CC BY
11
Филология
Вестник Нижегородского университета им. Н.И. Лобачевского, 2018, № 1, с. 217-222
УДК 801.7:003
ПРОБЕЛЫ В ЛАТИНСКОМ И КИРИЛЛИЧЕСКОМ ПИСЬМЕ И РАЗДЕЛЕНИЕ ТЕКСТА НА СЛОВА
© 2018 г. А.А. Шунейко, О.В. Чибисова
Комсомольский-на-Амуре государственный технический университет, Комсомольск-на-Амуре
а- shuneyko @уа^ех. га
Поступила в редакцию 05.01.2017
Исследуется сложный процесс появления и нормализации пробелов в латинском и кириллическом письме. Результаты работы состоят в выявлении границ и этапов протекания процесса появления пробелов и установлении того, что этот процесс на определённых пределах является самоорганизующимся, а на определённых - направляемым искусственно. Область применения результатов - теоретическое языкознание, в частности, решение центральной для индоевропейского языкознания проблемы существования слова.
Ключевые слова: пробел, существование слов, письменность, непрерывное письмо.
In Indo-European linguistics, one of the central problems is a question of the existence of the word. The prevailing point of view is reduced to the idea that the word as an independent unit of language does exist, just no one has found a criterion to precisely identify it. But many leading scientists deny the word's entitlement to linguistic citizenship; among them there are the Swiss Charles Bally and Ferdinand de Saussure, the Americans Leonard Bloomfield, Edward Sapir and Franz Uri Boas, a Canadian Henry Gleason, a Frenchman Andre Martin, a Russian Lev Scherba. Until now, the only main argument in the protection of the existence of the word has been a white (interword) space.
In this regard, it seems important and interesting to consider the history of the space in the Latin and Cyrillic scripts and find out how the very fact of its presence may be regarded as a proof of the existence of the word.
In the Russian language solid, separate and hyphen writing is regulated by a special section of orthography. For example, in full academic handbook of the rules of Russian orthography and punctuation edited by V. Lopatin (2006) the rules of solid, separate and hyphen writing include 38 (!) paragraphs (from 156 to 118) and occupy 46 (!) pages (from 118 to 164). This volume is impressive and at the same time thought-provoking. There is a special dictionary "Solidly or separately? A trial of a dictionary-reference book" compiled by B. Bookchina and L. Kalakutskya (1988) which contains more than 80 000 words. All these rules are invented by people. Therefore, their avalanche is only a consequence of much more ancient, long-term and complex processes.
The primary source of this and many other problems is the process of dividing a text into words. Now in Russian and several other languages
the words are separated by spaces. It was not
always the case. For a long time there were no spaces at all. A modern reader can hardly imagine that the texts of books, personal and business letters, any documents were solid; the letters formed unbroken rows without gaps. This writing was the only universal rule. 38 separate rules accumulated gradually and replaced the former only one in the XX century. The materials of two different writing systems - Latin and Cyrillic -give all grounds for meaningful conclusions about the characteristics and nature of this process. They will be described in order of seniority.
Spaces confirmed their right to supremacy in writing as a result of complex, long and heterogeneous process, at first self-organizing, and then artificially guided. No medieval epidemic can match the scale of this process. It took place in different countries covering a huge area and involving a lot of people in its field; it developed mainly in the time when printing did not exist although taking it as well.
Separately, about the history of space between words, scientists wrote seldom (especially much Paul Saenger and Johannes Friedrich) and somewhat biased, trying to brush it in their own way.
Thus, P. Saenger (1997) claimed that the ancient world did not try to make reading texts easier and faster, because people who read them enjoyed a sweet metric and tonic style of a spoken
218
A.A. fflyHeuKO, O.B. ^uducoBa
text. In addition, the problems with decoding a script without spaces (scriptura continua) contributed to the fact that educated people made reading and writing a duty of specially trained slaves, which was not difficult due to a sufficient number of intellectually developed cheap labor.
If Saenger tends to minute (often arbitrary) reconstructions of peculiarities of perception and cultural causes of the space appearance, I. Friedrich (1979, p. 140) notes the importance of the process, but does not go into detail, limiting himself with general quite vague instructions: "Here it seems appropriate to say a few words about the separation of words and punctuation. Ancient Greek writing did not know either the first or the second - there were no spaces between the words in the texts, especially in the inscriptions. Only in a manuscript book writing the words became gradually separated from each other; the letters in the word came closer little by little forming a unity, and intervals appeared between words. Dots and commas were rare until the Byzantine era. In Latin the separation of words with dots or spaces was produced partly already in antiquity, but it was unstable, and even in the Middle Ages there remained a known inconsistency. Punctuation in the modern sense, including colon, question mark, quotation marks, etc., became established everywhere only with the invention of printing." This statement, on the one hand, is right, on the other hand, it is reducible to the trivial well-known instruction: at first, there were no spaces in Latin writing, then they appeared.
Particular issues of the punctuation functioning in the ancient texts were studied by various scientists. For example, A. V. Mikhailov (1992) matches the punctuation design of Old Russian texts and their predicative nature. For N. Moore (2016), spaces and punctuation are a way of balancing structures in the spoken and written language. T. Finbow (2004) tried to prove the validity of Sanger's hypothesis applied to a limited set of texts. H. Jenkinson (1926) examined the functions of punctuation marks in the monuments created by Irish scribes at end of the 15th century. M. B. Parkes (1993) analyzed the changes in the punctuation marks functioning and their role in separating words.
The space history in the Latin writing should be restored on the basis of independent paleography data, relying on the opinion of the researchers O. Dobiash-Rozhdestvenskaya (1936) and her pupil A. Lublinskaya (1969), who were involved in studying not all the languages at once, but specific scripts.
Latin writing based on the Greek alphabet appeared approximately in the middle of I millennium BC. Prior to the III century BC, Latin texts were composed of capital letters, since the III-
IV centuries - of lowercase ones. The process of separating the words originated in the early Middle Ages, before that there began to exist the punctuation marks. Prior to that, in ancient times, there was scriptura continua in which the words came in a continuous stream and had no demarcation.
That is, about a thousand years (from the middle of I millennium BC till the V century BC.) the Latin script was solid. It was an established and strictly adhered order, which, in principle, reflected a real nature of speech, its simultaneously discontinuous and continuous nature. In the V-IX centuries there developed a process of dividing texts into units, which was not notable for clarity and presented a self-organizing research field. Chaos replaced order. If this process had not been influenced from the outside, it would have had an unpredictable result. The text could have been divided into sentences but remained solid inside them. It is the form which is now observed in the Burmese language, where the spaces separate only parts of the sentence but within them a script is continuous. The text could have been divided into rhythmic intonation units, and within them remain solid as the first punctuation goaded. It could have been divided into morphemes and sentences, into words and sentences, into syllables. And further, in various combinations.
These perspectives are not a theoretical fantasy. They were held in the very nature of perceiving a text by the scribes. Shorthand existed as long as writing. Which the scribes reduce directly reflects what they consider units. So, Tironian shorthand system, which originated in ancient Rome, was used in two types: special icons indicated syllables; special signs indicated stems and endings. That is, there were potentially other ways. But the possibilities remained in embryos because there appeared a very powerful external influence which predetermined the end of the process.
The search for a new type of writing with spaces continued in the XI century as well: "The words became more or less separated, although the gaps between them were not always distinct."(Lublinskaya, 1969) The process of separating the words in the line came to a close only in the XIII century with the approval of the Gothic script, in which the words are singled out more sharply due to the close linkage of the letters. Hungarian paleographer Istvan Hajnal indicates that the development of medieval script took place under the direct influence of universities. He found, inter alia, that the technique of cursory writing in the XII-XIII centuries in general could develop only as a result of intensive teaching to write in the universities. The detailed analysis of Hajnal's work, fixing the interaction of scripts and
university education, can be found in the book "Comparative Hungarian Cultural Studies" in the chapter "Literacy, Culture, and History in the Work of Thienemann and Hajnal" written by Andras Kisery (2011).
Universities appeared in the XII century, joined the search process and finished it. It was the school and university education that affected the outcome of the process, introduced the current norm of using a space between words, and then approved it owing to numerous books on calligraphy published in different countries. At that in the universities and schools they taught Latin grammar and rhetoric in the framework of Greek-Latin linguistic tradition, which is based on the concept of a word as a central unit of the language.
The university influence was maintained by an array of various assistants. Approving the new rules went simultaneously with eliminating the traces of the old ones, which also served for the benefit of the whitespace. This is narrateB in numerous palimpsests - the manuscripts written over the destructed old ones. Erasing old manuscripts became a profession and an actively demanded action. The workshops, in which it was conducted, O. Dobiash-Rozhdestvenskaya (1936) figuratively and accurately calls "patent laundries of Middle Ages." In addition, in the XII century the monasteries ceased to be centers of literary culture, they themselves had to use the services of hired clerks, many of whom were university students. The attitude to writing varied too: from the sacred art or clerical mystery it becomes a work tool; the students bring changes dictated by their Greco-Latin erudition. The situation is funny: schoolboys themselves complicated the lives of their descendants; rather, they took active part in it. Easy underworking for themselves through the centuries turned into hard work for others.
Schematically, the process looks like this.
From the middle of the first millennium BC till the V century BC the Latin script was solid (without spaces). From the V century BC till the XIII century BC there was a process of dividing texts into segments, which could have had different outcomes. In the XII century this process was influenced by school and university education which transmitted the Greek-Latin tradition of perception a language, in particular, its division into words. Since the XIV century, the space between words in the Latin script became a binding norm.
It would be interesting to find external causes of this mechanism. But comparing the chronology of space's moving to authority with the objects most closely associated with writing (material, instrument and type of writing) is fruitless.
The material for writing was varied (stone, clay, metal, wax and slate tablets). Three most common of them in the order of their appearance are papyrus, parchment (specially treated leather), and paper. The wax tablets and papyrus existed before the I century and much later. In the West, parchment is referred since the I century, in the II and III centuries it competes with papyrus and gradually replaces it dominating in the IV century. The appearance of parchment Code (book) instead of papyrus scrolls coincided with the ideological revolution: the change of the ancient paganism to Christianity. Parchment became a symbol of this world. Some paleographers explain this desire of a new church to give people a cheaper book. But others do not agree with them and say that the coincidence is accidental. All agree that the spread of parchment had many consequences.
The technique of work with a scroll and a codex is different literally in everything. Copying a scroll involves two people: a scroll is rolled, one person dictating and the other writing. Codices (stitched books) can be laid out around. It increases the accuracy of citation, the level of generalizations, and the measure of criticality. O. Dobiash-Rozhdestvenskaya (1936) sees the appearance of a fundamentally new type of literary work in the change.
At the same time, office (especially church office) which is more conservative than literature stuck to papyrus for many centuries. Parchment has become a symbol of this world. In the IV-V centuries, all the imperial and city Italic Charters were written on papyrus. Papal office wrote on papyrus up to the XI century, at the end alternating it with parchment. To the north of the Alps there were no papyrus letters after the VII century.
In China, the paper was known in the I century AD, the Arabs learned about it during Samarkand occupation in 704, then it began to spread in Europe. If papyrus is a concomitant of Greco-Roman antiquity, parchment - of the Christian Middle Ages, the paper - of Islam. The registers of the Spanish royal office were written on paper already in the XII century. In the XII-XIII centuries it contained the documents of little value as well. From the XIV century it became a happy rival of parchment.
It turns out that the change of the writing material occurred in another time sequence than the gain of space. That is there is no direct link between the dominant writing material and space: parchment replaced papyrus when writing was still solid, and paper replaced parchment when the new rule had already been established. In the XV century parchment book was already a rarity, although as an exception it existed till the XIX. It should be remembered that all the materials coexisted for centuries.
220
A.A. ^ywum, O.B. ^uducoBa
The history has known three main writing instruments: a style (an iron or bronze stick, pointed at one end and rounded at the other), a qalam (a pointed thin reed) and a pen (a pointed and split feather, later - an iron pen). It is clear that the transition from the boards to parchment caused a change of a style for a qalam. Then, within the V century a pen appeared. In the VI century, Isidore said that a qalam competed with a pen. A pen appeared in the iconography of Irish Gospels of the VIII-IX centuries. The use of the pen is accounted for broken forms of Gothic script and its victory in the XII century. It turns out that the change of writing tools also occurs in other time frames.
The names of writing systems are the arena of heated debate, so this study deals only with generally accepted ones. There were no spaces in the texts written in a single case (modern capital letters) which ceased to exist overall after the V century. There were also no spaces in Rustic capitals, but there appeared dots at the height of the mid-point of the letters. Uncial script without spaces dominated in the IV-VIII centuries. Cursive writing (modern Italics) was used since I-II centuries BC: not only letters but even their elements could stand alone in it. Since the end of the VIII century there began an active, hostless spread of Carolingian minuscule, which dominated in the IX - XIII centuries. Manuscripts written in it reflect both partial use of space and its use in the modern sense. In the XI-XII centuries, the creation and gradual improvement of the Carolingian minuscule put an end to the opposition and mutual attraction of minuscule and cursive writing. The majority of Gothic fonts and even the scripts of the XIII century and further are characterized by the use of uppercase characters after the end of the sentence, in proper names and other words which the scribe would like to emphasize and which had not been used in such functions before.
Thus, it is impossible or very difficult to associate the appearance of the space with a particular type of writing, or a method of writing letters, because different types of writing systems demonstrate its absence. They existed in parallel, being used just in different areas. The chronology of their changing each other does not coincide with the stages of space introduction.
The emergence of a space proves to be a process independent of the material, writing tools and type of writing systems which coexisted with other related revolutions but was not conditioned by them. It followed its own road, the traffic on which was controlled by quite a different pointsman - universities.
A similar pattern is observed in the history of Cyrillic writing system. Its important feature is that
the processes taking place here unfolded against the background of the processes in the Latin alphabet with a time shift of almost one and a half millennia, but that did not change their inner essence.
The Cyrillic script appeared in the middle of the IX century. Izmail Sreznevsky (1861) thought and, studying the peculiarly of ancient monuments, tried to prove that the Cyril alphabet appeared not in the IX, but in the VII-VIII centuries. Anyway, up to the XVI century, according to Yefim Karskiy (1979), Slavic script was solid with a few random examples of separate writing. Seven or nine centuries of continuous writing in the space of the Orthodox Slavic world in their time frames correspond to the interval during which in Europe there actively and independently developed and artificially ended the process of the space emergence and spaces themselves definitively established themselves as an essential element of the text. That is, in the Cyrillic text spaces there were no spaces at the time when in the Latin texts they were already in a form of a search, and then strict standards.
Cyrillic and Latin alphabets were in the same geographical and cultural areas, or at least in adjacent areas. Of course, the very fact of their close vicinity did not necessarily have to lead to a complete assimilation: the rapid emergence of spaces in Cyrillic texts. But this vicinity makes one look at the absence of spaces as a phenomenon that requires explanation. A clear imbalance between the two writing systems is a general cultural and linguistic riddle, which, on closer examination, is not so much enigmatic as extremely significant in terms of the issues. There are several reasons for the lack of spaces in Cyrillic texts, their occurrence in Latin notwithstanding.
1. Continuous writing is a mandatory stage in the natural self-development of any written language. For example, in Arabic (up to the XX century), Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Phoenician and other languages, the space was not used. Neither was it in Glagolitic (another Slavic alphabet). In modern Chinese and Japanese, it still remains an optional element. The cases of the origin of the scripts of the peoples in the USSR in the XX century do not contradict the statement about the obligation of the continuous writing phase because they were artificially focused on an institutionalized norm. The duration of this stage varies: some written languages passed it during a period of about a thousand years; somewhere it lasted longer; some cultures do not go beyond it, staying inside. This, of course, somehow characterizes linguistic traditions, but how it is not clear yet.
2. The Cyrillic script is not a descendant of Latin. It is, as the Latin, a direct descendant of the
Greek. One can say that the Latin and Slavic alphabets are siblings, their father being the Greek alphabet: the Latin is senior and the Slavic is junior. The continuous letter in the Greek texts prevailed longer than in the Latin ones.
3. A written language can develop independently and naturally only in the isolated conditions, or at least in those ones in which it is not influenceB by the representatives of other cultural traditions in writing. That is to say, seven or nine centuries of continuous Cyrillic writing is an indication that the Slavic world was in artificial isolation from the European writing (and general) cultures, did not feel their impact, was not controlled by them, maintained its identity, advocated or implemented the way of unique self-development oriented towards Byzantium. It is even conceivable that the Slavic Orthodox world opposed itself to Catholic Europe with the help of solid writing. This conclusion, attractive for the supporters of Russophile ideas, can be true only in part and with a mass of reservations.
The Cyrillic script contacted with the Latin from the very beginning of its existence and later on. Slavic first teachers - Saints Cyril and Methodius equal to the apostles - translated texts from Greek. But it was impossible for them and their first followers not to know how people wrote in the then Europe. Russia was not in complete isolation.
Interestingly, the demarcation signs (punctuation prototypes that are functionally similar to them) in Cyrillic (as well as in Latin) were used much earlier than the spaces. That is the meaning and / or rhythmic intonation division of the text, which is quite natural, was perceived and translated by the scribe, but it had nothing to do with the division of the text into words. For example, in a monument of the middle of the XI century - The Ostromir Gospels - Izmail Sreznevsky (1861) identified a number of the separatory signs, used after a few words uttered together: dots, which were written in a half-height line and above, crosses, knots, four points in the form of a cross, a curved dash with two dots at the top and bottom separately and with extra features, and other signs. At the beginning of the sentence two dots were used more frequently. The combinations of differently grouped several dots were used as well. And this happened despite the fact that till the XIX century in the manuscripts there was no punctuation in its modern sense.
The process of dividing Cyrillic texts with spaces began since the XVI century. Among the oldest incunabula there are those where all the words are printed together, for example, "Krakow Book of Hours" (1491), "The Four Gospels"
(1575), and those in which there are spaces, but they do not separate all the words. Self-organizing process continued until the XVIII century. The first dated printed book was published in Russia in the XVI century. The layout of the text on its pages clearly reflects that the process was chaotic. The completion of this process in the XVIII century Yefim Karskiy (1979) directly connects with the development of printing and education. It is noteworthy that it was in the XVIII century when the Moscow University was founded.
The history of space in the Cyrillic scripts precisely repeats the history of that in Latin. It consists of the same three stages: continuous writing, self-organizing process of the space emergence, artificial completion of this process under the influence of university education, transmitting the Greco-Latin linguistic tradition.
The retrospective from the XXI century proves that the whitespace in its modern sense, that is, a space between the so-called words, is a unit young and optional for the general history of writing. In the Latin scripts the space became a norm six hundred years ago in the XIV century, they existing for at least 1900 years before that. In the Cyrillic scripts the space became a norm two hundred years ago in the XVIII century, they existing for at least 900 years before that. A much larger part of the history of scripts people wrote, read and understood texts without spaces encountering no problems. In so doing, they wrote not only economic documents and messages, such as those that remained on birch bark, but the epic poems of Homer, the poems of Hesiod and Sappho, the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, the Bible, the works of Aristotle, Dhammapada - all that became the basis of human civilization was initially written and for many centuries read without spaces.
And now try to quickly read the line and at the same time identify the author: "Ifyoucantalkwithcrowdsandkeepyourvirtue." It is impossible to read it automatically without additional efforts. But nothing serious has happened to the English language since the legalization of space (and even more so since the time this poem was written). Hence a simple conclusion: something has happened to the readers, that is, to us. The very initial spontaneous (out of nowhere) emergence of space in the scripts is mysterious, but the mysteries are connected not with the language, but with man.
The texts in the history of the language during the written period have not become more complicated, their number is growing constantly. So the appearance of spaces is unlikely to have been caused by some changes within the text. Even more absurd sounds the assumption roaming from
222
А.А. Шунейко, О.В. Чибисова
one source to another which ascribes the absence of whitespaces to saving writing material, and when there was nothing to save, introduces a space. Paul Saenger (1997) connects the appearance of whitespaces with people's learning (acquiring ability) to read to themselves, that is a solid script reflects the stage of history, when people could read only aloud, and a one with spaces - the period when they have acquired the ability and now can read without pronouncing a text. In addition, he points out that the emergence of spaces
increased a reading speed. The logical
conclusion is that, for example, the Chinese and
Japanese are still not able to read to themselves and their reading speed is low. Mikhail Epstein (2004) considers a space to be "a white hole" from which new meanings emerge. This is the most beautiful and original perception of whitespace, but it does not answer the question from where new meanings emerged in the absence of spaces. However, in his immensely wide understanding of the language they always existed.
The space may be associated with some changes in the tempo of speech. It may have been predestined by some changes in the type of information perception. It may act as an indicator of the desire for convenience. It may be connected with the revolution in literacy, with such a stage, when not only the elite but everyone got access to it. The destruction of elitism required new forms of interaction with texts fitting an average man. Perhaps, the whitespace reflects the transition of a certain language community from a continuum (holistic, unspecified) view of the world to a discrete (presupposing the exarticulation of details) one. Then it is a border post or, more correctly, a wide band, before which people were more focused on the connection between the phenomena, and after which they began to pay attention to their difference. The reasons remain to be seen.
Regardless of the causes of the natural appearance of the space, it is obvious that it got under the control of the artificial forces - educational organizations spreading literacy - schools and universities. They also assign a value to a whitespace and used it for the consolidation of the views (notions) to which they served, or rather, which they professed.
The Greek-Latin linguistic tradition, word-centric by its very nature, turns out to have groundlessly postulated the presence of the word as the central unit of language, and then, after a millennium, cemented this view in writing and so imposed it into the category of supposedly indisputable truths.
By its substance, a whitespace in modern Indo-European languages is a monument to the vacuousness that serves and represents only itself. WORD SPACES IN LATIN AND CYRILLIC SCRIPTS AND THE DIVISION OF THE TEXT INTO WORDS
A.A. Shuneyko, O. V. Chibisova
This paper presents the results of our study of a complex process of the emergence and normalization of word spaces in Latin and Cyrillic scripts. We have identified the boundaries and stages of the word space emergence process and established that the process was self-organizing during certain periods and was controlled artificially during other periods. The results of this research can be applied in the field of theoretical linguistics, in particular, for solving the word existence problem which is central to Indo-European linguistics.
Keywords: word space, word existence, script, continuous writing.
It passes almost no meaning. But it exists and will constantly remind to the attentive reader that invented superfluous, useless things could be much more popular and visible than real and necessary. It is interesting in this case, and that even now, in the XXI century, there constantly appear attempts to write without spaces, for example, in SMS messages, hashtags and chats. Apparently, it can be attributed to its redundant character and the fact that live communication opposes its use.
Список литературы
1. Lopatin V.V. 2006. Pravila russkoj orfografii i punktuatsii. Polnyj akademicheskij spravochnik [Russian rules of spelling and punctuation. Full academic reference]. Eksmo. 480 p.
2. Bookchina B.Z. and Kalakutskya L. P. 1988. Slitno ili razdel'no? Opyt slovarya-spravochnika [Solidly or separately? A trial of a dictionary-reference book]. Russkij yazyk. 874 p.
3. Saenger P. 1997. Space between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading. Stanford University Press. 504 p.
4. Friedrich I. 1979. Istoriya pis'ma [History of writing]. Nauka. 463 p.
5. Mikhailov A. V. 1992. Drevnerusskij tekst: punktuatsiya i predikatsiya. Dokt. Diss. [Old Russian text: punctuation and predication. Doct. Diss.]. Sankt-Peterburg, 148 p.
6. Moore N. 2016. What's the point? The role of punctuation in realising information structure in written English. Functional Linguistics. 3 (6). DOI: 10.1186/s40554-016-0029-x.
7. Finbow T. 2004. Scriptura continua: a problem for logographic reading of archaic words in late Latin / early Romance? Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics. Pp. 37-66.
8. Jenkinson H. 1926. Notes on the study of English punctuation of the sixteenth century. The Review of English Studies. 2 (6). Pp. 152-158.
9. Parkes M.B. 1993. Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Berkeley: University of California Press. 327 p.
10. Dobiash-Rozhdestvenskaya O. A. 1936. Istoriya pis'ma v Srednie veka. Rukovodstvo k izucheniyu latinskoj paleografii [The history of writing in the Middle Ages. Guide to the study of Latin paleography]. USSR Academy of Sciences. 242 p.
11. Lublinskaya A. D. 1969. Latinskaya paleografiya [Latin paleography]. Vysshaya shkola. 323 p.
12. Kisery A. 2011. Literacy, Culture, and History in the Work of Thienemann and Hajnal. Available at: https://www. academia. edu/1503350/Literacy_culture_an d_history_in_the_work_of_Thienemann_and_Hajnal.
13. Sreznevsky I.I. 1861. Drevnie pamyatniki russkogo pis'ma [Ancient monuments of Russian writing]. Sankt-Peterburg. Available at: http://feb-web.ru/feb /izvest/1861/04/614-2732.htm.
14. Karskiy Y.F. 1979. Slavyanskaya kirillovskaya paleografiya [Cyril Slavic paleography]. Nauka. 517 p.
15. Epstein M.N. 2004. O budushhem gumanitarnykh nauk [About the future of the humanities]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2004. 864 p.
