Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

English citations of ustav, poluustav, polu-ustav, and semi-ustav

Related to manuscript style.

ME « 15th c. 16th c. 17th c. 18th c. 19th c. 20th c. 21st c.
  • 1943, A. Aronson, Rabindranath Through Western Eyes, Kitabistan, p 323.
    The handsomely fashioned writing is of the type described as polu-ustav (semi-uncial), which is midway between the stately ustav and the cursive, and seems to belong to the second half of the seventeeth century.
  • 1992, Paul Bushkovitch, Religion and Society in Russia: The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Oxford University Press, →ISBN, p 180.
    The text is written in Russian (not Ukrainian) ustav (uncial) with a contemporary inscription stating that it was presented by Patriarch Ioakim but not giving the name of the person to whom it was presented.
  • 1997, Pavel Florensky (1914), Boris Jakim transl., The Pillar and Ground of Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters, Princeton University Press, →ISBN, p 562.
    [endnote] 709. Kniga Alfavit [The Book of the Alphabet], in the small semi-ustav of the 17th century, then in cursive; ibid., No. 11 (16); Supplement, fol. 96.
  • 2001, Steven Roger Fischer, A History of Writing, Reaktion Books, →ISBN, p 160.
    [caption] 122 Southern Slavonic manuscript (dated 1345) in the ‘Polu-Ustáv’, or Semi-Ustáv, Cyrillic script that served as the main model for the first Slavonic book-printing in the 1500s.
  • 2002, Simon Franklin, Writing, Society and Culture in Early Rus, c. 950-1300, Cambridge University Press, →ISBN, p 100.
    There is a single style of lettering, ustav, which is normally and not quite satisfactorily translated as ‘uncial’. . . . In Cyrillic, ustav can likewise be contrasted with poluustav (usually ‘semi-uncial’), but the distinction is less clear. But whatever the precise definitions, the point is that all East Slav Cyrillic in this period, even allowing for inevitable differences between the realisations of letter-forms in manuscripts and inscriptions, is based on a single mode, the ustav form: no poluustav; no choice between ‘majuscule’ and ‘miniscule’ letter-forms (loosely = ‘capital’ and ‘small’, or in the anachronistic jargon of print and proof-reading ‘upper-case’ and ‘lower-case’); no cursive or book-hand.

English citations of ustav

Related to church statutes.

ME « 15th c. 16th c. 17th c. 18th c. 19th c. 20th c. 21st c.
  • 1950, Nil Sorsky, Hesychasm, Maksim Grek, “Towards Establishing the Canon”, in Oxford Slavonic Papers: New Series, Clarendon Press, p 48.
    In the Ustav, Nil does recommend [...]
  • 1991, David Scheffel, In the Shadow of Antichrist: The Old Believers of Alberta, Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, →ISBN, p 106.
    These are the euchologion ('trebnik), which contains the complete text of the mass and the sacrements; the liturgikon (sluzhebnik), which lists the three liturgies used by the Orthodox Church; the horologion (chasovnik), with a guide to all holy days; the plaster (psaltyr), which contains psalms and rules pertaining to the ritual conduct of individual believers; and, finally, the typikon (ustav), with a description of daily prayers and fasts. ¶ While most of the service books are employed only in the conduct of public devotion, the psalter and the ustav are widely read works that are found in every household.
  • 1992, Paul Bushkovitch, Religion and Society in Russia: The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Oxford University Press, →ISBN, p 15–16.
    These differences of emphasis however, led ultimately to different views of the nature of monastic life, and on matters of both organization and spirituality: Nil’s rule, his ustav, was almost entirely concerned with the monk’s inner life, while Joseph’s concentrated on matters of discipline and organization.
  • 1997, Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, →ISBN, p 52.
    Grand Prince Vladimir’s ustav (church statute) in the late eleventh century listed it with witchcraft as one of the crimes an ecclesiastical court could try, and Moisei, archbishop of Novgorod in the middle of the fourteenth century, listed among reprehensible practices “the writing of Greek words no apples and placing them on the altar during mass” and various magical practices employed by people about to go fishing or hunting, or seeking audience with the prince.