A literary language is one in which there is a written language of a certain people, and sometimes several. That is, in this language it happens schooling, written and everyday communication, official business documents, scientific works, fiction, journalism, as well as all other manifestations of art are created, which are expressed in verbal, most often written, but sometimes oral form. Therefore, there is a difference between oral-spoken and written-book forms of the literary language. Their interaction, correlation and emergence are subject to certain patterns of history.

Various definitions of the concept

Literary language is a phenomenon that is understood in its own way by different scientists. Some believe that it is national, only processed by masters of words, that is, writers. Proponents of this approach have in mind, first of all, the concept of a literary language relating to modern times, and at the same time among peoples with a richly represented fiction. According to others, literary language- this is bookish, written, which is opposed to living speech, that is, spoken language. This interpretation is based on those languages ​​in which writing is ancient. Still others believe that this is a language of universal significance for a particular people, in contrast to jargon and dialect, which do not have such universal significance. Literary language is always the result of the joint creative activity of people. This is a brief description of this concept.

Relationship with different dialects

Particular attention should be paid to the interaction and relationship between dialects and the literary language. The more stable the historical foundations of certain dialects, the more difficult it is for a literary language to linguistically unite all members of a nation. Until now, dialects successfully compete with the standard language in many countries, for example, Indonesia and Italy.

This concept also interacts with linguistic styles that exist within the boundaries of any language. They represent varieties of it that have developed historically and in which there is a set of characteristics. Some of them may be repeated in other different styles, but a unique function and a certain combination of features distinguishes one style from the rest. Today big number speakers use colloquial and colloquial forms.

Differences in the development of literary language among different peoples

In the Middle Ages, as well as in modern times, different nations The history of the literary language has developed in different ways. Let's compare, for example, the role that Latin language in the culture of the Germanic and Romance peoples of the early Middle Ages, the functions that the French language performed in England until the beginning of the 14th century, the interaction of Latin, Czech, Polish languages in the 16th century, etc.

Development of Slavic languages

In an era when a nation is being formed and developing, a unity of literary norms is emerging. Most often this occurs first in writing, but sometimes the process can occur simultaneously in writing and orally. In the Russian state of the 16th-17th centuries, work was underway to canonize and streamline the norms of the business state language, along with the formation of uniform requirements for spoken Moscow. The same process occurs in others where the literary language is actively developing. For Serbian and Bulgarian it is less typical, since in Serbia and Bulgaria there were no conditions favorable for the development of business clerical and state languages ​​on a national basis. Russian, along with Polish and to a certain extent Czech, is an example of a national Slavic literary language that has retained connections with the written ancient language.

Taking the path of breaking with the old tradition is Serbo-Croatian, and also partly Ukrainian. In addition, there are Slavic languages ​​that did not develop continuously. At a certain stage, this development was interrupted, therefore the emergence of national linguistic features in certain countries led to a break with the ancient, old written tradition or the later one - these are the Macedonian and Belarusian languages. Let us consider in more detail the history of the literary language in our country.

History of the Russian literary language

The oldest surviving literary monuments date back to the 11th century. The process of transformation and formation of the Russian language in the 18th and 19th centuries took place on the basis of its opposition to French - the language of the nobles. In the works of classics of Russian literature, its possibilities were actively studied and new language forms were introduced. Writers emphasized its richness and pointed out its advantages in relation to foreign languages. Disputes often arose on this issue. There are known, for example, disputes between Slavophiles and Westerners. Later, in Soviet years, it was emphasized that our language is the language of the builders of communism, and during the reign of Stalin, a whole campaign was even carried out to combat cosmopolitanism in Russian literature. And at present, the history of the Russian literary language in our country continues to take shape, since its transformation is continuously taking place.

Folklore

Folklore in the form of sayings, proverbs, epics, and fairy tales has its roots in distant history. Oral samples folk art passed on from generation to generation, from mouth to mouth, and their content was polished in such a way that only the most stable combinations remained, and linguistic forms were updated as the language developed.

And after writing appeared, oral creativity continued to exist. In modern times, urban and worker folklore, as well as blatnoy (that is, prison camp) and army folklore, were added to peasant folklore. Oral folk art today is most widely represented in jokes. It also influences written literary language.

How did the literary language develop in Ancient Rus'?

The spread and introduction which led to the formation of a literary language is usually associated with the names of Cyril and Methodius.

In Novgorod and other cities of the 11th-15th centuries, the bulk of those that survived were private letters that were of a business nature, as well as documents such as court records, bills of sale, receipts, wills. There are also folklore (housekeeping instructions, riddles, school jokes, spells), literary and church texts, as well as records of an educational nature (children's scribbles and drawings, school exercises, warehouses, alphabet books).

Introduced in 863 by the brothers Methodius and Cyril, Church Slavonic writing was based on a language such as Old Church Slavonic, which, in turn, originated from the South Slavic dialects, or more precisely, from the Old Bulgarian language, its Macedonian dialect. The literary activity of these brothers consisted primarily of translating the books of the Old Testament and Their students translated many religious books from Greek into Church Slavonic. Some scholars believe that Cyril and Methodius introduced the Glagolitic alphabet, not the Cyrillic alphabet, and the latter was developed by their students.

Church Slavonic language

The book language, not the spoken one, was Church Slavonic. It spread among numerous Slavic peoples, where it acted as a culture. Church Slavonic literature spread in Moravia among the Western Slavs, in Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia among the southern Slavs, in the Czech Republic, Croatia, Wallachia, and also in Rus' with the adoption of Christianity. The Church Slavonic language was very different from the spoken language; the texts were subject to changes during correspondence and were gradually Russified. The words became closer to Russian and began to reflect features characteristic of local dialects.

The first grammar textbooks were compiled in 1596 by Lavrentiy Zinany and in 1619 by Meletiy Smotritsky. At the end of the 17th century, the process of formation of such a language as Church Slavonic was basically completed.

18th century - literary language reform

M.V. Lomonosov in the 18th century made the most important reforms of the literary language of our country, as well as the system of versification. He wrote a letter in 1739 in which he formulated the basic principles of versification. Lomonosov, polemicizing with Trediakovsky, wrote that it is necessary to use the capabilities of our language instead of borrowing various schemes from others. According to Mikhail Vasilyevich, poetry can be written in a variety of feet: two-syllable, three-syllable (amphibrach, anapest, dactyl), but he believed that the division into sponde and pyrrhic is incorrect.

In addition, Lomonosov also compiled a scientific grammar of the Russian language. He described its capabilities and wealth in his book. The grammar was republished 14 times and later formed the basis of another work - the grammar of Barsov (written in 1771), who was a student of Mikhail Vasilyevich.

Modern literary language in our country

Its creator is considered to be Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, whose creations are the pinnacle of literature in our country. This thesis is still relevant, although great changes have occurred in the language over the past two hundred years, and today there are clear stylistic differences between the modern language and the language of Pushkin. Despite the fact that the norms of modern literary language have changed today, we still consider the works of Alexander Sergeevich as an example.

Meanwhile, the poet himself pointed out main role in the formation of the literary language N.M. Karamzin, since this glorious writer and historian, according to Alexander Sergeevich, freed the Russian language from the foreign yoke and returned it to freedom.

The history of the Russian literary language has developed as a special scientific discipline, separated from general history Russian language only in the post-October period, mainly in the 30-40s of our century. True, even before this, attempts were made to present the course of development of the Russian literary language in its entirety, and especially the development of the modern Russian literary language.

The first of the Russian linguists to develop the course “History of the Russian Literary Language” (starting with the linguistic situation in Kievan Rus and ending with the language of modern Russian literature to the poet Nadson), was prof. A. I. Sobolevsky. However, the course of lectures prepared for publication was apparently never read anywhere and remained in manuscript. Now this manuscript is being prepared for publication by A. A. Alekseev, it dates back to 1889.

History of the Russian literary language of the 17th-19th centuries. at the beginning of this century was studied by Professor E. F. Budde, who focused his attention exclusively on studying the language of works outstanding writers. Unfortunately, this book is rightly criticized as a random collection of linguistic facts, phonetic, morphological and sometimes lexical, that do not cover the development of the Russian literary language as a unified stylistic system, and therefore, of course, cannot be recognized as fundamental in the development of the science of the Russian literary language.

If the subject of the history of the Russian literary language is understood as experiments in understanding the paths and results of the historical existence of the Russian written language - the language of literary works par excellence - then we can assume that this scientific discipline has more distant origins of development. An article by V.V. Vinogradov was once devoted to elucidating these origins.

However, the generalization of the heterogeneous knowledge accumulated by Russian philologists in the process of studying the language of written monuments and works of art during the entire development of Russian literature was carried out by researchers only in the thirties of our century. The first attempt to put into a system complex and diverse linguistic material related to the history of the Russian literary language of the 18th and 19th centuries was the monograph by V.V. Vinogradov “Essays on the history of the Russian literary language of the 17th-19th centuries” (1st ed.-M ., 1934; 2nd ed. - M" 1938).

At the same time, in the first half of the 30s, the traditional idea that the literary language for the entire Old Russian period, through the 17th century, was revised. inclusive, was the Church Slavonic language. This idea was formulated with the greatest certainty and clarity by Academician. A. A. Shakhmatov. The scientist believed that the Russian literary language is a Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian in origin) language transferred to Russian soil, which over the centuries has become closer to the living folk language and has gradually lost and is losing its foreign appearance.

Having compared the functioning of the Church Slavonic language on Russian soil with the similar use of Latin as a literary language among peoples Western Europe In the Middle Ages, A. A. Shakhmatov argued that the situation was different with the Church Slavonic language in Russia: because of its proximity to Russian, it was never alien to the people, like medieval Latin, for example, to the Germans and Slavs. From the first years of its existence on Russian soil, the Church Slavonic language was uncontrollably assimilated into Russian folk speech - after all, the Russian people who spoke it could not distinguish either their pronunciation or their use of words from the pronunciation and use of words of the church language they had acquired. As written monuments of the 11th century prove, even then the pronunciation of the Church Slavonic language had become Russified and lost its character alien to Russian speech; Even then, the Russian people treated the Church Slavonic language as their property, without resorting to the help of foreign teachers to master and understand it.

The traditional point of view on the formation of the Old Russian literary language from the Church Slavonic language that preceded it in time and in social functioning was shared until the 30s by the vast majority of Russian philologists - both language historians and historians of Russian literature. And only S.P. Obnorsky tried to contrast the traditional theory with the hypothesis about the original Russian, East Slavic character of the originally formed Old Russian literary language in the article “Russian Truth, as a monument of the Russian literary language” (1934).

Having examined in this work the language of the oldest Russian legal monument, S.P. Obnorsky established in the phonetics and morphology of the “Russian Pravda” according to the list of the “Novgorod Helmsman” of 1282 the unconditional predominance of Russian speech features over Old Slavic (ancient Bulgarian) ones and made a general conclusion about the nature Russian literary language of the older formation (its term). This ancient Russian literary language, according to the scientist, developed in the north and only later, in the process of its growth, experienced the influence of the Byzantine-Bulgarian speech culture. The Bulgarianization of the Russian literary language, as S.P. Obnorsky believed, proceeded gradually with constant intensification.

In the conclusions of his article, S. P. Obnorsky showed a holistic perspective of the process of development of the Old Russian literary language with its gradual Slavification during the XIII-XVI centuries and with further approaching the folk language. colloquial speech already in modern times.

The idea of ​​the original East Slavic speech basis of the Old Russian literary language of the older formation was consistently developed by S. P. Obnorsky in articles that appeared in the 1930s: “The language of treaties between Russians and Greeks” and “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” as a monument of the Russian literary language "

The hypothesis of S.P. Obnorsky caused criticism from a number of specialists. Thus, these provisions were not supported by A. M. Selishchev. S. I. Bernstein analyzed in detail the views of S. P. Obnorsky on the emergence of the Old Russian literary language in comparison with the ideas of A. A. Shakhmatov in the introductory article to the fourth edition of “Essay on the Modern Russian Literary Language” S. I. Bernstein pointed out that S. I. Bernstein’s hypothesis. P. Obnorsky so far relies only on the analysis of two monuments and operates mainly with data from phonetics and morphology. It is necessary to expand the range of monuments studied and pay attention to such aspects of the language as syntax and vocabulary, the analysis of which will allow us to judge with greater grounds the true basis of the literary language. As a result, a hypothesis S.P. Obnorsky, diametrically opposed to the traditional theory, was assessed as “no less plausible, but unable to refute it without further justification”

S.P. Obnorsky took criticism to a certain extent in his later works, especially in the monograph “Essays on the history of the Russian literary language of the older period.” In this book, the language of the four fundamental works of ancient Russian writing “Russian Truth” (in an older, brief version) was examined ), the works of Vladimir Monomakh, “The Prayer of Daniil the Zatochnik” and “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” Along with the study of the features of phonetics and morphology, the author also pays attention to the syntax and vocabulary of the works, shedding new light on a number of positions expressed by him in earlier works, in particular pointing out the significance of the influence of the Old Church Slavonic language on the Old Russian literary language of the older period, S.P. Obnorsky in the preface to the monograph continues to insist on the hypothesis about the actual Russian basis of the Old Russian literary language. He believed that this hypothesis has great methodological significance, standing on the wrong path, in his opinion, scientists saw the origins of the Russian literary language in Church Slavonic; in studying the language of monuments, they methodologically incorrectly raised the question of the scope of Russian elements in a particular monument. According to S.P. Obnorsky, it is necessary to equally cover the question of the share of Church Slavonicisms in the language of each monument. “Then, on the objective basis of research,” he wrote, “the general problem of the history of Church Slavonicisms in our language will be raised, because the idea of ​​their influence we have exaggerated Many Church Slavonicisms, evidenced by one or another written monument, had the meaning of conditional, isolated facts of the language, were not included in its system, and later fell out of it altogether, and relatively few layers of them firmly entered into the everyday life of our literary language.”

The hypothesis put forward by S.P. Obnorsky found wide recognition in the works of the 1940s and early 1950s (see Chapter 3, p. 34).

Simultaneously with S.P. Obnorsky, L.P. Yakubinsky was engaged in consideration of the language of the same written monuments and the study of the problem of the Old Russian literary language, whose major work was published posthumously in 1953. Unlike S.P. Obnorsky, L.P. Yakubinsky recognized the dominance of the Old Church Slavonic language as the state language of Kievan Rus until the end of the 11th century, when, especially during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, the Old Church Slavonic language was ousted from mandatory state use by the Old Russian literary language itself. It is noteworthy that L.P. Yakubinsky based his conclusions primarily on the basis of an analysis of the language of the same monuments that were in the field of view of S.P. Obnorsky

In the pre-war years, L. A. Bulakhovsky included in his research interests the problems of the history of the new Russian literary language. In 1936, he published “Historical Commentary on the Literary Russian Language,” which still serves as a valuable encyclopedic guide. The subject of special study for this scientist was Russian literary language of the first half of the 19th century, the time of the most intensive development of the Russian literary language as the language of the Russian nation

The problem of the Russian literary language began to be developed with particular care in the early 1950s. During these years, B. A. Larin, who read lecture course in the named discipline at the Faculty of Philology of Leningrad University in 1949/50 and 1950/51 academic years. This work was recently published on the basis of student notes by a team of his students. The course of lectures by B. A. Larin is distinguished by its depth, unique interpretation of cardinal issues traditionally recognized as resolved, and closeness of linguistic analysis of monuments of ancient Russian writing of various styles and types

The language and style of the largest realist writers of the 19th century. in the same years, A. I. Efimov and S. A. Koporsky devoted their monographic research.

Many general problems of the history of the Russian literary language are fruitfully developed in his articles and monographs by V. V. Vinogradov.

A general historical outline of the development of the Russian literary language is presented in the monograph by G. O. Vinokur. He also wrote research chapters devoted to the characteristics of individual periods in the development of the Russian literary language in the volumes of the academic “History of Russian Literature.”

In parallel with research in the theoretical direction, the history of the Russian literary language developed in the same years. academic discipline at the philological faculties of universities and at the faculties of Russian language and literature of pedagogical institutes. Let's name the textbooks of S. D. Nikiforov, A. I. Efimov, I. V. Ustinov.

In 1949, the Institute of Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences began publishing a regular scientific series of works under the general title “Materials and Research from the History of the Russian Literary Language.” The first volume was devoted to the study of the language of writers of the pre-Pushkin era - Karamzin and his contemporaries. The second volume contained studies of the language and style of the most prominent writers of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries - Lomonosov, Radishchev, Plavilshchikov, Pushkin, Lermontov, early Gogol, as well as works that introduced new materials into scientific circulation, extracted from hitherto unexplored lexicographical sources. The third volume published works on the language of writers of the Pushkin era - the Decembrist poets, Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov and Belinsky. The fourth volume covered issues of language and style of writers of the mid and second half of the 19th century.

The late 1950s-1960s are characterized by a new approach to the problems of the history of the Russian literary language. At this time, new sources-literatures on birch bark are being drawn into the orbit of study, which raises the question of how their language should be qualified.

Scientific methodology is being improved in the approach to the language of traditionally studied written monuments. The concept of “history of literary language” is distinguished from those adjacent to it. The science of the language of fiction and, accordingly, the history of the language of fiction are separated from the history of literary language as a new scientific discipline. These problems were reflected in the reports that academician gave at the IV International Congress of Slavists in Moscow. V. V. Vinogradov.

Along with the history of the Russian literary language, similar scientific disciplines are being developed on the basis of other old written languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR, in particular the Ukrainian and Belarusian literary languages.

A certain positive moment in the development of problems of the history of the Russian literary language in this chronological period, in comparison with previous years, we can call liberation from one-sidedness in the interpretation of the oldest type of Russian literary language - from recognizing it either only as Old Church Slavonic or as originally Russian. Thus, V.V. Vinogradov at the IV International Congress of Slavists in 1958 spoke about two types of Old Russian literary language - book Slavic and folk literary. Other scientists, for example E. G. Kovalevskaya, call three types of literary written language Kievan era, recognizing the third type as the variety that was entrenched in business and legal writing, which developed almost exclusively on an East Slavic basis.

An achievement can be considered the recognition of the need to distinguish, both in terms of social functioning and in terms of structure, the literary language of the period before the formation of the nation (a literary and written language that served the needs of the people) and after the formation of the nation (the national literary language). This thesis was developed on the material of various Slavic languages ​​in the report of academician. V. V. Vinogradov at the V International Congress of Slavists in Sofia in 1963

As an important step in studying the development of the norms of the Russian literary language of the 19th century. a collective work in five editions published in 1964 under the general title “Essays on the Historical Grammar of the Russian Literary Language” should be considered. This is a unique study of its kind, because it shows changes in the norms of the Russian literary language of the named era, regardless of the creativity of outstanding masters of words and their works.

Let's also call the work of prof. Yu. S. Sorokin, dedicated to the development of vocabulary of the Russian literary language in the 19th century. This work is undoubtedly of deep interest, considering the vocabulary of a language as a developing system.

In the 60s.-. the works of individual foreign linguists-Russianists appear - B., O. Unbegun, G. Hütl-Worth and others. The works of these authors are mainly negative in nature, they refute and reject the scientific understanding of the history of the Russian literary language, generally accepted in Soviet linguistics. A deeply substantiated rebuff to these attacks was given at one time in the articles of V.V. Vinogradov, L.P. Zhukovskaya, E.T. Cherkasova.

In our opinion, the article by L.P. Zhukovskaya is of greatest importance. This work is fundamentally important for historians of the Russian language of the ancient period. L.P. Zhukovskaya, relying on her research into one of the main traditional monuments of ancient Russian writing - the “Mstislav Gospel” (1115-1117), establishes in this monument a rich linguistic variability at the level of vocabulary, grammar, phonetics and spelling, thereby showing that features of folk colloquial speech were also introduced into the monuments of traditional book literature, which were included in the general process of development of the Russian language. Consequently, these monuments can be recognized not only as monuments of Russian writing, but also of the Old Russian literary language, along with monuments of original origin. Russian-Church Slavonic bilingualism, according to the researcher, appears only later, in the 14th-15th centuries, when both of these languages ​​began to differ greatly from each other. These arguments are developed and presented in more detail in the monograph by L.P. Zhukovskaya.

The significance of the Old Slavic literary and written language as a common literary language of the southern and Eastern Slavs in the early stages of their historical existence is emphasized in a number of works by N.I. Tolstoy, M.M. Kopylenko and ours.

In the 60-70s, the works of I. F. Protchenko appeared on the development of vocabulary and word formation in the Russian language of the Soviet era.

During these same decades, textbooks on the history of the Russian literary language continued to be created and republished: in addition to the book by A. I. Efimov, named above, several editions of textbooks and manuals compiled by A. I. Gorshkov, A. V. Stepanov, A. N. Kozhin. We also mention the manuals of Yu. A. Belchikov, G. I. Shklyarevsky, E. G. Kovalevskaya.

In recent years, the course “History of the Russian Literary Language” has begun to be taught at universities in socialist countries. For this course, textbooks were compiled that meet the methodological requirements of Marxist-Leninist theory in the German Democratic Republic, Poland and Bulgaria.

The article by A.I. Gorshkov “On the subject of the history of the Russian literary language” is of fundamental importance.

The content of the history of the Russian literary language as a scientific discipline is to reveal the “external history” of the language (as opposed to the “internal history” discussed in courses on historical grammar and historical phonetics and lexicology of the Russian language). The history of the Russian literary language is intended to trace all historical changes in the conditions of the social functioning of the literary language at all stages of the social development of a given speech group (nationality or nation). Since one of the signs of a developed literary language is its versatility, one of the important tasks The task facing historians of the literary language is to trace the emergence and development of its functional styles.

The history of the Russian literary language as a scientific discipline is based on the Marxist thesis of the unity of language and consciousness and the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of nations and national languages. The development of a language is inextricably linked with the life of the people - the creator and native speaker of the language. It is on the material of the history of literary languages ​​that this dialectical-materialist thesis is learned with particular clarity and strength. The history of a literary language is closely connected with the history of a nationality or nation, with the history of its culture, literature, science and art. Changes in the conditions of social functioning of literary languages ​​are determined ultimately and indirectly by the stages of social development of society.

The modern Russian literary language, which has a great wealth of expressive and figurative means, acts as the highest form of the national language and differs from latest topics, that this is a language “processed by masters of words.”

By distinguishing the concept of “literary language” from the closely related concept of “language of fiction,” we at the same time recognize that one of the distinctive properties of artistry in language should be recognized as the aesthetic function of the word, inherent in every linguistic fact in works of verbal art.

Thus, the history of literary language should not be turned into a series of essays on the language of individual writers. But at the same time, we must not forget that, according to V.I. Lenin’s definition, “consolidation in literature” should be considered the most important feature of the language of a nation. V. G. Belinsky’s statement that the appearance of each new major writer creates conditions for the progressive development of the entire literary language as a whole is also correct.

One of the main tasks facing the history of the Russian literary language as a scientific discipline is to show which of the word masters and how they “processed” the Russian language so that it became a “great and powerful” language, according to the unanimous opinion of Russian and foreign writers and scientists.

Literary language, being the highest level of speech communication for a particular social group at a certain stage of social development, is contrasted with various “lower”, uncodified speech means that are not usually reflected in writing. Written consistency is considered as an obligatory and most indicative feature of the literary language as such. However, at a certain historical stage, an oral-spoken variety of the literary language is created, which enters into continuous interaction with its higher, written form. The task of historians of the Russian literary language is to trace this interaction, reflected in the work of masters of words. At the same time, there is a constant interaction between the literary language, subject to strictly ordered norms of word usage, and the speech forms of uncodified human communication. The study of this interaction should also be considered within the range of tasks assigned to researchers of literary language.

The purpose of our work is to give a brief outline of the history of the Russian literary language (in the traditional understanding of this term) for the entire period of its development, from the 10th to the 20th centuries, in connection with the history of the Russian people, mainly, sir literature, using new written monuments that have not previously been involved in historical and linguistic studies, mainly for pre- national period development of the Russian language. Such works ancient Russian literature, the language and style of which have not yet been studied, are “The Sermon on Law and Grace” by Metropolitan Hilarion (XI century), “The Tale of Boris and Gleb” (XI-XII centuries), “The Sermon on the Destruction of the Russian Land” (XIII century .), “Praise to Prince Ivan Kalita” (XIV century), “Another Word” and “The Tale of the Merchant Khariton Beloulin” (XVI century). A special section is devoted to studies of the language and style of writings on birch bark and newly discovered historical sources.

When studying the national period of development of the Russian literary language, a separate chapter is devoted to the linguistic heritage of V. G. Belinsky and elucidation of his role in the history of the Russian literary language.

For the first time, the language and style of V. I. Lenin’s works are included in the linguo-historical study. The language of the works of the great leader of the proletarian revolution is organically connected with the entire course of development of the Russian literary language of the previous era and reveals the development of the Russian literary language of the Soviet period.

In the final chapter of the book, we try to trace how changes in the social functions of the Russian literary language that occurred after the Great October Socialist Revolution were reflected in its vocabulary and partly in its grammatical structure.

Thus, we bring to the attention of readers in a brief form the most complete outline of the development, formation and historical destinies literary language of our people in close connection and in interaction with its history. How we managed to cope with the tasks we set ourselves, we will let the readers judge.

Chapter first. Periodization of the history of the Russian literary language

The history of a literary language reveals those organic relationships that at all stages social development exist between the language and the history of the people. The vocabulary of a literary language and its functional styles reflect most clearly and most noticeably those events that marked certain turning points in the life of the people. The formation of a literary literary tradition, its dependence on changing social formations, on the vicissitudes of the class struggle, affects primarily the social functioning of the literary language and its stylistic branches. The development of the culture of the people, their statehood, their art, and first of all the art of words and literature, leaves an indelible mark on the development of the literary language, manifesting itself in the improvement of its functional styles. Consequently, the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language can be built not only on the basis of those stages that the national language experiences as a result of objective processes of internal spontaneous development of its main structural elements - sound structure, grammar and vocabulary - but also on the correspondence between stages historical development language and development of society, culture and literature of the people.

Until now, the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language has hardly been the subject of a special scientific research. Those historical stages, which are recorded by university programs on the history of the Russian literary language, are outlined in the article by V. V. Vinogradov “The main stages of the history of the Russian language.” In the course of lectures by A.I. Gorshkov we find a periodization of the history of the Russian literary language according to the university rules in force in those years curriculum: 1. Literary language of the Old Russian (Old East Slavic) people ( X-early XIV centuries); 2. Literary language of the Russian (Great Russian) people (XIV-mid-XVII centuries); 3. Literary language of the initial era of the formation of the Russian nation (mid-17th - mid-18th centuries); 4. Literary language of the era of the formation of the Russian nation and national norms of literary language (middle XVIII-early XIX centuries); 5. Literary language of the Russian nation (mid-19th century to the present day).

Let us allow ourselves to make some critical remarks about the proposed periodization of the history of the Russian literary language. First of all, it seems to us that in this periodization the connection between the history of language and the history of the people is not sufficiently taken into account. The identified periods correspond, rather, to the immanent development of the structural elements of the national Russian language than to the development of the literary language itself, which is unthinkable without an inextricable connection with the history of Russian statehood, culture and, first of all, the history of Russian literature. Secondly, this periodization suffers from excessive fragmentation and mechanism; it artificially breaks into separate isolated periods such stages of linguistic historical development that should be considered in an indissoluble unity.

Let us present our concept of periodization of the history of the Russian literary language in inextricable connection with the history of the Russian people, their culture and literature.

It seems to us most appropriate to divide the entire thousand-year history of our literary language not into five, but into only two main periods: the period of pre-national development of the Russian literary and written language and the period of its development as a national language. It would be natural to recognize the boundary between both outlined periods as the time around the middle of the 17th century, from where, according to the well-known definition of V. I. Lenin, the “new period of Russian history” begins.

The patterns of development of Slavic literary languages, due to which their pre-national and national periods differ, are traced and substantiated in the report of V. Vinogradov, which he made at the V International Congress of Slavists in Sofia. These differences are quite noticeable and characteristic. Among the most significant is the appearance during the national period of development of the literary language of its oral-colloquial form, which, as a means of oral public communication between members of the linguistic community, apparently was absent in the ancient era, when the written-literary form of the language was directly related to the dialect colloquial speech and contrasted with this latter.

In recent years, she was proposed as a corresponding member. Academy of Sciences of the USSR R. I. Avanesov special periodization the most ancient stage development of the Russian literary language. In a report at the VII International Congress of Slavists in Warsaw (1973), highlighting the relationship between the Old Russian (Old East Slavic) book type of language, the literary language itself and the folk dialect language, the named scientist proposed the following chronological division of the era: XI century - first half of the 12th century; second half of the 12th century - beginning of the 13th century; XIII-XIV centuries This division is based on the increasingly deepening divergence, according to R.I. Avanesov, between book-written and folk-dialectal languages, taking into account the genre varieties of written monuments, which are strictly differentiated in functional terms.

The division of the history of the Russian literary language into pre-national and national periods of development is quite widely accepted by both Soviet and foreign historians of the Russian language.

As for the decisive delimitation of the era of development of the literary language of the Russian people (XIV-XVII centuries - usually called the Moscow period) from the previous time, proposed by the lectures of A.I. Gorshkov and the university program, we cannot agree with this, primarily based on the patterns of development the actual literary and written language of a given era. It is the literary language of the Moscow period that is inextricably linked with the literary development of the entire previous period. After all, we know about the unity of literature reflected by this language, that is, that ancient Russian literature of the 11th-17th centuries, in which the same literary processes, the existence and rewriting of the same texts that arose back in the 11th or 12th centuries. in ancient Kyiv, and corresponded and lived in Muscovite Rus', in the north and northeast of Kyiv, and in the 14th century. (“Laurentian Chronicle”), and in the 16th century (“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”) and even in the 17th century. (“The Prayer of Daniel the Imprisoner”). The same applies to such translated works of the Kievan era as “The History of the Jewish War” by Josephus, “Alexandria” or “Devgenie’s Act”, which undoubtedly arose in the 12th-13th centuries, while most of the lists date back to the 15th-17th centuries . Thus, the unity of Old Russian literature throughout its development from the 11th to the 17th centuries. ensured the unity of the tradition of the Old Russian literary and written language until the middle of the 17th century.

The too fractional division of the periods of development of the Russian literary language of the national period, proposed by A.I. Gorshkov, also cannot be considered sufficiently justified. Thus, we think it is inappropriate to separate the language of the second half of the 19th century with a sharp line. from the previous Pushkin era, when, undoubtedly, the foundations for the development of the lexical-semantic and stylistic system of the Russian national literary language were already being laid, which continues to exist today.

So, according to our conviction, it is most rational to single out only two, main and basic periods of development of the Russian literary language: the pre-national period, or the period of development of the literary and written language of the nationality (first the Old Russian, common East Slavic nationality, and then, from the 14th century, the Great Russian nationality ), otherwise the Old Russian literary and written language until the 17th century, and the national period, covering the development of the Russian literary language in the proper sense of the term, as the national language of the Russian nation, starting approximately from the middle of the 17th century. to this day.

Naturally, in each of the named main periods of development of the Russian literary language, smaller sub-periods of development are distinguished. Thus, the pre-national period is divided into three sub-periods. The Kiev sub-period (from the 10th to the beginning of the 12th century) corresponds to the historical existence of a single East Slavic nation and a relatively unified Old Russian (Kievan) state. The named sub-period is easily distinguished by such a noticeable structural feature as the “fall of the voiceless”, or a change in reduced vowels ъ And b into full vowels in strong positions and into zero sound in weak positions, which, as is known, leads to a decisive restructuring of the entire phonological system of the Old Russian language native language.

The second sub-period falls from the middle of the 12th to the middle of the 14th century, when dialectal branches of the unified East Slavic language were noticeably manifested in the literary and written language, which ultimately led to the formation of zonal varieties of Old Russian literary language that differed from each other in terms of phonetics, morphology and vocabulary. written language in the era of feudal fragmentation.

The third sub-period of the development of the literary and written language falls on the XIV-XVII centuries. For the northeast, this is the language of the Moscow state; in other areas of East Slavic settlement, these are the initial foundations of the subsequently developed independent national languages ​​of the East Slavic peoples (Belarusian and Ukrainian), speaking in the 15th-17th centuries. as the written language of the entire Lithuanian-Russian state, or “simple Russian language,” which served both future Belarusians and the ancestors of the Ukrainian people.

The national period of development of the Russian literary language can also be divided into three subperiods. The first of them covers the middle, or second half of the 17th century, to early XIX V. (before Pushkin's era). By this time, the phonetic and grammatical systems of the Russian national language had basically been established, but in the literary and written language traces of the previously established tradition in the forms of Church Slavonic and business Russian speech continue to be felt with sufficient force. This is a transitional sub-period, a sub-period of the gradual establishment and formation of comprehensive norms of the modern Russian literary language as the language of the nation.

The second sub-period could be called, using the successful definition outlined by V.I. Lenin, the time “from Pushkin to Gorky.” This time is from the 30s of the XIX century. before the beginning of the 20th century, more specifically, before the era of the proletarian revolution, which put an end to the rule of the landowners and the bourgeoisie, the time of development of the Russian literary language as the language of the bourgeois nation. During these years, the vocabulary of the language, which developed on the basis of a broad democratic movement, was enriched with particular intensity in connection with the flourishing of Russian literature and democratic journalism.

And finally, a third sub-period is identified in the history of the Russian literary language, beginning with the preparation and implementation of the proletarian revolution, the Soviet sub-period, which continues to this day.

This is, in general terms, the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language, which seems to us the most acceptable.

Chapter two. The beginning of writing among the Eastern Slavs as the main prerequisite for the emergence of a literary language

The question of the beginning of writing among the ancestors of the Russian people - the ancient East Slavic tribes - is directly related to the history of the Russian literary language: writing is a necessary prerequisite for the emergence of a written literary language. Until recently historical science, answering the question of when and why the Eastern Slavs developed their own writing system, pointed to the relatively late emergence of their own writing in Rus', linking its beginning with the influence of the Christian religion and church. According to this traditional view, East Slavic writing begins to develop only from the very end of the 10th century. based on the Old Church Slavonic, or Old Church Slavonic, writing system, received by the Eastern Slavs in finished form during the period of the so-called baptism of Rus', which, based on chronicle reports, was dated to 989. However, for a long time, historians began to accumulate facts that did not confirm this traditional view and suggested on the assumption of an earlier emergence of writing among the Eastern Slavs. Over the past two decades, data of this kind have been increasing in number, and the time has come to summarize and systematize them. Evidence of an earlier beginning of writing among the Eastern Slavs than what was assumed by scientific tradition can be reduced to three groups: data extracted from traditional written sources on the history of ancient Russian society; data obtained by the latest archaeological research; news of foreign contemporary writers who reported information about Ancient Rus'. By traditional sources on the most ancient period of Rus', we mean, first of all, such a valuable historical monument as the “Initial Chronicle”, or “The Tale of Bygone Years”, created in Kyiv at the end of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century. This complex monument includes the texts of agreements concluded by the ancient Kyiv princes, who lived long before the baptism of Rus', with the Byzantine Empire.

Scientists who stood on the traditional point of view, for example academician. V. M. Istrin believed that the texts of these treaties were originally created in Greek, and then, when compiling the “Tale of Bygone Years”, at the beginning of the 12th century, they could be extracted from the Kyiv princely archives and only then translated into ancient Slavic-Russian literary language for inclusion in the chronicle. In 1936, S.P. Obnorsky took up the question of the language of the agreements between the Kyiv princes and the Greeks preserved by the “Initial Chronicle”. He proved that the translation of the text of treaties into the Slavic language should be recognized as contemporary with their originals. During their drafting, treaties were drawn up simultaneously in two languages: in Greek for Byzantium and in Old Russian (Slavic-Russian) for Principality of Kyiv. The very possibility of the appearance of the Old Russian text of these treaties suggests that the Eastern Slavs had a developed written language at least in the first years of the 10th century, that is, almost a century before the traditional date of the baptism of Rus'.

If we turn to the texts of the treaties that have reached us, we will find messages there that will not leave the slightest doubt that the Eastern Slavs of that time freely and quite widely used their writing.

In a treaty with the Greeks Prince of Kyiv Oleg, placed in the “Tale of Bygone Years” under the summer of 6420 (912), we read: “And about those working in the Greeks of Rus' for the Christian king. If anyone dies, does not arrange his estate, do not have his own, but return the estate to small neighbors in Rus'. If you create such an outfit, take it dressed, to whom I wrote enjoy his property, that he may enjoy it.” The last words of the paragraph can be translated as follows: “If he makes a will, then let him take his property to whom he writes about it in his will.”

In the words of the contract to whom I wrote(to whom he will write) - we can see a direct indication that the wills were written by Russian merchants in their own hands. If we were talking about wills written by notaries in Greek (under the dictation of the testators), then the verbs would be used bequeathed or refused. Thus, those who lived at the beginning of the 10th century. in Constantinople, the Eastern Slavs could draw up written wills about the property they owned, that is, they undoubtedly knew how to write in their native language, for it is even more difficult to assume that they were so educated that they could write in Greek.

In the agreement concluded between Prince Igor of Kyiv and the Byzantine government and placed in the “Elementary Chronicle” under the summer of 6453 (945), we read about gold and silver seals that the ambassadors of the Kyiv prince had with them. And the seal, of course, was accompanied by an inscription with the name of its owner! (All ancient Russian seals known to archaeologists so far always bear the name of the owner. Archeology does not know anonymous seals, marked only with some special sign or coat of arms, without a name.)

In the text of the same agreement we find: “Now your prince has ordered to send letters to our kingdom: those who were sent from them ate food and guests, and brought letters, writing to my tits: as if the ship was gone." The words in italics indicate that in ancient Kyiv during the time of Igor there was a princely office that supplied ships of merchants heading to trade in Constantinople with certificates.

Let's turn to archaeological data. In 1949, during excavations of a mound near the village of Gnezdovo near Smolensk, Soviet archaeologist D. A. Avdusin was able to discover, among other finds in layers dating back to the 20s of the 10th century, an inscription on the side surface of a clay vessel - korchagi. The inscription was made in Slavic Cyrillic letters and was rightly recognized as the oldest Russian inscription. Its reading still cannot be considered indisputable. The first publishers suggested reading peas with meaning mustard. Then Prof. P. Ya. Chernykh amended this reading, clarifying it in accordance with the data of the historical phonetics of the Russian language. He suggested reading the mysterious word as pea(s) on, comparing it with the adjective known from canonical Old Slavonic texts pea- mustard seed. Subsequently, other readings were put forward: Gorounya- possessive adjective from the proper name Goroun (supposed owner of the tavern); the combination “Pea Ya (dog)” - Pea wrote (Pea is the owner of the vessel). However, no matter how we read this inscription, the fact remains that the Cyrillic letter was widespread among the Eastern Slavs already in the first decade of the 10th century. and was not used for religious, but for everyday purposes.

The second important archaeological discovery was made by Romanian scientists while working to dig a shipping canal between the Danube and the Black Sea, near the city of Constanta. This is the so-called Dobrudzhanskaya inscription.

The stone slab on which the Dobrudzhan inscription was inscribed is poorly preserved; not everything in this inscription can be read, but the lines containing the dating of the inscription to 6451 (943) are clearly visible. According to the Romanian Slavist D. P. Bogdan, who published and examined the named monument in 1956, “The Dobrudzhan inscription of 943 is the oldest Cyrillic inscription, carved on stone and marked with a date... From a phonetic point of view, the Dobrudzhan inscription of 943 approaches the ancient Slavic texts of the Russian edition (for example, the Ostromir Gospel).”

Over the past one and a half to two decades, the most widely known archaeological excavations have discovered letters on birch bark in Novgorod and in some other ancient cities of North-Western Rus'. The cultural and historical significance of these finds cannot be overestimated. However, to resolve the question of the beginning of East Slavic writing, they can only be used as indirect evidence. Texts of letters dating back to before the 11th century have not yet been found. Most of the birch bark letters belong to the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, i.e., to an era in which the presence of a developed and widespread East Slavic writing was beyond doubt (see more about this on p. 56 et al.). Birch bark letters prove the massive spread of writing at least in the 11th century, which would be absolutely impossible if we proceed from the traditional dating of the beginning of writing in Rus' at the end of the 10th century. Archaeologists do not lose hope of discovering birch bark letters in the layers of the 10th century. ancient Novgorod, since in these oldest archaeological layers writing tools are found, “writing”, which were used to write letter marks on birch bark.

Thus, archaeological discoveries The last decades leave no room for doubt about the early emergence of writing among our distant ancestors, the East Slavic tribes of the 9th-10th centuries.

Let us turn to the analysis of information reported about Russian writing by foreign authors.

The works of writers of the nations neighboring Ancient Russia tell about the life and way of life of the East Slavic tribes at the dawn of their state existence. Of particular interest to us are the testimonies left by travelers, geographers and historians who wrote on Arabic. The culture of the Arab people was higher in the early Middle Ages compared to European countries, since the Arabs largely preserved the scientific heritage of antiquity. There is a well-known story by the Arab writer Akhmet Ibn Fadlan, who traveled from ancient Khorezm to the Volga, to the capital of the then Bulgar state, the city of Bulgar, in 921-922. In his book, he reports, among other things, about his meetings with Russian merchants, about their customs and rituals. Akhmet Ibn Fadlan witnessed the burial of a rich Russian who traded in Bulgar and died there. The burial was carried out according to an ancient pagan rite, accompanied by the burning of the young wife of the deceased and his property. There is no doubt that the deceased Russian merchant was still a pagan. After completing all the funeral rites, as Ibn Fadlan writes, “they built... something like a round hill and placed a large log of hadanga (white wood) in the middle of it, wrote on it the name of (this) husband and the name of the king of the Rus and left.” .

So, according to Ibn Fadlan, in 921-922. The pagan Rus could write and used their writing to inscribe names on graves. Unfortunately, the Arab author does not report anything about what exactly the writing of the ancient Rus that he saw was like.

We find details about the nature of the writing used by the Rus in the 10th century from another Arab writer of the same time, from Abul-Faraj Muhammad Ibn-abi-Yakub, known under the nickname Ibn-an-Nadim. His work, written in 987-988. under the title “Book of the list of news about scientists and the names of the books they wrote”, contains a section “Russian letters”, which says: “I was told by one, on whose veracity I rely, that one of the kings of Mount Kabk ( Caucasus Mountains) sent him to the king of the Rus; he claimed that they had writing carved into wood. He showed (literally: he took out) me a piece of white wood on which there were images; I don’t know if they were words or individual letters like this.” And further in the Arabic manuscripts of Ibn-an-Nadim there follows a trace of written characters in one line, which many scientists worked in vain to decipher. Obviously, later scribes distorted the inscription so much that there is now no hope for a more accurate reading of it. However, in the above message, individual details attract attention (signs are carved on a piece of white wood), which allow us to conclude that, apparently, the interlocutor of the Arab author showed him nothing more than an ancient letter on birch bark.

Finally, we have one of the most interesting evidence in favor of the great antiquity of Russian (East Slavic) writing in the copies of the “Pannonian Life,” i.e., the biography of the founder of Old Slavic writing, Constantine (Kirill) the Philosopher. This monument reports that during his missionary journey to Khazaria (about 860), Constantine visited Korsun and “returned that gospel and the psalter of the Russian written language, and received the person speaking with that conversation, and having spoken with him, I received the power of the river, applying their demons, the written vowel and consonant are different, and soon begin to clean and say.” In translation, these words can be translated as follows: Constantine the Philosopher found in Korsun a gospel and a psalter written in Russian script. There he met a man who spoke Russian, talked with him and from him learned to read his language, comparing this language with his own, that is, with the ancient Macedonian Slavic dialect well known to him. The testimony of the “Pannonian Life” is one of the “cursed” issues of early Slavic writing. Many different and opposing opinions have been expressed regarding the interpretation of this testimony.

Given the current state of Russian and foreign historical sources, which report only random and fragmentary information about the writing of the ancient Russians in the initial period of the existence of their state, one can hardly hope for a quick and definitely clear solution to the problem. However, the very fact of evidence cannot be indifferent to resolving the issue of the emergence writing among the Eastern Slavs. If we believe the “Pannonian Life” literally, then we must admit that Constantine the Philosopher, several years before he invented the Slavic alphabet, could see and study the writing of the ancient Rus.

So, a review of the main domestic and foreign sources testifying to the relatively early beginning of writing among the Eastern Slavs allows us to draw the only correct conclusion that writing among our ancestors arose, firstly, long before the official baptism of Rus', at least in the very the beginning of the 10th century, and maybe a little earlier. And, secondly, the emergence of East Slavic writing, although it is undoubtedly connected with the common cultural heritage of all Slavic peoples, the Old Slavic, Cyrillic writing, should be explained not by external influence, but primarily by the internal needs of the developing social system of the ancient Eastern Slavs, passed to the 10th century. from primitive communities to early forms of statehood and feudal system. We can express our full agreement with acad. D.S. Likhachev, who wrote back in 1952: “Thus, the question of the beginning of Russian writing should be approached historically as a necessary stage in the internal development of the Eastern Slavs.” At the same time, it should be emphasized once again that the beginning of writing does not at all mean the emergence of a literary language, but is only the first and most necessary prerequisite for its formation.

Chapter three. Problems of education of the Old Russian literary and written language

The Old Russian literary and written language is usually understood as the language that has come down to us in written monuments, both preserved directly in the most ancient manuscripts of the 11th-12th centuries, and in later copies. The written language of ancient times served the multifaceted social needs of the Kyiv state: it served the needs of public administration and court; Official documents were drawn up on it and used in private correspondence; Chronicle stories and other works by Russian authors were created in the Old Russian literary language

The Old Russian written language was used both by the main East Slavic population of the Kievan state, and by representatives of other, non-Slavic tribes that were part of it: Finnish in the north and east, Turkic in the south, Baltic in the northwest. It is very likely that the spread of the Old Russian written language crossed the boundaries of state borders and it was used by the Pechenegs, and by the ancient Kabardians in the foothills of the Caucasus, and by the Moldovans in the Carpathian region.

The literary and written language was designed to serve all the needs of ancient Russian society. Therefore, we have neither sociological nor linguistic grounds to contrast the literary language with the language of business written monuments of the ancient era, such as, for example, “Russkaya Pravda” or letters, be they on parchment or birch bark

We find the same literary and written language in its internal structure in written monuments created on the territory of Ancient Rus', both of original and translated origin.

Even with the most superficial acquaintance with the language of written monuments of the Old Russian era, its mixed character is revealed. In all its types and genres, elements of both East Slavic, folk, and Old Slavonic, bookish are co-present. The works of Russian scientists of the 19th century A. Kh. Vostokov, K. F. Kalaidovich, I. I. Sreznevsky, I. V. Yagich, A. I. Sobolevsky and others only firmly established that Russian writing and literature before Lomonosov used language, which was a conglomerate of folk, East Slavic, with Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian in origin. It was determined that the ratio of Russian and Old Slavonic speech elements proper in various monuments of Old Russian writing varies depending on the genre of the work and on the degree of education of the author, and partly also the scribe of a particular manuscripts. It was found that, in addition to writing in this mixed language (Old Church Slavonic of the Russian version), in Ancient Rus' there was also a writing that was created in purely Russian. Finally, it was proven that the Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) elements of the Russian literary language became more and more and more are being squeezed out and giving way to elements of Russian folk speech, which finds its final completion in the first decades of the 19th century, around the era of Pushkin. Everything else about these problems continued to be controversial until the Soviet era.

First of all, the question remained open about the primacy or secondary nature of this or that speech element in the composition of the Slavic Russian literary language, which Kievan Rus began to use already in the 10th century.

A. A. Shakhmatov was the first of the Russian philologists who wrote in Soviet times to clearly and completely set out the concept of the nature and origin of the Old Russian literary language. He did not ignore any of the questions raised in the area of ​​the named problem by his scientific predecessors, and in this regard, expressed His coherent theory of the origin of the Russian literary language can be considered as a synthesis of everything that was done by researchers during the 19th century. It is natural to call this concept the traditional theory of the origin of the Russian literary language.

More decisively than his predecessors, A. A. Shakhmatov elevated the Old Russian, and thereby the modern Russian literary language, to the Old Church Slavonic language as a direct source. A. A. Shakhmatov wrote about the transformation of the Old Bulgarian written language, which was a written language of origin, into modern Russian, which gradually took place in the course of historical development literary language.

Comparing the history of the Russian literary language with the history of Western European languages, which developed in the medieval period under the strong influence of Latin, A A Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that, unlike the West, where the Latin language never assimilated with the vernacular languages, Church Slavonic “from the very first years of its existence on Russian soil began to assimilate into the national language, for the Russian people who spoke it could not distinguish in their speech either their pronunciation or their use of words from the church language they had acquired.” Obviously, A A Shakhmatov admitted that the ancient Church Slavic language in Kievan Rus was used not only as a language of worship and writing, but also served as a spoken language for some educated part of the population. Continuing this thought, he argued that already the monuments of the 11th century. prove that the pronunciation of the Church Slavonic language in the mouths of Russian people has lost its character that is alien to the Russian ear.

Thus, A. A. Shakhmatov recognized the composition of the modern Russian literary language as mixed, considering its inherent folk, East Slavic in origin, speech elements to be later, introduced into it during its gradual “assimilation of living Russian speech”, while the elements are ancient Church Slavonic, Bulgarian in ethnolinguistic origin , counting among the original basis of the literary and written language transferred from the southern Slavs to Kievan Rus in the 10th century.

This point of view, precisely and definitely formulated in the works of A. A Shakhmatov, was shared approximately until the mid-1930s by the vast majority of Soviet philologists, linguists and literary critics. This position was taken, for example, by V. M. Istrin, A. S. Orlov, L. A Bulakhovskii, G. O. Vinokur.

New scientific theory, emphasizing the importance of the East Slavic folk speech basis in the process of the formation of the Old Russian literary language, was put forward by prof. With P. Obnorsky in 1934, the Scientist analyzed in detail the language of the oldest legal monument of Kievan Rus, which developed in the 11th century. and has come down to us in the older Synodal list of the “Novgorod helmsman”, dating back to 1282. As S.P. Obnorsky’s careful analysis of the language of this monument, mainly phonetics and morphology, shows, it is almost completely devoid of any speech elements of Old Church Slavic origin and, on the contrary, features of the East Slavic character are extremely widely represented in it. This observation allowed S.P. Obnorsky to complete his research with conclusions related to the problem of the formation of the Old Russian literary language.

The scientist wrote then: “So, Russian Truth, as a monument of the Russian literary language, as its oldest witness, provides clues for judging the very formation of our literary language. The Russian literary language of the oldest era was, in the proper sense, Russian in its entire core. This Russian literary language of the older formation was alien to any influences from the Bulgarian-Byzantine culture, but, on the other hand, other influences were not alien to it - influences coming from the Germanic and West Slavic worlds. This Russian literary language, apparently, was originally grown in the north, it was later strongly influenced by the southern, Bulgarian-Byzantine culture. The enchantment of the Russian literary language should be represented as a long process that has been going on over the centuries in a crescendo. It is not for nothing that the Russian-Bulgarian monuments of the older period contain in the known lines of Russian elements even more than how many of them appear in our modern language. Obviously, along these lines, the Bulgarianization of our literary language followed later in the very process of its growth.”

The point of view adopted by S.P. Obnorsky in 1934 allowed him in subsequent years to enrich the history of the Russian language with a number of interesting studies. Thus, in 1936, his article was published on the language of treaties between Russians and Greeks, about which stated above (p. 22) L In 1939, an article appeared about “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” In both of these works, the thoughts expressed in the article about the language of “Russian Truth” found further development and clarification. In particular, the assumption about the original northern origin of the Russian literary language did not stand the test of time. S. P. Obnorsky’s appeal to sources, primarily to “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” as a monument to ancient poetic creativity, made it possible to talk about Kievan Rus as the true cradle of the Russian literary language. The assumption about the ancient influence of the Germanic or West Slavic speech element on the Russian literary language also disappeared. Certain historical and grammatical provisions expressed by S. P. Obnorsky in his article on “Russian Truth” did not stand up to scrutiny either, namely the provisions that the verbal form of the aorist was allegedly not an original property of the Russian language and was later introduced into it under Old Church Slavonic (Bulgarian) influence. The predominance in the language of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” of precisely this expressive form of the past tense of the verb forced us to abandon the hypothesis of its foreign origin and recognize its original belonging to the Russian literary language.

As for the main thing in the views of S. P. Obnorsky on the origin of the Russian literary language, the position about the originality of the Russian speech basis in the literary language of the older formation continued to sound with even greater confidence in his subsequent works.

The hypothesis put forward by S.P. Obnorsky was met with a number of critical speeches. Firstly, the famous Soviet Slavist Prof. objected to the positions expressed by S.P. Obnorsky in his first article. A. M. Selishchev, whose critical article was published only in 1957.

A detailed analysis of the views of S. P. Obnorsky on the origin of the Russian literary language was also given by prof. S.I. Bernstein in the introductory article to the fourth edition of A. A. Shakhmatov’s book “Essay on the modern Russian literary language” (1941). S. I. Bernshtein recognizes the indisputable value of the works of S. P. Obnorsky in the fact that the hypothesis about the Russian basis of the Old Russian literary language, put forward by previous researchers only in the abstract, these works are transferred to the soil of a concrete study of the language of monuments. However, S. I. Bernshtein noted as a methodological shortcoming the works of S.P. Obnorsky is that they pay too much attention to phonetic and morphological criteria and too little to vocabulary and phraseological criteria, which are of greatest importance in deciding the question of the original basis of the literary language. Negative side works of S.P. Obnorsky S.I. Bernstein also recognized that only two linguistic monuments have been studied in them so far. He pointed out the need to attract works by Russian authors that were created in the 11th-13th centuries and have come down to us in relatively early lists, for example, “The Life of Theodosius of Pechersk” and “The Tale of Boris and Gleb”, preserved in the list of the “Assumption Collection” of the 12th “The possibility cannot be excluded,” wrote S.I. Bernstein, “that a survey of other monuments, and above all a lexical and phraseological survey on a broad comparative basis, will lead to the need for further amendments, perhaps even to the replacement of the chronological difference postulated by Academician Obnorsky purely Russian literary language ancient era and the later “blamed language”, the idea of ​​the difference between simultaneously developing genres of literature and language styles.”

Fair and impartial scientific criticism did not stop the research aspirations of S.P. Obnorsky, and he continued to develop the hypothesis he put forward about the East Slavic speech basis of the Old Russian literary language of the older formation. During the Great Patriotic War he wrote a new major work, awarded the State Prize of the 1st degree. In this study, S.P. Obnorsky significantly expands the range of monuments he analyzes from the most ancient period of the Russian literary language. The book contains four essays: 1. “Russian Truth” (short edition); 2. Works of Vladimir Monomakh; 3 “The Prayer of Daniel the Sharper” and 4. “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” Expanding the research base naturally contributes to greater credibility of the conclusions that can be drawn by the researcher from his observations.

Unlike the early articles of S. P. Obnorsky, “Essays...” pays sufficient attention not only to the sound and morphological structure of the language of the monuments under study, but also to syntax and vocabulary. During more in-depth study problems, the hypothesis about the original Russian speech basis of the Russian literary language of the older formation received many clarifications and adjustments in comparison with its original interpretation. As S. P. Obnorsky wrote in the preface to his book, some of the conclusions, originally outlined by him in the form of cautious assumptions, were necessary modify and clarify. “But one of the conclusions,” he continues, “the main one, should be considered unconditionally and unconditionally correct. This is the position about the Russian basis of our literary language, and, accordingly, about the later collision of the Church Slavonic language with it and the secondary nature of the process of penetration of Church Slavonic elements into it, i.e., a position that reveals the falsity of the previously existing general concept on the issue of the origin of the Russian literary language.”

The analysis of the language of all the monuments he examined by S.P. Obnorsky shows that the language in them is the same - “this is the common Russian literary language of the older era.” It is necessary to highlight the outstanding merit of S.P. Obnorsky in the field of methodology of historical and linguistic research of monuments that he did not stop before studying the language of those works that have survived to this day only in later copies. Historians of the language before Obnorsky, as well as, unfortunately, many of our contemporaries, did not and do not dare to reveal the original linguistic nature of such written monuments, recognizing it as hopelessly lost under the influence of subsequent linguistic layers. S.P. Obnorsky, deeply knowing the history of the Russian language and mastering the methodology of historical and linguistic analysis, boldly revealed the original linguistic basis of the written monuments of antiquity he studied, gradually, layer by layer, removing from them the later new formations reflected in the copies that have come down to us. We can compare the work of S.P. Obnorsky with the work of a painter-restorer who removes later underpaintings from ancient works of Russian painting and makes these wonderful works of art “shine anew” with their original colors.

And one more, as it seems to us, extremely important point from a methodological point of view was expressed by S. P. Obnorsky in the preface to his “Essays...”. Sometimes it is now believed that this scientist called for a nihilistic underestimation of the Old Church Slavonic language in the history of the Russian literary language. This is far from true. Regarding the methodology of linguistic analysis of ancient Russian written monuments, S.P. Obnorsky wrote: “The position on the origin of the Russian literary language on a Russian basis is of great methodological importance in the further study of the Russian language. Standing on the wrong path, seeing the origins of our literary language in the Church Slavonic language, we methodologically incorrectly posed the question of the scope of Russian elements in the evidence of this or that monument. It is necessary to equally cover another question - about the proportion of Church Slavonic elements belonging to each given monument or series of monuments. Then the general problem of the history of Church Slavonicisms in the Russian language and the fate of the Church Slavonic language will be put on the objective basis of research. This study should show an objective measure of Church Slavonicisms in our language, or our idea of ​​them is exaggerated. Many Church Slavonicisms, evidenced by one or another written monument, had the meaning of conditional, isolated facts of the language, were not included in its system, and later fell out of it altogether, and relatively few of their layers became firmly established in the use of our literary language.”

Unfortunately, the wishes of SP Obnorsky, so significant in methodological terms, were not implemented either in his own historical and linguistic research, or in subsequent works on the history of the Russian literary language written by other researchers.

The theory of S. P. Obnorsky about the Russian basis of the Old Russian literary and written language was recognized in the late 40s - early 50s by the majority of scientists who were then involved in the history of the Russian language, and became widespread in textbooks. Thus, the theory of S.P. Obnorsky was supported by academician. V.V. Vinogradov, prof. P. Ya. Chernykh, prof. P. S. Kuznetsov and others.

In the same years as S.P. Obnorsky, but completely independently of him, he developed problems related to the history of the Old Russian literary language, prof. L.P. Yakubinsky, who died in Leningrad in 1945. His book “The History of the Old Russian Language,” completed in 1941, was published after his death. Answering the question about the origin of the Old Russian literary language, L. P. Yakubinsky relied on a linguistic analysis of the same main monuments of Old Russian literature as S. P. Obnorsky. His essays on the language of the works of Vladimir Monomakh and “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” were published on the pages of periodicals even before the publication of this book.

In his historical and linguistic constructions, L.P. Yakubinsky proceeded from the self-evident fact of coexistence in Old Russian written monuments of Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian language phenomena proper. He assumed that this could be explained by the successive change of two literary languages ​​in the process of historical development of the Kievan state. According to the opinion of L.P. Yakubinsky, in the ancient times of the existence of the Principality of Kyiv, after the baptism of Rus', in the 10th century. and in the first decades of the 11th century. The Old Church Slavonic literary language certainly predominated. It became the official state language of the ancient Kiev state. According to L.P. Yakubinsky, the oldest pages of the “Elementary Chronicle” were written in Old Church Slavonic. The same state Old Church Slavonic language was used for his sermon by the first Russian by origin, Metropolitan Hilarion of Kiev, the author of the famous “Sermon on Law and Grace.”

From the second half of the 11th century, in direct connection with the social upheavals (revolts of the Smerds led by the Magi, unrest of the urban lower classes) that Old Russian feudal society experienced during this period, the influence of the Old Russian written language itself increased, which was recognized as the state language Kievan Rus at the beginning of the 12th century. during the reign of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, who came to power as the Grand Duke of Kyiv in 1113 after suppressing the uprising of the urban poor.

The historical concept of L.P. Yakubinsky was subjected to not entirely justified criticism by V.V. Vinogradov and did not receive recognition in the further development of the science of the Old Russian literary language, although, undoubtedly, this concept has its own rational grain and it cannot be completely rejected.

Starting from the second half of the 1950s, the attitude towards the theory of S.P. Obnorsky changed, and his views on the formation of the Old Russian literary language were subject to criticism and revision. The first to criticize the theory of S.P. Obnorsky was Academician. V. V. Vinogradov. In 1956, this author, outlining the basic concepts of Soviet scientists on the origin of the Old Russian literary language, names the names of A. A. Shakhmatov, S. P. Obnorsky and L. P. Yakubinsky, without giving preference to any of the scientific hypotheses expressed by them.

In 1958, V.V. Vinogradov spoke at the IV International Congress of Slavists in Moscow with a report on the topic: “The main problems of studying the education and development of the Old Russian literary language.” Having outlined in his report all the scientific concepts on this problem, V.V. Vinogradov puts forward his theory about two types of Old Russian literary language: book-Slavic and folk-literary, which interacted widely and diversified with each other in the process of historical development. At the same time, V.V. Vinogradov does not consider it possible to recognize monuments of business content as belonging to the Old Russian literary language, the language of which, in his opinion, is devoid of any signs of literary processing and is normalized.

In 1961, N. I. Tolstoy took a completely special position when considering the question of the origin of the Old Russian literary language. According to the views of this scientist, in Ancient Rus', as well as in other countries of the South and East Slavic world, until the 18th century. The ancient Slavic literary and written language with its local branches was used as a literary language.

N.I. Tolstoy’s point of view was supported, developed and partially clarified in the works of some other scientists, for example M.M. Kopylenko, and in our article.

In the articles of V.V. Vinogradov, published in Last year his life, new thoughts were expressed about the problem of the formation of the Old Russian literary language. Defending in general the position of its original character, disputed by such foreign scientists as B. Unbegaun and G. Hütl-Worth, V. V. Vinogradov recognized that the Old Russian literary language was complex in nature and that four different ones should be distinguished in its composition component: a) Old Church Slavonic literary language; b) business language and diplomatic speech, developed on an East Slavic basis; c) the language of oral creativity; d) actual folk dialect elements of speech.

A new point of view on the relationship between the Old Slavic and Old Russian literary languages ​​in the initial periods of their social functioning was expressed in 1972 by L. P. Zhukovskaya. Studying the language of traditional translated monuments of Old Russian writing, in particular the language of the “Mstislav Gospel” of 1115-1117, this researcher discovered many cases of variation, lexical and grammatical, in the texts of Gospel readings identical in content, the introduction into these texts during their editing and correspondence by Old Russian scribes of a wide range of words and grammatical forms, both common Slavic and Russian proper. This indicates, in the opinion of L.P. Zhukovskaya, that monuments of traditional content, that is, church books, can and should be considered among the monuments of the Russian literary language; from the point of view of L.P. Zhukovskaya, we can talk about the Church Slavonic language, different from Russian, only from the 15th century, after the second South Slavic influence on the Old Russian literary language. We think that this point of view suffers from a certain one-sidedness and is not without polemical intensity, which does not contribute to the objective identification of the truth.

In 1975, “Lectures on the history of the Russian literary language (X-mid-18th century)”, read by B. A. Larin back in 1949-1951, were published posthumously. Regarding the problems of the formation of the Old Russian literary language, B. A. Larin polemicizes not only with scientists who adhered to traditional views on this issue; not limiting himself only to presenting the views of A. A. Shakhmatov, he also criticizes the works of S. P. Obnorsky, considering his position in many respects narrow and one-sided. B. A. Larin admits it is possible to talk about the vernacular basis of the Old Russian literary language, while attributing its beginning to a much earlier historical period than S. P. Obnorsky. B. A. Larin found the first manifestations of the Russian literary language itself already in the ancient agreements of the Kyiv princes with the Greeks, in particular in the agreement of Prince Oleg with Byzantium in 907, seeing in “Russian Pravda” a reflection of the same business literary and written language in East Slavic speech basis. At the same time, B. A. Larin did not deny the strong progressive influence of the Church Slavonic language on the Old Russian language, recognizing the latter as “foreign” in relation to the speech of the ancient Eastern Slavs.

Turning to the scientific views on the formation of the Old Russian literary language expressed by S. P. Obnorsky and his critics, we must still give preference to the works of S. P. Obnorsky. Undoubtedly, much of them was born of polemical passions, much needs improvement and further in-depth research. However, his conclusions are always based on a deep linguistic-stylistic analysis of specific written monuments, and this is their strength!

Let us express our preliminary considerations regarding the origin of the Old Russian literary language.

From our point of view, in the process of formation of the Old Russian literary and written language, the primary colloquial speech of the East Slavic tribes, ancient East Slavic folk dialects should be recognized; We recognize them as primary in the sense that they undoubtedly approached the historical moment of the appearance of writing already internally prepared, reflecting the relatively high level of social development of their carriers.

Business writing, quite widely branched in genre and stylistic terms, which arose among the Eastern Slavs at the time of their transition from a primitive communal system to a class society, reflected the multifaceted and diverse needs of this society. We find here written wills, international treaties, inscriptions on household items and products, and memorial inscriptions on stones and tombstones. and private correspondence. The consolidation of the spoken language in various areas of business writing was not yet, of course, a literary language, but it largely prepared the way for its emergence.

The folk dialects of the East Slavic written language developed and were refined in the process of the emergence and formation of an original speech artistic creativity in its original oral existence. There is no doubt that the East Slavic tribes in the 9th-10th centuries. possessed rich and developed oral folk art, epic and lyrical poetry, tales and legends, proverbs and sayings. This oral and poetic wealth undoubtedly preceded the emergence of written literature and literary language and largely prepared their further development.

As shown by the discoveries made by researchers of ancient Russian literature, and in particular by Acad. D.S. Likhachev, the emergence and development of the written form of chronicling was preceded by the so-called “oral chronicles” - stories and legends passed down from century to century, from generation to generation, very often within a single clan and family. As the works of the same researcher show, initially ambassadorial speeches also existed in oral form, only later being consolidated in written form.

However, the development of oral folk poetry itself, no matter how intense it may be, cannot lead to the formation of a literary language, although it certainly contributes to improvements in the polishing of colloquial speech and the emergence of figurative means of expression in its depths.

The conditions for the emergence of a literary language among the Eastern Slavs are specific. They are expressed in that unique and inimitable combination of rich and expressive folk speech with the developed, harmonious and having inexhaustible word-formation possibilities, the common literary and written language of the Slavs - the ancient Church Slavonic written language. Other literary languages ​​of the peoples of Europe did not have similar conditions for development. Unlike the Latin language, which served as the official written and literary language of the peoples of Western Europe during the Middle Ages, the ancient Church Slavonic language, close to the common Slavic forms of speech communication and itself created as a result of the joint speech creativity of various branches of the Slavs, was always accessible to the speech consciousness of the Eastern Slavs . The ancient Church Slavonic language did not suppress the linguistic development of the Eastern Slavs, but, on the contrary, gave a powerful impetus to the development of their natural language, entering into organic unity with the East Slavic folk dialects. This is the great cultural and historical significance of the ancient Slavic language for the East Slavic peoples.

It is necessary to once again emphasize the high level of lexical and grammatical development of the ancient Slavic literary and written language. Having developed mainly as a language of translated church writing, the ancient Slavic literary and written language organically absorbed all the achievements of the high speech culture of medieval Byzantine society. The Greek language of the Byzantine era served as a direct model in the formation of the literary and written language of the ancient Slavs, primarily in the field of vocabulary and word formation, phraseology and syntax. At the same time, we must remember that the Greek language of the Byzantine era itself is not only a direct heir to ancient speech values, but also a language that absorbed the wealth of the ancient languages ​​of the East - Egyptian, Syriac, Hebrew. And all this innumerable verbal wealth was transferred by the Greek language to its direct heir, as if adopted by him to the ancient Slavic literary language. And the Eastern Slavs, having adopted in the 10th century. church books in the ancient Slavic language from their older brothers in culture, the southern Slavs and partly the western, Moravians, thereby became the owners of this Slavic-Hellenic speech treasure. Thanks to the organic merger with the ancient Slavic written language, the literary language of Kievan Rus, the Slavic-Russian literary language immediately became one of the richest and most developed languages ​​not only of the then Europe, but of the whole world.

Thus, the process of formation of the Old Russian literary and written language in the X-XI centuries. can be likened to grafting a fruit tree. The wild rootstock itself could never develop into a fruit-bearing noble plant. But an experienced gardener, having made an incision in the trunk of the rootstock, inserts into it a sprig of a noble apple tree, a scion. It fuses with the tree into a single organism, and the tree becomes capable of producing precious fruits. In the history of the Russian literary language, we can call East Slavic folk speech a kind of “rootstock”, while the ancient Slavic written language served as a noble “scion” for it, enriching it and organically merging with it in a single structure.

Chapter Four. Old Russian literary and written language of the Kyiv period. Monuments of book and literary language - “The Word of Law and Grace”, “The Tale of Boris and Gleb”

In the previous chapter, we made a conclusion about the origin of the Old Russian literary and written language as a result of the organic fusion of East Slavic folk speech and the written Old Slavic language. In monuments dating back to the period of the 11th-12th centuries, the Old Russian literary and written language manifests itself in different ways, depending on the target orientation and content of the works that it served. It is therefore natural to talk about several genre-stylistic branches of the literary and written language, or, in other words, about the types of literary language of the most ancient era.

The question of the classification of such varieties, or types, of language in scientific works and teaching aids is interpreted differently and can be recognized as one of the most complex issues in Russian studies. It seems to us that the main difficulty of the problem lies in the inaccurate use and lack of development of terms used by philologists involved in the history of the Russian language. The very complex and intricate problem of the relationship between the Old Slavic language of the Russian translation and the Old Russian literary and written language itself in the most ancient period of its existence has also not been solved. The issue of bilingualism in the Kiev state is unclear. However, despite the difficulties encountered on the path of the researcher, this problem should receive a positive solution, at least as a working hypothesis.

As already mentioned, V.V. Vinogradov spoke about two types of Old Russian literary language: church book, Slavic, and folk literary, simultaneously taking the language of Old Russian business writing beyond the limits of the literary language. A similar interpretation of this problem is available in the course of lectures by A.I. Gorshkov. G. O. Vinokur, although conditionally, considers it possible to recognize three stylistic varieties of literary and written language in the Kievan era: business language, church-book language, or church-literary language, and secular-literary language.

We find a different interpretation of the issue of stylistic varieties of the Old Russian literary language in the works of A. I. Efimov. This scientist, in all editions of his “History of the Russian Literary Language,” distinguishes two groups of styles in the literary language of Ancient Rus': secular and church-service. Among the first, he includes: 1) written business style, reflected in such legal monuments as “Russkaya Pravda”, as well as contractual, granted and other documents; 2) the style of literary and artistic narration, embodied in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”; 3) chronicle-chronicle style, which, according to A.I. Efimov, developed and changed in connection with the development of chronicle writing; and, finally, 4) epistolary, represented by private letters not only on parchment, but also on birch bark. These secular styles, as A.I. Efimov believes, were formed and developed in unity and interaction with those styles that he calls church service: 1) liturgical styles (gospels, psalms); 2) hagiographic style, which, according to his opinion, combined speech means both church-bookish and colloquial origin; finally, 3) the preaching style, reflected in the works of Cyril of Turov, Hilarion and other authors.

The interpretation of the problem of styles of the Old Russian literary language proposed by A. I. Efimov seems to us the least acceptable. First of all, his system of styles mixes written monuments of proper Russian origin, i.e., which are the works of Russian authors, and translated ancient Slavic ones, such as, for example, the gospels and psalms classified as “liturgical styles,” the texts of which came to Rus' from the southern Slavs and, copied by Russian scribes, underwent linguistic editing, bringing the Church Slavonic language of the first lists closer to East Slavic speech practice. Then A.I. Efimov does not take into account all types of written monuments; in particular, he completely ignores the works of rich translated literature, which largely contributed to the stylistic enrichment of the Old Russian literary language. Finally, A.I. Efimov too straightforwardly attributes certain monuments to any one of the “styles”, without taking into account the stylistic complexity of the monument. This primarily applies to such a diverse work as “The Tale of Bygone Years.”

However, A.I. Efimov, in our opinion, is right when he talks about the unity and integrity of the Old Russian literary language, which arose as a result of the interaction of two different linguistic elements.

Some researchers, both linguists (R.I. Avanesov) and literary scholars (D.S. Likhachev), are inclined to consider the linguistic situation in the Kievan state as Old Slavic-Old Russian bilingualism. Firstly, broadly understood bilingualism presupposes that all works of ecclesiastical content, as well as all translated works, should be considered as monuments of the Old Church Slavonic language, and only works of a secular nature and monuments of business writing, including records and postscripts on church manuscripts, are given the right to be considered monuments of the Russian language . This is the position of the compilers of the “Dictionary of the Old Russian Language of the XI-XIV centuries.” Secondly, supporters of the theory of Old Russian bilingualism are forced to admit that even within the same work, one or another Old Russian author could switch from Old Russian to Old Church Slavonic and vice versa, depending on the themes addressed in the work or in its individual parts.

In our opinion, it is still advisable to proceed from the understanding of the Old Russian literary and written language, at least for the Kievan era, as a single and integral, albeit complex language system, which directly follows from our concept of the formation of the Old Russian literary language, set out in the third chapter. It is natural to distinguish within this single literary and written language separate genre-stylistic varieties, or stylistic types, of the language. Of all the proposed classifications of such stylistic branches of the Old Russian literary language for the initial Kievan era, the most rational one seems to be the one in which three main genre-stylistic varieties are distinguished, namely: church book, as its polar opposite in stylistic terms - business (actually Russian) and as a result the interaction of both stylistic systems - the actual literary (secular-literary). Naturally, such a tripartite division also presupposes intermediate links in the classification - monuments that combine various linguistic features.

The listed stylistic varieties of the Old Russian literary and written language differed from each other mainly in the proportion of the Book Slavic and East Slavic speech elements that formed them. In the first of them, with the unconditional predominance of the book-Slavic speech element, individual East Slavic speech elements are present in more or less significant numbers, mainly as lexical reflections of Russian realities, as well as individual grammatical East Slavicisms. The language of business monuments, being mainly Russian, is not, however, devoid of individual Old Church Slavonic book contributions in the field of vocabulary and phraseology, as well as grammar. Finally, the literary language itself, as already said, was formed as a result of interaction and organic compound both stylistically colored elements with a predominance of one or the other depending on the theme and content of the corresponding work or part of it.

We include monuments of church-religious content created in Kievan Rus by Russian authors by birth as the church-book stylistic variety. These are works of ecclesiastical and political eloquence: “Words” by Hilarion, Luka Zhidyata, Kirill Turovsky, Kliment Smolyatich and other, often nameless, authors. These are hagiographic works: . “The Life of Theodosius”, “Paterikon of the Kiev-Pechersk”, “The Legend and Reading about Boris and Gleb”, this also includes canonical church-legal writing: “Rules”, “Charters”, etc. Obviously, this group works of the liturgical and hymnographic genre can also be attributed, for example, various kinds of prayers and services (to Boris and Gleb, the Feast of the Intercession, etc.), created in Rus' in ancient times. In practice, the language of this kind of monuments is almost no different from that presented in translated works of South or West Slavic origin, copied in Rus' by Russian scribes. In both groups of monuments we find those common features of a mixture of speech elements that are inherent in the Old Slavic language of the Russian translation.

Among the texts in which the actual Russian written language of that time is distinguished, we include all, without exception, works of business or legal content, regardless of the use of this or that writing material in their compilation. To this group we include “Russian Truth”, and the texts of ancient treaties, and numerous letters, both parchment and copies of them on paper, made later, and, finally, in this same group we include letters on birch bark, for with the exception of those that could be called examples of “poorly literate writing.”

We include such works of secular content as chronicles as monuments of the actual literary stylistic variety of the Old Russian language, although we have to take into account the diversity of their composition and the possibility of other-style inclusions in their text. On the one hand, these are deviations in church book content and style, such as, for example, the famous “Teaching on the Executions of God” as part of the “Tale of Bygone Years” under 1093 or the hagiographic stories about the tonsured monastery of the Pechersk Monastery in the same monument. On the other hand, these are documentary entries into the text, such as, for example, a list of treaties between the ancient Kyiv princes and the Byzantine government under 907, 912, 945, 971. etc. In addition to chronicles, we include the works of Vladimir Monomakh (with the same reservations as regarding chronicles) and such works as “The Tale of Igor’s Host” or “The Prayer of Daniil the Prisoner” to the group of literary monuments proper. This also includes works of the “Walking” genre, starting with “The Walking of Hegumen Daniel” and others. Undoubtedly, stylistically, monuments of Old Russian translated literature, obviously or with a high degree of probability translated into Rus', are stylistically adjacent to this same genre-stylistic variety of literary language. especially works of a secular nature, such as “Alexandria”, “History of the Jewish War” by Josephus, “The Tale of Akira”, “Devgenie’s Deed”, etc. These translated monuments provide especially wide open space for historical and stylistic observations and due to their relatively large volume in comparison with the original literature, and due to the variety of content and intonation coloring.

Let us note once again that we do not reject the texts of certain literary works, original and translated, if they have come to us not in the originals, but in more or less later copies. Naturally, special care is required in the historical, linguistic and stylistic analysis of texts of this kind, but the lexical, phraseological and stylistic nature of the text can undoubtedly be recognized as more stable over time than its spelling, phonetic and grammatical linguistic features.

Further, in this chapter and in the following, we give experiments in linguistic-stylistic analysis of individual monuments of ancient Russian literature and writing of the Kievan era, starting with church book monuments in content and style.

Let us turn to the language of Metropolitan Hilarion’s “Sermon on Law and Grace” - the most valuable work of the mid-11th century.

“The Sermon on Law and Grace” is attributed to Hilarion, a well-known church and political figure of the era of Yaroslav, who was appointed by him to the Kyiv metropolitanate against the will of Byzantium, a native of Rus', an experienced master of church orbit in the 11th century. An outstanding monument of the art of speech testifies to the great stylistic skill of its creator, to the high level of speech culture in the Kiev state of that time. “The Word of Law and Grace” has not yet been studied linguistically. Unfortunately, it has not reached us in the original, and to study we must turn to lists, the oldest of which date back no earlier than the turn of the 13th-14th centuries, i.e., they are two to two seconds distant from the moment of creation of the monument. half a century.

We find a few individual comments regarding the language and style of the named monument only in a number of popular works and teaching aids, and these comments are general and superficial. Thus, G. O. Vinokur in his book “Russian Language” (1945) characterizes “The Sermon on Law and Grace” as a monument of the Old Church Slavonic language. This scientist wrote: “The Old Church Slavonic language of Hilarion, as far as one can judge from the later copies in which his “Word” was preserved, ... is impeccable.” L.P. Yakubinsky in “The History of the Old Russian Language” devoted a special chapter to Hilarion’s “Word...”. However, it contains mainly general historical information about the life and work of Hilarion, and also sets out the contents of the monument. This chapter in the book by L.P. Yakubinsky is intended to illustrate the position of the primacy of the Old Church Slavonic language as the state language in the ancient period of the existence of the Kyiv state. Recognizing Hilarion’s language as “free... from ancient Russian elements,” he argued that “Hilarion clearly distinguished... his colloquial from the literary Church Slavonic language."

A special position in covering the issue of the language of Hilarion’s works was taken by the compilers of a textbook on the history of the Russian literary language, published in Lvov, V.V. Brodskaya and S.S. Tsalenchuk. In this book, the East Slavic speech basis of Hilarion’s language is recognized, the authors find in Hilarion’s “Word...” traces of his acquaintance with such ancient Russian legal monuments as “Russkaya Pravda”, and among the allegedly East Slavic vocabulary found in his work include the following words like girl or daughter-in-law, which are common Slavic.

One of the reasons for the fact that contradictory and unfounded statements appeared regarding the language of “The Word of Law and Grace” could be that scientists did not turn to the manuscripts that preserved the text of the work, but limited themselves to editions that were far from perfect in textual terms. “The Sermon on Law and Grace” was first published in 1844 by A.V. Gorsky based on the only copy of the first edition of the monument (Synodal No. 59I). The named publication was used by researchers who judged the language of “The Word...”. The same publication was reproduced in his monograph by the West German Slavist Ludolf Müller.

As N.N. Rozov showed, the publication “The Word...” prepared by A.V. Gorsky is linguistically inaccurate. A.V. Gorsky was forced to meet the wishes of the then church authorities, adapting the language of the monument to the standard of the Church Slavonic language that was taught in theological educational institutions of the 19th century.

For the linguistic study of “The Word of Law and Grace” it is therefore necessary to turn directly to the manuscripts of the monument. The text of the so-called Finnish passages can be considered the oldest of the lists of “The Word of Law and Grace” that have reached us. True, in the said manuscript it was preserved only in the form of one relatively small fragment. This passage, consisting of one sheet of paper written in two columns on both sides, 33 lines in each column, contains the central part of Hilarion’s speech (the manuscript is stored in the BAN under the code Finl. No. 37)."

The text of the excerpt was published in full in 1906 by F. I. Pokrovsky, who identified the excerpt with the work of Hilarion. Following I. I. Sreznevsky, who first drew attention to the manuscript, F. I. Pokrovsky dated it to the 12th-13th centuries. A closer paleographic study of the passage allowed O.P. Likhacheva to clarify the dating of the manuscript and attribute it to the last quarter of the 13th century. The evidence of this list should be considered especially valuable from a textual point of view, since it undoubtedly dates back to the era before the second South Slavic influence and is therefore free from the artificial Slavicization of the language reflected in later lists.

A comparison of List F with the editions of Gorsky and Müller shows that it preserves readings that are more reliable and original in terms of language.

On the grammatical side, list F reveals, as one would expect, greater archaism in the use of word forms than other lists and publications. Thus, if in later texts the forms of the supine are usually successively replaced by similar forms of the infinitive, then in the list F the use of the supine is systematically maintained as a function of the adverbial goal in predicate verbs denoting movement: “I will come to earth.” sit their” (F, 3, 21-22); “I’m not dead ruin law nb fulfill"(F, 2, 19-21).

It seems to us that the list of vocabulary with a full-vocal combination of sounds is very indicative, however, for this passage the example is isolated: “the Romans came, polonisha Ierslm” (F, 4, 20-21). In all other lists and publications in this place there is an incomplete version of the verb: plnisha .

Characteristic is the change of vowel a to o at the root of the word dawn:“and the law of seven is eternal dawn went out” (F, 4, 24-25). In other lists and publications - dawn or dawn(name, plural).

Since the list F was undoubtedly copied on the territory of the ancient Novgorod land, phonetic Novgorodism is noted in it: “къ sheep lost” (F, 2, 18). In other texts it is natural sheep

Thus, the use of data from the ancient list of “Words...”, despite its fragmentary nature, allows us to clarify to some extent our ideas about the original linguistic basis of the monument.

Let us turn to the main list of the first edition of “The Lay...” of Hilarion, which served as the basis for the editions of Gorsky and Müller. This list was reproduced with sufficient accuracy by N.N. Rozov in 1963. Based on paleographic data, this researcher was able to amend the generally accepted dating of the Synod list. No. 591 and attribute it not to the 16th century, as has been customary until now, but to the 15th century. The most textologically valuable list thus turned out to be a whole century older, which greatly increases the authority of its linguistic evidence.

List C contains the text of the monument, which was subject to the second South Slavic influence. This is evidenced by the systematic use of the letter “yus big” not only in place of the etymological nasal vowel, but also in general instead of the grapheme su, as well as vowel spelling A without iotation after other vowels: “from every army and the planet” (S, 1946, 19). Let us also cite this purely Slavicized writing: “let us not raise our hands to the god(d)him” (p. 198a, 4-5).

Obviously, under the influence of the same second South Slavic influence, the form polonisha, which we noted in the list F, was replaced in C by the usual Church Slavonic plnisha(C, 179a, 18). However, the more indicative for the initial linguistic basis monument, preserved in spite of the Slavicizing fashion by text C, such a feature as the spelling of the name of the Kyiv prince with a full vowel combination: Volodimera. In text C we read: “Let us also, to the best of our ability, with small praises, praise the great and wondrous work of our teacher and mentor of the great kagan of our land Volodymer"(C, 1846, 12-18). In the editions of Gorsky and Müller, in this place the usual Church Slavonic form of this name is: “Vladimer”(M, 38, 11-12). There is no doubt that it was the spelling with full agreement that stood in the protograph of “The Lay...”. This is all the more obvious since, somewhat lower down in the list C, another original spelling of the same name with the vowel o after the letter is preserved l in the first root: “noble of nobles, our kagan Vlodimer”(C, 185a, 9-10). Wed. a similar spelling with a clear trace of the earlier consonance in the text: “coexisting in work in captivity"(C, 199a, 7-8). In the editions in both cases, instead of the marked spellings, there are ordinary Church Slavonic ones with disagreement: “Vladimer”(M, 38, 20), “in captivity"(M, 51, 15-16).

Typical for word usage in our monument are such lexemes as which(meaning dispute, quarrel) and robicich(son of a slave). Let us note: “and there were many disputes between them and which"(C, 1726, 3-4); “and there were many disputes between them and which"(M, 26, 21-22).

Word which Occasionally found in the Old Church Slavonic monuments proper, for example in the “Suprasl Manuscript”, it is quite common for the East Slavic writing of the older era.

Noun robicich appears in list C of “Words on Law and Grace” in several spellings, differently reflected in editions. See, for example: “Then Hagar begat a servant, from Abraham a servant robotic"(C, 1706, 19-20); “violence on the Christians, rabichishti for the sons of the free” (C, 1726, 1-3). In the publications of Gorsky and Müller: “Hagar gave birth to a servant from Abraham robichishch"(M, 25, 7); “rape against Christians, robichichi for free sons” (M, 26, 20-21). It is characteristic that even Gorsky and Müller retained East Slavic versions of this word. The lexeme itself is common for early East Slavic speech use.

Let us note in the monument the peculiar semantics of the word zorya (dawn). While in the Old Church Slavonic monuments proper, this word has the meaning of radiance, light, glimmer, as well as the morning star, in the “Sermon on Law and Grace,” as the above example shows, the meaning of this noun coincides with modern Russian: bright illumination of the horizon before sunrise and after sunset. Wed. discrepancies in text C and edition M: “and the law of the eight is like vespers” dawn went out” (dawn - local over. unit; P. 179a, 19-20); “And the law is seven, as the evening dawn has gone out” (dawn- them. pad. units h.; M, 33, 4-5).

Typical for the morphology of list C is the systematic use of the East Slavic inflection b in genus. pad. units h. in them. and wine pad. pl. h. declension noun. with basic on -ia and win pad pl. h. noun declination to -io “from d'vits'(C, 176 a, 15), “from trinity"(C, 176a, 19), "p" shadow(C, 179a, 12), “for sheep"(C, 1956, 11), “wives and baby" spsi” (S, 199a. 6), etc. In publications, all inflections of this type are replaced by ordinary Church Slavonic -I, -a However, see - "baby"(M, 51, 15).

No less frequent in the text are inflected pronouns female from b to gen. pad.: “from neb”(C, 1706, 10), “kb rab b” (C, 1706, 16). In publications, these inflections are also changed to Church Slavonic “from not me"(M, 25, 1), “to slave in her"(M, 25, 5).

The preservation of East Slavic inflections in list C, despite the second South Slavic influence, gives us the opportunity to attribute writings of this kind to the protograph of “The Lay...”. Similar inflections are presented in abundance in other East Slavic written monuments of the 11th century, for example in the “Izbornik 1076”: “nobleman”(win. pad. plural), “Srachits”(wine pad plural), “stall”(vin. pad pl.) and pl. etc.

Considering the use of the East Slavic inflection -b in the text of list C, we should focus on the word form feud, which has given rise to conflicting interpretations in the specialized literature. So, if we read in C: “there were many between them feud and which” (C, 1726, 3-4), then in the M-edition “and there were things between them infighting many and which” (M, 26, 21-22). Müller comments on this passage as follows: “It was an error; the scribe perceived discord as a form of unity, number, and therefore had to classify the word “many” as “which”” (M, p. 68, note) Contrary to Müller’s opinion, the word distribution this is undoubtedly plural. number Pad. - Old Slavic strife, which in the Russian translation of the Church Slavonic language naturally turns into discord All of Müller’s arguments on this matter would have been unnecessary if he had looked directly at S’s manuscript, bypassing Gorsky’s edition!

We can recognize the facts of the absence of a second palatalization, repeatedly encountered in text C, as East Slavicisms characteristic of monuments of the 11th-12th centuries To before -b in dat (local) pad. units number of wives kind of noun and adj. based on -A. So we read in the manuscript: “For the land was not known and ruled. nj in rVsk'(C, 185a, 4-5) and further: “Moreover, I always heard about the goodness of the earth Greek"(C, 1856, 11). In the editions, this discrepancy between the text and the norms of the standard Church Slavonic language has been eliminated, and we read in them: “but in Russian"(M, 38, 17) and “about the blessed land Greekness"(M, 39, 4). However, further text C contains a similar spelling: “our rulers threaten the countries” (C, 199a, 1-2). And this deviation from the standard was retained in the publications: “lords” our threats to countries” (M, 51, 12). Muller believes To an obvious mistake (M, p. 139). He also draws attention to the extremely rare burial of the title lord in relation to the Russian princes.

The noted spellings in text C, it seems to us, can go back either to the protograph of “The Word of Law and Grace”, or to one of the oldest intermediate lists of the first most ancient edition of the monument. Observations on the language of the lists should be systematically continued with further textual study of the monument, fruitfully begun by N. N. Rozov.

However, even now some preliminary final conclusions could be drawn. Firstly, the linguistic and textual study of the monument should be carried out not from its imperfect editions, but directly from the manuscript. Secondly, even a selective appeal to these sources obliges us to abandon the superficial and preconceived notion of the language of the “Word of Law and Grace” as language “impeccably Old Church Slavonic”.

Undoubtedly, in the “language of the Word.” Old Slavonicisms occupy a prominent place and perform significant stylistic functions. It is no coincidence that the author of the monument addresses the listeners as connoisseurs and connoisseurs of book eloquence: “we write not to strangers, but to the abundance of the sweets of books” (C, 1696, 18-19). the speaker himself “repletely filled” his “Word” with excerpts from ancient Slavic church books: quotes from the books of the Old and New Testaments, from works of patristics and hymnology are found in literally every line of the monument. However, East Slavicisms characterize the author’s living speech, even comparatively. in the later lists of “Words...” are quite stable and tangible. These East Slavicisms in the language of Hilarion’s works cannot be recognized, in our opinion, as either involuntary or accidental. They are not accidental for the use of words by Hilarion as the son of his people and his time. are involuntary, because each of the East Slavic language elements used by him has its own irreplaceable and inalienable semantic and stylistic function. Let them be used in the church book, ceremonial style, but in the style of the literary Slavic-Russian language, mixed in nature and origin with the written language of Kievan Rus.

Another literary monument, created at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries, is dedicated to the glorification of the first Russian martyred princes. This is one of the outstanding works of ancient Russian literature of the Kyiv period - “The Tale of Boris and Gleb”, which differs from other monuments of the same subject both in volume and stylistic originality.

In Ancient Rus', “The Tale of Boris and Gleb” existed and was rewritten in parallel with another great work - “Reading about Boris and Gleb,” the author of which is recognized as a famous writer of the late 11th century. Nestor, Monk of the Pechersk Monastery.

The question of the relative antiquity of both named works still cannot be considered finally resolved. We are inclined to the opinion expressed by N. N. Voronin, who recognized the “Legend” to have arisen later than the “Reading” and finally took shape in the first decades of the 12th century. (after 1115), when previously created sources were included. The origin of the “Tale” is apparently connected with the activities of the clergy who served at the church in Vyshgorod, where the relics of the princes were solemnly transferred during their canonization.

The value of “The Tale of Boris and Gleb” for the history of the Russian literary language is determined not only by the early time of its creation, but also by the fact that this work has come to us in the oldest copy in the “Uspensky Collection”, rewritten no later than the turn of the 12th-13th centuries. Thus, the distance between the time of the final construction of the monument and the date of the list that has come down to us does not exceed one hundred years.

“The Tale of Boris and Gleb” is one of the earliest examples of the ancient Russian hagiographic genre and is therefore inextricably linked with church tradition. The author of the “Tale...” himself indirectly points to those works of hagiographic writing that circulated in the then Kievan Rus and could serve as an example for him to follow. So, the author, talking about last hours the hero of his “Tale...”, Prince Boris, reports that he “is contemplating the torment and passion of the holy martyr Nikita and St. Vyacheslav: like this former murder (I will be killed)” (p. 33, lines 10-12). Named here are: the first, translated from Greek (apocryphal) life of the martyr Nikita, the second, the Czech life of Prince Vyacheslav, killed in 929 due to the slander of his brother Boleslav. Vyacheslav (Vaclav), canonized, was recognized as the patron of the Czech Republic.

But, while joining the hagiographic tradition, works about Boris and Gleb at the same time fell out of it, since the very circumstances of the life and death of the princes did not fit into traditional schemes. Martyrs usually suffered and died for the confession of Christ, being urged by their tormentors to renounce him. Nobody forced Boris and Gleb to renounce. Prince Svyatopolk, who killed them, was formally considered the same Christian as they. Victims of political murder, Boris and Gleb were declared saints not for their profession of faith, but for their obedience to their elder brother, for their manifestation of brotherly love, for meekness and humility. Therefore, convincing the church authorities of the holiness of the princes was not a simple or easy matter, especially to defend the need for their canonization before the Byzantine clergy. It is no coincidence that, according to the testimony of “The Legend...”, Metropolitan George of Kiev himself, a Greek by birth and upbringing, “was... not firmly believing in the saints” (p. 56, line 21). The entire “Legend...” is aimed at proving the holiness of Boris and Gleb and the need for their glorification.

In terms of content and style, “The Tale of Boris and Gleb” is a very complex and varied work. In the panegyric sections it approaches the hymnographic and liturgical template, in the narrative parts it is adjacent to chronicle reports. The actual artistic side of stylistics in works about Boris and Gleb is thoroughly and insightfully revealed in the works of I. P. Eremin, in particular in his “Lectures on the history of Old Russian literature” (LSU Publishing House, 1968). The language in which “The Legend...” is written is also not uniform. Discovering the dual nature of the then accepted literary and written language, we note the predominant use of ancient Slavic elements of speech in those places in the text where the goal is to prove the holiness of princes or glorify their merits. So, Boris, having learned about the death of his father, the Kyiv prince Vladimir, “began to swallow away the darkness and his face was filled with tears, and spilled with tears, and could not speak, in his heart he began to say: “Alas for me, shine in my eyes, the radiance and the dawn of my face, my wisdom, the punishment of my misunderstanding! Alas for me, my father and lord!” (p. 29, lines 6-11).

In the above passage we do not find East Slavic speech elements, with the exception of the phrase undo my thing, designed according to the norms of phonetics and morphology of Old Russian, and not Old Church Slavonic. And we find the same solemn bookish, ancient Slavic language further on those pages where the fate of the young princes is mourned and their virtues are glorified.

However, when facts and events are reported, traces of a chronicle source clearly appear, apparently the most ancient “Initial chronicle code”, which preceded the appearance of “The Tale of Bygone Years”. Thus, we see there a systematically expressed East Slavic phonetic and morphological design of proper personal names and geographical names: Volodymer, Volodymer, Peredslava, Novgorodets, Rostov etc. On the very first pages of the “Tale” in its chronicle part we encounter verbs with the East Slavic prefix grew- (“rostrig” yu beauty for her face,” sir. 27, line 12; With. 28, line 1). Next is characteristic East Slavism pink(vm. different). Let us note that this linguistic fact was not correctly understood even by the copyist of the “Uspensky Collection”, who did not recognize the word alien to literary traditions: “And all the planting Rosnam lands in the princedom...” Instead of an adjective Rosnam, obviously originally read Roznam. The discrepancies in this passage show that the other scribes did not perceive this word. Among the options we find: various L; razdnam-S; By shameful(?!)-M; celebrate - R; different A. Some scribes correctly understood the meaning, but conveyed it in forms more familiar to later periods of development of the literary language, while others completely distorted what was written.

The portrait description of Prince Boris in the chapter “Tales...” “Oh Boris how to rise” is given in a diverse and varied style, with a predominance of Old Slavonicisms, when we're talking about about the traits of moral character: “Surely blessed Boris, benefits rooted, obedient to his father” (p. 51, lines 21-22), but with characteristic East Slavicisms when talking about the appearance of the prince or his fighting temperament: “cheerful face, beard small and us” (line 24), “in rath khubar” (obviously spoiled good sir. 52, line 1). The use of partial and full vowel forms is very revealing from a stylistic point of view. grad - city in “Praise to Vyshegorod”. Let us quote this passage in full: “Blessed is he truly and exalted above all hail Russians and higher hail, He has such a treasure in himself, he doesn’t care about the whole world! It's true Vyshegorod called: high and superior city ​​of everyone, The second Selun appeared in the Russian land, having within himself the merciless medicine” (p. 50, lines 11-14). From the phenomena of morphology, we note in this passage the absence of a second palatalization To before -b, which we see in the initial part of the “Tale...”, and in such monuments as the “Sermon on Law and Grace”, in the “Izbornik 1076”.

The final part of the “Tale...” tells of the posthumous miracles of Boris and Gleb, the discovery and transfer of their relics. And here the ancient Slavic speech element alternates with Russian. Let us note a striking example of the introduction of colloquial speech into the text. The article “On the Presentation of the Holy Martyr” tells how, at the opening of the relics of Boris, the Metropolitan, taking the hand of the saint, blessed the princes with it: “And again Svyatoslav, with the hand of the Metropolitan and the trembling hand of the saint, applied to harm (to an abscess), pain on the neck, and to the eye, and to the crown, and seven at a time, put your hand in the coffin” (p. 56, lines 17-19). And when they began to sing the liturgy, “Svyatoslav spoke to Byrnov: “No one should butt me on the head.” And he took off the hood from the prince, and saw saint, and take off chapters and give it to Svyatoslav” (ibid., lines 20-21). The prince’s words, reflected in the story, undoubtedly bear the stamp of verbal authenticity: this is how these words were remembered by everyone around him.

We see in this ancient monument the same written literary language of the older period, a mixed language, Slavic-Russian, a language in which the East Slavic element of speech sometimes makes itself felt even stronger and brighter than in our modern Russian literary usage.

The state of the Russian literary language currently represents an acute problem for the state and for the entire society. This is explained by the fact that the entire historical experience of the people is concentrated and represented in the language: the state of the language testifies to the state of society, its culture, its mentality. Confusion and vacillation in society, the decline of morality, the loss of characteristic national features - all this affects the language and leads to its decline.

Preserving the language, caring for its further development and enrichment is a guarantee of the preservation and development of Russian culture. Therefore every citizen Russian Federation, no matter who he works, no matter what position he holds, he is responsible for the state of the language of his country, his people.

The 18th century is of greatest interest for understanding the formation and development of the literary language, when progressively minded circles of society tried to raise the authority of the Russian language and prove its worth as a language of science and art.

M.V. played a special role in the formation of the literary language during this period. Lomonosov. Possessing talent, enormous knowledge, passionately wanting to change the attitude towards the Russian language not only of foreigners, but also of Russians, he creates the first “Russian Grammar” in the Russian language, in which he first presents the scientific system of the Russian language, compiles a set of grammatical rules, shows how to take advantage of its rich possibilities.

During this period, a concentration of national linguistic elements is planned due to the selection of the most common features of the South Russian and North Russian dialects. At the same time, the democratization of the language begins: in its lexical composition, grammatical structure a significant amount includes elements of the living oral speech of urban merchants, service people, the lower clergy, and literate peasants.

Along with democratization, the language begins to gradually free itself from the influence of the Church Slavonic language.

In the 17th century, the Russian language was renewed and enriched at the expense of Western European languages: Polish, French, Dutch, German, Italian. This was especially evident in the formation of the scientific language and its terminology: philosophical, economic, legal, scientific and technical.

At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries, representatives of the democratically minded Russian intelligentsia, expressing their attitude to reforming the literary language and its styles, emphasized that the issue of the literary language should not be resolved without determining the role of living folk speech in the structure of the national language. In this regard, the work of the great writers of the first half of the 19th century, Griboedov and Krylov, is indicative, who proved what inexhaustible possibilities living folk speech has, how original, original, and rich the language of folklore is.

A.S. is rightfully considered the creator of the modern Russian literary language. Pushkin. His contemporaries wrote about the reformist nature of the poet’s work. So, N.V. Gogol rightly stated: “In it, as if in the lexicon, lies all the wealth, strength and flexibility of our language. He is more than anyone, he has further expanded his boundaries and shown his entire space more than anyone else.”

19th century - « silver Age"Russian literature and Russian language. At this time, there was an unprecedented flowering of Russian literature. The work of Gogol, Lermontov, Goncharov, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Ostrovsky, Chekhov and others gains universal appreciation. Russian journalism reaches extraordinary heights: articles by Belinsky, Pisarev, Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky. The achievements of Russian scientists Dokuchaev, Mendeleev, Pirogov, Lobachevsky, Mozhaisky, Kovalevsky, Klyuchevsky and others are receiving worldwide recognition.

The development of literature, journalism, and science contributes to the further formation and enrichment of the Russian language. The vocabulary is replenished with new socio-political, philosophical, economic, technical terminology: worldview, integrity, self-determination, proletariat, humanity, education, reality and many others. etc. Phraseology is enriched: center of gravity, bring to one denominator, negative value, reach apogee, etc.

Scientific and journalistic literature increases the stock of international terminology: agitation, intelligentsia, intellectual, conservative, maximum, etc.

The rapid development of science and the steady growth of magazine and newspaper products contributed to the formation of functional styles of literary language - scientific and journalistic.

One of the most important features of a literary language as the highest form of a national language is its normativity. Throughout the 19th century, the process of processing the national language was underway in order to create uniform grammatical, lexical, spelling, spelling standards. These norms are theoretically substantiated in the works of Vostokov, Buslaev, Fortunatov, Shakhmatov; are described and approved in the grammars of Vostokov, Grech, Kalaidovich, Grot, etc.

The richness and diversity of the vocabulary of the Russian language is reflected in dictionaries (historical, etymological, synonymous, foreign words) that appear in the 19th century.

Well-known philologists of that time published articles in which they defined the principles of lexicographic description of words, principles of vocabulary selection, taking into account the goals and objectives of the dictionary. Thus, issues of lexicography are being developed for the first time.

The largest event was the publication in 1863-1866. four-volume “Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” by V.I. Dalia. The dictionary was highly appreciated by contemporaries. Its author in 1863 received the Lomonosov Prize of the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences and the title of honorary academician.

So, by the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian literary language was formed, its norms were defined, its morphological and syntactic structures were described, dictionaries were compiled and published, which consolidated and legitimized its spelling, lexical, and morphological features.

When characterizing the literary language of the 20th century, two chronological periods should be distinguished: I - from October 1917 to April 1985 and II - from April 1985 to the present. What happens to the Russian literary language during these periods?

After the formation of the Soviet Union, its development and enrichment continued. Most clearly increases lexicon literary language. The volume of scientific terminology, for example, related to cosmology and astronautics, is growing especially rapidly. Words are being created in large numbers to denote new phenomena and concepts that reflect fundamental changes in the state, political, and economic structure of the country, for example, Komsomol member, regional committee, virgin land worker, collective farm, socialist competition, kindergarten, etc. Fiction, journalistic, and popular science literature has expanded an arsenal of expressive and figurative means of the literary language. In morphology and syntax, the number of synonymous variants is increasing, differing in shades of meaning or stylistic coloring.

Researchers of the Russian language since the 20s. In the 20th century, special attention was paid to the theory of literary language. As a result, they identified and characterized the systemic and structural division of the literary language. Firstly, the literary language has two types: book-written and oral-spoken; secondly, each type is realized in speech. Book and writing is presented in a special speech (written - scientific speech and written official business speech) and in artistic and visual speech (written journalistic speech and written artistic speech). The oral-conversational type is presented in public speech(scientific speech and oral radio and television speech) and in colloquial speech (oral, everyday speech).

In the 20th century, the formation of the Russian written language ended, which began to represent a complex dark-structural organization.

The second period - the period of perestroika and post-perestroika - gave special importance to those processes that accompany the functioning of a language at all stages of its existence, made them more significant, more clearly expressed, brighter, more clearly presented. First of all, we should talk about a significant replenishment of the vocabulary of the Russian language with new words (state structure, barter, foreign currency, Internet, cartridge, case, kiwi, adidas, hamburger, etc.), about the actualization of a large number of words found; previously in the passive. In addition to new words, many words have been brought back to life that seemed to have gone out of use forever: gymnasium, lyceum, guild, governess, corporation, trust, department, communion, blessing, Maslenitsa, etc.

Speaking about replenishing the vocabulary of a literary language, it is impossible not to note: a striking feature of our current linguistic development is considered to be the clogging of speech with borrowings. The “foreignization” of the Russian language is of concern to linguists, literary critics, writers, and many others; The Russian language is dear to those who are concerned about its future fate.

Throughout its history, the Russian language has been enriched not only by internal resources, but also by other languages. But in some periods this influence, especially the borrowing of words, was excessive, and then the opinion appears that foreign words They don’t add anything new, since there are Russian words that are identical to them, and many Russian words cannot withstand competition with fashionable borrowings and are replaced by them.

The history of the Russian literary language shows: borrowing without measure clogs speech, making it not understandable to everyone; reasonable borrowing enriches speech and gives it greater accuracy.

In connection with significant changes in the conditions for the functioning of language, another problem is becoming relevant at present, the problem of language as a means of communication, language in its implementation, the problem of speech.

What features characterize the functioning of the literary language at the end of the 20th century? beginning of XXI century?

Firstly, it has never been so numerous and diverse (in terms of age, education, official position, political, religious, public views, by party orientation) composition of participants in mass communication.

Secondly, official censorship has almost disappeared, so people express their thoughts more freely, their speech becomes more open, confidential, and relaxed.

Thirdly, spontaneous, spontaneous, unprepared speech begins to predominate.

Fourthly, the variety of communication situations leads to changes in the nature of communication. It frees itself from rigid formality and becomes more relaxed.

New conditions for the functioning of language, the emergence of a large number of unprepared public speeches lead not only to the democratization of speech, but also to a sharp decline in its culture.

How is it shown? Firstly, in violation of the orthoepic (pronunciation) and grammatical norms of the Russian language. Scientists, journalists, poets, and ordinary citizens write about this. There are especially many complaints about the speech of deputies, television and radio workers. Secondly, at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, the democratization of language reached such proportions that it would be more correct to call the process liberalization, or more precisely, vulgarization.

On the pages of periodicals, in speech educated people a stream of jargon, colloquial elements and other extra-literary means poured in: money, piece, piece, stolnik, bullshit, pump out, wash, unfasten, scroll and many others. etc. The words: party, showdown, chaos and much more have become commonly used even in official speech.

There are quite a few people who claim that swearing and swearing are considered characteristic, distinctive feature Russian people. If we turn to oral folk art, proverbs and sayings, it turns out that it is not entirely legitimate to say that the Russian people consider swearing an integral part of their life. Yes, people are trying to somehow justify it, to emphasize that swearing is a common thing: Swearing is not a reserve, and without it it won’t last for an hour; Swearing is not smoke - it won't hurt your eyes; Hard words break no bones. She even seems to help in the work; you can’t do without her: If you don’t curse, you won’t get the job done; Without swearing, you won’t be able to open the lock in the cage.

But something else is more important: It’s a sin to argue, but it’s a sin to scold; Do not scold: what comes out of a person is what defiles him; Swearing is not tar, but akin to soot: if it doesn’t stick, it gets dirty; People wither away from abuse, but get fat from praise; You can’t take it with your throat, you can’t beg it with abuse.

This is not only a warning, it is already a condemnation, it is a ban.

The Russian literary language is our wealth, our heritage. He embodied cultural and historical traditions people. We are responsible for his condition, for his fate.

The words of I.S. are fair and relevant (especially at the present time!). Turgenev: “In days of doubt, in days of painful thoughts about the fate of my homeland - you alone are my support and support, oh great, mighty, truthful and free Russian language! Without you, how can one not fall into despair at the sight of everything that is happening at home? But one cannot believe that such a language was not given to a great people!”

Russian language dialects of the Russian language Portal:Russian language

History of the Russian literary language- formation and transformation of the Russian language used in literary works. The oldest surviving literary monuments date back to the 11th century. In the 18th-19th centuries, this process took place against the background of the opposition of the Russian language, which the people spoke, to French, the language of the nobles. The classics of Russian literature actively explored the possibilities of the Russian language and were innovators of many language forms. They emphasized the richness of the Russian language and often pointed out its advantages over foreign languages. On the basis of such comparisons, disputes have repeatedly arisen, for example, disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles. In Soviet times, it was emphasized that the Russian language is the language of the builders of communism, and during the reign of Stalin, a campaign was carried out to combat cosmopolitanism in literature. The transformation of the Russian literary language continues to this day.

Folklore

Oral folklore (folklore) in the form of fairy tales, epics, proverbs and sayings is rooted in distant history. They were passed on from mouth to mouth, their content was polished in such a way that the most stable combinations remained, and linguistic forms were updated as the language developed. Oral creativity continued to exist even after the advent of writing. In modern times, worker and urban, as well as army and blatnoy (prison camp) folklore were added to peasant folklore. Currently, oral folk art is most expressed in anecdotes. Oral folk art also influences the written literary language.

Development of the literary language in ancient Rus'

The introduction and spread of writing in Rus', leading to the creation of the Russian literary language, is usually associated with Cyril and Methodius.

Thus, in ancient Novgorod and other cities in the 11th-15th centuries, birch bark letters were in use. Most of the surviving birch bark letters are private letters of a business nature, as well as business documents: wills, receipts, bills of sale, court records. There are also church texts and literary and folklore works (spells, school jokes, riddles, household instructions), records educational nature(ABCs, warehouses, school exercises, children's drawings and doodles).

Church Slavonic writing, introduced by Cyril and Methodius in 862, was based on the Old Church Slavonic language, which in turn was derived from South Slavic dialects. The literary activity of Cyril and Methodius consisted of translating the books of Holy Scripture of the New and Old Testaments. The disciples of Cyril and Methodius translated a large number of religious books from Greek into Church Slavonic. Some researchers believe that Cyril and Methodius introduced not the Cyrillic alphabet, but the Glagolitic alphabet; and the Cyrillic alphabet was developed by their students.

The Church Slavonic language was a book language, not a spoken language, the language of church culture, which spread among many Slavic peoples. Church Slavonic literature spread among the Western Slavs (Moravia), the Southern Slavs (Bulgaria), Wallachia, parts of Croatia and the Czech Republic and, with the adoption of Christianity, in Rus'. Since the Church Slavonic language differed from spoken Russian, church texts were subject to changes during correspondence and were Russified. The scribes corrected Church Slavonic words, bringing them closer to the Russian ones. At the same time, they introduced features of local dialects.

To systematize Church Slavonic texts and introduce uniform language norms in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the first grammars were written - the grammar of Laurentius Zizania (1596) and the grammar of Meletius Smotrytsky (1619). The process of formation of the Church Slavonic language was basically completed at the end of the 17th century, when Patriarch Nikon corrected and systematized the liturgical books. Liturgical books of Russian Orthodoxy have become the norm for all Orthodox peoples .

As Church Slavonic religious texts spread in Rus', literary works gradually began to appear that used the writing of Cyril and Methodius. The first such works date back to the end of the 11th century. These are “The Tale of Bygone Years” (1068), “The Tale of Boris and Gleb”, “The Life of Theodosius of Pechora”, “The Tale of Law and Grace” (1051), “The Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh” (1096) and “The Tale of Igor’s Host” (1185-1188). These works are written in a language that is a mixture of Church Slavonic and Old Russian.

Links

Reforms of the Russian literary language of the 18th century

“The beauty, splendor, strength and richness of the Russian language is abundantly clear from books written in past centuries, when our ancestors did not only know any rules for writing, but they hardly even thought that they existed or could exist,” - stated Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov

The most important reforms of the Russian literary language and system of versification in the 18th century were made by Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov. In the city he wrote a “Letter on the Rules of Russian Poetry,” in which he formulated the principles of new versification in Russian. In a polemic with Trediakovsky, he argued that instead of cultivating poetry written according to patterns borrowed from other languages, it is necessary to use the capabilities of the Russian language. Lomonosov believed that it was possible to write poetry with many types of feet - two-syllable (iamb and trochee) and three-syllable (dactyl, anapest and amphibrachium), but considered it wrong to replace feet with pyrrhic and spondean. Such innovation by Lomonosov sparked a discussion in which Trediakovsky and Sumarokov actively participated. Three transcriptions of Psalm 143, performed by these authors, were published in the city, and readers were invited to speak out which of the texts they considered the best.

However, Pushkin’s statement is known, in which literary activity Lomonosov is not approved: “His odes... are tiresome and inflated. His influence on literature was harmful and is still reflected in it. Pompousness, sophistication, aversion to simplicity and precision, the absence of any nationality and originality - these are the traces left by Lomonosov.” Belinsky called this view “surprisingly true, but one-sided.” According to Belinsky, “In Lomonosov’s time we did not need folk poetry; Then great question- to be or not to be - for us was not about nationality, but about Europeanism... Lomonosov was the Peter the Great of our literature.”

In addition to his contributions to poetic language, Lomonosov was also the author of a scientific Russian grammar. In this book, he described the riches and possibilities of the Russian language. Lomonosov's grammar was published 14 times and formed the basis for Barsov's Russian grammar course (1771), who was Lomonosov's student. In this book, Lomonosov, in particular, wrote: “Charles the Fifth, the Roman Emperor, used to say that it is decent to speak Spanish with God, French with friends, German with enemies, Italian with the female sex. But if he Russian language was skillful, then, of course, he would have added to this that it is decent for them to speak with all of them, for he would have found in him the splendor of Spanish, the liveliness of French, the strength of German, the tenderness of Italian, and, moreover, the richness and strong brevity of Greek and Latin in images. » It is interesting that Derzhavin later expressed something similar: “The Slavic-Russian language, according to the testimony of foreign aestheticians themselves, is not inferior either to Latin or to Greek in fluency, surpassing all European languages: Italian, French and Spanish, and even more so German.”

Modern Russian literary language

Alexander Pushkin is considered the creator of the modern literary language, whose works are considered the pinnacle of Russian literature. This thesis remains dominant, despite the significant changes that have occurred in the language over the almost two hundred years that have passed since the creation of his largest works, and the obvious stylistic differences between the language of Pushkin and modern writers.

Meanwhile, the poet himself points to the primary role of N. M. Karamzin in the formation of the Russian literary language, according to A. S. Pushkin, this glorious historian and writer “freed the language from the alien yoke and returned it to freedom, turning it to the living sources of folk words".

"Great, mighty..."

Turgenev owns, perhaps, one of the most famous definitions of the Russian language as “great and powerful.”

In days of doubt, in days of painful thoughts about the fate of my homeland, you alone are my support and support, oh great, mighty, truthful and free Russian language! Without you, how can one not fall into despair at the sight of everything that is happening at home? But one cannot believe that such a language was not given to a great people!(I. S. Turgenev)

Charles V, the Roman Emperor, used to say that it is decent to speak Spanish with God, French with friends, German with enemies, and Italian with women. But if he were skilled in the Russian language, then of course he would have added that it is decent for them to speak with all of them. For I would find in it: great... ...the strength of German, the tenderness of Italian, and, on top of that, the richness and strong brevity of Greek and Latin in its depiction.

see also

	Portal "Russian language "
	in Wikiquote
	in Wikisource
	History of the Russian literary language on Wikimedia Commons

Notes

Russian language

Wikimedia Foundation.

2010.

See what “History of the Russian literary language” is in other dictionaries:

- “Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language” (SSRL; Big Academic Dictionary, BAS) is an academic normative explanatory historical dictionary of the Russian literary language in 17 volumes, published from 1948 to 1965. Reflects... ... Wikipedia

History of the Russian literary language - the formation and transformation of the Russian language used in literary works. The oldest surviving literary monuments date back to the 11th century. In *** centuries it spread in Rus'... ... Wikipedia

SHORT LECTURES

IN THE DISCIPLINE "HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE"

Lecture No. 1 Historical characteristics of the language.

History of the Russian literary language as a science. Main categories. 1. The subject of the history of the Russian literary language. Subject of the course – history of the development of the native language, the processes of its development, their essence. Appeal to ancient written monuments as object of study

course. The history of the Russian literary language is the science of the essence, origin and stages of development of the Russian national language, its use in different speech registers, the change of these registers, their evolution. Traditions of studying the history of the Russian literary language:

The concept of literary language. Literary language as a phenomenon of book culture. Historical and cultural prerequisites and conditions for the formation of a literary language. The concept of literary and written language, literary language and the language of fiction. Literary and colloquial language. Stylistic heterogeneity of the literary language, changes in its character in the process of historical development.

The concept of language norm. Book norm as the basis of a literary language, linguistic norm as a historical category. Language system and norm. Various types of norms. Specificity of the book norm. Its connection with learning and conscious assimilation, with the literary and linguistic tradition. The connection between the history of literary language and the history of culture.

2. Language situationas a factor in the development of literary language. Typology of cultural and linguistic situations: monolingualism, bilingualism (foreign language), diglossia. Dvulcanism– coexistence in society of two languages ​​equal in their functions. Diglossia– a stable language situation, characterized by a stable functional balance of coexisting languages ​​that are in complementary distribution. Signs that distinguish diglossia from bilingualism: the inadmissibility of using book language as a means of spoken communication, the lack of codification of spoken language and parallel texts with the same content. Changes in the language situation in the history of the development of the Russian literary language. Evidence of the existence of diglossia in Ancient Rus' (B.A. Uspensky, V.M. Zhivov). Arguments against diglossia (V.V. Kolesov, A.A. Alekseev).

3. The main stages of the development of the Russian literary language . Different points of view on the issue periodization of the course on the history of the Russian literary language: B.A. Uspensky, A.M. Kamchatnov and the periodization accepted by most linguists.

I period. Literary language of Ancient Rus' (XI-XIV centuries) – First stage literary and linguistic history of the Eastern Slavs. II period. Development of the Russian literary language on the basis of ancient Russian literary and linguistic traditions in the conditions of consolidation of the Russian people (XIV-XVII centuries). III period. Formation of a new type of Russian literary language (XVIII - early XIX centuries). Experiences in normalizing the Russian literary language and building its stylistic system. IV period. Development of the modern Russian literary language (from the beginning of the 19th century) as a single and universal normalized system serving all spheres cultural activities. Formulation of a system of standardized oral speech as a reflection of the process of displacement of dialects and vernacular from the sphere of oral communication.

Lecture No. 2

Literary language of Ancient Rus' (XI-XIV centuries): origin of the Russian literary language.

1. First South Slavic influence (X- XIcenturies).

After the baptism of Rus' (988), the Bulgarian version of the Old Church Slavonic language was adopted - the South Slavic language and writing in this language spread. The assimilation of the South Slavic book tradition was determined not so much by an orientation towards Bulgaria, but rather by the intermediary role of the South Slavs as conductors of Greek cultural influence: the orientation was Greek, the writing was Bulgarian. Thus, Christianization brings Rus' into the orbit of the Byzantine world, and the Church Slavonic language acts as a means of Byzantization of Russian culture. All of the above allows us to talk about first South Slavic influence and connects with it the initial phase of the formation of the literary language of the Eastern Slavs. In fact, the first South Slavic influence was the baptism of Rus' according to the Eastern model and the borrowing of ancient Bulgarian writing. The Old Church Slavonic language early began to be influenced by ethnic languages ​​and split into different editions (editions), in particular, the Russian edition of the Church Slavonic language was formed. On the other hand, the presence of ancient Russian monuments in Rus' indicates the existence of writing in two languages. Important question of this period is as follows: to determine which of them is the literary language of Ancient Rus'.

2. History of scientific controversy about .

History of scientific controversy about the origin of the Russian literary language is associated with the tradition of contrasting the theory of the Old Slavonic origin of the Russian literary language by A.A. Shakhmatov and the theory of the original East Slavic basis of the Russian literary language by S.P. Obnorsky.

Hypothesis A.A. Shakhmatova became widespread. In the work “Essay on the Modern Russian Language” A.A. Shakhmatov wrote: “By its origin, the Russian literary language is a Church Slavonic (ancient Bulgarian in origin) language transferred to Russian soil, which over the course of centuries became closer to the folk language and gradually lost and is losing its foreign appearance.” In his opinion, “the ancient Bulgarian language in Rus' was perceived as a foreign language for no more than a century, after which they got used to it as their own,” which allows us to talk about "Russification" of the South Slavic base. To prove this thesis A.A. Shakhmatov gives 12 signs of the foreign language basis of the modern Russian language: 1) lack of agreement; 2) combination ra, la at the beginning of a word; 3) combination railway vm. and; 4) affricate sch vm. h; 5) absence of transition [e] > [o]; 6) initial Yu vm. at; 7) solid z vm. soft ( useful, unpretentious); 8) vocalization oh, oh in place of reduced ones; 9) clearing vowels s, and in place of tense reduced ones; 10) grammatical forms with Church Slavonic inflections (m.r.: -ago, -ago; and. r.: - her); 11) Church Slavonic word formation; 12) Church Slavonic vocabulary.

In the 50s 20th century S.P. Obnorsky put forward a theory of the East Slavic basis of the Russian literary language, suggesting that the modern Russian language in its genetic basis is not borrowed, but Russian. His works deal with the Old Russian literary language, which, since the time of the second South Slavic influence, began to undergo Church Slavonicization, or rather, "Bulgarianization" of the Russian language. Disadvantages of the theory: it is not clear what the specific gravity of the Church Slavonic superstratum is; orientation towards a genre-limited range of sources of oral folk tradition, which served as the basis for the formation of a supra-dialectal form - Koine. As a result, the Church Slavonic language “froze”, being used only in the cult sphere, and the Old Russian language evolved.

After the publication of the works of S.P. Obnorsky (1934), a scientific discussion began, a critical attitude towards his theory was noted (A.M. Selishchev, V.V. Vinogradov), new concepts appeared. The concept of diglossia (B.A. Uspensky, A.V. Isachenko), according to which the literary language was the Church Slavonic language, and colloquial speech existed in parallel, not being a literary form. The concept of bilingualism (F.P. Filin, following M.V. Lomonosov) - the coexistence of Church Slavonic and Old Russian languages, each with its own varieties. Hypothesis V.V. Vinogradov - the idea of ​​​​the unity of the literary language on a nationwide basis. Two types of Old Russian literary language: book Slavic and folk literary (according to V.V. Vinogradov).

Lecture No. 3

Literary language of Ancient Rus' (XI-XIV centuries): characteristics of written monuments.

1. Types of written monuments of Kievan Rus.

It is traditional to talk about two types of written monuments of Kievan Rus: Christian and secular. Monuments of Christian literature were created in Church Slavonic. Translated Christian literature includes the Gospel, Psalter, Prologues, Patericon. Genres of original Christian literature are “Walkings”, “Lives”, “Words”, “Teachings”. Translated secular literature- these are works translated from Latin and Greek (“History of the Jewish War” by I. Flavius, “Deugene’s Act”). Original secular literature– folk literary monuments created in the Old Russian language (chronicles, chronicles; “The Tale of Bygone Years”, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, “The Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh”).

The diversity of written monuments of Kievan Rus also determines the typology of linguistic traditions and their varieties, which are characterized by the relationship of different linguistic elements within one ancient text.

Varieties of linguistic traditions on a Church Slavonic basis: standard, complicated, formulaic, simplified, hybrid Church Slavonic language. The standard Church Slavonic language is the language of the Gospel and Life. The complicated Church Slavonic language is a presentation enhanced rhetorically, poetically, exotic, expressive, archaic lexemes. The formulaic (“clichéd”) Church Slavonic language is a direct quotation or paraphrase of canonical (biblical) texts (krst tselovati, znamanashe krstnom image, etc.). The simplified Church Slavonic language is characterized by the inclusion of elements of the vernacular language. The hybrid Church Slavonic language is a striped language, a replacement of the linguistic means of the Church Slavonic language with elements of the colloquial language.

Varieties of linguistic traditions on an Old Russian basis: standard, dialectal, complicated, business (formular), Slavicized Old Russian language. Standard Old Russian is a linguistic tradition that demonstrates the general trends of the Old Russian language. The dialectal Old Russian language reflects certain dialectal features. The complicated Old Russian language is a presentation enhanced rhetorically, poetically, contains symbolic and figurative use, and reflects folklore traditions. The business (formular) Old Russian language is based on the use of clichés, standard expressions of Old Russian documents (iti on the company, knock down with your head, face up, etc.). The Slavicized Old Russian language is a linguistic tradition where only some forms are unsystematically Slavicized.

2. Status of business writing in Ancient Rus'

In Ancient Rus', business writing has an ancient tradition, which is confirmed by 3 agreements between Oleg and the Greeks, found in the “Tale of Bygone Years”. The ambiguous status of business writing in the history of the Russian literary language (isolation or a stylistically defined variety) is motivated by the critical socially oriented situation of its emergence. G.O. Vinokur gives arguments indicating the isolation of business language: functioning only in the field of business documentation, content business documents limited by the nature of use, semantically limited composition of vocabulary. A.I. Gorshkov, A.M. Kamchatnov believe that there are no sufficient grounds to isolate the business language from the system of varieties of the Old Russian language, since “it (the business language) represents a socially important, stylistically processed and ordered variety of the use of the Old Russian language, and at subsequent stages of development it gradually strengthened its connections with the “literary language itself.” "language and its influence on it." A.M. Kamchatnov: “... XI-XIV centuries. characterized by the opposition of three styles of literary language - sacred, Slavic-Russian and business."

The linguistic specificity of business documents was determined by the peculiarities of its content, as evidenced, for example, by the statement of Afanasy Matveevich Selishchev: “When they talked about theft, about a fight, about a torn out beard, about a bloody face, the corresponding speech was used - the speech of everyday life... Not only style, but also the accuracy of the content of business speech, documentary accuracy required the use of appropriate words - Russian words of a certain meaning.” Indeed, we were talking about objects, phenomena and concepts that were specifically Russian. Therefore, the basis of business monuments is the Old Russian language, connection with the terminological system of oral law, and the absence of sacredness. Thus, we can note the following features of the business legal writing of Ancient Rus' (“Russkaya Pravda”, deeds of gift and contract): genre-functional marking (use for practical needs), semantically limited composition of the content structure (use of legal vocabulary: vira, vidoq, poslukh, tatba, golovnichestvo, istsevo, etc.), monotony of syntactic constructions (conditional clauses, imperative-infinitive constructions, stringing simple sentences), the presence of linguistic formulas and the absence of figurative and expressive means.

3. Linguistic specificity of everyday written works: birch bark letters (private correspondence) and graffiti (household, dedicatory, religious inscriptions).
Lecture No. 4

The cultural and linguistic situation of Muscovite Rus' at the end of the 14th – mid-15th centuries.

1. Ways of development of the spoken and literary language during the formation of the Moscow state.

From the second half of the 14th century, the Moscow principality began to develop rapidly, annexing neighboring ones. Moscow is the spiritual and political center of Russia: “Moscow is the third Rome.” The speech of Moscow is becoming colorful, including borrowings from the languages ​​of neighboring peoples. One of the transitional dialects is formed - Moscow Koine, which became the basis of the language of the Great Russian people. This language differed from the Old Russian language, for example, in its vocabulary (due to changes in ideology and realities). In addition to the extralinguistic prerequisites that determined the restructuring of the relationship between book and non-book language, intralinguistic reasons were also identified that characterize the spoken language of the Moscow state by the 14th century. Among them is the change in the phonological system after the process of the fall of the reduced; loss of grammatical categories (vocal form, dual number); unification of types of declination in plural. h.; using the perfect without a copula; the spread of new alliances. In this situation, spoken and literary languages ​​began to differ from each other: previously neutral (general) forms become specifically bookish, i.e. new correlations between the Church Slavonic and living Russian languages ​​are being formed. So, the forms are rutsh, nozh, pomozi, bozh, pekl, moogl, mya, tya, etc. are now contrasted with forms of spoken language. Accordingly, the distance between Church Slavonic and Russian as book and non-book languages ​​is increasing.

2. Second South Slavic influence.

One of controversial issues in the history of Russian writing, the question remains about the role of the so-called to the 14th century - beginning XVI century - the second wave of influence on Russian book culture from the South Slavic written culture (Bulgaria and partly Serbia) after the period of Christianization of Rus' (X-XI centuries). This was a reform of the principles of translation from Greek, literary language and spelling, carried out in the 14th century. Bulgarian Patriarch Euthymius of Tarnovsky, which spread very quickly. The implementation of the reform in Russian writing is associated with the name of Metropolitan Cyprian - a Serb or, according to other sources, a Bulgarian by birth, who emigrated to Rus' in the general flow of South Slavic emigration. Hence another name for the process - Kipranovskaya on the right.

A.I. was the first to draw attention to the second South Slavic influence as a cardinal event in the history of the Russian literary language in the 19th century. Sobolevsky. Sobolevsky's discovery received wide recognition. B.A. Uspensky: “This phenomenon is based on purificatory and restoration tendencies: its immediate stimulus was the desire of Russian scribes to cleanse the Church Slavonic language of those colloquial elements that penetrated into it as a result of its gradual Russification (i.e. adaptation to local conditions).” First of all, A.I. Sobolevsky drew attention to changes in the external design of manuscripts, pointed out innovations in graphics, changes in the spelling of these written monuments compared to previous periods. Based on this material, he concluded that Russian writing in the period of the late 14th century - early. XVI century fell under the strong influence of South Slavic writing, hence the term "second South Slavic influence". In fact, all the indicated changes brought the Old Russian manuscripts closer to the Bulgarian and Serbian written monuments of the same era. Indeed, the model for Russian manuscripts is the corrected church books of Bulgaria and Serbia, where by the end of the 14th century. The editing of religious books ended, and many prominent church figures (Metropolitan Cyprian, Gregory Tsamblak, Pachomius Logofet) arrived in Moscow. In connection with the political and economic growth of Moscow, the authority of the Moscow church, church literature, and therefore the role of the Church Slavonic language is strengthening. Therefore, the activity of editing church books in Moscow during this period turned out to be appropriate. The correction and rewriting of books was primarily due to the translation of the Russian Church from the studio charter, which prevailed in Byzantium until the end of the 11th century. and from there it came to Rus', to the Jerusalem charter, which was strengthened in the 14th century throughout the Orthodox world. Natural conservatism and respect for antiquity for the church encouraged scribes, on the one hand, to preserve the written tradition of ancient texts, consciously archaizing the book language, and on the other hand, it was in the 14th century that the Slavic languages ​​changed so significantly in the system of vocalism, consonantism, accentology, and in lexical and grammatical terms, that the use of many signs in ancient texts became incomprehensible. These are letters such as @, \, #, >, i, s, ^, h. A true understanding of their use could be achieved on the basis of creating a scientific history of the Slavic languages, but the church scribes of the 14th century were still far from even setting such a task. And so artificial rules for writing these letters are developed, the use of which has become unclear. Among Russian scribes, these artificial rules meet with mute but stubborn resistance. Therefore, the purpose of the editing undertaken by the scribes is to bring the church books to their original, most accurate form, corresponding to the Greek originals.

Consequences second South Slavic influence:

1) restoration in graphics greek letters(j, k, ^, i), a large jusa that has disappeared from practice; the appearance of ideographic signs and symbols (D.S. Likhachev notes the “geometric ornament of the text”);

2) elimination of iotation, i.e. the absence of spellings with j in the postvocalic position before a and #, now the iotation is conveyed not by the letter ", but by the letters a and #: svo#(//////svoa), dobraa, deacon (the spelling of uniotated letters is a Greek model);

3) the spelling of ers is subject to distributive rules: at the end of the word there is always ь, in the middle ъ. This artificial rule was due to the coincidence of the reflexes of the etymological *ъ, *ь in one phoneme, which made these letters homophonic and interchangeable.

4) distribution in the spelling of the letters i and i: i is written before vowels, which is also associated with the Greek model (this rule was adopted by civilian orthography and remained until the reform of 1917-1918);

5) reflection of reflexes and processes of the Book Slavic language (palatalization, first full consonance);

6) increasing the number of titles, superscripts and punctuation marks.

7) the emergence and spread of a rhetorically decorated manner of writing - "weaving words" style- as a way of constructing a text that originates in church works, then transferred to secular ones. For the first time in Rus' style of "weaving words" scribe of the 14th century - early XV century Epiphanius the Wise introduced it in the “Life of Stephen of Perm”.

Style of "weaving words" arose “from the idea of ​​hesychasm about the unknowability and unnameability of God, i.e. You can only get closer to the name of God by trying different ways of naming” (L.V. Zubova). Hesychasm is an ethical-ascetic teaching about the path to the unity of man with God, about the ascent of the human spirit to deity, the “divinity of the verb,” the need for close attention to the sound and semantics of the word, which serves to name the essence of an object, but is often unable to express the “soul of the object.” , convey the main thing. The hesychasts refused the word: contemplation gives direct communication with God, which is why the hesychasts were also called “silent people.” The word is a “divine verb”.

The term “weaving words” does not quite adequately convey the essence of the style. The phrase “to weave words” was known before Epiphanius in the meaning of “to produce new words”; in translations of the Byzantine hymn we find: “the word weaving the word sweet-smelling.” Thus, neither the term “weaving words” nor the ornate rhetorical style for the 14th - 15th centuries. not new. What is new is the motivation for the return to floridity. The hesychast identification of the word and the essence of the phenomenon caused in verbal creativity a seemingly opposite result - pleonasm, which for this era was justified, since the designation of the concreteness of the “thing” embodied the unity of a high idea with a low one. And the hagiographic genre accumulated various vocabulary of general meaning; the general meaning turned out to be important, not the meanings individual words, which became the basis for the development of polysemy and synonymy. Moreover, the focus is on abstractness, emotionality, symbolism, imagery of linguistic means of expression and constructions.

An important consequence second South Slavic influence became the emergence of correlative pairs of correlative Slavicisms and Russianisms. Direct lexical borrowings from Russian into Church Slavonic have become impossible. A unique bilingual Russian-Church Slavonic dictionary is being created (verb - I say, rekl - said, today - sevodni, truth - truth). Thus, second South Slavic influence predetermined the transition to bilingualism.

In general, it should be noted that the Cyprian right, which took place against the backdrop of a national upsurge (the century between 1380 and 1480 is the time between the Battle of Kulikovo and the complete elimination of Rus'’s dependence on the Golden Horde), still did not cause such a split in the church and society, which was later caused by Nikon’s right of the 17th century, which took place against the backdrop of serfdom of the peasantry. Meanwhile, both of them on the right are two stages of the same process of formation of the modern Church Slavonic language with its artificial spelling and other features of inept archaization, carried out in an atmosphere of complete absence of the history of Slavic languages ​​as a science.

Lecture No. 5

The linguistic situation of the second half of the XV-XVI centuries.

1. Archaization of the language of journalism second half of the XV-XVI centuries.

In the second half of the 15th century, the process of state building was influenced by the worldview of two spiritual and religious movements: mystical Orthodoxy and theological rationalism. The ideas of mystical Orthodoxy were defended by the “Trans-Volga elders” led by Nil Sorsky, since they opposed church and monastic land ownership, condemned the decoration of monasteries, declared asceticism, detachment from worldly affairs, including politics, and continued to develop the ideas of hesychasm. In their messages, the “Trans-Volga elders” gave preference to religious and moral issues, expressed a critical attitude towards the Holy Scriptures, therefore, strict adherence to the norms of the Church Slavonic language and the absence of rhetorical excesses were important for their writing style. The manner of presentation of the “Trans-Volga elders” was followed by Maxim the Greek and Andrei Kurbsky. Ideologist of another church-political movement of the late 15th - first half XVI centuries, called "Josephiteism", - Joseph Volotsky (Ivan Sanin, 1439-1515) - is the author bright works journalistic in nature. The views of his supporters are directly opposite: they defend the inviolability of church dogmas and the political influence of the church, defend church-monastic land ownership, support the concept of absolute monarchy, and the aestheticization of ritual. The “Josephites” paid a lot of attention to the description of specific events and details of Russian life, so their works reflected both bookish Slavic lush rhetoric and colloquial everyday language elements. Ivan the Terrible wrote in the style of the “Josephites.”

2. Stylistic varieties of secular literature and business writing of Moscow Rus'.

Specifics of secular literature of Moscow Rus'– strengthening of socio-political significance. Therefore, those works that had pronounced political tendencies and were aimed at glorifying and exalting the young Moscow state are written in the Church Slavonic language (“The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev”, “The Tale of the Capture of Constantinople”). This literature gradually began to become on a par with church-religious literature, and at the same time the authority of the folk literary language rose. In addition, the folk-literary type of language could differ not in structural elements, but in rhetorical technique: the presence/absence of rhetorical embellishment (“Walking across Three Seas” by A. Nikitin is a work of the folk-literary type of language without rhetorical means of expression).

In general, the following can be considered specific features of secular literature during this period: semantic conditionality in the choice of language tradition; alternation of contexts characteristic of Church Slavonic and Old Russian languages ​​within one work; deliberate mixing of linguistic elements from different traditions depending on the context; strengthening the authority of the folk literary language.

Expansion of functions business language of Moscow Rus'. A variety of genres: from charters (private letters) to state acts, reflecting standard ordered business language. The rapprochement of business language with book and literary language (article lists). The invasion of the colloquial element into the sphere of business writing (letters, “torturous” speeches, “questioning” speeches). Availability of standard language formulas - initial and final forms (exemption and vacation books, petitions). Mastering foreign language vocabulary and expanding the topics and structure of business language (“Vesti-Kuranty”, article lists).
Lecture No. 6

Cultural and linguistic situation Southwestern Rus'(mid-16th century). The influence of the book tradition of Southwestern Rus' on the Moscow book tradition.

1. Characteristics of the cultural and linguistic situation of Southwestern Rus'.

By the middle of the 16th century. In South-Western Rus', a situation of bilingualism has developed, when two literary languages ​​coexist: the Church Slavonic language of the South-West Russian edition and “Prosta Mova”. The “simple language” is based on the official clerical language of South-Western Rus', officially recognized in the Polish-Lithuanian state as the language of legal proceedings. This language gradually lost the functions of a business language and became a literary language. In contrast to the book Slavic language of Muscovite Rus', it contains in its composition an undoubted colloquial substrate, which is artificially “lowered” due to Slavicization (the Ukrainian version of “simple language”) and Polonization (Belarusian “simple language”). By the second half of the 16th century. the prestige of “simple language” is increasing: it is beginning to be codified (dictionaries by L. Zizania, P. Berynda); create scientific and journalistic works; translate biblical books into simple language. The Church Slavonic language at this time takes on the status of the language of the learned class: the fundamental grammars of Laurentius Zizanius and Meletius Smotrytsky appear; orientation towards Latin in grammar (structures and forms) and vocabulary (borrowings-Latinisms) as a result of the influence of Western European Catholic culture; the presence of Polonisms and Ukrainianisms through the secular-business and social-everyday language of educated people. This is how the southwestern version of the Church Slavonic language was formed. Thus, the southwestern translation of the book Slavic language and the “simple (Russian) language” are literary and linguistic intermediaries of Western European influence.

2. Lliterature of “Russian Baroque” In the middle of the 17th century. Ukraine is reunited with Russia and turns from a cultural center into a periphery. Local scribes moved to Moscow: Simeon of Polotsk, Sylvester Medvedev, Karion Istomin, and later Feofan Prokopovich. Their creative heritage is lliterature of “Russian Baroque”, presented in solemn, epistolary, oratorical prose, verses and drama. The language of this literature is Book Slavonic, but different from both the Church Slavonic language of the Russian edition and the Church Slavonic language of the South-West Russian edition. It is distinguished from the “old” Church Slavonic by the presence of Latinisms, Polonisms, Ukrainianisms, and the names of ancient heroes and gods. It differs from the Church Slavonic language of the South-West Russian edition in the smaller number of Polonisms and provincialisms.
Lecture No. 7

Cultural and linguistic situation of the first half of the 17th century. Formation of the East Slavic grammatical tradition.

The process of standardization of bookish and literary language is associated with the development of book printing. In 1553, the Printing House was created in Kitai-Gorod. In the second half of the 16th century. The first printed books appear in Moscow. Typography contributed

• 
  development of uniform spelling;
• 
  strengthening the unifying role of the literary language in relation to territorial dialects;
• 
  dissemination of the literary language throughout the state and among all social groups literate people.

These reasons necessitated the codification of the book-Slavic grammatical system of the 16th-17th centuries, which is expressed in the appearance of alphabet books and grammars. For example, the first printed book - “Primer” by Ivan Fedorov (Lvov, 1574) - is a truly scientific work on Slavic grammar.

Grammarians existed before the beginning of printing: in the 11th – 14th centuries. specific lexical and grammatical works appeared (pre-national stage of development of the grammatical tradition), in the 16th-17th centuries. – translation grammars (pre-national stage of development of grammatical tradition). So, in the 20s. XVI century Dmitry Gerasimov translated the Latin grammar of Donatus (IV century BC).

The grammatical works published in Western Rus' during this period were also focused on Greek grammars. In 1596, the grammar “Adelfotis” (adelfotis from the Greek “brotherhood”) was published, published by students of the Lvov fraternal school, which became the first manual for the comparative study of Slavic and Greek grammars. It is no coincidence that the entire grammar was called “Grammar of the Good-Verbal Hellenic-Slavic Language” and contained grammatical categories close to Greek models (long and short vowels, consonants – semi-vowels and voiceless).

The Adelfotis grammar became the basis for another grammatical work. It was “The Slovenian Grammar of the Perfect Art of the Eight Parts of the Word” by Lavrentiy Zizaniy, published in Vilna in 1591, which expounded the “doctrine of the eight parts of the word”, traditional for antiquity. Some parts of Zizaniy's grammar are presented in such a way that the text in Church Slavonic is accompanied by a translation into “prosto mov”. This feature of grammar reflects the school practice of Southwestern Rus'. There is a contrast between the forms of the Church Slavonic language and “simple language” at different levels: orthographic (kolikw - kolkw, four - chotyri), lexical (vhzhestvo - vhdane, izhstnoe - singing) and grammatical (ezhe pisati - zhebysmy wrote). Correlates to Church Slavonic words of Greek origin in “simple language” are those that trace them Difficult words, which in their structure can be regarded as Slavicisms (etymology - truth). Therefore, the contrast between the forms of the Church Slavonic language and “simple language” in some cases is a contrast between bookish and colloquial, in others it is a contrast between Greek and Slavic. Thus, Lavrenty Zizaniy clearly artificially seeks to contrast the orthographic appearance of words that coincide in the Church Slavonic language and “simple language”. Specific Features grammars: highlighted own and common nouns(unlike “Adelfotis”), 5 voices, 4 moods (indicative, vocative, prayerful, indefinite). Grammar application - “Lexis, that is, sayings are briefly collected and interpreted from the Slovenian language into simple Russian dialect” (1061 words).

At the beginning of the 17th century. the most complete and thorough work on Church Slavonic grammar appears. This is the “Grammar of Slovenian correct syntagma”, published in the city of Evje in 1619 by Meletiy Smotrytsky. The grammar contained the following sections: “Spelling”, “Etymology”, “Syntax”, “Prosody”. Grammar terminology has been introduced: words are syllables, utterance is a word, a word is a sentence, etymology is morphology, word parts are parts of speech. There were 8 “word parts” in Smotritsky’s grammar. “The parts of a word are eight: Name. Mhnoun. Verb. Participle. Narcs. Proceedings Soyuz. Interjection". In this case, the adjective is part of the name. The term “communion” was introduced by M. Smotritsky for the first time. Thus, the ancient (Greco-Roman) division of the dictionary into parts of speech passed into Smotritsky’s Slavic-Russian grammar. Specific grammatical categories are noted: 7 genders (general, masculine, feminine, neuter, every, perplexed, general); 4 voices (active, passive, neuter, positive); 4 past tenses (transient, past, past, indefinite); introduces the concept of transitive and intransitive verbs, as well as personal, impersonal, obstinate (irregular), insufficient verbs. At the same time, M. Smotritsky translates individual grammatical constructions into “simple language”, thereby codifying it in a certain way.

In 1648, a revised edition of Meletius Smotritsky’s “Grammar” was printed at the Printing Yard in Moscow. When its form is reissued where, abym etc., since they were alien to the colloquial speech of Moscow inquiry officers, were perceived as bookish and preserved in the text. Therefore, the forms of “simple language”, which are intended to explain the Church Slavonic forms of Meletius Smotritsky’s “Grammar”, were transferred to the rank of normative Church Slavonic forms. The revision also affected many grammatical rules, in particular the declension paradigms, bringing them closer to the traditions of colloquial Great Russian speech. The changes also concerned the accentological system, which in the previous edition reflected the norms of Western Russian pronunciation.

In general, Meletius Smotritsky’s “Grammar” is a fundamental set of grammatical rules of the Church Slavonic language and a normative model for liturgical books. It was this treatise that became the basis for the grammatical normalization of the official version of the Church Slavonic language until the time of M.V. Lomonosov, who himself studied using this grammar.

Along with the indicated grammars in the 16th century. Church Slavonic-“Russian” dictionaries appear in Western Rus'. To appreciate the significance of this phenomenon, it is enough to note that in Russian conditions such dictionaries will be published only in the second half of the 18th century.

In addition to the above-mentioned “Lexis” by L. Zizania, mention should be made of the “Slovenian Russian Lexicon and Interpretation of Names” by Pamva Berynda (1st edition - Kyiv, 1627). The dictionary contains almost 7,000 words, and this number seemed incredible. At the same time, “Russian speech” (“simple language”) is contrasted with “Volyn” (Ukrainian) and “Lithuanian” (Belarusian): tsl. shadow - ox. Phven – lit. rooster P. Berynda’s “Lexicon” is broader in its vocabulary. The dictionary is accompanied by an index of proper names contained in the church “Saints”, where the interpretation of names of Greek, Hebrew, and Latin origin is presented.
Lecture No. 8

New traditions in the development of literary language in the second half of the 17th century. Expanding the functions of the Church Slavonic language.

1. Nikonovskaya on the right(serXVIIV.).

The change in the Church Slavonic language under the influence of southwestern ideology is the result of the need to normalize the language, which was expressed in the middle of the 17th century. in carrying out a new book conference under the leadership of Patriarch Nikon. Linguistic attitudes of reference workers - editing books according to Greek models. Thus, the spellings were brought into Greek correspondence: aggel, Jesus. The Nikon edition regulated changes in the accentology of names: Avvakum (vm. Avvakum); Mikhail (vm. Mikhail); in case management: forever and ever (vm. forever and ever); in Christ (vm. about Christ); in the use of old word forms: mine, yours (vm. mi, ti); However, the writing of Jesus was perceived by opponents of the reform - a truly Orthodox audience - as anti-Christian. In their opinion, changing the form of a word, the nomination of something entails a distortion of the very essence of the Christian concept; God is the author of the text, and the text cannot be changed; the expression must be correct, i.e. Christian. That's why different attitude to the linguistic form of the word became the cause of a split in the church under Patriarch Nikon between opponents of the reform (“Old Believers”) and its supporters (“New Believers”).

The correlation of the Church Slavonic language of South-Western Rus' and the Church Slavonic language of Moscow Rus' directly determines the influence of the first on the second, which happens in the process of Nikon and post-Nikon book justice: the formal features of the Church Slavonic language of the South-West Russian edition are transferred to the Church Slavonic language of the Great Russian edition, as a result it is noted education a unified all-Russian edition of the Book Slavic language.

2. Activation in use Church Slavonic language.

XVII century - the time when the Russian literary language begins to take shape. This process is characterized

• 
  the emergence of the “learned” Church Slavonic language under the influence of the bookishness of Southwestern Rus';
• 
  democratization of literature and literary language, the emergence of new genres, which is associated with the socio-economic changes of the era. Southwestern Rus'

The new all-Russian Church Slavonic language, despite the fact that in South-Western Rus' the Church Slavonic language was largely supplanted by the “simple language”, continues to actively function in Great Russian conditions. From the second half of the 17th century. the activation in the use of the Church Slavonic language is due to the following facts: the Church Slavonic language is the language of the learned class (scientific debates are held in it); Active teaching of the Church Slavonic language is carried out (with the help of grammar); the functioning of the Church Slavonic language in other spheres (secular and legal) is increasing; Both clergy and secular persons write letters in Church Slavonic.

In the development of the literary language during this period in Moscow, new trends were observed: 1) rapprochement with the vernacular language; 2) modeling of the Slovenian language, which led to its isolation and the emergence of new phenomena - quasi-Slavicisms. Simply put, new democratic trends are emerging in the Church Slavonic language system. Their vivid expression is the works of preaching and polemical literature of the Old Believers (Deacon Fyodor, Epiphanius, Archpriest Avvakum, etc.). “Vyakanye” (“vernacular”, opposed to Church Slavonic eloquence) is the main style of the works of Archpriest Avvakum. Avvakum deliberately creates a stylistic dissonance that combines the reduced colloquial and Church Slavonic languages. The main stylistic feature of his texts is the neutralization of Slavicisms, within the framework of which colloquial expressions are integrated into church-biblical formulas; Church Slavonicisms in the vicinity of colloquial expressions are assimilated ( The fish God has caught the net full...), i.e. quasi-Slavicisms appear.

Similar trends also appear in literary genres that have little connection with the book Slavic language - in secular stories of the 17th-18th centuries. (“The Tale of Frol Skobeev”, “The Tale of Shemyakin’s Court”, “The Tale of Misfortune-Grief”, etc.), with the appearance of which begins fformation of democratic (townsman, trade and craft) literature. The main characteristics of the works of this literature are the style-forming nature of colloquial, everyday and emotionally expressive vocabulary, the absence of uniform norms of the grammatical system, the influence of oral folk art (techniques and formulas of the epic style, proverbial style, peculiar rhymed prose).

Another manifestation of the modeling of the Book Slavic language is its parodic use. The parodic use of Book Slavic is evidenced by examples from the first half of the 17th century. (a letter from a handwritten collection of the first third of the 17th century). In the second half of the 17th century. The number of parodies of the Book Slavonic language is increasing, which is associated with the decline in the authority of the church, church literature, and the Church Slavonic language. This satirical works, where Church Slavonicisms are often used to achieve a comic effect, where the use of outdated formulas was played out (“The Tale of peasant son”, “Service for the tavern”, “The Tale of Ersha Ershovich”, etc.).

The possibility of parodic use of the Book Slavic language is evidence of the beginning destruction of diglossia. In addition, the coexistence of parallel texts in Church Slavonic and Russian (for example, in the Code of 1649) is a clear sign of bilingualism and a violation of the principle of diglossia. From ser. XVII century in Russia there is a situation of bilingualism. A further trend is the Russian language pushing the Church Slavonic language to the periphery.

Lecture No. 9

Prerequisites for the formation of a new type of literary language (I quarter of the 18th century): cultural and linguistic policy of Peter I.

1. The purpose of Peter's reforms.

The initial period of the formation of a new literary book language is associated with the Petrine era, which covers the last decade of the 17th century. – I quarter of the 18th century. The secularization of Russian culture is a radical achievement of the Petrine era. The main manifestations of this process can be considered the creation of new educational institutions, the establishment of the Academy of Sciences, the publication of the first Russian newspaper Vedomosti (1703), the introduction of the General Regulations (1720), the Table of Ranks (1722), increase in the number of printed books and Russian-foreign dictionaries. Language construction is an integral fact of Peter’s reforms. V.M. Zhivov: “The opposition of two languages ​​was intended as an antagonism of two cultures: the old book language (traditional) was barbaric, clerical (church), ignorant in the ideas of Peter’s reformers, and the new book language was supposed to become European, secular and enlightened.”

2. Graphics reform as the first stage of Peter's transformations in the field of language.

The creation of the Russian civil printed font (1708 - 1710) was the initiative of Peter I himself. The creation of a new alphabet was carried out by Peter I together with the workers of the Moscow printing house (Musin-Pushkin, F. Polikarpov), starting in 1708, when a decree was issued sovereign “to print the book of geometry in Russian, which was sent from the military campaign, in new alphabets, and to print other civil books in the same new alphabets.” On January 29, 1710, Peter approved a new alphabet - a civil printed font, on the cover of which it was stated: “Images of ancient and new Slavic printed letters and handwritten." On the back of the cover, Peter wrote: “These are the letters to print historical and manufacturing books, but those that are blackened should not be used in the books described above.” By May 1710, 15 publications had been printed on the “newly invented” alphabet - citizen -, among them the first: “Geometry of the Slavic Lands”; “Compass and Ruler Techniques”; “Compliments, or examples of how to write letters to different people,” etc. An example of the standard use of civil font and spelling practice of newly printed books is the typesetting manuscript “An Honest Mirror of Youth,” or “Indications for Everyday Life, Collected from Authors of the Early 18th Century.”

Parameters of Peter’s reform of the Cyrillic alphabet:

• 
  change in the letter composition: initially Peter ordered to exclude 9 (according to V.M. Zhivov) / 11 (according to A.M. Kamchatnov) Cyrillic letters: and (like); w (omega); z (ground); q (uk); f(fert); i (Izhitsa); k (xi); j (psi); ^ (ligature "from"); @ (yus big); # (US small). But in the finally approved alphabet of 1710 the following were left: and (like); z (ground); q (uk); f(fert); k (xi).
• 
  regulation of letters e, e, I(the letter e is entered; instead of >, " - i; instead of ~ - e);
• 
  editing the shapes of the letters themselves (the rounded outline of the letters has been legalized as opposed to the square Cyrillic alphabet);
• 
  introduction of new designations for numbers (Arabic numbers instead of letters);
• 
  elimination of titles and superscripts.

Peter I himself edited the books, requiring translators to write scientific treatises in simple language, the language of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, i.e. secular.

The newly introduced civil script and the church semi-charter began to be functionally opposed: just as church books could not be printed by a citizen, so civil books could not be printed by the church semi-statut. The division of the alphabet into ecclesiastical and civil is evidence of bilingualism (the coexistence of two living book languages) and biculture (the contrast between the secular and the spiritual in printed books).

3. The second aspect of the linguistic transformations of Peter I – language reform.

In 1697, Peter I in Europe discovered that “what is written is how they speak.” Therefore, the main principle of language construction during this period was the formation of a new literary language on a folk basis. The main goal is the transition from the hybrid Church Slavonic language to the “simple” Russian language. The way to create a new literary language is a combination of Europeanized vocabulary and Russified morphology.

The main trends in the language construction of the Petrine era:

1. 
   Enrichment of the vocabulary of the native language with Europeanized vocabulary.
2. 
   Creation of Russified morphology.
3. 
   Displacement of the command language of Moscow Rus'.

A striking difference in the literary language of this period is the increase in the number of borrowings, which reached its apogee. “Europeanization” of the vocabulary of the language tied

• 
  with the advent of powerful translation activities, which also solved the problem of state personnel policy. The emergence of translation literature meant that not only foreign language vocabulary entered the Russian language, but also new content required the development of new forms of the native language, as indicated by the sovereign’s order: “... in order to translate more clearly, and speech should not be kept from speech in translation, ... write in your own language as clearly as possible...”
• 
  with the process of restructuring the administrative system, the reorganization of naval affairs, the development of trade, factory enterprises, as a result of which the formation of a new terminology system of different thematic groups begins.

The borrowing process is determined by two functions:

1) pragmatic: lexical borrowings are mostly motivated by the borrowing of new things and concepts that speakers had to master in order to be codified;

2) semiotic: the use of borrowings indicated the assimilation new system values ​​and the rejection of traditional ideas.

Moreover, the latter function manifested itself in cases where borrowings are accompanied in the text by a gloss (Greek “language, speech”), i.e. interpretation of an incomprehensible word through an equivalent of this language, familiar to the reader (for example, in the “General Regulations or Charter” (1720)).

In general, the borrowing process during this period is characterized by

1) both redundancy (the presence of glosses) and insufficiency (translators were not always able to identify new concepts and objects by selecting words from Russian usage);

2) successful tracing ( productus"work", Sonnestand"solstice" etc.);

3) temporary displacement of Russian words from the active use ( Victoria instead of victory, battle instead of battle, surname instead of family, fortification instead of fortress and etc.);

4) transition to a passive vocabulary of disappeared realities ( senate, footman, camisole, caftan and etc.).

Thus, the widespread use of borrowings did not solve Peter’s main linguistic problem. A consistent feature of the language policy of this time was complaints about the incomprehensibility of legal documents (a number of borrowings appeared for the first time in legislative acts). Thus, in the “Military Regulations” (1716), in addition to those borrowings that are glossed, there is a whole series of similar lexical elements that the reader had to understand on his own ( patent, officer, article, execution). For the linguistic situation of the Peter the Great era, not only bilingualism as a sign of local significance is relevant, but also multilingualism associated with the appearance of foreign vocabulary.

Another striking sign of the language construction of this time is lack of uniform morphological norms: unsystematic use of Russian, colloquial and Church Slavonic elements (letters and papers of Peter I, stories of the early 18th century). On the one hand, the morphological features of the created language reflected the influence of the former Book Slavic tradition. On April 19, 1724, Peter I writes a decree to the Senod on the compilation of short teachings, where he orders “to simply write so that the villager knows, or for two: the villager is simple, and in the city it is more beautiful for the sweetness of the listeners...”. It seems that the marked Church Slavonic elements are perceived as a rhetorical decoration, or as a sociocultural task in the activities of poets and writers, and not as generally culturally significant. Therefore, the Church Slavonic language is no longer universal language. On the other hand, the creation of Russified morphology is an attempt to edit texts in accordance with the guidelines of the new language policy. Morphological corrections include the replacement of aorist and imperfect forms with l-forms without copula, infinitive forms with -т, and 2 l forms. units h. on -sh, forms of the dual number on forms of the plural, coexistence in addresses of forms of the vocative and nominative case. Syntactic editing was expressed in the replacement of the constructions “particle yes + present tense form” with synthetic forms of the imperative mood, single negation with double negation, constructions with gendered nouns. n. for coordinated phrases.

Stylistic disorder of literary language as the genetic heterogeneity of linguistic means of expression in its composition. The mixed nature of speech is a sign of the formation of a cultural dialect.

Two types of literary speech: the Slavic Russian language and the civil mediocre dialect. The Slavic Russian language is a “secularized” Church Slavonic: a combination of Church Slavonic grammar and a small amount of vernacular, borrowings (sermons by Feofan Prokopovich, Stefan Yavorsky, translated scientific works, preface to the “Trilingual Lexicon” by Fyodor Polikarpov). Creation of a civil mediocre adverb as an accessible and understandable written literary language of a new type is the main linguistic attitude of Peter I. The complex composition of this literary language: Russian colloquial, vernacular, Church Slavonic elements, European borrowings, artificial formations, neologisms, calques, individual author's lexemes (translations of technical books, translated stories , dramas, intimate poetry, letters, newspapers).

The role of the “mandatory” language in the development of the literary language: previously it was opposed to Church Slavonic, now it is moving to the periphery. In the new conditions, the literariness of texts ceases to be associated with signs of bookishness and is determined by extralinguistic parameters. As a result, the possibility of the existence of non-literary texts in a literary language is created. New language acquires the attribute of multifunctionality: the inclusion in the linguistic culture of those areas that were outside the scope of its functioning (spiritual literature, legislation, office work).

Thus, the cultural policy of Peter I led to a radical change in the linguistic situation:

• 
  “mandatory” language of Muscovite Rus': out of use and in competition with the traditional book language.
• 
  The Church Slavonic language loses its multifunctionality: only the language of cult.
• 
  a new type of written literary language is being formed - a civil mediocre dialect.
• 
  The new literary language is distinguished by stylistic disorder, a mixture of old and new, one’s own and someone else’s, bookish and vernacular.