School encyclopedia. Olga Karpova History with spelling

It's no secret that from time to time many compatriots have a desire to write something in pre-revolutionary spelling. It seems that everything is simple: I added the word “Ъ” at the end, and here it is, the “old” spelling... But this is only at first glance. In reality, everything is much more complicated.
Of course, there are Internet resources that can make the task of writing text in pre-reform spelling easier:
Online translator into pre-reform spelling
Dictionary of pre-revolutionary orthography with accents. 1914

But it should be taken into account that their authors wrote, for whom that spelling is not “native” and errors are not excluded. So first of all, you need to pay attention to the use of “ѣ”. Since "ѣ" is not just a replacement for "e", you need to check with:
Mnemonic verse with "ѣ" to remember the spelling -
White, pale, poor demon
The hungry man ran away into the forest.
He ran through the woods,
Had radish and horseradish for lunch
And for that bitter dinner
I vowed to cause trouble.

Know, brother, that cage and cage,
Sieve, lattice, mesh,
Vezha and iron with yat, -
This is how it should be written.

Our eyelids and eyelashes
The pupils protect the eyes,
Eyelids squint for a whole century
At night, every person...

The wind broke the branches,
The German knitted brooms,
Hanged correctly when changing,
I sold it for two hryvnia in Vienna.

Dnieper and Dniester, as everyone knows,
Two rivers in close proximity,
The Bug divides their regions,
It cuts from north to south.

Who is angry and furious there?
Do you dare to complain so loudly?
We need to resolve the dispute peacefully
And convince each other...

It’s a sin to open up bird’s nests,
It’s a sin to waste bread in vain,
It’s a sin to laugh at a cripple,
To mock the crippled...
It must be borne in mind that all words containing “e” were not included in the verse. Here are only the frequently used ones. To complete the picture, it is better to refer to a dictionary, preferably a real one, published before 1918

Secondly, check the spelling of adjective endings with the rules of that time
In the feminine and neuter genders, the endings -ѣ change to -ѣ, -ы on -ыя, -іеся on -яя, but in the masculine gender they remain unchanged. For example:
Beer - noun. and. r. (beer)
Beer bellies - m.r. (belly)
Beer barrels - w. r. (barrel)
Reptiles - noun. Wed r. (animal)
Good intentions - cf. r. (intention)
Good thoughts - m.r. (thought)
Lightness - noun. Wed r. (lung)
New easy songs - f. r. (song)
New light houses - m.r. (house)

Thirdly - i. The letter i was written before vowels, before й, and also in the word “world” (meaning universe).

Fourthly - ѳ (fita). In this case, it is better to consult a dictionary.
And that's not all...

It is also necessary to take into account that the spelling of words changed both before and after the reform indicated in the title. And this is practically not reflected in the above sites.
What do I mean?
For example, the word “brake” in 1881 in Romashkevich’s spelling dictionary is displayed as “tormaz”, but in Zelensky’s spelling dictionary from 1914 “brake” is written more familiarly.
I don’t know how to explain the existence of the inscription in the photo below. Either there was a specific term on the railways of those times, or the museum workers got lost in the spelling.))
However, double spelling is also possible, as, for example, in the word “devil-devil” (according to unconfirmed data before 1956)

I provide links to some resources that can make the work easier for those who want to try their hand at writing with yats and eras:
Russian orthographic dictionary. P Romashkevich, 1881 in WinDjView format. Unfortunately, it is not the original; the text is not always correct.
Those interested can compare with the scan:
scan, 99.31 MB
I myself often resort to V. Zelensky’s dictionary (1914, Moscow), which, in my opinion, is more reliable. If only for the reason that I have the original)).
Well, a few more links:
Service for typing and further printing or saving texts (there are yat, izhitsa, fita, etc.)
wikipedia
Library of Ancient Literature – “Yat”
Advice from A. Lebedev: do not use the old spelling at all. (with examples)
The keyboard layout is “Russian (international)”, that is, extended, there are yat, izhitsa, fita, etc.

Entering "Ѣ" using the additional numeric keypad (NumPad): Alt+1122, Alt+1123. (does not work in all text editors)

... and please: write correctly. Perhaps your lines will be read.

The spelling reform of 1917-1918 consisted of changing a number of Russian spelling rules, which most noticeably manifested itself in the form of the exclusion of several letters from the Russian alphabet.

The reform was discussed and prepared long before its practical implementation. It first took shape in the form of a “Preliminary Report” of the Orthographic Subcommittee of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, chaired by A. A. Shakhmatov (1904). In 1911, a special meeting at the Academy of Sciences in general view approved the work of the preliminary commission and issued its own resolution on this matter: to develop in detail the main parts of the reform; the corresponding decree was published in 1912. Since that time, isolated publications have appeared, printed according to the new spelling. The reform was officially announced on May 11 (24), 1917 in the form of “Resolutions of the meeting on the issue of simplifying Russian spelling,” and on May 17 (30), based on these materials, the Ministry of Public Education of the Provisional Government ordered the district trustees to immediately carry out a reform of Russian spelling; another circular was issued on June 22 (July 5).

By decree signed by the Soviet People's Commissar for Education A.V. Lunacharsky, published (undated) on December 23, 1917 (January 5, 1918), “all government and state publications” (among others) were prescribed from January 1 (Art. Art. ) 1918 “to be printed according to the new spelling.” Since the new year (according to Art. Art.), the first issue of the official press organ of the Council of People's Commissars, the newspaper "Newspaper of the Provisional Workers' and Peasants' Government" was published (as well as subsequent ones) in a reformed spelling, in strict accordance with the changes provided for in the Decree (in particular, using the letter "ъ" only in separation function). However, other periodicals in the territory controlled by the Bolsheviks continued to be published, mainly in pre-reform versions; in particular, the official organ of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, Izvestia, limited itself to only not using “ъ”, including in the dividing function (replacing the letter with an apostrophe); The party organ, the newspaper Pravda, was also published. The “Decree on the introduction of a new spelling” (from October 15 of the same year) signed by Pokrovsky and Bonch-Bruevich on October 10, 1918, published in Izvestia on October 13, had actual effect, although with a delay: Izvestia switched to new spelling from October 19 of the same year, in the newspaper title - after October 25; Pravda also switched to a new spelling on October 19 (No. 226 - not all materials).

According to the decree, “all government publications, periodicals (newspapers and magazines) and non-periodical ( scientific works, collections, etc.), all documents and papers must, from October 15, 1918, be printed in accordance with the attached new spelling.”

Thus, private publications could formally be printed using the old (or any) spelling. According to the decree, retraining those previously trained to the old norm was not allowed. Only violations of norms common to the old and new spellings were considered errors.

In practice state power Quite soon it established a monopoly on printed products and very strictly monitored the implementation of the decree. A frequent practice was to remove from printing desks not only the letters I, fita and yatya, but also b. Because of this, the writing of an apostrophe as a dividing mark in place of Ъ (pod"em, ad"yutant) became widespread, which began to be perceived as part of the reform, although in fact, from the point of view of the decree of the Council of People's Commissars, such writings were erroneous. However, some scientific publications related to the publication of old works and documents, as well as publications, the collection of which began even before the revolution, were published according to the old spelling (except title page and, often, prefaces) until 1929.

It is noteworthy that on Russian, and later Soviet railways steam locomotives with series designations I, ? And?. Despite the spelling reform, the series names remained unchanged until the decommissioning of these locomotives (1950s).

Since that time, single publications have appeared, printed according to the new spelling. The reform was officially announced on May 11 (24), 1917 in the form of “Resolutions of the meeting on the issue of simplifying Russian spelling,” and on May 17 (30), based on these materials, the Ministry of Public Education of the Provisional Government ordered the district trustees to immediately carry out a reform of Russian spelling; another circular was issued on June 22 (July 5).

By decree signed by the Soviet People's Commissar for Education A.V. Lunacharsky, published (undated) on December 23, 1917 (January 5, 1918), “all government and state publications” (among others) were ordered from January 1 (Art. Art. ) 1918 “printed according to the new spelling.” Since the new year (according to Art. Art.), the first issue of the official press organ of the Council of People's Commissars, the newspaper "Newspaper of the Provisional Workers' and Peasants' Government" was published (as well as subsequent ones) in a reformed spelling, in strict accordance with the changes provided for in the Decree (in particular, using the letter “ъ” in the separating function). However, other periodicals in the territory controlled by the Bolsheviks continued to be published, mainly in pre-reform versions; in particular, the official organ of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee “Izvestia” limited itself to only not using “ъ”, including in the dividing function (replacing the letter with an apostrophe); The party organ, the newspaper Pravda, was also published. The “Decree on the introduction of a new spelling” (from October 15 of the same year) signed by Lunacharsky on October 10, 1918, published in Izvestia on October 13, had actual effect, although belatedly: Izvestia switched to the new spelling from 19 October of the same year, in the newspaper title - after October 25; Pravda also switched to a new spelling on October 19 (No. 226 - not all materials).

In accordance with the reform:

the letters Ѣ (yat), Ѳ (fita), (“and decimal”) were excluded from the alphabet; instead of them should be used, respectively, , , ;
the hard sign (Ъ) was excluded at the end of words and parts difficult words, but was retained as a separator ( rise, adjutant);
the rule for writing prefixes changed to salary: now all of them (except for the actual With-) ended with With before any voiceless consonant and on h before voiced consonants and before vowels ( to break, to break apart, to make way → break, break up, But make way);
in the genitive and accusative cases of adjectives and participle endings -ago, -yago was replaced by -Wow, -his(For example, new → new, best → best, early → early), in the nominative and accusative cases feminine and neuter plural -yya, -ii- on -s, -ies (new (books, publications) → new);
feminine plural forms one, one, one, one, one were replaced by they, alone, alone, alone, alone;
word form genitive case singular her (naya) - on her (her).

In the last paragraphs, the reform, generally speaking, affected not only spelling, but also spelling and grammar, since spelling she, alone, her(reproducing Church Slavonic orthography) to some extent managed to enter Russian pronunciation, especially in poetry (where they participated in rhyme: he/wife at Pushkin's, my/hers from Tyutchev, etc.).

In the documents of the spelling reform of 1917-1918. nothing was said about the fate of the letter V (Izhitsa), rare and out of practical use even before 1917; in practice, after the reform, it also completely disappeared from the alphabet.

Practical implementation

A fragment of a newspaper for 02/16/1918, generally written in accordance with the upcoming reform, but with two words written in pre-reform spelling

According to the decree, “all government publications, periodical (newspapers and magazines) and non-periodic (scientific works, collections, etc.), all documents and papers must, from October 15, 1918, be printed in accordance with the new spelling attached.”

In practice, the state authorities quickly established a monopoly on printed materials and very strictly monitored the implementation of the decree. A frequent practice was to remove from printing desks not only the letters I, fita and yatya, but also b. Because of this, the writing of an apostrophe as a dividing mark in place of b ( rise, adjutant), which began to be perceived as part of the reform (although in fact, from the point of view of the letter of the decree of the Council of People's Commissars, such writings were erroneous). However, some scientific publications (related to the publication of old works and documents; publications, the collection of which began even before the revolution) were published according to the old spelling (except for the title page and, often, prefaces) until 1929.

It is noteworthy that steam locomotives with series designations , and were operated on Russian and later Soviet railways. Despite the spelling reform, the series names remained unchanged until the decommissioning of these locomotives (1950s).

Positive aspects of the reform

The reform reduced the number of spelling rules that had no support in pronunciation, for example, the difference between genders plural or the need to memorize a long list of words spelled with “yat” (and there were disputes among linguists regarding the composition of this list, and various spelling guides sometimes contradicted each other).

The reform led to some savings in writing and typography, eliminating Ъ at the end of words (according to L.V. Uspensky, the text in the new orthography becomes about 1/30 shorter).

The reform eliminated pairs of completely homophonic graphemes (yat and E, fita and F, I and I) from the Russian alphabet, bringing the alphabet closer to the real phonological system of the Russian language.

Criticism of the reform

Before implementation

While the reform was being discussed, various objections were expressed regarding it, for example the following:

no one has the right to forcibly make changes in the system of established spelling... only such changes are permissible that occur unnoticed, under the influence of the living example of exemplary writers;

there is no urgent need for reform: mastering spelling is hampered not so much by the spelling itself, but by poor teaching methods...;

reform is completely unfeasible...:
It is necessary that simultaneously with the implementation of the spelling reform in school, all school textbooks should be reprinted in a new way...

Next, you need to reprint all the classical authors, Karamzin, Ostrovsky, Turgenev, etc.;

and tens and even hundreds of thousands of home libraries... often compiled with the last pennies as an inheritance to children? After all, Pushkin and Goncharov would be to these children what pre-Petrine presses are to today’s readers;

it is necessary that all teaching staff, immediately, with full readiness and with full conviction of the rightness of the matter, unanimously accept the new spelling and adhere to it...;

it is necessary... that bonnies, governesses, mothers, fathers and all persons who provide children with initial education begin to study the new spelling and teach it with readiness and conviction...;

Finally, it is necessary that the entire educated society greet the spelling reform with complete sympathy. Otherwise, discord between society and school will completely discredit the authority of the latter, and school spelling will seem to the students themselves as a distortion of writing...

Original text(Russian)

no one has the right to forcibly make changes in the system of established orthography... only such changes are permissible that occur unnoticed, under the influence of the living example of exemplary writers;
there is no urgent need for reform: mastering spelling is hampered not so much by the spelling itself, but by poor teaching methods...;
reform is completely unfeasible...:
It is necessary that, simultaneously with the implementation of spelling reform in schools, all school textbooks should be reprinted in a new way...
Next, you need to reprint all the classical authors, Karamzin, Ostrovsky, Turgenev, etc.;
and tens and even hundreds of thousands of home libraries... often compiled with the last pennies as an inheritance for children? After all, Pushkin and Goncharov would appear to these children the same as to the current readers of the pre-Petrine press;
it is necessary that all teaching staff, immediately, with full readiness and with full conviction of the rightness of the matter, unanimously accept the new spelling and adhere to it...;
it is necessary... that bonnies, governesses, mothers, fathers and all persons who give children primary education should begin to study the new spelling and teach it with readiness and conviction...;
Finally, it is necessary that the entire educated society meet the spelling reform with full sympathy. Otherwise, discord between society and school will completely discredit the authority of the latter, and school spelling will seem to the students themselves as a distortion of writing...

From this the conclusion was drawn:

All this leads us to assume that the planned simplification of spelling entirely, with the exclusion of four letters from the alphabet, will not come into practice in the near future.

Original text(Russian)

All this leads us to assume that the planned simplification of spelling entirely, with the exclusion of four letters from the alphabet, will not come into practice in the near future.

After implementation

Despite the fact that the reform was developed long before the revolution without any political goals by professional linguists (moreover, among its developers was a member of the far-right Union of the Russian People, academician Aleksey Ivanovich Sobolevsky, who proposed, in particular, to exclude the yat and endings -ыя/-я), the first steps towards its practical implementation took place after the revolution, but it was actually adopted and implemented by the Bolsheviks. This determined a sharply critical attitude towards it on the part of political opponents of Bolshevism ( this attitude I. A. Bunin aphoristically expressed: “By order of Archangel Michael himself, I will never accept Bolshevik spelling. At least for one thing, that never human hand did not write anything similar to what is now written according to this spelling"). It was not used in most publications published in white-controlled territories, and then in emigration. Publications of the Russian diaspora for the most part switched to the new spelling only in the 1940s - 1950s, in connection with the second wave of emigration from the USSR; although some are still published in the old way. The minutes of the meeting of the Synod of the ROCOR are also kept using pre-reform spelling.

In my opinion, the late Shakhmatov took it upon his soul to sanctify the new spelling with his authority. It is especially difficult to agree with apostrophes (“pod'em” with “deacon”), and in general not many people work out better than before the reform: the main problem was that in the Cyrillic alphabet there is no letter to indicate “o after a softened consonant”, and This problem remained unresolved in the new spelling.

Why all these distortions? Why this mind-boggling decline? Who needs this confusion in thought and linguistic creativity??
There can be only one answer: the enemies need all this national Russia. Them; to them, and only to them.
…
I remember how in 1921 I pointedly asked Manuilov why he introduced this monstrosity; I remember how he, without thinking of defending what he had done, helplessly referred to Gerasimov’s insistent demand. I remember how in 1919 I posed the same question to Gerasimov and how he, referring to the Academy of Sciences, burst into such a rude outburst of anger that I turned and left the room, not wanting to indulge my guest in such antics. Only later did I find out, as a member Which international organization was Gerasimov.

Original text(Russian)

Why all these distortions? Why this mind-blowing decline? Who needs this confusion in thought and in linguistic creativity??
There can be only one answer: all this is needed by the enemies of national Russia. Im; precisely to them, and only to them.
...
I remember how in 1921 I pointedly asked Manuilov why he introduced this monstrosity; I remember how he, without thinking of defending what he had done, helplessly referred to Gerasimov’s insistent demand. I remember how in 1919 I posed the same question to Gerasimov and how he, referring to the Academy of Sciences, burst into such a rude outburst of anger that I turned and left the room, not wanting to indulge my guest in such antics. Only later did I find out, Which international organization was Gerasimov.

spelling reform Cyrillic letter

As a result of the reform of 1917-1918, the letters “yat”, “fita”, “I” were excluded from Russian writing, the spelling of Ъ at the end of words and parts of complex words was canceled, and some spelling rules were changed, which is inextricably linked with October Revolution. The first edition of the decree introducing a new spelling was published in the Izvestia newspaper less than two months after the Bolsheviks came to power - December 23, 1917 (January 5, 1918, new style). The reform of the “citizenship” of Peter I is changing, and new reform aimed at saving student effort.

In fact, the language reform was prepared long before October 1917, and not by revolutionaries, but by linguists. Of course, not all of them were alien to politics, but here is an indicative fact: among the developers of the new spelling there were people with extreme right-wing (one might say counter-revolutionary) views, for example academician A.I. Sobolevsky, famous for his active participation in the activities of various kinds of nationalist and monarchist organizations. Preparations for the reform began in late XIX century: after the publication of the works of Yakov Karlovich Grot, who for the first time brought together all the spelling rules, the need to streamline and simplify Russian spelling became clear. Add about Grotto.

It should be noted that thoughts about the unjustified complexity of Russian writing occurred to some scientists back in the 18th century. Thus, the Academy of Sciences first tried to exclude the letter “Izhitsa” from the Russian alphabet back in 1735, and in 1781, on the initiative of the director of the Academy of Sciences Sergei Gerasimovich Domashnev, one section of “Academic News” was printed without the letter Ъ at the end of words (in other words, individual examples“Bolshevik” spelling could be found more than a hundred years before the revolution!).

In 1904, an Orthographic Commission was created at the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences, which was tasked with simplifying Russian writing (primarily in the interests of the school). The commission was headed by the outstanding Russian linguist Philip Fedorovich Fortunatov (in 1902 he was elected director of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, moved to St. Petersburg and received an academic salary; in the 70s of the 19th century he founded the department of comparative historical linguistics at Moscow State University). The spelling commission also included the greatest scientists of that time - A.A. Shakhmatov (who headed the commission in 1914, after the death of F.F. Fortunatov), I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, P.N. Sakulin and others.

Results further work linguists were already assessed by the Provisional Government. On May 11 (May 24, new style), 1917, a meeting was held with the participation of members of the Spelling Commission of the Academy of Sciences, linguists, and school teachers, at which it was decided to soften some provisions of the 1912 project (thus, the commission members agreed with A.A. Shakhmatov’s proposal to preserve soft sign at the end of words after sibilants). The reform was possible because it concerned only the written language. The result of the discussion was the “Resolution of the meeting on the issue of simplifying Russian spelling,” which was approved by the Academy of Sciences. The reform was needed because most of the population was illiterate or semi-literate. Linguists believed that if you give a simplified Russian language, then there will be no lagging behind in schools. But it turned out that the lagging behind remained the same (Shcherba). Expectations were not met, since learning depends on the availability of abilities; not everyone can be taught something, and this is the norm. But they didn’t know about it then.

The new spelling was introduced by two decrees. In the first, signed by the People's Commissar of Education A.V. Lunacharsky and published on December 23, 1917 (January 5, 1918), “all government and state publications” were ordered from January 1 (Ol. Art.), 1918, “to be printed according to the new spelling.” Since the new year (according to Art. Art.), the first issue of the official press organ of the newspaper “Newspaper of the Provisional Workers’ and Peasants’ Government” was published (as well as subsequent ones) in a reformed spelling, in strict accordance with the changes provided for in the Decree (in particular, with using the letter “ъ” in the separating function). However, other periodicals in the territory controlled by the Bolsheviks continued to be published, mainly in pre-reform versions; in particular, the official organ of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, Izvestia, limited itself to only not using “ъ”, including in the dividing function; The party organ, the newspaper Pravda, was also published.

This was followed by a second decree of October 10, 1918, signed by Deputy People's Commissar M.N. Pokrovsky and the manager of the Council of People's Commissars V.D. Bonch-Bruevich. Already in October 1918, the official bodies of the Bolsheviks, the newspapers Izvestia and Pravda, switched to the new spelling.

In practice, the state authorities quickly established a monopoly on printed materials and very strictly monitored the implementation of the decree. A frequent practice was to remove from printing desks not only the letters I, fita and yatya, but also b. Because of this, the writing of an apostrophe as a dividing mark in place of Ъ (pod"em, ad"yutant) became widespread, which began to be perceived as part of the reform (although in fact, from the point of view of the letter of the decree of the Council of People's Commissars, such spellings were erroneous). However, some scientific publications (related to the publication of old works and documents; publications, the collection of which began even before the revolution) were published according to the old spelling (except for the title page and, often, prefaces) until 1929.

Pros of reform.

1. The reform reduced the number of spelling rules that had no support in pronunciation, for example, the difference in genders in the plural or the need to memorize a long list of words spelled with “yat” (moreover, there were disputes among linguists regarding the composition of this list, and various spelling guidelines contradicted in places each other). Here we need to see what this nonsense is all about.

2. The reform led to some savings in writing and typography, eliminating Ъ at the end of words (according to L.V. Uspensky, the text in the new orthography becomes approximately 1/30 shorter - cost savings).

3. The reform eliminated pairs of completely homophonic graphemes (yat and E, fita and F, I and I) from the Russian alphabet, bringing the alphabet closer to the real phonological system of the Russian language.

Criticism of the reform.

While the reform was being discussed, various objections were raised regarding it:

no one has the right to forcibly make changes in the system of established spelling... only such changes are permissible that occur unnoticed, under the influence of the living example of exemplary writers;

there is no urgent need for reform: mastering spelling is hampered not so much by the spelling itself, but by poor teaching methods...;

reform is completely unfeasible...:

It is necessary that simultaneously with the implementation of the spelling reform in school, all school textbooks should be reprinted in a new way...

and tens and even hundreds of thousands of home libraries... often compiled with the last pennies as an inheritance to children? After all, Pushkin and Goncharov would be to these children what pre-Petrine presses are to today’s readers;

it is necessary that all teaching staff, immediately, with full readiness and with full conviction of the rightness of the matter, unanimously accept the new spelling and adhere to it...;

it is necessary... that bonnies, governesses, mothers, fathers and all persons who provide children with initial education begin to study the new spelling and teach it with readiness and conviction...;

Finally, it is necessary that the entire educated society greet the spelling reform with complete sympathy. Otherwise, discord between society and school will completely discredit the authority of the latter, and school spelling will seem to the students themselves as a distortion of writing...

From this the conclusion was drawn:

All this leads us to assume that the planned simplification of spelling entirely, with the exclusion of four letters from the alphabet, will not come into practice in the near future.

Despite the fact that the reform was developed without any political goals, due to the fact that it was the Bolsheviks who introduced it, it received sharply negative assessment from the opponents of Bolshevism. Because Soviet power was illegitimate in their eyes, they refused to acknowledge the change in spelling.

Ivan Bunin, who was not only a famous poet and writer, but also an honorary academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, said this:

I will never accept Bolshevik spelling. If only for one reason: the human hand has never written anything similar to what is now written according to this spelling.

A special meeting at the Academy of Sciences generally approved the work of the preliminary commission and issued its own resolution on this matter: to develop in detail the main parts of the reform; the corresponding decree was published in 1912. Since that time, single publications have appeared, printed according to the new spelling. The reform was officially announced on May 11 (24), 1917 in the form of “Resolutions of the meeting on the issue of simplifying Russian spelling,” and on May 17 (30), based on these materials, the Ministry of Public Education of the Provisional Government ordered the district trustees to immediately carry out a reform of Russian spelling; another circular was issued on June 22 (July 5). However, the reform then began only at school, which was confirmed by the decree of the Soviet People's Commissariat of Education dated December 23, 1917 (January 5, 1918, new style). For the press and office work, only the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of October 10, 1918 (published in Izvestia on October 13) and the resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the National Economy “On the withdrawal from circulation of common letters of the Russian language” (meaning letters with general meaning: і=и, ѣ =е, ѳ =ф), published the next day.

In accordance with the reform:

the letters yat, fita, (“and decimal”) were excluded from the alphabet; instead of them should be used, respectively, , , ;
The hard sign (Ъ) was excluded at the end of words and parts of complex words, but was retained as a dividing sign ( rise, adjutant);
the rule for writing prefixes changed to salary: now all of them (except for the actual With-) ended with With before any voiceless consonant and on h before voiced consonants and before vowels ( to break, to break apart, to make way → break, break up, But make way);
in the genitive and accusative cases of adjectives, and participle endings -ago, -yago was replaced by -Wow, -his(For example, new → new, best → best, early → early), in the nominative and accusative plurals of the feminine and neuter genders -yya, -ii- on -s, -ies (new (books, publications) → new);
feminine plural forms one, one, one, one, one were replaced by they, alone, alone, alone, alone;
genitive singular word form her (naya) - on her (her).

In the last paragraphs, the reform, generally speaking, affected not only spelling, but also spelling and grammar, since spelling she, alone, her(reproducing Church Slavonic orthography) to some extent managed to enter Russian pronunciation, especially poetry (where they participated in rhyme: he/wife at Pushkin's, my/hers from Tyutchev, etc.).

The reform did not say anything about the fate of the letter V (Izhitsa), which was rare and out of practical use even before 1917; in practice, after the reform, it also completely disappeared from the alphabet.

Practical implementation

Thus, private publications could formally be printed using the old (or any) spelling. According to the decree, retraining those previously trained to the old norm was not allowed.

Positive aspects of the reform

The reform reduced the number of spelling rules that had no support in pronunciation, for example, the difference in genders in the plural or the need to memorize a long list of words spelled with “yat” (moreover, there were disputes among linguists regarding the composition of this list, and various spelling guidelines sometimes contradicted each other ).

The reform led to some savings in writing and typography, eliminating Ъ at the end of words (according to L.V. Uspensky, the text in the new orthography becomes about 1/30 shorter).

Criticism of the reform

Before implementation

While the reform was being discussed, various objections were raised regarding it:

no one has the right to forcibly make changes in the system of established orthography... only such changes are permissible that occur unnoticed, under the influence of the living example of exemplary writers;

|There is no urgent need for reform: mastering spelling is hampered not so much by the spelling itself, but by poor teaching methods...;

reform is completely unfeasible...:
It is necessary that, simultaneously with the implementation of spelling reform in schools, all school textbooks should be reprinted in a new way...

Next, you need to reprint all the classical authors, Karamzin, Ostrovsky, Turgenev, etc.;

and tens and even hundreds of thousands of home libraries... often compiled with the last pennies as an inheritance for children? After all, Pushkin and Goncharov would appear to these children the same as to the current readers of the pre-Petrine press;

it is necessary that all teaching staff, immediately, with full readiness and with full conviction of the rightness of the matter, unanimously accept the new spelling and adhere to it...;

it is necessary... that bonnies, governesses, mothers, fathers and all persons who give children primary education should begin to study the new spelling and teach it with readiness and conviction...;

Finally, it is necessary that the entire educated society meet the spelling reform with full sympathy. Otherwise, discord between society and school will completely discredit the authority of the latter, and school spelling will seem to the students themselves as a distortion of writing...

Hence the conclusion was drawn: “All this leads us to assume that the planned simplification of spelling entirely, with the exclusion of four letters from the alphabet, will not come into practice in the near future.” However, there was only five years left to wait.

After implementation

Despite the fact that the reform was developed long before the revolution without any political goals by professional linguists (moreover, among its developers was a member of the far-right Union of the Russian People, academician Aleksey Ivanovich Sobolevsky, who proposed, in particular, to exclude the yat and endings -ыя/-я), the first steps towards its practical implementation took place after the revolution, but it was actually adopted and implemented by the Bolsheviks. This determined a sharply critical attitude towards it on the part of political opponents of Bolshevism (this attitude was aphoristically expressed by I. A. Bunin: “By order of Archangel Michael himself, I will never accept Bolshevik spelling. If only for the fact that a human hand has never written anything similar what is now written according to this spelling"). It was not used in most publications published in white-controlled territories, and then in emigration. Publications of the Russian diaspora for the most part switched to the new spelling only in the 1940s - 1950s, although some are still published in the old way.

In my opinion, the late Shakhmatov took it upon his soul to sanctify the new spelling with his authority. It is especially difficult to agree with apostrophes (“pod'em” with “deacon”), and in general not many people work out better than before the reform: the main problem was that in the Cyrillic alphabet there is no letter to indicate “o after a softened consonant”, and This problem remained unresolved in the new spelling.

Why all these distortions? Why this mind-blowing decline? Who needs this confusion in thought and in linguistic creativity??
There can be only one answer: all this is needed by the enemies of national Russia. Im; precisely to them, and only to them.