-
Ricerche slavistiche 12 (58) 2014: 373-385
WILLIAM R. VEDER
WHY WISH AWAY GLAGOLITIC?
Malum nascens facile opprimitur,
inveteratum fit plerumque robustius
Ovidius
Scholarship guided by wishful thinking cannot yield reliable
results.
Take the assumption in Slavic studies that Slavonic was a
language
of the people and, consequently, subject to chronological and
topo-
logical change: it wilfully ignores the fact that the language
was de-
stined to express Gods Word, which will not pass away (Mt
24:35).
Let me present two examples of such wishful thinking, one of
which
has stunted the study of Slavonic for almost eighty years.
Wishing a Synod at Preslav in 893/4
Regino of Prm ( 915) in his Chronicon inserted sub anno 868
a
notice on Bulgarian affairs, which mentions the baptism of the
peo-
ple (864) and goes on to say that the king deinde, convocato
omni
regno suo, filium iuniorem regem constituit1 afterwards, having
con-
vened all his realm, he appointed his younger son king
(evidently
not in 868, but we are left to guess when).
Patriarch Nikephoros I ( 828) in his Chronographikon does
not
mention this event, but the anonymous continuation (only
partially
known in Greek) states sub anno 893/4 that from the baptism of
the
Bulgarians to the !"#$%&'()* +,()-, [it is] 30 years, and
from the
(1) F. Kurze (ed.), Reginensis abbatis Prumiensis Chronicon.
Hannover 1890, p.
95 (= Scriptores rerum germanicarum, 50). On Regino, see W.
Hartmann in Neue
Deutsche Biographie, 21 (2003), pp. 269-270.
-
William R. Veder 374
Seventh Council to the !"#$%&'()* +,()-, 77 years, and from
Adam 6405 or 6.2 There is an event, but we are left to guess
which.
In 1925, Vasil Zlatarski had no doubt that the dates could
be
equated and the events related. He saw !"#$%&'()* +,()-, as
the first official act of the new prince in his new capital city,
Preslav
(which may have been no more than a construction site by 894),
and
interpreted the Slavonic to refer to either transfer or
replacement,
and to Scripture, books, and the collocation to mean either
trans-
lation of Scripture (i.c. scriptural commentaries) or
replacement of
books (i.c. Greek by Slavonic for divine service).3
Out of convocato omni regno suo + !"#$%&'()* +,()-, + 6405
or 6 by sheer wishful thinking was born an event: The Synod of
Preslav of 893/4. German historians would call such arbitrary
con-
flation Geschichtsklitterung making a hotchpotch of history.
Wishing the Synod to Take Action
Six years later, Grigorij A. Ilinskij wholeheartedly embraced
Zla-
tarskijs conflation, taking issue only with his interpretation
of the
collocation !"#$%&'()* +,()-,. He pointed out that +,()-.
can refer not only to book or books, but also to letters, and
proposed to
read !"#$%&'()* +,()-, as replacement of letters and to
refer to the replacement of the Glagolitic alphabet by the
Cyrillic. He even sup-
plied an author of the new letters, Constantine the Younger of
Pre-
slav (Zlatarski had simply asked whether a name might have
been
omitted after +,()-,), as well as a reason for the replacement:
the
(2) On patriarch Nikephoros I, see Alexander P. Ka!dan in Oxford
Dictionary of
Byzantium. New York - Oxford 1991, p. 1477; on the
Chronographikon and its Sla-
vonic translation, see Elena K. Piotrovskaja in Slovar kni!nikov
i kni!nosti Drevnej
Rusi, t. 1. Leningrad 1987, pp. 231-234; for more recent
editions of the translation,
see Dmitrij M. Bulanin, Katalog pamjatnikov drevnerusskoj
pismennosti XI-XIV vv.
(Rukopisnye knigi). S. - Pb. 2014, p. 360; for misreadings of
numerals in the Glago-
litic translation (like the 5 or 6 shown), see Maria Spasova,
K"m v"prosa za slavjan-
skija prevod na L#topis$c$ v% krat$c# na patriarx &ikifor,
Die slawischen Sprach-
en, 33 (1993), pp. 81-91.
(3) V. Zlatarski, Stranica iz starata kulturna istorija na
b"lgarite, in Sbornik v
'est i v pamet na Lui Le!e. Sofia 1925, pp. 279-302, repr. in
Istorija na b"lgarskata
d"r!ava, t. 1, ". 2. Sofia 1927, repr. Sofia 1971.
-
Why Wish Away Glagolitic? 375
behest of the new prince, who strove to facilitate and speed the
pro-
cess of slavicisation of the Bulgarian church and state.4
The Synod of Preslav of 893/4 had now been wishfully sup-
plied with an agenda and at least one of its executors. More
import-
antly, Slavonic studies had been streamlined, the cumbersome
Gla-
golitic writing confined to the initial fourty years of
literacy. All of
this appealed to the common sense of the community of
slavists:
many of the articles in the Kirilo-Metodievska enciklopedija
(Sofia
1985-2003) show its pervasiveness.5
This is wishful thinking on a grand scale: Ilinskij, in fact,
postu-
lated a model of text production and transmission without having
any
relevant study to rely on.6 Like his teachers over the previous
cen-
tury and a half, he assumed that, Slavonic being a language of
the
people, every scribe was free to write how he wanted, i.e. that
text
production and transmission in Slavonic did not differ from that
in
Western European vernaculars.7 He even ignored Mixail N.
Speran-
skijs paper of three years earlier on the Glagolitic ancestry of
the Ev-
genievskaja and Tolstovskaja Psalters (11th c.) and other early
Nov-
gorod manuscripts.8 So he could not know that, while !"#$%&
can in-
(4) G. A. Ilinskij, Gde, kogda, kem i s kakoju celju glagolica
byla zamenena ki-
rillicej, Byzantinoslavica, 3 (1931), pp. 79-88.
(5) It is to the credit of the editors of the Enciklopedija that
they avoided devot-
ing an entry to the Synod of Preslav.
(6) The first pertinent study belongs to Josif Popovski.
Najstariji par antigrafa i
apografa u slovenskoj pismenosti, destined to be published in
Palographie et di-
plomatique slaves, 3 (1987), but vanished with its archive in
Sofia (Viktor M. !i-
vov, Vosto!noslavjanskoe pravopisanie XI-XIII veka. Moskva 2006,
pp. 9-75, per-
used a manuscript copy); it will be published in Polata
knigopisnaja, 41 (2015).
(7) The idea that scribes must have written in their own tongue
was first expres-
sed by Mixail M. "#erbatov, Istorija rosskijskaja ot drevnej"ix
vremen, 1. S. - Pb.
1770, p. iv, in reference to his Izbornik of 1076; it was given
semblance of fact by
the work of Nicolaas van Wijk, who could rely on extensive
experience in Middle-
Dutch text transmission (see my Kirchenslavische Handschriften
und Texte im Werk
#icolaas van Wijks, in W. R. Veder, Hiljada godini kato edin
den. Sofia 2005, pp.
59-62).
(8) M. N. Speranskij, Otkuda idut starej"ie pamjatniki russkoj
pismennosti i lite-
ratury?, Slavi$, 7 (1927-28), pp. 516-535; the paper is also
ignored in the edition
of Viktor V. Kolesov, Evgenievskaja Psaltyr, Dissertationes
Slavicae, 8 (1972),
pp. 58-69 + 40 pp. facsimile.
-
William R. Veder 376
deed refer to letters (as can !"#$% writ, writing, "'() speech
and *+%,% word), it invariably does so in replacing -.*$/0#.9 And
he could not know that Constantine the Younger of Preslav did not
prod-
uce texts written in Cyrillic.10 Finally, he could not know that
the use
of Glagolitic in text production can be traced up to the 12th c.
and in
text transmission well into the 17th c.
Glagolitic Features in Text Transmission
Manuscript transmission of texts, like any data processing, is
an in-
terface of three components: 1 input ! 2 processing ! 3 output,
3
being the copy, 2 the copyist, or more precisely his language
and text
competence, and 1 the antigraph which provides the data for the
out-
put. Processing and output are largely determined by the
features of
the input:11 if copies from different regions and different
times show
the same pattern in their variation, its source should be sought
in 1,
not in 2.12 Cyrillic antigraphs yield variation patterns
different from
Glagolitic antigraphs.13 The eight components of the latter
variation
pattern will be summarily reviewed below.
1 The presence of Glagolitic writing in a copy, be it entire
lines
(e.g. 1*2345#| 6789:;< =:>:?
-
Why Wish Away Glagolitic? 377
f. 43), incidental letters (e.g. !"#$%&%'( )( "*+,)$-. Scala
Paradisi Moscow RGB F.304 nr. 161, f. 26v, from f. 33v on ! more
frequent-ly) or single signs (e.g. /0+, # '*1,2"3'456, Izmaragd
Moscow RGB F.304 nr. 203, f. 147v), constitutes proof of its direct
contact
with Glagolitic.14
2 Numerical values of Glagolitic and Cyrillic letters are not
equal:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E 6 F * 2 G + % H I # J K L 1
' 5 M , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Typical variant readings are:
-
William R. Veder 378
confusion has nothing to do with regional variety,16 nor is it
limited
to the nasal vowels themselves (see e.g. Lk 24:22 !"#$ %&"'$
(&) #*+) ,!*+-./ [! ,!*+-." Zog] #$). Typical variant readings
are: 01-2317 ! 45&- (transliteration) : 4/&-
(mistransliteration, see also the hybrid 46&-) : 4,&-
(transcription) : 4)7-&- (transcription with m from internal
dictation); 389:; ! -7)." (transliteration + tran-scription) : /."
(mistranscription with im telescoped by internal dic-tation); ?:? !
#*@/./ (transliteration) : #*@*.* (transcription) : #*@/.5
(transliteration + mistranscription) : #*@A#)." (mistranscrip-tion
with n from internal dictation) : #*@A#)."7) (mistranscription with
n and m from internal dictation).
5 Confusion of consonants is rife in copies from Glagolitic
anti-
graphs.18 Most frequent are the following types: (a) B " C e.g.
(D*@" : - E*@", E'F7F#- : D'F7"#-; (b) G " 0 " H " 2 e.g. +)I)J* :
+)IA4*, I)J*J) : I)J*K), E(L#"&"#) : E(L#"J"#), 4FK( :
KF&(: &FK(; (c) M " N " O (Greek #19) e.g. L+* : P+*,
P'-+&-Q#) : R'A+&-Q#), E(R,4-&- : E(P,-K-&-; (d) 8
" S (Slavic !19) e.g. 7(K-&- : PJ*K-&-, -7FP) : -7*7A; (e)
T " > $ E(+FU"#-% : E(+F@"#-%, E(+F@"#) : E(+FU"#). Here, too,
belong three Cyrillic graphs V, W and X not included in original
Gla-golitic: Y;Z=[\89 ! +"'*]-7) (transliteration) : +"'*V-7)
(transcrip-tion); =H;NY=
-
Why Wish Away Glagolitic? 379
!"#$%&'("), !"#*+),(-) : !"(*+#,(-), -( : -# : -), ./-#-) :
./-0-), 12340 : 1234), 5( %6*#2# : 5)%6*#2). (b) They are joined by
a, which can be written similar to e:20 e.g. 7,( : 8,(, / 23,/ :
820,(. (c) Further a 9, y : and ! ; have features, which allow them
to be confused: e.g. 26?@. (d) The letter " A does not only
alternate with ), in tense position it alter-nates with 1 and =:
e.g. BACDAEAF : 52"G'H : 52"G'
-
William R. Veder 380
Production of Glagolitic Texts up to the 12th Century
Below I list in chronological order datable texts or versions,
the trans-
mission of which exhibits features 2-8:
898-899 antigraph of the Clozianus and the homiliary part of the
Suprasliensis;22
before 900 revision of the Scala Paradisi and the Quaestiones ad
Antiochum;23
before 927 protograph of the Izbornik of 1073;24
before 930 protograph of the Scaliger Patericon;25
ca. 930 protograph of the Knja!ij Izbornik;26
before 935 protograph of O Pismenex;27
ca. 960 protograph of the Izbornik of John the Sinner;26
after 992 protograph of the Synaxarium and its enhancement to
the Prolog;28
996 first update of the Chronograph;29
after 1097 protograph of the Dioptra of Philippos
Monotropos.30
my Der glagolitische Archetyp des Paterik Skitskij, in Dutch
Contributions to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists.
Lisse 1979, pp. 339-346.
(22) See M. Spasova, W. R. Veder, Copying, Copy-Editing, Editing
and Recol-lating Three Chrysostomian Lenten Homilies in Slavonic,
Polata knigopisnaja, 38 (2010), pp. 97-144; Bulgarian: Prepisvane,
popravjane, redaktirane i sverka na sla-vjanskija prevod na tri
Zlatoustovi velikopostni slova, Preslavska kni!ovna "kola, 9
(2006), pp. 53-107.
(23) See my Psevdo-Atanasij Aleksandrijski. V"prosi i otgovori
k"m knjaz An-tioh, tt. 1-2. Veliko T#rnovo, forthcoming.
(24) See my Preslu#vajki edna poxvala, in M. Jov$eva et al.
(eds.), P$nie malo Georgiju. Sbornik v %est na 65-godi#ninata na
prof. dfn Georgi Popov. Sofia 2010, pp. 358-366.
(25) See my Der Stein, den die Bauleute verworfen haben, Die
Welt der Sla-ven, 57 (2012) 2, pp. 293-305.
(26) See my Knja!ij Izbornik za v"zpitanie na kanartikina, tt.
1-2. Veliko T#rno-vo 2008.
(27) See my Utrum in alterum, cit., pp. 58, 88-152.
(28) See my Markup in the Prolog, Polata knigopisnaja, 39,
forthcoming.
(29) See my Ot edin prevod, cit.
(30) See the splendidly documented edition Heinz Miklas, Jrgen
Fuchsbauer, Die kirchenslavische bersetzung der Dioptra des
Pilippos Monotropos, Bd. 1. Wien
-
Why Wish Away Glagolitic? 381
To these should most probably be added the protograph of the
Cate-
cheses of Symeon the New Theologian ( 1022). The copy of the
Glagolitic Scala Paradisi Moscow RGB F.304 nr. 161, f. 6-8v,
inter-
2013. It attests the following variants (small numbers refer to
pages): 1 Glagolitic
339 !"#. 3 Confusion of nasals is ubiquitous (esp. in L), incl.
confusion with oral vowels, e.g. 331 $%&'()*+, ! $&'()*-,
(# ! .), 341 */*0!$12 ! /*0!$13, (. ! #), 351 45,6,% ! 4573,8 (9 !
#). 4 Confusion in jotation is ubiquitous in hiatus; in addition
e.g. 331 *)8$:&5;5 ! )%$*&5;5, 339 &'*$6733 !
&'6$6733, 345 $6 ! $H@*/!; (I ! J) 351 */5;%,!! ! /5&,!! :
/5&,3!, 377 A0?%)*$,3 ! A@?%)*$,3, 395 A,6;K3/L !
A@,6&K3/1; (M ! N) 339 O,* ! 1$?*"*/>*, 355 /3, 335 =W[3 !
=W[*, 353 *14R7'3/!C ! 14(7'3/>*, 1;5=!* ! 1;5=>3,
1$?*"=3/>* ! 1$?*-"*/>*, 355 105&53/>* ! 105&5:/8:
: 105&53/>+, 361 =W[3 ! =W[*, 365 K'%)>* ! K'8)>3, 367
)%/ 6"3 ! )% C"3, 371 0'P,)5'3/>3 ! 0'3,)5'3/>:, 375 '*B?3 !
&'*$5)*/>*, 391 )%B-=(4*/!* ! )%BD=(4*/>3, 394
/*0*=3/>* ! /*0*=*/!:, 398 0'5W3/8+ ! 0'5W3/>6, 400
$@3$P=5)*/8+ ! B@3$P=5)*/8:, 401 0'5K3C ! 0'5K*6, ?!Y3 ! ?!Y*; (# "
` " a " .) 349 ='1;5+ ! ='5;5+, 351 ,)5'Y1 ! ,D)L'YL, 355
)%$4(73/!- ! )%$4!-73/>+, 355 @?!B% ! @?!B1, 357 !7H0*/! :
,!HD0/!; (. ! b) 341 *HA0,'* ! =!f0*,D'*, 355 1-:B)P*4< !
1:BD)?:41. 8 Anagrams: 351 )%$05H!/**4< ! )8$05H3/14, 359 ,PH% !
,DHP, 361 !$0(,*-,8 ! !$0(,16,D, 401 0'6=3/!: ! 0'3=*/g:.
Tautogram: 351 -/(6 ! -/8/(3.
-
William R. Veder 382
rupts the Epistle of John of Raithou to insert 2 ff. of a
catechesis of
Symeon, which the copyist could not recognise as a foreign text
be-
cause it must have been written in Glagolitic as well.
Transmission of Glagolitic Texts into the 17th Century
Below I list in chronologial order texts, the copies of which
indivi-
dually show the features 2-8:
before 1050 the Pandect of Antioch;31
before 1100 the codex Suprasliensis;32
1175-1450 9 copies of the Scala Paradisi version a;33
1175-1500 6 copies of the Quaestiones ad Antiochum;34
1200-1394 8 South Slavic copies of the Scete Paterikon;35
1275-1520 3 copies of the Scaliger Patericon;36
1275-1600 25 copies of the Chronicle of George Hamartolos;37
1300-1600 39 copies of the Tale of Aphroditian;38
1348 the Ivan-Aleksandrov Sbornik;39
(31) See the edition by Josif Popovski in Polata knigopisnaja,
23-24 (1989), and
his forms index in Polata knigopisnaja, 30-31 (1999). Part of
the Cyrillic copy was
copied ca. 1175-1200 into the Troickij Sbornik !r. 12 (ed.
Polata knigopisnaja,
21-22 (1988), see Popovski, !ajstariji par, cit.), but f. 1-64
and 158-202 of that
sbornik are copied from Glagolitic.
(32) See Spasova, Veder, Copying, cit.
(33) See my Ploskaja tradicija tekstov, Palaeobulgarica, 36
(2012) 4, pp. 98-
109 (codd. Moskva RGB F.256 nr. 198 and 199, F.304 nr. 10). From
the same Gla-
golitic antigraph are copied codd. Moskva RGADA MGAMID 452, GIM
Sin. 105,
!ud. 218, Uvar. 865 and S.-Pb. RNB Sof. 1214.
(34) Copied in the Trinity-St Sergius Laura from 4 Glagolitic
antigraphs, see my
Der Zweite sdslavische Einfluss aus der Sicht der
Textberlieferung, Die Welt der
Slaven, 59 (2014) 1, pp. 95-110.
(35) Copied from the protograph at Ohrid, see my Metodievata zla
hiena, Kiri-
lo-Metodievski studii, 17 (2007), pp. 783-798.
(36) Copied from the protograph in Volhynia, see my Der Stein,
cit.
(37) See my The Trouble with Middle Bulgarian, Polata
knigopisnaja, 40, forth-
coming.
(38) See my The Slavonic Tale of Aphroditian, T"rnovska kni#ovna
$kola, 9
(2011), pp. 344-358.
(39) See my The Trouble, cit.
-
Why Wish Away Glagolitic? 383
1350-1600 16 copies of the works of Dorotheus of Gaza;40
1380-1620 10 copies of the Scala Paradisi version b;41
1390-1550 5 copies of Esther;42
1390-1700 7 copies of the P!ela;43
1400-1526 6 copies of the Scala Paradisi version c;41
1400-1700 3 copies of the Izmaragd in 164 Chapters;44
1500-1650 8 copies of the Epistle of patriarch Photius;37
1590-1650 3 copies of 4-6 Sborniki;45
before 1653 ch. 69 of the printed Korm!aja.46
Glagolitic Just Faded Away
The 28 texts and their 149 copies listed above are not
numerous
compared to the corpus of ca. 8,000 Slavonic texts preserved in
ca.
800,000 manuscript books and fragments of the 10th through
20th
centuries. The study of text transmission, even if aiming at no
more
than to identify the direct antigraphs of copies, progresses
slowly.
Yet they do offer evidence of a type of text tradition foreign
to
the postulated Western European vernacular model: a flat
tradition,
(40) Of these, 12 were copied in the Trinity-St Sergius Laura
from a single anti-
graph, see my The Trouble, cit. The 3 known South Slavic copies
probably depend
from a different antigraph.
(41) Copied in the Trinity-St Sergius Laura from a single
antigraph, see my Plo-
skaja tradicija, cit.
(42) See my Esthers Glagolitic Ancestry, Ricerche slavistiche,
Nuova serie 8
(2010), pp. 213-223.
(43) See my A Retrial for the P!ela, Polata knigopisnaja, 38
(2010), pp. 145-
154.
(44) See my Psevdo-Atanasij, cit., and Gennadius Slavicus in
Srednovekovijat
!ovek i negovijat svjat. Veliko T"rnovo, forthcoming.
(45) See my Meleckij sbornik i istorija drevnebolgarskoj
literatury, Palaeobul-
garica, 6 (1982) 3, pp. 154-165, and Literature as a
Kaleidoscope, in W. R. Veder,
Hiljada godini, cit., pp. 102-109. The readings adduced by
Marija S. Mu#inskaja
et al. (eds.), Izbornik 1076 goda. Vtoroe izdanie. Moskva 2009,
prove that the Lvov-
skij Sbornik nr. 134 is not copied from the Meleckij Sbornik,
but from its Glagolitic
antigraphs; the same will surely hold true for the Uvarovskij
Sbornik nr. 157.
(46) See my Avva Anastasij Sinajski. V"prosi i otgovori, t. 1.
Veliko T"rnovo
2011, p. 22.
-
William R. Veder 384
in which all copies belong to the same, the second generation
(with
respect to their antigraph). And they do offer evidence of the
full va-
lidity of Giorgio Pasqualis recentiores non deteriores in the
Slavia
slavonica:47 of the 12 copies of the works of Dorotheus of Gaza
and
the 16 copies of the Scala Paradisi versions b and c made in the
Tri-
nity-St Sergius Laura, the older usually render the antigraph
less re-
liably than the younger.48 Further, they offer a solution to a
problem
brought to the fore by the grand master of Slavonic
archaeography,
Anatolij A. Turilov, viz. the near-total lack of pairs of
antigraph and
apograph:49 after six or more centuries of wear and tear from
multi-
ple copying, the Glagolitic antigraphs just faded away. Finally,
they
offer evidence that the language of the texts had little in
common
with the language of the people: the choice for antigraphs of
great
age and the cumulation of copies of the same texts in the
library of
the Trinity-St Sergius Laura suggest that they were made for
learn-
ing (both of the text and its language), rather than for
dissemination.
Is it conceivable that the Prague historian and philologist
Josef
Karsek (1868-1916) was right when he claimed that Slavonic was
a
theoretical, artificial language?50
(47) The overdue reformulation of the dichotomy Slavia orthodoxa
~ Slavia ro-
mana (Riccardo Picchio, Questione della lingua e Slavia
cirillomethodiana, in Stu-
di sulla questione della lingua presso gli slavi. Roma 1972) in
non-confessional
terms as Slavia slavonica ~ Slavia latina belongs to Sante
Graciotti, Le due slavie:
problemi di terminologia e problemi di idee, Ricerche
slavistiche, 45-46 (1998-
1999), pp. 5-86.
(48) An exception is the youngest copy of the Izmaragd, which
suffers from haste.
(49) He complained that this lack impedes the study of the
so-called Second
South Slavic Influence (sse my Der Zweite, cit.) in Russian
letters: !"-"# $%&'(
$%)*%+% %',-','.(/ *0%12%3(452 3)/ (,,)03%.#*(/ $#6
%6(+(*#)-7%$(/
6080*(0 .%$6%,# -$(6#0',/ . ,%$%,'#.)0*(0 1%)98%+% &(,)#
.%,'%&*%- ( :;*%-
,)#./*,7(2 ,$(,7%. %3*%+% ( '%+% ;0 '07,'#, A. A. Turilov,
Vosto!noslavjan-
skaja kni"naja kultura konca XIV-XV vv. i vtoroe
ju"noslavjanskoe vlijanie, in his
Slavia Cyrillomethodiana: Isto!nikovedenie istorii i kultury
ju"nyx slavjan i Drev-
nej Rusi. Moskva 2010, p. 239. It should be noted that the lack
of extant anti-graphs
exceeds the time frame given.
(50) Josef Karsek, Slavische Literaturgeschichte, Bd. 1. Leipzig
1906, p. 13, repr.
on demand Bd. 1-2 by Bibliobazaar: Charleston, SC (via ).
-
Why Wish Away Glagolitic? 385
!"#$%"
&. '. ()*+,-.+/ 1931 0. ,12314+) ,1 )56,7/ 289* -)14+-9+.8,
894:3;+4, ?5@53: 893/4 0. 0)105)+A1 @7)1 B1>:,:,1 .+3+))+A:/.
C,+-
>19:)*,5: +B8+--++ 28 -)14D,-.+E 9:.-954 25 149 -2+-.1>
47-
D4)D:9 1.9+4,5: +-25)*B54,+: 0)105)+1 ;5 ,1