The Knowledge Bank at The Ohio State University Feature Title: Лѣтопись Lietopis’ Article Title: 17 November 1979: London. Meeting of the Slavic and East European Medieval Study Group. Journal Title: Polata Knigopisnaia Issue Date: March 1980 Publisher: William R. Veder, Vakgroep Slavistiek, Katholieke Universiteit, Postbus 9103, 6500 HD Nijmegen (Holland) Citation: Polata Knigopisnaia: an Information Bulletin Devoted to the Study of Early Slavic Books, Texts and Literatures 3 (March 1980): 91-98. Appears in: Community: Hilandar Research Library Sub-Community: Polata Knigopisnaia Collection: Polata Knigopisnaia: Volume 3 (March 1980) 17 NOVEMBER1979, LONDON: MEETING OF THE SLAVIC AND EAST EUROPEAN MEDIEVAL STUDY GROUP RALPH CLEMINSON:The Russian bukvar' to 1700 Traditions of primary education in East Slavonic lands derive from Byzantium and continue the methods in use there and before that in Classical Greece. They can be traced from Novgorod birch bark inscrip­ tions through the primers under consideration to the last century. The printed primers continue a tradition of MS primers, of which few survive, although they were very widely used. These contained the alphabet and syllables the azbuka proper and sometimes other material as well. The surviving printed books contain a great deal of this other material, and it is according to this that they can be classified. They fall into three groups, the first following the text of Ivan Fedorov's azbuka of 1574, the second that of the Jevje primer of 1618 and the third consisting of a single book. The two main groups origina­ ted in West Russia and were later adopted in Muscovy as well. There is some degree of mutual influence. None of these primers is an original composition: there is evidence that Ivan Fedorov was using a text that already existed when he produced his primer, and certain elements in it already reflect the content of Western primers of the period. The Muscovite primers are strictly Church Slavonic, but the West Russian ones make extensive use of the vernacular, reflecting its different status in the two areas. Those from West Russia also reflect the continuing polemic between Orthodox and Catholic in this region. All of them seek to impart the official ideology along with the skills of reading and writing. The Russian bukvari of this period thus represent a distinct off­ shoot of the general Slavonic tradition, incorporating certain features from the West, and provide a good illustration of the flow of cultural influences over the centuries. Bibliography ATANASOV P.Unikalen pametnik na ruskata srednevekovna kultura "lzv. na Nar. bibl. Kiril -i Metodij" 12/1-S (1972): 61-80 BARNICOT J., SIMMONS J.S.G. Some unrecorded Early-printed Slavonic Books in English Libraries. "Oxford Slavonic Papers" 2, 1951: 98-118 91 GRASSHOFF H., SIMMONS J.S.G. Ivan Fedorovs Griechisch-russisch/kirchen­ sLavisches Lesebuch von 1578 und der Gothaer Bukvar von 1578/1580. "Abh. d. Oeutschen Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin (Kl. f. Sprache, Lit. u.Kunst) 2 (1969) JAGIC V. Codex Slovenicus Rerum 9rammaticarum. St.-Petersburg 1896 JAKOBSON R.Ivan Fedorov's Primer. "Harvard Library Bulletin" 9/1 1955: 5-45 LUK'JANENKO V. I.Azbuka Ivana Fedorova, ee istoaniki i vidovye osobenn­ osti. "Trudy otdela drevnerusskoj Ii teratury" 16(1960): 208-239 idem. Pereizdf!;"lija pervopeaatnoj azbuki Ivana Fedorova. in Knigopecat­ anie i kniznye sobranija v Rossii do serediny XIX veka. Leningrad 1979: 6-25 NADSON Fr A. Eueuski bukvar 1616 h. "Bozym sljacham" 21/1 (1973): 3-9 idem. Belaruskija bukvar 1618 h. "Bozym sljacham 21/4 (1973): 5-11 BOGDANOVV.P., KARPJUK G.V. Ot Azbuki Ivana Fedorova do sovremennogo bukvarja. Moskva 1974 DAVID GUILD: Slavonic Loanwords in Lithuanian (1200-1569) 1.0. It should be stated that the dates ar~ in a sense,arbitrary. After 1200 the Grand Duchy began to increase its territory at the expense of the E. Slavs. The Treaty of Lublin in 1569 formalised the union of Poland and Lithuania under one dynasty, inaugurated in 1386 by the accession of the first Jagellonian, Ladislas Jogaila. This event had been signalised by the acceptance of Western Christianity. 1. 1. There were thus two sources for Slavic loanwords. E. Slavic, latterly White Russian, and Polish, mainly from the 14th century onwards. Slavic-Lithuanian relations were characterised by a cultural gap, cer­ tainly in the early period, between the Christian E. Slavs who already possessed an extensive literature and the Lithuanians who were both pagan and "ana I phabet i c", to coin a French term. 1. 11. At the beginning of our period it is possible to establish a system of vocalic correspondences which appear to be valid for three and a half centuries. This system (outlined below) based on a quanti­ tative rather than a qualitative opposition, is not affected by the shift to a stress system in both E. and W. Slavic. In other words Lithuanian for the most part substituted its own phonemes for Slavic vowels and consonants. Thus aekas 'Czech' would seem to be a comparat­ ively early loan on account of the velar stop /k/ in place of the Slavic spirant /x/. The appearance of new phonemes may be regarded as a sign of late provenance of~ word. 1.2. Vowel Correspondences in Baltic and Slavic 92 The table below shows the Latvian correspondences where they differ from the Lithuanian, othen.,ise only one form is given. Slavic Baltic 0 a a L. o; La. a e e e L. ie; La. e [a!] T 0 L. y; La. i 0 .1 y UI The operation of this system can be seen in the fol lowing examples: 2 L. knyga 'book'< OR 'K?)Hu2a,La gro;mata< OR 2pat,1oma;L. baznycia 3 'church', La baznrca < OR 6ox1:,11u142;L kuilys 'boar' < OR 1<:W11J The preservation of the system of vocalic correspondences is maintained even in the smaller number of loans which went the other way, cf. WR 4 ooU!lia 'builder' < L dnilide = 'carpenter', and this may indeed reflect the prevalence of wooden over stone architecture in both regions. 1.3. The distribution of the loans is mainly social and cultural. One finds, for instance, hierarchical terms such as L karalius 'king' < OR 1wpo.111:, and 'taxes' is L muitas < from OR .M!llmo. One finds some everyday terms such as L stalas < OR cm0.111J,yet the Lithuanians must have had tables: in Latvian it is galds. Again there is L sodas< OR cao~ though there is a synonymous Baltic form daFzas (La diirzs). In some instances there may be doubt as to provenance. Is L miestas 'town' a Polish loan word or is it E. Slavic? The modern Polish form miasto points to a more open value for the phoneme e while the L diph­ thong -ie- points to a closed value for e. An E. Slavic source seems indicated, and indeed mesto in the meaning 'town' was once more wide- (1) See further Jules Levin, The Slavic Element in the Old Prussian Elbing Vocabulary Cambridge 1974: 39 (2) OR is used as a blanket term for E. Slavic loan words between the 13th and 16th centuries. WR is used exclusively for White Russian loans. ( 3) Ju 1 es Levi n , op. c i t . : 38 (4) The existence of this word was brought to my attention by the Rev. A. Nadson. 93 spread. Evidence for a closed value fore can be found in Ukr Micmo. The reason for borrowing a word such as miestas may be sought in the development of a new social unit differing from the older fortified settlement represented by the L word pilis now 'castle' Latvian on 5 the other hand derived pilseta < pils 'castle' The L opposition miestas: pilis recalls the Pol. opposition miasto: gr6d. 6 The provenance of L burmistras from WR6yp.,~icrrrp seems likely, but it could also be said that the WR form has come through Pol. bW'mistrz. The choice of this seqence is dictated by the fact that the word was originally of German origin, and it was in Poland rather than in White Russia that German influence on urban organisation had the most direct effect. In the larger Polish cities there were German communities with special privileges: they were even subject to German law. This would seem to be the right moment to look at the contribution made by Polish to the Lithuanian lexical stock. 2.0. Polish loanwords in Lithuanian seem to reflect a merger of two societies. In the first place the Lithuanians accepted Roman Catholic­ ism from the Poles. The acceptance of a new religion meant a new hier­ archy. The Lithuanians had a word for 'priest' vaidila, but this was a pagan priest and was clearly not suitable. (Curiously enough vaidila came to mean an actor). The choice fell on Lithuanian kunigas. 5 Now kunigas is not a Slavic loan at all but a German one. The Polish influen­ ce lies rather in the equation kunigas:ksi~dz. Both words (the Polish is from the Cm Gmc *kunigaz) must at one stage have had quite a different connotation, i .c. 'ruler, lord' for Polish ksi~dz is cognate with R 'prince', As applied to priest they are merely translations of Latin dominus, the title of the priest throughout mediaeval Europe. Confirm- at ion of the more genera 1 meaning 1 lord 1 is to be found in La kungs which is a purely secular term. 2. 1. Kunig__aikstis: ksig,_ze_:knize Since kunigas in Lithuanian and ksi~dz in Polish had taken over the (5) Latvian archaeologists refer to these late Iron Age forts as pilkalni or castle hills. (6) I am again indebted to the Rev.