On the issue of the formation of the cyrillic alphabet: Some observations

V. Savić
{"title":"On the issue of the formation of the cyrillic alphabet: Some observations","authors":"V. Savić","doi":"10.2298/jfi2202175s","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While making an indisputably relevant contribution to scholarship and Slavic culture, the discussions about the primacy of one or the other Slavic alphabet, Glagolitic or Cyrillic, and the presentations of their results or the elaborations on the issue that have ensued over the following decades, were very often burdened with stereotypes, errors and other shortcomings. A particularly peculiar case is the construction of an ideological narrative about inventing the Cyrillic alphabet at the behest of the Bulgarian prince, later Emperor Symeon, and its promotion as the official state and church alphabet at the Council of Preslav (893), which Angel Nikolov demonstrated to be unproven and questionable as a historical event, due to which anything related to it could not be verified. The hypothesis that Constantine the Philosopher (Cyril) followed the common patterns of Byzantine literacy of the time (primarily the practice of the Studite Monastery) to create a Slavic alphabet with two complementary graphical variants, Proto-Glagolitic and Proto-Cyrillic, should be taken seriously into consideration. To meet the need to simplify the complex model, but also to adapt it to the sensitivity of the Western Church, it had to be reduced to the Glagolitic alphabet, although the Cyrillic alphabet was also passively retained. Regardless of the sequence of creating the alphabets and the date when the Cyrillic alphabet was finally created, there are at least two cases where the presence of the Greek alphabet must be assumed. In the analysis and transcription of the Slavic phonological system, Constantine used the Greek alphabet. The created provisional Greek apparatus was the prototype of ?both? Slavic alphabets, and especially of the Cyrillic alphabet. Also, the process of introducing others to the Slavic alphabet and spreading literacy must have been accompanied by deciphering already in the initial stages, where, again, the Greek alphabet was used. Thus, it can be assumed that the creation of the Slavic-Greek and Slavic-Latin abecedaria as interpretative-mnemonic compositions is related to Constantine (863-869).","PeriodicalId":30153,"journal":{"name":"Juznoslovenski Filolog","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Juznoslovenski Filolog","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/jfi2202175s","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While making an indisputably relevant contribution to scholarship and Slavic culture, the discussions about the primacy of one or the other Slavic alphabet, Glagolitic or Cyrillic, and the presentations of their results or the elaborations on the issue that have ensued over the following decades, were very often burdened with stereotypes, errors and other shortcomings. A particularly peculiar case is the construction of an ideological narrative about inventing the Cyrillic alphabet at the behest of the Bulgarian prince, later Emperor Symeon, and its promotion as the official state and church alphabet at the Council of Preslav (893), which Angel Nikolov demonstrated to be unproven and questionable as a historical event, due to which anything related to it could not be verified. The hypothesis that Constantine the Philosopher (Cyril) followed the common patterns of Byzantine literacy of the time (primarily the practice of the Studite Monastery) to create a Slavic alphabet with two complementary graphical variants, Proto-Glagolitic and Proto-Cyrillic, should be taken seriously into consideration. To meet the need to simplify the complex model, but also to adapt it to the sensitivity of the Western Church, it had to be reduced to the Glagolitic alphabet, although the Cyrillic alphabet was also passively retained. Regardless of the sequence of creating the alphabets and the date when the Cyrillic alphabet was finally created, there are at least two cases where the presence of the Greek alphabet must be assumed. In the analysis and transcription of the Slavic phonological system, Constantine used the Greek alphabet. The created provisional Greek apparatus was the prototype of ?both? Slavic alphabets, and especially of the Cyrillic alphabet. Also, the process of introducing others to the Slavic alphabet and spreading literacy must have been accompanied by deciphering already in the initial stages, where, again, the Greek alphabet was used. Thus, it can be assumed that the creation of the Slavic-Greek and Slavic-Latin abecedaria as interpretative-mnemonic compositions is related to Constantine (863-869).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于西里尔字母的形成问题:一些观察
尽管对学术和斯拉夫文化做出了无可争议的相关贡献,但在接下来的几十年里,关于格拉哥利字母或西里尔字母这一种或另一种斯拉夫字母的首要地位的讨论,以及对其结果的展示或对该问题的阐述,往往充满了刻板印象、错误和其他缺点。一个特别特殊的例子是,在保加利亚王子(后来的西蒙皇帝)的命令下,关于发明西里尔字母的意识形态叙事的构建,以及在普雷斯拉会议(893年)上,西里尔字母被提升为官方国家和教会的字母,安吉尔·尼科洛夫证明,这是一个未经证实和可疑的历史事件,因此与之相关的任何事情都无法得到证实。哲学家君士坦丁(西里尔)遵循当时拜占庭文化的共同模式(主要是Studite修道院的实践),创造了一种具有两种互补图形变体的斯拉夫字母,原始格拉哥利文和原始西里尔文,这一假设应该被认真考虑。为了满足简化复杂模型的需要,也为了适应西方教会的敏感性,它不得不被简化为格拉哥利字母,尽管西里尔字母也被被动地保留了下来。无论字母的创造顺序和西里尔字母最终创造的日期如何,至少有两种情况必须假设希腊字母的存在。在分析和抄写斯拉夫语音系统时,君士坦丁使用了希腊字母。所创造的临时希腊装置是两者的原型。斯拉夫字母,尤指西里尔字母此外,向其他人介绍斯拉夫字母和传播识字能力的过程中,一定已经伴随着最初阶段的破译,在那里,希腊字母再次被使用。因此,我们可以假设,作为解释-助记组合的斯拉夫-希腊和斯拉夫-拉丁基础乐章的创造与君士坦丁(863-869)有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Linguoculturological aspects of the lexeme cat in the Serbian language Destructive verbs with defective paradigms in the Russian language The specificity of dialectal word formation - some methodological and other remarks An example of the variant suffixes -ica and -ka in feminatives derived from masculine words ending in -or and -ator Lexical factors in the allocation of unique morphemes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1