Кирилична частина Реймського Євангелія – важлива пам’ятка давньоруськоукраїнської книжної писемності

У статті проаналізовані орфографічні та мовні особливості кириличної частини Реймського Єван- гелія. На сьогодні досліджувана пам’ятка у славістиці дискусійна, остаточно не розв’язане питання ні про місце і час її створення, ні про писця. Думки дослідників з цього приводу надто різняться: одні вчені вважають, що книгу привезла до Франції донька українського князя Ярослава Мудрого Анна, вийшовши заміж за французького короля Генріха І; інші це заперечують, і пов’язують її ство- рення з ім’ям святого Прокопія з Чехії, який, згідно із вкладним записом, написаним наприкінці глаголичної частини, написав це Євангеліє. Існує також гіпотеза про сербське походження книги.Ми проаналізували різні гіпотези від початків наукового вивчення Реймського Євангелія (В. Ган- ка, О. Соболевський, Л. Леже та ін.), до подальших (Ю. Шевельов, П. Курінний, Л. Жуковська, I. Тот та ін.) та останніх (Є. Луняк, В. Александрович, Т. Миронова, Е. Біккініна та ін.) студій. Урахували й критично осмислили висновки дослідників, які в різні роки вивчали палеографічні, графічні та орфографічні та мовні характеристики рукопису. Уперше в славістиці звернено увагу на порівняння аналізованого Євангелія з орфографічно-лінгвістичними особливостями пам’яток київської писем- ної школи та виявленими в тексті властиво українськими діалектними особливостями.Зроблено висновок, що згадувані в Реймському Євангелії діалектні особливості мають відповід- ність у точно локалізованих та датованих київських пам’ятках другої частини ХІ століття. Не дає підстав вивести книгу за межі ХІ ст. й орфографія рукопису, а порівняння з орфографічними особ- ливостями точно датованих та локалізованих Остромирового Євангелія, Ізборників Святослава, Архангельського Євангелія навпаки дає багато підстав для узагальнення про раніший час створен- ня Реймського Євангелія від названих пам’яток, оскільки явно виділяється низкою оригінальних написань: одноєровість, закінчення рядків на голосний та приголосний, майже цілковита відсут- ність йотованих, характерне уживання діакритичних знаків. Пам’ятка творена в час, коли устале- ної давньоруської редакції церковнослов’янської мови ще не було. Писець, вочевидь, сам творив руський писемний узус і вводив перші орфографічні руські писемні особливості. Писцем рукопису був русин, найімовірніше, киянин.The present paper analyzes the orthographic and linguistic features of the Cyrillic part of the Reims Gospel. Today, this monument is controversial in Slavic studies: the problems of the place and time of its creation and the questions about its writer have not been finally resolved yet. The opinions of researchers on this subject are very different: some scholars believe that book was brought to France by the daughter of Ukrainian Prince Yaroslav the Wise, Anne, who married the King of France Henry I. Others deny this idea and associate its creation with the name of St. Procopius from Bohemia, who allegedly wrote this Gospel, according to the appendix placed at the end of the Glagolitic part. There is also a hypothesis about the Serbian origin of the book.We analyzed various hypotheses, starting from the early studies of the Reims Gospel (V. Hanka, O. Sobolevsky, L. Leger, etc.), to subsequent ones (Yu. Shevelyov, P. Kurinny, L. Zhukovskaya, I. Tóth, etc.) and recent studies (E. Lunyak, V. Alexandrovich, T. Mironova, E. Bikkinina, G. Prikhodko, M. Fougeron, etc.). The conclusions of researchers who studied the palaeographic, graphic, orthographic, and linguistic characteristics of the manuscript in different years were taken into account and critically comprehended. For the first time in Slavic studies, attention was paid to the comparison of the analyzed Gospel with the orthographic and linguistic features of the monuments of the Kyiv written school and the Ukrainian dialectal features.It is concluded that the dialectal features observed in the Reims Gospel correspond to accurately dated and localized Kyiv monuments of the second part of the 11th century. The orthography of the manuscript does not make it possible to take the book outside the 11th century. A comparison with orthographic features of Ostromir Gospel, Svyatoslav’s Collected Works, and Archangel’s Gospel gives many grounds for generalization about the earlier time of creation of the Reims Gospel. It is clearly distinguished from the above-mentioned monuments by a number of original writings: singularity, the ending of lines on vowels and consonants, almost complete absence of iotated, the characteristic use of diacritical marks, etc. The monument was created at a time when there was no established Old Ruthenian edition of the Church Slavonic language. Apparently, the writer created the Ruthenian written usus by himself and introduced the first Russian orthographic features. The writer of the manuscript was a Ruthenian, most likely a Kyivan.

The Making of Nordic Monasticism, c. 1076–c. 1350

The introduction of regular religious life in the Nordic region is less well-documented than in the neighbouring kingdoms of northern Europe. In the absence of well-preserved manuscript and material remains, unfounded and sometimes distorting suppositions have been made about the timeline of monastic settlement and the character of the conventual life it brought. Recent archival and archaeological research can offer fresh insights into these questions. The arrival of authentic regular life may have been as early as the second quarter of the eleventh century in Denmark and Iceland, but there was no secure or stable community in any part of Scandinavia until the turn of the next century. A settled monastic network arose from a compact between the leadership of the secular church and the ruling elite, a partnership motivated as much by the shared pursuit of political, social and economic power as by any personal piety. Yet, the force of this patronal programme did not inhibit the development of monastic cultures reflected in books, original writings, church and conventual buildings, which bear comparison with the European mainstream.

A Deconstructive Analysis of Derrida’s Philosophy

This paper is designed to reveal some of the philosophical ideas of Algerian-born philosopher Jacques Derrida. Jacques Derrida, a leading figure of Post-structuralism and Postmodernism is best known as the founding father of ‘Deconstruction’ but many of his philosophical ideas such as, logocentrism, differance, phonocentrism, aporia, anti-representationalism, etc. still remain rarely focused. Therefore, in this paper the researcher has tried to explore various philosophical ideas of Derrida before the readers to get acquainted with Derrida’s contribution to the world of knowledge. This research work has done with the help of both primary sources i.e., original writings of Derrida and secondary sources including the texts written by others. Here, all of Derrida’s ideas are explicitly described and justified by an inductive method. Finally, a concluding remark on deconstruction has been made by comparing Derrida’s idea of “Differance” with Nagarjuna’s concept of “Emptiness” which left the Indian roots of deconstruction.

Niche Construction

Niche construction is a concept that originated in evolutionary biology. It challenges the assumption that ecological niches are empty, pre-existing environmental spaces into which passive organisms must be fitted through adaptive natural selection. Niche construction theory argues that organisms construct their own niches when they actively select features of their current environment on which to rely, thereby influencing the selection pressures they encounter. Niche construction was developed after 1975, during a period when sociobiology had gained popularity among evolutionary theorists, with claims that all features of organisms, from anatomy to social behavior, could be explained in terms of natural selection on genes. Organisms, indeed, were disappearing as agents in evolutionary narratives. By the mid-1980s, however, sociobiological narratives were facing challenges. Perhaps the most successful were mounted by evolutionary theorists who borrowed mathematical models from population biology and used them to explore how Darwinian selection might operate on units of culture as well as on genes. During this period, the original writings on niche construction were also re-examined, and ways were sought to model the process mathematically. These efforts led to the publication in 2003 of the landmark text Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution, by John Odling-Smee, Kevin Laland, and Marcus Feldman. This volume has since become widely influential, not only among theorists of biological and cultural evolution but also among scholars in fields such as ecology and developmental biology, as well as in the human sciences. In anthropology, archaeologists and biological anthropologists in particular have found niche construction theoretically helpful for explaining such phenomena as our ancestors’ ability to outlast other hominin species in the Pleistocene, our success in domesticating plants and animals after ten thousand years ago, and our dramatic remaking of global landscapes and species distributions in what has been called the Anthropocene. As a result, work on niche construction is coming to intersect in provocative ways across the subfields of anthropology with work by sociocultural anthropologists interested in areas such as environmental anthropology, material culture, and multispecies ethnography.

Bentham: Punishment and the Utilitarian Use of Persons as Means

One of the main barriers against a Utilitarian justification of punishment is a widespread criticism that if punishment is evil justified by the good it can achieve, then the state could use persons as a means to an end in pursuing this good. This opens the door, at a theoretical level, for the potential punishment of innocents, disproportionate punishment and failure to respect persons as rational and responsible agents. Further, critics argue that any considerations of security or utility guard against the perceived risks contingently, without intrinsic commitment to respecting persons as ends in themselves. This article addresses the criticism fundamentally by returning to Bentham’s original writings and demonstrating that a principle of equality is embedded in the greatest happiness as an end of government. The principle of equality can theoretically be developed using the tools of Bentham’s political theory, including his commitments to democracy, to the elimination of pain and to the differentiation between real and fictitious entities, to ensure that a Utilitarian theory of punishment, as part of its premise, would be constrained from using persons as mere means. Further, building on the equality of happiness, the article proposes an individualistic justification of punishment that responds to the traditional accusations of innocents’ punishment and excessive punishment, and ensures the respect of persons as rational and responsible agents.

Paul Kammerer and epigenetics – a reappraisal of his experiments

During recent years, the scientific interest in the work of Austrian biologist Paul Kammerer (1880‒1926) has risen again. This development can largely be attributed to advances in the fields of epigenetics and epigenetic inheritance, and it resulted in provocative discussions. This article contributes to enhancing the knowledge about Kammerer’s publications in two respects. First, I provide a brief overview and contextualization of Kammerer’s main works on phenotypic plasticity and its inheritance, some of which seem little known at present. Thereafter, to ensure an accurate transmission of the historical record, I comment on recently published suggestive information about what Kammerer did and wrote, chiefly referring to Kammerer’s original writings on fire salamanders (Salamandra salamandra) and cave salamanders (Proteus anguinus). Although the exact contents of Kammerer’s writings remain controversial and must be regarded with caution, his writings need to be treated objectively and accurately to avoid historical record distortion and to render the performance of adequate replications of his experiments possible.

Double Devil’s Advocacy: Were They or Weren’t They? Only Nil Sorskii Knew

This scholar’s work on Nil Sorskii and Iosif Volotskii progressed unevenly from adhering to Ia.S. Lur’e’s modification of the traditional Nil vs. Iosif paradigm to a strident assertion of their collaborative alliance promoting monasticism and resolutely opposing dissidence, with a mixture of intersection and compatible differences of emphasis in their original writings. But one must concede the possibility that Nil’s collaboration did not include support of Iosif’s enthusiastic endorsement of monasterial riches, the commemoration culture that bolstered it, and the harshest measures against convicted heretics. And while in in no way provable, one cannot know for certain that Nil did not speak up in some way against monasterial riches at a Moscow synod in 1503.

The Epistemic Advantage of Lost Autographic Tokens of the Bible

I address an epistemic and related ontological dificulty with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The ontological problem: If biblical inerrancy applies to the original autographs, why would God allow these to disappear from the scene? The epistemological problem: Given that the original autographs are gone, we lack a way to know exactly what the original writings were. The first problem is solved by distinguishing text types and tokens, and claiming that semantic meaning and inerrancy are underivative features types. The second is resolved by claiming that in the actual world, we are epistemically better off with the original tokens gone.

W. Morris’s tradition in J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic fantasy

This article offers a comprehensive review of W. Morris influence on the epic fantasy of J.R.R. Tolkien. The purpose of the research is to reflect how Morris tradition influenced the development of Tolkiens fantastic prose - which later formed a separate subgenre of epic fantasy - and the whole fantasy genre. The objectives of the study include tracing the history of the development of fantastic element in literature - which served as a basis for the works of both authors - and finding poetological similarities and differences between W. Morris and J.R.R. Tolkien. The comparative study is based on the works of V. Gopman and K. Massey as well as on the original writings of Morris and Tolkien. The result of the study is the justification for W. Morris as the natural literary precursor of Tolkien. Based on the influence and partial borrowing of Morris imagery and motifs, Tolkin develops the theoretical foundation for the genre of magical fairy tale, which will later be called fantasy.