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

Attic authors use this term to denote a naval convoy. The first time it was attested with the meaning «messenger» was in the middle of the 2nd century BC, in Septuagint, 2 Kings 14. 6, where it was adapted to reflect the meaning of the Semitic verb šlh ‘to send’ and the Aramaic participle šaliah ‘that who is send, messenger’. A person serving as a messenger was of importance for ancient nomadic and semi-nomadic Semitic tribes as the most serious functions in economy and in marital sphere were performed by an intermediary (Gen 24, Tob 5). The significance of the epic personality of Moses is determined by his role of Lord’s messenger. In accordance with this tradition of Moses, John uses the verbs Cποστέλλω and πέμπω ‘send’ ca. 70 times and treats Jesus as Lord’s alter ego (Jn 14. 9). However, he avoids using the term Cπόστολος. In the Christian commune of Jerusalem of the middle of the 1st century, the term came to refer to eyewitnesses of Resurrection (Acts 1. 21–25, 15. 23). At the same time, Paul emphasised its missionary implication. As in many other cases of biblical narratives, here one can observe the transition from ethnic customs to soteriological concepts.

šaliah, apostle, hospitality, gospels, Septuagint.

1. Alekseev A. A. 2014 “Semeion i doxa v Evangelii ot Ioanna” (Semeion and Doxa in Gospel of John), in XLII Mezhdunarodnaja filologicheskaja konferencija. 11–16 marta 2013 goda: Izbrannye trudy, Saint-Petersburg, 2014, pp. 6–36.
2. Lihachev D. S. 1946 “Russkij posol'skij obychaj XI–XIII vv.” (Russian Embassy Custom), in Istoricheskie zapiski, Moscow, 1946, vol. 18, pp. 42–55.
3. Meshherskij N. A. Istorija «Iudejskoj vojny» Iosifa Flavija v drevnerusskom perevode (History of “Judean War” of Josephus Flavius in Old Russian Translation), Moscow; Leningrad, 1958.
4. Pokorny P., Gekkel' U. Vvedenie v Novyj Zavet: Obzor literatury i bogoslovija Novogo Zaveta (Introduction to New Testament: Survey of Literature and Theology of New Testament), Moscow, 2012.
5. Beitzel B. J. 1992 “Travel and Communication”, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, New York, 1992, vol. 6, pp. 644–648.
6. Ben Zvi E. 1990 “Who Wrote the Speech of Rabshakeh and When?”, in Journal of Biblical Literature, 1990, vol. 109, pp. 79–92.
7. Borgen P. 1968 “God’s Agent in the Fourth Gospel”, in Neusner J. (ed.) Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough, Leiden, 1968, pp. 137–148.
8. Borowski O. The Daily Life in Biblical Times, Atlanta, 2003.
9. Bühner J.-A. Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium. Die kultur- und religionsgeschichtlichen Grundlagen der johannischen Sendungschristologie sowie ihre traditionsgeschichtlichen Entwicklung, Tübingen, 1977.
10. Burney C. F. The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford, 1922.
11. Dodd C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1953.
12. Evans C. A. Word and Glory. On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue, Sheffield, 1993.
13. Haenchen E. 1962–63 “Der Vater, der mich gesandt hat“, in New Testament Studies, 1962–63, vol. 9, pp. 208–216.
14. Harnack A., von. Die Lehre der Zwolf Apostel, Berlin, 1884.
15. Heijne C. H., von. The Messenger of the Lord in Early Jewish Interpretations of Genesis, Berlin; New York, 2010.
16. Huber Vulliet F. 2011 “Letters as Correspondence, Letters as Literature”, in Radner K., Robson E. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, Oxford, 2011, pp. 486–507.
17. Liddell H. G., Scott R. A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1996.
18. McGrath J. F. John’s Apologetic Christology. Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology, Cambridge, 2001.
19. Mercer C. 1992 “Jesus the Apostle: «Sending» and the Theology of John”, in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1992, vol. 35, pp. 457–462.
20. Metzger B. M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Stuttgart, 1971.
21. Miranda J. P. Die Sendung Jesu im vierten Evangelium: Religions- und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Sendungsformeln, Stuttgart, 1977.
22. Müller D. 1975 “Apostle”, in Brown C. (ed.) The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Grand Rapids, 1975, vol. 1, pp. 128–135.
23. Rengstorf K.-H. 1933 “Apostolos“, in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Stuttgart, 1933, vol. 1, pp. 406–448.
24. Robinson H. O. W. 1936 “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality“, in Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments: Vortrage gehalten auf der internationalen Tagung alttestamentlicher Forscher zu Göttingen vom 4.–10. September 1935, Berlin, 1936, pp. 49–62.
25. Schnackenberg R. 1970 “Apostles before and during Paul’s Time”, in Apostolic History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce, Exeter, 1970, pp. 287–303.
26. Schenker A. 2010 “The Septuagint in the Text History of 1–2 Kings”, in Lemaire A., Halpern B. (eds.) The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception, Leiden, 2010, pp. 3–18.
27. Schweizer E. 1966 “Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der ‘Sendungsformel’“, in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1966, vol. 57, pp. 199–210.
28. Sweeney M. A. Isaiah 1–39. With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, 1996.
29. Swete H. B. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge, 1914.
30. Reiterer F. V., Nicklas T., Schöpflin K. (eds.) The Concept of Celestial Being — Origins, Development and Reception, New York, 2007.
31. Von Heijne C. H. The Messenger of the Lord in Early Jewish Interpretations of Genesis, Berlin; New York, 2010.
32. Weder H. 1992 “Disciple”, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, New York, 1992, vol. 2, pp. 207–210.
33. Wiener A. The Prophet Elijah in the Development of Judaism. A Depth-Psychological Study, London, 1978.
34. Gall T. L., Farmington J. H. (eds.) Worldmark Encyclopedia of Cultures and Daily Life, Hills, MI, 2009, vol. 3: Asia & Oceania.
35. Wygoda M. 2006 “Agency”, in Encyclopaedia Judaica, New York, 2006, vol. 1, pp. 449–454.
36. Zuntz G. The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum, London, 1946.

Alekseev Anatolii

The paper deals with the problem of subjectivity of knowledge in relation to natural communicative, primarily verbal, process. In new theoretical conditions, such preceding formulae as «knowledge of language», «knowledge of signs», «knowledge of linguistic world picture» lose explanatory potential due to the following factors: obvious absence of self-identity of autonomous signs (including verbal signs); the absorption of language by communication; the incapability of language as to sense-generating; the ultimate non-verbal character of conceivable meanings. Personal act of communication comes to be a firmer theoretical basis for explaining the sense-generating process in the verbal fact because it is the individual consciousness of the communicant that serves as a source of thoughts, feelings, values, etc. The communicative nature of sense-generating allows us to separate the natural verbal fact from the idea (thought), as actional from nonactional. It also allows us to state that in the course of verbal communication, multiplefactor communicative actions are generated and understood, not just verbal clichés. With this background, the discourse is determined dynamically as a communicative situation comprehended in each of its moments by a communicant/addressee. Despite the subjectivity of individual knowledge, communication represents the intention (desire) of individual consciousnesses to acquire identity with the aim of achieving successful interaction. The problem of subjectivity of individual knowledge (in its relation to the verbal fact) has a chance for solution only in the field of communication, not in the fi eld of verbal (language) data itself.

knowledge, natural verbal process, language, sign, knowledge of language, act of communication, discourse, identity, communication.

1. Arutjunova N. D. 1973 “Ponjatie presuppozicii v lingvistike” (Idea of Presupposition in Linguistics), in Izvestija AN SSSR. Ser. literatury i jazyka, 1973, vol. 32/1, pp. 84–89.
2. Bart R. 1994 “Smert' avtora” (Death of Author), in Izbrannye raboty: Semiotika. Pojetika, Moscow, 1994, pp. 384–391.
3. Vdovichenko A. V. 2016 “Kommunikativnoe opravdanie grammatiki. K voprosu o predelah uslovnosti grammaticheskogo opisanija” (Communicative Justification of Grammar. To Question about Borders of Conditional Character of Grammar Description), in Russkij jazyk za rubezhom, 2016, vol. 4, pp. 78–84.
4. Vdovichenko A. V. Rasstavanie s «jazykom». Kriticheskaja retrospektiva lingvisticheskogo znanija (Parting from “Language”. Critical Retrospective of Linguistic Knowledge), Moscow, 2008.
5. Dem'jankov V. Z. 1981 “Logicheskie aspekty semanticheskogo issledovanija predlozhenija” (Logical Aspects of Semantic Study of Sentence), in Problemy lingvisticheskoj semantiki, Moscow, 1981, pp. 115–132.
6. Dem'jankov V. Z. 1979 “«Sub’ekt», «tema», «topik» v amerikanskoj lingvistike poslednih let (Obzor II)” (“Subject”, “Theme”, “Topic” in American Linguistic of Last Years), in Izv. AN SSSR. Ser. literatury i jazyka, 1979, vol. 38/4, pp. 368–380.
7. Kubrjakova E. S. 1995 “Jevoljucija lingvisticheskih idej vo vtoroj polovine XX veka: Opyt paradigmal'nogo analiza” (Evolution of Linguistic Ideas in Second Half of XX Century: Experience of Paradigm Analysis), Stepanova Ju. S. (ed.) Jazyk i nauka konca XX veka, Moscow, 1995, pp. 144–238.
8. Matezius V. 1967 “O tak nazyvaemom aktual'nom chlenenii predlozhenija” (About So Called Actual Articulation of Sentence), in Prazhskij lingvisticheskij kruzhok, Moscow, 1967.
9. Ostin Dzh. Izbrannoe (Selected Works), Moscow, 1999, pp. 15–138.
10. Paducheva E. V.1977 “Ponjatie prezumpcii v lingvisticheskoj semantike” (Idea of Presumption in Linguistic Semantics), in Semiotika i informatika, 1977, vol. 8.
11. Serl' Dzh. 1986 “Chto takoe rechevoj akt?” (What Is Speech Act?), in Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike, Moscow, 1986, vol. 17, pp. 151–169.
12. Homskij N. Aspekty teorii sintaksisa (Aspects of Syntax Theory), Moscow, 1972.
13. Homskij N. Sintaksicheskie struktury // Novoe v lingvistike. M., 1962. Vyp. 1.
14. Baker A. 1956 “Presupposition and Types of Clause”, in Mind, 1956, vol. 65.
15. Bateson G. Steps to an Ecology of Mind, New York, 1972.
16. Derrida J. Positions, Paris, 1972.
17. Fillmore Ch. The Need for a Frame Semantics within Linguistics. Statistical Methods in Linguistics, Stockholm, 1976.
18. Firbas J. 1966 “On Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence Analysis”, in Travaux linguistiques de Prague, Prague, 1966. V. 1.
19. Lakoff G. 1971 “Presuppositions and Relative Grammaticality”, in Studies in Philosophical Linguistics, 1971, vol. 1/1.
20. Lakoff G. 1977 “Linguistic Gestalts”, in Beach W. A., Fox S. E., Philosoph S. (eds.) Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society, April 14–16, 1977, Chicago; Illinois, 1977, pp. 236–287.
21. Minskу M. A Framework for Representing Knowledge. (M. I. T., Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, AI Memo 306), Cambridge, 1974.
22. Vdovichenko A. V. 2006 “From Relative Words to Universal Acts. The Limit in Studying «Language»”, in Proceedings of the 39th SLE (Societas Linguistica Europaea) Congress, Bremen, 2006, pp. 32–33.

Vdovichenko Andrei

he Russian language of the 21st century is characterised by very active processes of ad hoc word formation. To the number of such occasional forms belong nonstandard comparatives derived from pronouns. The aim of my research is to determine if comparative forms derived from pronouns have some common features. This was done by means of analysing contexts where such comparatives occur. It was discovered that pronouns serve as a lexical base for comparatives in two cases: If they express the intensification of what the pronoun originally refers to, without any semantic shades. If they contain a non-pronominal component in their meaning, typical of adjectives and adverbs, and bear some additional connotative semantics acquired in a certain context. Some pronoun-derived comparatives occur fairly frequently (ca. 200 times), others only once or twice. The word ещё (ещё онее) is obligatory for many infrequent forms, as well as for such forms that are difficult to identify in the text due to their unusual character. In contexts, the normative form is often employed, and thereafter the comparative, which helps to understand the occasionalism and, consequently, to achieve the aim of the word-play. Besides, several comparatives are derived from pronouns as components of collocations and even idioms: себе на уме — еще себее. In this case they express stronger intensiveness of qualities and features designated by the idiom. Pronoun-derived comparatives are quite illustrative as to language development. Their study allows us to identify new processes taking place in the language and to give a better picture of its current state.

word formation, ad hoc forms, word-play, non-standard comparative, pronoun-derived comparative, semantics of pronouns, connotative semantics.

1. Borzenko E. O. 2012 “Obrazovanie sravnitel'nyh form ot sushhestvitel'nyh v russkom jazyke XXI veka (centree, zhiznee i dr.)” (Making of Comparative Forms of Nouns in Russian Language of XXI Century (centraler, lifer and others)), in Problemy jazyka, 2012, vol. 1, pp. 11–18.
2. Borzenko E. O. 2014 “Semanticheskaja specifika otsubstantivnyh komparativov («zvezdee», «centree»)” (Semantic Specifics of Substantivated Comparatives (“starer”, “centrer”)), in Russkij jazyk: Istoricheskie sud'by i sovremennost': Sb. nauchnyh statej po materialam V Mezhdunarodnogo kongressa issledovatelej russkogo jazyka, 2014, vol. 4/43, pp 225–226.
3. Borzenko E. O. 2015 “Semanticheskie i pragmaticheskie razlichija mezhdu odnokorennymi otsubstantivnymi i otad’ektivnymi komparativami v sovremennoj russkoj rechi” (Semantic and Pragmatic Differences between Cognate Substantivated and Adjectivated Comparatives in Modern Russian Speech), in Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. III: Filologija, 2015, vol. 3/43, pp. 32–47.
4. Dobrushina E. R. 2013 “Mezhdu normoj-intuiciej i normoj-kodifikaciej, ili Dvesti let vmeste s ihnij” (Between Norm-Intuition and Norm-Codification, or 200 Years with “Ihnij”), in Russkij jazyk v nauchnom osveshhenii, 2013, vol. 2/26, pp. 181–204.
5. Knjazev Ju. P. Grammaticheskaja semantika (Grammar Semantics), Moscow, 2007.
6. Lekant P. A. (ed.) Prakticheskij kurs sovremennogo russkogo jazyka (Practical Course of Russian Language), Moscow, 2002.
7. Rahilina E. V. 2014 “Grammatika oshibok: v poiskah konstant“ (Grammar of Errors: in Search of Constants), in Jazyk. Konstanty. Peremennye, Saint-Petersburg, 2014, pp. 87–95.
8. Sannikov V. Z. Russkij jazyk v zerkale jazykovoj igry (Russian Language in Mirror of Language Game), Moscow, 1999.
9. Sin'ko L. A. 2011 “Referentnye i diskursivnye svojstva neopredelennyh mestoimenij” (Referent and Discource Features of Indefinite Pronouns), in Vestnik Adygejskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser. 2: Filologija i iskusstvovedenie, 2011, vol. 2, pp. 138–143.
10. Sichinava D. V. 2013 “Poakkuratnee povnimatel'nee i poostorozhnee: k opisaniju russkogo komparativa s pristavkoj po- na materiale Nacional'nogo korpusa russkogo jazyka” (More Accurate, More Attentional and More Cautious: to Description of Russian Comparative with Prefix “po-” on Material of National Corpse of Russian Language), in Glagol'nye i imennye kategorii v sisteme funkcional'noj grammatiki, Saint-Petersburg, 2013, pp. 284–290.

Borzenko Ekaterina

Третины (traditional commemorative meal that takes place on the third day after the funeral) is a carnival-related event. According to the Christian doctrine, the human soul leaves the earthly world and appears before God on the third day after death. The commemorative feast is part of the burial ritual. The meal of третины is described in only one novel by Dostoevsky, namely in Crime and Punishment: the singular character of this description attracts one’s attention. Detailed examination of this event in the novel shows that all ceremonial elements of третины are distorted, namely the purpose, choice of guests, their appearance (dress and manners) and behaviour, the widow’s arrangement of the meal, lack of communication between the participants. Everything points to the violation of long-established norms. The commemorative meal transforms into a social occasion, by means of which Katerina Ivanovna tries to support her claims on the nobility. The event is reduced to the material and bodily level, which profanes the spirit of the custom. The object world thus “participates” in the profanation and interferes with the transition to the spiritual level.

F. M. Dostoevsky, Сrime and Punishment, commemorative meal, object world, details, food, clothes, carnivalisation.

1. Bahtin M. M. Problemy tvorchestva/pojetiki Dostoevskogo (Problems of Works/Poetics of Dostojewskij), Kiev, 1994.
2. Bahtin M. M. Tvorchestvo Fransua Rable i narodnaja kul'tura Srednevekov'ja i Renessansa (Works of Francois Rablais and Folk Culture of Middle Ages and Renaissance), Moscow, 1990.
3. Bjelnep R. L. Struktura «Brat'ev Karamazovyh» / Per. s angl. SPb., 1997.
4. Darkevich V. P. Narodnaja smehovaja kul'tura Srednevekov'ja. Svetskaja i prazdnichnaja zhizn' v iskusstve IX–XVI vekov (Folk Laugh Culture of Middle Ages. Civil and Holiday Life in Art of IX–XVI Centuries), Moscow, 1998.
5. Kagarov E. G. Religija drevnih slavjan (Religion of Ancient Slavs), Moscow, 1918.
6. Kuz'menko P. V. Russkij pravoslavnyj obrjad pogrebenija (Russian Orthodox Rite of Funeral), Moscow, 1996.
7. Sedakova O. A. Pojetika obrjada. Pogrebal'naja obrjadnost' vostochnyh i juzhnyh slavjan (Rite Poetics. Funeral Rites of Eastern and Southern Slavs), Moscow, 2004.

Garnova Kristina

In preparatory materials for Dostoevsky’s novels, we see a large number of dramatically evolving plots, typical of adventure novels, whereas in the final variant their number is substantially reduced due to the fact that most events remain in the pre-novel past and in characters’ prehistory. Dostoevsky clearly tends to place all decisive actions of his characters outside the confines of the «present» of the novel. The prehistory can be introduced by means of a story within a story, due to which it approaches the novel’s storyline, the only difference being in the number of details. As a result, it is often impossible to differentiate between (1) prehistory as the beginning of the plot, and (2) characteristics of a personage (in the exposition). The concise prehistory becomes a characterisation of the personage. This characterisation is, in its turn, necessary as a potential for the development of the plot. Dostoevsky thinks through his characters’ biographies in minute details, yet concealing them from his reader. This enables him to complicate the perception of his characters, making the reader think of most unexpected clues. Prehistory looks unstated and the reader feels that the author is always holding something back. Dostoevsky applies a remarkable psychological device: he constructs a psychological novel on the basis of an undeveloped adventure novel. As a result, prehistory contains most important units of the plot, entire novels-in-the-past, pertaining to the main characters and leading directly to the plot. This device becomes most conspicuous in Бесы (The Demons) and enables the author to maintain high degree of tension, characteristic of plots of adventure novels.

Dostoevsky’s novels, adventure novel, idea, prehistory, plot.

1. Gershtejn Je. G. 1970 “Neizdannye zametki A. Ahmatovoj” (Unpublished Notices of A. Ahmatova), in Voprosy literatury, 1970, vol. 1, pp. 158–206.
2. Ginzburg L. Ja. O literaturnom geroe (About Literary Hero), Leningrad, 1979.
3. Davidovich M. G. 1924 “Problema zanimatel'nosti v romanah F. M. Dostoevskogo” (Problem of Interests in Novels of F. M. Dostojewskij), in Tvorcheskij put' F. M. Dostoevskogo, Leningrad, 1924, pp. 104–130.
4. Ivanov V. I. 1995 “Dostoevskij. Tragedija — mif — mistika” (Dostojewskij. Tragedy — Myth — Mystic), in Lik i lichiny Rossii: Jestetika i literaturnaja teorija, Moscow, 1995, pp. 351–458.
5. Istorija russkogo romana (History of Russian Novel). Moscow; Leningrad, 1964, vol. 2.
6. Lihachev D. S. 1968 “Vnutrennij mir hudozhestvennogo proizvedenija” (Inner World of Artistic Work), in Voprosy literatury, 1968, vol. 8, pp. 74–87.
7. Lihachev D. S. 1971 “Predislovnyj rasskaz Dostoevskogo” (Introductory Story of Dostojewskij), in Pojetika i stilistika russkoj literatury: pamjati akad. Viktora Vladimirovicha Vinogradova, Leningrad, 1971, pp. 189–194.
8. Toporov V. N. 1995 “O strukture romana Dostoevskogo v svjazi s arhaichnymi shemami mifologicheskogo myshlenija («Prestuplenie i nakazanie»)” (About Structure of Novel of Dostojewskij in Connection with Archaic Schemes of Mythological Thinking (“Crime and Punishment”)), in Mif. Ritual. Simvol. Obraz: Issledovanija v oblasti mifopojeticheskogo: Izbrannoe, Moscow, 1995, pp. 193–258.

Krinitsyn Aleksandr

Davydenkova Mariia

This paper presents a translation of the commentary of donatist theologian Tychonius on the first chapter of the Book of Revelation with introduction and notes. This work of Tychonius did not survive as a whole text, but recently was reconstructed on the basis of the numerous quotations in the works of later authors. The commentary is of great interest because of its original ecclesiological ideas. Its influence on the later Latin tradition of interpretation of the Apocalypse was enormous. The work is translated into Russian for the fi rst time.

Tychonius, Augustine of Hippo, Apocalypse, Revelation of John, eschatology, chiliasm, donatism, early Christian exegesis.

Nyebolszin Antal

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. 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 infl ection in the dialect. The entries include the following information: type of infl ection; 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, fi eld linguistics, endangered language, Swedish dialects, Swedish dialects of Estonia, Gammalsvenskby, dialect dictionary.

Man’kov Aleksandr

Markelova Ol'ga