Unfortunately, not a single secular Old Russian monument in the original has come down to us. However, the three-century work of researchers (XVIII-XX centuries) allows us to confidently attribute the Old Russian works preserved in the lists of the late period to the XI-XIII centuries (“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, “The Tale of Bygone Years”, “Instruction” by Vladimir Monomakh, “Prayer Daniil Zatochnik ). The works of secular Old Russian literature were created in the Old Russian literary language, which was a complex unity of elements of oral East Slavic speech and book Old Slavonic elements against the background of common Slavic language units . The degree of use of Russian and Old Church Slavonic elements in original Russian narrative works depended on the genre of the work, the theme, the predominance of the East Slavic or Old Church Slavonic form of the word in the Old Russian language from the existing variants (for example, words with zh in place of *dj, but with u in place of *tj , *kt’), literary traditions. “Such a synthesis of two principles in the language is the most characteristic phenomenon in the history of the Russian literary language as a whole. The basis of the language of ancient Russian monuments was made up of common Slavic elements. Grammatical structure: almost all grammatical forms coincided in the Old Russian and Church Slavonic languages (the system of names, case forms, the verb system, conjugated forms of the verb), there was much in common in the vocabulary inherited from the Indo-European and Proto-Slavic unity: sky, sun, day, two, hundred, house, mother, sea, river, hand, leg, nose, wolf, mouse, etc. Against the background of common Slavic units, East Slavic and Old Slavonic elements were used, unconsciously and purposefully, that is, it is not always possible to determine why this or that author uses this language unit, one or another variant. B.A. Uspensky rightly writes: “ The constant change of the language code also takes place in the annals. In general, the annals reflect the linguistic situation of Ancient Russia to a greater extent than other texts: they are especially characterized by linguistic heterogeneity… The opposition between Church Slavonic and Russian languages is manifested in the annals not only in the opposition of entire and in the opposition of various segments – from phrases to individual forms . For example, in the “Tale of Bygone Years” in the same fragment of the text: volodymy and owning, one and on the lake, city, city, but in Novgorod, in the distance, but midnight. Wed in the story of the martial arts of husband Vladimir and the Pecheneg: And one hundred Volodimers are on this side, and the cookies are on it, and I will not crush this country on it, nor they on this country .
Already in ancient Russian texts , Slavic words performed stylistic functions , were used to designate high concepts, create a rhetorical style within the microtext.
“The Tale of Bygone Years” is a historical work of the 12th century, which was based on the previous chronicles unknown to us. Here, more than in other works of ancient Russian literature, the style of writing depended on the nature and theme of the narrative, a conscious selection of linguistic means was made depending on the source used by the chronicler (a treaty, epistle, life, military stories, Western chronicles, the Bible, works of oral folk art), from the belonging of individual chronicle articles to a particular genre of ancient Russian literature. In narrative texts, laconic, devoid of verbal embellishments, containing a large number of formulas repeating from chronicle to chronicle, telling about life, wars, legal institutions and social relations of the Eastern Slavs, about actual incidents, historical events, there are many language units of East Slavic speech. folk poetic work (legends about the three brothers, the death of Oleg, Olga’s revenge, the story of the Belogorod jelly, etc.), the chronicler also widely used the features of living East Slavic speech, everyday Russian vocabulary, which had an East Slavic phonetic and grammatical appearance. In neutral texts, in articles that have been influenced by oral folk art, there are many phonetic, grammatical, lexical features of living East Slavic speech. As noted by V.V. Vinogradov, on the basis of the chronicle, one can compile a kind of really encyclopedic dictionary of living East Slavic folk speech: smoke (oven, hearth), ralo (plough), vezha (house, chambers), tower, eaves, village, churchyard , etc.
The text of the “Prayer of Daniel the Sharpener” of the 13th century has a complex composition (Three similar works of the 12th–13th centuries are known: “Word”, “Prayer” and “Message” by Daniil the Sharpener, which have come down to us in later lists), although there is a different ratio of language units . Book language units predominate, but they are opposed not only by Old Russian vocabulary, but also by the words of local dialects.
The Tale of Igor’s Campaign, which rightfully entered the history of world literature, remains, however, still a mystery to researchers, although there is a huge literature about it. The name of the author is unknown, the estimated date of creation of the monument: 80–90s of the XII century , but the “Word” was preserved as part of a manuscript collection of the XV or XVI centuries, which was in the library of the Spaso-Yaroslavl Monastery, and then was acquired by A.I. Musin-Pushkin, a famous collector of Russian antiquities. In the early 90s of the XVIII century, a copy was made for Catherine II, in 1800 the “Word” was published by A.I. Musin-Pushkin (A.F. Malinovsky, N.N. Bantysh-Kamensky, N.M. Karamzin helped him in the work on the text). But the manuscript of “Words …” perished along with other books of the library of A.I. Musin-Pushkin during the Moscow fire of 1812. The Tale of Igor’s Campaign reflected the system of the Old Russian literary language, which was common to all territories of Kievan Rus even in the period of their feudal disunity. For example, the phonetic appearance of the monument retained in some cases weak ь and ъ (Tmutorokansky, mist), mostly the correct use of ѣ and е (spelling ѣ instead of е, е instead of ѣ, and instead of ѣ, ѣ instead of and are dialectal features of ancient Russian monuments). The monument contains many words with a Russian phonetic appearance: swamp, nightingale, good, odin, lake, night, shining, weeping, ringing, lazy , etc. The morphological system of the monument gives a complete picture of the norms of the literary language of the XII century. Here are the forms of the dual number: … two suns are dimmed, both crimson pillars are extinguished and in ..
The lexical richness of the monument attracts attention. An analysis of the vocabulary of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign shows that most of the words of this monument have been preserved in the vocabulary of the Russian literary language to this day. Basically, these are words denoting natural phenomena, the names of birds, animals, plants: sky, earth, sun, month, wind, storm, thunderstorm, lightning, rain, cloud, river, sea, lake, stream, swamp, grass, flowers, tree, feather grass (feather grass), cane (reed), wolf, fox, woodpecker, swan, raven, falcon, nightingale, magpie, jackdaw, gull, goldeneye. The content of the work led to the use of a large amount of military vocabulary: regiment, squad, army, howl, shooter, bow, sword, saber, arrow, fight, overcome, win, shoot, poloniti.
In the vocabulary of “Words …” there are many words that have left the language: speech, pull (kill), poloniti (take prisoner), komoni (horses), tuga (sadness), tur (bison), skepati (split), zegzitsa (gull or cuckoo), nosadas – river boats, which – strife, discord , etc. Modern Russian folk dialects are an important source for interpreting the meanings of lexemes used in the “Word of Igor’s Campaign”, but not presented in other ancient Russian monuments (see. works by S.I. Kotkov and V.V. Nemchuk). So, V.A. In the Bryansk dialects, Kozyrev found 86 parallels to the lexemes used by the author of The Lay…: not bologom – not good, verge – damaged, karna – flour, sorrow, troskotati – chirp, difficult – sad, mournful , etc. Authors secular narrative literature, they knew their native language and the norms of the Church Slavonic language well, freely choosing from parallel existing words or word forms East Slavic and Old Slavonic.
4. Among the ancient Russian monuments, three types can be distinguished: business (letters, “Russian Truth”), where the features of the lively East Slavic speech of the 10th-17th centuries were most fully reflected; church writing – monuments of the Church Slavonic language (Old Church Slavonic language of the “Russian edition”, or the book-Slavonic type of literary language) and secular writing.
5. Secular monuments have not been preserved in the original, their number is small, but it is in these monuments that the complex composition of the Old Russian literary language (or the literary processed type of the folk language) is reflected, which is a complex unity of elements of common Slavic, Old Slavonic and East Slavic.
6. The choice of these linguistic elements was determined by the genre of the work, the theme of the work or its fragment, the stability of one or another variant in the writing of the Kyiv period, the literary tradition, the author’s erudition, the scribe’s education, and other reasons.
7. In the ancient Russian written monuments, various local dialectal features are presented, which did not violate the unity of the literary language. After the collapse of the Kyiv state and the Tatar-Mongol invasion, the connection between the regions was broken, the number of dialect elements in Novgorod, Pskov, Ryazan, Smolensk and other monuments increased.
8. There is a regrouping of dialects : North-Eastern Russia is separated from South-Western, prerequisites are created for the formation of three new linguistic unities: southern (the language of the Ukrainian people), western (the language of the Belarusian people), northeast (the language of the Great Russian people).
3. Reformation of the bookish language in the 14th – 15th centuries …
In the XIV century, the Moscow principality became one of the most populated territories, being an important military border point between the old southern and new northern Russia, a trading intermediary between the northwest and southeast. In the second half of the 14th century, it led the struggle to overthrow the Tatar-Mongol yoke and became the universally recognized center of North-Eastern Russia, during the 14th-15th centuries, annexing one after another specific principalities. In the 16th century, a strong centralized Russian state was created, with the formation of which the process of the formation of the Great Russian nationality was completed. In the period of the XIV-XVI centuries, the language of the Great Russian people was created, which has much in common with the Old Russian language, as well as the related Belarusian and Ukrainian languages.
One can note some general norms of the living colloquial speech of the Eastern Slavs, which are reflected in such monuments as the Treaties of the Russians with the Greeks, Russkaya Pravda, and the living Great Russian speech of the XIV-XVII centuries, recorded in the business documents of Muscovite Russia: full agreement; initial ro, lo; initial o, f in place of the most ancient combination *dj; h in place of the oldest combinations *tj, *kt, etc. In the monuments reflecting the peculiarities of living Great Russian speech, there are many forms of words that coincide with Old Russian forms and do not correspond to the grammatical norms of the Russian national language, for example: the presence of old forms of plural nouns of the dative, instrumental and prepositional cases. Noteworthy is the “chain stringing of sentences” in Moscow monuments, which is typical for the texts of business documents of the 11th-13th centuries.
We can talk about some commonality of the vocabulary of the Old Russian and Great Russian languages, for example, the presence in them of legal terms that are not included in the vocabulary of the Russian national language: golovnik (murderer), vidok, posluh (witnesses), execution (punishment), such words as finger (finger), eye (eye), belly (life), estate (property), guest (merchant) , etc. However, the language of the Great Russian people and the language of the Old Russian people have not only similarities, but also differences :
As part of the language of the Great Russian people, elements of the old language system, the destruction of which began already in the Kiev period, are dying off, and new language elements are developing, which gives some researchers reason to call the era of the Great Russian people transitional (between the period of existence of the Old Russian people and the period of formation of the Russian nation).
1. Traces of akanya are noticeable in Moscow monuments, however, for many texts , Old Russian okanye remains the norm .
2. In the monuments of the XIV-XVII centuries, reflecting the peculiarities of living speech, new forms of plural nouns are used with inflections -am, -ami, -ah in the dative, instrumental and prepositional cases. For example, in the unsubscribe of 1617: And we, your lackeys … nobles and boyar children … who lived at home
3. In the monuments of the XIV-XVII centuries, reflecting the features of living speech, only one form of the past tense of the verb is used – perfect without a bunch , preserved in modern Russian. For example, in the “Acts of the Moscow State”: And Prince de Fadey Shekhovskaya married him to a free wife outside the yard strongly; I beat you with my forehead, sovereign, my mother, so that you, sovereign, would complain to me;
Great changes are taking place in the vocabulary of the Russian language: new words appear, the meaning of many words changes. As already noted, in the language of the Great Russian people, the new coexisted with the old. In the texts of monuments of the 16th-17th centuries, to designate the same concept, we find the parallel use of neologisms and words that have long existed in the language. We are talking about such synonymous pairs as eye – eye, mouth – mouth, lips, spine – back, icy – cold , etc.
Changes in the grammatical structure and vocabulary of the Russian language make the language of the Great Russian people a language system that has new qualities compared to the living speech of the Eastern Slavs of the 10th-13th centuries, and separate it from the languages of related peoples – Ukrainian and Belarusian, where changes are also taking place.
The Great Russian language was formed on the basis of the Moscow inter-dialect Koine . Moscow was inhabited by Russian people who came from different regions and principalities of North-Eastern Russia. In the language of the inhabitants of Moscow, dialect differences were erased, as they were once erased in the language of the inhabitants of Kyiv. As a result of this, a common language was formed – the Moscow dialect – one of the Central Russian transitional dialects, which combined both northern Great Russian and southern Great Russian linguistic elements (akane, pronunciation of g as an explosive consonant sound, the use of solid t in the endings of third person verbs of the present and future time, the use of personal pronouns me, you, myself , etc.). The Moscow dialect was the basis of the language of the Great Russian people, which found its written expression in the documents of Moscow orders (state offices). The language of these offices, or command language , became in the 17th century the unified state language of Muscovite Russia, since “the Muscovite state, naturally, had to impose in the annexed regions its own norms of the national written language, the language of government institutions of the Moscow administration, everyday communication and official relations” . Typography , which arose in Russia in the 16th century, also contributes to the development of unified spelling and punctuation norms, the further development of the written command language: in the middle of the 17th century, the first secular books began to be printed (in 1647, “The Teaching and Cunning of the Military Structure of Infantry Men” was published). ”, in 1649 – “The Code” of Alexei Mikhailovich), while church literature was printed in the previous period.
The texts of the “Sudebniks” of the 15th–17th centuries (legislative acts of Muscovite Russia) show well how colorful the state-mandatory language was: old elements of the Old Russian language coexisted with new ones, traditional bookish elements were used simultaneously with forms of live colloquial speech. For example, in the text of the Sudebnik of 1497: And which aunt is raped …; And to have a boyar from the list from a ruble to an altyn ; And from the serf and from the robes … to the boyar imati from the seal from the head for nine money …
In Moscow judicial codes, state decrees, letters and other official state business documents, local words, word forms and expressions are rare, since in the language of Moscow state orders uniform norms of the Great Russian language are being developed, which has not yet completely broken with the written traditions of the past, but still sharply departed from the system of the Old Russian language .
Analyzing the texts of the monuments, reflecting the features of live speech, and the texts of official business documents, one can notice the general norms of the language of the Great Russian people, which are largely characteristic of the system of the national Russian language. For the first time, these norms were noted in the “Russian Grammar” of 1696 by the Englishman Heinrich Ludolf :
In the “Russian Grammar” there are no two types of declensions of masculine, neuter and feminine nouns, that is, nouns with a base on a hard and soft consonant are inclined equally.
Heinrich Ludolph emphasizes that in Russian the vocative case coincides with the nominative, and gives examples: wife (not wife), city (not city), does not note the form of the dual number, indicates the possibility of combining back-lingual consonants with front vowels ( He keeps in own hand ). In the section “Verb” the modern system of conjugation of verbs is given, three categories of tense are named: present, past and future, while for the past tense only one form is indicated, which “according to the rule ends in l and forms the feminine form in all three persons in – la.
The examples given confirm the opinion of researchers that during the 15th–17th centuries many modern grammatical norms were formed that distinguish the language of the Great Russian people from the language of the Old Russian people or the living speech of the Eastern Slavs of the 10th–13th centuries. As already mentioned, the Russian language has also changed in terms of vocabulary. In the 15th-17th centuries, new words appeared: altyn, hillock, vodka, tobacco, sovereign, state, doulo, fuse, slope.
In the texts of the XV-XVII centuries we find new legal terms: bailiff – ‘a person calling the defendant to trial’; the gossip – ‘collector of court fees’; tselovalnik – ‘tax collector, employee performing a number of minor judicial and police duties’; petition, petition – ‘a petition, a letter with any complaint’: detective, search, search, search, denunciation, inform …
One can also talk about the originality of the syntactic structure of the language of the Great Russian people. Syntactic constructions typical of the Old Russian business language are still alive in it: sentences that are transitional in structure from parataxis to hypotaxis, allied stringing of sentences, expression of subordinating relations by means of coordinating conjunctions. The stringing of sentences one after the other without the help of conjunctions or with the help of coordinating conjunctions and, yes , it created the impression of thoroughness, strengthened the protocol character of the texts. This is probably why in business writing of the 15th-17th centuries, as well as in the monuments of the Old Russian language, such constructions were used very widely.
In the language of the Great Russian people, subordinating relations are expressed both with the help of composing unions and with the help of subordinating unions. As rightly wrote E.I. Korotaev , the closer to the 18th century, the greater the role played by the subordinating union, the more expressive its function, the wider and freer temporary and conditional subordinating constructions appear without correlative words, and the subordinating connection is expressed with the help of subordinating unions, old Russian unions if, how, when and new if, bye
So, the Moscow state business written language developed and underwent a well-known literary processing in the Moscow state chancelleries during the 15th-17th centuries . In the second half of the 17th century, this was an already established type of literary language, the norms of which largely coincide with the norms of the modern Russian language, but serving only one sphere of human social activity – office work. The language of fiction, journalism, philosophical and scientific literature remained the Old Russian literary language, which opposed the state command language.
In the Moscow state, a huge amount of literature, business and church, appears, about which A.I. Sobolevsky wrote: “The number of them (books) is so great, despite the fires and various hardships that have befallen our cities and villages, that we find it difficult to even approximately determine their number in the thousands.” Much in the culture of Muscovite Rus was associated with Kievan traditions, the Muscovite state and Old Russian literature inherited, from which mainly church monuments, original and translated, came down. Rewriting these monuments, the clergy of Muscovite Russia noticed that in old manuscripts there is no unity in writing, especially in church monuments translated from Bulgarian and Greek. At this time in Bulgaria (XIV century) the editing of religious books was completed under the leadership of the Bulgarian Patriarch Evfimy Tarnovskiy. In Serbia, the editing of church books was carried out under the guidance of Konstantin Kostenchesky, a disciple of Evfimy Tyrnovskiy. In the XIV century, there was a close relationship between Russian and Serbian churchmen (there were many Russian monks in the monasteries of Constantinople and Mount Athos, in Bulgaria, Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian churchmen visited our monasteries). At the end of the 14th – 15th centuries, Byzantium, Serbia, Bulgaria lost their independence, many prominent churchmen (for example, Metropolitan Cyprian, Athonite monk Pakhomiy Logofet) moved to Moscow, brought with them books of the “Tyrnovka” edition, which become a model for Russian church literature. The influence of the language of South Slavic church literature on the language of Russian monuments of the 15th-17th centuries is called by most researchers the second South Slavic influence (the first refers to the time of the 10th-11th centuries – the period of the baptism of Russia). This theory received a detailed justification in the works of I.V. Yagich and A.I. Sobolevsky , who explained the changes in the Russian literary language of the Moscow State by the influence of the South Slavic script . Researchers of a later time accept the term “second South Slavic influence”, but explain the changes in the literary language of the XV-XVII centuries not only by external, but also by local, internal reasons . Indeed, it is necessary to distinguish between two processes, the second South Slavic influence and the archaization of the Russian literary language by the scribes of the 15th–17th centuries , although both processes are closely related to each other. The second South Slavic influence is an external process that was reflected in the appearance of Russian books. This is a change in Russian graphics and spelling under the influence of Bulgarian and Serbian, which, in turn, were influenced by the Greek alphabet and spelling.
The second South Slavic influence is reflected in:
1. restoring letters that do not denote sounds of living Russian speech of the 15th–17th centuries: ѫ, ѧ, ω (omega), ѯ (xi), ѱ (psi), Ѳ (fita), ѵ (izhitsa),
2. the use and mixing of b and b , also not denoting living sounds in the period under study
3. in writing words with smooth to vowels , characteristic of the South Slavic languages u200bu200band not characteristic of the Russian language,
4. in writing і (and decimal) before vowels, while in the language of the previous era, і was used after and octal (Іісюъ, сі) and in separate words.
Uniformity in Russian spelling of the XV-XVII centuries is demanded by all churchmen.
In Moscow, as already noted, in the 16th century a printing house was created, which was supposed to print corrected church books. An example of such a publication was the first book printed in Russia – “The Apostle” of 1564.
Under the influence of South Slavic church books in Russian monuments of the 15th-16th centuries , the number of titles (superscripts indicating the abbreviated spelling of words) increases . For example, in the “Life of Methodius” of the XII century we read: Teachings of God, in the text of this life of the XVI century we find: Uchnia b ҃ zhia . ҃
In the monuments of this time, the spelling of words with smooth to vowels, characteristic of South Slavic books, is widely represented: slantse, vrah, right, vrsta, vlhv, etc. It is significant that in the words vyrkh, prvy, chrny
ъ is used instead of ь (врхъ, ръй, чръй), which quite definitely indicates the influence of the South Slavic languages, where the syllabic r was pronounced firmly.
In the books of the 15th-17th centuries, the style of letters changed , many of which began to resemble the letters of the Greek alphabet: a – α, l – λ, m – μ, p – π, etc. Ideographic elements appeared in the texts: ~ eye – ‘eye’, ξ (xi) – ‘snake’, ⊗ – ‘around’, ⊕ – ‘dead person, deceased’.
All this made it difficult to perceive the text of church books even by literate people of the 15th-17th centuries. The new rules of graphics and spelling were reflected not only in church monuments of the 15th-17th centuries, but also in secular literature, in business writings, for example, in the Code of Laws of the 16th-17th centuries. In the “Sudebnik” of 1589, the letters α and ζ are used, the spelling of many letters is close to the writing of signs in the Greek alphabet: π, ρ, μ, λ (Gdrvα, πamρuαρхoμъ, αλεξαндρωμъ). In the spelling of the monument, we also find traces of the second South Slavic influence: titla, і, non-quoted a and ѧ (kanz – prince, diakom, sadness, ischea, kotora, oranaa, ou se, volosteli).
A.A. Shakhmatov noted that the literary language of the Muscovite state “began to be clothed in dilapidated robes.”
The archaization of the Russian literary language has deep internal causes, finds an ideological explanation for itself in the theory “Moscow is the third Rome” , according to which the history of people’s lives is the history of three world kingdoms. Church literature is experiencing an era of prosperity, the authority of the Church Slavonic language is growing. South Slavic influence also contributed to strengthening the dominance of the Church Slavonic language in the literature of the Muscovite state. The main figures of this time were prominent churchmen, scribes of the Moscow state – Metropolitan Cyprian, Metropolitan Macarius, Pakhomiy Logofet, Maxim Grek, Zinovy Otensky, Dmitry Gerasimov
An analysis of a relatively large number of monuments of the 15th–17th centuries shows that in the Muscovite state, in fact, there is no longer any difference between the two types of the literary language of Kievan Rus (the folk processed type of the literary language, or the Old Russian literary language , and the Book Slavonic type, or the Church Slavonic language ). ) . The language forms alive for the Kievan period become archaic, bookish, as well as the original bookish language forms. G.O. wrote about this. Vinokur: “It is very important to understand that as a result of what has been said, any difference was practically lost between such facts of book speech, which by origin dated back to the Old Slavonic contribution to the Russian language, such as, for example, hail, noch , and Old Russian words or forms that turned into facts of book speech, gone out of living use, in which they once freely circulated (like ruts, nogama , etc.). The facts of speech of both kinds represented a stylistically complete identity, all of these were facts of the language of a learned, ecclesiastical language, distinctly opposed to the facts of everyday living language .
The living all-Russian speech of the 15th-16th centuries arose on a different dialectal basis than the speech of the inhabitants of the Kievan state. The literary language of that time retained the features of the Old Russian language and those grammatical and lexical units that were common to the Old Russian and Church Slavonic languages, and then disappeared from living speech, as a result of which the tendency for the literary language to diverge from folk speech prevailed. As a result of all these phenomena, the tendency to diverge from living speech became the main one for the literary language of the Muscovite state, while for the literary language of the Kievan state, the main tendency was to converge with live speech. The gap between the bookish Slavicized literary language of the Muscovite state and the lively speech of the Great Russian people was clearly felt by contemporaries. For example, one of the priests spoke of the texts of “Chrysostom” in this way: “Evil is unintelligible … not only from the laity, but also from the priests.”
On the other hand, the scribes consciously avoided “the mere conversation of the ignorant .” Consequently, we can talk about bilingualism, two language systems of the Moscow state, opposed to each other, which G. Ludolph drew attention to: “Just as none of the Russians can write or reason on scientific issues without using the Slavic language, so on the contrary, in domestic and intimate conversations, no one can get by with the means of one Slavic language … So they say that you need to speak Russian, and write in Slavonic ”
We find similar oppositions in the dictionaries of the 16th-17th centuries, for example, in the 1596 dictionary compiled by Lavrentiy Zizaniy :
lamb – lamb
greed – hunger
amen – albo come on
so it will be
else – if
archangel – elder
scolding – war
always – kgdy
hedgehog – which
In the Slavonic Russian Lexicon, compiled in
1627 by Ukrainian philologist Pamva Berynda , words
literary book language are also interpreted with the help of
words of living speech of the XVI-XVII centuries – Russian, Ukrainian
Russian and Belarusian:
az – i
abie – already, immediately, soon
brushy – grass, ѣdlo,
scolding – war
vyya – shiya
The authors of secular literature of the “high style” deliberately selected the archaic component from the synonymic pairs at their disposal: neck, right hand, hand, larynx, mouth, Persian, ramo, eye, daughter, robe, path, alchba, verb, krin . In business literature, reflecting the peculiarities of living Great Russian speech, other lexemes are used: neck, hand, palm, throat, mouth (lips), chest, shoulder, eye, daughter, clothes, road, hunger, word, flower.
So, in the “Slovenian Grammar” by Lawrence Zizania of 1596 we read: “ Koliko is the number three: singular, dual (“it marks two things”) and plural .” Forms of the dual number are widely used in the monuments of the literary language of the XV-XVII centuries. For example, in Ivan the Terrible’s message to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery: We saw with our own eyes; in the drama “Judith”: Here lies before your feet your diadem . In the “Slovenian Grammar” by Meletiy Smotrytsky of 1619, when describing the name, seven cases are given, including the vocative: moisture (vocative case of the noun moisture), friend, son, etc. The vocative case form is widely used in the monuments of the literary language of the 15th-17th centuries.
When declining nouns, an alternation of consonants is observed, ascending to a phonetic phenomenon characteristic of the Old Slavonic and Old Russian languages, the law of palatalization of back-palatal consonants : mus, in the east, supruzi, zasluz; human, friend, enemy, wolf, madman , etc. The norm of the literary language remains the use of infinitive forms with unstressed -ti, second person singular verb forms of the present and future tense with inflection -shi . As already noted, the old forms of the past tense of the verb have disappeared from the living speech of the Great Russian people. In the monuments of the “high style” of the XV-XVII centuries, they are preserved! !!!!
Word weaving style
The “weaving of words” style is associated with works whose theoretical basis was the teaching of the hesychasts that arose in Byzantium in the 4th-7th centuries and was revived again in the 14th century. Hesychasm (from the Greek hēsyсhia – peace, detachment) is an ethical and ascetic doctrine of the path to the unity of man with God, the ascent of the human spirit to the deity, the “divinity of the verb”, the need for close attention to the sound and semantics of the word that serves to naming the essence of the subject, but often unable to express the “soul of the subject”, to convey the main thing. Hence the desire of the authors to widely use emotionally expressive language means to “express the inexpressible” (see the works of L.A. Dmitriev, M.V. Ivanova, V.V. Kolesov, D.S. Likhachev, A.I. Sobolevsky , OA Cherepanova). For the first time in Russia, the famous scribe of the 14th – early 15th century, Epiphanius the Wise , used the term style “weaving of words” in the Life of Stephen of Perm: “ But until I stop talking a lot, until I leave the praise of the word, until I stop the proposed and prolonged praise? Even more and many times I wanted to leave the conversation, but both of his love attracts me to praise and to weaving words.
At first, the new style was widespread in church literature: “On the Life and Repose of the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich, Tsar of Russia” (1389), “Cheti-Minei”, “The Power Book of the Royal Genealogy” by Metropolitan Macarius (XVI century), etc. .P.
The factual material is interspersed in these works with lengthy lyrical outpourings of the author and abundant citations of church literature. In the lyrical texts of works of high syllable, rhetorical interrogative and exclamatory sentences have a large share. The “weaving of words” style required the use of words created according to certain word-building models. The scribes of the 15th-17th centuries, as if competing with each other, created neologisms reminiscent of Greek compound words, or used compound nouns and adjectives known to the church literature of the older period: all-bearing, unpaired (eagle), treblyadnaya (glory), fiery (gaze), solar (angel), transience, hailstorming, happiness, The tense manner of narration was created by an abundance of tropes and figures: symbols, metaphors, comparisons, epithets, sometimes forming a long chain of words characterizing the object of description. The authors of works written within the “weaving of words” style paid much attention to various stylistic devices and means of creating an image, but the main thing was repetition: the repetition of syntactic constructions, sentence members, lexemes, word forms, similar-sounding lexical units, the use of words with similar semantics, – to more accurately express an idea that is important to the author. For example, in the “Sermon on the Life and Repose of the Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich”: … and this Grand Duke loves the innocent, and forgives the guilty; according to the great Yev; like a father to the world and an eye to the blind, a lame leg, a table and a guard and a measure, known to the light, ruling the subject .., high-flowing eagle, fire burning wickedness, a bath for washing from filth, a threshing floor of cleanliness, wind fluttering tares, a bed of laborers according to Boz, a trumpet to the sleeping ones, a peaceful governor, a crown of victory …
Paraphrases were the favorite artistic and visual means of scribes of the 15th-17th centuries.