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

This paper discusses the problem of heterogenous orthography in Middle Russian texts in terms of their automatic processing. The Middle Russian subcorpus of the Russian National Corpus contains documents written mainly between 1400 and 1700, when spelling variation was still wide-spread. The task of lexico-grammatical analysis is to assign a dictionary form (lemma), a part of speech indication and grammatical tags to each word form in the corpus. Traditional methods of grammatical tagging depend on the fact that there usually only one string of characters that represents the stem and the ending of each grammatical word form. Because of this, heterogenous orthography leads to errors in the work of automatic morphology analysers (taggers) if they are not provided with the module that supports orthographic variation. In this project, both relative and absolute normalisation is used. Relative normalisation involves multiplying orthographic representations of stems and endings in the grammatical dictionary according to standard rules. This is carried out on the level of (a) word endings; (b) nominative stems with regular variation, e.g. russk(ij ) / russt(ij ), keli(ja) / kel’(ja); (c) nominative stems of Church Slavonic origin, e.g. odin- / edin-; (d) verb stems with prefi xes, etc. Absolute normalisation matches characters (or character combinations) that alternate regularly in the corpus (e.g. o/1 ‘omega’, e/ѣ, шт/щ, жю/жу). Absolute normalisation is applied both to orthographic representations in the grammatical dictionary and to word forms in the text.

Middle Russian, Old Russian, Russian National Corpus, lexico-grammatical tagging, morphological analysis, spelling variation, unstable orthography, orthographic normalisation

Berdichevskis A., Eckhoff H. M., Gavrilova T. 2016. The beginning of a beautiful friendship: rule-based and statistical analysis of Middle Russian, in: Komp’iuternaia lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii, 15 (22).
Gavrilova T. S., Shalganova T. A., Lyashevskaya O. N., K zadache avtomaticheskoi leksiko-grammaticheskoi razmetki starorusskogo korpusa XV–XVII vv., in: Vestnik PSTGU, Series III: Philology, 2016, Vol. 47 (2), 7–25.
Jurafsky D., Martin J. H., Speech and language processing. International Edition. New Jersey.
Mishina E. I., Pichkhadze A. A., Drevnerusskiĭ podkorpus Natsional’nogo korpusa russkogo iazyka, in: Trudy Instituta russkogo iazyka RAN, 2015, 6, 99–115.
Moldovan A. M., Pamiatniki drevnerusskoĭ pis’mennosti v Natsional’nom korpuse russkogo iazyka, in: Trudy Instituta russkogo iazyka RAN, Moscow, 2015, 6, 88–98.
Piotrowski M., Natural Language Proces sing for Historical Texts. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies. Vol. 17. San Rafael, CA, 69–78.
Schmid H., Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. Proceedings of the International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing.
Segalovich I., A Fast Morphological Algorithm with Unknown Word Guessing Induced by a Dictionary for a Web Search Engine. Proceedings of MLMTA, Las Vegas, Nevada, 273–280.
Vinokur T. G., Drevnerusskii iazyk, Old Russian Language, Moscow, 1961.
Zalizniak A. A., Grammaticheskii slovar’ russkogo iazyka: Slovoizmenenie Grammatical Dictionary of the Russian Language: Infl ection, Moscow, 1977. 4th edition: Moscow, 2003.

Gavrilova Tat'iana

This paper deals with the evolution of functions of a circumfl ex sign in liturgical books of Musсovian Rus’ of the end of the 16th – fi rst half of the 17th centuries. The transition from one principle of the use of kamora to the other was connected with the history of book emendation in the fi rst half of the 17th century. Each group of emendators that replaced one another at Moscow Print Yard had their own approach to the kamora. In editions of Ivan Fedorov and Andronik Nevezha dating from the late 16th and the early 17th centuries, kamora is used alongside the sign of varia or no sign at all above monosyllabic words; this is conditioned by the preceding manuscript tradition. At the beginning of the 1620s, the emendators were Arsenii Glukhoi and Antonii Krylov, who systematised the use of accentual signs above monosyllabic words. The kamora wins the competition and is placed above the aforementioned words except се, то, та, все, но and ни, above which the varia is placed. At the second half of the 1630s, the team of emendators changed. Instead of Arsenii and Antonii, deceased by that time, Shestak Martem’ianov, Zakhar Afanas’ev, Elder Savvatii, Ivan Nasedka, Mikhail Rogov begin to work as emendators. The kamora, according to recommendations of East-Slavonic grammars, appears in diand trisyllabic words above “long” stressed vowels in ultimate and penultimate syllables, if they are in the neighbourhood of syllables with “short” vowels. Such use of the kamora has no phonetic value in a Slavonic language and is an imitation of Greek spelling. In the 1640s, a signifi cant change in the usage principle of the kamora takes place. First, it is replaced with varia in monosyllabic and polysyllabic words, above which it occurred during the period of the 1620–1630s. Second, the kamora comes to be used above masculine and feminine nouns in the genitive plural that terminates in -ъ, which was due to the orientation towards the Greek grammar; moreover, the kamora could occur above the letter w as well. Masculine nouns contrast genitive pl. forms with nominative sg., whereas feminine nouns do not develop such distinction. This is a nascent principle of antistikh, i.e. the contrast between homonymic morphological forms. However, such marking of nouns in the genitive plural established the base for kamora acquiring the function of eliminating morphological homonymy. This paper also examines the competition of the kamora with other accentual marks, oksia and varia. In mid-17th century, oksia and varia acquired functions of main accentual signs (oksia in an- and inlaut, varia in auslaut above the ultimate stressed vowel), while kamora becomes an additional accentual mark used in the plural in order to eliminate morphological homonymy.

history of Church Slavonic spelling, old printing editions, diacritics, kamora

Alipii (Gamanovich), ieromonakh. Grammatika tserkovno-slavianskogo iazyka. Moscow, 1991.
Dmitrievskii A. A., Ispravlenie knig pri patriarkhe Nikone i posleduiushchikh patriarkhakh, Moscow, 2004.
Gal’chenko M. G., Vtoroe iuzhno-slavianskoe vliianie v drevnerusskoi knizhnosti (Grafi ko-orfografi cheskie priznaki vtorogo iuzhno-slavianskogo vliianiia i khronologiia ikh poiavleniia v drevnerusskikh rukopisiakh kontsa XIV — pervoi poloviny XV v.), in: Knizhnaia kul’tura. Knigopisanie. Nadpisi na ikonakh Drevnei Rusi. (Trudy Tsentral’nogo muzeia drevnerusskoi kul’tury i iskusstva imeni Andreia Rubleva. Vol. I), Moscow, 2001, 325–382.
Grammaticheskii sbornik 1620-kh gg., red. E. A. Kuzminova. AION-SLAVISTICA. Annali dell’Instituto Univesitario Orientale di Napoli. Dipartimento di studi dell’Europa orientale. Sezione SLAVISTICA. Quaderno 1, 2002.
Kolesov V. V., [ô] (o zakrytoe) v drevnenovgorodskom govore, in: Issledovaniia po grammatike russkogo iazyka. Leningrad, 1962, 3, 149–161.
Kolesov V. V., Evoliutsiia fonemy [ô] v russkikh severo-zapadnykh govorakh, in: Nauchnye doklady vysshei shkoly. Filologicheskie nauki, 1962, 3, 94–104.
Kolesov V. V., Nadstrochnye znaki «sily» v russkoi orfografi cheskoi traditsii. «Vremena » i «dukhi», in: Vostochnoslavianskie iazyki: Istochniki dlia ikh izucheniia, Moscow, 1973, 228–257.
Kusmaul’ S. M., Knizhnaia sprava 40-kh godov XVII veka, in: Slověne = Словѣне. International Journal of Slavic Studies, 2014, Vol. 3, 1, 72–101.
Kusmaul’ S. M., Knizhnaia sprava 1620-kh gg. i anonimnaia grammatika XVII v., in: Russkii iazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii, 2016, 1 (31), 230–251.
Mechkovskaia N. B., Rannie vostochnoslavianskie grammatiki. Minsk, 1984.
Pletneva A. A., Kravetskii A. G. Tserkovnoslavianskii iazyk: Ucheb. izd. Moscow, 2012.
Polikarpov Fedor. Tekhnologiia. Iskusstvo grammatiki. Izdanie i issledovanie E. Babaevoi. St. Petersburg, 2007.
Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia. 2010. XXV: Ioanna Deianiia — Iosif. Moscow, 2010.
Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, Vyp. 2 (vtoraia polovina XIV–XVI v.) Ch. 1. A–K. Leningrad, 1988.
Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, Vyp. 3 (XVII v.). Ch. 1. A–Z. St. Petersburg, 1992.
Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, Vyp. 3 (XVII v.). Ch. 2. I–O. St. Petersburg, 1993.
Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, Vyp. 3 (XVII v.). Ch. 3. P–S. St. Petersburg, 1998.
Slovar’ knizhnikov i knizhnosti Drevnei Rusi, Vyp. 3 (XVII v.). Ch. 4. T–Ia. Dopolneniia, St. Petersburg, 2004.
Uspenskii B. A., Istoriia russkogo literaturnogo iazyka (XI–XVII vv.), Moscow, 2002.
Vasil’ev L. L., O znachenii kamory v nekotorykh drevnerusskikh pamiatnikakh XVI–XVII vv. K voprosu o proiznoshenii zvuka o v velikorusskom narechii, Leningrad, 1929.
Zapol’skaia N. N., Knizhnaia sprava XVII veka: problema kul’turno-iazykovogo replitsirovaniia, in: Sbornik dokladov mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii «Iazyki v Velikom kniazhestve Litovskom i stranakh sovremennoi Tsentral’noi i Vostochnoi Evropy: migratsiia slov, vyrazhenii, idei». Budapest, 2000, 305–314.
Zapol’skaia N. N., Knizhnaia sprava v kul’turno-iazykovykh prostranstvakh Slavia Orthodoxa i Slavia Latina, in: Slavianskoe iazykoznanie. XIII Mezhdunarodnyi s”ezd slavistov. Doklady rossiiskoi delegatsii. Moscow, 2003, 213–229.
Zapol’skaia N. N., Neizvestnaia grammatika tserkovnoslavianskogo iazyka XVII v., in: Forma formans. Studi in onore di Boris Uspenskij . Napoli, 2010, 267–282.
Zalizniak A. A., Drevnerusskoe udarenie: Obshchie svedeniia i slovar’. Moscow, 2014.
Zhivov V. M., Slavianskie grammaticheskie sochineniia kak lingvisticheskii istochnik: O knige: D. S. Worth. The origins of Russian Grammar (=ULCA Slavic Studies. Vol. 5). Columbus, 1983, in: Russian Linguistics, 1986, 10, 92–93.

Kusmaul’ Svetlana

Two important themes of Euripides’ Hippolytus are speech and vision. They are represented as basic human faculties which lead to involuntary wrongdoings because they may be related to ignorance and emotions. They are therefore closely tied to typical exculpatory factors in rhetoric. Strikingly close to Hippolytus in its thematic structure is another text dating from the same period, namely Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen, which exhibits the same parallelism of emotional impact on vision and speech, the same exculpatory rhetorical strategy and the same association between vision and Ñρως. The similarity between the works of Gorgias and Euripides hints at a possible connection between them. It is reasonable to assume that both Euripides and Gorgias employ a common sophistic topos; this topos in itself combines elements of forensic rhetoric as well as themes refl ecting philosophical interest in problems of speech and vision that was wide-spread in intellectual circles of the 5th century BC. The main distinction between Helen and Hippolytus is that their emphases are placed on distinct elements of this common thematic complex, and this distinction is explained by their diff ering conceptual tasks. Gorgias’ focuses on speech and verbal persuasion based on the ability of speech to arouse emotions and thereby deceive the listener. Thus, exculpatory themes in this case make up only the general framework, into which the main theme, i.e. the description of the power of persuasive speech, is incorporated. In Euripides’ Hippolytus, on the contrary, it is precisely the theme of exculpation that determines the entire conceptual idea, whereas the motifs of speech and vision are subordinated to it, adding additional dramatic expressiveness and providing a specifi c philosophical dimension.

Greece, Athens, tragedy, sophistics, speech, vision, exoneration, Euri pides, Gorgias

Barnes J. The Presocratic Philosophers. London; Boston: Routledge and Paul, 1979. 2 v.
Barrett W. C. (ed.) Euripides Hippolytus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964. xvi, 453 p.
Buchheim T. (ed.) Gorgias von Leontinoi. Reden, Fragmente und Testimonien. Hamburg: F. Meiner, 1989. lxii, 225 p.
Cairns D. Veiling, Aidôs, and a Red-fi gure Amphora by Phintias // JHS 116. 1996. Р. 152–157.
Cairns D. L. Looks of Love and Loathing: Cultural Models of Vision and Emotion in Ancient Greek Culture // Metis 9. 2011. С. 37–50.
Coleridge E. P. (transl.) Euripides Hippolytus // The Plays of Euripides. Vol. 1. London, 1891. Р. 73–114.
Croally N. T. Euripidean Polemic: The Trojan Women and the Function of Tragedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. xii, 315.
Diels H., Kranz W. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 6th ed., Dublin, Zurich: Weidmann, 1951–52.
Gregory J. Euripides and the Instruction of the Athenians. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991. 208 p.
Guthrie W. K. C. A History of Greek Philosophy. Volume III (The Fifth-Century Enlightenment). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. xvi, 544 p.
Innes D. Gorgias, Helen 13 // Studia Graeca Uppsaliensia 21. 2006. Р. 129–139.
Knox B. M. W. Word and Action. Baltimore, London: John Hopkins University Press, 1979. ix, 378 p.
Kovacs D. (ed. and transl.) Euripides. Vol. 2. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass., 1995. 519 p.
Lloyd M. The Agon in Euripides. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. vii, 145 p.
Nikol’skii B. M., Opravdatel’naia ritoricheskaia topika v «Ippolite» Evripida, in: Vestnik drevnei istorii, 2010, 1, 150–169.
Pohlenz M. Die Anfänge der griechischen Poetik // Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 2. 1920. Р. 142–178.
Preuss E. De Euripidis Helena. Weidae Thuringorum: Thomas und Hubert, 1911. 56 p.
Rankin H. D. Sophists, Socratics and Cynics. London: Croom Helm; Totowa, N. J.: Barnes & Noble, 1983. 263 p.
Scodel R. The Trojan Trilogy of Euripides. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1980. 152 p.
Segal C. P. Gorgias and the Psychology of the Logos // HSCP 66. 1962. Р. 99–155.
Segal C. P. Signs, Magic and Letters in Euripides’ Hippolytus // Innovations of Antiquity / Еd. by R. Hexter and D. Selden. London; New York: Routledge, 1992. Р. 420–456.
Segal C. P. Euripides and the Poetics of Sorrow. Art, Gender, and Commemoration in Alcestis, Hippolytus, and Hecuba. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1993. xiii, 313 p.
Spatharas D. G. Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen and Euripides’ Troades // Eranos 100. 2002. Р. 166–174.
Versényi L. Socratic Humanism. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1963. xiii, 187 p.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff U. von., (ed.) Euripides Hippolytos. Berlin: Weidmann, 1891. 244 p.

Nikol’skii Boris

This paper deals with three texts written in the genre of “consolation”, or consolatio, by the medieval Christian Arab authors Elias al-Jawhari, Severus ibn al-Muqaff a, and Elias bar Shinaya of Nisibis. The goal of this study is to reveal their connection to works of the Arab tradition, including the treatise by the Muslim Arab philosopher al-Kindi. This treatise serves as a link connecting the works of al-Jawhari, ibn al- Muqaff a and bar Shinaya with the Ancient Greek consolatio. The analysis off ered in the paper leads to the conclusion that Christian Arab writers adopted the literary form of the epistolary treatise, but modifi ed its content. All of the three authors theologise the content of consolatio, but choose diff erent strategies. Elias bar Shinaya brings the problem to a generalised ethical level considering it in the context of virtues and vices and organising the material mainly as a collection of sayings and short stories. Elias al-Jawhari and Severus ibn al-Muqaff a try to combine the argumentation typical for ancient consolations with arguments based on texts known to the Christian reader, fi rst and foremost Biblical. Furthermore, Elias al-Jawhari mostly employs themes from the Old Testament that could also be relevant for Muslim readers, whereas Severus ibn al-Muqaff a actively synthesises Classical and Christian material. The latter allows us to suggest the development of a theoretic treatise in the genre of consolatio, containing Christian content for the fi rst time. This paper also puts forward the idea that this phenomenon may be related to the powerful impetus gained by Arab writers during the so-called Abbasid Renaissance.

consolatio, philosophy, grief, sorrow, affl iction, Classical Antiquity, Arabic Christian literature, Elias al-Jawhari, Elias bar Shinaya of Nisibis, Severus ibn al-Muqaff a, Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi

Adamson P. Arabic Ethics and the Limits of Philosophical Consolation // Greek and Roman Consolations: Eight Studies of a Tradition and its Afterlife / H. Baltussen, ed. Swansea, 2013. P. 177–196.
Badawi A. La transmission de la philosophie grécque au monde arabe. Paris, 1968. (Études de philosophie médievale; 56).
Badawi A. Traités philosophiques par al-Kindī, al-Fārābī, ibn Bajjah, ibn ʽAdyy. Beirut, 1983.
Borodai T. Iu., Uteshenie fi losofi ei, in: Novaia f losofskaia entsiklopediia (New Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Moscow, 2010, t. 4, 151.
Cassarino M. Traduzioni e traduttori arabi dell’VIII all’XI secolo. Roma, 1998.
Druart T.-A. Al-Kindī’s Ethics // Review of Metaphysics. 1993. Vol. 47. P. 329–357.
Elia di Nisibi. Il libro per scacciare la preoccupazione (Kitāb daf‘ al-hamm) / P. La Spisa, D. Righi, introd.; S. Kh. Samir, ed.; A. Pagnini, trad. Torino, 2007. 2 t. (Patrimonio Culturale Arabo Cristiano; 9–10).
Favez C. La Consolation latine chrétienne. Paris, 1937.
Gentry F. G. Consolation Literature // Brill’s Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World New Pauly / F. G. Gentry, еd. Leiden; Boston, 2006. Vol. 1. P. 1011–1015.
Gregg R. Consolation Philosophy: Greek and Christian Paideia in Basil and the Two Gregories. Cambridge (MA), 1975. (Patristic Monograph Series; 3).
Griffith S. H. The Muslim Philosopher al-Kindi and his Christian Readers: Three Arab Christian Texts on «The Dissipation of Sorrows» // Bulletin of the John Rylands Library. 1996. Vol. 78(3). P. 111–127.
Gutas D. Greek Thought, Arabic Culture, the Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early ‘Abbasid Society (2nd–4th / 8th–10th Centuries). London; New York, 1998.
Holloway P. A. Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy. Cambridge, 2004. (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series; 112).
Ignatenko A. A., V poiskakh schast’ia: Obshchestvenno-politicheskie vozzreniia araboislamskikh filosofov srednevekov’ia, Moscow, 1989.
Jayyusi-Lehn G. The Epistle of Ya‘qub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi on the Device for Dispelling Sorrows // British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. 2002. Vol. 29. P. 121–135.
Jean Chrysostome. Lettres à Olympias / A.-M. Malingrey, introd., trad. Paris, 1947. (Sources chrétiennes; 13).
Johann H.-T. Trauer und Trost: Eine quellen- und struckturanalytische Untersuchung der philosophischen Trostschriften über den Tod. München, 1968.
Kassel R. Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen Konsolationsliteratur. München, 1958. (Zetemata; 18).
Kerasidi N. Kh., Zhanr utesheniia v drevnegrecheskoi literature, in: Problemy istoricheskoi poetiki, 1990, no. 1, 128–136.
Kierdorf W. Laudatio Funebris: Interpretation und Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung der römischen Leichenrede. Meisenheim am Glan, 1980.
Landron B. Chrétiens et Musulmans en Irak: Attitudes Nestoriennes vis-à-vis de l’Islam. Paris, 1994.
Lattimore R. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs. Urbana, 1942.
Levi Della Vida G. Il Conforto delle Tristezze de Elia al-Gawharī (Vat. ar. 1492) // Mélanges Eugène Tisserant. Vatican, 1964. Vol. 2. P. 345–397.
Losev A. F., Istoriia antichnoi estetiki. Khar’kov–Moscow, 2000, t. 8, кn. 1.
Mestiri S., Dye G. Al-Kindi: Le moyen de chasser les tristesses et autres textes éthiques. Paris, 2004.
Moiseeva S. A., Iliia al’-Dzhaukhari (Elias al-Jawhari), in: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, 2009, no. 22, 301–302.
Nakhov I. M., Tragicheskii katarsis i zhanr utesheniia, in: Voprosy klassicheskoi fi lologii, Moscow, 1984, no. 8, 74–88.
Plutarch’s Moralia: In Fifteen Volumes. Cambridge; London, 1959. Vol. 7 / P. H. De Lacy, B. Einarson, transl.
Riet S., van. Joi et bonheur dans le traité d’al-Kindī sur l’art de combattre la tristesse // Revue Philosophique de Louvain. 1963. Vol. 61. N 69. P. 13–23.
Ritter H., Walzer R. Uno scritto morale inedito di al-Kindī (Temistio Peri alupias?) // Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei: Memorie dell Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche. Ser. 6. 1938. Vol. 16. P. 5–63.
Salama-Carr M. La traduction à l’époque abbaside: L’école de Hunayn ibn Ishāq et son importance pour la traduction. Paris, 1990.
Salazar C. F. Consolatio as Literary Genre // Brill’s Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World New Pauly / C. F. Salazar, еd. Leiden; Boston, 2003. Vol. 3. P. 704–706.
Samir Kh. S. Bibliographie du dialogue islamo-chrétien: Élie de Nisibe (Iliyyā al-Nāṣībī) (975–1046) // Islamochristiana. 1977. Vol. 3. P. 257–286.
Samir Kh. S. Ce que l’on sait de la «Medicina Moeroris et Curatio Doloris» de Sawīrus ibn al-Muqaff a (Xe siècle) // Le Muséon. 1976. Vol. 89. P. 339–352.
Samir Kh. S. Le «Daf‘ al-Hamm» d’Élie de Nisibe: Date et circonstances de sa rédaction // Orientalia Lovaniensa Periodica. 1987. Vol. 18. P. 99–119.
Samir Kh. S. The Role of Christians in the Abbasid Renaissance in Iraq and in Syria (750–1050) // Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph. 2005. Vol. 58. P. 541–572.
Severus ibn al-Muqaff aʽ. Affl iction’s Physic and the Cure of Sorrow / R. Y. Ebied, M. J. L. Young, ed., transl. Louvain, 1978. 2 vol. (Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium; 396–397. Ser. Arab.; 34–35).
Zvirevich V. T., O soderzhanii traktata Tsitserona “Uteshenie”, in: Izvestiia Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser. 3: Obshchestvennye nauki, 2010, n. 2 (77), 155–162.

Moiseeva Sof'ia

This publication consists of translations into Russian of early poems by the Faroese poet William Heinesen (1900‒1991). These are poems from the books The Arctic Elegies and Other Poems (1921), Harvest by the Sea (1923), Songs towards the Spring Deeps (1927), The Stars Awaken (1930). The range of basic motifs does not diff er greatly from one collection to another, but their interpretation changes with each new book. In the fi rst two collections of poems, Heinesen’s universum is desolate and only contains an extremely abstract poetic ego alongside natural phenomena. Gradually, his poetry acquires a social dimension. Heinesen consciously chose Danish as the language of his literary works. The form and content of his early poetry diff ered from those of his contemporaries who wrote in the Faroese language.

William Heinesen, lyrical poetry of the 1920s and 1930s, Faroese poetry, Danish poetry

Brostrøm T., 2000. Himmel og hav. William Heinesens lyrik, in: Úthavsdagar. Oceaniske dage. Tórshavn, 2000, 12‒34.
Ellefsen A., 1994. William Heinesen i undervisningsøjemed, in: Tårnet midt i verden — en bog om William Heinesen. Tórshavn, 153‒163.
Glyn Jones W., 1988. Towards Totality: The Poetry of William Heinesenin, in: World Literature Today. A Literary Quarterly of the University of Oklahoma. Vol. 62. № 1. 1988, 79‒82.
Jákupsson B., 1994. William Heinesen som billedkunstner, in: Tårnet midt i verden — en bog om William Heinesen, Tórshavn, 140‒152.
Isaksen J., Færøsk litteratur. Introduktion og punktnedslag. Vindrosen, 1993.
Markelova O. A., Stanovlenie literatury Farerskikh ostrovov i formirovanie farerskogo natsional’nogo samosoznaniia. Pushkino, 2006.
Markelova O. A., Stikhotvoreniia Kristiana Mátrasa, in: Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia III: Filologiia, 2016, № 3, 128‒139.
St. Tikhon’s University Review. Series III: Philology. 2017. Vol. 51. P. 83–95

Markelova Ol’ga

This paper presents new material for the dictionary of the present-day dialect of Staroshvedkoye (Gammalsvenskby), the only Scandinavian dialect on 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 data on Gammalsvenskby is fi eldwork with speakers of the dialect. The main objective of this work is to present material recorded in the interviews in the most complete way possible and to describe the state of the vocabulary and infl ection in the dialect. The entries include the following information: type of infl ection; translation; phrases, sentences and 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

Diachenko D., Russkie i ukrainskie zaimstvovaniia v dialekte sela Staro shvedskoe: imena sushchestvitel’nye, in: Tipologiia morfosintaksicheskikh para metrov. Moscow, 2016, 115−130.
Lagman H., Svensk-estnisk språkkontakt. Stockholm, 1971.
Mankov А., Dialekt sela Staroshvedskoe: materialy k opisaniiu prilagatel’nykh i mestoimenii, in: Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. III: Filologiia, 3, 2011, 37−54.
Mankov А., 2013. Suffi ksal’noe slovoobrazovanie sushchestvitel’nykh v dialekte sela Staroshvedskoe, in: Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. III: Filologiia, 1, 21−31.
Mankov А., Dialekt sela Staroshvedskoe: opyt sostavleniia slovaria ische zaiushchego iazyka (a — brist-bäin), in: Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. III: Filologiia, 2014, 3, 91−130.
Svenska Akademiens ordlista över svenska språket. 11 uppl. Stockholm, 1986.

Man'kov Aleksandr

This paper contains a poetic translation of the hymn A solis ortus cardine by Coelius Sedulius (5th century), with a brief introduction. The metre of the translation corresponds to that of the Latin original.

Latin hymnography, Coelius Sedulius, A solis ortus cardine, Ambrosius Mediolanensis

Bulst W., Hymni antiquissimi LXXV, psalmi III. Heidelberg, 1956.
Colker M. L., Trinity College Library Dublin: Descriptive Catalogue of the Medieval and Renaissance Latin Manuscripts. Dublin, 1991.
Fuller O., 1948. Ambrogio, santo L’ innografo, in: Enciclopedia Cattolica. T. 1.
Norberg D. Au seuil du Moyen Age. Études linguistiques, métriques et littéraires. Padova, 1974.
Petrovskii F. A., Sedulii, in: Pamiatniki srednevekovoi latinskoi literatury IV–IX vekov. Moscow, 1970.
Simonetti М., 1953–1955. Osservazioni critiche sul testo di alcuni Inni ambrosiani, in: Nuovo Didaskaleion. № 6, 44–58.
Simonetti М., 1952. Studi sull innologia popolare cristiana dei primi secoli. Atti dell Accademia dei Lincei. Ser. 8. Memorie. Classe di scienza morali, storiche e fi lologiche. Vol. 4. № 6. Roma, 341–480.
Springer C. P. E., Sedulius, The Paschal Song and Hymns. Atlanta, 2013.
Strievskaia M. K., Pis’ma Tseliia Seduliia, in: Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia III: Filologiia, 2015, № 4.

Strievskaia Mariia

The article contains another part of materiel on «M» letter. The content features of the dictionary’s publishing, the list of sources, the list of abbreviations and symbols are described in detail in the previous editions of the «PSTGU Review». Besids, all previous editions and the lists of abbreviations with the list of sources separately can be found on web-site of PSTGU Philological faculty. URL: http://pstgu.ru/faculties/philological/science/slov_Nevostr/

Church Slavonic Dictionary, Nevostruev

Atanasii (Bonchev). Rechnik na ts”rkovnoslavianslii ezik. T. 1. Sofi a, 2002.
Dvoretskii I., Drevnegrechesko-russkii slovar’. Т. 1, Moscow. 1958.
Kaluzhnina N., O podgotovke k izdaniiu slovaria cerkovnoslavjanskogo iazyka prot. A. I. Nevostrueva, in: Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. III: Filologiia, 2007, 3 (9), 173–179.
Pahlfs A., (ed.), Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graecae iuxta LXX interpretes. Duo volumina in uno. Stuttgart, 1979.
Pahlfs A., (ed.), Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graecae iuxta LXX interpretes. Editio altera quam recognovit et emendavit R. Hanhart. Duo volumina in uno. Stuttgart, 2006.

Davydenkova Mariia