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

This article makes an attempt to trace signs of Romanticism in early poetry by Nikolai Gumilev and identify those ballad features that were specifi c to his poems already according to his contemporaries’ opinion. The main source of Romantic motifs for Gumilev came to be ballads by Vasily Zhukovsky. He was very familiar with them not only because of the syllabi of educational institutions, but also from anthologies of Russian and European literature that were in his reading circle in early years. The article identifi es the texts and themes of the poet of the 19th century that were most important to Gumilev and analyses their employment both in the fi rst collections of the leader of the Acmeists (The Way of Conquistadors and Romantic Flowers) and in his more mature books. The article examines the levels of borrowing of the plots, themes and single formulae as well as the transformation of these techniques in the course of time. Besides, the article traces the evolution of Gumilev’s attitude to the motifs in question and analyses their role in the context of his literary work and the contemporary literary process, namely the interaction of these plots with prominent topics of Symbolist poetry of this period, as well as his polemic with Zhukovsky (the poet important to the modernists) and with the established literary tradition.

N. Gumilev, V. Zhukovsky, Romanticism, ballad, reminiscences, Russian literature, symbolism

1. Anisimova E. (2014) “«Mistitsizm» i «Chernyi sinodik» russkoi literatury: V. A. Zhukovskii v kritike I. F. Annenskogo” [“Mysticism” and “Black List” of Russian Literature: V. Zhukovsky in I. Annensky’s Criticism]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universtiteta. Filologiia, № 5 (31), pp. 66–85 (in Russian).
2. Basker M. (2000) “Rannii Gumilev: put’ k akmeizmu” [Early Gumilev. Road to Acmeism]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
3. Gasparov M. (1995) “Antinomichnost’ poetiki russkogo modernizma” [Controversial Character of Poetics of Russian Modernism], in M. Gasparov. Izbrannye stat’i [Selected Articles]. Moscow, pp. 286–304 (in Russian).
4. Khrestomatiinye teksty: russkaia pedagogicheskaia praktika XIX v. i poeticheskii kanon [Anthological Texts: Russian Educational Practice of the 19th Century and the Poetic Canon]. Tartu, 2013 (in Russian).
5. Luknitskii P. (2010) Trudy i dni N. S. Gumileva [Works and Days of N. Gumilev]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
6. Maksimov D. (1969) Briusov. Poeziia i pozitsiia [Briusov. Poetry and Standpoint]. Leningrad (in Russian).
7. Nemzer A. (1987) “«Sii chudesnye viden’ia...»: Vremia i ballady V. A. Zhukovskogo” [“These Wondrous Visions...”: Time and Ballads by V. Zhukovsky], in A. Zorin et al. (eds.) “Svoi podvig svershiv...” [“Having Accomplished his Feat...”]. Moscow, pp. 155–264 (in Russian).
8. Nemzer A. (2013) Pri svete Zhukovskogo: Ocherki istorii russkoi literatury [In the Lustre of Zhukovsky: Essays in the History of Russian Literature]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Timenchik R. (2017). “Annenskii i Gumilev”, in R. Timenchik. Podzemnye klassiki [The Underground Classics]: Innokentii Annenskii. Nikolai Gumilev. Moscow, pp. 258–279 (in Russian).
10. Toporov V. (2003) “Tiaga k bezdne (k retseptsii poezii Zhukovskogo v nachale XX veka. Blok — Zhukovskii: problema reministsentsii)” [Attraction for the Abyss (On the Reception of Zhukovsky’s Poetry in the Early 20th Century. Blok vs. Zhukovsky: Problem of Reminiscence], in V. Toporov. Peterburgskii tekst russkoi literatury [Petersburg Text in Russian Literature]. St. Petersburg, pp. 583–610 (in Russian).
11. Trutneva E. (2011) “Ot volshebnogo k ironicheskomu. Opyt nabliudenii nad avtoredaktirovaniem «Neoromanticheskoi skazki» N. S. Gumileva” [From the Mysterious to the Ironical. Attempt of Observations on Self-Editing of N. Gumilev’s “Neoromantic Fairy Tale”]. Novyi filologicheskii vestnik, № 2, pp. 19–34 (in Russian).

Timofeeva Elizaveta

In the early 19th century, in the Russian literature appear texts with the genre indications “legend” (Russ. легенда) and “folktale” (предание) included in the title. The full-fl edged character of the canon of the genres by the end of the 19th century allows one to suppose that these indications signal the emergence of the genre. This article compares literary texts labeled by V. Odoevsky, N. Polevoi, N. Kukol’nik as legends and folktales. The aim of the study is to fi nd if there are decisive diff erences in genre strategies chosen by the authors in making legends and folktales. Attention is paid to the modality of the narrative, narrative instances chronotope, storyline. In Odoevsky’s creative works, legends play a role of intext, whereas folktales are completed texts. This opposes the two genres with regard to their modality, i.e. legends represent a more or less plausible narrative, the folktale is truthful. The choice of the narrator personifi ed in the legend and omniscient in the folktale, enforces the eff ect. The chronotope of the legend is historical and close to the reader, in that the legend represents a mythopoetic interpretation of historical events. The chronotope of the folktale is exotic and conditional, and the text itself is designed as a myth. Polevoi builds legends and folktales around historical events, but his aims vary. In the legends, he constructs certain episodes from Russian and Byzantine history, the information on which originates from written sources and is supplemented by the author’s fi ction. Polevoi tries to comprehend history and pin down its logic. The legends lack dramatism because their content and fi nals are known. The aim of the folktale is to amuse the reader telling him a story of adventures based on oral narratives. This is underlined by a personal attitude to the space and time of the narrative as well as by the look into the past from the present. Legends and folktale by Kukol’nik also belong to historical prose. Legends draw on real sources and bring some forgotten or lost text to the reader. The foktale off ers the reader an alternative version of the history not coinciding with offi cial records. Unlike the legend, which despite the element of mysticism is presented as the truth, the folktale does not pretend to be veracious because the author does not provide any testimony and does not use any sources. Odoevsky, Polevoi, and Kukol’nik interpret the notions of the legend and folktale diff erently. However, it is obvious that in literary works of each of them, the texts called legends and folktales show the employment of different genre strategies.

genre, literary legend, tradition, V. Odoevskii, N. Polevoi, N. Kukol’nik, genre indication, genre strategy

1. Averintsev S., Andreev M., Gasparov M., Grintser P., Mikhailov A. “Kategorii poetiki v smene literaturnykh epokh” [Categories of Poetics in the Change of Periods in Literature] in P. Grintser (ed.) Istoricheskaia poetika. Literaturnye epokhi i tipy khudozhestvennogo soznaniia [Historical Poetics. Periods in Literature and Types of Literary Consciousness]. Moscow, pp. 3‒38 (in Russian).
2. Bugaeva I. (2007) “«Torkvato Tasso» N. V. Kukol’nika: tvorcheskaia istoriia, sootnoshenie fakta i vymysla” [“Torquato Tasso” by N. Kukol’nik: Literary History, Correlation of Fact and Fiction]. Vestnik Tambovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, vol. 7 (51), pp. 135‒139 (in Russian).
3. Chernyi I. (2013) “Mestnyi kolorit v rasskaze N.V. Kukol’nika «Avrora Galigai»” [Local Paraphernalia in N. Kukol’nik’s Short Story “Avrora Galigai”]. Naukovі zapiski Kharkіvs’kogo natsіonal’nogo pedagogіchnogo unіversitetu. Lіteraturoznavstvo, vol. 4 (1), pp. 198‒201 (in Russian).
4. Chistov K. (1967) “Legenda” [Legend], in Kratkaia literaturnaia entsiklopediia [Concise Encyclopaedia of Literature]. Moscow, vol. 4, pp. 90‒91 (in Russian).
5. Iezuitova R. (1976) “Literatura vtoroi poloviny 1820‒1830 godov i fol’klor” [Literature of the Latter Half of the 1829s — 1830s and Folklore], in Russkaia literatura i fol’klor (pervaia polovina XIX v.) [Russian Literature and Folklore (First Half of the 19th Century)]. Leningrad, pp. 85‒142 (in Russian).
6. Kiselev V. (2008) “Teleologiia «Sochinenii kniazia V. F. Odoevskogo» (1844): printsipy sostavleniia, kompozitsiia, zhanrovoe tseloe” [Teleology of “Prince V. Odoevsky’s Works” (1844): Principles of Compiling, Composition, Integrity of Genre]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiia, vol. 2, pp. 45‒62 (in Russian).
7. Klimen’teva M. (2014) “«V russkom vkuse povest’ drevniaia»: mifolegendarnye siuzhety v russkoi literature pervoi treti XIX veka” [“Ancient Tale in Russian Taste”: Mytholegendary Storylines in Russian Literature of the First Third of the 19th Century]. Siuzhetologiia i siuzhetografiia, vol. 2, pp. 44‒51 (in Russian).
8. Krylova I., Tuliakova N. (2017) “Slovo «legenda» v rechevom upotreblenii i v slovarnom otrazhenii: zaimstvovanie, funktsionirovanie, ideologiia” [The Word “Legend” in Speech Usage and in Dictionary Refl ection: Borrowing, Function, Ideology]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiia, vol. 45, pp. 100‒115 (in Russian).
9. Kviatkovskii A. (1966) Poeticheskii slovar’ [Poetic Dictionary]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Levinton G. (1997) “Legendy i mify” [Legends and Myths], in Mify narodov mira [Myths of Peoples of the World]. Moscow, vol. 2, pp. 45‒47 (in Russian).
11. Lotman Iu. (2005) “Tekst v tekste” [Text within the Text], in Iu. Lotman. Ob iskusstve [On the Art]. St. Petersburg, pp. 423‒436 (in Russian).
12. Petrunina N. (1981) “Proza vtoroi poloviny 1820 –1830 gg.” [Prose of the Latter Half of the 1820s — 1830s], in Istoriia russkoi literatury [History of Russian Literature]. Leningrad, vol. 2, pp. 501‒529.
13. Poliakova K. (2011) “Zhanr dramaticheskoi fantazii v russkoi literature XIX veka” [Genre of Dramatic Fantasy in Russian Literature of the 19th Century]. Uchenye zapiski Orlovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Gumanitarnye i sotsial’nye nauki, № 1, pp. 197‒205 (in Russian).
14. Shtern M. (1979) “Apologi V. F. Odoevskogo i sud’ba didaktiko-allegoricheskikh zhanrov v russkoi literature pervykh desiatiletii XIX veka” [V. Odoevsky’s Apologists and Fate of Didactic-Allegorical Genres in Russian Literature of the First Decades of the 19th Century], in Problemy metoda i zhanra [Problems of Method and Genre]. Tomsk, pp. 108‒122 (in Russian).
15. Zelianskaia N. (2008) “Proizvedeniia F. M. Dostoevskogo 40‒50kh gg. XIX veka v aspekte problemy avtorskoi nominatsii zhanra” [Dostoevsky’s Works of the 1840‒50s in the Aspect of the Author’s Genre Label]. Vestnik Orenburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, vol. 11 (93), pp. 16‒21 (in Russian).
16. Zueva T. (2001) “Legenda” [Legend], in Literaturnaia entsiklopediia terminov i poniatii [Literary Encyclopaedia of Terms and Notions]. Moscow (in Russian).
17. Zyrianov O. (2009) “Zhanrovye refl eksivy v svete istoricheskoi poetiki” [Genre Indications in the Light of Historical Poetics], in Dergachevskie chteniia, vol. 1. Ekaterinburg, pp. 80‒91 (in Russian).
18. Zyrianov O. (2011) “Logika zhanrovykh nominatsii v poezii novogo vremeni” [Logic of Genre Indication in Poetry of the New Time]. Novyi filologicheskii vestnik, vol. 1 (16), pp. 76‒86 (in Russian).

Tuliakova Natalia

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The article was prepared within the framework of the Academic Fund Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) in 2017- 2018 (grant № 17-01-0012) and by the Russian Academic Excellence Project “5-100”.

This article deals with the encoding of “right” and “left” in the offi cial language of Greece until 1976, which never functioned as a spoken native variety. Katharevousa provides signifi cant data on intentionally archaising, artifi cial language variety of the 19th — 20th centuries. The study demonstrates the instability of this register in the domain of peripheral spatial relations. Since Katharevousa is an archaising language, one can suppose that it would copy the ancient means of marking “right” and “left”. On the other hand, the language was artifi cial but based on the variety spoken by educated Greek people; therefore, strategies of the spoken language of that time can also be expected. The manifestation of these spatial relations is usually not codifi ed in grammar books, which is the reason why in this domain one can fi nd an opportunity to analyse intuitive choices of speakers. This study explores the issue in question drawing on corpus evidence; the research is carried out on the basis of the Corpus of Modern Greek and the translations of two Classical Greek texts (Anabasis by Xenophon and the History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides) into Katharevousa. The results demonstrate that even translators of ancient texts did not simply copy the Ancient Greek means of marking left and right and preferred an innovative strategy, i.e. the use of adverbs (δεξιά vs. αριστερά ‘on the right / left’) and dynamic means of marking static location. It is obvious not only from the translations, but also from the quantitative distribution of the markers. Moreover, the choice of the spatial marker can depend on extralinguistic factors, such as the genre of the text. Katharevousa abounds in strategies not attested or extremely rare in Ancient and Modern Greek (e. g. the archaic affi x -θεν in the adverb δεξιόθεν ‘from the right’). To summarise, the archaisation in spatial strategies is rather selective and depends on preferences of a particular writer as well as on extralinguistic factors; it is mostly infl uenced by the Old and New Testament texts, rather than by the Classical Antiquity.

Greek language, Katharevousa, spatial relations, right, left, dynamic projections, diglossy, archaisation, diachrony, history of Greek language

1. Adrados F. (2005) A history of the Greek language: from its origins to the present. Leiden.
2. Bortone P. (2010) Greek Prepositions: From Antiquity to the Present. Oxford.
3. Browning R. (1983). Medieval and Modern Greek. Cambridge.
4. Eloeva F. (2014) “Kafarevusa v sovremennoi novogrecheskoi literature — lingvisticheskii eksperiment ili otrazhenie diakhronii?” [Katharevousa in Modern Greek Fiction — Linguistic Experiment or Refl ection of Diachrony?], in Materialy vosemnadtsatykh chtenii pamiati I. M. Tronskogo «Indoevropeiskoe iazykoznanie i klassicheskaia fi lologiia, XVIII» [Indo-European Linguistics and Classical Philology. Proceedings of the 18th Conference in Memory of Professor I. Tronsky]. St. Petersburg, pp. 246‒267 (in Russian).
5. Fedchenko V. (2016) “Svidetel’stva o grecheskom iazyke Konstantinopolia” [Evidence About the Greek Language of Constantinople]. Acta linguistica Petropolitana, vol. 12, № 1, pp. 215‒244 (in Russian).
6. Ferguson Ch. (1959) “Diglossia”. Word, vol. 15, pp. 325–340.
7. Horrocks G. (2010) Greek: a History of the Language and its Speakers. Chichester; Malden.
8. Kalospyros N. (2007) “Alexandros Papadiamantis and the Language Question”, in O ellinikos kosmos anamesa stin epokhi tou diaphotismou kai ston ikosto aiona: praktika tou G’ Evropaïkou Sinedriou Neoellinikon Spoudon, Voukouresti 2‒4 Iouniou 2006 [Greek World between the Age of Enlightenment and the Twentieth Century. Proceedings of the 3rd European Congress of Modern Greek Studies]. Athens, vol. 2, pp. 277‒286.
9. Kamperidis L. (1991) “Oi glosses tou Papadiamanti” [The Languages of Papadiamantis], in Praktika A΄ diethnous Sinedriou Alexantrou Papadiamanti [Proceedings of International Conference for Papadiamanti]. Skiathos, pp. 538‒539 (in Greek).
10. Kisilier M., Fedchenko V. (2011) “O iazyke novogrecheskoi literatury” [Some Remarks on the Language of Modern Greek Literature]. Acta linguistica Petropolitana, vol. 7, № 1, pp. 409‒444 (in Russian).
11. Lejeune M. (1939) Les adverbes grecs en -θεν. Bordeaux.
12. Mackridge P. (2004) “Diglossia and the Separation of Discourses in Greek Culture”, in Teoreticheskie problemy iazykoznaniia: k 140-letiiu kafedry obshchego iazykoznaniia Filologicheskogo fakul’teta SPbGU [Theoretical Problems of Linguistics. Collection of Papers Dedicated to the 140th Anniversary of the Department of General Linguistics of St Petersburg State University]. St. Petersburg, pp. 112‒130.
13. Mackridge P. (2009) Language and National Identity in Greece, 1766‒1976. Oxford.
14. Mackridge P. (2012) “Multilingualism and Standardization in Greece”, in Standard Languages and Multilingualism in European History. Amsterdam, рp. 153‒177.
15. Nikitina T. (2017) “Ablative and Allative Marking of Static Locations: A Historical Perspective”, in S. Luraghi, T. Nikitina, C. Zanchi (eds.) Space in Diachrony. Amsterdam, pp. 67–94.
16. Skopeteas S. (2008) “Encoding Spatial Relations: Language Typology and Diachronic Change in Greek”, in Language Typology and Universals, № 61, pp. 54–66.
17. Talmy L. (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, I‒II. Cambridge.

Yakovleva Anastasia

This article gives an outline of translations into European languages of the Hebrew idiom tohu wa-bohu. It is employed in the narrative of creation in the Book of Genesis (Gen. 1: 2a) and describes the initial condition of the newly created earth. According to modern linguistic studies, the original meaning of this expression was confined to the indication of the fact that initially the earth was a desolate, desert area. But the earliest extant Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures, beginning with the so-called Septuagint and followed by the revisions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, demonstrate the tendency to attribute a more abstract and even philosophical sense to this expression. Consequently, the majority of early commentators of the Bible (both Hellenistic Jewish and Christian scholars) saw in Gen 1: 2a either an idea of the basic matter in its primordial chaotic state, or, alternatively, a notion of a procreated noetic model of the visible earth. These commentators relied not on the Hebrew sources, as was the case with the Aramic targumists and the Juwish midrashists, but on the Septuagint version, where tohu wa-bohu is rendered as “unsightly and unfurnished” (English translation by L. Brenton). At the same time, another tradition of the commentary was forming on the Christian basis. It sought to avoid far-fetched philosophical speculations on the topic of the “unsightly and unfurnished” initial state of the earth at the beginning of creation. However, even in this case the commentators followed the Greek text of the Septuagint and confi ned themselves to attempts to provide a naturalistic explanation of the two qualities ascribed to the newly created earth. It was only St. Jerome of Stridonium, who in the late 4th — early 5th centuries was the first to offer the translation inanis et vacua (‘void and empty’), which much better conveyed the intended meaning of the Hebrew expression. Those who translated the Old Testament into new European languages followed a similar strategy. Luther translates tohu wa-bohu as wüst und leer, Tyndale as voyde and emptie. The same principle is seen in modern scientifi c translations of the Jewish Bible, where a combination of two adjectives expresses the meaning of the void and the empty in a variety of ways. But is it totally correct to employ a combination of two independent terms, though adjacent in the meaning, in order to translate the expression tohu wa-bohu? This question may be answered through a semantic analysis of the lexemes contained in this expression (where the meaning of the second component is unclear, which complicates the situation), as well as through the evaluation of its linguistic nature. It belongs to the category of double word combinations where the general meaning is not deduced from the independent meaning of its lexical constituents.

Bible, Old Testament, Genesis, Septuagint, Vulgate, biblical translations, biblical exegesis

1. Alexandre M. (1976) “L’exégèse de Gen. 1, 1-2a dans l’In Hexaemeron de Grégoire de Nysse: deux approches du problème de la matière”, in H. Dörrie, M. Altenburger, U. Schramm (Hrsgg.) Gregor von Nyssa und die Philosophie. Zweites internationales Kolloquium über Gregor von Nyssa Freckenhorst bei Münster 18‒23 Sept. 1972. Leiden, pp. 159–186.
2. Barc B. (1995) “Du temple à la synagogue. Essai d’interprétation des premiers targumismes de la Septante”, in G. Dorival, O. Munnich (eds.) Selon les Septante. Trente études sur la Bible grecque. En hommage à Marguerite Harl. Paris, pp. 11–26.
3. Harl M. (1994) La Bible d’Alexandrie I: La Genèse. Paris.
4. Hendel R. (1998) The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. New York.
5. Jacobson H. (2008) “Origen’s version of Genesis 1:2”. The Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 59, pp. 181–182.
6. May G. (2004) Creatio ex nihilo: the Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Christian Thought. London; New York.
7. Nautin P. (1973) “Ciel, pneuma et lumière chez Théophile d’Antioche (notes critiques sur Ad Autol. 2, 13)”. Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 27, pp. 165–171.
8. Runia D. (ed.) (2001) Philo of Alexandria. On the creation of the cosmos according to Moses. Leiden; Boston.
9. Potebnia A. (1968) Iz zapisok po russkoi grammatike [From the Notes on the Russian Grammar]. Vol. 3. Ob izmenenii znacheniia i zamenakh sushchestvitel’nogo [On Mutation of Signifi cance and Substitutions of Nouns]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Tsumura D. (1989) The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation. Sheffields.
11. Westermann C. (1968) Genesis. Bd. 1‒3. Teilbd. 1. Genesis 1‒1. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
12. Winden J. (1981) “«Terra autem stupida quadam erat admiratione»: Reflections on a Remarkable Translation of Genesis 1:2a”, in R. van den Broek, M. J. Vermaseren (eds.) Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions Presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Leiden, pp. 458–466.

Nesterova Olga

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

This is the first Russian translation of several theatre-related excerpts from John Northbrooke’s treatise against idle pastimes originally published in 1577. Little known as it is, Northbrooke’s treatise is important as the opening piece in the theatrical controversy that raged intermittently in England from the late 16th to mid-17th centuries. The publication also includes a historical and biographical introduction and commentary, which covers the glosses provided by Northbrooke.

John Northbrooke, theatrical controversy, translation, English literature, early modern English theatre

1. Anikst A. (2006) Teatr epokhi Shekspira [Theatre of Shakespeare’s Time]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Bouwsma W. (1989) John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait. Oxford.
3. Dzhivelegov A. (1943) Teatr i aktery. Istoriia angliiskoi literatury [Theatre and Actors. History of English Literature], vol 1/1. Moscow; Leningrad (in Russian).
4. Herman P. (1992) “The Shepheardes Calender and Renaissance Antipoetic Sentiment”. Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900, № 1 (32), pp. 15–33.
5. McPherson D. (1983) “The Attack on Stage in Shakespeare’s Time: An International Aff air”. Comparative Literature Studies, № 2 (20), pp. 168–182.
6. Pilkinton M. (1997) Bristol — Records of Early English Drama. Toronto.
7. Pollard T. (2008) Shakespeare’s Theater: A Sourcebook.
8. Ringler W. (1942) “The First Phase of the Elizabethan Attack on the Stage, 1558–1579”. Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. 4 (5), pp. 391‒418.
9. Skeeters M. (2004) “Northbrooke, John (fl . 1567–1589)”, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/20323
10. Starnes D. (1927) “Notes on Elyot’s The Governour (1531)”. The Review of English Studies, vol. 9 (3), pp. 37–46.
11. Volodarskaia L. (1982) “Pervyi angliiskii tsikl sonetov i ego avtor” [The First English Cycle of Sonnets and its Author], in Filip Sidni. Astrofil i Stella. Zashchita poezii [Philip Sydney. Astrophel and Stella. An Apology for Poetry]. Moscow, pp. 257‒291 (in Russian).

Kolesnik Viktoria

Makarov Vladimir

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

This publication presents Russian translations of poems by Þórarinn Eldjárn, one of the most prominent fi gures in the modern Icelandic poetry. Þórarinn is one of the very few modern Icelandic poets who regularly use fast poetic form, especially certain complicated forms of the older Icelandic poetical tradition. By the time when Þórarin’s fi rst book was published (1974), verse libre had become the dominating form in Icelandic poetry; therefore, the return to the fi xed forms (both Icelandic and continental) could be regarded as a manifestation of a radical aesthetical standpoint. As for the content of the poems, they sometimes address Icelandic cultural and literary legacy of the past, but this is not always supported by the traditional form.However, Þórarinn does not express romantic feelings for this legacy, but relates it to present-day realities and contemporary vocabulary, which can produce both comical and dramatical effect on the reader. In his poems for children, Þórarinn also makes active use of old forms.

modern Icelandic literature, modern poetry, Thorarinn Eldjarn, traditional poetry, fast poetical forms, translation

1. Árni Sigurjónsson ræðir við Þórarinn Eldjárn: “Ég reyni fyrst og fremst að vera húmoristi” (1991). Tímarit Máls og menningar, № 2/1991, bls. 34‒46.
2. Dagný Kristjánsdóttir (2013). Öldin öfgafulla. Reykjavík.
3. Íslensk bókmenntasaga, 5 (2006). Reykjavík.
4. Þórarinn Eldjárn (2008). Kvæðasafn. Reykjavík.

Markelova Olga

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

This paper presents new material for the dictionary of the present-day dialect of Staroshvedskoye (Gammalsvenskby), the only 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 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

1. Lagman H. (1971) Svensk-estnisk språkkontakt. Stockholm.
2. Mankov A. (2014) A Scandinavian Island in a Slavonic Linguistic Environment. The Dialect of Gammalsvenskby: Nouns. Slovene, vol. 3/1, pp. 120–170.
3. Mankov A. (2014) “Dialekt sela Staroshvedskoe: opyt sostavleniia slovaria ischezaiushchego iazyka (a — brist-bäin)” [“The Dialect of Gammalsvenskby: Compiling a Dictionary of an Endangered Language (a — brist-bäin)”]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia III: Filologiia, № 38, pp. 91‒130 (in Russian).

Mankov Alexander

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

This study was carried out in 2018 as part of the project "The Dialect of Gammalsvenskby: Study of the Vocabulary and Compiling the Dictionary". The project was funded by the Foundation for the Development of St. Tikhon's University.I am grateful to Tamara Torstendahl-Salytjeva, the director of the Russian-Swedish Centre, Russian State University for the Humanities, without whose support this research would have been impossible.

The Dictionary of Locutions from Liturgical Books by Protopriest A. Nevostruev, completed in the middle of the 19th century and never published, can be regarded both as a signifi cant achievement of Church Slavonic studies and as a valuable lexicographic source. The manuscript is kept in the Russian State Library. The decrepit state of the manuscript has determined the necessity of its urgent study and edition. The signifi cance of this project is primarily due to the fact that the text of the dictionary is being made accessible to linguists for the fi rst time. The orthography and grammar of the dictionary reflect the linguistic views of the time of its creation and can be of interest for those who study the history of Russian linguistics. This paper contains another part of dictionary entries beginning in letters M and N. The characteristic features of the publication of this Dictionary, the lists of sources, abbreviations and symbols were described in detail in the previous issues of St. Tikhon’s University Review. All previously published parts of the Dictionary together with the critical apparatus can be found at the website of the Faculty of Philology at St. Tikhon’s University for the Humanities: http://pstgu.ru/faculties/philological/science/slov_Nevostr/

Church Slavonic Dictionary, Nevostruev, lexicography, Church Slavonic language, liturgical books, parallel Greek versions, translations of Old Testament

1. Atanasii (Bonchev), archimandrite (2002). Rechnik na ts”rkovnoslavianskiia ezik [Dictionary of the Church Slavonic Language]. Vol. 1. Sofia (in Bulgarian).
2. Bogatova G. (ed.) (1983) Slovar’ russkogo iazyka XI–XVII vv. [Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th — 17th Centuries]. Vol. 10. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Dvoretskii I. (1958) Drevnegrechesko-russkii slovar’ [Ancient Greek-Russian Dictionary]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Rahlfs А. (ed.) (1979) Septuaginta. Stuttgart.
5. Rahlfs А., Hanhart R. (eds.) (2006) Septuaginta. Stuttgart.

Davydenkova Maria

Kaluzhnina Nadezhda

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Strievskaya Olga

Mazurina Natalia

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Strievskaya Maria