Several corrections:
 – First, on Chernorizets Hrabar – one theory is that indeed he was speaking about an eventual, archaeologically unattested proto-Slavic runic writing system, but another theory is that he was writing about the actually attested runic writings of the Bulgars (considering he was a Bulgarian himself and in that period the names “Bulgarian” and “Slav” were practically interchangeable in late 9th/early 10 c. Bulgaria). Still, that’s a debatable matter, not “set in stone”, so we can accept the version mentioned here.
 – Second, a common factological mistake – the Cyrillic alphabet wasn’t created by St. Kliment of Ohrid. That statement in the article is a contradiction itself, as it also correctly points out that the Cyrillic alphabet was first created in the area of the Veliki Preslav Literary school and that’s where it first became dominant (Glagolitic, f.e., was used by the Ohrid Literary school for at least two centuries after the Preslav school stopped using it). Also, there’s a logical reason why it appeared exactly in Preslav – the Bulgar Pagan court at Pliska (which is in the same area as Preslav) had been using the Greek language and alphabet for practically all of its official inscriptions since the very start of the 8th century and thus already had a tradition of using Greek letters well before the conversion to Christianity, hence why the Greek alphabet was slightly modified and adopted as the new Cyrillic. As for St. Kliment – although his origin is supposed to be from Moesia (which is modern Northern Bulgaria), his work, both as a teacher and then as a bishop, was spent entirely in the Ohrid area. He visited Preslav only a few short times, like f.e. when he became the first Bulgarian bishop around 893. That’s why he’s actually called “of Ohrid/Ohridski”. Another of the disciples, however, was Naum, who first worked in the Preslav school and then moved to Ohrid to take Kliment’s position after the latter became bishop (thus he’s called both Naum Preslavski and Naum Ohridski, or sometimes Ohridsko-Preslavski). Thus, he’s a slightly better candidate for author of the Cyrillic alphabet than Kliment, although it’s far from certain – it could just as well have been f.e. Konstantin of Preslav, or some of the other unnamed disciples which arrived from Constantinople etc etc. The reason why Kliment is often confused to be the author of the Cyrillic is because his Life says “he invented new shapes of the letters, clearer than the ones the most wise Cyril invented” – many people automatically assume this is speaking about the Cyrillic alphabet, though many Cyrillo-Metodievists believe this is actually supposed to be a simplified form of the old angular Glagolitic, namely the so-called round Glagolitic, which later became popular in Croatia (the last country to use Glagolitic, as the article mentioned).
 – Third, the earliest Cyrillic inscription isn’t Samuil’s one, but is commonly considered to be the one of chargubilya (Slavicized form of ichirgu-boil) Mostich (although even earlier short ones have been found).
Here’s a good basic article about the two alphabets, in relation to last year’s 24th of May.


11 User(s) Online Join Server
  • Lucifer Morningstar
  • pringles vending machine
  • slovborg
  • кошка
  • Glockamole
  • haver25