The Classification of Cyrillic Scripts

(a greatly simplified schemata)

I. Handwriting (Manuscripts)

1. Runes (well documented, but still not clearly understood in form or origin)

2. Glagolitic Script (an obsolete proto-Slavic script that was used in the Balkans; it survived nearly to modern times in Croatia)

3. Paleocyrillic Script: Ustav (Uncial) – approx. 10th to 15th centuries

4. Church Slavonic Script: Poluustav (Semi-uncial)

5. Decorative Lettering

6. Cursive Lettering

II. Book Printing of the Pre-Niconian Era:
Old-style Poluustav Typeface

(Note: Old-style Poluustav was actually used until the end of the 17th cent.)

1. First Typeset Editions = Incunabula – These are the earliest printed books. (While the term incunabula technically signifies western European books printed before 1500, the dating can be accurately extended to the mid-1500s in the case of Church Slavonic books.) These books contain a fluid and expansive repertoire of characters, symbols and glyphs. In these initial (prototype or experimental) publications, several specialized and stylistic glyphs from the manuscript tradition were included in the character repertoire; however, it seems that these extra glyphs proved to be cumbersome to use, confusing to the reader (and typesetter) and quite superfluous in nature, and were thus abandoned immediately after the publication was completed. (It was an experimental phase after all.) The obscure variant symbols (which can be called "Transitional Phase I Characters") were then assimilated into more common symbols.

Transitional Phase I Characters: <add>

Incunabula include editions printed in the following locations:

The first typographers (fathers of Slavonic printing) were:

2. Official (Patriarchal) Editions (moderately controlled) of the Moscow Typografiia and other printing houses. – These books have a more stable repertoire of characters, symbols and glyphs, but there remains a certain amount of ambiguity in the use of a few characters (the letters "ѕ/з/ȥ", "о/ѡ", and "оу/ѹ" lacked consistency in their usage). Furthermore, the use of abbreviations was extensive, unstandarized and without consistency in their application; in theory, abbreviation should only be applied to words of a sacred nature, but this era of typography also allowed abbreviation of some common vocabulary and grammatical endings (when it was necessary to save space). A small number of characters (which can be called "Transitional Phase II Characters") remained in the pre-Nikonian repertoire, which were subsequently eliminated during the Nikonian reforms.

Transitional Phase II Characters: <add>

III. Book Printing of the Post-Niconian Era:
Modern Poluustav Typeface

1. Synodal Era Editions (end of 17th cent. to 1917, and to the present)

a. Muscovite Typography: In the post-Nikonian era, the orthography and typography was heavily reformed to resolve many of the inconsistencies of the pre-Nikonian script. All of the above-mention Transitional Phase I and II Characters were eliminated by the process of assimilation, consolidation and simplification. In addition, the system of abbreviation underwent a dramatic reform by the reducton in the repertoire of titly (abbreviations), both in the number of symbols used and the number of words which were abbreviated; the end result is quite stable and logical, but lacking in flexibility.

b. Kievan Editions (Kiev Caves Typographia)*

2. Post-Revolutionary Period (after 1917 to the present) — Civil Script typeface

<add description>

 

3. Carpatho-Rusyn and Eastern European Editions (years?)

<discuss "creeping Nikonianization">

4. Balkan and South Slavic Editions (Serbian, Bulgarian, Croatian, etc.)

 

In conclusion, we can see that the repertoire of characters used in book printing began as a fluid and expansive set of specialized symbols, and was gradually reduced to a more generalized and simplified mainstream repertoire (this holds true for almost every culture). In ancient times, the written word was a craft that embraced artistic expression, but in the modern era it has become a mechanized tool; but, alas, such is the price of bringing literacy to the masses.

*Moscow vs. Kievan Slavonic Typography

Most of the pre-revolutionary Russian Typografias (publishing houses) had their own distinct "cuts" of lead type, producing a distinctive appearance. This was often intentional, so that people could easily identify the printing press according to the particular type design. For one accustomed to Moscow Slavonic, Kievan Slavonic can be dramatically different in appearance and "feel". If one compares the Slavonic text of the Kievan vs. Moscow editions, there are some distinctive typographical differences in the choices of letter forms (usually "O" vs. "omega", etc.). Moscow books also tend to stick with one or two point sizes, but Kievan books use lots of font sizes with an abundance of tiny textual commentaries, introductions and rubrics. Moscow publications of the Scriptures usually contained full paragraphs of text (unnumbered), while Kievan editions had modern verse division and numbering of the Scriptures (including the Psalms). Kievan decorative art (chapter headers, drop caps, page borders, etc.) also tended to be very western in design, with lots of Baroque influence, while Moscow editions tended to avoid using page borders and excessive sentimental decoration.

SLAVONIC WRITING SYSTEMS – HOME