од времето пред Моравската мисија? .316-329 Summary. . 331 Кратенки . 355 Библиографија . 357 Indices . 373 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF WRITING WITH SPECIAL REGARD TO THE BEGINNINGS OF SLAVONIC LITERACY (Summary) The author's first conception was to write a study about the emer¬ gence of Slavonic literacy as a reaction to views launched recently by some contemporary authors. As they claimed that a proto-Slavonic literacy older than the Creto-Mycenaean syllabic script and even the Sumerian cuneiform writing existed, the question of the origins of the first writing cannot be avoided. It is noticeable that even the monk Chrabar in his famous treatise On letters (ω пнсьмеие^), which in fact represents an apology for Slavonic literacy, could not avoid the attempt to explain how writing came about. There is no shortage of books describing the origins both of writing in general and the beginnings of Slavonic literacy. The literature on these subjects is immense and it continues to grow rapidly, because of the great importance of writing itself, which is a crucial factor for development of hu¬ man civilization. Moreover, recent archaeological finds have thrown new light on the first writing, and have contributed to a revision of the traditional views of how it was created. The new discoveries of some Glagolitic inscrip¬ tions and fragments of manuscripts, on the other hand, have intensified the continuous interest in the oldest Slavonic literacy. Therefore the study of both subjects is here brought up-to-date. The book is divided into three parts: I. Origin and development of writing (chapters 1-3), П. Creation of the Slavonic alphabet, codification of the Old Church Slavonic language, first translations and original works in Slavonic, the Ohrid Literary Centre, the Oldest Slavonic Literacy in Mace¬ donia, and the replacement of the Glagolitic by the Cyrillic alphabet (chapters 4-8), and Ш. an Annexe, where two questions, related to the second part (Kutmičevica? and Slavonic Script before the Moravian Mission?), are dis¬ cussed in more detail. 332 Summary I ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF WRITING In the Introduction (ch. 1), after a few words about the importance of the script for the emergence of civilization and culture, the conditions (eco¬ nomic, administrative, religious, etc.), under which writing appeared are briefly discussed; then the mythological and religious theories about the ori¬ gin of writing (according to which writing is an instant act, as a gift by super¬ natural powers) are reviewed; and W. Warburton's theory, based on three scripts: Mexican paintings, Egyptian hieroglyphs and Chinese pictographs, representing three stages in their evolution, is surveyed. The chapter ends with new evidence from archaeological excavations about numerical systems which, according to Denise Schmandt-Besserat, served as forerunners of the first writing. Ch. 2 under the title Numerals precede letters, essential in the first part, begins with an interpretation of Chrabar's words "strokes and notches" (урьтшн h pt^đMH YbTb)^ н Г(ГШ)(/ќ, потнн сжцје.), and mnemotechnic means for transferring information with things and symbols are described. More attention is paid to the discovery, classification and interpretation of numerous artefact-counters, called by Schmandt-Besserat "tokens", as a pre¬ historic counting device which led to the art of writing, through impressing baked figures on clay envelopes. The counting of people (individuals) and animals in groups (Hdt. IV, 92; ΥΠ, 60), similar to the measures of volume for dry materials, is regarded as a survival and historical witness of such a kind of numbering. At the end pre-alphabetical writing in Mesopotamia, Mexico and Crete, and certain peculiarities of the Creto-Mycenaean syllabic scripts with their numerical and metric systems are reviewed. There is disagreement among scholars concerning the question of what the "strokes and notches" mentioned in the treatise On Letters (O pisbmenech) by Cemorizec Chrabar represent. In the author's opinion their exact meaning is concealed in the verb forms vbrfep; and г&тщк, the first one wrongly translated by some interpreters as 'read'. The verb уьстн, уьтж, in fact, means 'count', not 'read', because, at that stage, when the Slavs, "as pagans", used such marks, they did not yet have a writing system. Not only the Slavs, but all the peoples, used such a kind of signs with numerical val¬ ues, usually in tallies, during a long period of their illiteracy, or at least of in¬ sufficient literacy. But tallies are primitive means for remembering some pieces ofinformation, known only to those who notched them. Other people could only guess them, because these signs can be understood in different ways. _ Origin and Development of Writing 333 The original meaning of the verb gráphô and its IE corradicals 'scratch1;, later 'write', pointe out that the script developed from strokes and notches. However, it did not evolve from the notches of tallies which contain information only for units without specification of goods, but from an another numerical system with more than one dimension. At 1 б sites in the region of the Near East (Iraq, Iran, the Levant and Turkey) archaeologists have discovered numerous special symbols in differ¬ ent shapes. They were baked and used with numerical values long before the oldest ideographic and phonetic script was invented. Denise Schmandt- Besserat, after 20 years of painstaking analyses and classifications of a large number of them, originating from 8000-3000 B.C., found that these clay counters, or "tokens", were the first invention of the abstract recording of numerals. They represent the immediate forerunner of writing. The perfo¬ rated figurines were kept stringed on thread, and many more in clay enve¬ lopes with marks of impressed baked figures on their surface, denoting the contents inside. The substitution of signs for tokens was the first step towards writing. Only at the end of the fourth millennium did people realize that the tokens in the envelopes were rendered unnecessary by the presence of signs on the surface of the envelopes, later replaced by plain tablets. The idea that counting precedes writing is not altogether new. It was suggested by some authors in the second half of the ХГХ and the beginning of the XX centuries, but nobody has supported it with such essential arguments as Prof. Schmandt-Besserat did recently, especially in her excellent study Before Writing (1992). Her argumentation for the way in which the oldest cuneiform writing came about from counting in Mesopotamia is logical and convincing. One cannot infer with certainty whether in other places literacy developed in exactly the same way, because similar counters have not been discovered there as yet. However, in principle, one can say that numerals almost always precede the letters. In ch. 3, which deals with the origin, development and adaptation of alphabetic scripts, the following contents are discussed: Myth and history about the origin of the Greek alphabet; the North-Semitic Phoenician conso¬ nant alphabet and its use in economy and trade; adaptation of Semitic pho¬ netic signs to the Greek language; when and where the Phoenician script was adopted and adapted by Hellenes; adaptation of the Greek alphabet to other languages (Etruscan and Latin); difficulties in rendering Slavonic speech with Latin and Greek letters without design (бе:^ оустрошнЪ); numerical systems with phonetic signs and other symbols (Semitic, Greek, Latin, Ara¬ bic, Slavonic, etc). At the end once again the importance of the link between 334 _ Summary _ numerals and letters is stressed. There is no doubt that Slavs also used Greek letters first with their numerical values Π SLAVONIC LITERACY In ch. 4, Creation of the first Slavonic script, the following subjects are examined: Political conditions in which Slavonic literacy was created; the founders of Slavonic literacy, literature and culture in the vernacular of the Macedonian Slavs from the surroundings of Salonika; controversial views regarding the beginnings of Slavonic literacy; revision of the traditional views concerning the origin of the Slavonic script; where, when and for whom it was invented; the authenticity of the Slavonic letters, and the priority of the Glagolitic script. The creation of Slavonic literacy in the mid-ninth century was closely related to the acceptance of Christianity by the Slavs from Byzan¬ tium. It is well known that missionary activity was one of the most effective methods of Byzantine policy and it was especially intensive in the ninth century. Through this activity the state and church authorities in Constantin¬ ople extended their cultural and political influence over the whole of the Mediterranean and Near East. It is very likely that similar diplomatic projects had been undertaken involving the Slavs before the Moravian mission. The Byzantine attitude to the Slavs used to change depending on current interests. The Byzantine government had often undertaken incursions against the Sclaviniae on the Balkans in order to conquer them. A systematic Helleniza- tion of the Slavs who lived within the borders of Byzantium was conducted by means of their Christianization in Greek and they were included in Byz¬ antine economic and military life. But, for the Slavonic peoples, as well as for the other nations outside the Byzantine borders, Constantinople tolerated Christianization in their own language. The Byzantine rulers were aware of the danger from the Slavs. There were many incursions by the Slavs into Byzantium (Constantinople) from the north-west by land. The Russian incur¬ sion into Constantinople by sea in 860 was certainly not the only conflict of Byzantium with them. One of the most important diplomatic means used by the Byzantine authorities against their enemies was the cultural and religious mission. When the Moravian Prince Rastislav asked the Byzantine Emperor Michael ΙΠ to give him teachers who would explain the Christian religion to the newly-baptized Moravians, the mission was entrusted to the Salonikean brothers Constantine and Methodius, who had already accomplished success- _ Origin and Development of Writing _ 335 fully several enlightening missions for which they were well prepared. The younger of them Constantine, well educated in the famous Magnaura School in Constantinople (philology with Photius and philosophy with Leo the Wise), he had also displayed his excellent gifts as a poet, philosopher and orator- like his brother he also withdrew several times into monastic peace and quiet (especially important was his stay with his brother in Polychron, on Bithy- nian Olympus, where Methodius was the abbot of the monastery) after their mission to the Khazars. Constantine was often summoned by the state and church authorities from the monasteries when some difficult diplomatic and enlightening mission was to be carried out. Enlightened in the tranquility of the monastery with Godly light, the Brothers Constantine-Cyril and Methodius willingly accepted the invitation from Prince Rastislav to enlighten the Moravian Slavs, to whom nobody had paid heed (nemo umquam curam gessit). They laid the foundations for Sla¬ vonic (especially Orthodox) cultural and spiritual life, creating a written lan¬ guage for liturgical (and later for secular) texts through their translations and original works. Cyril's hagiographer explains: "н троудьиь сын н больиь rfc- лсом, сь рлдостію ндоу тшо, ащ нішють воуквы (var. кннгн) въ е^ыкь свои". фіЛОССОфЬ ptYE: H КТО МОЖЕТЬ Nd БСОДОу БЕГћДОу ПШТН H HEpETHVbCKO НМЕ СЕБЪ OBptcTH? (VC, XIV). First Constantine invented an alphabet, later called Glagolica (because the letters can "speak", глагсштн). This was a precondi¬ tion for success in all the fields of cultural development. The manifold ac¬ tivities of Ss Cyril and Methodius were really successful and had far-reaching consequences in space and time, because they were based on sound foundations, two of which are extremely important: a. invention of the first Slavonic alphabet, and b. creation of the Slavonic liturgical and literary lan¬ guage. Chapter 5, under the title Glagolica - an iconic script for visual evangelic preaching, deals with the first one. With regard to the origin of the Slavonic alphabet and the principles on which it was based, several different hypotheses have been put forward. The reasons for such a variety of differ¬ ent, sometimes contradictory, interpretations depends on the scarcity of con¬ temporary data on the Brothers. Their Lives and other sources with apolo¬ getic contents written by their pupils, as well as the Glagolitic manuscripts, survived in copies of later times (the end of the X and the XI centuries). The reconstruction of the oldest phase of this script is, indeed, not easy. The his¬ tory of the first Slavonic alphabet here is examined within the limits of sev¬ eral questions: a. when, b. how, с why, and d. where, the script was invented, and in connection with them the author has come to the following conclu¬ sions: 336 _ Summary _ a. It was usually believed that the Glagolitic alphabet was created immediately before the Brothers left for Moravia. This opinion is based on the following words from the Vita Methodii (c. V): "Immediately (var. then, i.e. when they were entrusted with the Moravian mission by the Emperor Michael ΠΙ and the patriarch Photius), after he (Constantine) arranged the letters and compiled the speech, he left for Moravia taking Methodius". But there are pieces of evidence scattered in the Lives from which one can con¬ clude that this task probably had been accomplished earlier. It is mentioned (cf. Vita Constantini c. XIV) that the Brothers were also accompanied by other followers, which denotes that a team was trained for the preparation of this mission. It is hard to believe that such a difficult task, the invention of an alphabet, which perfectly covers all the Slavonic sounds, and the translation of the most important church services, could have been completed in a short time. When Constantine asked whether the Slavs had their own letters, Emperor Michael Ш answered that "his grandfather, and his father, and many others had searched for them, but they had not found any" (FC.XIV). This means that the state and church leaders had been very likely thinking about Slavonic literacy long before "Prince Rastislav came on the historical scene. During the Khazar mission around the Black Sea the Brothers themselves could easily have realized the need for an enlightening mission among the Slavs. But they might also have been directed by the Byzantine leaders to prepare the ground for such a mission before the opportunity for it appeared. It is remarkable that at the time when Prince Rastislav asked for teachers, the Brothers already had a team of followers for such an enterprise. b. Writing can be borrowed, or adapted, from some older script in¬ vented for another language, or a new one can be invented. According to the very wide-spread Taylor-Jagić theory it is supposed that the Glagolitic alpha¬ bet represents an adaptation of the Greek minuscule script. It would be un¬ wise to deny the Greek influence. The Byzantine Greek script gave the idea for numerous Glagolitic letters, but their forms are so elaborated that the Greek originals are simply not recognizable. The Greek alphabet consists of 24 letters, whereas the Old Slavonic phonological system required 38, i.e. 14 characters more. The Glagolitic script is an original invention. Constantine Philosophus, known also as polyglot, used ideas from different scripts, but the shape of the Glagolitic letters is new. For the Gothic alphabet of 27 char¬ acters Ulphila borrowed unchanged letters: 19 from Greek, 6 from Latin and two Runic. He is only an adapter, but Constantine Philosophus is an original inventor of the Glagolitic script in a genuine style. _ Origin and Development of Writing 337 The influence of the Semitic alphabets cannot be excluded. There is communis opinio that the character for š is borrowed with nearly the same shape and phonetic value from the Hebrew alphabet, and some other letters (e.g. for b, к, с) are also related to Semitic writing. The second Glagolitic letter Ľ б is usually thought to be new. Since the Hellenistic period Greek beta had been pronounced v, and for the sound of b a digraph μπ was used. However, some parallel can be adduced from Semitic scripts. There are common features in the shape of the Glagolitic b (a middle mute labial) snap (smooth mute labial), with the Samaritan ІЗ ти : P pe, only turned in the Glagolitic alphabet from left to right. The digraph of these two letters corre¬ sponds exactly to the Byzantine pronunciation of b. Such combinations could have been made only by a great and erudit philologist. Semitic influence is also noticeable in the position of the Glagolitic signs, which seem to hang on the upper line. It is worth noticing that Constantine knew Hebrew, he had translated a Hebrew grammar into Greek and on the Khazar mission he had discussions with Jewish theologians in Hebrew. The question concerning the principles on which the first Slavonic script was created has long been discussed, because the original form of the Glagolitic alphabet has not survived (the earliest Glagolitic manuscripts are documented only from the end of the X and beginning of the XI century). It has been thought that no one could discover the system which was used for its creation. However, the inscriptions in the Presláv Round Church from the ГХ and X centuries give an impression of what Glagolitic was like. Its letters contain the same forms and ductus as the later ones. They are stylized, and in some of them one can imagine whatever one likes, but many others contain well-known Christian symbols, which show the purpose for which the writ¬ ing was created. с At first sight one can notice that the majority of the letters are formed from the basic Christian symbols: the cross, on which Christ died, the triangle - symbol of the Holy Trinity, and the circle - God's perfection and infinity, as G. Tchemochvostov and V. Kiparski have pointed out. From the numerical value of the signs it is evident that the alphabet began with a (1), as did the Greek one. In the Glagolitic writing it is represented by a cross (+). The other graphic systems also begin with a symbol which represents some¬ thing most characteristic for the people concerned and their ideology. The Phoenician alphabet, which is derived from the Egyptian demotic writing, be¬ gins with 'ãleph, a stylized sign of the bull's head, the image of the Egyptian god Apis, personified in the holy bull in Memphis. In the Cretan Linear A and В scripts the syllabary contains the sign of a double axe, the symbol of Laby- rinthos. Thus, it is only natural that a Christian alphabet should begin with the crass, just as every other Christian work does. 338 _ Summary _ The other two signs - the triangle and the circle - are wholly or partly included in a large number of the Glagolitic letters as has been illus¬ trated by structural and comparative analysis of the signs. Thus the Glagolitic writing system to a great degree represents a system of sacred Christian sym¬ bols aiming to preach the Christian faith with almost every one of its signs. Therefore it is here named an iconic script for visual evangelical preaching. In accordance with the enlightening mission of the Brothers the intention was to preach the Christian faith to the Slavs and to give them literacy at the same time. Symbolism has always been widely used in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and it was especially active after the triumph over the iconoclasts (843), just as at the time of Constantine and Methodius. Constantine Philoso- phus had even taken an active part in refuting the iconoclast teaching in a dis¬ pute with the overthrown Constantinopolitan patriarch Jamais (cf. VC, ch. V). The four letters with the initial numerical value of the enneads (1, 10, 100, 1000) particularly contain very rich symbolic meaning. The numerical value of the Glagolitic letters does not coincide entirely with that of the Greek ones. This is natural, because the Slavonic alphabet contains more letters and the alphabetical order is changed. However, the letters with the initial numerical values of the first three enneads are the same as in Greek. Arranged in the form of the cross, these four signs represent the main pillars on which the whole construction of the Glagolitic system is held like Christianity on the four gospels, and the letters can be strung on lines drawn according to the ductus of the Glagolitic signs (cf. above illustr. 18 and 19). The second sign 3? for 10, Greek iota (ι), is especially pregnant with possible symbols. It is perfectly balanced both vertically with two triangles, and horizontally with two eyes corresponding to two dots over iota with diae¬ resis, which might denote the initial of 'Ιησούς. This letter in Slavonic has two phonetic values: vocalic and semi-vocalic. All these doublings together may symbolize the double nature of God-Man Jesus Christ. The Glagolitic sign with the initial numerical value of the third en- nead (b) = 100, as in Greek, shares some similarities with h¡ (Ь) at the bot¬ tom, the same as b : p at their upper part. Though speculatively it might be assumed that in this sign possibly have been concealed a ligature of HR, used as an initial for Јфнстос. Constantine also introduced the fourth ennead, beginning with a "pictographic1 sign 4ř v which, according to the acrophonic principle, denotes the Slavonic sound tsh, symbolizing the eucharistie chalice of salvation, through which the Slavonic multitude is to be united with Christ. _ Origin and Development of Writing _ 339 This is only a possible reconstruction. Symbolic explanation is a risky business in the absence of the author's explanation. But bearing in mind the circumstances and time when the Glagolitic signs were invented, such an explanation of their ideological contents and functions may be assumed as a logical hypothesis. Changes in the first Slavonic script. From the surviving Glagolitic manuscripts one can see certain variants in the shape of some letters. This is, in fact, natural, because this kind of writing was widespread over a large ter¬ ritory (Presláv, Ohrid, Dalmaţia, Bohemia, Romania, Kiev, Novgorod, etc.). Changes in the Glagolitic script appeared also in how and where the letters were written: in Kij. they hang on the upper line, the same as in the Semitic script, but in the manuscripts from the Ohrid literary centre {Zogr., Mar., Sin. ps., etc.), a two-line system is used under the influence of the long Greek lit¬ erary tradition in this region. However, the greatest change of the first Sla¬ vonic writing is the replacement of Glagolitic by the Cyrillic alphabet (cf. 8). The phonetic value of some signs also changed depending on the dialectal area where it was used, e.g. the signs shtcha ( W ψ ) and g'erv (Ni ћ) with their original value from the South-eastern Macedonian dialect šč/št, and g', turned into с (ts) and ζ in Moravia. Chapter 6 Creation of the Old Church Slavonic Literary Language (OChSl). Speaking about the origin and development of the first Slavonic writing one cannot avoid the question of how the OChSl literary language was created. In fact, the inventor of the Glagolitic script, St Cyril was, to¬ gether with his brother Methodius, the codifier of the OChSl liturgical and literary language, in which the first translations and original works were written. This chapter begins with a discussion of the phonetic-graphemic cor¬ respondence of the Glagolitic script. From the letter names in abecedaria and other alphabetic texts, where the logographs are arranged in acrostic, one can see that the Glagolitic signs perfectly cover the Slavonic sounds, both vowels and consonants, with their peculiarities. It is, in general, an alphabet with one sign for one sound. However, there are cases when two, or even three differ¬ ent signs are used for recording one and the (?)same sound. Thus, the vowel і can be expressed with three signs (Έ, T, 8), and и by a monograph (§·) ižica (Gr. v), double ο (Зђ, and with the letter for the reduced vowel, peller (°§) from Щ u. There are also several variants in the spelling of the consonant/ (Φ, φ), and /ге as a substitute for the Greekph, without the aspirate element (cf. пилил, NHvnoyp), the same as Glagolitic t (от) which was used as a sub- 340 _ Summary _ stitute for the Greek thêta. There are two signs for x: x¡ (hier) and x2 (spider- like), as well as for о (omicron and omega), under Greek influence in both Glagolitic and Cyrillic scripts, but as the vocalic quantity in Slavonic has dis¬ appeared, both signs (9 and φ) have the same value. On the other hand a di¬ graph of'pellir (-a) and iže, in most cases the third iota, is used for jery, repre¬ sented in the Cyrillic alphabet with the monograph (ы). All these and other similar cases represent difficult problems which have aroused a long discussion among the scholars. Bearing in mind the dia¬ lectal basis on which the OChSl was formed, however, one can find solutions for some of these problems. Thus, the digraph for jery < LE м is an adequate spelling of its pronunciation in a South-eastern Macedonian dialect, surviving in the villages of Suho and Visoka near Salonika, where Ш u is reduced to ъ. In the Glagolitic alphabet there is only one sign for the Cyrililicjar (A) and m. It is remarkable that the same pronunciation of these two sounds (t and h) from a different etymological origin, has survived in this Macedonian dialect until the present day. The reconstructed Pre-Slavonic and Common Slavonic features, e.g. the law of open syllables, parallel ranges of soft (front) and hard (back) vow¬ els, palatal and non-palatal pairs of nearly all consonants, absence of pre-iota- tion, etc., are clearly reflected in OChSl. It is noticeable that they have also survived in today's phonological system of the speech in these villages (Suho and Visoka). But in some manuscripts of the eleventh century certain innova¬ tions are also reflected. Some of them, germs of morpho-syntactic Balka- nisms (e.g. the future tense with ^отћтн, da-constructions as a substitute for the infinitive, the nucleus of the postpositive article, frequent use of the dative possessive, etc.) penetrated from non-Slavonic Balkan languages into the South Slavonic dialects, others (both phonological and morphological innova¬ tions), developed on the internal grounds. In the OChSl texts a palatal sound cannot be followed by a hard (back) vowel. However, in the manuscripts from the XI century sporadically some exceptions to these norms occur, e.g.: wro (Cloz.) instead of уьто; тажъско (Supr), instead of тажьско; participial form шъдъ (Mar.), instead of шьдь, etc., which points out that these palatal consonants (v, ж, ш) had hardened. But it is noticeable that in the dialect of Suho and Visoka their palatal quality is still kept. The spoken language is created spontaneously by the people during a long period, but the written language is the result of individual efforts by a gifted and educated author. The OChSl is a feat of Constantine the Philoso¬ pher who laid it on sound foundations. Its development during the oldest pe¬ riod passed through the following three phases: _ Origin and Development of Writing _341 The First, when OChSl was codified and the first translations were written, very likely in the monastery of Polychron on Olympus in Bithynia. This was a very short, but intensive period of only a few months, after Rasti- slav's envoys reached Constantinople and before the Brothers with their pu¬ pils left for Moravia. The second phase was Moravian. It lasted 22 years (6 years when the Brothers were together until the death of St Cyril in Rome in 869, and 16 years when Methodius alone with his disciples continued the enlightening activity in difficult conditions until his death in 885. The minimal dialectal differences between the South Slavonic from the Salonika region and that from Moravia were not an obstacle to mutual understanding of the mission¬ aries with the local inhabitants, who accepted the written OChSl as a sacred language. Along with lexical Moravisms, spontaneously some West Slavonic phonetic and grammatical features (e.g. the reflex с and z from tj/ktj and dj, instead of ψ and жд, cf. гишоць, да^ in Kij; the case ending -ъмъ for instr. sing, of the o-stems, instead of -омь), penetrated it. The literary activity during the Moravian period was carried out through translations a. complet¬ ing the biblical and liturgical texts, b. church-juridical texts (77ze Synagoge of Fifty Titles, and the Zákon sydnyi lyudem, translated in an adapted form) and с writing original hagiographie, didactic and the Chronographie works. In spite of numerous obstacles, the activity of the Moravian mission arouses admiration with its extent and contextual variety. Of the original works of this period especially important are the hagiographies, known as the Pannonian Legends, in the authorship of which St. Clement of Ohrid un¬ doubtedly took a considerable part. The third phase begins after the return of Methodius' followers to the Balkans, where the Bulgarian prince Boris-Michael accepted them gen¬ erously, and gave them good conditions for intellectual work in his country. This period, called the Golden Age, lasted till the end of XI century. It began with a revision of the existing translations of biblical and liturgical books in Slavonic and, especially under the rale of Prince (later Tzar) Symeon, it con¬ tinued with translation of fragments not only by church fathers and teachers, but also by classical Greek philosophers, as can be seen from Svyatoslav's (i.e. Simeon's) Collection with 383 articles, mainly in dialogue form, by 25 authors, and some original works {Encomium to Symeon and the Alphabetic Prayer by Konstantin of Presláv). The language of the oldest Slavonic literary period (from the middle of DC to the end of XI centuries), known as Old Church Slavonic, is repre¬ sented by a relatively small number of manuscripts, divided, according to the alphabet in which they were written on parchment, into two groups: Glagoli- tic and Cyrillic. 342 Summary There are eightteen manuscripts of the first group (cf. above ch. V, n. 38), preserved mostly in fragments, altogether about 1000 folios from the end of the X to the end of the XI centuries. With the exception of Kij, which contains some West Slavonic features (e.g. the mentioned reflex c z instead of ψ ЖД from HjMj, dj) together with South-Eastern ones (e.g. Ktl, dl), and Fragments ofClozianus, presumed to be from Croatia, all the Glagolitic manuscripts originate from Macedonia, from the Ohrid literary centre. The second group of OChSl monuments consists of a few inscrip¬ tions with altogether about 100 words, and ten manuscripts, preserved mostly in fragments (Sava Book, Supraśl, Enina Apostol, Sluch Psalter and frag¬ ments of several others, altogether 465 folios. With the exception of 2 folios of Zographos Fragments, which originate from the Ohrid Literary Centre, all the others are of East Bulgarian provenance. Aimed at use in church services OChSl soon acquired the status of a liturgical language, and according to its functions it became equal to Greek and Latin. This status contributed to its stability and high prestige. After Greek and Latin,, OChSl Ьееаще the third international idiom of the Slavonic peoples in Europe, ¡and enabled them to make their own significant contribu¬ tion to that/World, ι As a, sacred language it had a tendency, tö -.remain ΛΙΠ¬ Modelled, in the linguistic area of the Macedonian? Slavs from the Salonika regioni ÖGhSl Was first put into practice in Moravia anď -Pannónia; where it adopted some; new ;West Slavonic arid Latift elements.· Some changes and innovations were inevitable ih'1 its corpus. But,' restricted by its liturgical .functions, as, a saçredvlanguage^owe.yerjiit.rçrnained quite homo¬ geneous,until the eijdo^^^^^ from, ;the;Şouth and. East· Slavoniclanguages had; beguníç penetrate intoihe written ¡Slavoniclanguage, culţaGhwch Slavonic, (ChS^ìjand then;jpcalire¬ censions began to appear;; Bulgarian, Macedonian,,Serbian, Croatian, West Slavonic, and East Slavonic recensions,, of which« the; Russian is especially important, during a period qfjabout 600; and more; years, (Щ^ХЩП centut ries) Çhurch-Slav. ,was the only supranational literary idiom both/for ■liturgi¬ cal and seculari purposes ofOrthodox Slavdom* (similar., tothat of Latin in the Roman. West), until,national languages were^created. The Russian recension of ChSl even today is used as a liturgical language in the. national. Slavonic ej but only OCh'Şţ 'of/the pidêstperiod. \.S; in all other languages; 'vocabulary and syntactic tonstructionsiare the basic component in OChSl too. _ Origin and Development of Writing _ 343 a. Word-formation with about one hundred formatives is the main factor in the quantitative increase and semantic enlargement in the meaning of the words, bi 15 OldChSl manuscripts R. Ceitlin (1977) found 9,616 lexi¬ cal forms, of which 1,778, i.e. 18.5%, are of non-Slavonic origin, mainly ab¬ stract terms of Greek and Semitic provenance. The lexical stock clearly shows that the language in its basis is Slavonic and the specific Christian terminology in such a correlation could not change its character. It is noticeable that terms, most frequently used in the field of the spiritual and cultural life, are inherited from IE and Common Slavonic stems, e.g. еогъ 'God'; cB-fe-rocTb "holiness1; Btpd 'faith, belief; додъ 'spirit'; доуіш 'soul', etc. The main terms related to literacy are also from the same stratum, e.g. воуквы letter', къннга Ъоок', Germ. 'Buch', письмо 'written message', etc. bi Christianity these terms attained contents not known before, and numerous new words were accepted. According to E. Vereščagin there are four main ways of increasing the Slavonic lexical stock: a. transposition - adding new meanings to the ex¬ isting ones of some word (e.g. оусънхтн 'die', along with 'asleep'); b. bor¬ rowing words from another languages (there are numerous loan-words of Greek, Semitic and Latin origin); c. translating loan words (ε^συνειδός > CbBţcŢb); с. mentalisation, i.e. deliberate intervention in the meanings of some word/s (e.g. σοφία ^ мудрость, 'man's prudence', and премудрость 'God's plentiful wisdom'; !b. The first Slavonic texts are characterized by pregnant expressions with syntactic expressions, adequate to the Greek patterns, especially in thè use of the dative absolute, corresponding exactly to.the Greek''genitive' absoö lute, arid other participial and infinitive constructions. " ' Translations and original works ón OChŚl. A, The' translations of Ss Cyril and Methodius are documented only in later manuscripts (from the end of the Ћ century), and the reconstruction of their original form causes great difficulties. However, there is a communis opinio of Slavicists that their translations, laid on sound foundations, were perfectly done. The earliest Sla¬ vonic translations even today strike the reader with their accuracy, syntactic constructions and stylistic variety. ' ' ; ; ' ' '. The Cnristian religion and its sacred books from the very beginning' were diffused таатіу in translations. Thanks to Christianirý several national languages (Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, etc.) were created on a vernacular basis. The first Slavonic texts were also translations of books with biblical and Christian liturgical contents: Psalter, Evangelion aprakos (Selected parts of the Gospel), and a selection of the most important church ii, Later in Moravia these translations were completed' ,:· ■ > .< ■■.-., н , і, 344 _ Summary _ In the Christian church of the first centuries translations of the Bible and other sacred texts is set on a theological and mystical basis. Just as the icon of Christ, according to the church fathers is regarded as a visual expres¬ sion of His incarnation, the translation of the Bible should represent a precise reflection of its original. For translation to be as close as possible to the origi¬ nal, some principles were established by church teachers. A fragment of such a treatise in OChSl is kept in a single-folio document, called the Macedonian Cyrillic Folio, very likely from the begin¬ ning of the XI century or a little earlier. A variant of its text is found in the Prologue of J. Exarchus to the Theology ofSt John Damascenus. The ques¬ tion of what exactly it represents has aroused great controversy among pa- laeo-Slavicists. From the numerous suggestions it seems that Mareš' (1983) solution is the best argumented. Namely, according to him the text is a frag¬ ment from an epilogue to the Bible translated into OChSl by St Methodius when he was finishing the translation of the Apocalypse, and at the same time of the whole Bible. Here strict instructions are given how the Bible should be translated: "Nobody is so bold and forgetful of himself as to dare add or take away a word.the words [are to be] rendered by exactly the same expression. However, we do not need words and expressions, but the meaning. Wher¬ ever there was agreement between Greek and Slavonic, we translated by the same word. But where an expression was longer [or] was losing its meaning .then we rendered it with another word". For illustration the author refers to six pairs of words non-corresponding in gender: Greek потшос, лстнр - masculine, and Slavonic ptKd, ^вЪ^да - feminine; cf. also: EdTp^oc m. - ж<ша f.; штолн f. - въстокъ, т.; тлмсса, нмЕра f. - морн, дьнь т. (sic!). It is remarkable that all these words appear in the chapter XVI of the Apocalypse of the Holy Apostle John the Theologian. The first Slavonic translators displayed themselves as very inventive in domesticating both lexical and grammatical Greek expressions. Besides direct borrowings, e.g. Ιερεύς - нЕрєн, διάβολος - дтволъ, they produced skilful loan translations, e g. μεγαλύνειν - βεληυητη, παντοκράτωρ - БЬСЕдръжнтель, etc. Quite often for one Greek word several Slavonic syno¬ nyms are used in translation. For the Greek verb βάλλω 38 different Slavonic synonymic forms are used depending on the context: thus, along with жрЪвнн - ορΐψΗ, MtTđTH, along with вода, bhno - бълнбйтн, etc. В. Of the original works, especially important are the hagiographies (Pannonian Legends), eulogies and other hymns (The Canon to St De¬ metrius, Canon to the Holy Apostle Andrew, Prologue to the Gospefy and numerous church services with original canons by St. Clement of Ohrid and _ Origin and Development of Writing _345 Constantine of Presláv. The poetic qualities and technique are like those of the famous Byzantine poets. Of the Prologue to the Gospel R. Jakobson (1963) states that it is a classical work and masterpiece of Old Church Sla¬ vonic literature; "its clear-cut and subtle rhythm, the variability and harmony of its syntactic figures., and finally, its skill in manipulating parallels, which Constantine's disciples so admired in his works". The Old Church Slavonic literature, both translated and original, being Byzantine in inspiration but Slavonic in language and ideology, from the very beginning reached the level of the Byzantine models. At the end of the chapter it is stressed how the Mission of Ss Cyril and Methodius in the eight-sixties led to the creation of the new Slavonic culture, based on a new European language, OChSl, which became a model for imitation by other European peoples. Ch. 7. The Ohrid Literary Centre and Slavonic literacy in Mace¬ donia. When the enlightening mission of the Slavonic apostles Ss Cyril and Methodius in Moravia, which had begun so well, was violently interrupted, it seemed that the most favourable conditions for its continuation were in the Balkans, where it began. It is very important that some of St Methodius' dis¬ ciples, expelled from Moravia, were well received by the Bulgarian Prince Boris, and two of them, Ss Clement and Nahum, were "sent" as teachers to South-Western Macedonia. The long discussed question why Prince Boris sent these two most intelligent and gifted pupils of Cyril and Methodius to the furthest south¬ western reaches of his state, instead of keeping them as advisers in his capi¬ tal, is still a vital topic. Recently a theory was put forward that this was done by agreement between the Prince and St Clement with the aim that the latter educate Slavonic pupils for the clergy, far from the control of the Constanti- nopolitan Patriarchy and the senior Greek church authorities in the capital (Eastern Bulgaria), bi fact, the real reason is the disagreement of Ss Clement and Nahum with the decision of Boris and especially Symeon, to replace the Glagolitic script by another alphabet, based on the Greek uncial, as Vondrák (1903), Iľinskij (1931), B. Koneski (1957), etc. have explained. Very likely Boris suggested first to St Clement that he adapt the Greek alphabet for the Slavonic language, but the faithful disciple of St Cyril, sticking to the Glagolitic alphabet, could not accept such a task. Neither was St Nahum willing to do that and he refused such an order by Prince Symeon, who al¬ lowed him to go with St Clement. Defending this script they opposed the de¬ cision, taken at the Church-peoples Convention at Presláv in 893. Ια St 346_ Summary _ Clement's encomium to Ss Cyril and Methodius there are indirect proofs of such an attitude. In the encomium the Brothers of Salonika are called new apostles, who built their deed on new foundations, inventing new letters for the new language. These new letters were, in fact, Glagolitic ones. The Apol¬ ogy of Chrabar, which may be a pseudonym for St Nahum, also defends the Glagolitic alphabet, set against that of the so called Cyrillic alphabet. In conclusion one should emphasise that St Clement, who is in fact the chief founder of the Ohrid Literary Centre, is the author of numerous original texts (sermons, eulogies, hagiographies, hymns, etc.), which repre¬ sent the highest achievement of medieval rhetoric according to the Byzantine patterns. His inseparable collaborator St. Nahum is now also known as a gifted hymnographer, as he is presented in the canon of the Holy Apostle Andrew, where he left his signature in the acrostic. They both had a great number of pupils, but historical evidence about them is very scarce. Imitating their teachers, they wrote in the same style, which became the norm of the Ohrid Literary Centre. However, some of their original compositions sur¬ vived, e.g. ths.Iffg andthe, Епсощіищ, to ,Щ. СіещеЩ, Џр Life, ofŞtNatyiţm,, etc. Situated in â' beautiful'natural environment beside the! White Lake; on one òf the mdsťimportanťroadš, the Via Egnatia¿ which connected West with East by the shortest route, Ohrid (Lychnidos)ľrepreserited an important administrativo, "cultural and commercial centre in ancient'times. The numer·* ous objects found in the town and its surroundings show ä stròng'Hèllemstic influence. Froiţi ¡the.contents, of'about 50 inscriptions, mainly in Greek, one caiţ see .that, educated people,; wriţerŞjanduoeţşs had lived there vŤhe continu¬ ity of its literary tradition wąs not interrupted ^h'en.the Slays settled ìli tjiese, regions, With, tlift ęducątipnąlf literary and cultural .activity of, Щ Clement, and IŞÎahum at the end'of t%ĽK century and. the besinning f u^ Oh became an even rqpre important Slavonic literary base. , : The OhřidLiterarý Cehtre-is characterized by thë'loftg' and ous Mstóiy óf its enlightening, literary and cultural activity,· beginning''with thè oldest period of Slavonic literacy. Two basic characteristics,1 the: attach^ nient to the 'Glagolitic script and a1 consistent continuity of1 Ss Cyril "and Methodius1 mission,; define its appearance ití the first period: For a long timé it kepť thearbhaid litìguistic'features of the! original-Slavonic texts;iTheyäre, iüfact, peculiarities of the Macedonian Slavonic speech from the region of Salonika^ which served as thé basis-fòr the first Old'Church Slavonic literary language, and at the same' time it represents a particular Macedonian' liñgüis- tie variant. Itsi charâcfèristic features are particularly déviant in comparison1 with those of another importantsiavonicc'entre at that timé - theTreslaVOne,1 _ Origin and Development of Writing _347 in Eastern Bulgaria. That is characterised by a series of orthographic and lin¬ guistic innovations. In this Centre a new Slavonic script, Cyrillic, based on the Greek uncial, was favoured. Linguistically, the Ohrid and Presláv centres must in the beginning have been very close to each other. Yet in later scriptorial practice they dif¬ fered considerably. The Ohrid Literary Centre was marked by linguistic con¬ servatism due to the fidelity to the Glagolitic tradition of its founder, St Clement. The Ohrid translators were also skilful in finding corresponding Slavonic equivalents to the Greek syntactic structures. The Presláv Centre, by contrast, founded by Prince Symeon himself, was much more dependent on Greek models. This can be observed in its translating practice and the readi¬ ness to abandon the Glagolitic alphabet in favour of the Greek-Cyrillic one. in phonology the two centres differed in their treatment of the inher¬ ited ъ and h. In the texts of the Ohrid Centre these sounds were frequently rendered with о and % while in the texts of the Presláv Centre they were pre¬ sented as ъ and ы. The vocabulary, however, shows the clearest evidence of the difference between these two centres, as A. Vaillant (L964> 13), Z. Ri¬ barova (1986, 62s.), A. Schenker (1996, 1 88)> and many others have: found out,.quoting a list of lexical differences; e.g.;Ohn ropNo, Presi, токъ, Ohr.· ИІЕГШ)(Т>І Presi. ^ATbj etCi α Thè strong influence; of the Ohrid Literary Centre' was1 felt not ; only iniViaeèdoM and among the Soűm-Síavoíiic peoples; ЬЛ -also far to the nörth-éast in Russia for triany centuries. It is1 well knöW that the literary and lifiguisïiè experiehce; exerted' by St Clement's texts, which'wete highly !es- teemed and 'dnen' rewritten; influenced both the language ôf Souťh-Slavonic' literacy, and the language of the Old Russian literacy-: " But in the history of ä language, the same as in life; itsehţ nothing reñiains ; static,' given once and forever; it succumbs ito continuous changes.* Over thé relatively sirìàll .territory of medieval Macedonia frorii thejXr^XVDÏ' centuries numerous larger and smaller copyist , oentres 'are known. Nearly every one. of.íhemis> distinguished, byi'some orthographie; and/or ¡dialectal features? However, the. characteristics of theOhrid Literary Centre are laid in their basisjiOpen toi.the orthographic iand linguistic variants.-of . the neighs bouring Balkan Slavonic languages, the Macedonian literary centres tolerated th,e influence of their orthographic and grammatical peculiarities. Therefore, the elements 'from the Trnövb.Reform of 'Щ. PatìachÈuthyrniu^.are crossed viathm^ftoni^ noirthern 'MácedcmiänpUteŕary the Russian' ręće%sio\|i;. af ÇÍ^K-Slavònic1 also exerteďan opposite .influence. In '.spite óf all these in¬ terferences the ivíacedohiän linguistic variant developed as í a' separate idiom, the history of which can be followed during!the whole of á long millennium. 348_ Summary _ Ch. 8. Replacement of the Glagolitic by Roman and Cyrillic scripts. Palaeo-Slavicists are unanimous in evaluating St Cyril's Glagolitic script, in¬ vented specifically for the Slavonic language, as a perfect graphic system which in a simple way precisely covers the whole Slavonic phonetic inven¬ tory. But this writing with the best qualities for adequate recording of Sla¬ vonic phonemes was not age-old. Somewhere earlier, somewhere later, it was replaced by other writing systems: in Moravia and Pannonia by the Roman script, but in the Balkans, and later in all the East Slavonic lands, the language was kept, but the Glagolitic script was replaced by the Greek al¬ phabet, supplemented with 14 (viz. 12) Glagolitic signs for the specific Sla¬ vonic sounds. This variant of the Greek alphabet, called Cyrillic in honour of St Cyril Philosophus, favoured by the Prince Symeon, was adapted in Eastern Bulgaria soon after Methodius' disciples, expelled from Moravia, arrived at Pliska. The newly discovered Glagolitic inscriptions in northeastern Bulgaria, however, show that the change of the alphabets was not accomplished sud¬ denly; in the beginning both alphabets were in use for some time. In the Ohrid Literary Centre Glagolitic was the official script for about two centuries. Nearly all the surviving Glagolitic manuscripts, as has been already mentioned, belong to the Ohrid Scriptorial tradition. But in the ХП century it was also replaced by the younger and more vigorous Cyrillic script. Only the Croatian Glagolaši from some northwestern Dalmatian mon¬ asteries kept the Glagolitic writing in a changed (angular) form until the be¬ ginning of the XX century. In the XIV century there were two attempts in Bohemia and one in Poland to introduce Glagolitic, but without much suc¬ cess, bi this chapter the reasons for the quick change of the first Slavonic writing system are examined. It has been generally supposed that Glagolitic is a clumsy script, and therefore it was abandoned. D. Chomatianus, the Ohrid Archbishop from the beginning of the ХШ century, in his Short Life of St. Clement of Ohrid writes that St Clement invented "clearer letters than those that the wise Cyril in¬ vented". Under the "clearer letters" the author very likely thought of the Cy¬ rillic ones, which for a Greek like Chomatianus, were "clearer". It is not likely that he was interested in the Glagolitic script which had already gone out of use. Even today there are people, insufficiently acquainted with Glagoli¬ tic, who think that it is an awkward and difficult script. In fact, Glagolitic is a very elegant script with signs füll of significant symbols. On the other hand Cyrillic, with altogether 44 letters, six more than in Glagolitic, is more diffi¬ cult. However, transliterations of the Glagolitic texts in Cyrillic were much easier than those with the Latin alphabet. _ Origin and Development of Writing _ 349 While the Cyrillic script was introduced into Slavonic literacy quick¬ ly and efficiently, it took a long time to adapt Roman letters for some specific Slavonic sounds, using digraphs, trigraphs and diacritics. Thus, in Freiz the Slavonic v (vepB-b) was presented in six different ways, and in Old Czech this Glagolitic letter was rendered in as many as twenty various combinations. But, regardless of its practical advantages, Glagolitic was replaced by either Cyrillic or Roman script. Spontaneously a question arises: what was the exact reason for its replacement? Why was Glagolitic so quickly withdrawn from use in spite of its deep ideological significance and the high palaeographic and linguistic qualities for an adequate and simple rendering of Slavonic sounds? The prestige of the Latin alphabet outweighed the practical advan¬ tages of Glagolitic. The Latin script was a symbol of the Western literary culture, favoured also by the Roman Catholic Curia, bi order to withstand in Dalmaţia, Glagolitic had to be proclaimed as St Jeronme's invention. For similar reasons, in the East the Greek alphabet was preferred. Prince Symeon, a Byzantine alumnus, and his circle of intellectuals were de¬ lighted by Ss Cyril and Methodius' Mission and its cultural heritage, but not by the Glagolitic script. The prestige of the Greek alphabet, as a symbol of the Byzantian culture, in Symeon's Bulgaria had a privileged role and served as a measure of cultural values. That prestige was the main reason for adapt¬ ing the Greek alphabet in the Slavonic literacy in the Balkans. Several factors also contributed to the quick introduction of the Cy¬ rillic script for Slavonic texts: a. Numerous ancient and Byzantine inscrip¬ tions in Greek from the Ohrid region show that there was a long tradition of using the Greek alphabet in South Macedonia before the Moravian Mission. b. Cyrillic was based on the same principles as Glagolitic and Greek with one sign for one sound, c. Though the outer appearance of the Cyrillic letters was changed, they had the same names as the Glagolitic ones. d. The order of the letters in the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets is nearly the same. All these internal affinities sped the replacement of the Glagolitic by the Cyrillic script, favoured by the state and church authorities in Bulgaria. CONCLUSION West European and Slavonic writing between Byblos and Silicon Valley Today Cyrillic is used in Orthodox Slavdom and some non-Slavonic Euro-Asian peoples' former republics of the Soviet Union. However the sphere of its use is continuously diminishing in favour of the Latin script, al- 350_ Summary _ though the first report launched to the stratosphere was in Cyrillic. West- European peoples, open to the Atlantic, from the middle of the second mil¬ lennium, and especially from the end of the XK century, have expanded their cultural, economic and political influence to the whole world. Together with that, the Latin script, adapted to the phonetics of different languages, began to extend to all the continents. Written English, in spite of its orthogra¬ phic complexity, has become dominant in almost all the spheres of contem¬ porary life, especially in the computer technique and industry, developed in an English linguistic environment (Silicon Valley in U.S.A.) in the second half of the XX century. The inclusion of the Cyrillic texts in internet today causes great problems - just like the transliteration of Glagolitic texts with the Latin al¬ phabet. The reasons for the limited use of the Cyrillic today are similar to those that caused the withdrawing of the Glagolitic from use and its replace¬ ment by other scripts with higher prestige and with a longer tradition. It is natural that a script with greater prestige will suppress those with a more limited range. Both Cyrillic and Roman scripts, through different transmutations of the Greek alphabet, in fact, originate from the same root, growing at the end of the second millennium B.C. in the former Phoenicean capital Byblos. From the same origin, in ultima linea, comes the newest graphic device - the computer. It is remarkable that there are some analogies between the ancient Byblos and Silicon Valley, the centre of computer technique and numerous innovations in this field. By/iblos with its invention of the simple consonantal Phoenician alphabet and the production of writing material, papyrus, left deep traces in the written civilization of the whole world, as can be seen from the terms for book(s), derived from the stem ЫЫ-. During the last decades of the second millennium Silicon Valley, through its new writing system became an even more important centre of in¬ novations with revolutionary effects in all the fields of contemporary life. It is remarkable that the development of this kind of writing is similar to the origins of the first writing. As in the beginning writing was preceded by nu¬ merals, computer technique is also based on numerals and dots, turned into signs with phonetic values, which can be sent to the most remote places. The everlasting desire of man for a universal linking of people is reached to a great degree through the WWW device in the Latin script. Un¬ doubtedly this is a very important achievement of contemporary science. However, there is a much higher ideal for a spiritual union in a common _ Origin and Development of Writing 351 brotherhood without hypocrisy, based on evangelic love, self-sacrifice and divine justice for all people. That is in fact the ideal preached by the Slavonic apostles through their iconic Glagolitic script, and later by their followers through the Cyrillic script. Ill ANNEX A. KutmicevicaÇ!) It is generally agreed that the first centre for Christianization of the Macedonian Slavs in their native language was the re¬ gion called KutmicevicaCi), where St Clement of Ohrid (after 886), later fol¬ lowed by his inseparable collaborator St Nahum (in 893), carried out the enlightening activity. However, the place-name Kutmičevica (?) is unknown, it does not appear either on any geographical map, or in topographical lexi¬ cons. The name Kutmičevicaf?) is a hapax legomenon, a reconstructed (?) form by Gora (in ace. and gen.), mentioned only in the Life ofSt Clement by Theophylactus of Ohrid, caput 17, and in the surviving Greek manuscripts it reads in several variants: Κουτμιτζινίτζαν, Κουτμινίτζινας in the Ohrid manuscript from the Collection of Grigorovič, now in Moscow, No 113 from the XIV, or XV century), Κουτμιτζινίτζαν, Κουτμιτζίνας (Vatoped. Mon¬ astery of Athos, No 1135, Urbana No 2), in the published editions by Gora in Moskhopole (1742): Κουτμητζιβίτζαν/Κουτμιτζιβίτζας, and by Pamperei in Vienna (1802 Κουτμιτζιβίτζαν, Κουτμιτζιβίτζας. The name is accepted by the scholars as Κουτμιτζιβίτζα (Kutmičev¬ ica), but the fact that it is registered in several different forms shows that this Slavonic name was distorted by the non-Slavonic writer and copyists. As the principles for naming place-names are universal, usually according to their natural features, most frequently according to the configuration of the terrain, the author examines this name from the following three points of view: Io. a comparative onomastic and semantic analysis of the name with the aim of reconstructing its original form; 2°. the etymology of the name with the pur¬ pose of its emendation; it is suggested that the original form was derived from the stem of kutel; and 3°. an attempt is made at locating of the region called Kutlinica, Kutličica, ^Kutlmičica vel sim. В. Slavonic literacy before the Moravian Mission? (Graffiti from Krupište and Bargala). Literary monuments can be used as historical sources only after they are thoroughly investigated and it is strictly defined when, 352_ Summary _ where, and why they were written. A detailed textological and comparative investigation of the short Ufes of St Cyril according to this methodological principle shows that they can be sources only for the period when they were written (i.e. the ХШ or XIV century), not for that of Ss Cyril and Methodius. However, some contemporary authors try to support their value as reliable historical sources for the early enlightening activity of St Cyril at Bregalnica on the basis of the newly discovered complex of old churches at Krupishte and Bargala, and especially by the "enigmatic" signs "engraved" on some building materials in those churches. The excavator of this significant complex, Prof. B. Aleksova, who also discovered here foundations of an immense church with five apses, sug¬ gested that it was the cathedral of "the first Slavonic episcopate of St Clem¬ ent, Velika, where the first educational centre of Slavs in Macedonia was or¬ ganized". In support of the thesis for locating the Velika eparchy, along with the literary monuments mentioned, the short Ufes of St Cyril, an etymological explanation of the place-name Krupište is adduced as if it is derived from krupen "with the meaning of something big and large". The aim of this paper is Io to re-examine the etymology of the place- name Krupište, and 2° to scrutinize these "enigmatic" signs on the building materials. Io The original meaning oí krupen, in fact, is opposite to big, large'. It is related to the IE *krm- (cf. Pokorny, IEW, 581, 622, 948s.), OChSl кржпъ = parvus 'small, short, fragment' (for other parallels s. above Tab. 1). 2° On 19 photographs and 24 drawings in the book Epis copy on Bregalnica by B. Aleksova, Prilep 1989, pp. 218-308, about 700 different signs can be counted, but less than 200 are to some degree possible. Judging from the photographs it seems that some of the signs on the bricks and frag¬ ments of marble (non vidi originals), are intentionally engraved, but so far they have not been identified. The discoverer of these graffiti states that only profound investigations can offer reliable proofs for their precise identifica¬ tion. But other authors go much further beyond the facts, declaring that along with some Glagolitic and Cyrillic characters (none specified), on the same blocks and slabs built into the walls, there were symbols from much older writing systems, e.g. Semitic, Linear B, runes, etc., a phenomenon unknown till now. In fact one cannot read a single word from these symbols, "en¬ graved" in a complete absence of order. The suggestion that they are from the time when, according to UC and SL Constantine Philosophus invented Glagolitic during his enlightening activity at Raven near Bregalnica in the fifties of the DC century, is disproved by a coin of the emperor Leon the Sixth "The Wise" (886-912), found among this "epigraphic" material. _ Origin and Development of Writing _353 The majority of the copied signs are sacred Christian symbols: the cross, circle and triangle. Of the 38 Glagolitic letters, about 20 are recognis¬ able. But there are serious problems with their exact identification. Presented without lines in disorder, the most frequent of them are ambiguous. Thus, the sign from a circle and a triangle (б) can be read either И, or S (S), seen from the opposite side. In the same way V (V) is confused with D (Л); Ж (об) with / (Ж), M Cyrillic (M) with ω (W), depending on the side from which it is read. The sign for Τ (m) can be read О (§) ifit is turned 90° to the left. Therefore, no single word can be read with these signs. Some Glagolitic and Greeki-Cyrillic) characters with the same pho¬ netic value are presented together, e.g.: A, O, D, L, M, etc. If the drawings are accurate, one can conclude that these signs are from the time when the Glagolitic script was replaced by the Cyrillic one. The signs correspond to some degree to those from the Presláv Rotonda (from the end of the К cen¬ tury to the beginning of the X century), as they are also dated by other ar- chaelogical finds. The developed forms of some Cyrillic characters (в, ь, t) on the photograph of a marble fragment from Kale (no. 131, p. 290) show that they originate from much later times, perhaps from the middle of the X century, or later. Thus, the paucity of these graffiti, presented in chaotic dis¬ order, and in the absence of originals, cannot prove in any case the reliability of the mentioned short Ufes as faithful historical sources for St Cyril's life and activity, and for the existence of established Slavonic literacy before the Mo¬ ravian Mission.
any_adam_object	1
any_adam_object_boolean	1
author	Ilievski, Petar Hr. 1920-2013
author_GND	(DE-588)103501126
author_facet	Ilievski, Petar Hr. 1920-2013
author_role	aut
author_sort	Ilievski, Petar Hr. 1920-2013
author_variant	p h i ph phi
building	Verbundindex
bvnumber	BV023334447
classification_rvk	AM 13100 KD 1590
ctrlnum	(OCoLC)254446420 (DE-599)BVBBV023334447
discipline	Allgemeines Slavistik
discipline_str_mv	Allgemeines Slavistik
edition	2. rev. izd.
era	Geschichte gnd
era_facet	Geschichte
format	Book
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02526nam a2200589 c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV023334447</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20100721 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">080609s2006 a\|\|\| \|\|\|\| 00\|\|\| mac d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9989101728</subfield><subfield code="9">9989-101-72-8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)254446420</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV023334447</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">mac</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-355</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-19</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-20</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-Re13</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AM 13100</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)4106:</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">KD 1590</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)71936:</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ilievski, Petar Hr.</subfield><subfield code="d">1920-2013</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)103501126</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Pojava i razvoj na pismoto</subfield><subfield code="b">so posoben osvrt kon početocite na slovenskata pismenost = Origin and developement of writing</subfield><subfield code="c">Petar Hr. Ilievski</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="246" ind1="1" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Origin and development of writing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="246" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Origin and developement of writing</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="250" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">2. rev. izd.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Skopje</subfield><subfield code="b">Makedonska Akad. na Naukite i Umetnostite</subfield><subfield code="c">2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">391 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PST: Origin and development of writing. - In kyrill. Schr., mazedon. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Schriftlichkeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4077162-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Slawen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4077491-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Schrift</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4053297-5</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Slawische Sprachen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4120036-6</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Schrift</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4053297-5</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Geschichte</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Slawen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4077491-0</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Schrift</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4053297-5</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Geschichte</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="2" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Slawische Sprachen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4120036-6</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="2" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Schriftlichkeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4077162-3</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="2" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Geschichte</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="2" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung UB Regensburg</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016518331&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016518331&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016518331</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">306.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="g">4976</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">070.9</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="g">4976</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
id	DE-604.BV023334447
illustrated	Illustrated
index_date	2024-07-02T20:58:58Z
indexdate	2024-07-09T21:16:12Z
institution	BVB
isbn	9989101728
language	Macedonian
oai_aleph_id	oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016518331
oclc_num	254446420
open_access_boolean
owner	DE-355 DE-BY-UBR DE-19 DE-BY-UBM DE-12 DE-20 DE-Re13 DE-BY-UBR
owner_facet	DE-355 DE-BY-UBR DE-19 DE-BY-UBM DE-12 DE-20 DE-Re13 DE-BY-UBR
physical	391 S. Ill.
publishDate	2006
publishDateSearch	2006
publishDateSort	2006
publisher	Makedonska Akad. na Naukite i Umetnostite
record_format	marc
spelling	Ilievski, Petar Hr. 1920-2013 Verfasser (DE-588)103501126 aut Pojava i razvoj na pismoto so posoben osvrt kon početocite na slovenskata pismenost = Origin and developement of writing Petar Hr. Ilievski Origin and development of writing Origin and developement of writing 2. rev. izd. Skopje Makedonska Akad. na Naukite i Umetnostite 2006 391 S. Ill. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier PST: Origin and development of writing. - In kyrill. Schr., mazedon. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache Geschichte gnd rswk-swf Schriftlichkeit (DE-588)4077162-3 gnd rswk-swf Slawen (DE-588)4077491-0 gnd rswk-swf Schrift (DE-588)4053297-5 gnd rswk-swf Slawische Sprachen (DE-588)4120036-6 gnd rswk-swf Schrift (DE-588)4053297-5 s Geschichte z DE-604 Slawen (DE-588)4077491-0 s Slawische Sprachen (DE-588)4120036-6 s Schriftlichkeit (DE-588)4077162-3 s Digitalisierung UB Regensburg application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016518331&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016518331&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract
spellingShingle	Ilievski, Petar Hr. 1920-2013 Pojava i razvoj na pismoto so posoben osvrt kon početocite na slovenskata pismenost = Origin and developement of writing Schriftlichkeit (DE-588)4077162-3 gnd Slawen (DE-588)4077491-0 gnd Schrift (DE-588)4053297-5 gnd Slawische Sprachen (DE-588)4120036-6 gnd
subject_GND	(DE-588)4077162-3 (DE-588)4077491-0 (DE-588)4053297-5 (DE-588)4120036-6
title	Pojava i razvoj na pismoto so posoben osvrt kon početocite na slovenskata pismenost = Origin and developement of writing
title_alt	Origin and development of writing Origin and developement of writing
title_auth	Pojava i razvoj na pismoto so posoben osvrt kon početocite na slovenskata pismenost = Origin and developement of writing
title_exact_search	Pojava i razvoj na pismoto so posoben osvrt kon početocite na slovenskata pismenost = Origin and developement of writing
title_exact_search_txtP	Pojava i razvoj na pismoto so posoben osvrt kon početocite na slovenskata pismenost = Origin and developement of writing
title_full	Pojava i razvoj na pismoto so posoben osvrt kon početocite na slovenskata pismenost = Origin and developement of writing Petar Hr. Ilievski
title_fullStr	Pojava i razvoj na pismoto so posoben osvrt kon početocite na slovenskata pismenost = Origin and developement of writing Petar Hr. Ilievski
title_full_unstemmed	Pojava i razvoj na pismoto so posoben osvrt kon početocite na slovenskata pismenost = Origin and developement of writing Petar Hr. Ilievski
title_short	Pojava i razvoj na pismoto
title_sort	pojava i razvoj na pismoto so posoben osvrt kon pocetocite na slovenskata pismenost origin and developement of writing
title_sub	so posoben osvrt kon početocite na slovenskata pismenost = Origin and developement of writing
topic	Schriftlichkeit (DE-588)4077162-3 gnd Slawen (DE-588)4077491-0 gnd Schrift (DE-588)4053297-5 gnd Slawische Sprachen (DE-588)4120036-6 gnd
topic_facet	Schriftlichkeit Slawen Schrift Slawische Sprachen
url	http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016518331&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016518331&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA
work_keys_str_mv	AT ilievskipetarhr pojavairazvojnapismotosoposobenosvrtkonpocetocitenaslovenskatapismenostoriginanddevelopementofwriting AT ilievskipetarhr originanddevelopmentofwriting AT ilievskipetarhr originanddevelopementofwriting

Verfügbarkeit

Es ist kein Print-Exemplar vorhanden.

Fernleihe Bestellen Achtung: Nicht im THWS-Bestand! Inhaltsverzeichnis

MARC

Datensatz im Suchindex

Es ist kein Print-Exemplar vorhanden.

Ähnliche Einträge