St. Tikhon’s University Review . Series III: Philology

The paper deals with the structure of B. Kenzheev’s poems of the 1970-1980s. It reconstructs the internal image of the lyrical subject and traces the connection between the «I» and the world (the «others»). The analysis based on the statistics and content of discourse forms (direct speech, reported speech, syncretic and dialogical speech) enables us to reveal basic strategies of the lyrical subject’s self-identification. On the one hand, he obviously identifies himself as personality, and on the other hand, he undergoes the loss of self-identity, which is however manifested sporadically and is particularly prominent in emigrant lyrics of the 1980s. At the same time, the lyrical subject is greatly interested in others’ consciousness, which often leads to the subject border being blurred or even removed. Statistical data and a detailed analysis of such poems as «Кто же меня обозвалмещанином? Похоже…» («Who called me philistine? It seems…»), «Ну что молчишь, раскаявшийся странник?» («Why are you silent, repentant wanderer?»), «Баллада возвращения» («The ballad of return») carried out with regard to the lexical and grammatical representation of the protagonist enables us to see the lyrical self as the fundamental type of subjectness in B. Kenzheev’s poetic system and to reveal the establishment of inter-subject element of his poetic works.

B. Kenzheev, «Moscow time», subject structure, lyrical «self», inter-subjectivity, self-identity, the «I» and the «other».

1. Brojtman S. N. 2004 “Liricheskij sub’ekt” (Lyrical Subject), in L. V. Chernec, V. E. Halizev, A. Ja. Jesalnek et al. Vvedenie v literaturovedenie: Uchebnoe posobie, Moscow, 2004, p. 316.
2. Brojtman S. N. Pojetika russkoj klassicheskoj i neklassicheskoj liriki (Poetics of Russian Classical and Neoclassical Lyrics), Moscow, 2008.
3. Brojtman S. N. Russkaja lirika XIX — nachala XX veka v svete istoricheskoj pojetiki (Sub‘ektno-obraznaja struktura) (Russian Lyrics of XIX — Begin of XX Centuries in Light of Historical Poetics (Subject-Image Structure)), Moscow, 1997.
4. Ginzburg L. Ja. 1962 “Pushkin i liricheskij geroj russkogo romantizma” (Pushkin and Lyrical Hero of Russian Romantism), in Pushkin: Issledovanija i materialy, Moscow, Leningrad, 1962, vol. 4.
5. Korman B. O. Izbrannye trudy. Metodika vuzovskogo prepodavanija literatury (Selected Works. Methods of Literature Teaching in Universities), Izhevsk, 2009.
6. Lebedushkina O. 2007 “Pojet kak Teodor. Bahyt Kenzheev: popytka portreta na fone oseni” (Poet as Theodor. Bahyt Kenzheev: Attempt of Portrait against a Background of Autumn), in Druzhba narodov, 2007, vol. 11.
7. Pann L. Neskuchnyj sad. Zametki o russkoj literature konca XX veka. Sobranie jesse (Neskuchnyj Garden. Notices on Russian Literature of End of XX Century. Collection of Essays), New York, 1998.
8. Radashkevich A. Bahyt Kenzheev: remeslo nedobrogo roka (Bahyt Kenzheev: Work of Evil Doom), in http://www.radashkevich.info/publicistika/publicistika_61.html)
9. Rogov O. 1997 “Stihotvorenija Bahyta Kenzheeva” (Poems of Bahyt Kenzheev), in Znamja, 1997, vol. 1.
10. Skljarov O. N. 2013 “«I Gospod' ego znaet, kuda plyvem…» Motiv skitanij i pozicija liricheskogo sub’ekta v «Nevidimyh» B. Kenzheeva” (“And the Lord Only Knows, Where We Swim…” Motive of Wandering and Position of Lyrical Subject in “Invisibles” of B. Kenzheev), in Vestnik PSTGU. Serija III: Filologija, 2013, vol. 1/31.
11. Strel'nikova N. 2005 “Ledohod na reke vremen” (Ice Drifting on the River of Times), in Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2005, vol. 73.

Bokarev Aleksei

Since the so-called «linguistic turn» in the humanities in the second half of the 20^th century, the socio-political vocabulary of various European languages has been the subject of Begriff sgeschichte , the history of concepts. History of words and concepts expressed belongs to traditional problems of diachronic semantics. However, due to its initial specificity (relationship with historical science rather than linguistics), the history of concepts appears in the first hand to apply to extralinguistic phenomena. One of the theses of R. Koselleck, the leading figure in the developing of Begriff sgeschichte , is that socio-political concepts are not only a factor but also an indicator of historical changes. In order to support this statement one should study the logic that operates in the language when forming the meaning of a word. In the formation of the concept of гражданин , the opposition of the Church Slavonic and the Russian forms ( гражданин ~ горожанин ) plays the key role. This opposition is related to the «juridical dualism» (V. M. Zhivov), which was expressed in the parallel existence of the two legal traditions, namely the Byzantine juridical norm and the Russian law. These traditions were maintained by the Church Slavonic and the Russian languages respectively. The juridical dualism is expressed in the functional value of these two traditions. The Church Slavonic forms were supported by the cultural tradition and ideological significance, whereas the Russian forms pertained to practical activities and day-to-day routines. The fact that it was the form гражданин that became the term of the socio-political vocabulary is crucial for the semantic characteristics many times observed by scholars: for the Russian concepts of гражданин the central characteristics are moral and ethical rather than legal. However, before this specific notion starts to develop, the mere concept of it should become in demand. In the Russian legal tradition, there is no position of the legal entity. Considerable changes take place in legislative texts of the 18^th century. In Регламент of Peter I we observe for the first time an attempt to create a terminological system where the words with the root гражд - ( гражданин, гражданство ) are the basic element. The communicative structure of the text is organised in such a way that it is гражданин that acts as the addressee of the discourse of the authorities. The opposite is observed in Гра мота городам of Catherine II, which consistently eliminates the terminological meaning of the word гражданин . This is expressed in introducing a large number of lexemes with the root гор- and equalising these forms as lacking the ideological value. However, in the last third of the 18^th century a language that is an alternative to the offi cial discourse of the authorities appears: it is the language of opinion journalism. Here, the role of a individual, consciously looking for the meaning of language forms, is linguistically more significant. The French-Russian bilingualism is typical of essayists of this period, which allowed them to impose the meaning of the French socio-political term citoyen on the Russian word. In this period the internal dynamics of the semantic structure of the word гражданин becomes visible. The transparent internal form makes this word stylistically marked (cf.: граждане единого града, который есть Вселенная ‘citizens of the same city, which is the Universe’). In works of such authors as A. A. Radishchev, D. I. Fonvizin, N. I. Novikov, гражданин is an intertextual symbol, rendering the meaning of the French concept citoyen and the debate on the socio-political content of the concept (topical for the pre-revolutionary France). The specificity of the Russian concept гражданин is expressed in including semantically significant elements of the meaning in the phrase (such characteristics as ‘kind’, ‘reasoning’, etc.) Such specifi cally linguistic parameters constitute R. Koselleck’s «temporal structure of the concept», while the history of this concept appears to be a consistent realisation of the semantic potential of the linguistic form.

history of concepts, diachronic semantics, Begriff sgeschichte, the Russian language of the 18th century, socio-political terms

1. Benveniste E. Problèmes de linguistique générale, Paris, 1966, vol. 1.
2. Branca-Rosoff S. 1988 “Les mots de parti pris. Citoyen, aristocrate et insurrection dans quelques dictionnaires (1762-1798)”, in Dictionnaire des usages socio-politiques (1770-1815), Paris, 1988, vol. 3: Dictionnaires, normes usages, pp. 47-75.
3. Guilhaumou J. Discours et événement. L’histoire langagière des concepts, Paris, 2006.
4. Koselleck R. Futures past. On the semantics of historical time, New York, 2004.
5. Alekseev A. A. 1972 “Istorija slova grazhdanin v XVIII v.” (History of Word Citizen in XVIII Century), in Izvestija AN SSSR. Serija literatury i jazyka, 1972, vol. 31/1.
6. Veselitskij V. V. 1966 “Iz nabljudenij nad jazykom proizvedenij A.D. Kantemira (obshhestvenno-politicheskaja leksika)” (From Observation of Language of Works of A. D. Kantemir (Social-Political Vocabulary)), in Sorokin Ju. S. (ed.) Processy formirovanija leksiki russkogo literaturnogo jazyka (Ot Kantemira do Karamzina), Moscow, Leningrad, 1966.
7. Vinogradov V. V. 1999 “Slovo i znachenie kak predmet istoriko-leksikologicheskogo issledovanija” (Word and Meaning as Subject of Historical-Lexicographical Study), in Istorija slov, Moscow, 1999, pp. 5-39.
8. Gal'perin I. R. Tekst kak ob‘ekt lingvisticheskogo issledovanija (Text as Object of Linguistic Study), Moscow, 2014.
9. Gijomu Zh. 2010 “Lingvisticheskaja istorija konceptual'nyh slovoupotreblenij, proverennaja na opyte lingvisticheskih sobytij” (Linguistic History of Concept Word Uses, Checked on Experience of Linguistic Events), in Istorija ponjatij, istorija diskursa, istorija metaphor, Moscow, 2010.
10. Durinova G. 2015 “Istorija ponjatija grazhdanin i vopros o proishozhdenii obshhestva” (History of Idea Citizen and Question about Origin of Society), in Pugachev M. G. et al. (eds.) Ot formirovanija cennostej k izobreteniju tradicij. Sbornik XIII mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii molodyh uchenyh “Vektory razvitija sovremennoj Rossii”, Moscow, 2015 (in print).
11. Zhivov V. M. Razyskanija v oblasti istorii i predystorii russkoj kul'tury (Studies in Sphere in History and Prehistory of Russian Culture), Moscow, 2002.
12. Kandaurova T. N. 1967 “O haraktere oppozicij v parah sootnosimyh mezhdu soboj nepolnoglasnyh i polnoglasnyh slov (na materiale drevnerusskogo pis'mennogo literaturnogo jazyka XI—XIV vv.)” (About History of Opposition in Pairs of Correlated Non Full Voweled and Full Voweled Words (on Material of Old Russian Written Literary Language of XI–XIV Cent.)), in Uchenye zapiski Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo instituta, Moscow, 1967, pp. 375-390.
13. Kozellek R. 2010 “K voprosu o temporal'nyh strukturah v istoricheskom razvitii ponjatij” (To Question of Temporal Structures in History Evolution of Notions), in Istorija ponjatij, istorija diskursa, istorija metaphor, Moscow, 2010.
14. Koposov N. E. Kak dumajut istoriki (How the Historians Think), Moscow, 2001.
15. Kustova G. I. Tipy proizvodnyh znachenij i mehanizmy jazykovogo rasshirenija (Types of Derivated Meanings and Mechanisms of Language Widening), M., 2004.
16. Lukin P. V. 2014 “Drevnerusskie ponjatija «gorozhanin», «grazhanin», «grazhdanin»” (Old Russian Notions “Citizen”), in Rossijskaja istorija, 2014, vol. 4, pp. 140-146.
17. Marasinova E.N. Vlast' i lichnost': ocherki russkoj istorii XVIII veka (Power and Person: Essays on Russian History of XVIII Century), Moscow, 2008.
18. Marasinova E.N. 2008 “Raby i grazhdane v Rossijskoj imperii XVIII v.” (Slaves and Citizens in Russian Empire of XVIII Cent.), in «Vvodja nravy i obychai Evropejskie v Evropejskom narode»: k probleme adaptacii zapadnyh idej i praktik v Rossijskoj imperii, Moscow, 2008.
19. Maslov B. P. 2012 “Rozhdenie i smert' Dobrodeteli v Rossii: o mehanizmah propagacii ponjatij” (Birth and Death of Virtue in Russia: about Mechanisms of Notion Propagation), in Ponjatija o Rossii, Moscow, 2012, vol. 1, pp. 343-382.
20. Potebnja A. A. Iz zapisok po russkoj grammatike (From Essays on Russian Grammar), Moscow, 1958, vol. 1.
21. Sedakova O. A. Cerkovnoslavjano-russkie paronimy: Materialy k slovarju (Church-Slavonic-Russian Paronyms: Materials for Dictionary), Moscow, 2005.
22. Sreznevskij I. I. Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka po pis'mennym pamjatnikam (Materials for Dictionary of Old Russian Language according to Written Texts), Saint-Petersburg, 1902, 1912, vol. 2-3.
23. Revzina O. G. Bezmernaja Cvetaeva. Opyt sistemnogo opisanija pojeticheskogo idiolekta (Immeasurable Cvetaeva. Experience of Description of Poetic Idiolect), Moscow, 2009.
24. Revzina O. G. Lingvistika XXI veka: na putjah k celostnoj teorii jazyka (Linguistics of XXI CenturyL on Way to Whole Theory of Language), in http://www.philology.ru/linguistics1/revzina-04.htm (Date: 02.12.2014).
25. Revzina O. G. Nekotorye voprosy i nekotorye otvety k jekzamenu po stilistike (Some Questions and Answers to Exam for Stylistics), in http://danefae.org/lib/ogrevzina/ (Date: 02.12.2014)
26. Revzina O. G. 2013 “Temporal'naja struktura koncepta” (Temporal Structure of Concept), in Jazykovye parametry sovremennoj civilizacii. Sbornik trudov pervoj nauchnoj konferencii pamjati akademika RAN Ju. S. Stepanova, Moscow, 2013, pp. 183–192.
27. Slovar' russkogo jazyka XVIII v. (Dictionary of Russian Language of XVIII Cent.), Saint-Petersburg, 1989, vol. 5.
28. Timofeev D. V. Evropejskie idei v social'no-politicheskom leksikone obrazovannogo rossijskogo poddannogo pervoj chetverti XIX v. (European Ideas in Social-Political Lexicon of Educated Russian Nationals of the First Quarter of XIX Cent.), Cheljabinsk, 2011.
29. Titov Ju. P. Hrestomatija po istorii gosudarstva i prava Rossii (Chrestomaty for History of Russian State and Law), Moscow, 2013.
30. Turygin A. A. «Bilefel'dskaja shkola»: teoretiko-metodologicheskie osnovy i ih kritika v sovremennoj istoriografii FRG: dis. ... kand. ist. nauk (“Bielefeld School”: Theoretical-Methodological Grounds and Theis Critic in Historiography of BRD: Dissertation), Jaroslavl', 2006.
31. Uluhanov I. S. Istoricheskoe slovoobrazovanie. Istoricheskaja leksikologija (Historical Word-Formation. Historical Lexicology), Moscow, 2012.
34. Shvedova N. Ju. Russkij ideograficheskij slovar'. Mir cheloveka i chelovek v okruzhajushhem ego mire (Russian Ideographical Dictionary. World of Human and Human in Surrounding World), Moscow, 2011.
35. Jakobson R. O. 1972 “Shiftery, glagol'nye kategorii i russkij glagol” (Shifters, Verb Categories and Russian Verb), in Principy tipologicheskogo analiza jazykov raznogo stroja, Moscow, 1972, pp. 95–111.
36. Janov A. L. Rossija i Evropa: 1462–1921 (Russia and Europe: 1462–1921), Moscow, 2008, vol. 1: Evropejskoe stoletie Rossii (European Age of Russia).

Durinova Galina

The years 1928-1929 are crucial in the creative work and personal life of D. P. Sviatopolk-Mirskii (1890-1939), the literary critic and historian of literature, but up to now they have not been sufficiently studied by Russian scholars. In 1928, Mirskii became actively involved in editing the newspaper Eurasia . As a contributor Mirskii belongs to those who precipitated the split of the Eurasian movement into the «left» wing and the «right» (the latter regarded the Eurasia as a pro-Soviet and pro-Bolshevik organ). In the Eurasia, Mirskii was for the first time commenting on the political and ideological issues extensively. By 1928, Mirskii grew to realise that he should switch from the position of a literary critic to that of a historian and political essayist. There are reasons to believe that during his collaboration with the Eurasia , Mirskii regarded his literary criticism as an old habit that was losing momentum. More than half of Mirskii’s publications in the Eurasia dealt with literature, art and the cinema. In his critical papers , Mirskii hardly ever mentioned Eurasianism as such and did not use Eurasian concepts. Mirskii’s literary criticism in the Eurasia was consistently focused on the same authors and texts as before; he was to be interested in them later as well. In the Eurasia , Mirskii formulated some theses that were directly linked to his ideological evolution. Mirskii puts forward a thesis about the rejection of the “aesthetic standard” in favour of the ethical one. However, it would be wrong to extrapolate the utilitarian-ethical approach which Mirskii developed for literary phenomena to all the issues that Mirskii dealt with in his articles in the Eurasia . The aesthetic basis of his publications in the Eurasia can be defined as Classicism. Mirskii directly connected the fruitfulness of Classicism as an artistic ideology to the ideology of the state. However, publications in the Eurasia were his last utterances on the Russian literature that were written in Russian and in which he could allow himself to be contradictory and inconsistent and still to remain one of the most prominent literary critics of the Russian exile.

Sviatopolk-Mirskii, Eurasia (the newspaper), Eurasianism, Russian émigrés, Russia Abroad, literary criticism, periodicals, Classicism.

1. Gacheva A. G., Kaznina O. A., Semjonova S. G. Filosofskij kontekst russkoj literatury 1920–1930-h godov (Philosophical Context of Russian Literature of 1920–1930-s Years), Moscow, 2003.
2. Glebov C. Evrazijstvo mezhdu imperiej i modernom: Istorija v dokumentah (Eurasianism between Empire and Modern: History in Documents), Moscow, 2010.
3. Kaznina O. A. Mirskij (Svjatopolk-Mirskij) Dmitrij Petrovich, knjaz' (1890–1939) (Mirskij (Svjatopolk-Mirskij) Dmitrij Petrovich, Prince (1890–1939)), in Contemporary Russian Literature: 1881–1925; A History of Russian Literature from the earliest times to the death of Dostoyevsky (1881); Literaturnaja jenciklopedija russkogo zarubezh'ja: 1918–1940, Moscow, 2002, vol. 3: Knigi.
4. Shevelenko I. D. 1994 “K istorii evrazijskogo raskola 1929 goda” (To History of Euroasian Split of 1929), in Themes and Variations: In Honor of L. Fleishman = Temy i variacii: Sb. statej i materialov k 50-letiju L. S. Flejshmana, Stanford, 1994, pp. 376–416.
5. Smith G. S. 1994 “The Correspondence of D. S. Mirsky and Michael Florinsky, 1925–32”, in Slavonic and East European Review, 1994, vol. 72/1, pp. 115–139.
6. Smith G. S. The Letters of D. S. Mirsky to P. P. Suvchinskii, 1922–1931, Birmingham, 1995 (Birmingham Slavonic Monographs, vol. 26).
7. Smith G. S. D. S. Mirsky: A Russian-English Life, 1890–1939, Oxford, New York, 2000.
8. Smith G. S., Kaznina O. D. S. Mirsky to Maksim Gorky: Sixteen Letters (1928–1934), in Oxford Slavonic Papers, 1993, vol. 26, pp. 87–103.

Efimov Mikhail

Based on the material of preserved archival documents and published sources, this paper discusses the usage of the German language and literature in Russian seminaries of the 18^th century. In the first half of the 18^th century, the German and French languages were added to academic programmes of the most prestigious ecclesiastical academies and seminaries, closely connected with the Court (Alexander Nevsky seminary, Troitskaya seminary). In the last third of the 18^th century, the teaching of modern European languages spread in provincial seminaries as well. In seminaries teachers usually used the same grammars as in secular schools; there was therefore no church specificity in study materials. The main learning method was translation from one language to another, so the choice of authors and texts was the only sphere where the church specifi city of ecclesiastical education could be observed. Fragmentarily preserved data related to the teaching of foreign languages (reports of teachers and deans of seminaries) contain some German names and text titles which were used in class. Comparing them with inventories of seminary libraries and lists of translations made by seminaries teachers and graduates, we can see that texts of the «spiritual» type were mostly used for German classes. The most popular were books of such German writers, philosophers, theologists, preachers as J. Arndt, H. F. Gellert, J. A. Hoffmann, G. I. Zollikofer, etc. Students also read German poetry, namely poems by G. E. Lessing, F. G. Klopstock, A. von Haller. They also wrote their own poems and speeches in German. These are preserved in a number of handwritten congratulatory collections in Russian archives. The analysis of sources shows that students of Russian seminaries of the 18^th century had an opportunity to study German at a good level and were familiar with the most signifi cant specimens of the German literature.

German language, German literature, Russian 18th century, seminaries, history of education, translation, Russian Orthodox Church

1. Avgustin (Nikitin), arhim. 1999 “Iogann Arndt i Russkaja Pravoslavnaja Cerkov'” (Johann Arndt and Russian Orthodox Church), in Vestnik Russkogo hristianskogo gumanitarnogo instituta, 1999, vol. 3, pp. 73–88.
2. Avgustin (Nikitin), arhim. Arndt, in http://www.pravenc.ru/text/76132.html
3. Andreev A. Ju. Russkie studenty v nemeckih universitetah XVIII — pervoj poloviny XIX veka (Russian Students in German Universities of XVIII — First Half of XIX Centuries), Moscow, 2005.
4. Veselovskij N. I. Svedenija ob oficial'nom prepodavanii vostochnyh jazykov v Rossii (Information about Official Teaching of Eastern Languages in Russia), Saint-Petersburg, 1879.
5. Gorozhanskij Ja. Damaskin Semenov-Rudnev, episkop Nizhegorodskij (1737–1795), ego zhizn' i trudy (Damaskin Semenov-Rudnev, Bishop of Nizhnij Novgorod (1737–1795), His Life and Works), Kiev, 1894.
6. Znamenskij P. V. Istorija russkoj cerkvi (History of Russian Church), Sergiev Posad, 2006.
7. Kareva N. V., Sergeev M. L. 2014 “Sistema artiklej v grammatike P. Resto i problemy ee perevoda na russkij jazyk” (Article System in Grammar of P. Resto and Problems of Its Translation in Russian Language), in Indoevropejskoe jazykoznanie i klassicheskaja filologija — XVIII. Materialy chtenij, posvjashhennyh pamjati prof. I. M. Tronskogo (23–25 ijunja 2014 g.), Saint-Petersburg, 2014, pp. 367–380.
8. Kislova E. I. 2013 “Drevneevrejskij jazyk v pravoslavnyh uchebnyh zavedenijah v Rossii XVIII v. (K istorii lingvisticheskoj kompetencii cerkovnoj sredy)” (Ancient Hebrew Language in Orthodox Schoold in Russia in XVIII Cent. (To History of Lingustic Competence of Church Sphere)), in Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 9: Filologija, 2013, vol. 1, pp. 35–50.
9. Knjazev A. Ocherk istorii Pskovskoj seminarii ot nachala do preobrazovanija ee po proektu ustava 1814 goda (Survey of History of Pskov Seminary from Begin to Its Transformation according to Regulations Project of 1814), Moscow, 1866.
10. Luppov S. P. Kniga v Rossii v poslepetrovskoe vremja (Book in Russia in Time after Petr I), Leningrad, 1976.
11. Opisanie kollekcii rukopisej Gosudarstvennogo arhiva Jaroslavskoj oblasti. XIV–XX vv. (Description of Manuscript Collection of State Archive of Jaroslavskaja Region. XIV–XX Cent.), Jaroslavl', 1975.
12. Petr (Meshherinov). Arndt i Pravoslavie (Arndt and Orthodoxy), in http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/3284139.html.
13. Posohova L. Ju. Na perehresti kul'tur, tradicij, epoh. Pravoslavni kolegiumy Ukraiiny naprikinci XVII — na pochatku XIX st. (On Crossroad of Cultures, Traditions, Epochs. Orthodox Collegiums of Ukraine in End of XVII — Begin of XIX Cent.), Harkiv, 2011, pp. 64-66.
14. Mengel' S. 2001 “Russkie perevody hall'skih pietistov: Simeon Todorskij, 1729–1735 gg.” (Russian Translations of Pietists of Halle: Simeon Todorskij, 1729–1735), in Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 9: Filologija, 2001, vol. 3, pp. 89–99.
15. Svodnyj katalog russkoj knigi grazhdanskoj pechati XVIII veka. 1725–1800 (General Catalogue of Russian Book of Civil Print of XVIII Century. 1725–1800), Saint-Petersburg, 1962, vol. 1.
16. Simankov V. I. Iz razyskanij o zhurnale «Pribavlenie k Moskovskim vedomostjam (1783–1784), ili Ob avtorstve sochinenij, pripisyvavshihsja N. I. Novikovu,I. G. Shvarcu i F. V. Karzhavinu» (From Studies about Journal “Appendix to Moscow News (1783–1784), or About Autor of Works, Arrogated to N. I. Novikov, I. G. Shvarc and F. V. Karzhavin”), Har'kov, 2010, pp. 40–41.
17. Slovar' russkih pisatelej XVIII veka (Dictionary of Russian Writers of XVIII Century), Leningrad, 1988, vol. 1.
18. Smirnov S. K. Istorija Moskovskoj Slavjano-greko-latinskoj akademii (History of Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy), Moscow, 1855.
19. Smirnov S. K. Istorija Troickoj Lavrskoj seminarii (History of Seminary in Trinity Laura), Moscow, 1867.
20. Smolich I. K. Istorija russkoj cerkvi (History of Russian Church), Moscow, 1996, vol. 8/1.
21. Speranskij I. Ocherk istorii Smolenskoj duhovnoj seminarii i podvedomyh ej uchilishh so vremen osnovanija Seminarii do ee preobrazovanija po Ustavu 1867 goda (1728–1868 g.) (Survey on History of Spiritual Seminary of Smolensk and Depended Schools from Founding of the Seminary till Its Transformation according to Regulations of 1867 (1728–1868)), Smolensk, 1892.
22. Titlinov B. V. Pravitel'stvo Anny Ioannovny v ego otnoshenijah k delam pravoslavnoj cerkvi (Government of Anna Ioannovna in Its Attutide to Cases of Orthodox Church), Vilnus, 1905.
23. Florovskij G. Puti russkogo bogoslovija (Ways of Russian Theology), Paris, 1981
24. X. Proekt bogoslovskogo fakul'teta pri Ekaterine II (Project of Theological Faculty in Time of Ekaterina II), in Vestnik Evropy, 1873, vol. 4., pp. 300–317.
25. Hoteev P.I. Kniga v Rossii v seredine XVIII veka. Biblioteki obshhestvennogo pol'zovanija (Book in Russia in Middle of XVIII Century. Libraries of Public Use), Saint-Petersburg, 1993.
26. Chistovich I. Istorija Sankt-Peterburgskoj duhovnoj akademii (History of Spiritual Academy of Saint-Petersburg), Saint-Petersburg, 1857.
27. Shmurlo E. Mitropolit Evgenij [Bolhovitinov] kak uchenyj. Rannie gody zhizni. 1767–1804 (Metropolitan Eugenij [Bolhovitinov] as Scholar. Early Years of Life. 1767–1804), Saint-Petersburg, 1888.
28. Shhukin V. 1898 “Simon (Todorskij), arhiepiskop Pskovskij i Narvskij (biograficheskij ocherk)” (Simon (Todorskij), Archbishop of Pskov and Narva), in Pskovskie eparhial'nye vedomosti. Chast' neoficial'naja, 1898, vol. 1; 1899, vol. 14.
29. Freeze G.L. The Parish Levites. Parish Clergy in the Eighteenth Century, Cambridge, London, 1977.
30. Huber S.M. Für die Jugend lehrreicher: Der religionspädagogische Wandel des Bildes des Kindes in Schweizer Kinderbibeln in der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts, Göttingen, 2013.
31. Keipert H. 1994 “Vasilij Lebedev und sein Sokraščenie grammatiki latinskoj (S.-Peterburg 1746)“, in Res Slavica: Festschrift für Hans Rothe Zum 65. Geburtstag, Paderborn, 1994.
32. Kislova E.I. 2013 “Le français et l’allemand dans l’éducation religieuse en Russie au XVIIIe siècle“, in ВИВЛIОθИКА: E-Journal of Eighteenth-Century Russian Studies, 2013, vol. 1, pp. 48–74.
33. Koch K. Deutsch als Frendsprache im Rußland des 18. Jahrhunderts. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Fremdsprachenlernens in Europa und zu den deutsch-russischen Beziehungen, Berlin, 2002.
34. Mengel S. 2003 “Übersetzungsprojekte hallischer Pietisten zu Beginn des 18. Jhs. auf dem Hintergrund der Sprachpolitischen Diskussion um die neuere russische Literatursprache“, in Zeitschrift für Slavistik, 2003, vol. 48, pp. 304–322.
35. Naas M. Didaktische Konstruktion des Kindes in Schweizer Kinderbibeln: Zürich, Bern, Luzern (1800–1850), Göttingen, 2012.
36. Reichelt S. Johann Arndts „Vier Bücher von wahrem Christentum“ in Russland. Vorboten eines neuzeitlichen interkulturellen Dialogs, Leipzig, 2011.
37. Rjéoutski V. 2013 “Le français et d’autres langues dans l’éducation en Russie au XVIIIe siècle“, in ВИВЛIОθИКА: E-Journal of Eighteenth-Century Russian Studies, 2013, vol. 1, pp. 20–47.
38. Winter E. Halle als Ausgangspunkt der deutschen Rußlandskunde in 18. Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1953.

Kislova Ekaterina

The paper deals with main problems that are encountered when compiling the wordlist of a dialect dictionary in contemporary conditions when archaic dialect systems are rapidly disintegrating. So far, there has been no lexicographic description of Tula dialect vocabulary. However, small wordlists are found in works of ethnographers, historians, philologists of the 19^th century, e.g. V. A. Lyovshin, A. G. Zelenetsky, E. F. Budde. Their wordlists had different aims, and therefore different scope and format. Producing the new dictionary involves a range of problems, such as distinguishing between the dialect and colloquialisms, incorporating vocabulary related to handicrafts into the wordlist. Due to the fact that many archaic lexical entities have gone out of active use, the authors of the «Materials for the dictionary of Tula dialects» reserve the right to draw on ethnographic works and various encyclopaedias as sources for the dictionary. Naturally, the structure of the entry in this case has some specific features. A separate problem is including dialect words from literary texts of those writers who originate from Tula oblast. So far, this problem has not been completely resolved. A possible solution is that in this case lexemes should be treated individually. On the whole, the authors of the dictionary tend to take a flexible approach to the material in question.

dialect, lexeme, dialects of Tula oblast, folklore, traditions, literary texts, lexicography, dialectology.

1. Balahonova L. I. 1982 “K voprosu o statuse prostorechnoj i dialektnoj leksiki” (To Question of Status of Vernacular and Dialect Vocabulary), in Voprosy jazykoznanija, 1982, vol. 3, pp. 104–110.
2. Bol'shoj akademicheskij slovar' russkogo jazyka (Big Academic Dictionary of Russian Language), Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, 2004, vol. 8.
3. Budde E. F. O nekotoryh narodnyh govorah v Tul'skoj i Kaluzhskoj gubernijah (About Some People Dialects in Tulskaja and Kaluzhskaja Regions), Saint-Petersburg, 1897.
4. Zeleneckij A. G. Gorod Chern' i ego uezd: Trudy po jetnografii, istorii i statistike Chernskogo uezda Tul'skoj gubernii (City Chrern’ and Its District: Studies on Ethnography, History and Statictic of Chernskij District of Tulskaja Region), Tula, 2007.
5. Ljovshin V. A. Topograficheskoe opisanie Tul'skoj gubernii (Topographic Description of Tulskaja Region), Tula, 2006.
6. Nefedova E. A. Mnogoznachnost' i sinonimija v dialektnom prostranstve (Polysemy and Synonymy in Dialect Space), Moscow, 2008.
7. Rodina M. A. Govor sela Apuhtino Odoevskogo rajona Tul'skoj oblasti (sistemno-jazykovoj analiz): dis. …kand. filol. nauk (Dialect of Village Apuhtino of Odoevskij District of Tulskaja Region (Systematic-Linguistic Analysis): Dissertation), M., 2012.
8. Romanov D. A., Krasovskaja N. A. Materialy k slovarju tul'skih govorov (Materials to Dictionary of Tula Dialects), Tula, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 (Continuing Edition).
9. Slovar' russkih narodnyh govorov (Dictionary of Russian People Dialects), Moscow, Leningrad, 1978, vol. 14.
10. Sorokoletov F. P. 2011 “Dialektnaja leksika v jazyke narodnyh pesen (Na materiale pesen Dmitrovskogo uezda Orlovskoj gubernii, sobrannyh V.N. Dobrovol'skim)” (Dialect Vocabulary in Langiage of Folk Songs (on Material of Songs of Dmitrovskij District of Orlovskaja Region, Collected by V.N. Dobrovol'skij)), in Sorokoletov F. P. Izbrannye trudy, Saint Petersburg, 2011.
11. Sorokoletov F. P. 2011 “Dialektnyj slovar' v sisteme slovarej nacional'nogo jazyka” (Dialect Dictionary in System of Dictionaries of National Language), in Sorokoletov F. P. Izbrannye trudy, Saint Petersburg, 2011.
12. Filin F. P. Dnevnik 1928 g. (Diary of 1928. Manuscript)
13. Chusova I. N. Leksika, svjazannaja s oboznacheniem osobennostej, sklonnostej cheloveka i dejstvij, v kotoryh oni projavljajutsja (Na materiale tul'skih govorov): dis. … kand. filol. nauk (Vocabulary, Connected with Marking of Features, Human Inclinations and Actions, in which They Are Expressed (on Material of Tula Dialects): Dissertation), Moscow, 1969.
14. Chernyshev V. I. 1970 “Zametki o jazyke i orfografii G. I. Uspenskogo” (Notices about Language and Orthography of G. I. Uspenskij), in Chernyshev V. I. Izbrannye trudy, Moscow, 1970, vol. 2, pp. 294–312.
15. Shangina I. I. Russkij tradicionnyj byt: Jenciklopedicheskij slovar' (Russian Traditional Life: Encyclopedic Dictionary), Saint-Petersburg, 2003.

Krasovskaia Nelli

The prominent Christian theologian Origen (AD 185-254) is properly regarded as the founder of a new method of biblical exegesis, which was based on the distinction between the three senses of the Holy Scripture. The aim of our research, presented in the series of three papers, is to reveal theoretical origins and content of this methodological doctrine. We aim to demonstrate that it was developed by Origen in the context of the controversy between Valentinian and proto-Orthodox Christians of Alexandria, in which the both sides referred to apostle Paul’s authority. The first paper (published in: Вестник ПСТГУ III:4 (34). 2013. С. 74-92) dealt with the Valentinian soteriological doctrine of the three human races which possess the three respective types of knowledge; the paper also examined the criticism that this doctrine received in treatises of Clement of Alexandria and provided the starting point in Origen’s reasoning on the same topic. The present paper aims to demonstrate the differences in the attitudes of Clement of Alexandria and of Origen towards the Valentinian trichotomy, as well as towards the scriptural texts involved in the discussion. Clement accepted the idea of gradual spiritual progress and tried to avoid the Valentinian terminology, basing his reasoning on a strict distinction of the body, the soul and the spirit not only with regard to the individual human being but also with regard to the whole of mankind. He also insisted on the essential link between the faith of the Church and the sublime gnosis. Origen, in his turn, tended to retain the trichotomic paradigm and the corresponding terminology. He used this terminology for the description of the three levels of the sense of the Scripture (the material, the physical, and the spiritual) which were related to the three types of knowledge available to the three classes of men, i.e. “ordinary believers”, “more perfect”, and “the most perfect” (or, put in a different way, to Jews, Christians, and to those saints who became familiar with the sublime knowledge of God). However, Origen, unlike Clement, insisted also on the conceptual difference between the knowledge of the second and the third types because in his own system the “physical” sense is mostly characterised as moralistic, whereas the “spiritual” sense is related to the knowledge of celestial mysteries and the eschatological future. In order to understand why the “physical” and “spiritual” senses of the Scripture receive these specifi c features in Origen’s system, we should examine his doctrine of “Corinthians” and “Ephesians” who embody the recipients of the two independent types of knowledge.

Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Valentinians, Bible, exegesis, three senses of Scripture.

1. Nesterova O. E. 2009 “Allegorizm i giperbukvalizm v biblejskih tolkovanijah Origena: paradoks ili edinstvo germenevticheskogo metoda?” (Allegorism and Hyperliteracy in Bible Interpretations of Origen: Paradox or Unity of Hermeneutic Method?), in Vostok (Oriens), 2009, vol. 5, pp. 5–19.
2. Cocchini F. Il Paolo di Origène: Contributo alla storia della recezione delle epistole Paoline nel III secolo, Roma, 1992.
3. Cumont F. Recherches sur le symbolisme funéraire des Romains, Paris, 1942.
4. Kovacs J. L. 2002 “Servant of Christ and Steward of the Mysteries of God: The Purpose of a Pauline letter according to Origen’s Homilies on 1 Corinthians”, in P. Blowers (et al.) (eds.) In Dominico Eloquio (In Lordly Eloquence): Essays on Patristic Exegesis in Honor of Robert L. Wilken, Grand Rapids, Cambridge, 2002, pp. 147–171.
5. Marrou H.-I. 1948 “Un ange déchu, un ange pourtant...“, in Satan. Études Carmélitaines, Paris, 1948, pp. 28–43.

Nesterova Ol'ga

The publication contains the second part of entries beginning in the letter «З» (Russian «З») и первую часть материала на букву «И». Characteristic features of the edition of the Dictionary, lists of sources, abbreviations as well as explanatory notes were set out in detail in the preceding issues.

Kaluzhnina Nadezhda

In this paper we continue to publish materials for the dictionary of the present-day dialect of Staroshvedkoye (Gammalsvenskby), which is the only surviving Scandinavian dialect in the territory of the former Soviet Union. The present-day state of this dialect has not been described in linguistic literature. In connection with this, the only source of the factual material is oral interviews with speakers of the dialect recorded by the author during his trips to the village. The main objective of this work is to present material recorded in the interviews in the most complete way and to show the real state of the vocabulary and inflection of the dialect. The entries include the following information: type of inflection; translation; phrases, sentences or short texts illustrating the usage (with initials of the informants). In many cases full paradigms are given as well. They include all phonetic and morphological forms that have occurred in the interviews.

language documentation, documentary linguistics, field linguistics, endangered language, present-day Swedish dialects, Swedish dialects of Estonia, Gammalsvenskby, dialect dictionary.

Man'kov Aleksandr