SSR 2011 Sotirovicev Clanak o Vuku

ISSN 2217-5210 , (Association for the Development of Serbian Studies, Novi Sad)
SERBIAN STUDIES RESEARCH

. 2 / Vol. 2 . 1 / No. 1 2011
, 2011
SERBIAN STUDIES RESEARCH Vol. 2, No. 1, 2011 Publisher Association for the Development of Serbian Studies, Novi Sad Governing Board President Boris Bulatovi, University of Novi Sad (Serbia) Editorial Address Stevana Hristia 19, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia tel (fax): +381 21 6396 488 email: serbian_studies@hotmail.com Editorial Board Tomislav Longinovi (editor-in-chief), University of Wisconsin, Madison (USA) Goran Maksimovi, University of Ni (Serbia) Ljiljana Bogoeva Sedlar, University of Belgrade (Serbia) Persida Lazarevi Di Giacomo, Gabriele dAnnunzio University of Chieti-Pescara (Italy) Slobodanka Vladiv-Glover, Monash University, Melbourne (Australia) Slobodan Vladui, University of Novi Sad (Serbia) Alla Tatarenko, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv (Ukraine) Boris Bulatovi, University of Novi Sad (Serbia) Cover design Nenad Svilar Print MALA KNJIGA, Novi Sad Journal Description Serbian Studies Research provides scholarly articles in the fields of Serbian linguistics and literature, international relations, cultural studies, history, sociology, political science, economics, geography, demography, social anthropology, administration, law, and natural sciences, as they relate to the human condition. Annual Membership Institutional: 35 usd (including subscription and postage) Individual: 15 usd (including subscription and postage) Peer Review Policy and Frequency All research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer-review process, based on initial editor screening and anonymized refereeing by at least two anonymous referees. Serbian Studies Research is published annually. Indexing and Abstracting Information EBSCO Publishing (full-text database)
SERBIAN STUDIES RESEARCH . 2 , . 1, 2011 (), () 19, 21000 (): +381 21 6396 488 email: serbian_studies@hotmail.com Tomislav Longinovi ( ), University of Wisconsin, Madison (USA) , () , () Persida Lazarevi Di Giacomo, Universit degli Studi "G. d'Annunzio" di Chieti-Pescara (Italia) Slobodanka Vladiv-Glover, Monash University, Melbourne (Australia) , () , . . () , () , 008/009+3+8 300 EBSCO Publishing ( ) Serbian Studies Research
/ CONTENTS
Dr Olga Nedeljkovi THE LINGUISTIC DIGLOSSIA OF GAVRILO STEFANOVI VENCLOVI AND IN THE LITERATURE OF THE ORTHODOX SLAVS .................................................................................................7 Mr Jovan Peji THE INCEPTION OF THE SERBIAN HISTORY OF LITERATURE ............81 Dr Vladislav B. Sotirovi VUK, HRVATI I DUBROVNIK ...........................................................................111 : 19001918......................................127 .......................143 - ( ) ........................................................................153 Dr Anna Modelska-Kwaniowska LITERACKIE OBRAZY BONI W WIETLE TEORII (POST)KOLONIALNEJ.........................................................................................165 Dr Branislav Radelji BLESSING THE COLLAPSE OF YUGOSLAVIA: THE VATICANS ROLE IN EC POLICY-MAKING.........................................................................177 .........................................................................................................205 GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS ......................................................................209
Serbian Studies Research Vol. 2, No. 1 (2011): 7-80.
7
UDC 821.163.41.08 Venclovi Stefanovi G.
Dr Olga Nedeljkovi1 University of Illinois at Chicago Department of Slavic and Baltic Languages and Literatures United States of America
THE LINGUISTIC DIGLOSSIA OF GAVRILO STEFANOVI VENCLOVI AND IN THE LITERATURE OF THE ORTHODOX SLAVS2
Abstract: In the first part of my study, I present the existing opinions about the relation of Venclovis . Historians of the Serbian literary language have never disputed the ordinary-peoples language in Venclovis texts, because they have readily
1 2
olganedl@uic.edu
This article was originally written as a contribution to Riccardo Picchios Festschrift as The Linguistic Dualism of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi and Prosta Mova in the Literature of the Orthodox Slavs, in: Studia Slavica Mediaevalia et Humanistica Riccardo Picchio dicata, eds. Michele Colucci, Giuseppe dellAgata and Harvey Goldblatt (Roma: Edizioni dellAteneo, 1986), 597-613. In addition to the updated bibliography, the original text has been revised for greater precision. The concept of linguistic dualism, referring to the community of the Orthodox Slavs, has been replaced by a more appropriate one of linguistic diglossia that characterized their linguistic culture. The idea of diglossia was first introduced by Charles Fergusons seminal work, Diglossia, Word 15, no. 2 (August 1959): 325-40, a concise typology, that gives examples of diglossic situations in the Arabic nations, Switzerland, Haiti and Greece. These diglossic speech communities have prestigious High varieties and Low varieties with no official status. The two are in complementary distribution with each other, for instance, the High variety might be used for literary discourse and the Low variety for ordinary conversation. Fergusons original definition of diglossia is that the two varieties in a diglossic relationship are closely related, and therefore diglossia is not bilingualism or dualism. An important component of diglossia is that speakers personally perceive that the High variety is the real language and the low variety is an incorrect usage. Diglossia is presently giving way in Greece, where it had held sway until a government decree ordained the shift from High (katharevousa) to Low (demotiki) in many spheres of life. See also Ferguson, Epilogue: Diglossia revisted in Southwest Journal of Linguistics 10, no. 1 (1991), 214-34; A. Hudson, Outline of a theory of diglossia, in International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 157 (2002), 1-48 (the entire volume has been entitled Focus on diglossia). In my text, , in: American Contributions to the Tenth International Congress of Slavists. vol. 1. Linguistics, ed. Alexander M. Schenker (Columbus: Slavica Publishers, 1988), 265-300, I developed the idea that the Byzantine-Orthodox Slavic diglossic culture resulted from the Orthodox Slavs constant emulation of Byzantine linguistic and literary patterns.
8 | Olga Nedeljkovi
recognized a language which did not differ greatly from the modern Serbian literary language that they themselves use. The eminent French Slavist, Boris Unbegaun, completely denies this pure the status and function of a literary language. In his opinion, according to Venclovis own understanding, Church Slavonic was the sole literary language. The Italian Slavist, Lionello Costantini, perceives Venclovis programmatic pronouncements as having the value of loci communes, and that the peoples language is accorded the full right of existence directly alongside the liturgical language; a certain state of bilingualism is proclaimed. Constatini does not, however, enter into an analysis of Venclovis potential sources that, incidentally remained unknown and unexamined to this day. In the second part, I define Venclovis from a purely linguistic point of view. It was an independent linguistic system which was created completely within the Roman Catholic cultural sphere in the Western Balkans under the name Illyrian. It was the original idiom of Dubrovnik, or jezik slaveno-iliriki izgovora bosanskoga of the Counterreformation missionaries. For their missionary and political goals, they chose the tokavian dialect of Bosnia as the most wide-spread idiom in the Central Balkans. The Illyrian language was specially developed and adapted for the use of the Orthodox Serbs from the sixteenth century onwards. At that time, the Cyrillic alphabet was the preferred alphabet for the Illyrian language, favored over
In the above-mentioned article, I describe Orthodox Slavic diglossia in the overall context of Byzantine diglossia. The latter is well recognized. Cf., for example, K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur, Von Justinian bis zum Ende des Ostrmischen Reiches 527-1453, in Handbuch der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 9, 1 (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1897), 385 ff.; H. G. Beck, Geschichte der byzantinischen Volksliteratur, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 12, 2, 3 (Munich: Beck, 1971); H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, vol. I and II, in Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 12, 5, 2 (Munich: Beck, 1978); R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); idem, Greek diglossia yesterday and today, in International journal of the sociology of language, vol. 35 (1982), 49-68; idem, The language of Byzantine literature, in Byzantina kai Metabyzantina I. The Past in Medieval and Modern Greek Culture, ed. Speros Vryonis, Jr. (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1978), 103-33; E. Kriaras, Diglossie des deniers sicles de Byzance: Naissance de la littrature no-hellenique, in Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies (Oxford, 5-10 September, 1966, London: Oxford University Press, 1967), 283-299; Andr Mirambel, Diglossie des derniers sicles de Byzance, Ibid., 309-313; Johannes Niehoff-Panagiotidis, Koine und Diglossie, in Mediterranean language and culture monograph series, vol. 10 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994); Notis Toufexis, Diglossia and register variation in Medieval Greek, in Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, vol. 32, no. 2 (2008), 203-217, just to mention several important studies discussing Byzantine diglossia. In this study, I recognize Byzantine diglossia as a theoretical framework for the interpretation of the linguistic situation among the Orthodox Slavs and Romanians in the post-Byzantine centuries. After the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, being an organic part of the broader diglossic linguistic system of the Byzantine period, the Orthodox peoples continued to imitate the latest stage of Byzantine diglossia, which took place in the period from 1204 to 1453, and during the centuries of Turcocratia when the Greek vernacular(s) was introduced into Byzantine and Post-Byzantine literature in parallel to archaizing written forms of Greek. See more about it and its Orthodox Slavic parallel developments in my , 283-292. Cf. also a recently published study of , (: , 2005) pp. 249. The Serbian scholars have written about Serbian medieval diglossia as well.
The Linguistic Diglossia of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi and | 9 in the Literature of the Orthodox Slavs
Glagolitic or Latin characters. The terms Illyrians and Illyrian were used not only in reference to South Slavic people and their language, but also in reference to the ideology of the so-called Illyrism. This ideology was incorporated into the political and defensive platform of the Post-Tridentine Counter-Reformational Catholicism oriented towards institutional and dogmatic consolidation as well as to the proselytistic expansion... Venclovis language was introduced into his ecclesiastical and still medieval texts within the ideological framework of Serbian Orthodox Illyrism on the territory of the Habsburg Empire. I provide a number of concrete examples to corroborate all my statements. The third part of my analysis reveals the Slavic Orthodox community as an impressive case of a supranational, religious and linguistic unity. After the Fall of the Byzantine Empire and after the Turkish occupation of the Balkans, the sole available model for both the Serbs and Bulgarians in their
In order to avoid any confusion with Serbian medieval diglossia of the period, introduced by Pavle Ivi into Serbian scholarship( , . , in his O je , in - . , : , 1979, 167-75, the quotation appears on p. 169; see also his , 11701371, , in his , , vol. 8, d. , : , 1998, 28-58; cf. also , 1690, in his , , , 2008, 170-175; idem, XIX , in his . , : , 2008, 519-520; , , 1, : , 1991, 43-47)I would like to give the following explanation. In contrast to Ivis interpretation of diglossia, I have accepted the opinion of the specialists for the Serbian Middle Ages who do not see any possibility of determining a layer of the spoken vernacular underlying the literary language (i.e., ) in old Serbian literature. For example: , , , , , . . , , , , . , , , , , . , , in his , ed. , trans. and (: , , , 2001, p. 32. Cf. also: Stanislaus Hafner, Serbisches Mittelalter, vol. 1, in Slavische Geschichtesschreiber, vol. 2, Graz, 1962, and Serbisches Mittelalter, vol. 2 in Slavische Geschichtsschreiber, in Sdosteuropische Arbeiten, vol. 62, Munich, 1964.
10 | Olga Nedeljkovi
renewed literary activities was the literature of the Eastern Orthodox Slavs. In this light, the Slavo-Russian cultural orientations of the Serbs, Bulgarians and Romanians was fully justified from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century. The comparative analysis of Venclovis writings in with other Orthodox texts written in the (vernacular), demonstrates that both belong to the same developmental phase of the Church Slavonic language. This phase, characterized by the gradual introduction of the ordinary peoples language into literature as a medium parallel to Church Slavonic, was common to the entire Orthodox community. This phenomenon first appeared during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries among the Eastern Slavs in Moscovite Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It occurred there first for two reasons: the Eastern Slavs were not occupied by the Turks, and the Commonwealth, in particular, offered the most favorable conditions for this kind of innovation. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Romanian vernacular made its appearance in Wallachia and Moldavia. The same developmental phase emerged among the Bulgarians in the second half of the seventeenth century and among the Serbs in the first quarter of the eighteenth century when circumstances were favorable in the occupied Balkans. Thus, the linguistic diglossia found in Venclovis texts marks the beginning of a new phase of Byzantine-Slavic diglossia. It was introduced into Serbian literature about two centuries later than in the rest of the Orthodox world. It is only in the light of this phase of linguistic diglossia that it is possible to interpret the subsequent stage that occurred among the Serbs after Venclovi, under the name of . Keywords: Orthodox linguistic diglossia, common developmental phase of the Orthodox peoples; Venclovis diglossia: + i= , the common language of the Catholics and Orthodox in the Habsburg Monarchy; CounterReformational Catholicism and Serbian National Illyrism; The Serbian Orthodox Church in Hungary and its linguistic policy.
Already in 1969, Irena Grickat extensively describes the basic criteria for deferring the literary language from the language of literature, emphasizing the impossibility of investigating the history of any language, including Old c, on the basis of preserved texts. Cf. her , in . vol. 28, nos. 1-2, 1-36. It is interesting to point out that in this regard N. I. Tolstoj expresses rather impossibility of determining diglossia in Old Serbian literature, although he does not speak about diglossia as Ivi does, but operates with the term bilingualism: , - , , in his , in his , vol. II: - ( : , 1998), p. 211. Nemanjis Serbia was subject to its own specific developmental trends, which yielded an exceptionally successful synthesis of Church Slavonic literary models and its indigenous tradition. Therefore, the language of the entire corpus of Nemanjis Serbia does not display any kind of diglossia. Diglossia emerged only with the introduction of Slaveno-Russian into eighteenth-century Serbian literatur, which is the major topic of my current study.
VENCLOVIS AND ITS RELATION TO , I.E., CHURCH SLAVONIC

This article considers the emergence of vernacular codifications and their introduction into Orthodox Slavic literature through an analysis of several fragments from manuscripts written by Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi (c. 1680-1749). As a starting point, I selected the language of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi, not because his is also my native tongue, but because, as I will demonstrate, among all the vernaculars of the Orthodox Slavs, his was structurally the furthest language away from the common foundational language of the Orthodox Slavs: , i.e. Church Slavonic. Furthermore, of all the existing Orthodox Slavic vernacular codifications in opposition to Church Slavonic, at the time, it was the most well defined common peoples language. As such, Venclovis offers us the best case for drawing conclusions about the linguistic status of other Orthodox vernacular formations. When we take the significantly earlier appearance of vernacular codifications among the Eastern Slavs into account, the study of Venclovis language seems especially desirable. I have in mind the so-called (simple word) in the (Laodikijskij message) from the beginning of the sixteenth century, or the which appeared as early as the sixteenth century, in contrast to Venclovis which did not enter the Orthodox sphere until the first quarter of the eighteenth century.3
3
. . and . . , XIV- XVI (-: , 1955), 256-76; Ia. S. Lur'e, Unresolved Issues in the History of the Ideological Movements of the Late Fifteenth Century, in Medieval Russian Culture, California Slavic Studies XII, eds. H. Birnbaum and M.S. Flier (1984), 150-171. At this point it is worth mentioning a Russian-Byzantine conversation book a, written in the fifteenth century, or perhaps earlier, by a Russian for the Russian pilgrims visiting the Athos monasteries. Cf. M. Vasmer, Ein russisch-byzantinisches Gesprachbuch, Beitrge zur Erforschung der alteren russischen Lexikographie (Leipzig: In Kommission bei Markert & Petters, 1922); K.C. , ( - - , 1963), 318-89. O. B. Strakhova draws attention to the deeply entrenched tradition of Graeco-Byzantine linguistic models in Slavo-Russian texts in the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries: ... - - - ( , , ) ( , ) ... , [...] -
From a purely typological point of view, in the period of late Byzantine and PostByzantine-Slavic diglossia, established through the introduction of ordinary speech into official Orthodox religious and medieval literature, the only vernacular that was not formed according to literary Orthodox models was Venclovis . Venclovis was, in fact, one and the same with the Illyrian language that had been created according to the Latin-Italian patterns. All other Orthodox vernacular codifications, including Romanian, were formed exclusively on the basis of common typological models from the Orthodox community. While its genesis differed from the other Orthodox vernaculars, Venclovis was used in the same function, that is, it was used as a Low variety in a diglossic relation to Church Slavonic, which was perceived as a High variety. In the early eighteenth century, Venclovis was the most developed literary medium among all the Orthodox vernaculars, and, as such, posed a greater challenge than any of them (i.e., Orthodox vernaculars) to Church Slavonic as the only recognized literary language of the Orthodox community. The problem of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi s language is unquestionably one of the most interesting chapters in the history of the Serbian literary language. It is also one of the most difficult to resolve. As one of the first writers of renown from the territory of the Habsburg Monarchy after the Great Migration of the Serbs under the Patriarch Arsenije III arnojevi in 1690, Venclovi used two distinctly separate
, ... , , , . See her K ( a XVII - XVIII ), in , vol. 4 (, 1986), 66-75, the quotation appears on pp. 67 and 68. Cf. also: O. . , ( XI - XVII .), in , ( 1985), quoted from Stakhovas above-cited article, p.74; eadem, Attitudes to Greek Language and Culture in SeventeenthCentury Muscovy, in Modern Greek Studies Yearbook, vol. 6 (University of Minnesota, 1990), 123-155; . . , 1683 , in . , vol. 39. no. 2 (Vilnius, 1988), 112-118. B. . Uspenskij also points to Greek-Russian linguistic contacts of the early modern period: , e , 1627 ., ... , , : . , , - ; .
types of literary languages: Church Slavonic and the spoken language of the common people. Historians of the Serbian literary language have tended to explain the presence of two separate linguistic codes in Venclovis texts without pursuing the reasons for linguistic dualism. It should be pointed out that Venclovis texts, as a whole, be-
See . . , . IX . 1983 (: , 1983), 95. Although Victor Zhivov does not speak extensively about the of the Petrine era, he mentions that ( ) , . (A.., XIV-XVII ., in , vol. LXXIV, 1, C.,1903, 356). [the Leichudes brothers, Sofronij and Ioakim, came to Moscow to occupy a dominant position within the Grecophile party and became the activists of the Enlightenment movement in Russia. They took part in organizing the Slavo-Greek-Latin Academy in Moscow at the end of the seventeenth- and at the beginning of the eighteenth centuries] . [bolding added] B. M. , XVIII (: , 1996), 94. Cf. also: . , - XV-XVII . (: ,1977); idem, Graeco-Russian Contacts from the Middle of the XVI Century up to the Beginning of the XVIII Century: the Greek Documents in Moscow Archives: Catalogue of the exhibition compiled by B. L. Fonkich, International Congress of Byzantine Studies: 18th century (Moscow: Archive of Russian History, 1991); idem, XIV - e XVIII ., . , vol. 4 (: -: Indrik, 2003); idem, - XVII , . a, vol. 7 ( : , 2009). Cf. also: . , XVI , in , vol. 7 (, 1962), 171-198; I. evenko, Byzantine Roots of Ukrainian Christianity (Cambridge, Mass.: Ukrainian Studies Fund, Harvard University, 1984), pp. 26. Also Iaroslav Isaievych emphasizes: The first period of the Ukrainian cultural revival in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was most fruitful for the development of Greek studies and the spread of Greek culture in the Ukraine. The Greek scholars, as well as their Ukrainian colleagues, were attempting with some success to forge intellectual links between the Hellenism of the old Byzantine East and the new Hellenism of the West. See Iaroslav Isaievych, Greek culture in the Ukraine: 1550-1650, in Modern Greek Studies Yearbook, vol. 6, 97-122, the quotation appears on p. 115; idem, XVI-XVIII . (: , 1966); idem, XVI-XVIII . (: , 1972), 55-57; idem, (: , 1989), 133-138; . , - , in 1981 ( 1985), 57-61;K. , XVI XVII (: -. -, 1898), pp. 265 just to mention several important works devoted to Greek-Ukrainian cultural contacts of the early modern period.
long to an exclusively ecclesiastic, still medieval literature. All of the scholarsfrom Gavrilo Vitkovi to Milorad Pavi and Aleksandar ladenovi4agree with ovan Skerlis findings that Venclovi employed two distinct languages: When he writes something intended exclusively for ecclesiastical use, or when he translates works of ecclesiastical scholarship, he writes in the literary
4
Literature about Venclovi is enormous. I will quote only the most important works about him in the field of language and literature: . , , , vol. 34 (1872): 151-77; , , (: , 1871), 182-183; idem, - (: .- , 1904), 180-203; , ( : c , 1905), 36-37, and 62; , , C. . , vol . 2 (1911), 105-306; , (: , 1901), 84-171; Jo , , in his XVIII (: , 1923), 168-72; idem, , in his . , 100 (: , 1921), 28-29; , , , vol. IV/2 (1931), 314-316; , -, in , vol. I (1953), 164-5; M. , (: , 1956), 5051, 27; . J. and M. . , c 4-5 (1956-1957): 233-47; M. , XVIII (: , 1961), 118-120; A. M, , Ma c 12, no. 1 (1964): 334-36; idem, , 7 (1963): 159-62; idem, , , X (1967): 113-24; idem, XVIII XIX , in: ( : , 1973), 41-42; idem, a , in: (: , 2008), 6467; Aleksandar Albijani, The Creation of the Slaveno-Serbski Literary Language, The Slavonic and East European Review 48, no. 113 (October 1970): 485-86; idem, Serbian Church Slavic Elements in Vojvodina Sources, Die Welt der Slaven 23, no. 2 (1978): 268-83; idem, , in , xxv/2 (1982), 83-90; idem, K , ibidem, XXVI/1 (1983), 79-82; idem, , ibidem, XXVI/1, 69-78; idem, The Demise of Serbian Church Slavic and the advent of the Slaveno-Serbski Literary Dialect, in: The Formation of the Slavonic Literary Languages, eds. Gerald Stone and Dean Worth (Columbus: Slavica Publishers, 1985), 117; idem, , in , vol. 1 (1987), 237-250; M. , , 7-8 (1965): 90109; idem, , , , , (: , 1966), 542; idem, , in: O , , vol. 3 (: 1966), 81-122; idem,
The Linguistic Diglossia of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi and | 15 in the Literature of the Orthodox Slavs - language as it was preserved in the church tradition he learned from his teacher, Kiprijan Raanin. But when he writes for the secular reader, especially when he composes (homilies) in the manner of a preacher, he employs the beautiful and pure (the language of the ordinary people).5
Skerlis insistence on the presence of the common peoples language in Venclovis texts has never been disputed by Serbian philologists, primarily because they readily recognized a language that does not differ greatly from the modern Serbian literary language they themselves use. This is probably the main reason why the question of linguistic diglossia in Venclovis texts has never been raised, much less satisfactorily answered in Serbian philology. Precisely because of the appearance of the common peoples language in Venclovis works, scholars regard Venclovi as the turning point in the development of the Serbian literary language. He is seen as the forerunner of Vuk Karadi and Dositej bradovi. He stands alone, and, for half a
(XVII i XVIII ) (: , 1970), cf. all pages referring to on p. 516; idem, (: , 1972); idem, , in (: , 1987), 59-75; Rolf-Dieter Kluge, . . , in , 15 (1978), 95-101; idem, 18. , in , 28-41; , , 20-24; , , (: , 1975), 160-62 and 193-195; idem, - (: , 1994), 76-84; , O , 29, no. 1 (1981): 27-42; 30, no. 1 (1982): 5-17; , , , vol. IV-16 (1972), 705-22; idem, ( , 1983), 169-74; , , , vol. 20/1 (1990), 389-396; . and . , , in , vol. 32/1 (1989), 93-101; , , in , vol. 15, no. 72 (2004), 213-222; vol. 16, no. 73 (2004), 236-249; , , 160-3, 166; idem, ( : , 1990), 110; idem, , 107,109, 112- 113; cf.also: B. Unbegaun, Les dbuts de la langue littraire chez les Serbes (Paris: H. Champion, 1935), 21-25; L. Costantini, A proposito della lingua di Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi, Ricerche slavistiche 14 (1966): 53-76; idem, Gli Annali del Baronio-Skarga quale fonte di Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi, in Ricerche slavistiche, vol. XVI (1968-69), 163-190; . . , XVIII . ( 1780 .) - , in . (: , , , 1979), 162-65; Rosanna Morabito, Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi, in her Tradizione e innovazione linguistica nella cultura serba del XVIII secolo (Cassino: Universit di Cassino, 2001), 169-95.
5
, XVIII , 171.
century is at the head of a dark period.6 His texts are considered the beginnings of the modern Serbian language. They indicate, the ways in which the literary language of the Serbian people would have developed in contrast to the - language, if there had been no interruption.7 The question of the parallel use of Church Slavonic and the language of the common people in Venclovis texts was first raised by the eminent Slavist, Boris Unbegaun. On the basis of Venclovis own pronouncements regarding the use of the peoples language in his numerous manuscriptspronouncements that are, in fact, more apologies than explanations by natureUnbegaun concludes that, for Venclovi the only literary language is Church Slavonic of the Serbian recension.8 Unbegaun underscores this assertion by completely denying Venclovis the status and function of a literary language: The ordinary Serbian language is used only in homilies and cannot be regarded either as a (legitimate) written language or even as a literary language. The reasons for this are: Venclovi limits the use of the ordinary language to his homilies, which were intended to be preached before country folk. His sole aim is for the people to understand fully the language so that its complete instructional value would be assured. Every time, or almost every time, that Venclovi uses the ordinary Serbian language, he never fails to point out that he uses it for purely practical reasons.9 Furthermore, whenever Venclovi uses ordinary Serbian, he uses the popular lexicon as much as possible, not avoiding any words, not even German, Hungarian or Turkish words (which are exceptionally numerous), and he does this without regard for the literary quality of his language.10 Yet, these reasons are neither sufficient nor fully relevant for determining whether a certain linguistic code does or does not fulfill the function of a literary language. While a discussion of these reasons exceeds the scope of this article, here I will focus on Venclovis own conception of the literary language he was using, because that was precisely the conception that Unbegaun attempted to define when he concluded that, according to Venclovis own understanding, Church Slavonic was the sole literary language.
6 7 8
Ibid., 172. , -, 180.
Church Slavonic of the Serbian recension or version is used for the French term le slavon serbe. See: B. Unbegaun, Les dbuts de la langue littraire chez les serbes, 21-24, quotation appears on p. 23.
9 10
Ibid., 23. Ibid., 23.
In his study, The Language of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi: General Questions, the Italian Slavist, Lionello Costantini, continued the discussion begun by Unbegaun.11 Through careful analysis, Costantini questions Unbegauns interpretation of Venclovis programmatic pronouncements. In fact, he finds the pronouncements deceptive. Costantini cannot accept that Venclovis alleged transition to the spoken, ordinary Serbian language was simply to make his homilies maximally understandable. Rather, Costantini finds that Venclovis apologies derive from his stylistic form: traditional Orthodox topoi that were adopted by the Raka school.12 Venclovis introductory formulas and explanations had the value of loci communes, and should in no way be interpreted as interventions made on Venclovis own initiative: In any event, the same stylistic impact that the overall sentence structure of [Venclovis] pronouncements attains through its conciseness and incisiveness in the use of forms and stereotypical expressions inherited from a centuries-old tradition is evidence that we are dealing here with something different, something current, a design which should be kept in mind. What could that something current be? It seems to me that the answer can be obtained on the basis of consecutive words which constitute the discriminating criterion for two different linguistic usages: Church Slavonic on the one hand, and the common peoples language on the other.13 Costantini is right: we are faced with something new, something truly different, something very current and, as I shall further demonstrate, something decidedly essential for the further development of Orthodox Slavdom and its linguistic unity. This is not yet the developmental phase of the Education Movement led by Dositej bradovi, nor is it the Romantic epoch of Vuk aradi. Both of these men struggled for the exclusive acceptance of the language of the common people in Serbian literature within the framework of secular culture. As Costantini accurately points out, Venclovis activity unfolded in an entirely different cultural and spiritual atmosphere, characterized by the absolute supremacy of religious and ecclesiastical. Notwithstanding, his work has been mistakenly and repeatedly connected to bradovi and aradi in Serbian philology down to the present.14
11 12 13 14
L. Costantini, A proposito della lingua di Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi, 53-76. Ibid., 72-74. Ibid., 73.
Ibid. 75. Costantini does not, however, enter into an analysis of Venclovi's potential sources that, incidentally, remain unknown and unexamined to this day.
In contrast to Unbegaun, who denies the value of a literary language to the peoples language, Costantini, with great philological intuition, concludes the theoretical portion of his analysis by stating: ... as defined in (Venclovis) clear programmatic statement, the peoples language is accorded the full right of existence directly alongside the liturgical language; a certain state of bilingualism is proclaimed [emphasis added] in which both of these linguistic modalities, [i.e. Church Slavonic and the peoples language] are postulated not as precluding one another, but rather as correlatives operating in a symphonic relationship. Within the confines of secular cultureeven though we cannot ever be forgetful of the fact that we are facing a fundamentally religious and ecclesiastical phenomenon here the peoples language is accorded the dignity of a literary language, without any implication that this fact means a break with tradition [emphasis added]. As regards the practical part of the question, we can isolate two languages in Venclovis extant texts: one of these languages is tied to the foundations of Church Slavonic, the other to the foundations of the peoples language. However, due to the lack of textual analysis of Venclovis texts that could demonstrate to what degree Venclovi was dependent on his sources, it is difficult to arrive at a single clear and well-rounded conclusion.15 Thus, Unbegaun and Costantini ultimately arrived at similar conclusions about the relationship between the two idioms Venclovi used in his writings. His had the special function of clarifying the text and making the major literary medium, , i.e. Church Slavonic, more readily understandable. It was seemingly able to follow Church Slavonic without tending to free itself and become separate. Furthermore, for Venclovi, was the sole recognized literary language in the full sense of the word. Venclovi seems to be neither the first nor the only copyist or writer during the first decades of the eighteenth century who introduced Serbian vernacular into his texts written in Church Slavonic. On the basis of Nikita I. Tolstojs short description of the language of Jerotej Raanins i I (A Travelogue to the City of Jerusalem), written in 1727 in the monastery of Velika Remeta, in the area of the Fruka mountain, I have concluded that Raanin used the same type of diglossic language as Venclovi, similarly perceiving Church Slavonic as
15
Costantini, La lngua di Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi, 75.
the sole literary language.16 Church Slavonic was also the only literary language for the writers of the so-called period, including Vikentije Ljutina17 at the end of the eighteenth century, and Milovan Vidakovi in the first half of the nineteenth century.18 As with all these writers, Venclovis had a subordinate function in relation to the language, with its long literary and sacred tradition among the Orthodox Slavs.
ILLYRIAN, THE COMMON LANGUAGE OF THE CATHOLICS AND ORTHODOX IN THE HABSBURG MONARCHY
From a purely linguistic point of view, was indisputably an independent linguistic system that differed structurally from Church Slavonic.19 In fact, Venclovis , as a literary form, was created entirely within the Roman Catholic cultural sphere in the Western Balkans during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries under the name of Illyrian. For the sake of illustration, I will quote from
lstojs description reads as follows: , . . [bolding added] See his , in . , 161-62. In my opinion, lstojs interpretation of Jerotej Raanins conception about the literary language is accurate. It is puzzling that he does not take into consideration Irena Grickats analysis of Raanin and other travelogues writers language, although he cites her article (see my fn. 84). Raanin perceived Church Slavonic and the common peoples language, i.e. the Serbian vernacular, as one and the same language. My further analysis will prove that all the Eastern Slavic writers and copyistsas well as Vencloviwho introduced their vernaculars into Church Slavonic literature recognized , i.e., Church Slavonic, as the sole and sacred literary language.
17
16
L. Costantini, Slavo ecclesiastico e volgare nella Grammatika Italianskaja di Vikentije Ljutina, Studia historica et philologica III, Sectio slavoromanica 1 (Firenze: Licosa editrice, 1976), 51-52.
18
L. Costantini, Un capitolo della questione della lingua serba: Milovan Vidakovi, Ricerche slavistiche, vols. 24-26 (1977-1979): 179-195.
19
Irena Grickat emphasizes: , , . , . See her: (: , 1972), 28, fn. 20; Cf. also her work, Je , , 24-32.
John Fines monograph, When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans, in which he correctly describes the language of the Serbs living in Habsburg territory: Many Serbs had also migrated into the Habsburg lands in the centuries after the Turkish conquest of Serbia. We find people called Serbs settled in the Vojvodina, Srem, and Slavonia, where they had their own Church organization, which was often under pressure from the political authorities to convert to Catholicism or at least to accept Uniatism. Since the Serbs had their own Serbian Church organization, the name Serb was used with frequency for these people. However, the local vocabulary used by and about the Catholic Slavs also penetrated Serb communities. Thus, for example, Jagi uncovered texts discussing the publication of their Church books in the 1770s, about them setting up their own Illyrian printing press (1771) and talking about the government decision, noted previously, from 1779 on language. In their discussion of the matter and descriptions of the ruling, the Serbs noted that only Cyrillic letters and Illyrian liturgical language (illyrica lingua lithurgica)20 could be used in Church books, whereas in secular works and schoolbooks, the press would utilize the popular Illyrian dialect (dialecto vulgari illirica) and Latin letters. We find in 1794 that a Serbian Orthodox priest, Vikentije Ljustina, printed in Cyrillic in Slavono-Serbski a 507-page Italian grammar for the use of Illyrian youth (radi upotreblenia illyrieskija junosti). The local Serbs had come in this case to call their language Illyrian, distinguishing Church Slavonic (as liturgical Illyrian) from everyday Slavic speech (as vulgar Illyrian). Thus, these Habsburg
The Illyrian liturgical language was the name of the language in which Croatian glagolitic liturgical books were written. Its existence began to be recognized as early as the post Tridentine period. During the Council of Trent (1545-1563), only a few scholars conversant with the linguistic problems were aware of it. It was the Bishop of Zara, Mutius Callinus, who remarked that: in Dalmatia, the liturgy is legitimately performed in the lingua Schiava antica. He described this old Slavic language as non volgare, e ma-terna di quei popoli, anzi loro oscura, come quasi ai nostri idioti Italiani la Latina. See: Luka Jeli, Fontes historici liturgiae glagolitico-romanae a XIII ad XIX saeculum (Veglae: Slavorum Litterae Theologicae Pragae, 1906), XV, 115. A tendency to emphasize the difference between the lingua vulgaris and the liturgical language, i.e. lingua litteralis, appeared during the Council of Trent. In fact, the function of Church Slavonic, the literary language of Orthodox liturgy, was assigned to the lingua litteralis. Particularly after the foundation of the Congregatio de Propaganda fide in 1622, Catholic reformers elaborated on the concept of the sclavonice antique and attempted to force the introduction of this language into literary practice. The illyrica litteralis was intended to become a means for achieving the Church union with the Orthodox. Thus, Rafael Levakovi, one of the creators of lingua Illyrica litteralis, attempted to transform it into a common pan-Slavic literary language. See fn. 30 for additional explanation.
20
The Linguistic Diglossia of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi and | 21 in the Literature of the Orthodox Slavs Serbs were calling their language by the same name that many of their Catholic neighbors were using for theirs.21
Illyrian, i.e., volgare illirico, was the original idiom of Dubrovnik, also known as jezik slaveno-iliriki izgovora bosanskoga, i.e. the linguagio bosnese, or volgare illirico of the Counterreformation missionaries. Sante Graciotti convincingly explains why the Bosnian dialect was selected to serve as the basis of the common Illyrian language: When the problem of choosing a dialect to form the basis of the common Croatian literary language was raised in Dalmatia, none of the Dalmatian dialects was selected, but the Bosnian dialect from the interior was promulgated [to serve as the basis for such a common literary language.] After a century of the splendid development of Dalmatian-Ragusan literature, this choice must have seemed inadmissible; but one could already detect the reasons for such a solution. From the beginning of the sixteenth century to the end of the seventeenth century, scholars put forward to justify it [the choice]: a puristic reason - the Bosnian dialect was more authentic than any of the coastal dialects--, and a political reason -- the Bosnian dialect was the most widespread and the most comprehensible in the entire South Slavic area. Among other things, also no one should forget that the Ragusan dialect was recognized as belonging to the tokavian-Ijekavian dialect of Bosnia to such a degree that it was perceived as its offshoot; and sometimes one spoke explicitly about the languages of Ragusa and Bosnia as one and the same language.22
21
John V. A. Fine, When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans. A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2006), 543. In the context of Fines explanation, it becomes fully understandable why, in 1773, Constantin Philippidi defined as the liturgical language of the Serbs, and called it iyi--. (Quoted from , XVIII . ( 1780 .), 170, fn. 29. Speaking about the language of the handbook, - , published in Vienna in 1776, Dimitrije Kirilovi says: , . Clearly, Kirilovi refers to Slavo-Serbian, i.e. Serbianized Slavo-Russian (see fns. 65 and 66), which at the time performed the function of Church Slavonic and was designated as illirica lingua lithurgica, i.e. liturgical Illyrian, in contrast to everyday Slavic speech, i.e. vulgar Illyrian (see fns. 20 and 30 for additional explanation). Cf. , 18 : 1740-1780 ( : , 1929), 48.
22
Sante Graciotti, Il problema della lingua letteraria nellantica letteratura croata, in Ricerche slavistiche, vol. 15 (1967), 123-164, the quotation appears on p. 127. As Graciotti further indicates, the first who praises the high quality of Bosnian was the Benedictine monk, Mavro Orbini, from Dubrovnik. In his Il Regno degli Slavi (1601), Orbini says: Fra tutti i populi della lingua slava, costoro [li Bosnesi] hanno la pi tersa et la pi elegante lingua; et si gloriano, chessi soli hoggid, mantengono la purit della lingua slava. (Il Regno de gli Slavi , 377). Sante Graciotti, op. cit., 128. Also, after quoting extensively from the available
Under the influence of the Counterreformation, the Renaissance language of Dubrovnik became, in subsequent centuries, the common, colloquial Illyrian language, which was gradually adopted by the majority of South Slavic territories in the central Balkans. It was also in wide use in the area of the Balkans occupied by the Turks, that is, in Serbia, Macedonia and Bulgaria,23 and even in Constantinople.24 The
sources, Micaele S. Iovine says: The reports in question often refer to the local Christian population (whether Catholic or Orthodox) in terms of an Illyrian-Bosnian model, which will become a hallmark of the theoretical pronouncements of the seventeenth and eighteenth-century philologists.Various communities are referred to as di linguagio bosnese or di lingua Illirica. See her The Illyrian Language and the Language Question among the Southern Slavs in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, in: Aspects of the Slavic Language Question, vol. 1, Church Slavonic - South Slavic - West Slavic, eds. Riccardo Picchio and Harvey Goldblatt (New Haven: Yale Consilium on International and Area Studies, 1984), 101156, the quotation appears on p. 125. For more about the use of the term Illyrian by Bulgarian Catholic missionaries, see Iovine, The Illyrian Language, 130-41. Cf. also: Ivan Dujev, Il cattolicesimo in Bulgaria nel sec. XVII secondo (Rome: Pont. Institutum orientalium studiorum, 1937); Evsebije Fermendin, Acta Bulgariae ecclesiastica ab a. 1565 usque ad a. 1799, (Zagreb: JAZU, 1887); , 1651, , ed. (: , 1979), with a list of pertinent literature on 35-37. is a breviary written by the Bulgarian Roman Catholic Bishop of Nikopol, Filip Stanislavov, printed in Rome in 1651. It was used by the Catholics from Chiprovtsi in the seventeenth century. The language of the breviary is a specific mixture of Church Slavonic, Croatian (i.e. Illyrian) and Neo-Bulgarian elements. See . , , (1924): 289-337. In order to support my interpretation of Venclovis as Illyrian, I am listing the following additional works about the Serbian : , , Etnolog 4, no. 2 (1931): 187-211; , , 13 (1971): 149-50. discovered a copy of written by the priest in 1747, and another one written in Banja Luka at the end of the seventeenth century; , A, in , vol. II (,1978), 60-68; , , in , vol XLI (1985), 35-64. Cf. also: Emanuela Sgambati, Cultura e azione europea di un missionario patriota bulgaro: Karsto Pejki, in Atti dell VIII Congresso internazionale di studi sullalto medioevo, La cultura bulgara nel medioevo balcanico tra oriente e occidente europeo (Spoleto: Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sullalti medioevo, 1983), 1-21; Josip Turinovi, Misionar Podunavlja, Bugarin Krsto Pejki (16651731), in Analecta croatica christiana, vol. 5 (Zagreb: Kranska sadanjost,1973); Janja Jerkov, Relazioni delle visite apostliche e altri documenti sui Pauliciani bulgari del XVIII secolo, First part in Ricerche slavistiche, n.s., vol. 4 (2006), 85-205.; Second part, ibidem n.s. vol. 5 (2007), 45-190. M. , XV-XVIII . (, 1924), quoted from , , 92. B , [=Illyrian] , . XVI . . , - - ; - , - K; - , , , , 24 23
wars between the Habsburgs and the Ottomans intensified the migrations of refugees leaving the territories plundered and conquered by the Turks and settling in the Croatian lands (Slavonia, Lika, Kordun and others). Fearing Turkish occupation and oppression, an Orthodox Serbian population migrated to the free western area of the Balkans, bringing about the creation of nuclei of mixed (Serbian and Croatian) communities.25 Zoran Velagi cogently describes the activities of the Counterreformation missionaries at the Frontier of Catholicism and Orthodoxy: It is clear that the particular frontier location of Croatian authors led them to write extensively about the Orthodox Church. These authors produced works in the vernacular that dealt exclusively with Orthodoxy. Moreover, every larger catechism contained a section which specifically raised the question of the separated. Catholic authors felt the need to teach their flock what Orthodoxy was and what should be done if one came into immediate contact with Orthodox believers. Sometimes they only wanted to inform their believers about the dangers of other denominations. However, other Catholic authors wanted to create a common ground for achieving unity more easily. This was the most important task for the Catholic polemicists at their frontier of faith.26 Missionaries of the Counterreformation specially developed and adapted the Illyrian language for use by Orthodox Serbs from the sixteenth century onwards. At that time, the Cyrillic alphabet was the preferred alphabet for the Illyrian language, favored over Glagolitic or Latin characters.27 It suffices to mention that in the seven-
. , . . M , XVI-XVII . in his: (: , 1969), 146-66, the quotation appears on 147.

25
Although Croatia was largely Catholic, its Military Border was a heaven for Orthodox Serbs. C.W. Ingrao, The Habsburg Monarchy 1618-1815 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 29.
26
Zoran Velagi, The Croatian Author at the Frontier of Catholicism and Orthodoxy in Croatia, in: Frontiers of Faith. Religious Exchange and the Constitution of Religious Identities 1400-1750, eds. Eszter Andor and Istvn Gyrgy Tth (Budapest: Central European University, 2001), 89-97, the quotation appears on p. 97.
27 An anonymous author wrote a letter (on July 5, 1627 in Rome) to the Cardinal of the Propaganda de fide: Bona parte del mondo parla in quella lingua (la lingua illyrica), in particulare: li Boemi, Moscouiti, Poloni, Rutteni, Traci, Serviani, Crovati, Dalmatini, Ragusei, Bosnesi et molti altri; sar per necessario che la translatione, che si far possa esser intesa dognuno di questi. Il carattere di due sorti, luno si chiama Bucuizza e laltro Chiuriliza; questa universale e di questa si servono li Moscouiti, Ruteni, Seruiani, Bosnesi et molti altri, et in questa offitiano li monaci di S.
teenth and eighteenth centuries, Rafael Levakovi and his followersMatej Karaman, Vicencije Zmajevi, Matvej Sovi, Ivan Patri and others who were sponsored by the Sacra Congregation de Propaganda Fideintroduced the lingua Illyrica litteralis into Croatian liturgical texts in order to make this language conform as closely as possible to the liturgical Ukrainian version of Church Slavonic.28 Catholic reformers and activists were thoroughly acquainted with the linguistic development of the Orthodox Slavs. Thus, the intensive endeavors of missionaries to advance the language led not only to the augmentation of the Cyrillic alphabet but also to the graphic adaptation for the specific sounds of tokavian.29 Books were specially printed in this common Illyrian language for the Serbs.30 Thus, the Cyrillic alphabet and the common peoples language were modified to fit the phonological peculiarities of Illyrian literary ex-
Basilio di rito greco, e li Rassiani scismatici; e stampandosi in questo carattere si potrebbe sperar per questo mezzo qualque frutto in detti scismatici, li quali volontieri leggerano lopere nove uscite nella loro lingua e carattere; et a questo hebbe risguardo la santa memoria di PP. Gregorio XIII. che fece stampare qui in Roma il catechismo e Cannasio, a la fel. memoria del Cardin. S. Severina si hebbe particolar cura e premura molto in questo negotio e f causa della salute di molti. Evsebije Fermendin, Listovi o izdanju glagolskih crkvenih knjiga i o drugih knjievnih poslovih u Hrvatskoj od god. 1620-1648, Starine JAZU 24 (1891), 1-40, the quotation appears on p. 18. See also J. Juri, Pokuaj Zbora za irenje vjere god. 1627 da kod Junih Slavena uvede zajedniko pismo, Croatica Sacra 4 (1934), 143-74; , XVIII . ... , vol. XXXV (1903), 117-25; J. , XVII (: , 1949), 1-147, especially 126; Olga Nedeljkovi, Josef Dobrovsk and the Serbian Literary Language at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century, Serbian Studies 1, no. 4 (1982), 3-19, especially 9.
28
P. Marko Japundi, Matteo Karaman (1700-1771), Arcivescovo di Zara (Rome: [s.n.], 1961); Josip Hamm, Ruska redakcija u glagoljskim spomenicima, Slovo 21 (1971), 213-22; Sante Graciotti, Il problema della lingua letteraria croata e la polemica tra Karaman e Rosa, Ricerche slavistiche 13 (1965), 129; idem, Il problema della lingua letteraria nellantica letteratura croata, 148; Olga Nedeljkovi, The Humanistic Concept of Krianis Language, Journal of Croatian Studies 31 (1990), 23-27. ime Budini prepared parallel editions in Latin and Cyrillic for use among the Balkan Catholics and Orthodox. See more about him and his writings in ime Budini, Izabrana djela, in: Planine, ed. Franjo velec (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2002), 309-422, with a list of Budinis editions and pertinent literature about him on 327-30.
30 29
There existed a general tendency not only to write books for the Orthodox Serbs and Bulgarians in this lingua illyrica litteralis, but also to identify this lingua antica illyrica with the Church Slavonic language in which Orthodox books were written. For example, Father Rafo Levakovi made such an identification in his description of My relationship with schismatic Bishop Maxim, where he said: ... he [Bicshop Maxim] showed me some books written in Serbian [i.e., Cyrillic] letters in the lingua antica illyrica, such as Bibles, Maenologies, Euchologies, Lives of Saint Fathers, and other ecclesiastical books in the Greek rite.
pression.31 Having established the evident connection between Venclovis language and Illyrian, we must conclude that Venclovis was completely unrelated to Church Slavonic: it was neither modeled upon nor structurally connected to the literary language of the Orthodox Slavs. Common Illyrian became the language of Orthodox settlers who fled Turkish territory and settled in the western parts of the Balkans, especially in the area of the Military Border in Croatia and Slavonia. As has already been mentioned, Illyrian was the generally accepted language in all the Croatian provinces. These provinces formed part of the multinational Habsburg Empire, which also included Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia. One should bear in mind that the Serbs were never united in a single political territory inside the Habsburg Monarchy. They were scattered and subject to different administrative systems.32 This said, the Serbian Orthodox Church exerted a unifying powerit held both spiritual and political power over the Orthodox Christians33 under Ottoman rule, and endeavored to
Nedeljkovi, The Humanistic Concept of Krianis Language, 23. The quotation about Rafael Levakovi is taken from Evsebije Fermendin, O. Rafo Levakovi i Vlasi u Hrvatskoj g. 1641., Starine 20 (1888), 27. M, , 159-62. Idem, , 113-24. Since there is no critical edition of Venclovis manuscripts in general, and the manuscript of the Spiritual Sword ( ) in particular, upon which M based his analysis, one can only speculate whether the differences in the graphical representations of the letters , with , , i, i, , , , , , , i, , i, etc., could be assigned to Venclovi alone. It seems plausible to assume that there were at least two if not three copyists involved in translating, though probably only copying, the text of Baranovys to the manuscript assigned to Venclovi (see the six photocopies of the original text of the Spiritual Sword at the end of Mladenovis article). At the end of his description of manuscript No 92 (267) of the Spiritual Sword, Stojanovi remarks: : , . 1736 . 8 (?) . , , 87. As already pointed out, without a critical edition of Venclovis texts, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusion in this regard. Certainly, the creation of the letters , and that one encounters in Venclovis manuscripts can hardly be assigned to Venclovi alone.
32 See , XVI, XVII, XVIII . (: , 1923); idem, XVI. XVII, XVIII (: , 1926); idem, 1703 ( : , 1929); , (, Ontario: Avala, 1955); , , in: . 1699, vol. 1 ( : , 1990), 96-109. 33 31
Preobrazba bizantskog pravoslavlja u srpsku narodnu religiju, posebna organizacija Pravoslavne crkve, odnosi izmedju Crkve i drave, sve je to odredilo ulogu Crkve u ivotu srpskog naroda za osman-
preserve the same privileges of the millet system34 in the Monarchy.35 Paul Pavlovich explains the situation in which the Serbs found themselves thusly: The rights and privileges which the Serbs had been granted upon entering the Hungarian lands in the Austrian Kingdom had been considerable: [emphasis added] they had been given a form of autonomy in their religious and educational affairs; they had been given the right to call and administer the churchpeople assemblies, and had been promised the appointment of the Courts advisors for matters related to Serb affairs; a vague promise of separate territories for Serb settlements had also been made, and a series of taxes had been adjustlijske vladavine. Ta se uloga protezala tako rei na sva ivotna podruja pa je istovremeno osiguravala iskljuivu duhovnu prevlast Crkve. Medjutim, to je bilo mogue samo pod turskom vladavinom, unutar drutvene situacije u kojoj su se onda nalazili Srbi. Lszl Hadrovics, Srpski narod i njegova crkva pod turskom vlau, trans. Marko Kovaevi (Zagreb: Nakladni Zavod Globus, 2000), 121. In his book, 1683 -1699 (: , 1976), 186, Gligor Stanojevi characterizes the role of the Serbian Church as follows: , , . , , , . , . , , .
34
Millet system is a term for the confessional communities in the Ottoman Empire. It refers to the separate legal courts pertaining to personal law under which communities (Muslim Sharia, Christian Canon and Jewish Halanha law abiding) were allowed to rule themselves under their own system... The word Millet comes from the Arabic word millah and literary means nation. The Millet system of Islamic law has been called an early example of pre-modern religious pluralism... Millet (Ottoman Empire), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_(Ottoman_Empire), (accessed March 16, 2011).
35
Bishop Isaac Djakovi, as the Serbian negotiator with Leoplod I, had succeeded tremendously in securing the right of Serb Church self-administration, in securing recognition of Arsenius Patriarchship and his overall position of leadership among the Serbs in the Austrian Empire, in establishing the right to call assemblies which were to select only Serbs as Archbishops, and in obtaining tax exemption for all the Serb churches and their lands; in exchange, the Serbs had to swear loyalty to and accept recognition of Leopold as a hereditary ruler, as well as be obliged to serve in military service. This original or initial set of privileges had been issued in August of 1690, and in ecclesiastical matters, the Serb Church head, in what is Voyvodina today, had been given all the above rights as an Archbishop of all the people who follow the Greek church service (meaning Orthodox) in all of Greece, Rashka, Bulgaria, Dalmatia, Bosnia, Kosovo (Yenopolye), Hercegovina, Hungary and Croatia. Paul Pavlovich, The History of the Serbian Orthodox Church (Toronto: Serbian Heritage Books, 1989), 97.
The Linguistic Diglossia of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi and | 27 in the Literature of the Orthodox Slavs ed and lowered in order to help the Serbs to quickly establish themselves economically. It is interesting to note that these rights and privileges had covered all the Serbs, those who had been long time citizens of the Austrian Empire as well as those who had just arrived with the 1690 migration, and that these same rights had applied to all parts of the Empire, whether it be Hungary, Croatia, Slavonia, Lika, or elsewhere.36
Thus, in addition to the ecclesiastical, political and economic privileges Emperor Leopold granted the Vojvodina37 church organization, the Serbian Orthodox Church was free to promote education and culture, including the usage of language, books and instructors. Until Empress Maria Theresa (1717-1780) came to the throne, education and culture were entirely in the hands of the church. The Orthodox clergy regulated, approved and controlled all linguistic innovations, struggling to preserve the Slavo-Serbian and Slavo-Russian cultural orientation of the Serbs.38 The crucial question, then, is: why would the Orthodox Church have sanctioned the use of Illyrian in Orthodox religious literature?39 This question becomes even more
36 37
Ibid, 107-08.
Vojvodina is an autonomous territorial community, located within the northern part of the Republic of Serbia. It borders Hungary in the North, Romania in the East, Croatia in the West, and the Republica Srpska entity in the South-West. It stretches over the Pannonian plain.
38
, , , . , XVIII , 143. The existing explanations of the presence of Serbian vernacular in Serbian ecclesiastical literature of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are not convincing. Cf., for example, s , in: , where he says: , , , , . . XVII XVIII , . (28-32, the quotation appears on p. 29.) Pavi even questions his own explanation in the last part of the last sentence. However, he tries to clarify his idea further by saying: , ,
39
intriguing when one takes into account the fact that after 1690, having escaped the Turkish yoke and settled in southern Hungary, the Serbs resisted all innovations that, by their reasoning, threatened the Orthodox tradition.40 Like all the Orthodox in general, they rejected all that was Latin and Catholic. Living in the Catholic Habsburg Empire, the Serbs considered themselves religiously and politically oppressed.41 It is
, , . , , . See his . (ibid., 316-19, the quotation appears on p. 316) It is hard to accept the explanation Pavi proposed in his . As an erudite scholar, well-known postmodernist writer, and knowledgeable literary critic, Pavi did not fully understand the language problems of the Slaveno-Serbian writers in Hungary, in particular Venclovis diglossia. Specialists of Slaveno-Serbian have not provided an adequate explanation of Slaveno-Serbian and Venclovis language either (see fns. 65, 66 and 86). The Serbian Orthodox Church could never have introduced the Serbian vernacular into literary works or as the official language of the Serbian Orthodox Church. One can speak even less about the secularization of the Serbian travelogue genre during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Such a westernized approach to the Orthodox peoples in general, and to the Serbs in particular, implies a serious distortion of their linguistic development. See fn. 86 about the language of the earliest travelogues among the Serbs.
40
The appeal Metropolitan Mojsije Petrovi sent to Emperor Peter the Great in 1721, requesting teachers and books from Russia, illustrates well the anti-Latin and anti-Catholic feelings of the Serbs in Vojvodina. In it, Metropolitan Petrovi describes the Catholic clergy as , , ( ) . In a letter to Count Golovkin, chancellor of the Emperor, Metropolitan Petrovi says that the Serbs find themselves . Furthermore, he begs the chancellor to persuade the Emperor to send teachers to the Serbs as soon as possible , . Quoted from , , 382.
41
One should bear in mind that: On the one hand, the Serbs had envisaged themselves as a separate political entity within the Empire, a position which they thought they had attained with the guarantees and privileges granted to them by Emperor Leopold I [...] In the Austrian Empire, on the other hand, the Serbs had found themselves in a multinational Empire, where Austrian and Hungarian parts of it predominated, and where the Roman Catholic Church was the church of the Imperial Court. Ever since the fall of the Serb state, the Church head had also assumed Serb secular leadership, and the natural tendency had been to continue with that practice in the Austrian Empire as well. However, was it really realistic to expect the Vienna Emperor to agree to this lessening of his temporal power in relation to Serbs, when that had not been the case in relation to any other of the many national groups within the Empire? [emphasis added] Much of the Voyvodina Serb story was to be a constant struggle to remain Serb and Orthodox and not to lose the faith of their forefathers, the story which of course was to be repeated many times over, among the Serbs of Slavonia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Dalmatia, Lika, Kordun and Baniya. Pavlovich, The History of the Serbian Orthodox Church, 107-108. Cf. also: , 1690-1920.
sufficient to recall, for example, that they asked for books and teachers from Russia, in order to avoid a complete break with their past tradition.42 The Slavo-Russian cultural orientation of the Serbs demonstrates the strength of ties within the SlavicOrthodox community. These ties were just as strong at the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries as they were during the first centuries when Christianity was adopted from Byzantium. My analysis reveals the Slavic Orthodox community as an impressive case of a supranational, religious and linguistic unity.43
( : Stylos, 2005), with a list of pertinent literature; , , , XV-XIX (: , 1993), 7-157.

42 After the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, (when the Byzantine clergy had transferred their ecumenical ambitions from Constantinople to Moscow, proclaiming Moscow - the Third Rome), the Russians were accorded the status of the models and leaders of the supranational Slavic Orthodox community. From this context, it becomes clear why the Serbian Orthodox Church asked for teachers and books from Russia to revive their literary activities in Vojvodina. With the arrival in 1726 of the Russian teacher, Maksim Suvorov, Russian-type schools were founded, with Russian books and instructors. The principal objective of these schools was to train clergy the foundations of the Serbian educational system which were laid by Metropolitans Mojsije Petrovi and Vientije Jovanovi. After the departure of the Russian teachers, the development of education suffered a setback, but recovered during the tenure of Metropolitan Pavle Nenadovi. Wayne Vucinich, The Serbs in Austria-Hungary, Austrian History Yearbook 3, pt. 2, (1967): 3-47, the quotation appears on p. 41. A , (1713-1730) , in , vol.. XLVIII, 1-2 (2005), 77-84. Cf. also: - XVIII- XIX , ed. . . (- : , 1989); . , - XVII XVIII , in: XVIII ( , 1986), 15-38. Cf. the other articles in the same edition; Vladimir Moin,O periodizaciji rusko-junoslavenskih knjievnih veza, Slovo, vol. XI-XII (1962), 13-125; I. Mokuter, - XVIII , in Studia slavica, vol. XVIII (1972), 1-29. 43
See more about Slavia Orthodoxa in Riccardo Picchio, A proposito della Slavia ortodossa e della comunit linguistica slava ecclesiastica, Ricerche slavistiche 11 (1963): 8-9; idem, Slavia Orthodoxa , eds. .. and .. (: , 2003), 3-47. Olga B. Strakhov aptly stresses that the South Slavs under the Turkish occupation hoped the Russians would help them and eventually liberate them: In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries representatives of the southern Slavs who were under Ottoman rule (e.g., despotitsa Angelina, the monasteries of Mt. Athos) actively promoted the idea of Moscow as the only Orthodox center which retained religious independence...Russia seem to them the country which retained the ancient piety ( ), able to a certain degree to preserve and expand Orthodox, and first and foremost Byzantine, culture. That is, the Greeks themselves were capable of supporting to one degree or another something akin to the notion of Moscow the Third Rome. In many respects the appeal to Russia in their search for supportprimarily material,
Investigating Venclovis language in its socio-historical framework involves the use of written documents as source materials. In order to define the officially recognized Slavic language within the multilingual setting of the Habsburg Empire, I will briefly present the usage of the terms Illyricum and Illyrian by Slavo-Serbian authors living in Hungary and the Croatian lands. Recalling the Roman administrative title of the ancient territory of Illyricum, Renaissance humanists in Italy and Dalmatia applied the term Illyrian to the South Slavs and their language.44 While this is not the place to explore the long and rich tradition of the Illyrian language, I would like to briefly clarify its major function. It was developed as the popular language, the lingua commune nazionale, of the South Slavs. The terms Illyrians and Illyrian were used not only in reference to the South Slavic people and their language, but also in reference to the ideology of so-called Illyrism. This ideology was incorporated into the political and defensive: platform of the Post-Tridentine Counter-Reformational Catholicism oriented towards institutional and dogmatic consolidation as well as to the proselytistic expansion. [...] Counter-Reformational Illyrism [which] absorbed and made use of modified elements of the Orthodox, above all the Serbian, historical tradition.45
but also spiritualnaturally arose from the conditions of cultural life in the countries of the Orthodox East under the Turks. See her, Attitudes to Greek Language and Culture in Seventeenth-Century Moscovy, 123. An Italian author wrote the following: , , , , , , . (, p. cit., 154)
44
Bruna Kunti-Makvi, Tradicija o naim krajevima u antikom razdoblju kod dalmatinskih pisaca XVI i XVII stoljea, iva antika 34 (1984): 1-2, 155-64. The best source and description of all the Renaissance humanistic innovations and new approaches to the history of the South Slavs is Daniele Farlatis Illyricum sacrum (1751-1819), an ecclesiastical-historical work with a huge number of documents. More than a hundred collaborators collected the archival materials, which were presented in three hundred sheets and nine huge volumes for the Jesuit church historians opus magnum. Cf. also Ivan rni, Prilozi k razpravi imena Slovjanin i Ilir u naem gostinjcu u Rimu poslije 1453. god., Starine JAZU 18 (1886): 1-164. Cf. Zdenka Blaevi has written the most important study on this topic, Ilirizam prije ilirizma (Zagreb: Golden Marketing- Tehnika knjiga, 2008), 348. In it, she classifies Catholic Reformational Illyrism into four distinct subcategories: Interconfessional, Franciscan, Curial-Habsburg and Dalmatian Illyrism. At the end of her analysis (319-45), she includes Serbian Illyrism, which is clearly expressed in the ideological and political program of Count Djordje Brankovi, especially in his Romanian Chronicle written in 1688. (Cf. Gheorghe Brancovici, Cronica Romneasc, ed. Damaschin Mioc, trans. Marieta Adam-Chiper (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romnia, 1987), and its Serbian translation:
45
If the Catholic counterreformers skillfully used Serbian elements for their political and religious purposes, Serbs living within the Habsburg Empire gradually absorbed and adopted Illyrism. For example, Serbian leaders Djordje Brankovi and rsenije III arnojevi both fused the Serbian Orthodox tradition with analogous Western models in order to make their national narrative transculturally legible.46 Zrinka Blaevi has cogently defined this transconfessional and transnational modification of Illyrism as Serbian national Illyrism. Serbian Illyrism found its strongest expression in the appropriation of the Illyrian appellative and its gradual nationalization. When one considers the first,47 conditionally designated as the confessional-theocratic political paradigm [of the key figures of Orthodox hierarchy, rsenije III arnojevi and Izaija Djakovi], the above-mentioned process can be followed in the modifications of the titulatures of Arsenije arnojevi, Metropolitan in exile48 Thus, after 1690, arnojevi changed the title inherited from the Middle Ages and added new elements to it: the Archbishop of the Eastern Church, the First Justinian, the Metropolitan of all Illyricum, and later he signed his title of rank mostly as The Slavo-Serbian Metropolitan.49
, , , ed. , trans. ( : , 1994). An analysis of Djordje Brankovis Illyrism exceeds the scope of my investigation. Brankovi was imprisoned in 1689 and could not have been responsible for the official introduction of the Illyrian language in the ecclesiastic literature of the Serbs. It would be hard to believe that the Illyrian language, i.e. the Serbian vernacular, could have appearance in Venclovi s texts without the knowledge of the key figures of the Orthodox hierarchy at the time.
46 47
Blaevi, Ilirizam prije ilirizma, 352.
One can follow the second paradigm, i.e., the parallel tendency to transform from Illyrian to the Slaveno-Serbian nomenclature in the preserved works of Djordje Brankovi. See more about it in Blaevi, Ilirizam prije ilirizma, 324-36.
48 49
Ibid, 324.
The full quotation from Arsenije III arnojevis memorandum to Emperor Leopold I, which most likely was composed by Count Djordje Brankovi, reads as follows: Ultimatim, dum tandem aliquando inter duos potentissimos Monarchas, videlicet inter Augustissimam Vestram Majestatem, et Turcarum Szultanum exoptata pax concludere videretur, cum patria nostra scilicet Slavo-Serborum, Bulgarorum, Rascianorum, Valachorumque una cum coeteris ditionibus, regionibusque eidem annexis, quae sub nomine Slavo-Illyriae, maxime autem,quibus principatibus, ac provinciis Primus Justinianus Imperator patriam Suam exornaverat, condecoraverat, amplificaverat, Primam Justinianam, patriamque Suam esse denominaverat, comprehenduntur , XVII XVIII (: , 1990), 316. Since Metropolitan Arsenijes memorandum to Leopold I is of the utmost importance, I will provide the reader with Blaevis translation of this quotation:
Venclovis is of crucial significance for explaining the structure and characteristic features of the Serbian common peoples language, i.e. i within the ideological framework of Serbian Orthodox Illyrism on the territory of the Habsburg Monarchy.50 The transformation and appropriation of
Napokon, poto se, kako se ini, izmedju dva najmonija vladara, naime Vaeg Uzvienog Velianstva i turskog sultana zakljui udjeni mir, neka se pod naom domovinom, naime domovinom nas Slavo-Srba, Bugara, Raana, Vlaha, zajedno sa ostalim posjedima i podrujima koja su joj pripojena, shvaa sve ono obuhvaeno pod nazivom Slavo-Ilirije, te ponajvie one kneevine i pokrajine kojima je car Justinijan I uresio, uljepao i proirio svoju domovinu, nazvavi je Prvom Justinijanom. (See p. 322) Blaevi gives an important explanation on p. 322, fn. 668: Iustiniana Prima bio je slubeni naziv katolike Ohridske nadbiskupije, osnovane 1647. godine u navodnom rodnom mjestu ilirskog cara Justinijna, iji je nesudjeni nadbiskup trebao biti Rafael Levakovi. Arsenijevo preuzimanje te titule izraz je ne samo njegovih legitimacijskih potreba nego i nastojanja da odredi svoje jurisdikcijske ovlasti prevodei ih na katoliki eklezijalnopolitiki jezik. U ovom sluaju ulogu interkulturnog medijatora imao je, ini se, despot Djordje Brankovi. Usp. Nikola Radoji, Iustiniana Prima und Graf Georg Brankovi, Sdostforschungen 22 (1963), 312-335. Blaevi, Ilirizam prije ilirizma, 322. Aside from such a personality as Count Brankovi, Metropolitan arnojevis ecumenical ambitions in the Balkans expressed in the quotation above as well as in his titulatures could be best understood and interpreted in the context of the restoration of the Patriarchate of Pe in 1557. It was an event of great importance for the Serbs, which helped the spiritual unification of all the Orthodox (including the Bulgarians) not only in the Ottoman Empire, but in the entire Balkans: 16. 17. , , . . , , , , . , , 19. Since the Ottomans had abolished the Patriarchate once again in 1766, Metropolitan arnojevi fought and received religious freedom from Emperor Leopold I, thus reestablishing the dominant position of the Serbian Orthodox Church among the Orthodox Balkan Slavs. However, his ecumenical aspirations were oriented towards much broader territories which would have included both the entire Slavo-Illyria and all the principalities and regions of Justiniania prima i.e., of the Ohrid Archbishopric. See more about Serbian ecumenical imperialism in Hadrovics, Nacionalno poslanje srpske pravoslavne crkve,and Patrijarijska vanjska politika, in his Srpski narod i njegova crkva pod turskom vlau, 85-123; Petre Guran, Escatology and Political Theology in the last centuries of Byzantium, in Revue des tudes sud-est europennes, vol. 14, nos. 1-4 (Bucarest, 2007), 73-85. The enormous topic of Serbian Illyrism has, for the most part, been woefully neglected in scholarship. It can only be detected in the works of Serbian scholars. For example, s contains an excellent description of Serbian Illyrism in general, as do his works on Venclovis numerous innovations and contributions to Serbian literature in the 1730s and 1740s in particular. The Croatian and Ukrainian baroque influences are cogently described in Pavis writings and they represent the best parts of Pavis books. Even a short survey of them exceeds the scope of my investigation. In regard to Pavis literary, aesthetic, philosophical, rhetorical, etc. description
50
Reformational Catholic Illyrism by the Serbs in Hungary were related to the experience of several centuries of migration in the areas of the Western Balkans. Taking into consideration that Serbian Orthodox Illyrism represents an ideological modification of Catholic Reformational Illyrism, whose missionaries sought to achieve the confessional unification with the Orthodox, I would like to mention an important aspect that must have consciously or unconsciously contributed to the consolidation of Serbian National Illyrism among the Orthodox Serbs in the Habsburg Empire. In this regard, one must bear in mind that the formation of Orthodox Serbian confessional identities and boundaries did not coincide with their political and cultural boundaries within the Monarchy. In everyday life, Serbs were subject to an administrative and civilizational system marked by a powerful confessionalist Catholicism that embraced all spheres of public life. Despite the Serbian Orthodox Churchs efforts and struggles to preserve the Orthodox faith and withstand the pressure to unify, the clear-cut patterns of Serbian Orthodox confessionalism were challenged within the
of Venclovis corpus of texts (cf. s in his . , , , 7-80), see Costantinis friendly review of s . , , , in which he correctly emphasizes: ...gli studiosi non hanno ancora determinato la genesi compositiva degli scritti legati al nome di Venclovi e non si in grado di indicare se e quanto Venclovi debba essere considerato autore, e quanto invece traduttore, compilatore o copista di tali testi: N ci risulta che tale indagine sia stata compiuta da Pavi. Ricerche slavistiche 15 (1967): 272-80, the quotation appears on p. 274. Also cf. the critical remarks of in , 27-42. As a classical scholar and byzantinologist, Milovanovi has skillfully shed light on Venclovis sources, and cogently indicated a number of weak aspects of Pavis overly enthusiastic evaluation of Venclovis revolutionary contributions to Serbian literature and language. In this regard, Venclovi seems akin to someone like Francysk Skaryna (ca.1485-1540 or 1490-1551), who received a Doctors degree in Medicine from the University of Padova in 1512 (for more on his works, see the beginning of the third part of this study). As the first Byelorussian printer, Skaryna was undoubtedly connected with the Counterreformers who composed, translated, appropriated and adapted numerous texts to fit the ideology and needs of the Orthodox Slavs in the transconfessional areas of Ukraine, Poland-Lithuania, Hungary and the Balkans. Most probably, Venclovi was only a copyist who might have recopied parts of the numerous manuscripts assigned to him (see the last part of fn. 29, and fn. 105). Without having a critical edition(s) of Venclovis numerous manuscripts, it is impossible to make any conclusion about either his literary competence or his knowledge of the Serbian language. Serbian Illyrism can be detected in the writings of many Slavo-Serbian authors. For example, in his , Nikola Radoji speaks about Rajis specific South Slavic orientation in his History: , , , , . Rad JAZU 222 (1920): 75-113, the quotation appears on p. 112. However, correctly detects the influences of Catholic Reformational Illyrism (Mavro Orbini and Andrija Kai-Mioi) in s a and s C. See his C a a , , in: . , ed. (: , 1997), 108-18.
multinational Empire. Participating in the Catholic Habsburg state left an indelible impact on the formation of culture among the Serbs in Vojvodina, impacting language, literature and art. In order to make this aspect more tangible and concrete, and avoid sweeping generalizations, I will now focus on examples of the deployment of the terms Illyricum and Illyrian, which have been frequently misunderstood or misinterpreted in scholarship.51 Metropolitan Arsenije III arnojevi most probably was among the first to introduced the term Illyricum in his title: ...
51
In his well elaborated article, , 18. , in speaking about the attempts of the Vienna government to introduce the vernacular and Latin script for the Serbs in schools outside the Orthodox Church, Mita Kosti says: - ; - , . [bolding added] , , , vol. 17 (1937), 258. Dimitrije Kirilovi describes a special School Decree issued by Empress Maria Theresia as follows: 22. 1777. , Ratio educationis totiusque rei literariae per regnum Hungariae et provincias eidem adnexas. , , . , 18 (1740-1780), 72. In the introduction to her School Regulations, Maria Theresia says: Da Wir unter andern Gegenstnden Unserer landesmtterlichen Sorgfalt fr das Wohl Unserer lieben getreuen Illyrischen Nation den Unterricht der nicht unirten Illyrischen Jugend in denen Trivial- oder Landesschulen, als einen der vorzglichsten gndigst ermessen, und dahero beschlossen haben.. (Ibidem, 82) [bolding added] Peter Herrity addresses the question of Serbian schools within the context of the same School Decree, Ratio educationis, emphasizing that: ...only church books could be printed in Cyrillic, and that the Illyrian language (the vernacular as used in Croatia and Slavonia), and the Latin alphabet had to be used in schools. This was, in one way, a natural move on the part of the government to try and equate the Croatian and Serbian populations on a cultural and linguistic level. [bolding added] See his Teodor Mirijevskis Memorandum on Variants of Written Serbian (1782), in , vol. XXXIII (1990), 513-521, the quotation appears on p. 517. The term is used for the Orthodox and Catholic Slavs in the Habsburg Monarchy, and accordingly their language is called . These terms are no longer clear today. For example, of Illyrisch (see the full quotation and my explanation in fn. 59), senija Maricki Gadjanski says: Illyrisch . See her: , in: . , 121.
[By Gods mercy, Arsenije arnojevi, the Orthodox Archbishop of Pe and Metropolitan of all the Serbs and Bulgarians and entire Illyricum].52 It was also used to reflect religious administrative units as in the title: Arxiepiskop pekskij i vsex serbov, i bolgar, zapadnogo Pomorija, Dalmacii i Bosnii obeix storon Dunaja, patriarx vsego Ilirika [The Archbishop of Pe, and of all the Serbs, Bulgarians, the Western part of Primorje, both sides of the Danube river, the Metropolitan of all Illyricum].53 One finds an almost identical appellation of rank on the title page of Hristifor efarovis (1726-1753) i, published in 1741 in Vienna and dedicated to Metropolitan IV: e, , i , , , i, i, , , , (To the Holiest and the most Blessed Master, Arsenije IV, Archbishop of Pe, and of all the Serbs, Bulgarians, the Western part of Pomorije, Dalmatia, Bosnia, the both sides of the Danube river, and of entire Illyricum, to the Metropolitan, the most Gracious Master)54 Seeking to spiritually conquer Orthodox populations by creating a common language comprehensible to all the South Slavs, missionaries in the service of Catholic Propaganda created a huge corpus of texts written in Illyrian.55 I want to stress that the term Illyrian was widely used not only in the Western parts of the Balkans for
52
Quoted from , 1689/90 ( : , 1982), 364.

53 54
Quoted from Iovine, The Illyrian Language, 102.
Quoted from s , 49. In the framework of Serbian National Illyrism, it becomes understandable why efarovis i represents a free elaboration and translation of Pavao Ritter Vitezovis (1652-1713) Stemmatographiae Illyricanae liber primus authore equite Paulo Ritter (published in 1702). A new photocopied edition, Grbovi, biljezi identiteta, trans. Ivo Banac, foreword Slobodan Prosperov Novak, contains descriptions of coat of arms by Josip Kolanovi (Zagreb: Grafiki zavod Hrvatske, 1991), 33-130. Cf. also , , 48.
55
The literature on Catholic Counterreformers and their textual inspectors is enormous. Cf. Blaevi, Ilirizam prije ilirizma. The basic guidelines are accurately described by Iovine in The Illyrian Language,101-156; see also Slobodan Prosperov Novak, Rano novovjekovlje: katolika obnova i prvo prosvjetiteljstvo, in: Povijest hrvatske knjievnosti, vol. 3, Od Gundulieva Poroda od tmine do Kaieva Razgovora ugodnog naroda slovinskoga iz 1756 (Zagreb: Antibarbarus, 1999), 73-930. In his , Pavi incorporates the works and activities of numerous missionaries of the Catholic Counterreformation as well as Baroque poets and writers of Dalmatia and Dubrovnik who undoubtedly influenced the appearance of Baroque literature and its genres among the Serbs living in Hungary during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
the both Orthodox languagesthe - , i.e. volgare illirico, and ,i.e.,Slavo-Russian, used both as the liturgical language and in secular writings, cf., for example, Ljutinas Italian Grammar was written , )56but also among the Serbs in Hungary in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. For example, on the same title page of his i, Hristifor efarovi signed his name as follows: i (Christopher Zhefarovich, Illyrian-Rashian artist, or , more precisely, Illyrian artist of Raka).57 In 1742, efarovi also prepared i o o i-i (The Privileges of the glorious IllyrianRashian people), which the future Serbian Metropolitan, Pavle Nenadovi, printed in Vienna in the same year.58 One could also mention Zaharije Orfelin (1726-1785), who, after quitting his teaching position, was an -j ,59 a clerk in charge of documents written in Illyrian, the common language of the Catholic and Orthodox Slavs in the Habsburg Monarchy. Discursively perpetuating its own rich ideological heritage among the Orthodox within the Habsburg Empire, eighteenth-century Catholic Reformational Illyrism
ikie , i i i i , ii ( : , 1794), 502. SlavoRussian was officially introduced in Serbian literature during the first decades of the eighteenth century. At that time, Slavo-Russian already contained some and displayed the property of a diglossic situation. Slavo-Serbian authors, the majority of whom did master neither Slavo-Russian, nor Russian, tried to emulate such a diglossic language by introducing elements of their spoken vernacular instead of in unrestricted and arbitrarily fashion. Even in the historiographic works of Jovan Raji and Pavle Julinac, Slavo-Russian elements represent only ca 70 %, the remaining 30 % contain a mixture of elements from the Serbian vernacular and Slavo-Russian or Russian (see , XVIII XIX , 43-44). One deals all the time with various degrees of admixtures in works of Slavo-Serbian authors. Therefore, I do not use the term Slavo-Russian in describing texts of Slavo-Serbian authors, because one deals either with Serbianiazed Slavo-Russian or Slavonized Serbian (see more about these terms in fns. 63 and 64). The diglossic nature of Slavo-Russian conditioned the presence of various degrees of mixed elements of Slavo-Russian and i, depending on literary genres. Therefore, I do not make any difference between the term Slavo-Russian and Slavo-Serbian in Serbianized Slavo-Russian texts; they represent the same type of diglossia present in ecclesiastical handbooks and texts of the Vojvodina Serbs in the eighteenth century. In my opinion, the most suitable and accurate term for such a language consisting of Slavo-Russian (or Russian) and Serbian elements would be Slavo-Serbian.
57
56
See the illustrated title page by Zhefarovich in , , 49.

58 59
, , 185. , , 60-61.
was fused, absorbed, and widely accepted by many of Serbian Orthodox writers, becoming a kind of Serbian National Illyrism.60 Apart from Slavo-Serbian writers, the term Illyrian was widely used on the official, administrative level. For example, In the report about the Monastery Kovilje, issued on August 13, 1777, made according to the order of the Court Military Council, among other things, it is said about the Monastery Koviljes Archimandrite, Jovan Raji (1726-1801) the following: Redet und schreibt Illyrisch, Lateinisch, Teutsch und Hungarisch (He speaks and writes the Illyrian, Latin, German and Hungarian languages),61 meaning that Raji had a good command of all four languages officially used in the Habsburg Monarchy. For the sake of illustration, I will quote again from Iovines concise summary of the use of the term Illyrian among Orthodox writers in Hungary: A number of leading Orthodox Serbian writers in Vojvodina likewise referred to the literary language of their usage (i.e., the so-called slaveno-serbski) as Illyrian. One of the earliest, if not the first, incidence of this equation appears in the title of a 1773 edition published by the press of Josif Kurtzbeck in Vienna: Josif vtoryi imperator rimskii. Na Illiriesko-slaveno-Serbskij jazyk prevedeno... (G. Mihailovi, Srpska bibliografija XVIII veka, Belgrade, 1964: no. 111). In 1793 Giorgio Saller suggested in a letter to the Serbian Metropolitan Stratimirovi that his Vengerskaja grammatika be translated into racki ili ilirski, a suggestion that was realized in the 1795 translation of Georgij Petrovi na slaveno-serbstm jazyc [...]62
60
As already pointed out, Blaevi successfully created the term, Serbian National Illyrism. See fns. 45-
49. I quote from -, J , 121. She refers to s , 256 (1909), 51-60. Illyrian, Hungarian and German were the national languages of the Catholic and Orthodox Slavs, Hungarians and Germans, while only German and Latin were the official literary languages of the Empire. In particular, German was the most prestigious language within the Empire; and the handbooks for the Serbs were often written in both Serbian and German. (Cf. . and . , 1699 1804, in , vol. IV, part 2, : , 1986, 84-5). Throughout entire period with Hungary alone, then together with Hungary within the Habsburg Monarchy (1526-1867), and later within the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867-1918), Latin, as the official language in both Croatia and Hungary, played the role of an ethnicity shield. Later, it became a nation protector. Latin became a language of national self-assertion - in Hungary against German, in Croatia against German and Hungarian. See: Marianna D. Birnbaum, Humanists in a Shattered World (Columbus: Slavica Publishers, 1986), 277. Latin also enabled Croatia to withstand the pressures of Magyarisation. Cf. Hrvatska pisana kultura. Izbor djela pisanih latinicom, glagoljicom i irilicom od VIII do XIX stoljea, eds. Jospi Bratuli and Stjepan Damjanovi (Krievci: Veda, 2007), 236.
62 61
Iovine, The Illyrian Language, 104.
One should also mention two examples of the identification of the term Illyrian with the popular language of the Vojvodina Serbs. In 1779, a decree of the Austrian government restricted the use of Cyrillic and Church Slavonic to the confines of the church and ordered the introduction of the popular language and the Latin script into the schools, textbooks and other secular publications: alii vero libri scholastici et profani dialecto vulgari. illyrica cultiori et characteribus Latinis typis excudantur (Kulakovskij, Vuk Karadi, Moscow, 1882: 186). The Vojvodina historian, Jovan Raji (1726-1801), in the chapter entitled O dialekt slavenskom [About the Slavic dialect] in his Istorija raznyx slavenskix narodov, najpae e bolgar, xorvatov, i serbov [History of the various Slavic peoples, primarily the Bulgarian, Croatians and Serbs], (Vienna, 1794-1795) explicitly declares: Illirieski, to jest prostoe narie, ili dialekt serpskii v svtskix dlx upotrebljaetsja. Raji describes the Illyrian language as Illyrian, that is the ordinary peoples language or Serbian dialect or vernacular which is used in secular writings. [...]63 [emphasis added] The Illyrian Slavs of the Roman rite, since they completely rejected both Old Slavic and the Slavic letters (jako narie drevnee, tako i pismena Slavenskaja), were left with only the simple speech (dialekt prostij [i.e., the vernacular]) which they called Illyrian and Roman letters.64
On the basis of both Rajis own statements on current languages among the Serbs, and existing descriptions of his writing, one can conclude that he was highly aware of the functions of both languages,65 c-c (or c-
63 64
Ibid, 105.
Ibid, 148. Raji 1823, I: 57. (All citations from Raji s History have been taken from the second edition, Istoria raznyx slavenskix narodov naipae e Bolgar, Xorvatov, i Serbov.... 4 vols, 2nd ed. (Buda, 1823). Iovine, The Illyrian Language, 150, fn. 6. Cf. also Peter Herrity, Teodor Mirijevskis Memorandum on Variants of Written Serbian (1782), 515-17
65
[Raji never uses the latter without the adjective : , or in order to preserve its relation to the other Orthodox vernaculars, the so-called of the Ukrainians, or of the Russians, etc.] ... () . . , , . , 128. I find the terminology of the last sentence confusing. In my opinion, should not be identified with . Mladenovi treats the language of Zaharija rfelin (1726-1785) in the same way: [] , , , , . See his .
( : , 1989), 93. One finds the same identification of c-c with the in almost all works of . He insists that , . Cf., for example, , , vol. XVI/ 3 (1969), 228-35, the quotation appears on 233. Speaking about the Slavo-Serbian language in the decades before Vuk Karadi, Anna Kretschmer correctly points to the problematic term narodni jezik, for which there is no clear-cut definition in scholarly works on the Serbian pre-national language: . . (See her . J : , in . , vol. 17/2 (: , 1987), 145. In order to avoid this kind of terminological confusion, it seems to me useful to deploy the terminology used by Unbegaun for describing texts written in Slaveno-Serbian. He astutely and accurately defines the linguistic situation among the Serbs in Vojvodina as follows: Lhistoire de la langue littraire des Serbes au XVIIIe sicle se ramne, nous lavons vu, la lutte entre le slavon et lidiome parl ou, plus exactement, entre une langue crite base slavonne et une langue crite base serbe. Entre les deux aspects extrmes, le slavon pur et le serbe des paysans, qui, lun et lautre, sont relativement rares dans la littrature du XVIIIe sicle, il y a toute une gamme de solutions intermdiaires. Quelque hybrides que soient parfois ces solutions, on ne peut parler de mlange quen partant de la notion du style, car, du point de vue linguistique, on peut discerner presque toujours soit un slavon serbis, soit un serbe slavonis, et rares sont les cas o nous avons affaire une vritable langue mixte. Ce schma est troubl par deux facteurs complmentaires: dune part, le slavon nest pas rest identique lui-mme durant tout le XVIIIe sicle: il nous apparat dabord comme un slavon serbe qui, plus tard, cde la place au slavon russe; dautre part, ce quon appelle le slavon russe nest le plus souvent quun russe slavonis, et certain crivains ont mme tent dintroduire dans lusage le russe pur et simple comme langue littraire des Serbes... Ainsi la diffrence entre le slavon et le serbe, qui est, pour nous, dordre gntique, netait, pour les hommes du XVIIIe sicle, que simplement chronologique: le slavon leur apparaissait comme lanctre direct du serbe, et tel dentre eux, en se servant du slavon russe, croyait crire un serbe archasant. [bolding added] Ungebaun, Les dbuts de la langue littraire chez les Serbes, 14-15. I would like to clarify Unbegauns two literary idioms a little bit further by emphasizing that: 1. Serbianized Slavo-Russian was not easily comprehensible to Slavo-Serbian authors who did not study in Russia and did not fully (very often even partially) master it. Therefore, it was exposed to quick changes depending on knowledge, choices and preferences of individual authors. 2. Slavonized Serbian displayed a status of a normalized language (its syntax was based on Illyrian, i.e., the Serbian vernacular). Outside the literary sphere of Slavo-Serbian authors, Slavonized Serbian was used without any of Slavo-Russian elements. Under the name of the so-called , it existed in the form of the multifunctional and polyvalent vernacular deployed in all spheres of verbal communication in everyday private and public life of the Serbs in the Habsburg Monarchy. The application of Unbegauns two terms, Serbianized Slavo-Russian and Slavonized Serbian, seems to be precise and correct because they fully clarify the presence of two independent, genetically different, literary languages in texts of Slavo-Serbian authors, thus accurately describing the linguistic situation among the Vojvodina Serbs. Slavonized Serbian conveys the exact meaning of the linguistic code for which Mladenovi uses inter-
p or p)66 and or the i i
changeably or . Otherwise Mladenovi is absolutely right when he insists on the existence of two types of literary languages among the Serbs in Vojvodina: [Rajis and Emanuil Jankovis translations of Goldonis and his other translations from German] , , , , . [bolding added] See his , , in: , 144-145. Leaving aside the discussion about two different literary languages, whose usage depended on literary genres, Mladenovis conclusion that the Serbs had two literary languages in the pre-Vukovian period is of crucial importance for the correct understanding of the history of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Serbian pre-national linguistic and literary development. Most scholars agree that c-p not only became the language of the Serbian Orthodox Church, but that it also replaced , the Srbuljski, i.e. Serbian Church Slavonic. In the course of an active process of interaction with the , c-p gave origin to the linguistic phase well-known under the name of c-c. (See more about and in the third part of this paper.) Specialists of Slavo-Serbian have described it as a language without codified forms, its form varied from author to author. Each writer combined Russian Church Slavonic [= Slavo-Russian] and vernacular Serbian features in accordance with his own knowledge, taste and inclination. See Herrity, Teodor Mirijevskis Memorandum, 513-514. Slavo-Serbian is perceived as the amalgamation of heterogeneous elements combined in individual word forms, sentences as well as paragraphs. Albijani, The Creation of the Slaveno-Serbski Literary Language, 489. Cf. also Costantini, In merito alla influenza russa sulla lingua letteraria serba nel XVIII secolo, Ricerche slavistiche 15 (1967), 165-187; idem, Sullo Slavjanoserbski (Stato della questione e prospettive di ricerca), Ricerche slavistiche 20-21 (1973-1974), 195-203; , , 9 (1966): 61-66. See also her Jo , , vol. XLIII (1987), 111-117. All these authors are correct in regard to the variable mixture of phonetic, morphological and lexical elements present in both types of languages, Serbianized Slavo-Russian (or Russian) and Slavonized Serbian. However, both of these languages had their fixed literary norms and conventions, based on two different types of syntax; both of them functioned as two independent linguistic systems, with their autonomous literary dignity. in the form of Serbianized Slaveno-Russian, as well as c, c and p were used in the same function as Church Slavonic, the major literary medium of the Orthodox Slavs, while Slavonized Serbian was increasingly perceived as the , i.e. , in Mladenovis terminology. Slavonized Serbian found its best expression already in the works of Orfelin, Raji and Vasilije Damjanovi in 1760s and somewhat later in Dositej Obradovis writings (see M, - , in his . , 184-202). Diglossia of the Orthodox Slavs was precisely defined by the two parts of the compound term: c + c, , , etc. As already pointed out, after the Fall of Byzantium, the Russians became the spiritual leaders of the Slavic Orthodox community. This explains why, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the renewed form of Church Slavonic, the so-called Slavo-Russian (c) became an interslavic c. Slaveno-Russian often appeared in the form of a Slavonized Russian, or pure Russian;
66
i .67 While the first , i , i in the form of -, or prevailed in Rajis theological and historical works,68 he used the secondwhich he unmistakably designated as or i i ito clarify his (Sermons [preached] in the Simple Serbian and Romanian Vernaculars, , 1793) just as Venclovi had done fifty or more years before.69 Both
all three varieties performed the function of in the same way as classicizing Greek, the socalled Byzantine Schriftkoine and some other languages of learned texts had the function of a high variety used interchangeably in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine diglossic texts. (See the literature about Byzantine diglossia in fn. *). Thus, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, was used in parallel to among the Serbs and Bulgarians in the same function of (cf. Karl Gutschmidt, O , , vol. VI, 1969, 73). The second part of the above mentioned compound term, , , , etc., marked the introduction of elements of the common peoples speech, which were mixed with , as Unbegaun has cogently pointed out, only on a stylistic level (see his full explanation in fn. 63). There is no synthesis between these two linguistic forms. It is rather a kind of the Slavo-Serbian cohabitation (in Serbianized Slavo-Russian texts), a specific phase of linguistic diglossia which was introduced within the traditional system of the supranational c that remained the sole literary language of all the Orthodox communities, except among the Serbs who had the two distinct literary languages at the time: Serbianized Slavo-Russian and Slavonized Serbian, i.e. Slavonized Illyrian. (see the explanation in fn. 63). The language problem among the Serbs in Vojvodina cannot be fully addressed in this study, but also cannot be avoided. My further analysis should reveal why the common peoples language was introduced in the still-medieval, ecclesiastical texts of the Orthodox peoples.
67 68
See the explanation in the previous paragraph and fns. 61 and 62.
Clearly, Jovan Rajis languagewhich includes his theological, historical, and literary writingsis not the subject of my study. I quote here his accurate description of Illyrian in order to corroborate my explanation of the Illyrian language, whose presence has been ignored for the most part by the specialists of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Serbian literature and language. See, for example, the collective work: . , which contains several articles devoted to Rajis language.
69 The title is quoted from , XVIII , 155. Novakovi correctly interprets Rajis intentions: [] , , , . , 1764. , , i i 1793. ., . , , 189.
authors used the same type of diglossic language, and both perceived as the sole literary language.70 Last but not least, before discussing the synchronic linguistic situation among the other Orthodox nations, the stunning appearance of Venclovis in the form of contemporary Serbian only three decades after the Great Migration of the Serbs to southern Hungary in 1690must be addressed. Many of the scholars who have investigated Venclovis writings have admired the tight organization and thorough homogeneity of his literary language. It emerged fully developed in his translations of East-Slavic original texts side by side with Serbian versions of SlavoRussian or Slavo-Ruthenian.71 Venclovis represents a real puzzle, which requires additional elucidation. Venclovi used his extensively in his numerous manuscripts in an exceptionally elaborate form. Such a sophisticated idiom could not have emerged overnight. The introduction of a new type of language, the so-called i, into the Serbian liturgical and ecclesiastical literature of the 1730s and 1740s presupposes previous canonization based on written or translated texts. There must have been a preexistent feeling of identification on the part of a sizable speech community of Serbs of ethnic or political cohesion. The formation of a new literary language must also have included a combination of factors including economic pressure from an emerging middle class or intelligentsia, cultural prestige, and monarchic or religious authority.
A hundred years ago, Vladan ovanovi accurately described the in Venclovis sermons as follows: , ... . In: . . , vol. 2 (1911), 113. In my opinion, Venclovis language clearly belongs to Slaveno-Serbian, and, in its essence, does not differ from Rajis Slaveno-Serbian. I would like to use this opportunity to thank Dr. Boris Bulatovi for providing me with copies of vanovis work that represents a bibliographical rarity today.
71
70
For example, Ivi praises Venclovis as follows: , . , , . . , , . , , , , , . , . , . , 112.
The majority of these factors were not yet present in the first decades of the eighteenth century among the Serbs living in Vojvodina. First of all, they had to adjust to the local customs and cultural preferences of the other nationalities of the Monarchy. The Serbs of Vojvodina (or any other western Balkan province) never had political independence, before or after the migration of 1690. Nevertheless, despite the fact that they had no possibility of uniting in a single, autonomous and political entity within the multinational Habsburg Monarchy, they embarked on a new course of linguistic and cultural development. As mentioned above, the Serbian Church did foster Slavo-Russian or Slavo-Serbian in its schools, however, the local, pre-national culture of the Serbs in Vojvodina had no literary language sui generis.72 There was no literary language for whose cultivation and exploration the Serbs as a whole, through their schools and publicly supported institutions, assumed moral and fiscal responsibility. Even taking into consideration exceptional individual interventionsfor example, those of Dositej Obradovi or Vuk Karadithe full consolidation and introduction of a Serbian literary language based on an exclusively Serbian vernacular in a socio-linguistic context wherein cultural, literary, religious, political, social and economic forces at play loomed large would have taken much longer than was the case with the development of the Serbian literary language in Vojvodina. The Serbs, in fact, used Slavo-Serbian for only a brief period of timeapproximately 70 years. During that time, they not only progressively Serbianized SlavoRussian texts, but also increasingly implemented a wide range of vernacular forms in Slavonized Serbian texts, reducing Slavonized elements to a minimum or writing almost without them.73 There is no doubt that the introduction of Slavo-Russian
72
Here I have in mind a potential literary language based on an exclusively Serbian vernaculara kind of Serbian Schiftsprachewhich as such did not exist among the Serbs in southern Hungary in the eighteenth century. By definition, the literary language of any nation is always written in contrast to dialects, which can be either spoken or codified in the form of a dialectal literary or written language. The latter is usually called a standard variety of a major, national Standard language (for example, Standard French, German, Serbian etc.). A literary language is spoken on the basis of the way it is written. It functions in both written and spoken form and is always the result of collective creative activity. See, for example, Ulrich Ammon, Language - Variety, Standard Variety - Dialect, Sociolinguistics 1 (1987): 316-35. Cf. also: John H. Fisher, European Chancelleries and the Rise of Standard Written Languages, http://www.illinoismedieval.org/ems/VOL3/fisher.html (accessed June 29, 2011)
73
Of literary works written in the same Illyrian vernacular in Slavonia and their obvious influences upon Serbian works written in the so-called o-i , i.e. Illyrian, Unbegaun writes: Noublions pas quil y avait la mme poque dans les limites du Saint Empire et au voisinage de la Voivodina, une littrature importante en serbo-croate populaire: la littrature de Slavonie, dont loeuvre principlale, le Satir de Reljkovi, a vu le jour en 1762 pour tre rdite en 1779. Il est a priori trs vraisemblable que cette littrature a pu exercer son influence, au moins quant la langue, sur loeuvre
into Serbian literature in southern Hungary slowed to some degree the developmental trend based on the official and common vernacular of all the South Slavs in the Habsburg Monarchy already underway in Serbian literature. Furthermore, the diglossic character of Slavo-Russian, which found its strongest expression in its macaronic structure (always of mixed language, consisting of elements of the spoken vernacular and the renewed type, either Russian or Ukrainian of Church Slavonic, with proportions varying from one author to another, and even from one work of an author to another), seems to have complicated pervasive influence of Illyrian upon the emerging literary language among the Serbs in southern Hungary. After 1690, with the new political and cultural conditions of life and daily contact with Illyrian, the Serbian literary language began to incorporate an increasing number of Illyrian syntactic features, along with its grammar and vocabulary. Thus, Illyrian syntactic structures gradually created the basis for the modern Serbian literary language...[which] eventually became a qualitatively new entity not only as compared to the but also as com-
dObradovi (et sur celle de ses contemporains), surtout si lon pense que la tendance moralisatrice et didactique est la mme dans les deux littratures. Lvantualit de cette influence mriterait mieux que de vagues assertions... En particulier, le rayonnement du Satir de Reljkovi devait tre considrable, puisque, en 1793, un certain Stefan Raji, instituteur Osijek, a cru opportun de rendre plus accessible cette ouevre aux Serbes de lEmpire en lditant en caractres cyrilliques (slavons) et avec quelques modifications de la langue: kavisation du texte ikavien et introduction dun certain nombre de dialectismes serbes et aussi de slavonismes, ce qui devait, sans doute, ses yeux, transformer la langue de Reljkovi en oi . [bolding added] Dailleurs, linfluence de la littrature proprement dite de Slavonie a t prpare de longue date par celle de la posie semi-savante (ou semi-populaire) dont le rpertoire semble avoir t en grande partie commun tous les Serbes et Croates de lEmpire, y compris mme les Kajkaviens: il suffit, pour sen rendre compte, de parcourir les recueils manuscrits du XVIIIe sicle, ces recueils o lon trouve plemle des chansons religieuses, militaires, populaires, pornographiques, etc On ne saurait perdre de vue non plus le rayonnment, par voie orale et crite, du Razgovor ugodni naroda slovinskoga (Venise, 1756; 2e d., 1759) de Kai Mioi, qui sinspire directement de la chanson populaire et appartient galment la littrature semi-savante. See: Unbegaun, Les dbuts du serbe littraire in his Les dbuts de la langue littraire chez les Serbes, 56-74, quotation appears 68-70. Speaking about administrative and other documents written in the vernacular, says: . , . , , . , 110.
The Linguistic Diglossia of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi and | 45 in the Literature of the Orthodox Slavs pared to its contemporary expression, i. e., Slavo-Russian, whose syntax was significantly different from Illyrian syntax.74
In addition to being an obstacle for the steadily evolving literary language of the Serbs, Serbianized or purely Slavo-Russian linguistic norms were challenged by the elastic stability of the elaborate and dynamic Illyrian norms capable of absorbing new and old elements in a flexible and stable whole, and thusly creating a new synthetic language. From a sociolinguistic and sociocultural point of view, Illyrian was a polyfunctional formation, serving its users in all spheres of public and private communication. From the grammatico-linguistic aspect, it was a normalized and stylistically differentiated, i.e. polyvalent, linguistic code. The Serbian vernacular, i.e. Illyrian, had already developed into a written language, and, as such, fit into the linguistic, political and ideological infrastructure of the Habsburg Monarchy. As such, Illyrian had an advantage over Slavo-Russian or Slavo-Serbian, a language not even fully understandable to the majority of Slavo-Serbian writers.75 Thanks to its stable and dynamic norms, the Serbian vernacular or Illyrian displayed a strong tendency to replace Slavo-Russian or Slavo-Serbian (in Serbianized Slavo-Russian texts) and completely detach itself from that diglossic relationship with Slavo-Russian. In that way, Venclovis and other Slavo-Serbian writers or Illyrian differed from all other Orthodox ordinary peoples languages which did not possess their independent linguistic norms. Victor Zhivov accurately describes the linguistic status of the
74 75
Nedeljkovi, Josef Dobrovsk and the Serbian Literary Language, 9.
Not all of the Slavo-Serbian authors mastered Slavo-Russian equally well. It is well known, for example, that Raji, Gligorije Terlaji and Atanasije Stojkovi who studied and lived for a while in Russia knew Slavo-Russian better than their contemporaries. The majority of the Vojvodina Serbs, however, studied in Catholic and Protestant Austro-Hungarian schools in which the major languages were Latin, German and Hungarian. For example, Teodor Jankovi Mirijevski was a Serb born in Sremska Kamenica. He attended Latin High School in Sremski Karlovci, spent two years studying philosophy in Bratislava, and then went to Vienna. Later, he became the superintendent of Serbian public schools in Banat. Empress Catharine the Second invited him to Russia to reorganize and reform Russian schools according to Felbigers method. Cf. , XVIII ( : , 1973), 8-94. Hadrovics briefly speaks about the Serbian inteligentsia: Budui da u XVIII stoljeu Srbi jo nisu imali viega kolstva, asnici, gradjani i plemii upisivali su svoju djecu na ugarske kole. Mladi su Srbi radije studirali na protestantskim uilitima, gdje nije bilo opasnosti od pokatoliavanja, to im je esto prijetilo u samostanskim kolama. U tim kolama Srbi su uili latinski jezik i stjecali svjetovnu kulturu zapadnoga i humanistikog obiljeja, kulturu koja se korjenito razlikovala od kulurnog i religioznog ideala srpskog sveenstva. Taj ideal ostajao je vjeran skuenu intelektualnom konzervatizmu. Tada je nastala srpska intelektualna elita, koja je postala neovisna o tradicionalnoj premoi Srpske crkve na intelektualnom podruju. Ta svjetovna elita, obrazovana u zapadnjakoj civilizaciji, po svojoj je naravi postala sposobna da usvoji sve nove duhovne tokove. (Op. cit., 122)
so-called ordinary peoples languages, in his terminology simple written languages, as follows: Hence, the simple language [i.e., ] of the Petrine era was characterized by variability, and variability required normalization [...] The consistency of using hybrid variants in the capacity of a simple or comprehensible written language was directly related to the strong desire of the given social group to retain ties to traditional culture. It was precisely the determination not to break with centuries-old cultural and linguistic tradition that imposed limitations on the development of literary languages of the new type; simple languages were either compromises in terms of their structural organization (hybrid languages seen as simple) or they remained secondary citizens in the functional regard.76 This is the major difference between Venclovis and all other Orthodox vernaculars whose goal was not to gradually displace Slavo-Russian, SlavoRuthenian, Slavo-Bulgarian etc., but to help revive and cultivate its use among the Orthodox Slavs. The difference associated with the sociolinguistic status of Venclovis as one of four standardized languages in the Monarchy found its best and strongest expression in creating Slavonized Serbian texts, based, as already stressed, on Illyrian syntax and grammatical structure with a variable number of phonetic, morphological and lexical elements taken from Slavo-Russian or Russian. Slavonized Serbian texts did not have their counterparts in other Orthodox Slavic literatures. Therefore, Venclovis or , i.e. the Serbian vernacular, de76
Victor Zhivov, Language and Culture in Eighteenth-Century Russia, Studies in Russian and Slavic Literatures, Cultures and History, translated by Marcus Levitt (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2009), 121 and 40. Following in the footsteps of Zhivov, and emphasizing that Russian could not be polyfunctional outside of Church Slavonic, i.e. Slavo-Russian (ivov, 1996: 267), Ian Press correctly points out: What was needed now was homogenization of the variants; any unmotivated variation which had been inherited from the hybrid language by the simple language had to be removed. So the simple does come from the hybrid, there is continuity (ivov, 1966:156-7) .[...] Normalization would be worked on by philologists over the years. This is connected with the activities of the Akademija nauk ((ivov, 1996: 159)...It seems that V. E. Adodurov put together the first aid for Russian themselves to study Russian orthography... ivov 1996: 160 notes that Russian courses for Russians probably started only in the late 1730s, after such courses for foreigners... Glcks own grammar paved the way for I. V. Pauss Slavjano-russkaja grammatika of 1729, which leads to Schwanwitzs of 1730 and Adodurovs outline of 1731. Ian Press, A History of the Russian Language and its Speakers (Munich: Lincom Europa, 2007), 176-177. As far as grammar is concerned, it is worth mentioning that the first Serbian grammar appears only in 1814, , by Vuk Stefanovi Karadi.
ployed in Slavonized Serbian texts, was not in a classical diglossic relation to the major , i.e., Slavo-Russian, but it displayed rather a kind of extended diglossia.77 The different diglossic relation of the Serbian vernacular to the major literary language of the Orthodox Slavs, i.e. Slavo-Russian, was conditioned by its specific characteristics. The Serbian vernacular was genetically different from Slavo-Russian or Serbianized Slavo-Russian. As already stressed, it was an independent linguistic code based on the Illyrian linguistic standard broadly used in Habsburg society. In this regard Slavonized Serbian texts were a notable exception in comparison to texts written in other Orthodox vernaculars which were in a diglossic relation to the , i.e.,-p, as the latest form of Church Slavonic. Within a sociolinguistic perspective, Slavonized Serbian in its pure form of Illyrian, i.e., the Serbian vernacular, possessed a social dominance and discourse power potentials in the Empire, the qualities that Serbianized Slavo-Russian clearly did not have and could not have had under any circumstances. In contrast to Serbianized
For diglossic situations involving two different, genetically unrelated linguistic codes, sometimes referred to as extended diglossia, cf. Joshua A. Fishman, Bilingualism with and without diglossia, diglossia with and without bilingualism, in Journal of Social Issues, vol. 23/2 (1967), 29-30; idem, The Sociology of Language: An Interdisciplinary Social Science Approach to Language in Society (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers, 1972). In this regard Costantini has unmistakably defined the linguistic situation in Venclovis texts as follows: in una chiara dichiarazione programmatica, si riconosce al volgare pieno diritto accanto alla lingua liturgica, si proclama una situazione di biliguismo, nella quale i due termini si pongono non gi esclusivi luno dellaltro, ma correlativi, attuando un rapporto sinfonico. See his A proposito della lingua di Stefanovi Venclovi, 75; see Costantinis full quotation translated into English in the first part of this article. A more detailed analysis of a special type of bilingualism or extended diglossia exceeds the scope of this study. Speaking about the linguistic situation in Austro-Hungarian Ukraine, Andrii Danylenko accurately describes it as diglossia: In Galicia, Transcarpathia, and Bukovina, the Greek Catholic clergy, who found themselves unexpectedly the only defenders of a separate ethnoreligious Tuthenian regional identity, advanced the idea of one literary language, based on Church Slavonic, though with a wide range of admixtures. For the 17th and 18th c., this was an anachronistic solution to the language question in the Ruthenian lands. As a result, this part of Ukraine did not break through the cultural confines of the 17th c. with the free interplay of styles, genres, and language standards typical of the Baroque period. Unlike Russianruled Ukraine, where Great Russian was treated as a new member of the old bilingualism [I treat it as the latest form of Church Slavonic of old diglossia in which both Slavo-Russian and Russian represented High variety and Ruthenian or Ukrainian Low variety], Austro-Hungarian Ukraine introduced diglossia, triggering the identification of jazk russkij with jazk slavenskij, leading to the emergence of a regional mixed (Slaveno-Rusyn) language, a hybrid labled jazyije. (Emphasis added) Danylenko, The Formation of New Standard Ukrainian. From the History of an Undeclared Contest Between Right- and Left-Bank Ukraine in the 18th c., in Die Welt der Slaven, vol. LIII (2008), 82-115, the quotation appears on p. 111.
77
Slavo-Russian, Slavonized Serbian represented the greatest challenge to the former, pushing it into the background. Therefore, no one should overlook the narrow sociolinguistic dimension of Slavo-Russian among the Vojvodina Serbs.78 The superiority of the literary language based on the Serbian vernacular, i.e., Slavonized Serbian, over Serbianized Slavo-Russian found its best expression in the acceleration of the linguistic and cultural development in the pre-national period of the Vojvodina Serbs in comparison, for example, with the same period among the Bulgarians. It suffices to mention that already during the second half of the eighteenth century, the Serbs had quite a number of printed works and periodicals, while the first Bulgarian printed book appeared only in 1806.79
78 Dimitrije Kirilovi convincingly describes unintelligibility of handbooks written in Slaveno-Serbian for Serbian children in his book: [ ] . , , - , . , . , , : , , ? . ... , , , . , 1779. . (Op.cit., 75-76) 79
See, for example, for Serbian published books in , 18. ( : , 1988), pp. 346; for early Bulgarian publications, cf., for example: Classical Library for Bulgarian Studies, 1823-1878/ Brill. http://www.brill.nl/classical-librarybulgarian-studies-1823-1878 (accessed July 9. 2011). At this point, it is interesting to quote Tolstojs evaluation of the eighteenth-century Serbian literary development in comparison with the Russian one in the same period: XVIII ., o , . . , , - . XVIII . . [bolding added] (, - - , in his (: , 1988), 179. In spite of his criticism of Slaveno-Russian, Skerli characterizes the entire eighteenth-century period of the Serbs living in southern Hungary as a transition , , , . See his , 15.
With the penetration of Enlightenment ideas in the second half of the eighteenth century, and with the growing self-consciousness of the Serbian people, the language question took on new forms: the method and content of education, book printing, the language of the Serbian nation and eventually the Serbian state. A broad division in Serbian society on the language question came to the fore. This is the wellknown polemic or war80 between the defenders of the Slavo-Serbian language (i.e., Serbianized Slavo-Russian) and advocates of pure Serbian vernacular without any elements of Slavo-Russian or Russian. There were actually two different linguistic codes involved in this situation, one was Serbianized Slavo-Russian and the other prostonarodni or Illyrian. Illyrian was gradually becoming Serbian literary language and had no longer any direct connections with Serbianized Slavo-Russian. It was impossible to combine the two different codes The period during which the mixture of the two codes was practiced in writing did not produce the desired result, namely the codification of the Serbian language in the terms of middle style. It only produced the so-called macaronisms which were rightly ridiculed by Kopitar. Earlier or later, the elements of one code had to be eliminated and Slavo-Russian, whose elements remained mainly on the surface (phoneticmorpholgical-lexical) level and never seriously affected by the syntactic base which was Illyrian, had to be the victim.81
Before Skerli, Novakovi also expresses almost identical opinion: 1718 , - . , ; , . See his , 176.
80
, (: , 1847); Thomas Butler, The Origins of the War for a Serbian Language and Orthography, Harvard Slavic Studies 5 (1970): 1-80; T, XVIII , 186-94; , , in . (: , 1979), 198-211.
81 Nedeljkovi, Josef Dobrovsk and the Serbian Literary Language, 15-16. Here I have neither time nor intention to go into the problem of the so-called middle style, whose major creator and proponent was Teodor Jankovi Mirijevski (see Herrity, Teodor Mirijevskis Memorandum on Variants of Written Serbian (1782), 513-521). Although Aleksandar Beli and other Serbian linguists do not consider that i enjoyed an ever-growing sociolinguistic status until it became the written literary language of the Vojvodina Serbs, it seems to me important to quote Belis correct remark about
By the second decade of the nineteenth century, Vuk Karadi had already begun his linguistic Reform. Altogether, the full implementation of Illyrian as the Serbian literary language in southern Hungary lasted less than a century.82
the introduction of i and Latin alphabet to the school system in Vojvodina in the second half of the eighteenth century: , , . , 1780 ., , , . , , , , ( ) , . [bolding added] , , . , . , , XVIII . ... , a review article on Boris Unbegaun, Les dbuts de la langue littraire chez les Serbes, Travaux publis par lInstitut dtudes slaves, vol. XV (Paris, 1935), pp. 83, published in , vol. XIII (1933-4), 194-5. Tolstoj has a more realistic approach to the situation of the Serbs in the Habsburg Monarchy than the majority of Serbian scholars, by emphasizing the following point: , , , , , Slavia Latina , . ( ) ( ), Slavia Latina , , , XVIII . , XVIII . ( 1780 .), 157.
82
One should bear in mind that, for example, in Germany, England, France and other European countries, the gradual process whereby respective regional dialects were shaped into a common written language took centuries to complete. Therefore, Unbegauns conclusion would seem to support my explanation of the origin of the modern Serbian literary language: et les Serbes de Hongrie, comme ceux de la principaut, se tournant vers lAutriche et triomphant du particularisme troit, retrouvaient leur orientation naturelle, celle qui les reliait leur voisins serbes et croates de lOuest, orthodoxes et catholiques. Dans lespace de cent ans, le mouvement en faveur dune langue littraire, commenc par ladoption du slavon russe, aboutissait la cration dfinitive du serbocroate littraire. [bolding added] Unbegaun Les dbuts du serbe littraire, in op. cit., 74.
In this light, the presence of the Serbian vernacular used in parallel with Slaveno-Serbian in Venclovis texts, just three decades after the Great Migration of 1690, marks a real break or a revolutionary change in regard to its predecessor, .83 A revolution is any combination of events that produces a radical shift in consciousness or behavior over a relatively short period of time. In the context of a language, they do not appear very often because languages do not toler83
, c XVII XVIII , , [=], . , , , . , , [Mei s Grammar of 1619 (see fn. 126)) was republished in the Romanian printing house in Rimnik in 1755; , , Vienna, 1794, Budim, 1800 ] , . , , . , . [bolding added] , , 186. Novakovis quotation clearly indicates on the one hand a clean break with the previous literary tradition, and on the other, that the Serbs in Vojvodina had two choices: either Slavo-Russian or the relatively recently introduced Serbian peoples language, which was Illyrian, the official language of the Catholic and Orthodox Slavs in the Monarchy. Clearly, Novakovi perceives Slavo-Russian mixed with spoken Serbian as an obstacle in the development of new Serbian literature in Vojvodina. Skerli correctly describes the newly emerging literature among the Serbs in Vojvodina as follows: e XVIII , , XIX . , , . , 1. Here, Skerli has in mind the previous literary tradition, written in . In a similar way, Irena Grickat conveys the same sense of independency in the development of the eighteenth-century Serbian language by saying: 18. , , , . . , . . . [bolding added] See her , 23-24.
ate revolutionary changes that might endanger comprehensibility among its speakers and users. Language revolutions occur during times of war, after massive migrations or political revolutions that cause substantial social (and thus linguistic) change. In regard to Venclovis , one must bear in mind that by the sixteenth century, southern Hungary already had a sizable Serbian population that had remained after the Turkish victory at the Battle at Mohcs in 1526. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, new migrations increased the number of Serbian inhabitants. After the Great Migration of 1690, southern Hungary became the center of Serbian economic and cultural life. For all the Serbs living within the Habsburg Monarchy, the appropriation of Illyrian was an unavoidable process since Illyrian, as already pointed out, was one of the four well-established literary languages in the Monarchy.84 The Serbs must have understood it without difficulty, which was not the case with Slavo-Russian. Spoken Illyrian and the Serbian vernacular were patently the same language. With its centuries of literary development, well-elaborated grammatical norms and spelling, and influx of rich vocabulary, Illyrian had a profound and cumulative impact and standardizing effect on the emerging Serbian literary language in the works of Slavo-Serbian authors. The true extent of the influence of the Illyrian language upon the newly-formed Serbian literary language within the Empire is not well known, but that is a problem that understandably exceeds the scope of this study.
ORTHODOX LINGUISTIC DIGLOSSIA, A DEVELOPMENTAL PHASE COMMON TO ORTHODOX PEOPLES

Now that I have situated Venclovi within the broad context of the eighteenthcentury cultural, literary and linguistic orientation of the Serbs in Hungary, I will try to explain the most important linguistic innovation Venclovi had introduced into what, to all intents and purposes, was still medieval Serbian literature in the 1630s and 1640s.85 The time between the migration of the Serbs (1690) and the appearance of
84 85
See fn. 61.
Without going into a textual analysis of Venclovis language(s), I can say a priori that Venclovis language cannot be defined as traditional Serbian Church Slavic, i.e. Srbuljski. On the basis of short fragments from the (, , 84-102, and , -, 180-202 ), I can say that the original Ruthenian Church Slavic, i.e. Slavo-Russian or Slavo-Ukrainian, has been best preserved in the titles of the original, or in the titles of biblical quotations; a number of the quoted examples are written in Serbianized Slavo-Russian, and quite a number of them appear in the form of Slavonized Serbian with minimal or no elements of Slavo-Russian. The Serbianization of Slavo-Russian seems to be
Venclovis first texts (1730-1740) was quite short. It is fair to assume that Venclovi, well versed in Church Slavonic literature, made copies directly from East-Slavic originals. At the same time, he adapted the East-Slavic version (i.e. recension) of Church Slavonic to the Serbian version. It is important to keep in mind that the East-Slavic version of Church Slavonic at that time already contained some , which Venclovi translated into the language of the common people. This matter, however, would require a separate textual analysis that is beyond the scope of this investigation. The settling of Serbs in Habsburg territory brought about the acceptance of Illyrian as a ready-made linguistic idiom with a long literary tradition. In fact, the Illyrian language, as seen in Venclovis , was the most complete and systematic vernacular language in the entire Orthodox world in the first quarter of the eighteenth century. One can only guess what kind of Serbian vernacular would have appeared if the Serbs had not migrated into the territory of southern Hungary, and whether a codification of Serbian folk language would have ever taken place on exclusively Serbian Orthodox territory. One could, a priori, assume that such a Serbian vernacular would have been, in its syntactic structure, much closer to todays Bulgarian. Such a language would probably have had many more features characteristic of the Balkan linguistic league.86
masterfully introduced in the , and could have influenced one of the first investigators of Venclovis language to conclude: - , - , , . , - , , . , , 111-112. vanovis analysis of Venclovis language has not lost its importance and still remains more reliable than recent publications on Venclovi. vanovis description of Venclovis language as Srbuljski has been adopted by scholars such as ladenovi in his XVIII XIX , 40-42; Albijani, The Demise of Serbian Church Slavic, 117; idem, The Creation of the Slaveno-Serbski Literary Language, 485-86; , , 107, 112-113; , XVIII , 142, 171; , , in his , 165-174; , , 84-5.
86
I only hypothesize here what the Serbian language would have looked like if the development of Serbian had taken place on exclusively Orthodox territory without interference from the Western Balkans. In fact, Irena Grickat has carefully and conscientiously analyzed the language of the earliest Serbian travelogues of the seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth centuriesthe same texts that Pavi treats as the texts written in the Serbian vernacular, i.e. in contemporary Serbian language in her article, XVII XVIII , in: -
Some scholars have attempted to explain the appearance of Venclovis through the Turkish occupation that provoked the 1690 migration, however, I am unconvinced by this theory. The Turkish occupation of the Balkans certainly slowed the general literary and linguistic development of the Orthodox Southern Slavs (the Serbs and Bulgarians). However, ideologically, it could not have caused the appearance of the Serbian vernacular in literary practice. The reasons for the introduction
, vol. 10, ( , 1976), 297-322. She has compared the language of these travelogues to similar ones in Russian and Neo-Greek, and convincingly concluded: . , , , , , ... , , , , , . , , , . [bolding added] , , 298 and 299. See also: , ( 17. 18. ), XI (1968): 39-45; eadem, , 20-22. Speaking about the aspects of Russification of traditional Serbian Church Slavonic texts, and the presence of the socalled Medio-Russianisms ( which differ from the so-called Paleo-Russianisms and NeoRussianisms), Grickat remarks: XVIII . ... .... . , a, , ( .,) , , . [original emphasis] See her, , 113-114. Through a comparison with Neo-Greek language patterns, certain typological analogies help explain the specific features present in the language of the earliest Serbian travelogues. The new linguistic trend already started during the sixteenth century with the translation of the work of Damaskin Studit by the Bulgarians and the Serbs. Studits , (several editions appeared in Venice from 1557-1558 onwards), occupies an important place in the development of the languages of the so-called Balkan linguistic league. See Giuseppe DellAgata, The Bulgarian Language Question from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century, in: Aspects of the Slavic Language Question, 157-88; -, (: , 1965); eadem, - XVIIXVIII. (: , 1969); : 16 19 , ed. - (j: , 2002); . , . XVII ., vols. 1-3 (: , 1968-1985); , ed. . (: , 1992); . , , ek 2-3 (1971): 205-211; E.. , , , no. 4 (1966): 31-33.
of the Illyrian language, that is, the Serbian vernacular, the so-called racki ili ilirski, into the dogmatic, ecclesiastic, and still-medieval literature of the Serbs in Vojvodina, rather, must be sought exclusively within the framework of the Orthodox community. This community continued to lead the literary linguistic development of the Orthodox Serbs, including those in the Catholic Habsburg Empire.87 What motivated the leaders of the Orthodox cultural community to officially approve the use of the vernacular along with Church Slavonic? In order to answer this question, we must first examine the linguistic situation among the Orthodox Slavs in the era in which vernacular idioms appeared. Despite many stimulating contributions in recent times, the question of the development of Church Slavonic over a span of six or seven centuries as the basic literary language of the Orthodox Slavs is still far from being satisfactorily answered.88
No one has yet analyzed the processes of the Balkanization of the Serbian language of literacy and literature. As Grickat has accurately described: . ; ; , , . See her , 36; eadem, , 21-22. In this regard cf. also: J -, 1643, in 1643. , , ed. ( : , 1992), 129-137; eadem, K XVI , , eds. and ( : , 1993), 133-140.
87
All Serbian national movements against Turkish rule began under the leadership of the Serbian church. In search of allies against the Turks, the Serbian church hierarchy, and leaders of the people, continuously negotiated with the representatives of the Roman clergy. Roman Catholics were willing to give their support under the condition that a religious union be formed with the Orthodox shismatics, which the Serbian people and lower clergy were not willing to accept under any conditions or circumstances. Cf. more about it in , XVI XIX (: , 1950); see also the collections of documents: , XVI-XVIII (: , 1983); idem, , 1622-1644, ed. (: SANU, 1986); and , 1690 1792 (: , 1954); Karlo Horvat, Novi historijski spomenici za poviest Bosne i susjednih zemalja, Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu 21 (1909): 1-104 and 313-424; Augustin Theiner, Vetera monumenta Slavorum meriodionalium historiam illustrantia. Maximam partem nondum edita ex tabulariis Vaticanis deprompta et collecta, vol. 1 & 2 (Romae: Typis Vaticana, 1863 - Zagabriae, 1875).
88 Here I have in mind in particular the existing explanations of Church Slavonic in its latest form of Slavo-Russian among the Serbs in Vojvodina. The role of Slavo-Russian or Slavo-Serbian in the formation of the Serbian pre-national cultural and linguistic identity seems to me ill-defined. For example:
[o] , . , , . , , , , , , , ... , , . , , in his . , 203-226, the quotation appears on p. 208. Slavo-Russian must have had its literary norms(cf., for example: , ... , cf. . . , , 77; . , - - XVI-XVII . and - - XVI-XVII., in her XIXVII. (: , 2003), 208-255; see also fn. 94)and, therefore, it could not have contributed to the emergence of texts written in the Serbian vernacular, , whose norms differed sharply from the Slavo-Russian ones. Leaving aside the debatable question of continuity of the Serbian literary language (, XIX , . , 518-526), I must respectfully disagree with another statement that (ibid. 521), or , , , - , - , in his , in . , 145. See my explanation about the absence of diglossia in old Serbian texts written in in fn.*. Slavo-Serbian, or more precisely speaking, the language of Serbianized SlavoRussian texts, should be considered to be an organic part of the broader diglossic linguistic system of the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine periods among the Serbs in Vojvodina. About the diglossic situation attested to in Slavonized Serbian texts see the last pages of the second part of this study and fn. 75. At the same time, Mladenovi agrees with Ivis statement and fully accepts it: , XVIII - . ( , ,, 142.) Speaking about Rajis language, Mladenovi says: ( ) - , e . , , , . Cf. , , in his . , 231; idem, XVIII XIX , , vol. XXXVI/1 (1993), 79-83; idem, , . , vol. 17/2 (: , 1987), 119-125; cf. also . and . , 1699. 1804, 69-109.
One special difficulty is rooted in the fact that the middle period of Church Slavonic developmentafter the Fall of the Byzantine Empire and the Turkish occupation of the Balkansoccurred exclusively on the territory of the East Slavs in the Ruthenian lands, that were first under Polish sovereignty, and later part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In an immediate confrontation with the Western cultural and linguistic models, Orthodox activists and writers in Ruthenian lands started glorifying the Church Slavonic role it played among the Orthodox Slavs.89 In the late sixteenth century, Orthodox Ruthenians promoted the standardization and correction of the Slavonic language and wrote quite a number of Slavonic grammars and dictionaries in order to revive the study and cultivation of Slavonic.90 As has already been
The quoted claims in regard to the -a a a are hypothetical assumptions that could have materialized only under the condition that the Serbs had had a preexisting textual or literary tradition based on the dialects of the umadija and Vojvodina regions. As already pointed out, the conditions for such a linguistic development among the Serbs were unfavorable in eighteenth-century Vojvodina. In the Habsburg Monarchy, the Serbs did not have their separate and autonomous political territory which, eventually, would have conditioned the emergence of a corpus of texts as the basis of an exclusively Serbian pre-national literary language. Cf. Skerlis opinion in this regard in fn. 81. An integrated history of the rise of a pre-national language(s) among the Serbs living in Habsburg territory is rather extraordinarily complex and, it seems to me, still an open question in spite of numerous valuable contributions. In this regard Kretschmers criticism of the existing methodological approaches to analyzing literary works of Slavo-Serbian writers seems to be justified and welcome. Her writings are valuable theoretical guidelines. Cf., for example, - 1800 ( ), in , vol. 56, nos.1- 2 (2000), 543-59; eadem, - , , vol. XX/2 (1991), 65-70; eadem, Nekoliko napomena povodom 30-godinjeg jubileja istraivanja slavenosrpskog doba, in , vol. 33 (1990), 221-31.
89
Bohdan Struminskyj writes: The international character of Slavonic was proudly emphasized by Orthodox writers and publishers. To Ivan Vyenskyj, Slavonic was a language that could redeem a Ruthenian, a Serb, a Bulgarian, or the people of Great Rhossia. Kopystenskyj proudly described the geographical extent of Slavonic from the Adriatic to the Arctic Sea; in his preface to John Chrysostoms homilies in 1624, he asked all possible Slavic and nonSlavic nations to accept and embrace that book. When Pamvo Berynda published a Slavonic Triodion in 1627 with synaxaria added in a Ruthenian translation, he entreated his non-Ruthenian readers: Do not complain about this, Great Rhosses, Bulgarians, Serbs and others who are akin to us in Orthodoxy. See his The Language Question in the Ukrainian Lands before Nineteenth Century, in Aspects of the Slavic Language Question, Vol. II: East Slavic, eds. Riccardo Picchio and Harvey Goldblatt (New Haven: Yale Consilium on International and Area Studies, 1984), 9-47, the quotation appears on pp. 17-18. See the explanation of the term Rhossic in fn. 90.
90
Ibid., 9-20; see fn. 126. Andrii Danylenko stresses: A separate place should be reserved for the Peresopnycja Gospel of 1556-1561, in which Archimandrite Hryhorij and amanuensis Myxailo Vasylijevy made an attempt to combine Church Slavonic with the prostaja mova (Ruthenian) rather than local vernacular. See his The new Ukrainian standard language (1798) - between tradition and innovation, in
pointed out, it was only after the Great Migration in 1690 that the Serbs began to renew their literary activities. During the second half of the seventeenth century, the Bulgarians also began a literary revival. The sole available model for both the Serbs and Bulgarians was the literature of the Eastern Orthodox Slavs. The East Slavic developmental middle period has not yet been sufficiently investigated, but promises, in my opinion, to shed crucial light on the character of the literary revivals among the Serbs and Bulgarians, and the definitive codification of their modern literary languages. It was only natural that the Serbs turned to East Slavic literature, which had continued the development of Church Slavonic without interruption, even after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. From the end of the fifteenth century until the second half of the seventeenth centurythe incorporation of the Ruthenian territories into the Moscovite State took place in 1654a complex process of development and innovations was taking place in the literary centers of these territories: Vilnius, Lviv, Ostroh, Kutejno, Kyiv, etc. These developments progressed independently of Moscovite Russia and brought about changes in the norms of classic Church Slavonic. As early as 1517, five years before Luthers translation of the Gospels, Francysk Skaryna completed a translation of the Gospels, written in a language that is usually thought to be the earliest codification of Byelorussian.91 In fact, it was the common language of the Orthodox population in the Ruthenian lands. Skaryna explicitly called the language in which he wrote . The prefaces to his editions contained pronouncements that clarified the language in which he wrote. For example: . . , . (The Books of the Saint Prophet Daniil begin. They are fully presented in
American Contributions to the 14th Congress of Slavists in Ohrid, Macedonia, vol. 1: Linguistics, ed. Christina Y. Bethin (Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 2008), 59-74, the quotation appears on p. 59.
91
E.. , , vol. 3, pt. 2 (: - , 1955), 24. Cf. the same opinion in .. , , e , (St. Peterburg, 1888; Munich: O. Sagner, 1989), 247.
The Linguistic Diglossia of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi and | 59 in the Literature of the Orthodox Slavs the Rusian92 language by Doctor Francisk Skorin93 from the famous city of Polotsk. They are set forth in Gods honor and to teach the common people).94
Skarynas biblical editions displayed similar explanations in regard to his language, for example, the title of the Bible printed in Prague in 1519 reads as follows: ia , (The Rusian Bible presented by Doctor Francisk Skorina, from the famous city of Polotsk, in Gods honor and to [provide] the good teaching to the common people).95 The language
92
The term is rendered into English as the Rusian language in order to differentiate it from the contemporary term , which designates Russian. Bohdan Struminskyj and other Ukrainian scholars prefer to use the term the Little Rhossic for Ruthenian or Ukrainian and the Great Rhossic or simply Rhossic for Russian or , i.e., , and accordingly the common Slavonic-Rhossic language for Slavo-Russian = - which meant the latest version of Church Slavonic for all Eastern Slavs (when the eastern Ukraine was unified with Russia in 1654) and as well as for all Orthodox Slavs, including the Romanians. See the usage of Rhossic in fn. 87.
93
In the prefaces to his editions, the first Byelorussian printer and biblicist, , wrote his name in its Russian version because he intended his editions for all of the Eastern Slavs. Since he was from the city of Polotsk in Byelorussia, today Byelorussian and Ukrainian scholars (except the Russian ones) tend to write his name according to the Byelorussian orthography: . I use the latter as the standardized form in literary criticism. When I translate s quotations, I keep the Russian form of his name that appears in the original.
94
E.. , , in: , eds. E. . , E. . , et al. (: , 1979), 223-68, esp. 232; A.. , , ibidem., 85-93. Cf also: , - , in: , , . : , ed. . (: , 2001), 5-11; , , in: , , , 11-18.
95
The title page of Skarynas Bible appears in 18 , vol. 14, ed. .. (i: , 1996-2002), 444; cf. also: ii i 6 , vol. 6 (i: i i, 2002), 309-19. E. A. , ( ), in Slavia, vol. 59, no. 3 (1990), 244-250. Andrii Danylenko convincingly emphasizes that It is ubiquitously maintained (Plju, Anienka, uraski, Pugh, Moser, Rusanivskyj) that phonological and grammatical features as found in writings in the ruskij jazyk and the prostaja mova, are characteristic of both Middle Ukrainian and Belarussian, thus not allowing either Ukrainian or Belarussian deviating dialect features to penetrate into the common language standard... inasmuch as the vernacular koin used as a written medium tended to demonstrate rather vague norms from the late 15th through the late 17th c. uraski (1967, 58f.) seems right to claim that the ruskij jazyk should be treated along with the prostaja mova as constituent parts of a general literary language system, albeit no major grammar or dictionary of the ruskij jazyk has ever been compiled (Martel, 1938, 38-44) [see Martel in fn. 101]. Cf. Andrii Danylenko, Prostaja mova, Kitab, and Polissian Standard, in Die Welt der Slaven, vol. 51 (2006), 80-
of Skarynas editions is best described as a hybrid language. It was often a mixture of developing and Church Slavonic. The proportions of the mixture vary both between different texts and between different linguistic levels.96 All of Skaryns worksincluding his (A Little Traveling Book, 1522), and (Apostles, 1525)were popular and widely read among the Orthodox population in Poland and Lithuania. It was Skarynas desire to render the Church Slavonic language of these liturgical books that, in his words, were not understandable to the simple people, accessible to the uneducated masses. In a linguistic sense, he would have a whole series of Western Russian activist followers, including Szymon Budny97 and Vasil Cjapinski.98 The latter published the Homiliary
115, the quotation appears on p. 100. Cf. also: .. i, y-ci i-o y (i: I , 1969); A. I.i, i (i: I - A , 1967); S. Pugh, Testament to Ruthenian. A Linguistic analysis of the Smotryckyj variant, in Harvard series in Ukrainian studies (Cambridge, Mass: Distributed by Harvard University Press for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, 1996); M. Moser, Die polnische, ukrainische und weirussische Interferenzschicht im russischen Satzbau des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, Schriften ber Schprachen unde Texte, vol. 3 (Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 1998); idem, Mittelruthenisch (Mittelweirussisch und Mittelukrainisch): Ein berblick, in Studia slavica hungarica, vol. 50, nos. 1-2 (2005), 125-142; M. , (: , 2001). T describes Skarynas language as follows: , [] . .. , ( XVI-XVII ), in: , V Me (Mo: , , 1963), 270 and 241-42. Cf. also: his XVII-XVIII ., in his , 89-90; , , in , 74-80.
97 96
Szymon Budny (Simon Budnaeus, c. 1530-1593) was a Polish sectarian theologian. During the Reformation in Poland-Lithuania, he led the Lithuanian anti-Trinitarian (Arian) wing of the Polish reformist camp, which took a radical position in questions of theology though a conservative one in questions of social order. Budny translated Bible into Polish, using the Hebrew text. See more about him in Dawni Pisarze, Polscy od pocztkw pimiennistwa do Modej Polski Przedwodnik biograficzny i bibliograficzny, vol. 1 (Warszawa: WSIP, 2000), 126-28. Cf. also: Stefan Fleischmann, Szymon Budny: Ein theologisches Portrait des polnisch-weirussischen Humanisten und Unitarieri (ca. 1530-1593), Series A. Slavistische Forschungen, n.s., vol. 53 (Kln: Bhlau, 2006).
98
Fleischmann, Szymon Budny, 94-102. i ii i ( ca.1540-1603) supported Budny: Ihm zur Seite [of Szymon Budny] stand Vasil Cjapinski, der die drei synoptischen Evangelien ins Weiruthenische bertrug und sie 1576 in seiner Drukerei auf dem vterlichen Gut Cjapina druckte (das Lukasevangelium nur unvollstnding). Cf. Norbert Randow, Die weiruthenische Literatur, 2, , http://kamunikat.fontel.net/www/czasopisy/annus/01/01_randow.htm (accessed March 12, 2011). Cf. also: ,
Gospels with parallel texts in Byeloruthenian and Church Slavonic, heavily modeled on the Antitrinitarian, Szymon Budnys Bible of 1572 and his New Testament of 1574.99 Furthermore, at the end of the sixteenth century, Lavrentij Zyzanij published his (A Slavonic Grammar, Vilno, 1596). The Grammar was written in the vernacular (Byeloruthenian from the Vilno region) so as to make the study and comprehension of Church Slavonic easier. In that same year, his, (Alphabet), was published under the title of , , () () () () () () . (A Leksis of Expressions Briefly Collected and Interpreted from Church Slavonic into the Rusian Vernacular).100 The (the simple Rusian dialect), or (the Rusian vernacular), essentially represented spoken Byeloruthenian from the Vilno region.101 It became the western Russian literary language, the so-called (Ruthenian), that in the sixteenth century was introduced into traditional confessional-denominational literature along with Church Slavonic. The western Russian writers in the Ruthenian regions used this language and called it in contrast to , which remained the chief literary medium. It should be emphasized that very early on, this vernacular was also used independently from Church Slavonic in the function of Chancellery Byelorussian or Ruthenian.102 In the beginning, the language was composed predominantly of Byelorussian elements. Later, it also absorbed Ukrainian and Polish ones. In the middle of the sixteenth century, was deployed in ecclesiastical booksGospels, homilies, tracts, Triods, etc.as well as the first secu-
XVII ( ), in his , vol. II: - , 175-76.

99 100
Fleischmann, Szymon Budny, 94-104.
Struminskyj, op. cit., 14-15; Encyclopedia of Ukraine, vol. 5, ed. Danylo Husar Struk (Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 1984), 886. See also: Oxana Pachlovska, Civilt letteraria ukraina (Roma: Carocci editore S. p. A., 1998) 97 and 99; Moser, ?, in Studia slavica hungarica, vol. 47, No 3-4 (2002), 221-260; B. Wiemer, Prosta movaPrliminaria zu einer strukturellen Beschreibung, in Beitrge der Europische Slavistischen Linguistik (POLISLAV) 6, eds. J. Blankenhorn, J. Baszczak, R. Marzari (Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner, 2003), 227-237; . . , XVI-XVIII , in , ed. . . (: , 1961), 219-236.
101
See more on the various names of the in Andrii Danylenko, On the name(s) of the Prostaja Mova in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Studia Slavica 51, nos. 1-2 (March, 2000): 97-121.
102
Struminskyj, op. cit., 20-26.
lar works, especially educational texts.103 Speaking about the use of Ruthenian in the church and in ecclesiastical literature, Bohdan Struminskyj says: The first conscious attempt to introduce local Ruthenian into the religious literature of the Ukrainian lands was made in the Volhynian Orthodox monastery of Pere-sopnycja by 1556. Archpriest Myxajlo Vasylijevy, who transcribed the Slavonic translation of the Gospel into Ruthenian from 1556 to 1561, said in his preface: If this has been translated from the Bulgarian language into Ruthenian speech it has been done for better comprehension by the common Christian people. Dont deplore this, dear friend.104 The intrusion of the peoples language into still-medieval Church Slavonic literature is well documented in Eastern Slavic Orthodox literature. For example, at the end of the sixteenth century, the renowned Ukrainian polemicist, Ivn Vyenskyj, wrote: , , . (In church, during the Liturgy, do not distort the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles; after the Liturgy is over, interpret and expound in a simple manner (po prostu) in the language of the people, so that the people may understand it; and print all Church books and its constitutions and laws in Church Slavonic).105 Many of the topoi explaining when and why the vernacular should be employed, such as the example above, are nearly identical with Venclovis writing, except the language referred to by the East Slavs is or , while Venclovi
103
A. Martel, La langue polonaise dans les pays ruthnes: Ukraine et Russie blanche 1569-1667 (Lille, 1938), 97-160; , , 241-45; G.Y. Shevelov, Ukrainian, in: The Slavic Literary Languages: Formation and Development, eds. Alexander M. Schenker & Edward Stankiewicz (New Haven, 1980), 143-60; A. McMillin, Belorussian, in: The Slavic Literary Languages, 105-17.
104 105
Struminskyj, op. cit., 26.
Quoted from Martel, La langue polonaise, 99, fn 2. ( , II, 220); I. Ogijenko, Jzyk cerkiewno-slowiaski na Litwie i w Polsce w ww. XV-XVll, Prace Filologiczne V, no. 14 (1929): 524-43, esp. 536-37; . , XVI (1560) (Warszawa: Druk. Sinodalna, 1930), 57-58; . . , XVII (c: , 1974), 319-332; Strakhov, Attitude to Greek Language and Culture in Moscovy, 130; Bernard Grschel, Die Sprache Ivan Vyenskyjs. Untersuchungen und Materialien zur historischen Grammatik des Ukrainischen (Kln: Bhlau Verlag, 1972); cf. also Pachlovska, op. cit., 348-352. For a different interpretation of Vyshenskyjs quoted fragment see Harvey Goldblatt, On the Language Beliefs of Ivan Vyenskyj and the Counter-Reformation, in Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 15, (1991), 7-34.
speaks of . For the sake of comparison, I will give a few examples. In the epilogue of his translation of (Spiritual Sword), composed by the Ruthenian writer, Lazar Baranovy, Venclovi wrote: , ia , ie ia ia ie, ia ia . ia o , i (And, let it be known that all writings are not simple and clear simply because they refer and speak to God and are written according to the literary models [of Church Slavonic]. When they [writings] are addressed to the people, they are written in the vernacular. However, even those [texts written in the common peoples language] that I could not interpret in their entirety, due to my ignorance and the imperfection of my intellect; but those of you, readers, whom God endowed with a clever mind, should be able to understand them correctly.) 106 Even though Venclovi interpreted (in the vernacular), according to his own admission, he was not able to interpret it very well because he did not have an adequate command of the peoples language. Such a pronouncement might suggest that Venclovi was only a scribe, but more likely represents the adoption of one of the popular loci communes of Orthodox literature.107 In another example, Venclovi called the language of the people : () , ie, e ie , (This is a selected homily from the Holy Gospel and from many other sacred writings [taken] from the Moscow Teaching [which was] printed in Moscow during the reign of Peter and Adrian, who was the Patriarch at that time [which] is translated into the Serbian language in order that any ordinary person can understand it108
106 107
, , 86, (see fn. 4).
Already in 1911, discussing the originality of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovis writings, vanovi correctly remarked: , , , . , , . , 109. More about Lazar Baranovy cf. Pachlovska, op. cit., 418-428, 451.
108
, , 146.
Or, in another example: ie , i, ia ia, ie i . (I am talking to you about it in your own, simple language and not in the learned one which expresses ideas in an obscure way, nor do I prattle to you in the Polish language with an intention to mock your language and create and sow dissension among you in the church.) 109 This last sentence unequivocally indicates that Venclovis texts were copied from Ruthenian originals, where i, ia (in the Polish manner) played an important role in the everyday life of the Orthodox Slavic population in the Polish-Lithuanian state. Venclovi also pointed out how Church Slavonic texts were unintelligible: (e) , ia ... ia, , ia , , ie ; , ie , ia (The translation from the obscure writings [in Church Slavonic] into the simple and understandable spoken language of the Serbs, [made] for peasants and other ordinary people gather people together to listen to my preaching and put the words I am telling you into the mouths of my people; let them understand my words and let them teach their sons properly, rather than teaching them and talking to them through fog and clouds; one has to talk to them in the spoken language which ordinary people can [easily] understand.)110 Almost an identical pronouncement can be found in the foreword to the (The Teaching Gospel) of 1569: , , , (I [had] thought to translate this book into the peoples language in order to make it understandable to the ordinary people speaking the Rusian vernacular, and had a great concern about it)111 In the Nesviskij Catechism of 1562, written in a mixture of Byelorussian and Ukrainian
109 110 111
, , 184, (see fn. 4). , , 181. , , 99.
elements, one reads that it is (for the ordinary people speaking the Rusian language).112 Venclovi and the western Russian writers who used both Church Slavonic and the vernacular kept underscoring the fact that they did not know, or did not have a sufficient command of (i.e. Church Slavonic). Thus, in the foreword to the (Gospel with Homilies) of 1616, we read: ( ) , , , ; , , , (Therefore, at the present time, because of wide-spread ignorance and a lack of knowledge of Church Slavonic by many, having become unnecessary and useless to many people, it [the text in Church Slavonic] has been translated again into our ordinary Rusian, as if it were resurrected from the dead, and through printed editions, it [the text] has been broadly spread among the glorious and ancient people of the Moscovite state, and in the coming centuries, will reach everyone, especially many ordinary people who do not know Church Slavonic.) 113 All of the above-cited texts belong to one and the same phase of the continuous evolution of Church Slavonic, during the time when the peoples language was gradually being introduced as a medium parallel to it. The reasons for this phenomenon are, on the one hand, the unintelligibility and rigidity of archaic forms and constructions, and, on the other, simple ignorance of the language on the part of its users. The introduction of the vernacular as a medium parallel to Church Slavonic was intended to make the latter more accessible to the masses, that is, to the Orthodox Slavs on the territory of Catholic Poland and Lithuania. This innovation in the Ruthenian territories of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had nothing in common with what occurred in neighboring Poland. At first glance, many scholars are inclined to see analogies. However, the alleged analo-
112 113
T, , 245.
Martel, La langue polonaise, 76-79, esp. 77; see also V. Negalevskyjs pronouncement in his introduction to the Gospels, published in 1581: , a , , , a , , ; , , . Cited from , , 95.
gies are, in fact, deceptive because one deals with two different worlds in one and the same state. As Picchio has noted, it is true that: the Ukrainian-Byelorussian territories were directly exposed to the influence of the sixteenth-century Western European intellectual revival. In particular, the intellectual life of the Ukrainian and Byelorussian lands was brought into contact with both the partisans of the vulgar tongue and their Latinophile opponents, that is, with theories which echoed the ideological conflict between the Reformation and the Counter reformation. 114 On the other hand, the Orthodox population in the Ruthenian lands struggled with Western trends. Thus, instances of the acceptance of certain models, which were extremely limited in scopefor example, Latin-Polish Poetics and Rhetorics in the second half of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuriescould be found in competition with these western Latin trends. In an act of self-defense, the educational models of the Jesuit schools were employed, particularly in the era of Peter Mohyla (1596-1647).115
114
Riccardo Picchio, Introduction une tude compare de la question de la langue chez les Slaves, in: Etudes littraires slavo-romanes (Florence: Licosa Editrice, 1978), 159-96; the quotation appears on 167. After the unification of the eastern part of Ukraine with Russia in 1654, the language situation considerably changed: A more dispassionate and comprehensive treatment of new standard Ukrainian must be placed in the context of the formation of literary genres and styles in the 18th century in two different standard languages. They are Church Slavonic of the Meletian version [based on Meletij Smotryckyjs Grammar, see fn. 126] and the prostaja mova (Ruthenian), both influenced by Great Russian and, to a much lesser extent, Polish [...] From the late 17th century onward, the prostaja mova was losing its position in almost all genres where it had flourished before, although it was largely retained in administration until the abolition of the Cossack regimental system and the introduction of the imperial social structure in the Hetmanate by Catherine II in 1781-85. In contrast, Church Slavonic strengthened its status in ecclesiastical and secular genres, and revived many archaisms [...] Trying to participate in the main stream literary process of Great Russia, graduates of the Ukrainian schools were compelled to switch to Russian Church Slavonic in conjunction with secular Russian, which was becoming indispensable at that time in public domains. Under pressure from the imperial center, Samuel Myslavskyi, metropolitan of Kyiv (1783-96), promoted the status of Russian by introducing its literary standardspelling and pronunciationinto the classes of poetry and oratory at the Kyiv Academy, Kharkiv College, and other schools. Danylenko, The new Ukrainian standard language (1798) - between tradition and innovation, 60-62.
115
.. , (: , 1960); .. , 1637 , in: XVI - XVIII ., ed. .. (: , 1981), 118-154; .. , XVII XVIII . , in: , 155-95; .. , , in: , 223-49; cf. the other articles in the same book; Iaroslav Isaievych,
The Latin-Polish models were never completely or correctly understood. Still less did they influence the actual development of the language and literature of the Orthodox Slavs. I believe that one comes closer to the true development of the Orthodox Slavs when one recognizes that Polish cultural and literary models were never consciously accepted as models to be imitated in literature or in other cultural spheres, either in Moscovite Russia, or by the Orthodox populace in the Ruthenian territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This statement is not meant to exclude the influence of the Polish language as an official state language, because its influence was strong and indeed inevitable. It has left many indelible traces in the modern literary languages of both the Ukrainians and the Byelorussians. The linguistic situation described by Ruthenian writers during the sixteenth century and attested to in Orthodox texts cannot be compared with the synchronic stage of linguistic-literary development in Poland. It has its parallel rather, in the literature of the neighboring Orthodox territories in Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia. Together with the Orthodox Slavs, the Romanians were integrated into the Byzantine Commonwealth, and adopted the common Orthodox Slavic literary language (i.e. Church Slavonic). They created their medieval literature in this language. Though not occupied by the Turks, the Romanians were able to follow the general cultural development of the Orthodox community during the Turkish occupation of most of the Balkans. Thus, as early as in the first half of the sixteenth century, Slavo-Romanian diglossia116 can be attested to in texts written in regions that, although allied in their resistance to the Turks, represented rather independent princi-
Between Eastern Tradition and Influences from the West: Confraternities in Early Modern Ukraine and Byelorussia, in Ricerche slavistiche, vol. XXXVII (1990), 269-294; , , ibid., 295-306; Paulina Lewin, The School Theater in the Ukraine and Its Relation to the Middle Ages, Ibid., 307-321; eadem, Wyklady poetyki w uczelniach rosyjskich XVIII w. (1722-1774) a tradycje polskie (Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow: PAN, 1972); eadem, Polish-Ukrainian-Russian Literary Relations of the Sixteenth-Eighteenth Centuries: New Approaches, Slavic and East European Journal 24, no. 3 (1980): 256-69; eadem, Literatura staropolska a literatury wschodniosowiaskie, Stan bada i postulaty badawcze, in: Literatura staropolska w kontekcie europejskim (Wrocaw: Zakad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich, 1977), 139-68; Ihor evenko, The Many Worlds of Peter Mohyla, Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 8, nos. 1-2 (1984), 9-40, just to mention several important studies concerning the new challenges from the West which forced the Ruthenian intellectuals to introduce the new cultural patterns beginning with the second decade of the seventeenth century and especially after the founding of the Kiev Mohyla college.
116
The Romanian language, which was incorporated into the Orthodox Balkan league of languages, largely freed itself, in a most striking way, from dependence on its inherited Latin substance. Romanian can hardly be thought of as belonging to the Romance languages.
palities. In their religious manuscriptsthe Psalter, the Gospels with Commentaries, the Catechisms, etc.the Romanians closely followed and embraced the common Orthodox Slavic linguistic innovation. Thus, Romanian was used for private reading while Slavonic was used for religious services, and the difference in language was often graphically palpable: the two sat side by side on the page, with Romanian written in red ink, and Slavonic in black. The first Romanian printer, Deacon Coresi, in addition to his Gospels of 1561, began to publish religious works in Romanian, or in Romanian and Slavonic together.117 The introduction of a Romanian peoples language into Romanian texts is well documented in Orthodox Slavic literature. The Bulgarian monk, Paisy of the Hilendar monastery, accurately described the situation in the Romanian lands in his, (Slavo-Bulgarian History) of 1762: a . ia . (Thus, from that time, the Romanians were also converted to Orthodoxy and read Old Bulgarian [i.e. Church Slavonic]. Recently, following the Ruthenians [i.e., their writing practices], they [the Romanians] have introduced the Romanian vernacular into texts intended for the ordinary people.) 118 Paisys statement unequivocally indicates that the center of linguistic and literary innovations among the Orthodox of that time, i.e. after the Fall of Constantinople, was in the Ruthenian territories, in so-called South-Western Rus, where the conditions for such developments were most propitious and challenging within the joint Catholic state of Poland and Lithuania.
117
Alexandru Rosetti, Brve histoire de la langue roumaine des origines nos jours (The Hague: Mouton, 1973), 96-98; .. , (: - , 2002); Neculai Iorga, A History of Roumania. Land, People, Civilization (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1970), 131-46; see also Testi romeni antichi (secolo XVI-XVIII), eds. Alexandra Niculescu and Florica Dimitrescu (Padova: Antenore, 1970), xv-li. Cf. also: Elizabeta Negru, Byzantine Legacy and Modern Greek Influences in the Wallachian Culture of the 17th - 18th centuries, in Revue des tudes sud-est europennes, vol. 47, nos. 1-4 (2009), 89-100. Quoted from , , 1765 (: 1972), folio 35. I would like to thank Dr. Predrag Mateji, Director of the Hilandar Research Library, Resource Center for Medieval Slavic Studies (Ohio State University, Thompson Library) for providing me with a copy of this manuscript. Cf. also: [e] ia . ia [] . , 1762 (: , 1989), 77.
118
This peoples language, documented in Moscovite Russia at approximately the same time, or somewhat earlier, under the similar designation ,119 known in the Ruthenian regions of the sixteenth century as [], (simple Russian dialect), (simple Russian speech) or was quickly adopted in the Romanian territories and translated as ia (simple Romanian language). Similarly named vernaculars would eventually appear in all the Orthodox Slavic nations, with a greater or lesser time lag. or remained the major source in the development of other vernaculars among the different Orthodox peoples. Paisy of the Hilendar monastery followed the Ruthenian tradition, and clearly referred to it: () . (I, Paisy, a hieromonk and deputy-abbot of the Hilendar monastery, collected the Rusian simple speech, and from it translated and wrote [texts] in the Bulgarian common peoples language and Church Slavonic).120 Two examples stand out among the numerous loci communes adopted from his original text and copied in his (History): ... (), a (It happened to us to read various histories, in manuscripts as well as printed, which the Ruthenians and Moscovites [i.e. Russians] translated into their own language to the special benefit of the Slavonic people...)121
119 120
See fn. 3.
, , folio 82b. Already half a century ago, Ljubomir Andrejin correctly discribed the concept of s language as follows: , , . . (. : ) See: , , 12, no. 6 (1962): 481-90; the quotation appears on 482.
121
, , folio 7a. Cf. also: ... , ... , , 53.
And: (Printed histories in Ruthenian and Moscovite languages show that...)122 The constant mentioning of and in Paisys History indicates that Ruthenian and Moscovite were two separate idioms representing the vernaculars of Ruthenia and the Moscovite state.123 Orthodox vernaculars cannot be treated in the same way that Western European vernaculars have been treated in scholarship. The goal of the Western European vernaculars was to achieve fully equal status with the Latin that they would gradually displaced. In contrast, the vernaculars of the Orthodox Slavs from the sixteenth century onwards, , , Venclovis , and Paisys in the eighteenth centurynever intruded into the sphere of the traditional uses of . It was not their goal to gradually displace Church Slavonic. On the contrary, vernaculars were introduced to revive and renew among all the Orthodox. The language of Church Slavonic was seen as the sole, powerful weapon against the infectious heretical tongue, a phrase which in the Ruthenian regions at the time signified the use of the Polish language, and the danger of conversion to Catholicism or Protestantism. In 1592, the Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev, Myxajlo Rahoza, wrote: , - , , , . (The teaching of the Holy Gospel has become very scarce and insufficient, except for the SlavoRussian language, all people have embraced a simple, imperfect way of the ordinary peoples writings [i.e.emulating writings in the Polish vernacular], and,
122
, , folio 55a. Cf. also: [] , , 95.

123
Ruthenian writers well differentiated (the Ruthenian language) from or (the Russian vernacular that was the peoples language in the Muscovite state). See a slightly different interpretation of these terms by Martel: Dune manire gnrale les crivains ruthnes, quel que soit leur lieu dorigine, ne distinguent pas les dialectes divers et ils dsignent, nous lavons dit, la language parle dun terme gnral russkij ou rossijskij jazyk, tout comme ils appliquent dordinaire le mot Rus ou Rssija lensemble des terres quils occupent dans la Rpublique. Martel, La langue polonaise, 91, fn. 1. Martels interpretation is acceptable if we take into consideration the linguistic function of both the and vernaculars in their relationship to . From this point of view, Ruthenian writers did not distinguish between them, but perceived and these vernaculars as one and the same language.
The Linguistic Diglossia of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi and | 71 in the Literature of the Orthodox Slavs therefore, lacking the knowledge and power of the perfect Church Slavonic grammar in theology, they have fallen into various heresies.)124
Western Russian writers exhibited a great love and veneration for : , , , , , : , , . (And then, in those times, that [person] who [used] the most honorable, the most beautiful, the most coherent, the most subtle, and the most abundant Slavonic language, could not be useful to many people [i.e. could not be understood by many people] due to the incapability of his listeners. Nowadays, if that [person] uses the most debased and simplest language, he would be suitably indispensable and useful for whatever [purposes], not only to many, but rather, to all the people speaking the Rusian language.)125 A general ignorance of , the narrow intelligibility of the language, and the overall low educational level of the Orthodox population in Poland and Lithuania as compared to their Catholic neighbors, all contributed to provoking Lavrentij Zyzanij and Meltij Smotryckyj,126 members of the Ostrog circle, and other Orthodox zealots to undertake a standardization of Church Slavonic and to secure its authority in the social and political order. In this way, a new type of Church Slavonic was created, the so-called Ruthenian (Ukrainian) Church Slavonic language, the analysis of which I will leave for another occasion. Presently, I am interested only in Ukrainian Church Slavonics relation to the newly-introduced peoples language. Sources reveal that the (vernacular) appeared for the sake of aiding the study and further development of ; its purpose was to render Church Slavonic intelligible to the common people, assuring, thereby, its continued use. The common peoples language (except Venclovis which was an independent
124 125 126
Ogijenko, Jzyk cerkiewno-sowiaski, 535; Martel, La langue polonaise, 76, fn. 2. Martel, La langue polonaise, 77, fn. 2.
Mei (1577/8-1633) was a Ruthenian (=Ukrainian and Belarusian) linguist from Galicia, author and religious activist. Education in Ostroh (Ostrog) and Vilnius, as well as in Leipzig, Wittenberg and Nuremberg, later rector of Kiev brotherhoods school. Smotrytsky is best known for his Grammar of Church Slavonic ( , , 1619), which codified what is now known as Modern Church Slavonic or, more specifically, Meletian Church Slavonic. It was the sole handbook for grammar in Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian lands, and had an enormous impact on the literary usage in Church Slavonic texts throughout the Slavic Orthodox countries. See: http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meletius_Smotrytsky (accessed March 12, 2011).
linguistic code) never challenged Church Slavonic as the sole sanctioned literary language of the Orthodox, nor did it cause a crisis for Church Slavonic by competing with it.127 The peoples vernacular appeared only as a sort of crutch. It functioned as a parallel Low variety spoken language in harmony with its High variety, i.e., Church Slavonic, bringing about a situation of diglossia.
***
The comparative analysis of Venclovis writings in with other Orthodox texts written in the (vernacular), demonstrates that both belong to the same developmental phase of the Church Slavonic language. This phase, characterized by the gradual introduction of the common peoples language into literature as a medium parallel to Church Slavonic, was common to the entire Orthodox community. The emergence of the vernacular as an auxiliary idiom alongside Church Slavonic, i.e. Slavo-Russian or Slavo-Ruthenian, was of decisive importance for the further development of Orthodox nations, as well as their linguistic unity. This phenomenon first appeared during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries among the Eastern Slavs in Moscovite Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It occurred there first for two reasons: the Eastern Slavs were not occupied by the Turks, and the Commonwealth, in particular, offered the most favorable conditions for this kind of innovation. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Romanian vernacular made its appearance in Wallachia and Moldavia. The same developmental phase emerged among the Bulgarians in the second half of the seventeenth century and among the Serbs in the first quarter of the eighteenth century when circumstances were favorable in the occupied Balkans. Thus, I believe I can conclude with considerable certainty that the linguistic diglossia found in Venclovis texts marks the beginning of a new phase of ByzantineSlavic diglossia attested to in Serbianized Slavo-Russian texts.128 This diglossia was introduced into Serbian literaturea literature that at the time was still medieval at least two centuries later than in the rest of the Orthodox world. Furthermore, my analysis reveals that Venclovis diglossia was created in the context of conscious ef-
A thorough researcher, Martel points out the following: Ainsi la primaut du slavon nest pas discute; la langue parle se trouve prsente trs humblement, et cest le malheur des temps qui justifie lusage qui en est fait, usage trs modeste Martel, La langue polonaise, 77-78
128
127
See the explanation of Serbianized Slavo-Russian and Slavonized Serbian in fns. 63 & 64.
forts to emulate the late, common phase of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine diglossia when ordinary peoples languages were introduced into medieval, ecclesiastical literatures of the Orthodox Slavs and Romanians. In fact, Venclovis diglossia has to be recognized as illusory (or extended)129 because two separate and independent linguistic codes are attested to in his texts. Although it was intended to become an organic part of the broader Byzantine-Slavic diglossic system, Venclovis diglossia in its essence would be more accurately described in terms of a certain state of bilingualism. Regardless of its linguistic status and cultural identities, Venclovis diglossia should be perceived as an impressive expression of a supranational, religious and linguistic unity of all Orthodox peoples.
SELECTED LITERATURE:
Albijani, Aleksandar. The Creation of the Slaveno-Serbski Literary Language. The Slavonic and East European Review 48, no. 113 (October 1970): 485-486. Albijani, Aleksandar. Serbian Church Slavic Elements in Vojvodina Sources. Die Welt der Slaven 23, no. 2 (1978): 268-283. Albijani, Aleksandar. The Demise of Serbian Church Slavic and the advent of the Slaveno-Serbski Literary Dialect. In The Formation of the Slavonic Literary Languages, eds. Gerald Stone and Dean Worth. Columbus: Slavica Publishers, 1985. Ammon, Ulrich. Language - Variety, Standard Variety Dialect. Sociolinguistics 1 (1987): 316-335. Beli, Aleksandar. Review of Les dbuts de la langue littraire chez les Serbes, by Boris Unbegaun. Junoslovenski filolog 13 (1933-4): 194-195. Costantini, Lionello. A proposito della lingua di Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi. Ricerche slavistiche 14 (1966): 53-76. Costantini, Lionello. Gli Annali del Baronio-Skarga quale fonte di Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi. Ricerche slavistiche 16 (1968-69), 163-190. Danylenko, Andrii. On the name(s) of the Prostaja Mova in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Studia Slavica 51, nos. 1-2 (March, 2000): 97-121. Danylenko, Andrii. The Formation of New Standard Ukrainian. From the History of an Undeclared Contest Between Right- and Left-Bank Ukraine in the 18th century. Die Welt der Slaven 53 (2008): 82-115.
129
About extended diglossia see fn. 77.
Ferguson, Charles. Diglossia. Word 15, no. 2 (August 1959): 325-340. Ferguson, Charles. Epilogue: Diglossia revisted. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 10, no.1 (1991): 214-234. Fine, John V. A. When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans. A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2006. Gavrilovi, Slavko. Izvori o Srbima u Ugarskoj s kraja XVII i poetkom XVIII veka. Beograd: SANU, 1990. Goldblatt, Harvey. On the Language Beliefs of Ivan Vyenskyj and the CounterReformation. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 15 (1991): 7-34. Graciotti, Sante. Il problema della lingua letteraria nellantica letteratura croata. Ricerche slavistiche 15 (1967): 123-164. Grickat, Irena. Aktuelni jeziki i tekstoloki problemi u starim srpskim irilskim spomenicima. Beograd: Narodna biblioteka SR Srbije, 1972. Grkovi-Mejdor, Jasmina. Sintaksiki grecizmi u Psaltiru Gavrila Trojianina iz 1643. In Psaltir Gavrila Trojianina iz 1643. godine. irilske rukopisne knjige Biblioteke Matice srpske. Edited by Duica Grbi. Novi Sad: Biblioteka Matice srpske, 1992. 129-137. Guran, Petre. Escatology and Political Theology in the last centuries of Byzantium. Revue des tudes sud-est europennes 14, nos. 1-4 (Bucarest, 2007): 73-85. Hafner, Stanislav. O pitanju tipolokih i stilskoistorijskih promena u staroj srpskoj knjievnosti. In Srpski srednji vek, ed. Jovanka Kali. Trans. By Jovanka Kali and Slobodan Grubai. Beograd: Zavod za udbenike i nastavna sredstva, Vukova zadubina, Matica Srpska, 2001. Hamm, Josip. Ruska redakcija u glagoljskim spomenicima. Slovo 21 (1971): 213-222. Herrity, Peter. Teodor Mirijevskis Memorandum on Variants of Written Serbian (1782). 33 (1990): 513-521. Hudson, Alan. Outline of a theory of diglossia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157 (2002): 1-48. Ingrao, Charles W. The Habsburg Monarchy 1618-1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Iovine, Micaele S. The Illyrian Language and the Language Question among the Southern Slavs in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. In Aspects of the Slavic Language Question. Vol. 1 of Church Slavonic - South Slavic - West Slavic, eds. Riccardo Picchio and Harvey Goldblatt. New Haven: Yale Consilium on International and Area Studies, 1984. 101-156.
The Linguistic Diglossia of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi and | 75 in the Literature of the Orthodox Slavs Isaievych, Iaroslav. Between Eastern Tradition and Influences from the West: Confraternities in Early Modern Ukraine and Byelorussia. Ricerche slavistiche 37 (1990): 269-294. Ivi, Aleksa. Migracije Srba u Hrvatskoj tokom XVI, XVII, i XVIII stolea. Naselja srpskih zemalja. Subotica: SKA, 1923. Ivi, Pavle. Srpski narod i njegov jezik. Beograd: Srpska knjievna zadruga, 1971. Ivi, Pavle. Pregled istorije srpskog jezika. Sremski Karlovci: Izdavaka knjiarnica Zorana Stojanovia, 1998. Jaov, Marko. Spisi Kongregacije za propagandu vere u Rimu o Srbima (1622-1644). Edited by Radovan Samardi. Beograd: SANU, 1986. Jeli, Luka. Fontes historici liturgiae glagolitico-romanae a XIII ad XIX saeculum. Veglae: Slavorum Litterae Theologicae Pragae, 1906. Jovanovi, Vladan. Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi. Dijalektoloki zbornik C. K. Akademije, vol . 2 (1911): 105-306. Kirilovi, Dimitrije. Srpske osnovne kole u Vojvodini u 18 veku: 1740-1780. Sremski Karlovci: Srpska manastirska tamparija, 1929. Lure, Ia. S. Unresolved Issues in the History of the Ideological Movements of the Late Fifteenth Century. In Medieval Russian Culture, eds. H. Birnbaum and M.S. Flier. Berkley: California Slavic Studies, 1984. 150-171. Kovijani, Risto. O Gavrilu Stefanoviu-Vencloviu. Zbornik Matice srpske za knjievnost i jezik, vol. 1 (1953): 164-165. Mikavica, Dejan. Srpska Vojvodina u Habsburkoj monarhiji 1690-1920. Istorija ideje o dravi i autonomiji preanskih Srba. Novi Sad: Stylos, 2005. Milovanovi, elica. O izvorima i knjievnom postupku Gavrila Stefanovia Venclovia. Zbornik Matice srpske za knjievnost i jezik 29, no. 1 (1981): 27-42; 30, no. 1 (1982): 5-17. Mladenovi, Aleksandar. Jo jedno pismo Gavrila Stefanovia Venclovia. Zbornik Matice crpske za knjievnost i jezik 12, no. 1 (1964): 334-336. Mladenovi, Aleksandar. Tipovi knjievnog jezika kod Srba u drugoj polovini XVIII i poetkom XIX veka. Proceedings of the Meunarodni kongres slavista u Varavi. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet u Novom Sadu, 1973. 41-42. Mladenovi, Aleksandar. O kontinuitetu u razvoju srpskog knjievnog jezika - do sredine XIX veka). Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku 45, nos. 1-2 (2002): 83-90. Morabito, Rosanna. Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi. In Tradizione e innovazione linguistica nella cultura serba del XVIII secolo. Cassino: Universit di Cassino, 2001. 169-195.
Moser, Michael. Die polnische, ukrainische und weirussische Interferenzschicht im russischen Satzbau des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 1998. Nedeljkovi, Olga. Josef Dobrovsk and the Serbian Literary Language at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century. Serbian Studies 1, no. 4 (1982): 3-19. Nedeljkovi, Olga. Jazykovye urovni i xarakternye erty diglossii v srednevekovyx tekstax pravoslavnyx slavjan. American Contributions to the Tenth International Congress of Slavists. Vol. 1, Linguistics, ed. Alexander M. Schenker. Columbus: Slavica Publishers, 1988. 265-300. Nedeljkovi, Olga. The Humanistic Concept of Krianis Language. Journal of Croatian Studies 31 (1990): 23-27. Negru, Elizabeta. Byzantine Legacy and Modern Greek Influences in the Wallachian Culture of the 17th - 18th centuries. Revue des tudes sud-est europennes 47, nos. 1-4 (2009): 89-100. Niehoff-Panagiotidis, Johannes. Koine und Diglossie, in Mediterranean language and culture monograph series. Vol. 10. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994. Novakovi, Stojan. Istorija srpske knjievnosti. Beograd: Izdanje i tampa dravne tamparije, 1871. Novakovi, Stojan. Primeri knjievnosti i jezika staroga i srpsko-slovenskoga. Beograd: tampa kralj.-srpske dravne tamparije, 1904. Ostoji, Tihomir. Srpska knjievnost od Velike Seobe do Dositeja Obradovia. Sremski Karlovci: Srpska manastircka tamparija, 1905. Pavi, Milorad. Gavril Stefanovi Venclovi. Beograd: Srpska knjievna zadruga, 1972. Pavlovich, Paul. The History of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Toronto: Serbian Heritage Books, 1989. Picchio, Riccardo. A proposito della Slavia ortodossa e della comunit linguistica slava ecclesiastica. Ricerche slavistiche 11 (1963): 105-127. Popovi, Duan J. Devet pisama Gavrila Stefanovia Venclovia, Zbornik Matice srpske za knjievnost i jezik (1956-1957): 233-247. Pribievi, Adam. Naseljavanje Srba po Hrvatskoj i Dalmaciji. Windsor, ON: Avala, 1955. Radoji, Nikola. O prezimenu i poreklu Gavrila Stefanovia Venclovia. Glasnik istorijskog drutva u Novom Sadu 4, no. 2 (1931): 314-316. Radoni, Jovan. Rimska kurija i junoslovenske zemlje od XVI do XIX veka. Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka, 1950. Skerli, Jovan. Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi. In Srpska knjievnost u XVIII veku. Beograd: Napredak, 1923. 168-172.
The Linguistic Diglossia of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi and | 77 in the Literature of the Orthodox Slavs Stojanovi, Ljubomir. Katalog rukopisa i starih tampanih knjiga. Beograd: Srpska kraljevska dravna tamparija, 1901. Tolstoy, Nikita I. Literaturnyj jazyk serbov v XVIII v. (do 1780 g.). In Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie. Istorija literaturnyx jazykov i pismennost, ed. Evgenija I. Demina. oskva: N SSSR, 1979. Trifunovi, ore. Primeri iz stare srpske knjievnosti. Od Grigorija dijaka do Gavrila Stefanovia. Beograd: Slovo ljubve, 1975. Unbegaun, Boris. Les dbuts de la langue littraire chez les Serbes. Paris: H. Champion, 1935. Velagi, Zoran. The Croatian Author at the Frontier of Catholicism and Orthodoxy in Croatia. In Frontiers of Faith. Religious Exchange and the Constitution of Religious Identities 1400-1750, eds. Eszter Andor and Istvn Gyrgy Tth. Budapest: Central European University, 2001. 89-97. Vitkovi, Gavrilo. O knjievnom radu jeromonaha Gavrila Stefanovia. Glasnik Srpskoga Uenog drutva, vol. 34 (1872): 151-177. Vucinich, Wayne. The Serbs in Austria-Hungary. Austrian History Yearbook 3, pt. 2, (1967): 3-47. Zhivov, Victor. Language and Culture in Eighteenth-Century Russia. Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2009.
Olga Nedeljkovi
JEZIKA DIGLOSIJA GAVRILA STEFANOVIA VENCLOVIA I PROSTA MOVA U KNJIEVNOSTI PRAVOSLAVNIH SLOVENA
Rezime: Za razliku od Jovana Skerlia i najveeg broja srpskih lingvista i filologa koji poistveuju Vencloviev sa modernim srpskim jezikom i vide u Vencloviu preteu Dositeja Obradovia i Vuka Karadia, eminentni francuski slavista Boris Unbegaun tretira Vencloviev samo kao pomono sredstvo kojim se Venclovi slui radi postizanja potpune razumljivosti svojih propovedi. Za Venclovia, kako zakljuuje Unbegaun, jedino predstavlja knjievni jezik u punom smislu toga pojma. Italijanski slavista i srbista Lionello Costantini dalje razradjuje problem Venclovievog jezikog dualizma i, ne
ulazei u konkretnu komparativnu analizu, sugestivno ga svodi na zajedniki izvor, t.j. pridaje mu vrednost loci communes, uvedenih kao bitne inovacije u pravoslavnu jeziku zajednicu. Sa isto lingvistikog aspekta Vencloviev je bio nezavisan jeziki sistem, kreiran u romanskom, katolikom kulturnom ambijentu renesansnog Dubrovnika i Dalmacije tokom 15. i 16. veka. Pod jakim uticajem Kontrareformacije posle Tridentskog Koncila (15451563), pod neposrednim rukovodstvom Kongregacije za irenje vere (osnovane 1622), misionari Katolike Obnove su izabrali tokavski dijalekat bosanskoga izgovora kao najrasprostranjeniji dijalekat najveeg dela junoslovenske teritorije za zajedniki jezik i katolika i pravoslavaca na itavom Balkanu. Dakle, ilirski je postao najvanije orudje u rukama reformnog katolianstva za postizanje odredjenih politikih ciljeva, u prvom redu irenja katolike vere na Balkanu i unijaenja pravoslavnih, tj. za postizanje crkvenog jedinstva sa Istonom Crkvom. Tokom sedamnaestog i osamnaestog veka katoliki kontrareformatori su razvili itavu ideologiju reformnokatolikog ilirizma, u okviru koje je ilirski postao zajedniki jezik Junih Slovena u Habsburkoj monarhiji, kako citirani primeri iz dela Hristifora efarovia, Jovana Rajia, Vikentija Lutine i drugih to potvrdjuju. Ilirski je bio u upotrebi i u Srbiji, Makedoniji i Bugarskoj, pa ak i u Carigradu kao diplomatski jezik. Katoliki reformatori su bili temeljno upoznati sa jezikim razvojem pravoslavnih Slovena, pogotovo Srba koji su emigrirali na teritoriju Habzburke monarhije u stoleima posle pada srpske Despotovine pod Turke. irilica je bila preferirana azbuka u odnosu na latinicu i glagoljicu. Zato je upotreba irilice bila usavrena i specijalno adaptirana za specifine glasove u tokavskom govoru, (za neke od njih nalazimo potvrdu u Venclovievim tekstovima.) Heterogeni elementi o diglosnog jezika, - ili slavonizirani ruski, su bili vetaki i sasvim proizvoljno izmeani sa tzv. na svim jezikim nivoima, ne stvarajui novi homogeni jezik, ili novu sintezu. Takvim vetakim tvorevinama, ili srbijaniziranom slavenskom, t.j. slavenoruskom, je bio suprotstavljen mnogo savreniji model ilirskog jezika u funkciji , ija sintaksa je postala baza tzv. slaveniziranog srpskog. Ovaj poslednji poinje potiskivati tekstove napisane na tzv. srbijaniziranom slavenoruskom. U toj neravnopravnoj borbi ilirski kao najrazvijeniji knjievni jezik u to doba medju svim pravoslavnim rzumljivo odneo pobedu nad , odnosno -. Usprkos svim naporima Srba da sauvaju svoju veru i identitet na teritoriji mnogonacionalne, katolike Habzburke monarhije, ivot u zajednikoj dravi koji je obuhvatao sve oblasti javne delatnosti morao je ostaviti neizbrisiv peat na dalji kulturno-knjievni i jeziki razvoj Srba u Vojvodini. Drugim reima, nastanjivanje Srba u junoj Ugarskoj rezultiralo je u prihvatanju ilirskog jezika ne samo kao precizno oformljenog jezikog idioma, sa njegovom dugom knjievnom tradicijom, ve kao i jednog od etiri zvanino priznata jezika u sociolingvistikoj praksi u Habzburkoj monarhiji. Komparativna analiza Venclovieve upotrebe -og jezika sa drugim tekstovima nastalim u okviru pravoslavne zajednice ukazuje da njegov jezik pripada istoj razvojnoj fazi u neprekinutoj evoluciji crkvenoslovenskog jezika, optepriznatog idioma pismenosti i knjievnosti svih pravoslavnih Slovena i Rumuna. To je bila nova, zajednika faza u knjievno-jezikom razvoju ovih pravoslavnih naroda kada su njihovi govorni jezici bili postepeno uvedeni u religiozne tekstove kao medij paralelan crkvenoslovenskome. Pojava govornog, narodnog jezika kao pomonog idioma, upotrebljenog naporedo sa crkvenoslo-
venskim za njegovo pojanjavanje i razumevanje, bila je od presudnog znaaja za dalji kulturni razvoj pravoslavnih naroda, kao i za njihovo jeziko i religiozno jedinstvo. Ova kasna faza vizantijsko-slovenske diglosije pojavljuje se najranije kod Istonih Slovena u Moskovskoj Rusiji i u Poljsko-Litvanskoj Republici. U petnaestom i esnaestom veku su uslovi za ovo podraavanje vizantijskoj jezikoj diglosiji bili izuzetno povoljni na spomenutim teritorijama, jer Istoni Sloveni nisu bili pod turskom okupacijom kao najvei deo Junih Slovena. Sem toga kulturna, vienacionalna atmosfera u Poljsko-Litvanskoj Republici je stimulirala ovu vrstu inovacije medju pravoslavnim stanovnitvom koje se nalazilo u stalnoj konfrontaciji sa katolicima i protestantima. Isto tako na poetku esnaestog veka rumunski govorni jezik je bio uveden u tekstove pisane na crkvenoslovenskom jeziku u Vlakoj i Moldaviji. Ista razvojna etapa pojavljuje se i kod Bugara u drugoj polovini sedamnaestog veka, i kod Srba u prvoj etvrtini osamnaestog veka posle Velike seobe Srba 1690 pod patrijarhom Arsenijem III arnojeviem. Na osnovu provedene analize sa velikom dozom sigurnosti moe se zakljuiti da jezika diglosija prisutna u Venclovievim tekstovima predstavlja novu jeziku fazu kada dolazi do uvodjenja ne samo u ulozi sakralnog i bazinog pravoslavnog, interslovenskog idioma (koji je zamenio stariji crkvenoslovenski srpske redakcije, tvz. ), nego i paralelno s njim i koji je uveden u liturgijske tekstove napisane na . i je trebalo da obavlja samo dopunske distributivne funkcije kao nia jezika varijanta te zajednike vizantijsko-slovenske diglosije u kojoj je , odnosno , igrao ulogu vie jezike varijante. Kao to je ve naglaeno, ova diglosna situacija kod Srba je bila preuzeta u skladu sa identinim stadijumom zajednikog razvitka pismenosti i knjievnosti kod drugih pravoslavnih naroda. Iako Venclovi uvodi u istoj funkciji koju je imala u istonoslovenskim tekstovima, njegova diglosija se bitno razlikuje od diglosne situacije prisutne u tekstovima drugih pravoslavnih naroda iji govorni jezici ne poseduju svoje vrsto uspostavljene jezike norme, ve se oslanjaju na norme odnosno kao sakralnog i jedno priznatog knjievnog jezika pravoslavnih Slovena i Rumuna. U stvari Venclovievu diglosiju bi trebalo okarakterisati kao prividnu ili proirenu (extended) diglosiju, moda tanije kao specijalni tip bilingvizma, jer su u pitanju dva potpuno samostalna i ravnopravna lingvistika koda sa svojim posebnim, specifinim jezikim normama koje Venclovi upotrebljava u svojim tekstovima. U ovom pogledu se Venclovieva prividna ili proirena diglosija razlikuje od pravih (u klasinom smislu) diglosnih situacija posvedoenih kod drugih pravoslavnih naroda. Svakako Venclovieva prividna diglosija je rezultat velikih napora i tenji Srba u Vojvodini da se ujedine sa svojom sabraom po veri i pridrue irem, zajednikom vizantijsko-slovenskom diglosnom sistemu kome oni religiozno i kulturno pripadaju. Bez obzira na njen lingvistiki status i kulturni identitet, Venclovieva diglosija neosporno predstavlja impresivan izraz nadnacionalnog, religioznog i jezikog jedinstva svih pravoslavnih naroda. Nije iskljueno da bi ve i Vencloviev jezik trebalo okarakterisati kao , ili preciznije govorei, bilo slavenizirani srpski ili srbizirani (koji variraju u zavisnosti od anra teksta i njegove namene), kako je sugerisano u ovoj mojoj analizi. Dok god se ne objavi kritiko izdanje barem jednog dela Venclovievih rukopisa, nikakvi sigurni zakljuci u ovom pogledu nisu mogui.
Kljune rei: Pravoslavna jezika diglosija, zajednika razvojna faza svih pravoslavnih naroda Venclovieva diglosija: + i= , zajedniki jezik svih katolika i pravoslavnih u Habzburkoj monarhiji, Kontrareformacijski Ilirizam i Srpski nacionalni Ilirizam; Pravoslavna crkva u Ugarskoj i njena jezika politika. Received 30.03.2011 / Accepted 15.06.2011.
81
UDC 821.163.41.09"18"
Mr Jovan Peji1 University of Ni Faculty of Philosophy Department of Serbian and Comparative Literature Serbia
THE INCEPTION OF THE SERBIAN HISTORY OF LITERATURE

Abstract: This paper explores the beginnings of historiography studies of the national literature of the Serbian people. The first studies of this type among the Serbs were conducted in the early 19th century (18001820). Dositej Obradovi was the first to have expressed the need for a historical overview of the developmental trends of Serbian literature in the preface to his ka (Ethics, published in 1880). It was followed by two works by Pavle Solari: (Literary Compendium) from 1810 (which is, actually, a history of printing and an inventory of Serbian books), and (Views on the Illyrian language and literature) from 1820, an article with all the features of a historical approach to national literature. An important factor for the development of the Serbs awareness of their history literature in that period were the endeavors of Lukijan Muicki, although none of his works dealing with the history of literature were printed. His manuscript legacy and his correspondence, primarily with Jernej Kopitar (as of 1809), reveals that Muickis ideas about the entirety and the courses of development of Serbian literature (especially concerning its classification into literature written in the Church Slavic language and that written in vernacular Serbian into old and new) had a decisive influence on the views expressed in historiography surveys of Serbian literature not only by Kopitar (1810, 1813), but also by the Czech expert on Slavic studies Jozef Dobrovsk (1814). Similarly, the work of Lazar Boji from 1815 - (Pantheon of renowned figures of the Slavic-Serb literature) is yet another oeuvre which has been classified in Serbian literary studies in an ambivalent way: as the first history of Serbian literature, as the first Serbian bio-bibliography, as the first book of essays among the Serbs, etc. Boji, who was a student of the Seminary in Sremski Karlovci, attended in his final years of schooling (18121813), lecutres on Serbian literature by Lukijan Muicki, which he incorporated into his survey of writers of the Age of Enlightenment. It is on the example
jovan.pejcic@gmail.com
82 | Jovan Peji
of Bojis book that the views or contemporary Serbian historians of literature on the inception of literary history as a separate academic discipline are being reassessed and debated. Keywords: Serbian literature, birth of historiography of Serbian literature, models of historical studying of literature, periodization, Dositej Obradovi, Lukijan Musicki, Jernej Kopitar, Josef Dobrovsk, Lazar Boji, Pavle Solari, the Serbs literal and historical comprehension2
1.
In principle, every issue concerning genesis is in itself complex and, according to a rule that is regularly acknowledged, but generally applied in different ways, depending on the familiarity with the subject, the perspective and the gift for inference bound to be controversial. In spiritual matters, this problem is more intricate than in exact sciences. In literary studies in studies of art, the problem is ever more evident than in other disciplines. This is also the case with Serbian literature studies. The emergence of the earliest forms of literary criticism, i.e. the original forms of historical studies and synthetic representation of national literature, is characterized by a vagueness in defining the subject that, in its quest for the root of the matter, has been changing angles and redefining spiritual and time limits. The findings concerning the inception and the development of Serbian literary criticism3 and esthetics4 have repeatedly been seen in their historical context and reconsidered while the history of Serbian literature is still to be written.5 How were the issues concerning the corpus and identity of Serbian literature,6 its domain
2
Ovaj rad je nastao u okviru projekta Knjievnost i istorija (evidencioni broj: 148025) finansiranog od strane Ministarstva prosvete i nauke Republike Srbije. Projekat se realizuje u saradnji Filozofskog fakulteta u Niu sa Centrom za nauna istraivanja SANU i Univerzitetom u Niu (This paper has been elaborated within the framework of the Literature and History Project [148025] funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia).
3 4
Dragia ivkovi, Poeci srpske knjievne kritike (18171860), Belgrade 1957.
Dragan M. Jeremi, Estetika kod Srba. Od srednjeg veka do Svetozara Markovia, Belgrade 1989; Milan Rankovi, Istorija srpske estetike, Belgrade 1998.
5 Nevertheless, a brief and quite systematic survey of Serbian literary historiography was developed by Jovan Dereti in his book Put srpske knjievnosti (Belgrade 1996), the key issues of which are identities, limits, tendencies in Serbian literature. The chapter entitled Serbian literature in the mirror of its history (pp. 5580).
In the year of his most intensive activities concerning the history of Slavic languages and literatures in all dialects (Geschichte der slawischen Sprache und Literatur nach allen Mundarten) was published in Budim in 1826), Pavel J. afarik writes the following to Frantiek Palacki, on 28th Nov 1822: [Georgije] Magaraevi, a professor here, is having a new history published and is also working on a Serbian-La-
The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 83
and periodic classification been resolved in the formative period of Serbian literary historiography? What writings and concepts do the foundations of the tradition of Serbian history of literature rest on?
2.
It appears that the first steps in this direction were made by Dositej Obradovi (1739/401811). In the preface to Etika, the last of his works published in his lifetime (1803), Dositej departs from his basic moralizing tone and ventures to pay homage to the Serbian culture in the Age of Enlightenment. Here is how this passage reads: The first people of glorious and immortal names in all spheres of advanced sciences and humanities in Europe were the Greek people: it awoke to a splendid spring, bloomed into a rich summer glow and reaped a bountiful autumn. Their successors were the Romans, i.e. the Latin people, who gradually enlightened other nations throughout Europe. When, eventually, the Slavic people awakened to a promising dawn, ill-fated Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina and Bulgaria fell into desolate Turkish slavery: since then, freedom, glory and scholarly enlightenment have disappeared from their horizon. Let our dignified and brave people under the wings of the imperial eagle forever cherish the aspirations all sovereign people have in common, which they pursue and respect: science and enlightenment of the mind. In my childhood, I became entranced with several verses by efarovi, which begin like this: The muse bestows sublime words upon us, to gratify the hallowed with praise. Ever since, I have longed to discover that sweet-worded goddess! The name of Zaharija Orfelin will never fall into oblivion with us. Vujanovski, a man of excellence, disseminated so much good among our people let the honor and gratitude be attributed Metropolitan Vidak, for his teaching and guidance. And our Raji such a dear and honorable name! And who is that virtuous man from Arad who, with angelic diligence builds and opens schools for his beloved people, but also establishes such institutions and rules that will, in due time, surely serve as an example to Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Who else could that be but our glorious Tekelija! Major urinac will not be wanting
tin dictionary. But what purpose can that serve before the question of what the term Serbian refers to. We can see how unfortunate all the Slavic peoples around us are (cit. from: ore ivanovi, Georgije Magaraevi /17931830/, Novi Sad 1976. Italic J. P.)
84 | Jovan Peji in our gratitude. The perspicacious Terlaji, whose distinguished Slavic expressiveness is highly appraised, drank from an abundant well. Stojkovi enlightens us in physics, endowing our dispositions with exquisite pieces of writing. The gentle State Councillor Jurii from the Kremlin informs me of having translated a beautiful book on the history of morals from Russian into Serbian and of his intention to send it to me so that I could have it published and that Damjan Rizni had promised to cover all the costs. At this point, it is only right to take a rather long mental journey into the past about two hundred years back. Let our love produce a miracle and resurrect Boidar Podgorianin, who, after the fall of the last Serbian glory Herzegovina commissioned various religious books to be printed by the Venetians and thus preserve both the heritage and the name of his people from ruin with his uprightness and generosity. Rise, oh rise, incarnate and bloom, you dear man by the name of Boidar! Your grateful descendants will not cede your name to oblivionn! Rejoice, oh you serene ancestral gentle soul, for you have not perished! The Boidarevi lineage proudly follows your footsteps Boidar means Theodore. What else are all those exploits and all the above mentioned names but rays of our enlightenment and a celebration a forthcoming dawn, of a long anticipated harbinger of an awakening spring?7
The historical and cultural dimension of Dositejs praise is indisputable. Jovan Dereti, who was the first to highlight the literary and historical importance of this passage,8 concludes quite legitimately that this venture, despite being a far cry form a genuine history of literature, still provides a consummate overview of an entire period.9 The dynamics of Dositejs account is obvious. Had it not been for the name of Boidar Vukovi, whom Dositej apparently perceived as the genuine forerunner of a new understanding of literary culture, it could be inferred that the author casts a light exclusively on contemporaneous figures: Hristofor efarovi, Zaharija Orfelin, Stefan Vujanovski, Jovan Raji, Sava Tekelija, Pavle Julinac, Grigorije Trlaji, Atanasije Stojkovi, Jurii all those were writers, translators and men of letters that lived in the period that directly preceded Dositejs lifetime or were indeed his contemporaries. The emphasis he places on their specific accomplishments, their quality and their
7 Dositej Obradovi, Etika (1803), Sabrana dela, knj. II (ed. uro Gavela / Jelena auli), Belgrade 1961, pp. 414416. 8 See J. Dereti, Kada poinje nova srpska knjievnost, Conference of experts in Slavonic studies during the Days of Vuk Karadi (Belgrade), 17/4 (1988), P. 157. 9
Put srpske knjievnosti, p. 58.
bearing on the development of spiritual creativity among the Serbs in the eighteenth century is rather vague and conventional but nevertheless, later developments and studies will confirm the scale of values applied by Dositej Obradovi.
3.
Pavle Solari (17791821) is the second in a diachronic sequence of Serbian writers with pretensions to literary history. Moreover, his publication i - i /1810/ (Librarian survey of Slavic Serbian publications in Venice) was perceived, and is still occasionally seen a the first written document that could be classified in the rubric of literary historiography,10 as its inception.11 On the other hand, Pominak has for long been considered to be the first Serbian printed bibliography, 12 and even as the first Serbian book catalogue on the market.13 Finally, Solaris work is taken as a singular program for the preservation of the national identity of the Serbs (dispersed among the Turks, Vlahs, Hungarians, Slavonians, Croats and Dalmatians).14 The publication itself consists of two parts. The first part is more voluminous due to a lengthy preface, whereas the second contains a bibliographic description of Serbian and Illyrian books in Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabets (72 titles), published in Venice between 1638 and 1810 by Dimitrije Teodosije and his heir, publisher Pane Teodosije. Ever since his book came out, Solaris work has been the subject of great controversy concerning the nature of its genre. The preface has given rise to disputes. However, in the preface, Solari recounts the history of printing books in Serbian, and not on Serbian literature. Therefore, because of its contents, Pominak does not, strictly speaking, fit into the concept of the term of literary studies and should not
10 11 12
J. Dereti, ibid. Vaso Milinevi, Pavle Solari lik u senci, Osvetljavanja i suoavanja, Belgrade, 2007, p. 77.
Lazar uri, , Bibliotekar, XXXI/4 (1976), pp. 308324; Duan Pankovi, Srpske bibliografije 17661850, Belgrade 1982, pp. 2025.
13
Nikola Andri, ivot i knjievni rad Pavla Solaria, Rad JAZU, b. 150, Zagreb 1902, p. 157; Miroslav Panti, tampar starih srpskih knjiga Dimitrije Teodosije, Prilozi za knjievnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor (Belgrade), b. XXVI (1960), pp. 206236; Dragia ivkovi, Poeci srpske knjievne kritike, Belgrade 1957, p. 62; Petar Milosavljevi, Uvod u srbistiku, Belgrade 2003, pp. 138139.
14
Duan Ivani, Knjievnost Srpske Krajine, Belgrade 1998, p. 50.
86 | Jovan Peji
be understood as such. It is simply a treatise on printing15 permeated by a Dositeiean spirit and nothing more than that. 3.1. However, another text by Solari doubtlessly belongs to the corpus of Serbian literary studies. It is an article entitled Views on the Illyrian language and literature published in 1820 in Italian which was immediately followed by a Serbian translation by Jefta Popovi in the Serbian newspaper Novine srbske in Vienna.16 This article is said to be the first concise survey of our literature,17 i.e. that ideas about the Illyrian standard language and contemporary literature in that language (actually, of the literature written in the tokavian dialect) were expressed for the first time in a systematic form.18 Solari dedicates half of the article to the nature, the genesis and the area where the Serbian language (as he says, the Illyrian, i.e. Serbian language19) is spoken. The second part contains a description of the difficult situation the Serbian culture and educational institutions are in, which, in addition to historical misfortunes, is aggravated by religious divides: What the Illyrians of Greek denomination write, the Illyrians of Roman denomination cannot read. Likewise, they do not read the works of western writers. Clearly, this ignorance derives from religious differences and even more so, differences between their alphabets are the sole reason for that.20 Afterwards, Solari shifts the subject to literature, emphasizing a twofold difference from the start. The first difference lies in the religious key and in the alphabet: he draws a difference between Orthodox and Catholic writers. Furthermore, he divides Serbian writers of eastern religion into those who write in Church Slavic and those who write in the vernacular. He sees Jovan Raji (whose History... and among
15 16
D. Pankovi, cited above, p. 24.
Solaris work was printed in the magazine Srbistika (Pritina), II/121 (1999), pp. 311317. It was edited by Vera Milosavljevi, who also wrote an accompanying commentary (pp. 307311). Miroslav Panti believes that the co-authors of this article were Solari and Ivan Kreljanovi Albinoni (Solari, Kreljanovi, Apendini, Prilozi za knjievnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor, b.XXIII/12/1957, pp. 2242; Dragia ivkovi is more reserved on this subject; in his opinion, the article was written by Solari, probably in cooperation with Ivan Kreljanovi-Albinoni, a writer from Zadar (Poeci srpske knjievne kritike, p. 112): Vaso Milinevi merely remarks that Solaris ideas are dominant in the above mentioned article (Pavle Solari lik u senci, p. 78).
17 18 19 20
D. ivkovi, Poeci knjievne kritike, p. 113. D. Ivani, Knjievnost Srpske Krajine, p. 50. P. Solari, Pogledi na jezik i knjiestvo iliresko, p. 312. Ibid., p. 314.
his poetic works, The Tragedy of King Uro is particularly praised) and Avram Mrazovi as a grammarian.21 The second group consists of writers who use in their books the new plain Illyrian language: Dositej Obradovi, Grigorije Trlaji and Vuk Karadi. He refers to the small oeuvres of Trlaji as being clear in style and beautiful; the works by Dositej are extolled as most commendable, emphasizing the fact that they laid the foundations of a new Illyrian literature; he sets apart Vuks Grammar and Dictionary (1818), ending his evaluation with a praise for Vuks compilation of poems by Illyrian poets: They would not be met with less admiration than the Caledonian poems should a translator equal to Cesaroti be found.22 He sees Andrija Kai Mioi, whose heroic poems he praises and Ivan Gunduli and his lauded masterpiece Osmanida of the Gondola, heroic poetry23, as the two major representatives of the writers of Western Illyrian religion using the Latin alphabet. The review ends with an etymological study of the word Slav.
4.
Pominak knjieski (Literary Compendium) by Pavle Solari, which was printed in 1810 and his Views on the Illyrian Language and Literature, which came out in 1820, highlight the period seen as the crucial decade of Serbian literature24. That decade was marked by the following accomplishments: the publication of the first compilations of folk poetry; the creation of the new orthography, the first grammar and the first colloquial Serbian dictionary; critique in its original sense; the first compilation of romantic poetry; the start of The Serbian Gazette; the first secular theater performance; publishing works with an unprecedented quality, genuinely pertaining to the domain of literary studies25 The latest in the above mentioned sequence of events is also the most important: Lazar Boji (17911859), A first year student in Philosophy at the University of Pest, had the first volume of his - -
21 22 23 24
Ibid. Ibid., p. 315. Ibid.
Vaso Milinevi, Prelomna decenija srpske knjievnosti /18101820/ (1974), Tvorci i tumai, Belgrade 1984, pp. 934.
25
Ibid., p. 33.
88 | Jovan Peji
(Pantheon of renowned figures of the Slavic-Serb literature) published in 1815.26 This work was composed with meticulous care: it begins with a dedication to his tutor with whose guidance he had spent seven years, which ends with the authors warm wishes for his long life and progress in his studies. It is followed by a preface, which contains Bojis explanation of his intention to follow the example of ancient Greeks and Romans as well as the contemporary English, French and Germans and to erect a monument to the most meritorious Serbian writers of the Age of Enlightenment: The best way to express our gratitude to them is by knowing their names, revering them, cherishing their memory and reading their works.27 More significant than the preface is the chapter On Letters or Literature, which is primarily due to the fact that it contains Bojis appreciation of the cultural and literary accomplishments of the Serbs in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, in a manner that was in tune with the critics and historians of his time: It is my intention here to talk about literature: Time has come to contemplate this subject thoroughly. It is humble and outstanding at the same time. Bearing in mind the time when our enlightenment began, our literature is outstanding; however, in view of the fact that this is the nineteenth century (!) then, comparing to the literatures of other, more educated nations, it is humble indeed. Its humbleness can be explained by its fledgling emergence. Yet it is outstanding owing to the diligence of our writers, who have invested a tremendous effort into literary ventures since the very beginning of that period of enlightenment, in order to establish and promote our Literature.28 Boji proceeds with an analysis of the entire Serbian literature, which in his opinion, encompasses the period between archbishop Danilo of Pe to metropolitan Stefan Stratimirovi. This statement is immediately followed by what he calls a classification by Jozef Dobrovsk into old and new Serbian literature, which will be elaborated later. At the end of the chapter, the author provides a survey of Serbian
26 The place of the publication of this piece has not been definitely established. Pest, Budim and Vienna are cited (judging by the letter clich, it is considered that it was printed at Johan Schnirers in Vienna, who also printed Davidovis Serbian Gazette /D. Pankovi, Srpske bibliografije, 26/). 27
- , I . . 1815, no pagination. Further in the text, I will be referring to the photoprint edition of Bojis work, edited in Novi Sad in 1994 by Mirjana D. Stefanovi. According to the pagination established by M. D. Stefanovi in this issue, the cited quotation is on p. [75]. (All further references will be: Pamjatnik, and quotations will be from this edition.)
28
Pamjatnik, pp. [82][83].
writers of both periods; in two rubrics, he lists 103 names in alphabetical order (A: deceased 37; B: living 66).29 The main body of the book consists of biographies of the writers from the Age of Enlightenment with lists of their printed works and, partly, of their manuscripts. Those are: Jovan Raji, Dositej Obradovi, Grigorije Trlaji and Atanasije Stojkovi30 all of whom were writers from the territory of north of the Danube and the Sava, Austrian citizens and of Orthodox faith. Their biographies are presented according to a three part pattern: the chronology of their lives permeated with character observations their work presented in a simple bibliographical form memories and adulation by the contemporaries. Selected thoughts or verses are introduced into the texts by Virgil (twice), Propercius and Christopher Augustus Tidge. Boji considers Raji to be a renowned historian, the first among the laudable Serbian minds; the subtitle of the part about Dositej is: The Serbian sage; Trlaji is represented mainly as a professor of history and statistics, and Stojkovi as a scientist (and writer of fiction) adorned with numerous awards and titles by Russian and European academies and universities. There are no critical analyses or literary studies. The bottom line of Bojis concept is to present a survey of Serbian eighteenth century literature, science and culture through the life histories of remarkable figures.31 As for the form and procedure, it resembled Classicist biographies,32 although his real models were, in fact, much older. He had become familiar with them during his school days in the Grammar School and in the Seminary of Sremski Karlovci. Thus, we have before us, as far as the typology is concerned, a form of biographical
29 30
Ibid., pp. [86][90].
Under the title of Pamjatnik, it is written Part one. Indicative of the fact that Boji really continued his work is his letter of 14th [16th] August 1833, in which he asks Vuk the following: to let me know your place of birth, your fathers and mothers name, your date of birth, the changes in your life, the date of your wedding and other appropriate information for your biography because I am working on a Catalogue of Serbian writers (Vuk Karadi, Prepiska V: 18331836 /ed. Golub Dobrainovi et al/, SD 24, Belgrade 1989, p. 195). Six years later, in his article Sitnice jezikoslovne (Language observations) he informs the readers of The Almanac of Matica srpska that he intends to have printed a Compilation, that will contain the biographies of Serbian writers in chronological order (XIII /1839/, 102). Boji was neither the first nor the only Serb to write biographies of this type. Before him, Jeftimije Ivanovi published his Novi Plutarh (New Plutarch) (1809). It can be said that the atmosphere in the first part of the nineteenth century was unchanged for the Serbs. Georgije Magaraevi, for example, systematically developed this form of literature; moreover, he introduced a rubric called Biographical notes on famous Serbs as of the very first issue of the almanac for 1825 that he launched. Except for Ivanovi, Boji and Magaraevi, similar biographies were being written by: Mihailo Vitkovi, Muicki, Konstantin Bogdanovi, Platon Atanackovi, Sterija, Vuk
32 See Zoran Konstantinovi, Citati kao kulturoloki metatekst, Intertekstualna komparatistika, Belgrade 2002, p. 45. 31
90 | Jovan Peji
compilation that has been popular in European literature ever since the Hellenistic period, specifically, the type of compilation that was developed by Salustius, Plutarch and Cornelius Nepotus.33 The Serbian Classicism took over the interest in these writers, Plutarch and his simultaneous biographic accounts in particular, not only from ancient Greeks and Romans, but also from old Serbian literature, especially from the lives of Serbian rulers34 which can be seen, for instance, in Novi Plutarh by Jeftimije Ivanovi, who happened to be Bojis professor. However, the genetic addiction35 is not the only question mark hovering over Bojis life stories. The problem of their originality also arises. I have written the biographies, Boji says in his preface, of Jovan Raji and Dositej Obradovi according to German publications, and those of Grigorije Trlaji and Atanasije Stojkovi from oral communication36. As for the text about Raji, it is the translation of an article from Schedius German magazine,37 complemented with a list of Rajis works which he took over from the ode by Lukijan Muicki dedicated to the Serbian historian.38 On the other hand, he took over all data about Dositej from Kopitars biographic and bibliographic article on the first Serbian educator, which was published in 1811 in the Viennese paper Vaterlndische Bltter.39 The origin of the biographical and bibliographical facts that Boji puts forward in the remaining two biographies, which were written based on oral communication has not been established to this day. 4.1. Can - (Pantheon of renowned figures of the Slavic-Serb literature) be seen as the first full-fledged Serbian history of Serbian literature?
33
Miron Flaar, Jovan Raji u Pamjatniku Lazara Bojia, in the compilation Jovan Raji (ed. Marta Frajnd), Belgrade 1997, pp. 280281.
34 See more about the influence of Hellenistic heroic biographies on the literary form of life stories in: Dimitrije Bogdanovi, Istorija stare srpske knjievnosti, Belgrade 1980, pp. 71 and 218; ore Trifunovi, Stara srpska knjievnost osnove, Belgrade 1994, pp. 283 and 295296. 35 36
M. Flaar, cited text, p. 281. Pamjatnik, [p.79].
37 Nikola Radoji established beyond any doubt that the writer of Rajis biography was metropolitan Stefan Stratimirovi (Serbian historian Jovan Raji, SANU, Belgrade 1952, pp. 15916). 38 39
ore S. Kosti, Pavle J. afarik o novoj srpskoj knievnosti, SANU, Belgrade 1988, pp. 4243.
Z. Konstantinovi, cited text, p.46 (At this point, Konstantinovi invokes a research paper by Tomislav Beki); comp. Jernej Kopitar, Dositej Obradovi, Serbica (translated by T. Beki), Novi Sad 1984, pp.115 122.
Scholars have defined the genre of Bojis work in different ways. The first qualifications notes made by Lukijan Muicki on the margins of his manuscript containing the bibliographies of Serbian books dating from 1494 until 1818, besides , [] [],40 and Pavel Jozef afarik in his Geschichte der slawischen Sprache und Literatur nach allen Mundarten (1926), which he places into the rubric History of Literature41 have no genealogical, but merely a bibliographical and catalogue value. Skerli sees Boji as the first biographer of Serbian writers;42 for Svetislav Mari Pamjatnik is a piece of work that recounts the history of literature;43according to Dragia ivkovi, this book pertains to the group of biographical and bibliographical endeavors that are already the first step in establishing the Serbian history of literature.44 Slobodan Komadini sees Boji as the author who established a new genre among the Serbs a bio-bibliography;45 Ivo Tartalja believes that this work bears some characteristics of a historical survey of national literature;46 Magdalena Aneli attaches primary importance to the bibliographical value of Bojis work;47 Miodrag Popovi perceives Pamjatnik as the first history of Serbian literature and Lazar Boji as The first historian of Serbian literature;48 Duan K. Petrovi expresses the view that he has encountered the first Serbian book of essays;49 Vasa Milinevi sees in it the first rudimentary history of literature;50 Pavi, like Skerli, views it as a compilation of literary biographies;51 Jovan Dereti adopts the judgment of D. ivkovi, (mistakenly) relaying the view in all his books that, after Skerlis Pominak knjieski, Bojis booklet represents a step forward in the
40 41
The archives of SANU, iss. 252.
Comp. P. J. afarik, Istorija srpske knjievnosti (translated by M.D. Stefanovi / Milan Mrazovi), Belgrade / Novi Sad 2004, p.299.
42 43 44 45
Srpska knjievnost u XVIII veku (1909), Sabrana dela, knj. 11, Beograd 1966, p. 239. Da li je Stojkoviev Kandor roman? (1950), Odabrani spisi, Novi Sad 1979, p. 107. Poeci srpske knjievne kritike (18171860), Belgrade 1957, p. 63.
Poeci srpske bibliografije, in the compilation Deset godina Bibliografskog instituta FNRJ (19481958), Belgrade 1958, p. 305.
46 47
Poeci rada na istoriji opte knjievnosti kod Srba, SANU, Belgrade 1964, p. 26.
Lazar Boji prvi srpski bibliograf, Prilozi za knjievnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor, XXXIV/34 (1968), pp. 291298.
48 49
Istorija srpske knjievnost Romantizam, 1, Belgrade 1968, p. 332; II: Belgrade 1972, pp. 29 and 276.
Lazar Boji, pisac prve knjige eseja u srpskoj knjievnosti, Zbornik Matice srpske za knjievnost i jezik (Novi Sad), XIX/3 (1971), pp. 567568.
50 51
Prelomna decenija srpske knjievnosti /18101820/ (1974), Tvorci i tumai, p. 33.
Istorija srpske knjievnosti klasicizma i predromantizma. Klasicizam, Belgrade 1979, p. 505. Pavi goes on to say that Bojis texts pertain to the so-called biographies of antiquarian type (p. 506)
92 | Jovan Peji
history of literature;52 finally, according to Nenad Ljubinkovi, Pamjatnik is a piece that can conditionally be perceived as part of the history of literature.53 An interesting point of view in this respect is presented by Duan Pankovi. For him, Pamjatnik seems at first closer to a history of literature than to a bibliography54. Later on he refers to it as a writers biography with properties of essayistic prose encompassing several Serbian writers and bibliographies of their literary works. Therefore, it contains all the characteristic features of a good history of literature.55 In a third reference to Pamjatnik, he concludes that Boji is not recording history, but rather engaging in parallel in the writing of a history and a bibliography,56 and defines it as a history of literature that has not yet gained full autonomy from a bibliography,57 and finally, in the subtitle under the facsimile of the cover of Bojis volume, he decides to designate it as: The first history of Serbian literature.58 4.2. The former evaluation of Miodrag Popovi and the ultimate estimation of Duan Pankovi were established by Mirjana D. Stefanovi in a voluminous introductory study to the photo print edition of Pamjatnik as the best founded definitions and she proceeded to textually and theoretically validate them against repeatedly verified historical material. Having concluded her research, she put forward a firm judgment that: Bojis book can now justifiably be defined as a history of literature due to the fact that it possesses the fundamental qualities of this type of research, presenting the writers in chronological order, describing their lives, enumerating their works and, occasionally, expressing his personal views on them.59
52
Preface Poeci srpske knjievne kritike (1979), p. 15; Istorija srpske knjievnosti, Belgrade 1983, p. 262, Beograd 2002, p. 554; Put srpske knjievnosti, p. 58.
53 Koncepcije istorija knjievnosti srpskohrvatskog jezikog podruja u devetnaestom veku (od Lazara Bojia do ure urmina), Nauni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane (Belgrade), 9 (1980), p. 220. 54 55 56 57 58 59
Srpske bibliografije 17661850, p. 5. Ibid., p. 10. Ibid., p. 109. Ibid., p. 112 (italic D. P.) Ibid., p. 132. [Uvodna studija], p. 59.
Admittedly, the path that led Mirjana D. Stefanovi to such a conclusion is strewn with manifold methodological and theoretical concessions.60 Her resorting to the so-called indirect proofs reveals an incompleteness of argumentation. The central proof is achieved by drawing similarities between Miodrag Popovi and Lazar Boji in their respective approaches to history of literature, Istorija srpske knjievnosti Romantizam, IIII61 and Pamjatnik: Through the lives and works of writers, both books depict an epoch Lazar Boji is concerned with Enlightenment, and Miodrag Popovi with Romanticism. They apply the same method in the treatment of the subject, a literary historical method combined with the autobiographical method and using a similar style in the descriptions of writers, their lives and works.62 This comparison was labeled as indisputable because both books were, obviously, made after the same model.63 This can be taken for granted as seen on the surface. However, any deeper observation reveals a multitude of irreconcilable differences. It suffices to invoke the introductory synthetic historical chapters Popovi wrote to each of his books, and also the chronicles that envision Serbian Romanticism within a European and global literary context and, ultimately, of the bibliographies that accompany each one of the volumes. Still, the most remarkable difference is reflected in what every historian of Romanticism constantly bears in mind, unlike Boji, who never does so: the fact that in Popovi book the piece of literature and its esthetic scope are placed in the center of his research and in the center of its struc-
60
On a primary plane, those are conditional and relativist terms she invokes all too often in formulating the problem, such as it seems, probably, within the domain of guesswork, basically, surprising, self-explanatory and clear-cut, feels no need to, occasionally, perhaps. On a higher plane, that of generalizations and assessment, it looks, for example, like this: The author of Pamjatnik takes the idea of Enlightenment as a self-explanatory and clear concept. Therefore, in accordance with an attitude thus expressed, she feels the need to provide a more detailed description of the characteristics of the epoch she depicts thorough the works of four writers. That is probably the reason why she does not define each of the writers she describes in relation to time, but rather by relying on their biographies and works (5758). However, this conclusion is preceded by the following assertion: The literary works of these authors [Raji, Dositej, Trlaji and Stojkovi J. P.] served him [Boji] as part of a greater structure that is not merely made up of the literature of one people, the Serbian people, but of an entire epoch. It is exactly in such terms and in this light that the concept of the history of literature is, basically, defined. (p. 53).
61 62 63
Belgrade: I 1969, IIIII 1972. Ibid., pp. 5859. Petar Milosavljevi, Sistem srpske knjievnosti (1996), Belgrade 2000, p. 81.
94 | Jovan Peji
ture.64 Unlike Boji, who was a biographer and a bibliographer, Miodrag Popovi was an analyst, a commentator and an axiology expert. All in all, the views expressed by Mirjana D. Stefanovi have been assessed in a twofold manner. They were considered as accurate and definite by Nikola Grdini,65 Lazar uri,66 Milan Mrazovi67 and Zoran Konstantinovi.68 Some reservations, which I consider to be justifiable, were expressed by Miron Flaar,69 Petar Milosavljevi70 and Tatjana Pivniki-Drini.71
5.
At this point, let us look into the first periodical classification of Serbian literature: [Serbian] literature is divided into... old and new as Lazar Boji wrote in 1815.72 This classification of Serbian literature into two main periods is considered to be one of the most praised accomplishments of Lazar Boji in the eyes of Serbian literary historiographers. Mirjana D. Stefanovi highlights that: Lazar Boji deserves special attention in any discussion about the researchers into Serbian literature due to the very fact that he was the first to have published a classification of Serbian literature in his mother tongue.73 She primarily has in mind Jovan Dereti and his stance expressed as early as 1983 in his History of Serbian Literature. Bojis classifi-
64
Nikolaj Timenko, as part of a round table discussion on Popovis first book of the history of Serbian Romanticism see Problem prouavanja srpskog romantizma, Knjievna istorija (Belgrade), 1/3 (1969), pp. 682683.
65 66 67
N. Grdini, Prva srpska istorija knjievnosti, Dometi (Sombor), XXI/7677 (1994), p. 74. L. uri, Poeci istorije srpske knjievnosti, Dometi, XXI/7677 (1994), p. 79.
M. Mrazovi, afarikovo shvatanje knjievne istorije, in the compilation Pavel Jozef afarik /1795 1995/ (ed. M. D. Stefanovi / Mihal Harpanj), Novi Sad 1996, p. 114.
68 Z. Konstantinovi, Citati kao kulturoloki metatekst. Uz interstrukturalnu analizu prve istorije srpske knjievnosti, Prilozi za knjievnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor, b. LXVLXVI/14 (2001), p. 39. (Z. Konstantinovi used the same text in his book Intertekstualna komparatistika, pp. 4053). 69 70
M. Flaar, cited text, p. 277. P. Milosavljevi, Teorija knjievnosti (1997), Valjevo / Istok 2006, p. 330; Uvod u srbistiku (2002), Belgrade T. Pivniki-Drini, Boji, Lazar, in: Srpski biografski renik, 1, Novi Sad 2005, p. 678. L. Boji, O knjiestvu ili literaturi Pamjatnik, [85]. M. D. Stefanovi, [Uvodna studija], p. 25.
22003, p. 138. 71 72 73
cation into old and new literature, as Dereti points out here, will remain the basic classification in the history of Serbian literature.74 However, Jovan Dereti referred to Lazar Boji and his Pamjatnik, including the classification of Serbian literature that is elaborated there, on several occasions and differently. For the first time in the preface to the chrestomathy The Origins of Serbian Literary Criticism, published four years before The History of Serbian Literature; among other things, he also refers to Bojis introduction entitled On writings or literature as containing the first attempt of periodization of Serbian literature.75 Two years after the History, referring the dramatic events related to writing it, Dereti published a tract dedicated to the problem of periodization of Serbian literature,76 in which he deliberates solely about the classifications made by Stojan Novakovi and Jovan Skerli, as the only two complete models of periodization;77 Bojis thorough classification, which he could have mentioned in the least when referring to Novakovis History of Serbian Literature, is entirely ignored. On the other hand, in his treatise Serbian Literature in the mirror of its History, his fundamental work on Serbian literary historiography printed thirteen years after the History, Dereti could not possibly have overlooked Boji, although he does not reiterate his opinion expressed in the History, but returns to his original stance that, when it comes to classifications of Serbian literature, Pamjatnik also contains the first attempt to define its periods.78 But this is not yet the end. In 2002, Dereti published a considerably altered and almost twice as voluminous History of Serbian Literature;79 although the author revised most of the areas of Serbian literature, as well as his texts about the writers, critics and historians of literature, the part about Lazar Boji remained unchanged.80
J. Dereti, Istorija srpske knjievnosti, Belgrade 1983, p. 282. In concise editions of his History, entitled Kratka istorija srpske knjievnosti (Belgrade 1987, Novi Sad 2001, 22007; this second and more comprehensive edition should be considered to be more relevant), Dereti does not make any mention of Boji or of his classification.
75 See Poeci srpske knjievne kritike (ed. J. Dereti), Srpska knjievna kritika, b. 1, Novi Sad / Belgrade 1979, p. 16. 76 77 78 79
74
J. Dereti, Periodizacija srpske knjievnosti, Knjievna istorija, XVIII/6970 (1985), 314. Ibid., p. 4. J. Dereti, Put srpske knjievnosti, Belgrade 1996, p. 59.
J. Dereti, Istorija srpske knjievnosti, Belgrade 2002, 1287 pages. The editors note contains the following remark: In a state of deteriorating health, professor Jovan Dereti submitted to Prosveta a CD containing the text of his considerably expanded and altered History of Serbian Literature. [...] Unfortunately, he did not live to see the layout of his text and possibly to conduct and approve final corrections (p. 1231). Jovan Dereti died in 2001.
80
Ibid., p. 554.
96 | Jovan Peji
Despite the fact that Mirjana D. Stefanovi ignores Deretis hesitancies and the imprecision of his formulations, she is cautious concerning the source of classification that was introduced into the Serbian historiography by Lazar Boji. Let us be reminded of what she says about Boji: the first one to have published a classification of Serbian literature in his mother tongue.81 The reservation in his mother tongue implies a reference to a foreign language and origin of this classification. When Boji is in question, there is no leeway for any mystification. He straightforwardly stated that he accepted the classification of Serbian literature into old and new from Dobrovsk.82
6.
The Czech Jozef Dobrovsk (17531829) the father of Slavic philology, the patriarch of Slavic studies, as he was referred to among scholars was the first in the Slavic world to have addressed Serbian issues in his academic treatises. In the magazine Slavn (The Slav), which was conceived in 1806 and printed in the German language in Prague in 1908, Dobrovsk appeared as the author of two separate articles on Serbian literature: he wrote about the works of Jovan Raji and about the Grammar book by Avram Mrazovi; as an appendix to the above mentioned texts, he published an alphabet table and a letter which he had received from Atanasije Stojkovi, containing answers to contemporary linguistic issues.83 In 1814, Dobrovsk launched a second magazine that was conceived as a collection of works Slovanka. Two issues of this publication came out (the second was published in 1815). The first issue is significant. The Czech expert in Slavic Studies placed all the contributions about Serbian writers and oeuvres in the Slovanka under the common heading of Serbica84 which may have been its first use referring to the area of philological study of Serbian issues, i.e. Serbian Studies.85 The opening text in the
81
At another point, she wrote: according to his classification, or at least the classification that he adopted (M. D. Stefanovi, [Uvodna studija], pp. 5657).
82 83
Pamjatnik, [85].
In his note about the letter, Dobrovsk says the following about Stojkovi: my friend from Harkov, who is by birth a Serb from Hungary (quote after: Nada orevi, Jozef Dobrovsk, Srpskohrvatska narodna knjievnost kod eha, Novi Sad 1985, p. 15)
84 85
Slovanka (Prague), I (1814), pp. 210223. See Petar Milosavljevi, Uvod u srbistiku, p. 146.
rubric is of utmost importance for us. Dobrovsk presented it in the form of a historical survey of Serbian literature in which he introduced its classification that Boji will rely upon later.86 Here is a typical passage: Die ltere servische Literatur kann man mit Georg Brankowi, der eine Geschichte von Servien in 5 Bchern schrieb, zglich schliessen. In der neuern that sich seit 1764 vor andern Orfelin und bald darauf Obradowi hervor. Die neueste hebt mit diesem Jahrhundert an.87 [It can be said that the older Serbian literature rounds off with ore Brankovi, who wrote a history of the Serbs in five volumes. The most prominent figures of the newer period of Serbian literature are, as of 1764, Orfelin, followed immediately by Obradovi. The latest period begins with this century.]88 This is the only point in Dobrovsks works that can be related to Bojis classification. Mirjana D. Stefanovi whose attempt to establish precisely the origins of Bojis periodical classification of Serbian literature was a pioneer venture, examined the texts by the Czech scholar referring to Serbian literature in Slavin and Slovanka I and II and emphasizes the fact that: This article of Dobrovsks does not contain a classification of Serbian literature [...]89
86
This text by Dobrovsk has not been translated or published in its original form so far here. Serbian literary historians and experts in comparative studies of literature have merely pointed to its content (see, for example, Jovan Skerli, Srpska knjievnost u XVIII veku /1909; ed. Mira Kiovi/, Sabrana dela 9, Belgrade 1966, p. 222; Pavle Popovi, Dobrovsk i srpska knjievnost /1929/, Knjievna kritika Knjievna istoriografija /ed. Miroslav Panti/, Sabrana dela 10, Belgrade 2002, p. 43; Nada orevi, Doprinos Jozefa Dobrovskog upoznavanju Evrope s naom kulturnom tradicijom, Zbornik Matice srpske za slavistiku /Novi Sad/, 4/1973, p. 15; N. orevi, Jozef Dobrovski, Srpskohrvatska narodna knjievnost kod eha, p. 16). The quotation from Dobrovsk is taken from M.D. Stefanovi (comp. Uvodna studija in: Pamjatnik, p. 34, note 86 /italic J. P./). M.D. Stefanovi introduces Dobrovsk in her treatise in the following way: Having remarked another possibility, that being that Lazar Boji may have written the introduction to his book after he had finished writing the book itself, therefore towards the end of 1814 or in the beginning of 1815, I have inspected the magazine Slovanka, publisher Jozef Dobrovsk, for the year 1814 (Ibid.). The formulation allows space for the presumption that Boji may not have read Slovanka I. However, this is beyond any doubt. For example, in his text on Atanasije Stojkovi, Dobrovsk is mentioned at least twice: in one place, at one point, Boji himself invokes Dobrovsk (Pamjatnik, [p. 188], and at another, with no reference to the source, he quotes from Slovanka I Dobrovsks opinion on Stojkovis style (Pamjatnik, [p. 179]; this parallel was discovered and the opinions were compared by Pavle Popovi, Milovan Vidakovi, Sabrana dela 7, Belgrade 2000, p. 162).
88 89 87
Transl. ore S. Kosti (italic J. P.).
M. D. Stefanovi, Uvodna studija, p. 34, quote 86. Thus, the author questions whether Dobrovsk ever carried out a classification of Serbian literature in the sense in which Boji did. However, further in her treatise, she unequivocally refers to the source of Bojis classification as to an indisputable fait accompli: Having adopted the classification of Serbian literature from Jozef Dobrovsk, probably including some names into his list of writers, he [Boji] undertook his writing venture... (p. 53).
98 | Jovan Peji
This is how Boji puts it: The old literature comprises the works of Archbishop Danilo [...] and Despot Georgije Brankovi, who wrote a five-volume History of Slavic Serbs. However, the New period begins with Orfelin and continues uninterruptedly to this day.90 In all likelihood, Boji could have derived the above mentioned classification from the quoted text, with minor terminological alterations (namely, Dobrovsk uses the terms older, newer and the most recent ltere, neuern, neueste) emphasizing the distinction between the periods much more firmly and distinctively. Dobrovsk had yet another advantage over all other foreign researchers of his time, that being the fact that his knowledge of Serbian literature was the best and the most detailed:91 He was familiar with the works of Jovan Raji as of 1793; furthermore, he had studied the life of Dositej Obradovi early on; his correspondence with Atanasije Stojkovi had been going on since 1805; his exchanges with Jernej Kopitar on Serbian issues began in 1808; as of 1809, he observed the work and was being informed about the Lukijan Muicki and his views on cultural history and literature... 92
7.
Lukijan Muicki is, indeed, the figure who binds, in a peculiar manner, Boji and Dobrovsk. Muicki met Jernej Kopitar in Vienna in late 1808 or early 1809. Their encounter coincided with the period when Muicki was absorbed in data collecting and working on an expert survey of the entire Serbian cultural activity, in order to produce an all-encompassing study of all the Serbian cultural activities, which was to be a Serbia docta93 In his letter to Dobrovsk of April 7th 1809, Kopitar gives his tutor
90 91 92 93
Pamjatnik, [p. 85]. N. orevi, cited text, p. 17. P. Popovi, Dobrovski i srpska knjievnost, pp. 4142.
Vladimir orovi, Lukijan Muicki. A study in Serbian literature (ed. Mirjana D. Stefanovi), Novi Sad 1999, p. 46. This is orovis doctoral dissertation, which he defended in Vienna in 1908 and which was first published in Serbian in Letopis Matice srpske in 1911 (LXXXVII, book 276283-284, n IVXIXII).
in linguistic and literary issues a detailed description of Muicki94 and mentions his current work on Servia docta, which, he adds, could be printed in Pest.95 Kopitar reiterates what he wrote to Dobrovsk in his article on Serbian literature in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which was published in two sequels in 1811 in the Viennese paper Vaterlndische Bltter: We are told (it has been two years already) that in Karlovci, Archdeacon Lukijan Muicki has been working on a Slavic or Serbian history of literature. We are looking forward to its appearance.96 It seems that Dobrovsks wish to meet Muicki did not come true97 at least, his letter to Kopitar of January 1st 181098 suggests it. However, Muicki was in no haste to write to Kopitar.99 He eventually contacted him in late October 1811, sen94 95 96
P. Popovi, cited text, p. 42. Milorad Pavi, Raanje nove srpske knjievnosti, Belgrade 1983, p. 370.
Jernej Kopitar, Prilozi pregledu srpske literature u Austrijskom carstvu, Serbica (transl. Tomislav Beki), Novi sad 1984, p. 127.
97
However, Muicki highly appreciated Dobrovsk. The degree of his esteem can be inferred from his letter to Vuk Karadi of April 17th 1817, where he talks of his intention, which has been long-standing to put together a Serbian Pantheon which would contain not only the portraits of famous Serbs but also of those who have made particularly meritorious contributions to the Serbian literature, and Dobrovsk would be among them (Vuk Stefanovi Karadi, Prepiska I /18111821/, ed. Golub Dobrainovi et al, Sabrana dela X, Belgrade 1988, p. 412.)
98 Muicki has not written to me, says Dobrovsk in his letter to Kopitar (according to Popovi, cited text, p. 42.)
The reason for certain reservations that Lukijan had about the Slovenian scholar may lie in Kopitars article Patriotische Phantasiern eines Slaven (printed on June 5th 1810 in the paper Vaterlndische Bltter), where, Besides Dositej, he elaborates on Emanuil Jankovi, Pavle Solari and Atanasije Stojkovi, and, although it appeared in the section entitled The Literature of Greek Slav Serbs, he concludes it by a proposal to the Austrian Empire administration to establish a department for the Old Slavic language at Vienna University, because in his opinion this language ought to be studied right there, as Austria should not let those studies fall into the Russians dirty hands. In order to ultimately justify his proposal, Kopitar puts forward the example of the Serbs: The two or three million Serbs (Illyrians) who have moved here from Turkey in the course of time, would only become fully aware of the benefices of the Austrian supreme rule after a convincing proof of respect for what they cherish most, their precious language. Psychological obstacle ought to be overcome by psychological antidotes, and a loving treatment will engender love in return. Otherwise, it is well known that the other Turkish Serbs, who are still fighting for their freedom, are looking yearningly, due to the similarity of their languages and faith, at the remote North. (J. Kopitar, Patriotske fantazije jednog Slovena, Serbica, pp. 6577, see esp. p. 72 and pp. 7677; see in the same book Kopitars article Prilozi pregledu srpske literature u Austrijskom carstvu /1811/, esp. pp. 126128. Having reconsidered, in his monumental monograph ivot i rad Vuka Stefanovia Karadia (1924), Kopitars participation in Vuks work (where he also dwells upon the correspondence KopitarMuicki), Ljubomir Stojanovi arrives at the following conclusion: In view of all the aforesaid, I believe that it is clear that Kopitar, apart from his pure research and activities on the cultural progress of Serbs, also had a latent intention to politically estrange the Serbs from the Russians.
99
100 | Jovan Peji
ding him plenty of news on Serbian literature and his works100 Kopitar forwarded to Prague everything he received, for which Dobrovsk expressed his gratitude in a letter of February 22nd 1812, insisting that: Correspondence with Muicki was of great interest for me.101 A year later, in 1813, Kopitar asked Muicki surely not without prior consultation with Dobrovsk, and well aware of Lukijans interest for cultural history and his expertise in this field to prepare a brief survey of Serbian literature for the Viennese Wiener Literaturzeitung, where he was editor of the section dedicated to Slavic peoples and their cultures. That would be an adornment of our Literaturzeitung, and all European papers would reprint it.102 Muicki did not accept the proposal. Kopitar continued insisting. With a persistence that was not lacking in flattery, he continued his persuasion: Criticism should not be a cumbersome task for you, a master artist and man of letters; perhaps it is the concern that you might be exposed to fame as a critic and commentator that holds you back. He even supposed that Muickis reason for refusing to go public as a secular author was his clerical rank and suggested that his work be published under a pseudonym or without signature. It was of no avail.103 The correspondence with Kopitar was, therefore, intermittent, but course did not in the least affect the activities of the priest monk and later archimandrite Lukijan, which he had begun a long time before and which Muicki did not renounce to after 1814, when Dobrovsk published his comprehensive article from a historical perspective on Serbian literature, containing a classification that, as we have established, was said to be nonexistent. 7.1. On the plane of the interests and aspirations from the angle of literary studies, the work of Lukijan Muicki was double tracked one segment was dedicated to history and the other to the bibliography of Serbian literature. At the beginning of the 19th century, these spheres of learning developed in a symbiosis that the philologists and literary historians considered to be only natural: all of them shared the view that the history of literature, for instance, was simply a part of the entire studies of artifacts literacy and culture of a nation or race, which is
(Lj. Stojanovi, Kopitar in the chrestomathy: Stojan Novakovi i filoloka kritika /ed. Boidar Pejovi/, Srpska knjievna kritika 4, Novi Sad / Belgrade 1975, p. 354).
100 101 102 103
V. orovi, cited book, p. 17; P. Popovi, cited text, p. 42. According to P. Popovi, p. 42. According to P. Popovi, p. 47. See more in: V. orovi, cited book, p. 47.
why their research was not limited to belletristic, but included all forms of activity which in any way pictured or reflected the general state of culture, i.e. achievements in geography, medicine, linguistics, theology, philosophy, physics, pedagogy, etc.104 His drafts, notes, rough copies and plans, as well as the bibliography of the Serbian books serve as supportive evidence that the views of Lukijan Muicki never diverged from the governing beliefs in science and culture, typical of the time he lived in. Literary history and bibliografical activities, knowledge about books as he referred to it, were for him, throughout his life, two branches of the same tree the general history of national culture. Muicki spent his whole life working on the Serbian book and literature and still none of his ventures attained the fullness of a completed piece of work. You keep devising plans for progress, reproached Vuk to him, and yet, you do not seem to bring anything to completion.105 He had planned to write a history of Serbian literature, but he did not manage to have his bibliography published that is how Duan Pankovi summed up the bitter truth about Muicki.106 Lukijan Muicki began working in the field of bibliography and literary history (philology in the broadest sense, Serbian studies) relatively early in 1805 and simultaneously. His list of Serbian academic and literary accomplishments and foreign texts concerning the Serbian people were highly appreciated while he was still working on his bibliography.107 The appraisal made at the end of the second decade of the 19th century is still valid nowadays: this is how the most authoritative contemporary expert on Serbian bibliographies and their history assesses the works of Muicki: The manuscript bibliography of Lukijan Muicki remains amazing. [...] Its virtue and genuine strength is in the layout of the bibliographic material:
104 The first histories of literature to be written on the continent of Europe are living proof of that. The same can be seen in the essay by Lazar Boji from Pamjatnik, on Atanasije Stojkovi, for example. All the historical and cultural research into Serbian literature conducted bz Pavel J. afarik rest on the same principles. 105
Prepiska I Vuka Karadia, letter of October 27th 1821. Similar views to Muickis were expressed by Pavel j. afarik in his letter to Jan Kolar of June 28th 1823, he refers to the archimandrite of iatovci in this way: Muicki is only contriving gigantic plans (quotation from: ore ivanovi, Georgije Magaraevi /17931830/, Novi Sad 1976, p. 131.
106 107
D. Pankovi, Srpske bibliogrqfije 17661850, Belgrade 1982, p. 33.
ore Rajkovi preserved one part of Lukijans journal Dnevnik in which the future archimandrite of iatovac quotes the comments made by metropolitan Stefan Stratimirovi about his bibliography: On March 3rd [1810]. Showed the Survey of Serbian Literature to his highness. Wonderful, indeed, God bless you! March 4th. You have erected a monument both to yourself and to learning. (. Rajkovi, Lukijan Muicki i njegov knjievni rad /1879/, Sabrani spisi /ed. Milica Vojinovi/, Novi Sad 1950, p. 107).
102 | Jovan Peji the first and the second volume contain the entire material classified according to professions and Muicki entitled them Serbian Literacy classified according to types; in the third volume, the author classified the material in alphabetical order and entitled it A survey of Serbian literature in alphabetical order; in the fourth volume, all the materials are listed in chronological order, and within this chronology, the authors were listed in alphabetical order. The writer entitled this volume Survey of Serbian literature in chronological order. Cultures with longer traditions or more affluent nations cannot boast of having bibliographies classified so skillfully, both in alphabetical and chronological order. Because of this, Muickis meritorious work is a treasure of our bibliographic studies, and it will be its glory once it is printed. Not only did Muicki classify the entire material in three different ways, but he also highlighted in each of the classifications the chronological and professional characteristics of each unit, which is in itself a unique attempt of cross-sectional classification of bibliographic material.108
Experts believe that the bibliography Muicki left behind was in a form that permitted the printing of the manuscript, in spite of the fact that it was unfinished. However, this is not the case with his literary historical notes. 7.2. The manuscript notes made by Lukijan Muicki cannot be put together as a complete text. They are, more or less, just prefatory notes or reminders, which often no more than list necessary steps to undertake properly in order to get down to serious work. Here is what is contained in the manuscripts that have been preserved: In a tiny 16-page notebook, entitled Serbian writers in alphabetical order, which also bears a date (April 19th 1805), we find only a list of Serbian writers presented in alphabetical order, with their occupations and dates of birth accompanying some names.109 The next manuscript unit on this topic is entitled Periods in Serbian Literature, although it is entirely dedicated to issues related to the Serbian language.110 There is also a document in which Muicki elaborates his intention to write a history of Serbian literature. In this document, he refers to the classification of Serbian literature into three periods: the first period being [from 960] until 1700; the
108
D. Pankovi, cited book, p. 34. Pankovi actually summarizes the article of Georgije Mijailovi Bibliografija Lukijana Muickog (Bibiliotekar /Belgrade/, VIII/12 /1956/, pp. 3239), i.e., he attributes a descriptive approach to Mihajlovis definition of the place and value of Lukijans bibliography, presented in the preface to his major piece Srpska bibliografija XVIII veka (Beograd 1964, XIVXVI). Archives of SANU (Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts), 9240/1. Archives of SANU, 9240/15.
109 110
second period from 1701 until 1800; and the third period after 1801. However, a careful examination of this plan reveals that Muicki reduced his classification into two long period, by moving the initial year of the first period further into the past by 160 years: the first period is taken to last from 801 until 1700, whereas the second period begins in 1701.111 One large sheet contains a list of deceased and living writers entered in alphabetical order, with a note about their professions.112 Another sheet contains a list of Serbian writers from 1741 until 1810, in the chronological order in which they began to write.113 There are also four folio-size leaves, where under the title Survey of Serbian literature in chronological order, he enumerates all the Serbian writers and writings as of 15th century until 1808.114 The last two manuscripts that are of interest to us contain Lukijans drafts of the way in which the history of Serbian literature was to be written. According to the first notebook, the history was conceived as 12 signatures in volume, and was to include in addition to sides writers and their works libraries, bookshops and printing houses of Serbian books.115 The second manuscript is, actually, an extended version of the previous plan. Here, problems related to Lukijans classification of Serbian literature into the old, Slavic literature, which was realized in the language used by the Church and the new, Serbian literature, written in the vernacular, are specified116 Although the scattered manuscript notes by Muicki, burdened with similarities and frequent repetition, cannot be collected to form a coherent study, the development of Serbian literature can be deduced from its contents inasmuch as it represents a basis of the philological and historical classification of Serbian history.117
111 112 113 114 115 116 117
Archives of SANU, 9240/16. Archives of SANU, 9240/25. Archives of SANU, 9240/26. Archives of SANU, 9240/27. Archives of SANU, 9240/29 Archives of SANU, 9240/30
Comp. in this respect the paper by ore S. Kosti Lukijanovo shvatanje istorije knjievnosti, printed in the compilation Manastir iatovac (ed. Dinko Davidov), SANU, Belgrade 1989, pp. 151153, esp. p. 152.
104 | Jovan Peji
8.
Let us, at this point, turn back to Boji and the classification of Serbian literature as it was outlined in his Pamjatnik muem u slaveno-serbskom knjiestvu slavnim. He says that the classification of Serbian literature into old and new was made according to Dobrovsk. However, as can be seen in the research by Mirjana D. Stefanovi, there are no such straightforward divisions with Dorborvsk. Does this mean that the above mentioned classification resulted from independent conclusions and terminological pragmatism of the young disciple Boji (as the author of Pamjatnik is referred to by Pavle Popovi in a single mention),118 or, perhaps, something else? The key to a different solution of this problem could be Bojis education. He initially attended the German school in Stara Pazova, then he was a student of the Grammar School and the Seminary in Sremski Karlovci and eventually, in the period 18141815, he studied philosophy at the University of Pest.119 He was a disciple of the Seminary in Karlovci from 18101812, i.e. during the 1810/11 and 1812/13 school year.120 In the Seminar of Karlovci, Lazar Boji was taught by Lukijan Muicki,121 from whom as Lazar uri rightfully believes he must have heard about the old and the new Serbian literature and about Serbian writers of the old and of the new generation.122 Moreover, he learned about the established rules of classification of writers, one of which was the division into the deceased and the living authors, which Muicki applied in his bibliographical and literary historical ventures.123 Besides teaching, Lukijan was also in charge of the Metropolitan Library, so that Boji was also able to get more closely acquainted with his teachers course of work.
118 P. Popovi, Iz ivota Joakima Vujia (1907), Nova knjievnost I (ed. Predrag Palavestra), SD 5, Belgrade 2000, p. 245. 119
D[uan] K. Petrovi, Boji Lazar, in: Leksikon pisaca Jugoslavije, I (ed. ivojin Bokov), Novi Sad 1972, p. 279; Milorad Mikovi, Vukov osjeki prijatelj Lazar Boji, Revija (Osijek), XXVII/89 (1987), pp. 674675; T[atjana] Pivniki-Drini, Boji, Lazar, in: Srpski biografski renik, 1, Novi Sad 2005, p. 677.
120 121
See Nikola Gavrilovi, Karlovaka bogoslovija (17941920), Sremski Karlovci 1984, p. 194.
Muicki taught at the Seminary of Karlovci from 1803 until 1812 (see ore Muicki, ivotopis Lukijana Muickog, Novi Sad 1879; R[adonja] Vukoslavovi / [ivojin] Bokov, Muicki, Lukijan, in Leksikon pisaca Jugoslavije, IV, Novi Sad 1997, p. 600.
122 123
L. uri, Poeci istorije srpske knjievnosti, Dometi (Sombor), XXI/7677 (1994), p. 77. Comp. Lukijans legacy of manuscripts in the archives of SANU 9240/25.
Given that he so generously shared his views on the development of the Serbian literary culture with Jernej Kopitar (who conveyed them to Dobrovsk), there is no reason to believe that he would have withheld his findings from his students.124 It is therefore my view that Lukijan Muicki served as a multiple source just as he did to Kopitar and Dobrovsk for their articles on Serbian studies125 to Lazar Boji and his Pamjatnik,126 possibly even as the principal source. Mirjana D. Stefanovi wrote, as has been cited above, that the work of Dobrovsk that has been repeatedly mentioned afore does not contain any classification of Serbian literature with a list of writers. As for the list of writers this is beyond any doubt. However, on the other hand, before Bojis book, there had been among Serbs some publications containing certain bibliographical data about certain writers and also list of the most renowned Serbian writers of that time. M. D. Stefanovi mentions the following: Slaveno-serbski magazin by Zaharija Orfelin, a compilation of peoms Kratkoje opisanije o spokojnoj izni by Aleksije Vezili, Slaveno-serbske vjedomosti by
124 On the contrary, the opposite happened. Let me illustrate this by an example: Inspired by Herders ideas, Muicki became interested in the Serbian oral tradition, as we know, as early as in the fist years of the 19th century. This is confirmed by a letter in which he asks Isidor Putnik to write down for him what he knows about the lyrics of our simple folks, [...] what the people sing and recite for their own amusement and prattle (after: M. Pavi, Raanje nove srpske knjievnosti, p. 370). More significantly, Muicki put the same requirement before his students, among whom was, for example, during the 1805/6 school year, Vuk Karadi, which was probably one of the first incentives that Vuk received for his future work, before he got in touch with Kopitar (see more in: Mladen Leskovac, Vuk i Muicki, Iz srpske knjievnosti, I, Novi Sad 1968, pp. 143172; Teodora Petrovi, Lukijan Muicki i naa narodna pesma, Iz istorije srpske knjievnosti, Novi Sad 1974, pp. 155174.) 125
At one moment, Muicki probably changed this attitude to his own work. Namely, in his letter to Jan Kolar of June 23rd 1823, afarik tells him that he is preoccupied collecting the material for his history of the Serbian language and literature, and complains of the fact that Muicki has got everzthing, but one can obtain nothing from him; this nothing, as afarik puts it, is, mildly speaking, not true because in the same letter he continues to say: Otherwise, he is a good man and my friend; but he is a monk. I have glanced into his compilation of [bibliographic] material and found out that the Serbs... (quotations from afariks letter after: Kamenko Suboti, Koje su prilike stvorile afarikovu Istoriju srpske knjievnosti (Letopis Matice srpske, book 186/2 for 1896/1898, p. 45). It seems that Muickis decisions were selective: he allowed insight into and the use of Graa za bibliografiju, na listiima, but kept to himself the manuscript of the systematized and edited bibliography (Mirko Milievi, Pesnik oda prvi srpski bibliograf, Bibliotekarstvo /Sarajevo/, XXI/4 /1975/, p. 62) Comparing afariks Istorija Srpske knjievnosti with Lukijans bibliography in manuscript, D. Pankovi decided that: The archimandrite of iatovci knew more about about older [Serbian] books than afarik 1828 (Istorija srpskih bibliografija, p. 48). According to M. D. Stefanovi (Uvodna studija p. 54), such assumptions remain in the domain of speculation. Moreover, she does not take into consideration the influence of ideas of Lukijan Muicki concerning literary history; she goes as far as allowing that he might have heard of his bibliography, although he did not use it.
126
106 | Jovan Peji
Stefan Novakovi and Pominak knjieski by Pavle Solari.127 Whether Boji was using those publications remains in the realm of conjecture, says M. D. Stefanovi.128 Be it as it may, the fact of the matter is that all the above mentioned authors are cited in Bojis list of writers.129 So is, after all, Lukijan Muicki.
LITERATURE:
Boji, Lazar. Pamjatnik muem u slaveno-serbskom kniestvu slavnym. Red. ed. by Mirjana D. Stefanovi. Novi Sad: Prometej, 1994. uri, Laza. Srpske knjige i srpski pisci 18. veka. Novi Sad: Knjievna zajednica Novog Sada, 1988. Dereti, Jovan. Kada poinje nova srpska knjievnost. Nauni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane (Beograd) 17, no. 4 (1988): 155159. Dereti, Jovan. Put srpske knjievnosti. Beograd: Srpska knjievna zadruga, 1996. Dereti, Jovan. Istorija srpske knjievnosti. Beograd: Prosveta, 2002. Dobrovsk, Josef. Serbica. In Slovanka. Vol. 1. Praha, 1814. Gavrilovi, Nikola. Karlovaka bogoslovija (17941920). Sremski Karlovci: Srpska pravoslavna bogoslovija Svetog Arsenija, 1984. Ivani, Duan. Knjievnost Srpske Krajine. Beograd: BIGZ, 1998. Nikoli, Nenad. Orfelin: nedovrena modernost. In Godinjak III Katedre za srpsku knjievnost sa junoslovenskim knjievnostima. Beograd: Filoloki fakultet, 2007. 155211. Karadi, Vuk Stef. Prepiska I: 18111821. Edited by Golub Dobrainovi. Vol. 20 of Sabrana dela. Beograd: Prosveta, 1988. Karadi, Vuk Stef. Prepiska I: 18111821. Edited by Golub Dobrainovi. Vol. 24 of Sabrana dela. Beograd: Prosveta, 1989. Komadini, Slobodan. Poeci srpske bibliografije. In Deset godina Bibliografskog instituta FNRJ (19481958). Beograd, 1958.
127 128 129
M. D. Stefanovi, Uvodna studija, p. 34, note 86. Ibid.
L. Boji, Pamjatnik, pp. 8690. Historians of Serbian literature find Bojis list more interesting due to the fact that the name of Vuk Karadi was mentioned there for the first time and for having been the first to include Eustahije Arsi among the Serbian writers, than it is interesting in itself.
The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 107 Konstantinovi, Zoran. Stvaralako susretanje: kratak nacrt za komparativnu istoriju srpske knjievnosti. In Komparativno vienje srpske knjievnosti. Novi Sad: Svetovi, 1993. 180201. Kopitar, Jernej. Serbica. Edited by Tomislav Beki. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 1984. Kosti, ore S. Pavle J. afarik o novoj srpskoj knjievnosti. Beograd: SANU, 1988. Marinkovi, Borivoje. Tragom Dositeja. Beograd: Slubeni glasnik, 2009 Milosavljevi, Petar. Sistem srpske knjievnosti. Beograd: Trebnik, 2000. Milosavljevi, Petar. Uvod u srbistiku. Beograd: Trebnik, 2003. Obradovi, Dositej. Etika (1803). Edited by uro Gavela and Jelena auli. Vol. 2 of Sabrana dela. Beograd: Prosveta, 1961. Ostoji, Tihomir. Srpska knjievnost od Velike seobe do Dositeja Obradovia. Sremski Karlovci: Srp. Manastirska tamparija, 1905. Palavestra, Predrag. Istorija srpske knjievne kritike (17682007). Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 2008. Pankovi, Duan. Srpske bibliografije 17661850. Beograd Novi Sad: Narodna biblioteka Srbije - Biblioteka Matice srpske, 1982. Pavi, Milorad. Istorija srpske knjievnosti baroknog doba (XVII i XVIII vek). Beograd: Nolit, 1970. Pavi, Milorad. Istorija srpske knjievnosti klasicizma i predromantizma. Klasicizam, Beograd: Nolit, 1979. Pavi, Milorad. Raanje nove srpske knjievnosti. Beograd: Srpska knjievna zadruga, 1983. Peji, Jovan. Mit o prekidu u razvitku srpske knjievnosti. Knjievna istorija (Beograd) 27, no. 96 (1995): 185212. Peji, Jovan. Poeci i vrhovi. Srpska knjievnost i njena istoriografija. Beograd: Altera 2010. Popovi, Pavle. Prouavanje srpske knjievnosti.. Srpski knjievni glasnik (Beograd), vols. IV: XII, nos. 1, 2 and 4 (1904): 671686, 756769 and 915929. Samardi, Radovan. Vek prosveenosti i srpski preobraaj. Letopis Matice srpske (Novi Sad) 152 , no. 3 (1976): 265279. Skerli, Jovan. Podela nove srpske knjievnosti na periode. Prosvetni glasnik (Beograd) 32, nos. 3 4 (1911): 239257. Solari, Pavel. Pominak knieskj Slaveno-Serbskom v Mletka Peataniju. Venecija, 1810. Solari, Pavle. Pogledi na jezik i knjiestvo iliriesko (1820). Srbistika (Pritina) 2, nos. 12 (1999): 307-318. Stefanovi, Mirjana D. Biblioteka srpske knjievnosti. Beograd: igoja tampa, 2007.
108 | Jovan Peji Stefanovi, Mirjana D. Leksikon srpskog prosvetiteljstva. Beograd: Slubeni glasnik, 2009. Stojanovi, Ljubomir. ivot i rad Vuka Stef. Karadia. Beograd: tamparija Makarije, 1924. afarik, Pavel J. Geschichte der slawischen Sprache und Literatur nach allen Mundarten. Ofen: Kn. Ung. Universitt, 1826. Tartalja, Ivo. Poeci rada na istoriji opte knjievnosti kod Srba. Beograd: SANU, 1964. Vulovi, Svetislav. Nauka o knjievnosti i izuavanje slovenskih knjievnosti. Otadbina (Beograd), vol. 10 (1882): 267282. ivkovi, Dragia. Poeci srpske knjievne kritike (18171860). Beograd: Rad, 1957.

: . 19. (18001820). (1800). : ( ), 1810. ( , , ), (), 1820, . , . , ( 1809), ( ) (1810, 1813), (1814). 1815. - ( // - ), : , -, a. - (18121813) -

. . : , , , , , , , , , , Received 21.03.2011 / Accepted 10.07.2011.
111
UDC 821.163.41.09 Karadi V. S:930.85(497.5 Dubrovnik)
Dr Vladislav B. Sotirovi1 Univerzitet Mikolasa Romerisa (Viljnus) Fakultet politike i upravljanja Odsek za politike nauke Litvanija
VUK, HRVATI I DUBROVNIK

Saetak: Ovaj lanak se u uem smislu bavi analizom odnosa Vuka Stefanovia Karadia i dela srpske filologije XIX veka prema Hrvatima po pitanju povesnog, kulturolokog i knjievnog naslea grada i Republike Dubrovnika junoslovenske Firence a na osnovama govorne i pisane jezike stvarnosti koja je postojala u doba dubrovake politike nezavisnosti sve do poetka XIX stolea. U irem smislu se u lanku analiziraju stavovi uticajnih hrvatskih i srpskih javnih radnika i filologa o nacionalnoj identifikaciji Hrvata i Srba na osnovu maternjeg jezika ove dve nacije i shodno tome raspodeli junoslovenskog etnogeografskog prostora na osnovu nemakog romantiarskog principa ein sprache, ein folk, ein staat. Kljune rei: Vuk Stefanovi Karadi, Dubrovnik, Hrvati, Srbi, srpski jezik, hrvatski jezik, Juni Sloveni, tokavsko nareje, ijekavica, Ilirski pokret, dubrovaka knjievnost, povest Srba i Hrvata
Od vremena publikovanja Vukovog lingvistikog modela identifikacije Srpstva tokavci = Srbi (lanak Srbi svi i svuda, Be, 1849),2 istorijska i knjievna prolost Dubrovake Republike je sve vie zaokupljala panju srpske javnosti. tokavska knjievna tradicija Dubrovnika, ali jo vie injenica da je govorni jezik Dubrovana oduvek bio i ostao tokavski, bili su kako Vuku tako i njegovim ideolokim sledbenicima glavni dokazi srpskog karaktera ovog grada i drave. Dubrovaka knjievnost je doivela svoj vrhunac u doba baroka a kao njeni najistaknutiji predstavnici se istiu: Marin Dri (15101567), Ivan Gunduli (15891638), Junije-Dono Palmoti (1606-1657) i Ignjat urevi (16751737). Njihova dela su prenoena u Slavoniju, Bosnu, Hercegovinu i Dalmaciju uglavnom preko franjevakih fratara. Na taj nain
1
vladislav-b-sotirovic@crucified-kosovo.eu (Vladislav Sotirovi, Mykolas Romeris University Vilnius, Faculty of Politics and Management, Political Science Department, Lithuania)
2
Vuk Karadi je ovaj lanak napisao 1836, a tampao 1849. godine.
112 | Vladislav B. Sotirovi
je barokna dubrovaka knjievnost bila prisutna daleko izvan granica Dubrovake Republike utiui na formiranje knjievog ukusa i literarne tematike kod Junih Slovena. Sam Vuk je oznaio Ignjata urevia kao negovatelja jedinstvenog ilirskog jezika ije se prisustvo u to doba osealo i u kajkavskoj Hrvatskoj. Borba izmeu hrvatske i srpske nacionalne ideje za knjievno naslee baroknog Dubrovnika je otpoela neto pre pojave Vukovog rada Srbi svi i svuda. Naime, Petar Frano Martecini (Martecchini) je 1826. godine objavio na hrvatskom jeziku zbirku radova Ivana Gundulia, najveeg dubrovakog baroknog pesnika, skreui time panju na hrvatski karakter dubrovake literarne tradicije. Ubrzo nakon pojave ovog izdanja, voe hrvatskog nacionalnog preporoda (Ilirskog pokreta) su poele zagovarati standardizaciju hrvatskog knjievnog jezika na osnovama tokavskog idioma Centralne Dalmacije, Zapadne Hercegovine i Slavonije, idioma koji je u literarnoj tradiciji bio najbolje izraen u delima tokavskih pisaca rimokatolike veroispovesti Antuna Kanizlia (17001777), Andrije Kaia Mioia (17041760) i Matije Antuna Reljkovia (Relkovia) (17321798). Na taj nain je hrvatski nacionalni preporod postavio iste temelje hrvatskom knjievnom jeziku kao to je to uradio 1818. godine Vuk Stefanovi Karadi sa srpskim knjievnim jezikom izabravi novotokavski govor ijekavskog izgovora za njegovu osnovu. Tako se uitelj Tomo Koak (17521831) moe smatrati Gajevom preteom u borbi za uvoenje tokavtine u sve kolske udbenike u Hrvatskoj. Spor izmeu Srba i Hrvata oko naslea dubrovake knjievnosti je uao u novu fazu 1844. godine kada je Matica ilirska (kasnije hrvatska) izdala Gundulievog Osmana uz dopunu Ivana Maurania, poduhvat kojim se elelo istai da hrvatski jezik Dubrovana ima svoju vievekovnu tradiciju. Do ovog izdanja je dolo osam godina nakon pisanja Vukovog lanka Srbi svi i svuda pa nije neopravdano zakljuiti da je Matica ilirska time htela da odbrani i istakne hrvatsko pravo na Dubrovnik i njegovu knjievnu tradiciju (samo pod uslovom da su voe Ilirskog pokreta u to vreme ve znale za ovaj Vukov rad, ali su sigurno bili upoznati sa Vukovim stavovima o srpskom jeziku iznetim 1814. i 1818. godine). Isto se tako da zakljuiti da je Vuk svoj lanak tampao pet godina nakon izdanja Matiinog Osmana da bi naglasio srpski karakter dubrovake knjievnosti. Meutim, hrvatska inteligencija iz kajkavske Hrvatske je bila protiv Gajeve namere da tokavski dijalekt standardizuje u hrvatski knjievni jezik smatrajui da tokavski idiom nije hrvatski nacionalni jezik. To je po njima bio iskljuivo kajkavski. Tako je 1841. godine deo hrvatskog plemstva osnovao Horvatsko-ugarsku stranku sa programom borbe protiv ilirskog tj. tokavskog dijalekta, a za ouvanje pravog horvatskog jezika, tj. kajkavskog nareja, koji je po njima bio najbolje predstavljen u delima svetenika Titusa Brezovakog (17571805) najvrsnijeg kajkavskog komediografa (njegova najpoznatija dela su: Matijas graban-
Vuk, Hrvati i Dubrovnik | 113
cijas dijak i Diogenes ili sluga dveh zgubljeneh bratov). Da bi prebrodio ovaj jaz izmeu akavske, kajkavske i tokavske knjievne tradicije meu Hrvatima, Ljudevit Gaj (18081872) je upravo izabrao ijekavski idiom slavne dubrovake knjievnosti koja je trebala da Hrvate konano opredeli da prihvate tokavski dijalekt ijekavskog izgovora kao svoj nacionalni knjievni jezik. Iza ove najverovatnije politike odluke je stajala Austrija koja je na ovaj nain elela da umanji mo Srpstva favorizujui Hrvatstvo jer su Srbi za Be predstavljali veu politiku opasnost od Hrvata. Gajeva i Babukieva filoloka kola u Zagrebu je konano uspela da kodifikuje hrvatski knjievni jezik u vidu tokavtine i da ga nametne kajkavskoj severozapadnoj Hrvatskoj. Gaj i njegovi saradnici su 1836. godine, dakle iste godine kada Vuk pie svoj lanak, izvrili revolucionarnu promenu na podruju hrvatskog knjievnog jezika. Iako je veina njih bila roena u kajkavskim krajevima (I. Maurani je bio akavac), oni su odluili da Novine horvatzke i Daniczu izdaju na tokavskom dijalektu i pod ilirskim imenom to je protumaeno kao nastavak dubrovake i slavonske hrvatske knjievnosti.3 Prema Branislavu Brboriu, hrvatski ilirci su ne samo pre3
Gaj je svoju odluku iz 1836. g. da odbaci kajkavski a prihvati tokavski dijalekt za tampanje svojih novina opravdavao reima da to ini izmeu ostalog i zbog neprocenjivog literarnog blaga etrdeset i vie klasinih pisaca iz ilirsko-parnakog Dubrovnikai zbog drugih vanih knjievnih ostvarenja koja pravom naslea mi ponovo prihvatamo kao nau staru batinu [Gaj 1836]. Ali ak ta vie, Gaj je prihvatio ijekavski tokavski a ne ikavski kao to se to moglo pretpostaviti s obzirom na broj knjievnih dela napisanih ikavskim, veliinu teritorije koju je pokrivao ovaj izgovor i na injenicu da se smatralo da je ikavski bio iskljuivo hrvatski izgovor dok je Vukov ijekavski izgovor Istone Hercegovine bio iskljuivo srpski. Pavle Ivi je miljenja da bi Gaj izabravi ikavski izgovor za knjizevni jezik Hrvata u tom sluaju priznao nacionalnu podelu Srba i Hrvata na jezikoj osnovi (ikavski = hrvatski; ijekavski = srpski) to je Gaj eleo da izbegne (jer bi dubrovaka ijekavsko-tokavska knjievnost pripala Srbima) [Ivi 1971, 186187]. Ipak u ovom sluaju, miljenja sam da je dubrovaki faktor igrao presudnu ulogu u izboru ijekavskog izgovora naroito posle Gajeve i Mauranieve posete Dubrovniku 1841. godine (videti o tome u [Vince 1978, 332334]). Ista ta 1841. g. je bila presudna godina u ideolokoj evoluciji rimokatolikog Srbina iz Dubrovnika i Garaaninovog tajnog agenta Mede Pucia koji je tada kao student prava u Padovi upoznao Jana Kolara koji se trenutno nalazio u Veneciji. Tada je ovaj slovaki filolog upoznao Dubrovanina Pucia sa svojom i afaikovom teorijom o junoslovenskim dijalektima i nacionalnoj pripadnosti. Puci, koji je ve bio upoznat sa rudimentalnim oblicima te teorije preko uenja Vuka Stefanovia Karadia, nakon susreta sa Kolarom 1841. g. je postao ubeeni pristalica nacionalnog odreenja Junih Slovena na osnovu pripadnosti jednoj od nekoliko dijalektolokih grupa kojim su govorili Juni Sloveni. Tako je Puci te 1841. g. prvi put nedvosmisleno rekao da postoje Srbi-katolici u Dubrovniku pod kojima je podrazumevao one rimokatolike stanovnike grada koji su govorili tokavskim dijalektom. Puci je svoje ubeenje o nacionalnoj determinaciji putem jezika ubrzo izneo u nekoliko lanaka tampanih u transkom magazinu Favilla u godinama 1842.1844. Tako je u jednom svom lanku iz 1843. g., polazei od afaikove teze publikovane 1842. g., Puci tvrdio da ima samo 801.000 Hrvata, tj. onih Junih Slovena koji su iveli iskljuivo u kajkavskoj Hrvatskoj [Stulli 1956, 3940, 48]. Otprilike u isto vreme, ali u Brusi u Anadoliji je jo jedan Srbin-katolik iz Dubrovnika prolazio kroz istu ideoloku evoluciju kao i Medo Puci. Bio je to Matija Ban koji se ranih etrdesetih godina XIX veka u Anadoliji upoznao sa poljskom emigracijom sa kojom je imao prisnih politikih kontakata u Beogradu gde se nastanio 1844. g (po njemu je Banovo Brdo, optina ukarica, u Beogradu i dobilo ime jer se tu nalazila njegova kua). U
uzeli Vukov ijekavski izgovor ve i Vukovu ortografiju, leksiku, morfologiju, tvorbu rei, sintaksu i stil [Brbori 2001, 69]. U svakom sluaju, mnogo pre Gajeve reforme hrvatskog knjievnog jezika, ime Starevi (17841859) rimokatoliki svetenik i stari gramatiar je u svojoj Novoj ricsoslovici iliricskoj (Nova ilirska gramatika, 1812) ukazivao na prisutnost stranih elemenata u dubrovakom ijekavskom izgovoru, koji se stoga nije mogao prihvatiti kao hrvatski nacionalni jezik, zalaui se u isto vreme za ikavski izgovor kao isti hrvatski nacionalni jezik. Po imi Stareviu, dubrovaki ijekavski izgovor je postao suvie stran Hrvatima zbog velikih pozajmnica iz italijanskog jezika kao i iz crkvenoslovenskog jezika kojim se sluila Srpska pravoslavna crkva. Na suvie srpski karakter dubrovake epske poezije u delima Gundulia i Palmotia je ukazivao i Andrija Torkvat Brli po kome je njihovo epsko pesnitvo bilo inferiorno usled prisustva stranih elemenata u strukturi epske pesme u odnosu na pravo hrvatsko epsko pesnitvo koje je ispevano na nacionalnom epskom metru [Brli 1848]. Slino miljenje su imali i ime Starevi i Ante Kuzmani (18071879) koji je bio vodea figura onih predstvavnika hrvatske inteligencije okupljenih oko Zore dalmatinske koja se estoko borila za standardizaciju ikavskog (kao nacionalnog hrvatskog) a ne ijekavskog (kao nacionalno srpskog) izgovora za knjievni jezik Hrvata. Povodom rada zagrebake filoloke kole, Srbin rimokatolik iz Dubrovnika, Matija Ban, je rekao da je ta kola lep i potpuno savren srpski jezik, mislei na tokavski dijalekt ijekavskog izgovora, presadila iz njegovog gnezda u sve ilirske zemlje i tako pripremila ulazak u pan-Slavizam [Ban 1849].4 Medo Puci je otiao korak dalje 1867. godine tvrdei da ukoliko se narodi razlikuju po jeziku onda je Gajevo usvajanje srpskog jezika u zvaninoj upotrebi pretvorilo sve Hrvate u lingvistike Srbe. Shodno tome, Srbi se ne trebaju plaiti hrvatskih istorijskih prava jer su to u sutini srpska prava [Orsatto 1867, 26]. Treba istai da su i neke najistaknutije voe ilirske faze hrvatskog nacionalnog preporoda (na primer Lj. Gaj i I. Kukuljevi) alili to je dubrovaka knjievnost iz XVIII veka radije prihvatala latinske muze umesto nacionalnog izgovora, a naroito to najistaknutiji dubrovaki naunik Ruer Bokovi nije nita napisao na svom maternjem jeziku ve samo na latinskom.5 Bez obzira na ove primedbe
oba ova sluaja, kako u Anadoliji tako i u Beogradu, Matija Ban je prihvatio stavove poljske emigracije o nacionalnoj pripadnosti Junih Slovena na osnovu nacionalnog jezika (tj. nareja/govora); stavove koji su uglavnom bili bazirani na uenju slavista iz prve polovine XIX veka.
4
Po dolasku u Beograd 1844. g. Ban je jedno kratko vreme radio na stvaranju i promovisanju zajednikog slovenskog jezika pa je shodno tome Hrvate i Srbe smatrao samo plemenima jednog slovenskog naroda.
5
Gajeva primedba na Kukuljeviev lanak Neto o iznenadnom pesnitvu tampanog u Danici ilirskoj, t. 8, 20, Zagreb, 1842, s. 79 (videti Kukuljevi-Sakcinski 1841). Dubrovanin Ruer Bokovi je 1758. g.
voa Ilirskog pokreta, moe se slobodno rei da je itav intelektualni krug oko Gaja bio produkt raguzofilije, krug koji je legendu o Ivanu Gunduliu pretvorio u centralni deo ideologije Ilirskog pokreta. Pozitivna kritika Vukove zbirke narodnih junakih pesama i podrka Vukovoj jezikoj reformi koju su dali dubrovaki slavisti Pero Budmani (18351914) i Milan Reetar (18601942) je konano uverila hrvatsku inteligenciju u ispravnost Gajeve reforme hrvatskog knjievnog jezika. Reetar je svoje stavove o jedinstvenom jeziku Srba i Hrvata, stavove koji su u suprotnosti sa njegovim ranijim pa i kasnijim miljenjem o dva jezika i o dva naroda, izneo u Zori (III/2, april, 1912), u tekstu Srbi i Hrvati. Reetarova teza izneta u ovom lanku je da su Srbi i Hrvati jedan narod sa dva imena i stoga imaju jedinstven jezik. Reetar je u toku itavog svog ivota bio izmeu dve vatre. Na jednoj strani se oseao Srbinom iz Dubrovnika koji govori srpskim jezikom, ali na drugoj strani je bio rimokatolik i vei deo ivota je proveo meu Hrvatima. Verovatno stoga mu je iz praktinih razloga najvie odgovaralo ovakvo reenje da se u sluaju Srba i Hrvata radi o jednom jeziku i o jednom narodu sa dva imena, ali u svakom sluaju reenje koje je u potpunosti odudaralo od Vukovog stava prema istom problemu. Ukoliko govorimo o problematici knjievnog jezika postoji velika razlika izmeu Dositeja i Vuka na jednoj strani i hrvatskih Iliraca na drugoj. Naime, i Dositej i Vuk su pisali onako kako su govorili, tj. onako kakav im je bio i maternji jezik i jezik sredine iz koje su poticali. Meutim, to nije bio sluaj sa Ilircima. Gaj je svoju Daniczu poeo da izdaje na kajkavskom jeziku 1835. godine, tj. na onom jeziku kojim je i sam govorio i kojim se govorilo u kulturnom i administrativnom centru Hrvata Zagrebu. Ipak, ubrzo je Gaj te iste novine nastavio da izdaje na tokavskom istono-hercegovakom dijalektu, tj. ijekavici. Ilirci su optuivani od mnogih srpskih javnih radnika da su uzimajui tokavsku ijekavicu u stvari ukrali ili prisvojili srpski nacionalni jezik kao hrvatski i naravno time proirili hrvatsko etniko ime na mnoge etnike ne-Hrvate i ne-hrvatsku knjievnu batinu, a pre svega na Dubrovnik. Takoe, prema kritiarima i protivnicima Ilirskog pokreta, a to su bili u to doba Srbi i Slovenci, iza ilirskog imena se nije nita drugo krilo nego ideja o stvaranju ujedinjene kajkavsko-tokavsko-akavske velike Hrvatske (Velika Ilirija = ujedinjena Hrvatska = Croatia rediviva). Tako je Ivan Derkos u svojoj brouri Duh (Genije) domovine nad sinovima svojim, koji spavaju, napisanoj 1832. godine, dakle etiri godine pre Vukovog lanka Srbi svi i svuda, predloio spojenje ovih triju kraljevina (Hrvatske, Slavonije i Dalmacije, primedba V. B. S.) s obzirom na njihova podnareja u jedan jezik, ne puki, ve izo-
objavio u Beu svoje fundamentalno delo: Philosophiae naturalis theoria.
braeni, knjievni.6 Derkos je, pozivajui se na afaika, tvrdio da se dalmatinski dijalekt najveim delom podudarao sa srpskim narejem, a ovaj dalmatinski dijalekt sudara se jednako sa narjejem slavonskim i hrvatskim u vojnikoj krajini. Derkos je pod srpskim narejem podrazumevao tokavski dijalekt kojim se govorilo u Vojnoj krajini, Dalmaciji i Slavoniji. Meutim, za razliku od Vuka, Derkos nije smatrao tokavski dijalekt govoren na istorijskom prostoru Hrvatske izvornim srpskim jezikom. Po Derkosu, najvie tekoa prilikom spojenja hrvatskih dijalekata e biti u sluaju nareja koje se govori u Civilnoj Hrvatskoj, tj. kajkavskog dijalekta. Za Derkosa da bi se Hrvati (koji su za njega bili kajkavci) ujedinili sa Slavoncima i Dalmatincima (koji su bili tokavci) najkorisnije bi bilo da ovi prvi uzmu za svoj knjievni jezik jezik ovih drugih to se stvarno i dogodilo Gajevom odlukom. To je u svakom sluaju predstavljalo najbolje politiko reenje za ouvanje teritorijalnog integriteta Trojednice. Jasno je da se Derkosovo miljenje o teritorijalnoj rasprostranjenosti dijalekata na junoslovenskim prostorima podudaralo sa Vukovim. Ipak, Derkosova koncepcija nacionalne identifikacije putem jezike pripadnosti je bila potpuno suprotna onoj koju je Vuk kasnije favorizovao. Za Derkosa su i tokavski i kajkavski govori bili izvorni jezici Hrvata. Moe se rei da su i Derkosova i Vukova koncepcija nacionalne identifikacije Hrvata odnosno Srba bile zasnovane na istom lingvistikom modelu. Derkos je u krajnjoj instanci bio optimista po pitanju unifikacije svih Hrvata jer kako nas dri bratska i neka tajanstvena vezilja ljubav, koja uzajamno otvara putove k srcu, ove tekoe je bilo mogue prevladati, ako se budu primenila razvojna iskustva jezika kao to je to bio sluaj sa nemakim, iako za to se trae decenija ljeta. Ivan Derkos, koji je svojim usnulim sunarodnicima isticao primer Srbije i Dositeja Obradovia, i koji je knjievni jezik Trojedne Kraljevine hteo da zasnuje na dijalektu koji bi bio najblii srpskom, i koji je sam bio rodom krajinik sa prostora Vojne granice, nije smatrao da na prostorima Trojednice ive Srbi ve samo Hrvati shodno njegovom konceptualnom shvatanju nacionalne determinacije putem jezika.7 Derkosov zahtev za stvaranjem jedinstvenog linguae patriae svih Hrvata spajanjem sva tri hrvatska dijalekta, tokavskog, kajkavskog i akavskog, u jedan knji-
6 Derkosov Duh domovineje tampan u Zagrebu 1897. godine u prevodu sa latinskog. Prevod je sainio S. Ortner. Ivan Derkos je po profesiji bio pravnik, roen u Vukmaniu kraj Karlovca 1808. g. a umro u Zagrebu 1834. g. 7
Nabrajajui prednosti ovakvog spojenja, Derkos je naglaavao izmeu ostalih i sledeu: od drugih e nam privesti vatrene uenike, privesti e Srbe u Ugarskoj razsijane; pae ni ista Srbija turska s vremenom nee odbijati, da snama podraje knjievni saobraaj; jer njezino narjeje, kao to je gore reeno, ne e se razlikovati od obenitog knjievnog jezika ovih triju kraljevina, da ne bi mogli njihove knjige lako razumjeti [Derkos 1897; Roksandi 1991, 138].
evni jezik (dijalekatska trihotomija hrvatskog nacionalnog korpusa i knjievnosti) oberuke je prihvaen od strane grofa Janka Drakovia.8 U programski najvanijem i najsadrajnijem spisu Ilirskog pokreta pod naslovom Disertatia iliti razgovor, darovan gospodi poklisarom zakonskim i buduem zakonotvorcem kraljevinah nasih tampanog na tokavskom dijalektu u Karlovcu iste godine kada i Derkosov Duh domovine, iznose se potpuno isti stavovi o hrvatskom karakteru tokavskog, kajkavskog i akavskog dijalekta. Iz ovakvog stava prema lingvistikoj determinaciji nacionalne pripadnosti proizalo je Drakovievo miljenje da na prostorima Trojednice ne postoje etniki Srbi nego da se radilo o pravoslavnim Hrvatima. Razlog za ovakvo Drakovievo miljenje je bio potpuno isti kao i u sluaju Ivana Derkosa: svi tokavci (u najmanju ruku sa prostora povijesne Hrvatske) su pripadali hrvatskom narodu. ak i kada je raspravljao o naseljavanju opustoenih predela Slavonije, Hrvatske i Dalmacije u XVI i XVII veku, Drakovi je pisao da novo stanovnitvo pomjeanje jest starih Hervatov, oli beenarov iz Bosne i Dalmacije opet Hervatov, i nekoliko Gerkov, koji u razsutju zapadnog (treba da stoji istonog, primedba V. B. S.) Carstva sve dalje pred Turci pobegoe [Polemike u hrvatskoj knjievnosti, 1982, 75]. Dakle novopridoli doseljenici su bili Hrvati jer se radilo o tokavcima a ne pravoslavni Srbi! Ovakva lingvistika determinacija hrvatske nacije posluila je kao ideoloka podloga Drakovievom programu narodnog pokreta Hrvata izloenog u Disertatiji u kojoj zahteva ujedinjenje svih hrvatskih zemalja Hrvatske, Slavonije, Dalmacije, Rijeke, Vojne krajine, Bosne i slovenakih zemalja u jednu dravu Veliku Iliriju koja bi u zajednici sa Maarskom ostala kao sastavni deo Habsburke Monarhije.9 U ovakvoj ujedinjenoj hrvatskoj dravi slubeni jezik bi bio iliriki tj. tokavski dijalekt, dok bi vrhovnu vlast vrio ban. Iste godine kada je tampao Disertatiu, Janko Drakovi se zalagao na zasedanju maarske Diete u Pounu za uvoenje hrvatskog jezika kao slubenog u Hrvatskoj-Slavoniji koji je nazivao ilirskim jezikom. Pune etiri godine (od 1832-1836) e se Drakovi i ban Vlai estoko odupirati na maarskoj Dieti u Pounu zahtevima maarskih zastupnika za uvoenjem maarskog jezika u Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji kao jedinog zvaninog jezika. Konano je 1836. godine iz politikih razloga novi maarsko-ugarski kralj i austrijski car Ferdinand V uskratio potvrdu zakljuku ugarske Diete iz 1835. da se u Hrvatskoj-Slavoniji uvede maarski jezik kao slubeni. Meutim, istupanje J. Drakovia na zasedanjima Diete kao i
8 Grof Janko Drakovi je roen u Zagrebu 1770. godine a umro u Radgoni 1856. godine. Feudalna porodica Drakovii vodi poreklo od Bartola (umro 1538. g.) a od 1631. nose grofovsku titulu. 9
Kao to se da primetiti, Drakovi je i sve Slovence smatrao Hrvatima jer se radilo o stanovnitvu koje je govorilo hrvatskim kajkavskim dijalektom. Slovenci (Kranjci) su od strane hrvatskih ultra-nacionalista u poslednjih vek i po oznaavani kao Beli Hrvati ili pak kao Alpski Hrvati.
njegova Disertatia su pokazali da voe Ilirskog pokreta pod terminom zajedniki jezik iliriki podrazumevaju u stvari hrvatski jezik to je uveliko uticalo i na Srbe i na Slovence da ne prihvate Ilirski pokret, sa svojim transetnikim nazivom, kao svoj nacionalni pokret jer su smatrali da se iza tog imena i pokreta krije velika mogunost za rasprostiranje hrvatskog nacionalnog imena meu svim Junim Slovenima. Miljenja sam da je Vukov lingvistiki model identifikacije Srpstva bio u neku ruku njegova reakcija na ovakve Derkosove i Drakovieve stavove. Kao to Derkos i Drakovi nisu videli Srbe na prostorima Dalmacije, Slavonije i Hrvatske tako i Vuk nije video Hrvate ni na jednoj od junoslovenskih teritorija na kojima se govorilo tokavskim dijalektom. Drugim reima, Derkosov Duh domovine i Drakovieva Disertatia iliti razgovor su bili povod za pisanje (1836) i tampanje (1849) Vukovog lanka Srbi svi i svuda, dakle samo nekoliko godina nakon njihovog nastanka. Meutim, ovi radovi nisu bili i glavni uzrok formulisanju Vukovog lingvistikog modela definisanja Srpstva koji je nastao znatno pre iz autorovog dubokog uverenja da je upravo jezik glavna nacionalna determinanta. Vuk je izaao u javnost sa svojim modelom srpskog lingvistikog nacionalizma iz prirodne, atavistike, potrebe da odbrani nacionalnu teritoriju Srpstva. Dakle, radilo se o samoodbrambenom aktu koji je kasnije od strane njegovih kritiara oznaen kao akt ksenofobije pa ak i kao akt etnike mrnje. Jasno je da nije sluajno to je Vuk tampao ba 1849. godine svoju tokavsku teoriju Srpstva jer je ona trebala odluno da negira zahteve hrvatskog Ilirskog pokreta na hrvatski karakter tokavske knjievne tradicije i prostora na kome je govorni jezik bio tokavski, pre svega Dalmacije i Dubrovnika, odnosno da ukae da se ispod plata ilirskog jezika i ilirske Atine u stvari krije hrvatski jezik i hrvatski Dubrovnik. Na hrvatski karakter ilirske ideologije nedvosmisleno ukazuju radovi slavonskog upnika Ivana Sveara (17751839) Ogledalo Iliriuma iji se poslednji tom pojavio 1842. godine i Poeanina Vjekoslava Babukia koji je 1836. tampao Osnovu slovnice slavjanske narjeja ilirskoga. Svearovo istoriografsko delo je predstavljalo prvu istorijsku sintezu pisanu hrvatskim jezikom dok je Babukiev rad predstavljao prvu hrvatsku gramatiku. Nakon 1849. godine postalo je jasno da je ilirski dijalekt predstavljao iskljuivo hrvatski izbor to je potvrdila i zagrebaka filoloka kola i intelektualni krug oko nje na ijem se elu nalazio Adolfo Veber Tkalevi (18251889) kada je standardizovala knjievni jezik Hrvata kodifikacijom dubrovakog tokavskog nareja obogaenog elementima kajkavskog i akavskog nareja. Koliko je Ilirski pokret bio dubrovaki orijentisan moe nam ukazati ve spomenuta injenica da je Matica ilirska, osnovana 1842. godine od strane Drakovia i Gaja, kao svoje prvo izdanje tampala Gundulievu poemu Osman (1844). Ipak, ve nakon tri decenije svog rada
ova ilirska (tj. junoslovenska) kulturna institucija menja svoje ime u Maticu hrvatsku (1874) sledei politiki kurs Ilirskog pokreta koji se transformisao u hrvatsku Narodnu stranku. Takoe, proslavljeni dubrovaki istoriari Ludovik Crijevi Tubero, Frano Lukarevi Burina i Mavro Orbini su esto citirani od Gaja, Kukuljevia i Ivana Frane Jukia. Gajevo verovanje da su stari Iliri bili Sloveni je bazirano upravo na pisanju Mavra Orbinija (Orbini M., Il regno degli Slavi hoggi corrottamente detti Schiavoni, Pesaro, 1601). Orbinijevu tezu o slovenskom poreklu starih Ilira je 1790. godine podrao Matija Petar Katani. Bogoslav ulek je 1854. izneo u kratkim crtama osnovnu ideju ove teorije prema kojoj su Sloveni autohtono stanovnitvo Balkana koje se u najveem broju razbealo sa poluostrva nakon provale Avara od 600630. godine na Balkan i naselilo se na prostorima severno od Karpata. Nakon toga je vizantijski car Iraklije (610641) pozvao u pomo protiv Avara Zakarpatske Hrvate sa prostora Bele ili Velike Hrvatske u dananjoj Galiciji koji su 634. godine preli Dunav i izbacili Avare sa Balkana. Nakon toga su se ti Beli Hrvati trajno nastanili na zapadnom delu Balkana u dananjoj junoj i turskoj Hrvatskoj (Bosni) sve do Vrbasa, a u Dalmaciji do Livna (Hljevna) i Cetine; druga pako strana Hrvatah smjestila se je meu Savom i Dravom, u dananjoj Slavoniji, a Sisak im je bio glavni grad. Srbi iz Zakarpatske Bele Srbije, susedi Zakarpatskih Hrvata, su podstaknuti primerom ovih Belih Hrvata zamolili cara da im dozvoli da se i oni nasele na Balkanu to im je on i odobrio tako da su se u susedstvu Hrvata na Balkanu ponovo nali Srbi 636. godine. Oni su se nastanili u dananju Srbiju i Bosnu do Vrbasa, a na jugu u junu Dalmaciju sve do Bara (Antivari) [ulek 1856]. ulek je upravo pozivajui se na ovu Ilirsku teoriju (kao izvor je u stvari koristio Porfirogenita) pobijao stav Vukov da su sadanji akavci jedini ostatak starih Hrvata jer se ne moe dokazati, po uleku, da su stari Hrvati stvarno govorili akavski, i da u Hrvatskoj nikada nije bilo drugih Slovena sem akavaca. ulek je bio ubeen da ne treba meati akavce sa Hrvatima i Srbima jer su akavci pripadali onim Slovenima koji nisu napustili Balkan usled Avarske invazije. Prema njegovoj interpretaciji Ilirske teorije, deo Hrvata i Srba se naselio na akavskoj teritoriji na kojoj je staro slovensko stanovnitvo tim jezikom govorilo jo pre slovenske migracije sa Balkana, tj. Ilirije, pod naletom Avara poetkom VII stolea. Meutim, etniko poreklo tih starih Slovena akavaca se nije moglo utvrditi pa ih ulek jednostavno naziva Slovenima. Za njega su Srbi i Hrvati jedan narod koji je govorio i govori jednim jezikom dok su njemu savremeni akavci u stvari poakavljeni Hrvati ili Srbi, ili i jedni i drugi, nakon dolaska na Balkan [ulek 1856]. Ljudevit Gaj je takoe koristio dubrovake leksikografe Joakima Stulia (1729 1817) i Franju Maria Apendinija (17681837) da opravda svoje argumente po pitanju jezika. Za sve voe Ilirskog pokreta, Ruer Bokovi (17171787), istaknuti dubro-
vaki fiziar i matematiar, je bio u isto vreme i jedan od najistaknutijih hrvatskih naunika. Ipak, Gaj nije uspeo da pridobije Srbe (isto kao i Slovence) za svoje ideje Ilirskog pokreta koji su jednim dobrim delom zahvaljujui Vuku razumeli ilirski eksperiment kao produkt velikohrvatske ideje. U svakom sluaju, jedna od najbitnijih posledica Vukove tokavske ideologije nacionalnog odreenja Srba je bila ta da su Srbi nakon 1849. godine sve vie i vie tvrdili da je Dubrovnik stari srpski grad, tj. grad u kome su iveli Srbi jer je govorni jezik gradskog stanovnitva, kao i itave Republike, bio tokavski. Prema Reetaru, akavtinu je u dubrovaku knjievnost doneo Splianin Marko Maruli (14501524) ali akavski dijalekt nije bio nikada maternji jezik Dubrovana [Reetar 1894, poglavlje Dubrovnik i njegov jezik]. Kao rezultat Vukove teze o lingvistikom Srpstvu, sredinom XIX veka u Dalmaciji jaa pokret Srba koji propagiraju ideju o srpskom karakteru Dubrovnika. To se pre svega odnosilo na neke lanove dalmatinske pravoslavne zajednice kao to su to bili Boidar Petranovi i ore Nikolajevi. Nikolajevi (18071896) je roen u Sremu (Jazak). Nakon zavrene pravoslavne gimnazije u Sremskim Karlovcima, mitropolit Stevan Stratimirovi ga 1829. godine alje u Dubrovnik gde Nikolajevi postaje prvi srpsko-pravoslavni parohijski svetenik i uitelj malobrojne pravoslavne dubrovake zajednice. Prema tadanjem shvatanju Srpske pravoslavne crkve veroispovest je predstavljala glavni identifikator nacionalne pripadnosti meu Junim Slovenima [Petrovi 1968, 366]. Primenjujui formulu pravoslavac = Srbin; katolik = Hrvat prema statistikim podacima Srpske pravoslavne crkve, u Dubrovniku je 1880. godine od ukupno 10920 stanovnika bilo 656 Srba (tj. pravoslavaca), 10186 Hrvata (tj. katolika), 67 Jevreja, 16 protestanata i 4 Muslimana. Meutim, Nikolajevi je radei u Dubrovakom arhivu na istraivanju irilike arhivske grae i srednjevekovne dubrovake istorije ubrzo postao jedan od najvatrenijih pobornika Vukove teorije o lingvistikom Srpstvu.10 On je sigurno jedan od prvih svetenika Srpske pravoslavne crkve koji je osporio njenu tezu o pravoslavlju kao najbitnijem nacionalnom identifikatoru Srpstva. Usvojivi Vukov lingvistiki nacionalizam, Nikolajevi je tvrdio da su svi Dubrovani etniki Srbi kao i svi oni Dalmatinci i Kotorani kojima je tokavski dijalekt bio maternji jezik. Ovu tezu je Nikolajevi proirio i na stanovnike Bosne i Hercegovine nakon 1885. godine kada je postao mitropolit Dabro-Bosanski. Ujedno, ore Nikolajevi se moe smatrati i jednim od ideolokih osnivaa politikog pokreta Srba-katolika u itavoj Dalmaciji, pokreta koji su idejno i politiki uobliili dubrovaki Srbi rimokatolici: Matija Ban (18181903) i Medo Puci (18211882). Puci je inae bio izdanak stare dubrovake aristokratske porodice.
10
ore Nikolajevi je svoju kolekciju irilikih dokumenata iz dubrovakog arhiva tampao 1840. g. u Beogradu pod naslovom Srpski spomenici.
Krug Srba-katolika iz Dubrovnika i Dalmacije se u poetnoj fazi Ilirskog pokreta zalagao za zajedniko politiko nastupanje Srba i Hrvata pa ak i za politiko ujedinjenje Dalmacije sa Hrvatskom i Slavonijom. Ovakva politika opcija je naputena nakon poraza Maarske revolucije i tampanja Vukovog lanka Srbi svi i svuda 1849. godine. Do otvorenog sukoba sa nosiocima hrvatske nacionalne ideje je dolo nakon 1878. kada je Austro-Ugarska okupirala Bosnu i Hercegovinu. S druge strane, Vukova teorija o lingvistikom Srpstvu i srpske kulturoloko-politike pretenzije na Dubrovnik koje je ova teorija podspeila, nagnale su neke hrvatske lanove Ilirskog pokreta, kao na primer Antu Starevia (18231896), da nakon 1849. godine napuste pokret i da se okrenu hrvatskoj nacionalnoj ideji i odbrani hrvatskog etnikog prostora; prostora koji je shvaen kao teritorija koju naseljavaju tokavci, kajkavci i akavci. Sa sigurnou se moe rei da je hrvatska nacionalna ideja Starevieve Hrvatske stranke prava dola u otvoreni sukob sa srpskom nacionalnom idejom upravo po pitanju Dubrovnika, naslea njegove knjievne tradicije i etnikog sastava njegovih itelja. To se jasno moe videti iz Starevieve kritike magazina Dubrovnik iz godine 1851. koji je pokrenuo dubrovaki rimokatoliki Srbin Matija Ban 1849. godine [Starevi 1851, 662].11 U drugoj polovini XIX veka krug Srba-katolika iz Dubrovnika e doi u otvoreni sukob sa dubrovakim Hrvatima uglavnom iz redova Starevieve stranke prava koja je suprotno zagovornicima srpskog lingvistikog nacionalizma videla u linostima Gundulia i drugih istaknutih Dubrovana izdanke i predstavnike istog hrvatskog duha [Gross 1973, 2631]. Zastupnici ovog hrvatskog dravnog prava su tvrdili da u Hrvatskoj, Slavoniji, Dalmaciji, Dubrovniku, Istri, Bosni i Hercegovini, dakle na teritorijama koje se imaju smatrati etno-istorijskim zemljama hrvatske drave, Srbi ne ive ve se tu radi samo o etno-lingvistikim Hrvatima, tj. o rimokatolikim, grkokatolikim, pravoslavnim ili muslimanskim Hrvatima. Ovom doktrinom je Srbima, a pre svega u Trojednici, osporavano pravo na posebnu nacionalnu pripadnost, ime, upotrebu nacionalnih simbola i konano na isticanje nacionalnog imena za svoj jezik i upotrebu nacionalnog pisma. Tako je u Optunici 53 Srbina iz Hrvatske 1909. godine na tzv. veleizdajnikom procesu stajalo da se optueni pod propagandom iz Kraljevine Srbije, uneli u Hrvatsku srpsku zastavu, iriliko pismo kao i druge nacionalne simbole pa su stoga poinili akt veleizdaje. Tim povodom je Srbin Radoslav M. Gruji napisao i objavio te iste godine knjigu Apologija srpskog naroda u Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji, tampanu u Novom Sadu. Gruji se slagao sa tezom hrvatskog dravnog prava da populacija koja govori jednim jezikom pripada i jednom narodu bez obzira na versku pripadnost pojedinih
11 U prvom broju Dubrovnika iz 1849. g. Matija Ban je tampao svoj lanak: Osnova sveslavianskoga jezika.
njegovih delova, ali je osporavao u ovoj knjizi osnovnu tezu hrvatskog dravnog prava da se ta nacionalna pripadnost vezuje iskljuivo za dravu, tj. za hrvatsku dravu. Poto je jezik Srba i Hrvata proglaen jednim jedinstvenim jezikom jo od vremena Ljudevita Gaja i njegovih iliraca to je u praktinoj primeni na sluaju hrvatskog dravnog prava znailo da su Srbi i Hrvati isto, tj. Hrvati jer se radi o stanovnicima hrvatske drave (Vukovi Hrvaani = pravaki Hrvati). Isto tako treba istai da se u najsavremenijoj hrvatskoj istoriografiji, odnosno onoj koja je nastala nakon sticanja hrvatske nezavisnosti 1991. godine, sve vie i vie provlai teza o hrvatskom karakteru Bosne i Hercegovine tvrdnjom da Srba u Hrvatskoj i Bosni prije Turaka nema, osim ponegdje na rubnim podrujima i u pojedinanim sluajevima. Njih je poput naplavine, kao i balkanske, istone, pravoslavne Vlahe (Vlachi schismatici), donijela i ostavila turska poplava od XV. do XVII. stoljea [Pavlievi 2000, 138]. Krajem XIX veka kao idejno-politiki lider kruga Srba-katolika iz Dalmacije, koji su propagirajui Vukov lingvistiki nacionalizam pokuavali da na svaki nain pariraju Starevievoj hrvatskoj nacionalnoj ideji, javlja se rimokatoliki svetenik dum Ivan Stojanovi (18291900). Dubrovako-tokavska orijentacija kruga Srbakatolika ih je nakon 1879. godine odvela ka politikoj saradnji sa Dalmatinskom autonomnom strankom koju su predvodili istaknuti predstavnici dalmatinske italijanske aristokratije u cilju spreavanja politikog ujedinjenja Dalmacije sa Hrvatskom i Slavonijom. Kao to se moe primetiti, Vuk nije sledio do tada tradicionalno odreenje srpske nacije na konfesionalnim osnovama koje je vekovima uvano od strane Srpske pravoslavne crkve. Upravo zahvaljujui Vuku, meu srpskom inteligencijom potonjih decenija, moderni evropski lingvistiki kriterijum nacionalne identifikacije je uglavnom uspeo da istisne anahroni religiozni kriterijum determinacije Srpstva. Samo dve godine nakon to je Vuk napisao svoj lanak Srbi svi i svuda, dalmatinski pravoslavni Srbin Boidar Petranovi (18091874) je godine 1838. u Srpsko-dalmatinskom magazinu tvrdio da je veliki broj stanovnika Kraljevine Dalmacije slovenskog porekla ali srpskog imena. Takoe, po Petranoviu, stanovnici kontinentalne Dalmacije zajedno sa Dubrovakom regijom i Bokokotorskim zalivom su takoe Srbi jer govore istim srpskim dijalektom. ak ta vie, Petranovi je bio miljenja da su akavski stanovnici jadranskih ostrva bili etniki Srbi jer je po njemu akavski dijalekt bio verovatno stari srpski jezik [Petranovi 1838]. U istom broju ovog magazina se pojavio i Nikolajeviev lanak o dubrovakim piscima koji su pisali na srpskom jeziku ali italijanskim pismom. Ovim lankom je Nikolajevi poeo da propagira tezu da celokupna dubrovaka knjievna tradicija pripada srpskom kulturnom nasleu ili stoga to je pisana srpskim (tj. tokavskim) jezikom, ili stoga to su njeni tvorci bili etni-
ki Srbi, tj. linosti kojima je maternji jezik bio tokavski [Nikolajevi 1838].12 Svoje stavove je dosledno branio u Srpsko-dalmatinskom magazinu od 1842-1869. godine kada je bio njegov urednik. Petranovi i Nikolajevi se mogu smatrati avant-gardom meu pristalicama Vukovog lingvistikog Srpstva u Dalmaciji i Dubrovniku.13 Dve godine nakon publikovanja Vukovog lanka, Matija Ban je u svojoj poemi Materi srbskoj objavljenoj u Dubrovniku godine 1851. napisao da kao to se narodi razlikuju jedan od drugog na osnovu jezika tako se i plemena jednog istog naroda meu sobom razlikuju na osnovu dijalekta (nareja, primedba V. B. S.). Drugim reima, M. Ban je napominjao da vera ne odreuje nacionalnu pripadnost ve to ini samo jezik navodei kao primer Francuze (pogreno) i Nemce (opravdano). Po Banu, to pravilo vai isto tako i za Srbe koji mogu biti rimokatolici, muslimani, unijati ili pravoslavci ali ih sve ini pripadnicima iste nacije njihov maternji jezik: Svi mi kojima je srpski dijalekat (tokavsko nareje, primedba V. B. S.) maternji jezik inimo srpsko pleme (narod, primedba V. B. S.) [Ban 1851].
LITERATURA:
Ban, Matija. Materi srbskoj. In Dubrovnik: Cviet narodnog knjievstva, vol. 2. Zagreb: Tiskarnica Dra. Ljudevita Gaja, 1851. Ban, Matija. Osnova sveslavianskogo jezika. In Dubrovnik. Dubrovnik: Tieskom Martekinoviem, 1849. Brbori, Branislav. S jezika na jezik. Sociolingvistiki ogledi. Vol. 2. Beograd - Novi Sad: CPL -Prometej, 2001. Brli, Andrija Torkvat. Knjievne vesti. Danica ilirska 14, no. 7 (1848). Derkos, Ivan. Duh (Genije) domovine nad sinovima svojim, koji spavaju. Zagreb, 1897. Gaj, Ljudevit. Proglas. Danicza horvatska, slavonska i dalmatinska (Zagreb), vol. 2, no. 49 (1836).
12
Nikolajevi je objavio jo tri lanka na istu temu 1839., 1840. i 1841. g. U ova tri lanka on je kao srpske pesnike iz Dubrovnika naveo sledee velikane dubrovake knjievnosti: Dore Dri, Sismundo Meneti, Mavro Vetranovi, Nikola Dimitrovi, Andrija ubranovi, Marin Dri, Miho Buni Babulinov, Frano Lukarevi Burina, Dinko Ranjina, Dominko Zlatari, Ivan Gunduli, Dono Palmoti, Vice Puci Soltanovi, Divo Guceti Jerov, Baro Bettera, Ivan Buni Sarov, Dore Palmoti, Petar Bogainovi, Ignjat urevi, Marija Bogainovi-Budmani, Josip Betondi, Franatica Sorkoevi i Luko Buni.
13
Nikolajevi se verovatno upoznao sa Vukovom teorijom o lingvistikom Srpstvu preko Jeremije Gagia (17831859), sekretara Karaorevog dravnog saveta (Sovjeta). Gagi je 1812. g. uao u rusku slubu kao ruski konzul u Dubrovniku od 1815. g. do 1856. g. Gagi je bio Vukov bliski prijatelj. Nikolajevi se verovatno upoznao sa Vukom 1838. g. za vreme Karadievog gostovanja kod Gagia u Dubrovniku.
124 | Vladislav B. Sotirovi Gross, Mirjana. Povijest pravake ideologije. Zagreb: Sveuilite u Zagrebu - Institut za hrvatsku povijest, 1973. Ivi, Pavle. Srpski narod i njegov jezik. Beograd: Srpska knjievna zadruga, 1971. Kukuljevi-Sakcinski, Ivan. Dopis iz Milana. Danica ilirska, vol. 7, no. 14 (1841). Nikolajevi, ore. Spisatelji dubrovaki koi su srbskim jezikom, a talianskim slovima pisali. Srbsko-dalmatinski magazin (Zadar), no. 3 (1838): 17. Nikolajevi, ore. Srpski spomenici. Beograd, 1840. Orbini, Mauro. Il regno degli Slavi hoggi corrottamente detti Schiavoni, Pesaro: Apresso Girolamo Concordia, 1601. Orsatto [Medo Puci]. La Serbia e lImpero d Oriente. Firenza, 1867. Polemike u hrvatskoj knjievnosti. Vol. 1. Zagreb, 1982. ulek, Bogoslav. Srbi i Hrvati. Neven, no. 8, Zagreb, 1856. Pavlievi, Dragutin. Povijest Hrvatske. Zagreb, 2000. Petranovi, Boidar. Geografiesko-statistieski pregled Dalmacije. Srbsko-dalmatinski magazin, no. 3 (1838): 4042. Petrovi, Rade. Nacionalno pitanje u Dalmaciji u XIX stoljeu. Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1968. Reetar, Milan. Antologija dubrovake lirike. Beograd: Srpska knjievna zadruga, 1894. Roksandi, Drago. Srpska i hrvatska povjest i Nova Historija. Zagreb: Stvarnost, 1991. Starevi, Ante (pod pseudonimom). Dubrovnik cviet narodnoga knjievstva. Narodne novine (Zagreb), vol. 17, no. 230, 1851. Stulli, Bernard. Transka Favilla i Juni Sloveni. Anali Jadranskog instituta JAZU (Zagreb), vol. 1 (1956): 7-82. Vince, Zlatko. Putovima hrvatskoga knjievnog jezika. Zagreb: Liber, 1978.
Vladislav B. Sotirovi
VUK, CROATS AND DUBROVNIK

Abstract: This article in a narrow sense is analyzing the relations betweem Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic and a part of Serbian 19th c. philologists with the Croats in regards to the question of historical, cultural and literary inheritance of both the city and Republic of Dubrovnik South Slavic Florence, based on the spoken and written linguistic reality during the time of political independence of the Republic of Dubrovnik until the beginning

of the 19th c. In a wider context the article is analyzing the standpoints of the influential Croatian and Serbian public workers and philologists upon the question of Croat and Serb national identification and subsequently the question of division of the South Slavic ethnographic spase based on the German romanticist principle of ein sprache, ein folk, ein staat. Keywords: Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, Dubrovnik, Croats, Serbs, Serbian language, Croatian language, South Slavs, shtokavian dialect, ijekavian subdialect, Illyrian Movement, Dubrovniks literature, history of Serbs and Croats Received 29.01.2011 / Accepted 08.04.2011.
127
UDC 821.163.41.09"1900/1918" 327.39(=163.3/.6)"1900/1918" 351.85(497.11)"1900/1918"
: 19001918
: . . ( ), , . 1900. 1918. . , , / , , . : , , , , , , , , ,
, , . . , , , . , . .
Petar.Pijanovic@uf.bg.ac.rs (Petar Pijanovi, University of Belgrade, Teachers Training Faculty, Serbia)
128 |
. , . , . . . , . ? : 1. , 2. , 3. , 4. , 5. , , 6. , 7. , , . , , 8. .2 .3 , , . . .4 , .5 , , . , , -
, , : , , , 1999, 141.
3 4 5
, 141. , , , 151. , 154.
: 1900-1918 | 129
. : , , , , . XX , . . , , .6 , . , , , . : , , , , , , , , .7 1900. , . , , . , , , , . XIX XX . . . , , , , . XIX . , , . 1871.

6 7
, , , 133.
, . XIX . XX , , , 1900, 1.
130 |
. , , , , ( . ) -, , . .8 , , . XIX . , , , . . , , , 1914. . , , . : , , , , , , , , , .9 , , . 1914. , 1915. . , , -
, , , , 1999, 286.
9
, , , , , , , 1999, 116.
: 1900-1918 | 131
, , - . (1914), . . , , , . . , , . .10 , , , .11 , . 1914. . , , . , , , . ? , . XIX , , ; , , , . - , , ( 1909),
10
, " ", : . ( ), , , 1997, 426.

11
, 426.
132 |
.12 , , , ,13 .14 .15 , . , - , - , - , , , . : , , .16 , , , . , . : , .17 , . . . . , .

12
, , , , 2006, 382-383.
13 14 15 16 17
, 383. , 383. , 383. , 383. , 383.
: 1900-1918 | 133
, , , . , . , . , . . : , , , -, , , : .18 . . XX . . , . , . , , , . . , , - . XX . , , , .
18
, 384.
134 |
, , XX . . . , , , . , , . . XIX XX . , , . , , - . , , . , , , , , , , . . , . . , , . XIX XX . , , . . (1901). XX . . , . , -
: 1900-1918 | 135
. . . , . XX . . . , , . . , , , , . . .19 , , : , . , , - , .20 , . . . : ; , .21 . .

19 20 21
, 15. , 15. , 15.
136 |
. . . . : . . 1909. , 1911. - . , 1912. . : , , . [...] , , , .22 / : , , , , , , , , . , . 1912. ! (1919) , .23 , , 1904. .24 1904. 1914. , XX .
22
, , , , I, , , 1999, 7-8.
23
, , , , IX, , , 1999, 89.

24
, 89.
: 1900-1918 | 137
. , 1918. , . , , . , , / . . , . , , , , , , , , , . , , , . , . , , , . 1919. . , . : , , , .25 1919. . . , . XIX (1914) . , . 1904.

25
: , , , , . III, . 3-4, 1919, 94.
138 |
, - . , , . , , , , , , , , , . , (1910) . , ,26 .27 , 1911. . .28 , , , .29 , , .30 - .31 , ,32 .33 1913. , , . , , , , , : III, , , IV, , , 2000, 13.
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 26
, 13. . , , , 21. , 21. , 21. , 21. , 21. , 21.
: 1900-1918 | 139
() .34 , 1914. , , , . , , , . . . , , , , . . , , : , , , .35 , , , . , , . . , , . , , . , , () , . XX , ,

34
, " ", II, , , III, , , 2000, 101.

35
, " () ", : , , : , , IX, , , 1999, 212.
140 |
. , , .36 1900. 1918. , , .
LITERATURA:
Beli, Aleksandar. Istorija srpskog jezika. Beograd: Zavod za udbenike, 1999. Jakobsen, Per. Junoslovenske teme. Beograd: SlovoSlavia, 2010. Markovi, Mihailo. Stvaranje jedinstvenog duhovnog prostora srpskog naroda. In Srpski duhovni prostor. Banja Luka Srpsko Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Republike Srpske, 1999. Nikoli, Ferdo. Pavle Popovi, Jugoslovenska knjievnost. Omladina 3, nos. 3-4 (1919). Novakovi, Stojan. Srpska knjiga. Beograd: Dravna tamparija Kraljevine Srbije, 1900. Popovi, Pavle. Jugoslovenska knjievnost. Edited by Nenad Ljubinkovi. Beograd: Zavod za udbenike i nastavna sredstva, 1999a. Popovi, Pavle. Pregled srpske knjievnosti. Edited by Miroslav Panti. Beograd: Zavod za udbenike i nastavna sredstva, 1999b. Skerli, Jovan. Srbija, njena kultura i njena knjievnost. In Pisci i knjige III. Edited by Jovan Peji. Beograd: Zavod za udbenike i nastavna sredstva, 2000. Skerli, Jovan. Istorija nove srpske knjievnosti. Beograd: Zavod za udbenike i nastavna sredstva, 2006. Stojkovi, Andrija. Srpski narod izmeu Istoka i Zapada. Beograd: Zavod za udbenike i nastavna sredstva, 1999.
36
, , , , 2010, 326.
: 1900-1918 | 141
Petar Pijanovi
CORPUS OF SERBIAN LITERATURE: 19001918

Summary: This article investigates those circumstances that in a transitional era profiled Serbian literary corpus and contributed to this corpus being determined by Yugoslav instead of Serbian idea. This direction had a significant impact given by the cultural ideology and Serbian literary history of that time. Its leaders (Jovan Skerli and Pavle Popovic), binding to yugoslavism, paradoxically had a great impact in profiling and retrechment of the Serbian cultural and literary corpus. Paper shows that Serbian literature and its corpus in the period between 1900 and 1918 was essentially determined by the cultural context and the cultural ideology of that period. However, despite efforts to integrate this literature into a broader, that is, the Yugoslav supranational literary corpus, it survived as a distinctive, special and important factor in a single round of Serbian culture. Keywords: culture, system of cultures, cultural ideologies, the Serbian idea, Serbian literature, cultural pattern, yugoslavism, identity, Jovan Skerli, Pavle Popovi Received 07.03.2011 / Accepted 28.05.2011.
143
UDC 821.163.41.09 Sekuli I.
1 -

: . , Ultima Thule . I . , . . , , . : , , , ,

: . , Ultima Thule . , 19. 20. .
1 bodran@mail.ru (Anna Bodrova, Saint Petersburg State University, Faculty of Philology, Department of Slavic Philology, Russian Federation)
144 |
. . . , . : , 20. , , ,
(18771958), , , . . ( . ), ( 2006: 82), , . , , , ( ( ,1913), ( , 1914), . , , , , 2 ( 1961: 148). , ., , , , , 3 ( 1961: 147). , - . , I . , . , .4 , 2 3 4
, , ,
: 18751876 . ; 18931896 ., .
| 145
. , . 1885 (Paradise Foundthe Cradle of the Human Race at the North Pole, 1885), . 1903 . (The Arctic Home in the Vedas, 1903), , . . 1910 - . , .. .. , . , , , , , . .. , , , . , , , , , . ( 2000: 11-12). . Ultima Thule , . IV . .. , ( 2000: 19). , ( , ) . . , , ( 2000: 14). , XIX
146 |
-, , . ( 2011). , , , (1886-1951).5 : . - , . , - . , , - , . , , . <> , . , , , , . , . : , , . , , . , : , : , , , . ( 1990: 633). , , , , , . , - , , . . , , , , , , , . , , , ,6 . , -
, , , , , , . , , , , . ( 2000: 69)
6
'' . '' ( 1961: 308)
| 147
,7 .8 , , , : . . , .9 ( : , .10 , . IX . .. , , , , (1910) , . (, . (1903) , ). . XIX .. .. . . .. , .. , .. , .. , .. , .. , . . . , , . . 7 8
'' , ''( 1961: 310)
'' , , . ( , .)'' ( 1961: 310)

9
... . . : '' ( 1961: 306)

10
: , , ! , . . : , , . , ; , , . ( 1990: 37).
148 |
, ... ( , , ) 1913 . 11. , . . , . . . . , , . ( ,1912). . , ., .. . ( ,1941), ( ,1921), ( , 1941). ..., 12 ( 1962: 502) , . , , , , . , , , . ( 1962: 511). , - , . , , , () , ( 1961: 16), , , . , ,
11
, . . , , , . , . .
12 '' , .''
| 149
, , . () -, , , . . , , . , . . , , , (, ). , , , ( 1961: 156). . , , ( 1961: 175). , . , , , . : , o, , - , .13 ( 1961: 176). , , , : , , - . , , .14 ( 1961: 175). , , , ,
13
'' , , ''
14
'' , ''
150 |
, , . , , , , , , , , . , Ultima Thule, . , 1913 , , , 1914 . , , , , . , , , , ( ). ? ? -, . , , . , . , , ( , ). , , , . , , ( -, ). , . ,
| 151
: , ( 1961: 187-188). , , , , , , . , , , , , , . , , . , . , , .
:
, . , . : .. , 1910 (Elachich, Evgenij Aleksandrovich. Krajnij Sever kak rodina chelovechestva, na osnovanii novyh estestvennoistoricheskih i filologicheskih nauk. Sankt-Peterburg: Izdatel'stvo E.A. Elachicha, 1910). Koch, Magdalena. Podrze w czasie i przestrzeni. Proza Isidory Sekuli. Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocawskiego, 2000. , . 2- . 2. : , 1990 (Nicshe, Fridrih. Sochinenija v 2-h tomah. om 2. Moskva: Mysl', 1990). , . . . : , 1961 (Sekuli, Isidora. Sabrana dela. Knjiga prva. Beograd: Matica Srpska, 1961). , . . . : , 1962 (Sekuli, Isidora. Sabrana dela. Knjiga sedma. Novi Sad: Matica Srpska, 1962). , . : . : , 2006 (Stojanovi Pantovi, Bojana. Pobuna protiv sredita: novi prilozi o modernoj srpskoj knjievnosti. Panevo: Mali Nemo, 2006). , . . : -, 2002 (Tilak, Bal G. Arkticheskaja rodina v Vedah. Moskva: Fair-Press, 2002).
152 | , . . : -, 2003 (Uorren, Uiljam F. Najdennyj raj na Severnom poljuse. Moskva: Fair-Press, 2003). , . : . , no. 108, 2011 (Frank, Sjuzanna. Teplaja Arktika: k istorii odnogo starogo literaturnogo motiva. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, no. 108, 2011) Accessed July 31 2011. http://magazines.russ.ru/ nlo/2011/108/fr7.html. , .. . : , 2000 (Shirokova, N.S. Kul'tura kel'tov i nordicheskaja tradicija antichnosti. Sankt-Peterburg: Evrazija, 2000).
Anna Bodrova
THE NORTH MYTH IN WORKS OF ISIDORA SEKULI

Abstracts: In this article the North theme in works of Serbian writer Isidora Sekuli is considered. The myth about the North in writings of Sekuli has much in common with the Hyperborea legend, Ultima Thule mental concept and the Nordic theory. The writer shared interest in Scandinavia with many philosophers and artists at the turn of the century. Like Nietzsche she understood the North as a pagan place, and also like him she connected the North with loneliness. At the same time writings of Sekuli have some national and individual characteristics of the North perception. This is a comparison with her native Serbia, and also the North became for her a place of work and the loneliness, it is of great importance in her personal value system. Key Words: Isidora Sekuli, Serbian literature at the turn of the century, North theme, comparativistics, literature and science Received 27.06.2011 / Accepted 28.08.2011.
153
UDC 821.163.41.09 Andri I.
-1 ()

: , , -- . , : , , , , , , . : , , , , , ,
, . , , , . , , ( 2006: 148). : , . , . , .
1
mjmihajlovic@gmail.com (Marija Jeftimijevi-Mihajlovi, Institute of Serbian Culture Pritina, Leposavi, Serbia)
154 | -
: . . , . , , ( ), , , ( 1998: 156). , , , , . , . . , , , . , . , . , . , , . , . . , , , . , , , ! , : , . , , . . , . . , .
| 155
; . : , , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , , .2 . . ... , ( : , , ). : , . , , . . , , , . 1) 2) . : , , . , , . , ( 2001: 32).
, , , , 1998, . 155-204.
156 | -
-- . , , . . , ( 2004: 10). . , . . : , , . , , (, , ) , , (. 2004: 10). , , .3 .4 , , . , , . , , . , . . : , .

3
, , , : , . , . , , , . , ( , , . 37).
4
: : , ! (, III, 156-160)
| 157
, , , : , , ( 2001: 67). , , , , : . , , , , , . ( . . .), , , , , , , (. 2001: 156).5

. , , : , ( , ). , , ( , ) ( ). , , , : , , , , , . . , . , . . , , , , . , . . . , , . . , , : , . , , . , , , . , . : , . , , , . , , . , , , , .
5
158 | -
, , , : ; , . , : - - - - - - - .6 , , , , . : () (). - : , , . , . , , . .
. , . . , . , , , , , . , , , , ( , , . 26-91).
6
( ).
| 159
, , , . , - : . , , . . , , . , , . , , , , . , , , , , . , . , , . : , , - , , . ( . . .). ( 2001: 120). , , , , . , , . , -. . .7 , .
7 .
160 | -
, , , , . , . , : - ( ), - ( ), - ( ). , , - . . , , , , , (. 2001: 123). , , , , , , . . , , (. 2001: 129). . , , , . , . : ; , , , , . , , , . , . ( ), .
| 161
.8 , . : , , , . , . , , - , : ? , . , , . , . , : ? , , ! , , . , , , . , . , : - - .
, . , , . , , , . , , , , . , , (. , , . 124-125).
162 | -
, : - ( ); ( ); , ( ( . . .), ). , , , , : : ( . . .) . . , ( ). - , ( , ) . , . , , , (. , 155). , , . ( ), . - , , . , , ( ), , . . , , : ... , , . , , , , . , , , ; , , . . , . -
| 163
. , : ... , .... , : , , , , . : , , , , , , ; .
:
, . , : , 1979 (Adorno, Teodor V. Estetika teorija. Beograd: Nolit, 1979). , . . , . 2 (1993): 15-22 (Andrejevi, Danica. enski likovi u pripovetkama Iva Andria. Zbornik Filolokog fakulteta u Pritini, no. 2 (1993): 15-22). Andri, Ivo. Sabrana djela Ive Andria. Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1976. Eko, Umberto. Istorija lepote. Beograd: Plato, 2004. , . . : , 2006 (Ivanovi, Radomir. Andrieva mudronosna proza. Novi Sad: ITP Zmaj, 2006). Kora, Stanko. Andrievi romani ili Svijet bez boga. Zagreb: Prosvjeta, 1989. , . . : , 1993 (Leovac, Slavko. Ogledi o Ivi Andriu. Beograd: Srpska knjievna zadruga, 1993). , . . . . : , 1962. 43-79 (Miloevi, Nikola. Jedan antropoloki vid Andrievog knjievnog stvaralatva. In Ivo Andri. Edited by Vojislav uri. Beograd: Institut za teoriju knjievnosti i umetnosti, 1962. 43-79). , . . : , 1980 (Stojadinovi, Dragoljub. Mudrosti i tajne u delu Ive Andria. Pritina: Jedinstvo, 1980). , . . . . : , 1999. 261271 (Palavestra, Predrag. Deset naela Andrieve poetike. In Zbornik o Andriu. Edited by Radovan Vukovi. Beograd: Srpska knjievna zajednica, 1999. 261-271).
164 | - , . . . : , 1998. 155-202 (uti, Miloslav. Pokuaj sagledavanja osnovnih elemenata Andrieve estetike. In Vetar i melanholija. Beograd: Institut za knjievnost i umetnost, 1998. 155-202. uti, Milosav. Odbrana lepe due. Nova Pazova: Bonart, 2001.
Marija Jeftimijevi-Mihajlovi
PATRIARCHAL KALOKAGATHIA OF ONE ANDRIS HEROINE ENCLOSURE TO THE AESTHETICS

Summary: Andris aesthetics is characterized by an integral view on the world and sublime aspiration toward perfection. His creative and spiritual energy was directed toward the following aesthetic categories: Wisdom, Truth, Creativity, Harmony and Beauty. Andri had particularly been obsessed by Beauty what was discussed many times about in his essays, and in stories and novels as well. Beauty with Andri has got an emphasized pluralism; it is being appeared in a wide spectre of meanings and phenomena. Nevertheless, it is being appeared very often unified with the two other aesthetic categories: Good and Tragic one. Beautiful, Good, and Tragic make a paradigmatic axis developed by the writer at the level of explicit and implicit poetics. He developed it the most consistently and successfully in the character of Mara milosnica (Merciful Mara) from the same story. The liaison between Beauty and Goodness, marked by the Old Greek term kalokagathia, unifies aesthetic and ethic principle. In aesthetics a syntagm of similar meaning beautiful soul is used, and relates to the soul as a gathering place of Beauty and Goodness. The beautiful soul of Andris heroine Mara had been discussed in this paper, and it was shown she unified all characteristics of the aesthetically understood term of beautiful soul: emotional latency, patriarchy, religiosity, timidity, forgiveness, passivity, and introversion. Keywords: Andri, aesthetics, Beauty, Goodness, Tragedy, kalokagathia, patriarchy Received 13.06.2011 / Accepted 20.08.2011.
165
UDC 821.163.41.09
Dr Anna Modelska-Kwaniowska1 Uniwersytet Opolski Instytut Filologii Polskiej Katedra Slawistyki Polska
LITERACKIE OBRAZY BONI W WIETLE TEORII POSTKOLONIALNEJ

Abstrakt: Pwysep Bakaski przez cae stulecia by mentalnie kolonizowany przez Zachd. Zagadnienie to zostao gruntownie przebadane i opisane przez wybitnych naukowcw, na przykad przez Boidara Jezernika, Ev M. Thompson i przede wszystkim przez Mari Todorov, ktra przedstawia swoje przemylenia na ten temat w gonej ksice Bakany wyobraone. Jedn z najbardziej reprezentatywnych czci Pwyspu Bakaskiego jest Bonia i wanie dlatego jej obraz literacki, odczytywany przez pryzmat teorii (post)kolonialnej sta si przedmiotem niniejszych rozwaa. Artyku skupia si na kilku tekstach prozatorskich autorstwa wybitnych pisarzy pochodzcych z Bakanw, przewanie z Boni. S to: Ivo Andri, Mea Selimovi, Devad Karahasan, Drago Janar, Nenad Velikovi i Saa Stanii. Jednym z gwnych zagadnie, ktre dostrzec mona w przywoanych tekstach jest obraz Boni, a take jej miejsce w przestrzeni bakaskiej i europejskiej. Obrazy Boni bardzo czsto budowane s na zasadzie opozycji: My - Inni, tworzone s z zachodniego, kolonialnego punktu widzenia. Typowym bohaterem boniackiej prozy jest cudzoziemiec dowiadczajcy silnego poczucia odmiennoci, mentalnie kolonizujcy obc sobie przestrze. Jednoczenie bohaterowie bdcy tubylcami s wiadomi swojej pozycji Innych w Europie. Sowa kluczowe: (post)kolonializm, mentalne kolonizowanie Boni, mwienie o sobie poprzez konfrontacj z Innym
1 aniamodelska@wp.pl (Anna Modelska-Kwaniowska, Opole University, Institute of Polish Philology, Department of Slavic Studies, Poland)
166 | Anna Modelska-Kwaniowska
KNJIEVNA SLIKA BOSNE U SVETLU POSTKOLONIJALNE TEORIJE

Apstrakt: Zapad je vekovima mentalno kolonizovao Balkansko poluostrvo. Upravo problem su istraivali i opisali mnogi izvanredni istraivai, npr. Boidar Jezernik, Eva M. Thompson i pre svega Maria Todorova u njenoj proslavljenoj knizi Imaginarni Balkan. Jedan od navanijih predstavnika Balkanskog poluostrva je Bosna i zbog toga njena knjievna slika, viena kroz (post)kolonijalnu teoriju je predmet mojih razmiljanja. lanak se fokusira na nekoliko proznih tekstova izvanrednih pisaca iz Balkana, najee iz Bosne. To su: Ivo Andri, Mea Selimovi, Devad Karahasan, Drago Janar, Nenad Velikovi i Saa Stanii. Jedna od najvanijih tema, to se moe videti u tim tekstovima je slika Bosne i njeno mesto u balkanskom i evropskom prostoru. Slike Bosne su esto izgraene na principu opozicije: Mi Drugi, iz zapadne, kolonijalne take gledita. Tipini heroj bosanske proze je inostranac, koji doivljava snano svoju drugost i mentalno kolonizuje nepoznat prostor. Istovremeno lokalni heroji su svesni da zauzimaju poziciju Drugih u Evropi. Kljune rei: (post)kolonijalizam, mentalna kolonizacija Bosne, pria o sebi putem suoavanja sa drugim
O tym, e Bakany, geograficznie nierozerwalnie zwizane [s] z Europ, za kulturowo pozostawione przez ni w pozycji Innego () przekonujco pisaa Maria Todorova (Todorova 2008: 403), wprowadzajc w swej analizie analogiczne do Saidowskiego orientalizmu pojcie bakanizmu. Bakanizm magazyn cech negatywnych przedstawia region jako poddanego Europy, jej antycywilizacj, jej drug, ciemn stron. W opozycji do zacofanego i skonnego do okruciestwa Bakaczyka postawiono na wskro pozytywn posta Europejczyka z Zachodu (Todorova 2008). Znakomicie ilustruj to zjawisko relacje podrnikw z Europy Zachodniej, ktrzy od XVI wieku przybywali na Bakany, a w opisach swych wojay nie tylko portretowali tubylcw i miejscowe obyczaje, ale porednio rwnie samych siebie, o czym pisa m. in. Boidar Jezernik (Jezernik 2007). Wyrazem mentalnego kolonizowania Bakanw przez Europ jest take stosowanie w odniesieniu do nich pewnych pejoratywnych okrele Ewa M. Thompson polemizowaa na przykad z zasadnoci funkcjonujcego w odniesieniu do regionu okrelenia beczka prochu, jednoznacznie obciajcego Bakany win za wybuch obu wojen wiatowych i pomijajcego tym samym czy rzeczywicie susznie? kwesti imperializmu wielkich mocarstw europejskich (Thompson 2000: 8-21).
Literackie obrazy Boni w wietle teorii (post)kolonialnej | 167
Z tego rodzaju mentalnym kolonizowaniem, utrwalaniem stereotypw mamy zreszt do czynienia po dzi dzie. Wystarczy sign po gon ksik Roberta D. Kaplana, by ju w pocztkowych jej partiach zetkn si z opini budzc zdecydowany opr: Historia XX wieku zaczyna si na Bakanach. To tutaj ludziom spychanym na margines przez ndz i walki etniczne nienawi krya we krwi. () Nazizmowi, na przykad, mona miao przypisa bakaskie korzenie. To przecie w dzielnicy wiedeskich noclegowni, wylgarni etnicznych resentymentw, nieopodal granic poudniowej Sowiaszczyzny Hitler nauczy si tak zaraliwie nienawidzi (Kaplan 2010:26). Warto podkreli, e od czasu wojen bakaskich motyw przemocy w obrazie Bakanw sta si swoistym leitmotivem akcentowano zwaszcza wszelkie akty barbarzystwa waciwe dla Wschodu (np. nabijanie na pal), co miao podkrela orientalny charakter i odrbno (oraz niszy status rwnie moralny!) Pwyspu. Zamach sarajewski, najwiksza zbrodnia Bakanw, zdawa si potwierdza zasadno takiego ogldu regionu (Todorova 2008: 256-263) nazywanego rwnie dzik Europ (Jezernik 2007). Pomimo e Bakany w cigu ostatnich stuleci byy raczej prowincj czy peryferiami Europy ni jej samodzieln i rwnouprawnion czci, stanowiy przecie element Starego Kontynentu, w zwizku z czym mona mwi o ich quasi-kolonialnym statusie; Maria Todorova nazywa je terenem porednim, na wp kolonialnym (Todorova 2008). (W tekcie posugiwa si bd terminami kolonialny/postkolonialny, majc jednak na uwadze specyficzn bakask sytuacj). Fakt, i Bakany od stuleci byy Innym Europy nie moe nie sprowokowa pytania o reakcj mieszkacw regionu na taki sposb ich postrzegania i ich wasny ogld samych siebie. W niniejszym tekcie chciaabym si przyjrze jedynie czci Bakanw, przy czym jest to cz nader dla Pwyspu reprezentatywna: to Bonia. Z uwagi na niejednorodno etniczno-kulturowo-religijn nazywano j czsto Bakanami w miniaturze (Malcolm 1997: 11), dzi niektrzy widz w niej metafor Europy (Karahasan 1995: 116). Bakany, a wic take i Bonia, to przestrze dziedzicznie obciona granic, co w historycznej pamici regionu spowodowao dominacj postaci obcego, nieprzyjaciela, wrogo usposobionego do tubylcw (DbrowskaPartyka 2004: 102; Koch 2009: 85). Jako e literatura jest jednym z wyrazw tosamoci narodowej, przedmiotem mojego zainteresowania bdzie obraz Boni i jej mieszkacw wykreowany w wybranych tekstach literackich, odczytanych w kontekcie teorii (post)kolonialnej. Jaka samowiadomo Boniakw zostaa w nich zaprezentowana? Co myl o sobie, o swojej sytuacji, gdzie widz wasne miejsce? Czy i w jakim stopniu? w literaturze znajduje odzwierciedlenie wiadomo bycia Innym Europy?
Najbardziej klasycznym przykadem mwienia o sobie poprzez konfrontacj z Innym, przybyszem z zewntrz, z innego wiata jest proza Ivo Andricia (Koch 2009: 84). Autor Panny uczyni Boni metaforyczn przestrzeni wykorzenienia, zawieszenia midzy wiatami, kulturami, religiami, gdzie nic nie jest pewne, oczywiste ani jasne, nawet ziemia, na wszystkie moliwe sposoby zmitologizowana w agrarno-patriarchalnej tradycji aksjologicznej (Dbrowska-Partyka 2004: 77). W Mocie na Drinie pisarz przedstawi histori Wyszegradu od poowy XVI wieku do wybuchu I wojny wiatowej. Na przestrzeni kilku stuleci Boniacy najpierw znaleli si w niewoli tureckiej, potem, od 1878 roku, pod okupacj austro-wgiersk. Te dwa etapy w dziejach Boni wyranie si midzy sob rni. Wadza turecka utosamiana jest przede wszystkim z przemoc fizyczn i terrorem, co obrazuje w sposb najbardziej wymowny historia buntownika Radisawa z Uniszta, ktry w wyjtkowo okrutny sposb zosta ukarany za prb opniania budowy mostu. Pena ekspresji, wstrzsajca scena nabijania bohatera na pal do dzi jest argumentem przeciwnikw pisarza oskarajcych go m.in. o sadyzm i utosamianie si z oprawcami! (Beri 1999: 15). Wadza austro-wgierska kojarzona jest gwnie z postpem cywilizacyjnym, dosy zreszt ambiwalentnie ocenianym, bo wicym si z wyzyskiem gospodarczym oraz narzucaniem pewnych rozwiza administracyjnych, zupenie obcych tubylcom. Wraz z nastaniem okupacji austro-wgierskiej nastpuje zderzenie dwch cywilizacji, dwch, jake odmiennych, czci Starego Kontynentu. W Mocie na Drinie gos naley do narratora-kronikarza, ktry relacjonuje koleje dziejw wyszegradzkiej kasaby. Czasem tylko bliej przyglda si ciekawszym, z jakiego powodu wyrniajcym si jednostkom. Do takich bohaterw, przypisanych do dwch odrbnych wiatw: kolonizowanego i kolonizujcego, nale bez wtpienia Alihoda i Lotika. Para bohaterw yjcych w burzliwych czasach okupacji austro-wgierskiej jest ze sob zestawiona na zasadzie kontrastu. Alihoda to rodowity wyszegradzianin, konserwatywny, przywizany do tradycyjnych wartoci muzumanin, fatalista, ktry z gbok niechci i nieufnoci przyjmuje wszelkie zmiany polityczne, gospodarcze i spoeczne, naruszajce podwaliny jego dotychczasowego wiata, burzce jego poczucie bezpieczestwa. Bohaterowi obca jest mentalno Austriakw, ich bezustanny popiech, skonno do cigego poprawiania i zmieniania otoczenia. Momentem przeomowym jest zaminowywanie mostu przez Austriakw mostu, ktry dla Alihody by ucielenieniem pikna, trwaoci, niezmiennoci, mostu, ktry wedle jego przekona mia w sobie boski pierwiastek. Obcy, ktrzy wtargnli do jego bezpiecznego wiata, niszcz go bezpowrotnie, a Alihoda opuszcza go, zanim dokona si ostateczna destrukcja.
Lotika reprezentuje wiat kolonizatorw, ktrzy zdecydowanie wkroczyli w boniack patriarchaln rzeczywisto z postanowieniem jej zeuropeizowania. ydwka, ktra przybya do Boni z fal galicyjskich emigrantw po 1878 roku, ucielenia wszystkie cechy, ktrych brak Alihody: jest przedsibiorcza, energiczna, otwarta, skonna do podejmowania ryzyka, altruistyczna. Lotika jest jedn z ciekawszych postaci kobiecych Andricia, mona powiedzie obc niejako podwjnie: z uwagi na to, e jest reprezentantk Zachodu i ze wzgldu na pe. Kobieta interesu z krwi i koci stanowia w wyszegradzkiej kasabie ewenement, aczkolwiek trzeba przyzna, e budzia powszechny szacunek. Niestety i j podobnie jak Alihod zamao nieszczcie nadchodzcej wojny. Konsulowie ich cesarskich moci to powie, ktrej akcja rozgrywa si w czasach napoleoskich. Ukazuje ona dalek tureck prowincj z perspektywy zachodnioeuropejskich konsulw przybywajcych do Trawnika, wczesnej stolicy Boni. Zarwno Francuz, jak i Austriak traktuj swj pobyt na boniackiej ziemi w kategoriach dotkliwej kary za (nie)popenione winy. Tak Daville, jak i von Mitterer, przybywszy do opanowanej przez Turkw przed kilku wiekami Boni, ponownie dokonuj jej kolonizacji tym razem: mentalnej. Ju wjazd francuskiego konsula do miasteczka stanowi manifestacj wyszoci dumnego Europejczyka nad Turkami, ktrzy z kolei kilkuletni pobyt obcych z Zachodu traktuj jako mao znaczcy epizod. Punkt widzenia cudzoziemcw z gry spogldajcych na niecywilizowany wedug nich nard dostarcza oczywicie sporej wiedzy nie tylko na temat Boniakw, ale w rwnym stopniu moe nawet w wikszym? nadaje solidne podstawy do skonstruowania portretw reprezentantw Zachodu. Zamknita kompozycja powieci znakomicie oddaje stosunek miejscowych do przybyszy: w Prologu Hamdi-bej Teskeredi, lokalny autorytet, mwi: My tu jestemy u siebie na swoim, a kady ktokolwiek przyjdzie bdzie obcy na cudzym i sabe ma widoki, by dugo popasa (Andri 1977: 27), w Epilogu, po siedmiu latach pobytu konsulw w Trawniku i przed ich rychym wyjazdem, ten sam Hamdi-bej konstatuje: Ot, i to byo, i to przeszo () I wszystko znw bdzie, jak zawsze z woli Boej bywao (Andri 1977: 577-578). Poczucie obcoci, innoci konsulw, podszyty nieufnoci i gbok niechci stosunek do Europy to najbardziej charakterystyczne cechy tubylcw, ktrym daj wyraz na przykad przytoczonych komentarzach. O ile w powieci dominuje perspektywa konsulw, ukazany jest ich ogld Boni postrzeganej jako skrajnie nieprzyjazna (poczynajc od klimatu poprzez infrastruktur i oglne zacofanie a po zamknitych w sobie, wrcz ksenofobicznych Boniakw), o tyle trawniczanie nie zostaj zupenie pozbawieni prawa gosu. Ich opinia spina ca opowie klamr. Z komentarzy Hamdi-beja przebija wiadomo, e typow cech boniackiej rzeczywistoci jest niezmienno nietrwaoci
(Dbrowska-Partyka 2004: 53) takie przekonanie stale towarzyszy miejscowym bejom. Std Bonia jest u Andricia wykreowana jako przestrze inercji i bezwadnego trwania, wynikajcego z lku i zagubienia w historii (Dbrowska-Partyka2004: 79). Ciekaw wizj kraju skolonizowanego przez Imperium Osmaskie przedstawi w swoich dwch najlepszych powieciach Mea Selimovi. XVII-wieczna w Twierdzy i XVIII-wieczna w Derwiszu i mierci Bonia ogldana jest z perspektywy jednostek do tego wiata nalecych, cho w rnym stopniu si z nim utosamiajcych. Achmed Nurudin, dostojnik religijny z Derwisza i mierci to reprezentant wadzy tureckiej, ktry wskutek zaistniaych okolicznoci, uwiadomiwszy sobie stosowane przeze przemoc i kamstwo, staje si buntownikiem, a potem urzdnikiem pastwowym (kadim), ktry sam takimi rodkami zaczyna si posugiwa. Przemiana bohatera wie si z kryzysem jego wiary i prowadzi do ruiny dotychczasowej hierarchii wartoci. Walk przegrywa na wszystkich frontach. Mona by powiedzie, e z kolonizatora staje si kolonizowanym, z owcy zwierzyn own. Obraz Boni w powieci jest konstruowany nie tylko w oparciu o obserwacje Nurudina (monolog wewntrzny). Przytacza on w swojej opowieci rozmowy z Hasanem, czowiekiem, ktry jednoczenie naley i nie naley do boniackiej rzeczywistoci. W swoich refleksjach przyjaciel Nurudina akcentuje odwieczny tragizm sytuacji Boni: Demail [nieszcznik, ktry okaleczy si w chwili pijackiego szau, wskutek czego pozostaa mu niezwyka sia w rkach, nogi jednak mia bezwadne i by skazany na wzek inwalidzki] to nasz obraz prawdziwie boniacki (). Olbrzym na kikutach. Kat samego siebie. Obfito bez kierunku i sensu. () Z nikogo historia nie zakpia tak jak z nas (Selimovi 1977: 370). Hasan, czsto opuszczajcy rodzinne strony i udajcy si w podre pozwalajce mu nabra dystansu do ojczyzny i rodakw, czy w sobie cechy swojego i obcego zarazem. Jest mona powiedzie yczliwym krytykiem swoich rodakw. Jego przyjaciel, Dubrowniczanin, przybysz z Zachodu, reprezentuje natomiast typowego obcego, ktry omiela si krytykowa lokaln wadz (w licie do swoich pisze o nieuczciwoci rzdzcych, panujcej korupcji, wszechobecnoci szpiegw). Gdy list zosta przechwycony przez szpiegw, natychmiast wydano nakaz aresztowania nieprawomylnego gocia. Poniewa Hasan czowiek odwany i nade wszystko cenicy wolno pomg mu zorganizowa ucieczk, sam ponis konsekwencje wspomagania wroga pastwa. Turecka wadza, podobnie jak u Andricia, pokazana jest jako kolonizator uciekajcy si do przemocy fizycznej, do likwidacji niepodanych jednostek. Ahmet abo z Twierdzy, uczestnik wojny chocimskiej, to bohater naznaczony wtpliwociami natury moralnej, bdcymi efektem traumy wojennej. Mimo e naley do boniackiej rzeczywistoci, towarzyszy mu poczucie obcoci, odmiennoci wynikajcej z pragnienia zachowania wasnych zasad moralnych w wiecie splamionym
zbrodni i krwi. Cho w Twierdzy nie zosta zastosowany chtnie wykorzystywany przez pisarzy boniackich chwyt konstruowania portretu wasnego poprzez konfrontacj z przybyszem z zewntrz, to jedna z ciekawszych postaci w powieci, ehaga Soo, wyjeda poza granice kraju, do Wenecji, by tam, wrd obcych, uwiadomi sobie si swej nieatwej i wcale nie oczywistej mioci do Boni. Bohater ten jest czowiekiem bolenie dowiadczonym przez ycie, jest te patriot, ktrego uczucia do ojczyzny s pene sprzecznoci. ehaga Soo jest wyranie bliski Hasanowi upodabnia ich do siebie krytycyzm w stosunku do rodakw, ale te potrzeba dystansowania si do Boni. wiat przedstawiony w powieciach Selimovicia jest zdominowany przez ludno miejscow, cudzoziemcy pojawiaj si tutaj rzadko, a jeli ju s budz nieufno i podejrzenia. Tubylcy yj w pewnej izolacji od wiata zewntrznego, rzadko si zdarza, by kto wyjeda poza Boni. Ci, ktrym si to od czasu do czasu udaje, zyskuj nie tylko wiedz o wiecie, ale i co wcale nie mniej cenne zaczynaj lepiej rozumie i bardziej kocha wasn ojczyzn. Literackie obrazy Boni w nowej rzeczywistoci, po rozpadzie Jugosawii, wydaj si by nie mniej ciekawe ni te historyczne. Chciaabym zwrci uwag na kilka utworw, w ktrych autorefleksja jest szczeglnie silnie zaznaczona. Dwa teksty eseistyczne pisane podczas wojny w Boni: Sarajewska sevdalinka Devada Karahasana (Karahasan 1995) i Krtki raport z dugo obleganego miasta Drago Janara (Janar 1999) dotycz tego samego tematu: oblenia Sarajewa. W obu dominuje poczucie opuszczenia i oskarycielski ton wobec Europy, ktra nie dostrzega dramatu mieszkacw Boni. Karahasan Boniakw, z ktrymi naturalnie si utosamia, nazywa europejskimi Indianami yjcymi w rezerwacie (Karahasan 1995: 104). To okrelenie nie pozostawia cienia wtpliwoci w kwestii jego postkolonialnej wiadomoci. Poczucie krzywdy, marginalizowanie interesw Boni przez europejskie mocarstwa jest w ksice zasadnicz myl. Boniacki pisarz, z waciw sobie bezkompromisowoci, obnaa obud zachodnioeuropejskiej cywilizacji, kiedy na przykad pisze: Z Europy, w ktrej pidziesita rocznica wyzwolenia obozu w Owicimiu bdzie obchodzona w sposb tak spektakularny, w ktrej znane przysigi i apele dotyczce obozw zostan powtrzone z tak zrutynizowan rutyn, e a nikt ich naprawd nie bdzie sysza i nikt nie zauway, i w obecnej sytuacji Sarajewa powtarza si osobliwie duo strukturalnych i treciowych cech Owicimia (Karahasan 1995: 108). W eseju soweskiego pisarza Drago Janara konstatacja dotyczca kultury zachodnioeuropejskiej sformuowana jest przy pomocy uobecniajcej si ju w pierwszym zdaniu ironii: Czytelnicy, a wraz z nimi redaktorzy i wydawcy z Zachodu maj powyej uszu ponurych scen z komunistycznych agrw i psychuszek. () Teraz czy-
telnik z Zachodu lubi literatur na temat: jak przeylimy bez nylonowych poczoch, a mimo to z umiechem na ustach (Janar: 1999: 103). Ju na pocztku zostaje zatem wykreowany czytelnik z Zachodu, ktrego charakteryzuje przede wszystkim brak wraliwoci na cierpienie innych, wynikajcy z przesytu, ze swoistego nadmiaru informacji, ktry paradoksalnie miast budzi sumienia, usypia je. Dalej czytamy: Sarajewo () jest czarn dziur tego kontynentu, od ktrej odwraca si oczy, na ktrej widok wycza si telewizor i odkada si ksik. () O Sarajewie wszystko ju napisano, wszytko powiedziano, wszystko obfotografowano i sfilmowano. I wszystko toczy si dalej, ju tysiczny dzie. () Mimo wszystkich kamer i stacji telewizyjnych wiat jeszcze nigdy nie by tak lepy i guchy jak dzisiaj (Janar 1999: 107). Nawizaniem do znanego wiersza polskiego poety pisarz wzmacnia gboko humanistyczne przesanie tego poruszajcego tekstu. Maria Dbrowska-Partyka wskazuje take na moliwy zwizek omawianego eseju z Herbertowskim Przesaniem Pana Cogito, przede wszystkim z jego puent: Bd wierny Id (Dbrowska-Partyka 2003: 197). Typowo postkolonialna, zabarwiona pen goryczy ironi wiadomo uobecnia si w powieci, ktra niemal automatycznie przychodzi na myl w zwizku z wyej omawianym utworem Andricia. To Sahib. Impresje z depresji Nenada Velikovicia (Velikovi 2007) wyranie korespondujcy z powieci Konsulowie ich cesarskich moci. I tutaj autor skonfrontowa Boni (tym razem na pocztku XXI wieku, w nowej, po rozpadzie Jugosawii i utworzeniu pastwa boniackiego, sytuacji politycznej) z Europ Zachodni, a gosu udzieli przedstawicielowi cywilizowanego wiata, Anglikowi, ktry w sposb nader miay nie tylko z wyszoci opisuje w listach do przyjaciela zacofan boniack rzeczywisto, ale rwnie mimochodem demaskuje, jake pozorn, szlachetno i wyszo moraln wiata, z ktrego przyby: Nieustannie si dziwi, widzc, e miejscowi uwaaj nas za rwnych sobie. Minie jeszcze duo czasu zanim do nich dotrze, e nie trzeba by czarnym, eby by niewolnikiem (Velikovi 2007: 103). Anglik, tytuowy Sahib (tur.: pan, wadca), jako powieciowy narrator narzuca swoj wizj boniackiej rzeczywistoci, czym dokonuje niejako powtrnej, symbolicznej kolonizacji tego wiata (Koch 2009: 87). Wynika to z zastosowanej konwencji nowoczesnej powieci epistolarnej (opartej na e-mailach). Przemoc zachodniego dyskursu narzucajcego zasady ogldu wiata nie pozostawia adnych wtpliwoci. Inaczej ni u Andricia nie mamy tutaj choby szcztkowego komentarza miejscowych. Take Saa Stanii w swojej debiutanckiej powieci Jak onierz gramofon reperowa (Stanii 2008) odnis si do sytuacji w Boni z perspektywy europejskiej. Specyficzne pooenie modego pisarza (ur. 1978), ktry opuci kraj po wybuchu wojny domowej jako czternastoletni chopiec umoliwio mu spojrzenie na ojczyzn z dystansem. Warto podkreli, e ksika zostaa napisana po niemiecku i wy-
dana w Niemczech, nastpnie za przetumaczona na ponad dwadziecia jzykw. Ponadto wyrniono j prestiowymi niemieckimi nagrodami literackimi (np. nagroda Adalberta von Chamisso w 2008 roku). Modego autora mona by nazwa, posikujc si terminem wprowadzonym przez Wojciecha Wyskiela, przeszczepiecem (Wyskiel 1985: 11), emigrantem, ktry debiutuje i publikuje swoje dokonania literackie w obrbie innej kultury ni jego rodzima. Bohater powieci, bdcy alter ego Staniicia, Aleksandar Krsmanovi, pochodzi z mieszanej, muzumasko-serbskiej rodziny, a jego dziecistwo upyno w Wyszegradzie2, wwczas w granicach Jugosawii. Zdobycie miasta przez Serbw, eskalacja dziaa wojennych, narastajce poczucie zagroenia przez czonkw spoecznoci muzumaskiej i rodziny niejednolite pod wzgldem etnicznym i w efekcie emigracja rodziny Krsmanoviciw to kluczowe momenty w biografii bohatera-narratora. Aleksandar jest mocno zwizany ze swoj ma ojczyzn. Opowie prowadzona z punktu widzenia dziecka nasycona jest silnymi emocjami, skierowanymi nie tylko w stron najbliszych czonkw rodziny (ukochany dziadek Slavko!), ale i miejsc, pewnych elementw krajobrazu na przykad Drina, o ktrej wczeniej piknie pisa ju i Isak Samokovlija, i Ivo Andri, pod pirem Staniicia ponownie staje si niejako ywym, obdarzonym uczuciami stworzeniem. Po wyjedzie do Niemiec Aleksandar nie zrywa emocjonalnej wizi z Boni snuje wspomnienia z dziecistwa, przypadajcego na zmierzch Jugosawii, z trudem aklimatyzuje si w nowym, obcym rodowisku. Jako dorosy ju czowiek, po dziesiciu latach od zakoczenia wojny, Aleksandar postanowi wrci do Boni, by skonfrontowa swe wspomnienia ze stanem faktycznym. Do podjcia decyzji o wyjedzie przyczyniy si w znacznym stopniu motywacje osobiste, bo bohater poszukiwa niejakiej Asiji dziewczynki (teraz ju modej kobiety), ktra w czasie dziaa wojennych ukrya si w piwnicy domu Krsmanoviciw. Po kilku dniach dzieci si rozstay, a ich drogi na zawsze (?) si rozeszy. Ta wyprawa do kraju lat dziecinnych bya aktem odwagi bohatera, ktry teraz by ju Innym, obcym, co podczas spotkania bolenie uwiadomi mu niegdysiejszy przyjaciel: Rozejrzyj si dokoa, Aleks! Rozejrzyj si, prosz, dokoa! Czy znasz tu kogo? Przecie ty nie znasz nawet mnie! Jeste obcy, Aleksandar! () Ciesz si! (Stanii 2008: 304). Konfrontacja z powojenn Boni prowadzi wic do gorzkiej wiadomoci wyobcowania, bycia nie u siebie. Sam Stanii zreszt take zdecydowanie podkrela, e w Boni czuje si jak badacz
2
Wyszegrad zosta wprowadzony na karty literatury przez Ivo Andricia; ksika Staniicia w pewien sposb kontynuuje literack karier miasteczka. Warto podkreli, e w boniackim pimiennictwie zwizanym tematycznie z wojn 1992-1995 zdecydowanie dominuje Sarajewo. Zdobycie Wyszegradu przez Serbw ukazane przez Staniicia z perspektywy narratora dziecicego take i z tego powodu zasuguje na uwag.
lub turysta, jego dom znajduje si bowiem w Lipsku. Pisze po niemiecku, bo jego znajomo naszego jzyka jest niewystarczajca na potrzeby tworzenia literatury. Wybrane przykady literackie zarwno te prezentujce Boni historyczn (utwory Andricia i Selimovicia), jak i te odnoszce si do okresu po rozpadzie Jugosawii (teksty Karahasana, Janara, Velikovicia, Staniicia) ilustruj sta obecno refleksji na temat miejsca Boniakw w przestrzeni bakaskiej i europejskiej. Portrety wasne s czsto konstruowane poprzez konfrontacj z Innym, cudzoziemcem, ktry, majc poczucie cywilizacyjnej przewagi, mentalnie kolonizuje przestrze boniack poprzez powielanie funkcjonujcych stereotypowych wyobrae (Konsulowie ich cesarskich moci, Sahib). Przybysz z Zachodu moe take poprzez wprowadzenie nowych dla tubylcw wartoci czy zachowa (odwaga posiadania wasnych pogldw politycznych przez Dubrowniczanina w Derwiszu i mierci, przedsibiorczo i samodzielno Lotiki w Mocie na Drinie) portretowa lokaln rzeczywisto. Wreszcie ogld Boni bywa prowadzony przez postacie stamtd si wywodzce, ktre jednak co jaki czas opuszczaj swj kraj, by podczas podry nabra do niego dystansu i mc w swoim krytycyzmie wobec ojczyzny znale take wartoci dodatnie (bohaterowie Selimovicia Hasan, ehaga Soo), bd te jak u Staniicia emigruj z Boni na stae i w pewnym momencie ycia prbuj skonfrontowa wasne wspomnienia ze stanem faktycznym.
LITERATURA:
Konsulowie ich cesarskich moci. Prze. H. Kalita, d, 1977. Andri, Ivo. Most na Drinie. Prze. H. Kalita. Warszawa, 1985. Beri, Gojko. Druga mier Iva Andricia. Gazeta Wyborcza (Warszawa) 4-5.12.1999. Dbrowska-Partyka, Maria. Literatura pogranicza, pogranicza literatury. Krakw, 2004. Dbrowska-Partyka, Maria. wiadectwa i mistyfikacje. Przed i po Jugosawii. Krakw, 2003. Janar, Drago. Eseje. Prze. J. Pomorska. Wyboru dokona K. Czyewski. Sejny, 1999. Jezernik, Boidar. Dzika Europa. Bakany w oczach zachodnich podrnikw. Przekad P. Oczko. Krakw, 2007. Kaplan, Robert D. Bakaskie upiory. Podr przez histori. Prze. J. Ruszkowski. Woowiec, 2010. Kapuciski, Ryszard. Spotkanie z Innym jako wyzwanie XXI wieku. Wykad wygoszony 1 padziernika 2004 roku z okazji przyznania tytuu doktora honoris causa Uniwersytetu Jagielloskiego. Krakw, 2004.
Literackie obrazy Boni w wietle teorii (post)kolonialnej | 175 Karahasan, Devad. Sarajewska sevdalinka. Prze. D. irli-Straszyska, J. Pomorska. Sejny, 1995. Koch, Magdalena. My i Oni, Swj i Obcy. Bakany XX wieku z perspektywy kolonialnej i postkolonialnej. Porwnania (Pozna), nr 6, 2009. Selimovi, Mea. Twierdza. Prze. M. Krukowska. Warszawa, 1976. Selimovi, Mea. Derwisz i mier. Prze. H. Kalita. Warszawa, 1977. Stanii, Saa. Jak onierz gramofon reperowa. Prze. A. Roseau. Woowiec, 2008. Thompson, Eva M. Trubadurzy imperium. Literatura rosyjska i imperializm. Prze. A. Sierszulska. Krakw, 2000. Todorova, Maria. Bakany wyobraone. Prze. P. Szymor i M. Budziska. Woowiec, 2008. Velikovi, Nenad. Sahib. Impresje z depresji. Prze. D. J. irli. Woowiec, 2007. Wyskiel, Wojciech. Wprowadzenie do tematu: literatura i emigracja. Praca zbiorowa pod red. T. Bujnickiego i W. Wyskiela. Wrocaw, 1985.
Anna Modelska-Kwaniowska
LITERARY IMAGES OF BOSNIA IN POSTCOLONIAL THEORY PERSPECTIVE

Summary: Balkan Peninsula has been mentally colonized by Western Europe for ages. It was described by some scientist for example Boidar Jezernik, Ewa M. Thompson and Maria Todorova. Todorova in her famous book Imagining the Balkans introduced new word balcanism when she was writing about this occurrence. One of the most representative part of Balkan is Bosnia and that is why theme of the paper is its picture in literature. It was read from (post)colonial point of view. The paper is focused on few prose works by famous Balkan writers (mostly from Bosnia): Ivo Andri, Mea Selimovi, Devad Karahasan, Drago Janar, Nenad Velikovi and Saa Stanii. One of the main problems is the idea of Bosnia and its place in European area and the Balkans. Bosnian portraits are very often based on we and the Others opposition and are drawn from the Western colonial perspective. Bosnian typical hero is a foreigner who has strong feeling of superiority. He is mentally colonizing Bosnian area. At the same time Bosnian heros of these texts are sure that they are the Others of Europe. Keywords: (post)colonialism, mental colonization of Bosnia, talking about themselves through confrontation with the Other Received 05.05.2011 / Accepted 09.07.2011.
177
UDC 327.7/.8(497.1:456.31)
Dr Branislav Radelji1 University of East London Department of Politics United Kingdom
BLESSING THE COLLAPSE OF YUGOSLAVIA: THE VATICANS ROLE IN EC POLICYMAKING

Abstract: This article elaborates on the religious aspect of the Yugoslav state crisis and, more importantly, the relevance of the Vatican for European Community policy-making. Although it had never seemed possible to forget some of problematic periods characterizing the relations between the Vatican and Yugoslavia, it initially condemned the violence and called for a peaceful solution for the Yugoslav crisis. However, with the advancement of the war, the Vatican strengthened its position and commenced favouring the recognition of independence of the Catholic republics of Slovenia and Croatia. Keywords: Yugoslav crisis, Vatican, European Community
INTRODUCTION
The twentieth century history of the Balkans saw religion and politics often accompanying each other: from the Balkan Wars to the two World Wars and the wars of the Yugoslav succession, at some point during these conflicts, but even in interwar periods, the question of religious denomination appeared as an important component characterizing further developments within the Yugoslav society.2 However, aca-
1 2
B.Radeljic@uel.ac.uk
This understanding is properly acknowledged in a remarkable volume of Stella Alexander whose detailed contribution covered relations between the Catholic and Orthodox churches within and with the Yugoslav state from 1945 to 1974 (Stella Alexander, Church and State in Yugoslavia since 1945, Cambridge, 1979). To continue with the debate about the Churches as well as church-state relations, some other scholars have primarily focused on the comportment of the Churches and the Yugoslav state from the early 1970s to the moment of its disintegration. See, for example, Larry A. Dunn, The roles of religion in conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Religion in Eastern Europe, Vol.16, No.1 (1996), pp.1327; Paul Mojzes, Yugoslavian Inferno: Ethnoreligious Warfare in the Balkans (New York, 1994); Vjekoslav
178 | Branislav Radelji
demic scholarship has paid almost no attention to the linkage between the religious outlook of the Yugoslav crisis and EuropeanCommunity decision-making. In his analysis of the impact of religion on politics, Jonathan Fox distinguishes between three different forms it takes: First, foreign policies are influenced by the religious views and beliefs of policymakers and their constituents. Second, religion is a source of legitimacy for both supporting and criticizing government behaviour locally and internationally. Third, many local religious issues and phenomena, including religious conflicts, spread across borders or otherwise become international issues.3 If applied to the Yugoslav crisis, although all three aspects were present, I argue that the first modus operandi was the most obvious at European Community level, whereas the other two primarily characterized domestic policies of the conflicting parties. In regard to those, Warren Zimmermann has a valid point when writing that [t]he major proponents of destructive nationalism werent driven by religious faith. Franjo Tudjman had been a communist most of his life; he converted to Catholicism when he turned to national activities. Miloevi, a lifelong communist, never, as far as I know, entered a Serbian Orthodox church, except for blatant political activities.4 Abroad, official and public reactions criticized the outbreak of violence. At the same time, religious difference between the conflicting parties was not ignored. One scholar pointed out that religious aspects shape our perception about the other a perception which particularly gains its full relevance when bad things happen.5 In Yugoslavia, while, on the one hand, the Serbs counted on moral support from the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches, on the other hand, the Slovenes and Croats sought backing from the Catholic Church. With regard to the Vatican, although it had never been able to forget some of problematic periods characterizing the relations with the SFRY, it initially condemned the violence and called for a peaceful solution for the Yugoslav crisis, but without saying what the solution should exactly be.
Perica, Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States (Oxford, 2002); Sabrina P. Ramet, Balkan Babel: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia from the Death of Tito to the Fall of Miloevi (Boulder, CO, 2002); Pedro Ramet, Factionalism in Church-State interaction: the Croatian Catholic Church in the 1980s, Slavic Review, Vol.44, No.2 (1985), pp.298-315; Pedro Ramet, Catholicism and politics in socialist Yugoslavia, Religion in Communist Lands, Vol. 10, No. 3 (1982), pp. 256-274.
3
Fox, Jonathan, Religion as an overlooked element of international relations, International Studies Review, Vol. 3, No. 3 (2001), p. 59.
4 Zimmermann, Warren, Origins of a Catastrophe: Yugoslavia and Its Destroyers (New York, NY, 1996), p. 210. 5
See Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Culture (New York, NY, 1973).
Blessing the Collapse of Yugoslavia: the Vaticans Role in EC Policy-Making | 179
However, with the advancement of the war, the Vatican strengthened its position and commenced favouring independence for Slovenia and Croatia. This chapter will examine the religious aspect of the Yugoslav state crisis and, more importantly, the relevance of the Catholic Church for European Community policy-making. In his account, Fox noted that [m]any policy-makers are religious and it is likely that their religious beliefs influence their actions. Whether they truly believe or not, they often find it useful to draw upon religion to justify their actions, which indicates that religion is as source of legitimacy on the international stage.6 I adopt this point of view and accordingly argue that as soon as the parties commenced fighting each other, both Orthodox and Catholic churches adopted clear positions that resulted in supporting one side or the other. In this rather religious battle, the Catholic republics of Slovenia and Croatia gained remarkable support from the Vatican which further influenced European Community officials to recognize the two republics as independent states.
BETWEEN THE YUGOSLAV LEADERSHIP AND THE VATICAN

In post-war Yugoslavia, the Communist Partys objections towards the Catholic Church were twofold: on the one hand, the atheist ideology underlying Communism tended to reject any religion and even promoted anti-religious policies while, on the other, and perhaps more importantly, the Catholic Church was seen as having close associations with the Croatian Ustasha regime appointed by Nazi Germany in April 1941 and which was responsible for condemnation of all Serbs, Jews and Roma in the Independent State of Croatia. Understandably, the post-war Yugoslav authorities decided to minimize the voice of the Catholic Church by placing it under direct governmental control. It resulted that some leading clergy figures were tried and jailed, church property confiscated, religious education removed from the curricula, religious press classified as illegal etc.7 This rather intolerant approach towards the Catholic clergy culminated with the conviction of Alojzije Stepinac, Archbishop of Zagreb and direct collaborator of the Ustasha regime, to sixteen years hard labour in 1946. The Communist Party insisted that the Catholic Church represented a threat to the stability of the Yugoslav state. As the public prosecutor imagined, the trial against
6 7
Fox: Religion as an Overlooked Element, p. 72.
Ramet, Pedro, Catholicism and politics in socialist Yugoslavia, p. 257; Alexander, Stella, Church and State in Yugoslavia since 1945, pp. 57-61, 115.
Stepinac served to unmask before the world a plot by the Western imperialist powers against the new Yugoslavia and reveal the existence of a concerted conspiracy.8 The Yugoslav authorities continued with their anti-religious policies. The new approach consisted of the establishment of priests associations aimed at controlling the lower Catholic clergy and, therefore, undermining the unity of the Catholic Churches across Yugoslavia, in general a policy that in the view of both Catholic bishops and the Vatican went directly against them. Moreover, the Communists proceeded with even stronger measures, which implied prohibition of catechism in all public schools and closing down of religious faculties in Zagreb and Ljubljana.9 At this point, the West did not fully object to Yugoslav policies. As Miroslav Akmada correctly pointed out, this was the case mostly because of the countrys reputation among the Western powers due to its worsening relationship with the Soviet Union.10 However, when the 1952 Vatican-sponsored Bishops Conference prohibited priests associations and banned priests from joining them, the Communists accused the Vatican of interfering in domestic affairs. To make the situation even more drastic, the Vatican promoted Stepinac to Cardinal.11 This newly established atmosphere provided space for the culmination of enmity between the Yugoslav government and the Vatican resulting in the complete breakup of diplomatic relations between the two. Various sources offer an insight into Vaticans sympathy for the Croatian Catholic clergy in the late 1950s. For example, in a telegram dated 24 June 1959, Pope John XXIII sent a letter confirming the Vaticans support for the work of Stepinac: Due to painful circumstances, you were, unfortunately, compelled to leave your regular activities and spend days in solitude, separated from the Christian people whom Your love and guidance have been entrusted with. Be brave: you are not undergoing this because of your guilt but because of your humbleness In order for your merits, which You have acquired through your work and endurance, to be known to everyone, the predecessor of Holy Father Pius XII wanted to honor you with the rank of cardinal.12 Soon after, on 15 November, the Pope addressed Stepinac again: We deeply regret that you could not come to Rome, our dear son, at the time when we were raised
8 9
Ibid., p. 117.
Akmada, Miroslav, Uzroci prekida diplomatskih odnosa izmedju Vatikana i Jugoslavije 1952. godine, Croatica Christiana, Vol.XXVII (2003), p. 194.
10 11 12
Ibid., p. 200. Ibid., p. 197.
Quoted in Milan Bulaji, The Role of the Vatican in the Break-up of the Yugoslav State (Belgrade, 1993), p. 169.
to the seat of St. Peter, so that we send you a special apostolic blessing as a guarantee of heavenly comfort.13 Later, following the death of Stepinac, the Yugoslav government seemed more open to cooperating with the clergy and, indeed, the 1962 Vatican Council served to bring the opponents together. As Stella Alexander put it, the Vatican was now convinced that Yugoslavia was genuinely detached from the Soviet bloc.14 Thus, this aspect suggests that Titos politics of religion was conditioned by both international and domestic factors. The Protocol of Discussions between the Representatives of the Social Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Representatives of the Holy See guaranteed religious freedom to the Catholic clergy. Although being a document that touched upon many serious issues, its main relevance was that it inaugurated a new relationship between the Yugoslav authorities and the Catholic Church.15 Diplomatic relations reflect relations between sovereign states and, therefore, the re-established relations should have implied relations between Yugoslavia and the Vatican, rather than relations between Yugoslav Marxists and Yugoslav Catholics or the Catholic Church in general a connection often depending on circumstances, given the Vaticans nature. In fact, the re-established relations between the Yugoslav federation and the Vatican did not significantly improve the relations among the differently positioned ideologies in Yugoslavia. Although the Protocol provided bishops with greater freedom in relation to elections of clergy members, education and church property, in reality this was not the case. For example, the Vatican claimed that the Communist leadership was not capable of understanding the meaning of free elections of bishops and thus would be ready to interfere whenever suitable.16 In addition, many schools continued to portray Stepinac as a criminal, rather than a cardinal.17 Thus, while Stepinac was celebrated across regions dominated by Catholicism, his work was condemned in less Catholic ones. More importantly, a growing interest in religion in Slovenia and Croatia represented an alternative to the Yugoslav regime.18 The character of such an alternative was not shaped to become an ag13 14 15 16 17
Ibid., p. 210. Alexander, Church and State, p. 245. Ibid., p. 247. Ostkontakte des Vatikans, Die Zeit, 17 June 1966.
Della Rocca, Roberto M., La vita cristiana nella Jugoslavia communista, in Luciano Vaccaro (ed), Storia religiosa di Croazia e Slovenia (Gazzada, 2008), p. 458. In addition, the author noted greater participation in the seminaries in Slovenia and Croatia towards the end of the 1960s an argument which shows that Yugoslav ideology allowed clergy recruitment (Ibid, p. 460).
18
See, for example, Katolika cerkev in oblast, in Viri o demokratizaciji in osamosvojitvi Slovenije (I del: Opozicija in oblast), pp. 146-147.
gressive resistance, but rather to offer a shelter to citizens who thought differently. Accordingly, various articles and books promoted the work of the Catholic clergy.19 The following decade confirmed that the relations in question were still far from being stable. In his analysis, Ivo Banac described this period as follows: The tense early 1970s can only be understood as a conflict over the future of Yugoslavia. The centralist and unitarist bloc held that the distinctions between the nationalities were being blurred and that Yugoslavia could be homogenized on the traditions real or invented of forceful Yugoslavism.20 Interestingly, the concept of Yugoslavism still represents a serious matter of discussion. In fact, many misunderstandings surrounding this concept are due to the time framework in which it was used, thus whether it existed for the sake of a common identity, desired by the peoples, or for political reasons, pushed forward by the Yugoslav authorities. Admittedly, the period 1961-1981 saw general increase in self-identification as a Yugoslav.21 In regard to the European Community, while negotiating agreements with the SFRY and being aware of the economic disparities, it often talked about the Yugoslavs as people who shared a common identity. Thus, for the Europeans as well as for the Yugoslav authorities who were looking forward to economic assistance, Yugoslavism existed. However, at home, the constituent peoples of the SFRY often perceived the idea of Yugoslavism as an artificially encouraged identity. In Croatia, contrary to Slovenia which was untouched by the antagonism characterizing relations between Zagreb and Belgrade,22 the Catholic Church gained proper relevance after the Croatian Spring in 1971 which left the defenders of the Croatian national interests almost powerless. Indeed, during the Twenty-First Session of the LCY Central Committee, Tito accused the leadership of the League of Communists of Croatia of supporting Croatian nationalism and favouring Croatian sovereignty over Yugoslavias overarching sovereignty. As one scholar put it, the Croatian Spring gave rise in the republic to a wide sense of disillusionment with Yugoslavia and a gaining conviction that democratic change and sovereign statehood could only
19
agi-Buni, Tomislav, Ekumenizam bez romantike, Glas Koncila, No. 7, 1967; Kranstvo i nacionalizam, Glas Koncila, No. 12, 1969, pp. 3-4; Katolika Crkva i ekumenizam, Vjerske zajednice u Jugoslaviji (Zagreb, 1970), pp. 104-115; Janez Vodopivec, Ekumenizam je ipak poeo (Zagreb, 1968).
20 21
Banac, Ivo, Yugoslavia, The American Historical Review, Vol. 97, No. 4 (1992), p. 1088.
Sekuli, Duko, Garth Massey and Randy Hodson, Who were the Yugoslavs? Failed sources of a common identity in the former Yugoslavia, American Sociological Review, Vol. 59, No. 1 (1994), p. 84. For a more detailed account, see Steven L. Burg and Michael L. Berbaum, Community, integration, and stability in multinational Yugoslavia, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 83, No. 2 (1989), pp. 535-554.
22
Grycz, Wolfgang, Katholische Kirche in Jugoslawien, Kirche in Not, No. 20, 1971, pp. 88-89.
be achieved by secession from the common state.23 In this climate, the Croatian Catholic Church was the only institution capable of promoting the national feeling of Croats. It, actually, became the national embodiment of Croatianhood. Later, after the Church had stabilized its strength on this basis, it expanded its scope of activity into impressive mass meetings always connected with the national idea.24 Moreover, greater independence of the Catholic Church meant greater uncertainty for the Yugoslav authorities: Though the Catholic Churchs independence can only be a source of uncertainty for Belgrades builders of socialism, it is the Churchs reemergence as the self-appointed champion of the exclusivist interests of the Croats and Slovenes qua Croats and Slovenes which is the more disquieting to Belgrade.25 The Vatican was aware of the newly created situation. In his memoirs, Agostino Casaroli, a skilled diplomat and Cardinal Secretary of the Vatican at the time, expressed his concerns about the position of Catholics in Yugoslavia. He visited Belgrade, Zagreb and Ljubljana in 1970 and while talking to Tito noted the main difference between the two of them: while for the Yugoslav leader, relations between his state and the Vatican were fully resolved by their official re-establishment, for Casaroli this new phase in the relationship between the two sides represented an opportunity to address numerous questions about the Catholic Church in Yugoslavia.26 Thus, if Casarolis contribution is taken as an accurate way to understand the Vaticans perception about the Yugoslav federation, it is obvious that the importance the two sides attached to the Catholic Church varied significantly. The Yugoslav statesmen, as Casaroli wrote, talked about unity as a driving force behind the Yugoslav federation where ethnic diversity and power equilibrium peacefully coexisted.27 This apparently being the case, Tito decided to commit himself primarily to Yugoslavias international affairs. In order to explain the situation at home, Vjekoslav Perica examined correspondence between the Croatian Church and government and noted that in 1972, when the backlash against the Movements leaders had already begun, Archbishop Frani assured representatives of the government of Croatia that the Vatican was keeping its commitment to the Churchs non-interference in domestic political af-
23
Dragovi-Soso, Jasna, Saviours of the Nation: Serbias Intellectual Opposition and the Rise of Nationalism (London, 2002), p. 47.
24 25 26
Meier, Viktor, Yugoslavia: A History of Its Demise (London and New York, NY, 1999), p. 19. Ramet, Catholicism and politics, p. 262.
Casaroli, Agostino, Il martirio della pazienza: La Santa Sede e i paesi comunisti, 1963-89, (Torino, 2000), p. 245. Ibid., p. 246.
27
fairs in Yugoslavia.28 But the campaign against Croatian nationalism, arrests, expulsions from the party and censorship, in fact, encouraged the position of the Croatian Catholic Church in two ways: first, it witnessed a new golden age at home and, second, it fostered its links with the Vatican. This set of closer relations was facilitated by the previous re-establishment of the official relations between the SFRY and the Vatican as well as the Vaticans disappointment with Tito, whose decision not to address religious issues instantly was interpreted as his determination to ignore the Holy See.29 In his numerous writings, Hnsjakob Stehle looked at Vatican policy towards the Yugoslav federation during the 1970s and, while relying on the idea that East European politics threatened values that the Catholic Church was immensely proud of, he saw the Vatican as having two options. The first option concentrated on diplomatic means that could have served to foster the Vaticans position.30 In this case, the Vatican encouraged Yugoslav Catholics to become politically active as the diplomacy was seen to depend on their involvement, rather than on the diplomatic corps that worked on behalf of the Yugoslav state. The second option concentrated on acceptance of the Communist regime the way it was.31 In this case, the Vatican relied on small steps leading to progress in relations between the two Churches, thus without any sound interference in Yugoslavias domestic affairs. Of the two options, the Vatican opted for the first one. As Casaroli later acknowledged, Vatican officials wanted to protect Catholic clergy in East European countries as much as possible: We insist on having the right to prevent eradication of the Catholic Church given the political campaign against it The Church has to survive.32 Being aware of the circumstances, the Yugoslav leadership did not want to see the Church coming close or influencing any aspect of the policy-making processes.33 Accordingly, a set of new laws aimed at protecting the state from the Church was passed. Here, Pedro Ramet talks about the Churchs threat to the state on a threefold basis: the first threat was apparently the Yugoslav Catholic Churchs ambition to obstruct the drawing together of national groups and link itself to other Catholic
28 29
Perica, Vjekoslav, Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States (USA, 2004), p. 58.
According to Casaroli, it was rather difficult to predict whether a new round of relations was going to improve the relations between the Vatican and Yugoslavia (Casaroli, Il martirio, p. 246).
30 31 32 33
Stehle, Hnsjakob, Die schwarze Mr vom roten Papst, Die Zeit, 22 March 1974. Ibid. Quoted in Hnsjakob Stehle, Kompromiss bei bitterem Champagner, Die Zeit, 20 Juni 1975.
For example, Glas Koncila and Druina, Croatian and Slovenian Catholic magazines, frequently reported about the discrimination of the Catholic clergy within the public sector across the Yugoslav state.
Churches, the second threat was motivated by the idea that the Catholic Church perceived the League of Communists as an alternative focus of loyalty an idea inspired by 1971 attempt of some Church members to join and infiltrate the Communist Party and, finally, the third threat derived from understanding that Catholicism threatened the Communists ideologically.34 I argue that the last threat remained the strongest threat throughout the 1980s. Although with the outbreak of the war in Slovenia, its relevance was limited, with the outbreak of war in Croatia, its relevance was fully accepted. It is important to note that Ramets threats against the Yugoslav state are primarily associated with Catholicism in Croatia, as the situation in Slovenia in the first half of the 1970s seemed to be much better. As a rather quiet place for the clergy, it hosted numerous meetings regarding relations between Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats and Slovenes. Indeed, the Vatican blessed the forthcoming institutional cooperation among the faculties of theology of Ljubljana-Maribor, Zagreb and Belgrade.35 However, the second half of the decade brought a completely different trend: repressive governmental standpoints about the clergy turned into laws, which affected Slovenia significantly. In January 1979, Ivan Likar, Slovenian Catholic priest, argued that atheist propaganda and indoctrination in schools are becoming more intensive from day to day. Schoolbooks describe religion, morality and the Church in such a way that the believer cannot avoid the impression that that he is not even a second-class citizen, but that he is beyond any social class, an untouchable pariah.36 The presence of such Yugoslav behaviour towards the end of the decade irritated the Vatican and created a rather puzzling image about the relations between the Yugoslav state and the Catholic Church. As Ramet summarized them, for all the vaunted liberality of the Yugoslav system, the Catholic Church enjoys a precarious position it has greater freedom in Yugoslavia than in most communist countries, but is repeatedly vilified and/or attacked in the party press it is able to conduct religious instruction openly, but those attending are discriminated against believers are told they enjoy equal rights with nonbelievers, but they are excluded from the officer corps, the diplomatic service,
34 35
Ramet, Catholicism and politics, p. 265.
Tenek, Tomislav Zdenko, Lecumenismo cattolico: dal Glas Koncila alla ricerca della riconciliazione dopo la guerra nella ex Jugoslavia, in Luciano Vaccaro (ed), Storia religiosa di Croazia e Slovenia (Milano, 2008),, pp. 469-470.
36
Quoted in Ramet, Catholicism and politics, p. 267.
186 | Branislav Radelji senior posts in economic management, the upper echelons of governmental service, and, of course, membership in the party.37
Considering all these points, it appeared rather improbable that the Yugoslav leadership was going to change its policy towards the Catholic Church at any time soon. As a reaction, the Vatican accepted the fact that the SFRY authorities were disrespectful towards the Church and the only way forward it saw was to try to maintain links with Catholic believers in Slovenia and Croatia through moral support only.
RELIGIOUS ASPECTS OF THE YUGOSLAV CRISIS

After Josip Broz Tito, the Yugoslav federation faced growing economic, political and inter-ethnic problems. The Yugoslav leadership negotiated new economic support with the European Community thinking that it would be sufficient to remedy the ongoing multi-level crisis. In his study, Aleksandar Pavkovi examines economic situation in the 1980s and notes that the failing economy indirectly resurrected religious aspects within the Yugoslav society.38 Indeed, as the worsening trend continued, members of various communities abandoned their appreciation for the federation and switched their attention to their respective republics a development which had already obtained approval under the 1974 Constitution.39 The 1981 Kosovo crisis was an occasion for the Vatican to stress its policy towards some of Yugoslavias constituent peoples. For example, Radio Vatican, the Croatian Church press and various Catholic representatives approved of the Kosovo riots and the Albanian drive for greater autonomy in Kosovo.40 As a matter of support against the Serbs, Radio Vatican decided to broadcast different programs in Albanian and Croatian languages. As reported, the Vatican understood Yugoslavias ethnic diversity to the fullest extent only after Casaroli had paid a tour to the Yugoslav leadership in summer of 1985 with the aim of advocating greater religious freedom. During the meeting with Milka Planinc, the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, he became
37 38
Ibid., p. 272.
Pavkovi, Aleksandar, The Fragmentation of Yugoslavia: Nationalism and War in the Balkans (London, 2000), p. 79.
39 Ustav SFRJ (1974), Odnosi u federaciji i prava i dunosti federacije, Articles 244-281. For an analysis of the 1974 Constitution, see, for example, Vojin Dimitrijevi, The 1974 constitution and constitutional process as a factor in the collapse of Yugoslavia, in Payam Akhavan and Robert Howse (eds), Yugoslavia, the Former and Future: Reflections by Scholars from the Region (Washington, DC, 1995), pp. 45-74. 40
Perica, Balkan Idols, p. 145.
fully aware of the existence of ambitions across the Yugoslav federation to create a Greater Croatia, Greater Serbia or Greater Macedonia.41 Although Casaroli himself decided to elaborate on the risk of a link between nationalism and religion, he, however, denied any involvement of religion in fostering political or nationalistic sentiments. This being the case, Casarolis standpoint is disputable for the simple reason that he tried to ignore or, more dangerously, contradict something that was already evident across the SFRY religious denomination had already developed into a key characteristic of the appeal of politicians and, even more, nationalists. In his memoirs, Casaroli personally noted how peculiar the situation in Yugoslavia was. He concluded his memoirs about Yugoslavia by saying that his heart was full of contrasting feelings: joy, hope, some sort of worry and real nostalgia for the country with many latent problems a dear country and even dearer now once some of its problems have already exploded.42 To complement this variety of Casarolis feelings, I identify two events that fostered the religious component within the Serbian society and clearly questioned future relations between the Orthodox and Catholic churches in Yugoslavia. The first event relates to the publication of the 1986 SANU Memorandum, a document produced by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, arguing that decentralization was threatening unity of the Yugoslav state in which the Serbs were already discriminated against.43 Alongside the Serbian media that understandably welcomed its content, the Serbian Orthodox Church also acknowledged the relevance and accuracy of the document. In his analysis, Paul Mojzes went even further and warned that its role was much more relevant than its content: It galvanized the Serbs to become militant in demands to remake Yugoslavia and frightened non-Serbs.44 The second event relates to the visit Slobodan Miloevi paid to Kosovo in April 1987. The Serbian Orthodox Church supported Miloevis speech to Kosovo Serbs and his famous words No one is allowed to beat you!, aimed at protecting their position in the province.45 The media enthusiastically reported friendship between the Church and politics. One scholar noted that there was nothing strange about this connection given that the Serbian Church views itself as identical with the Serbian
41 42 43
Casaroli, Il martirio, p. 248. Ibid., p. 249.
For a detailed analysis of the SANU Memorandum, see Jasna Dragovi-Soso, Saviors of the Nation: Serbias Intellectual Opposition and the Rise of Nationalism (London, 2002), pp. 177-195.
44
Mojzes, Paul, Yugoslavian Inferno, p. 162. In addition, the author doubts that the authors of the Memorandum could have imagined its disastrous impact (Ibid.).
45
Arfi, Badredine, International Change and the Stability of Multiethnic States (Bloomington, IN, 2005), p. 143.
nation since it considers that religion is the foundation of nationality.46 Thus, while on the one hand, Miloevi needed support for his future political engagement, on the other hand, the Serbian Church, which remained deprived from its basic rights for almost half a century, felt empowered to back Miloevis policies an involvement of decisive relevance and capacity as the Serbian Orthodox Church managed to bridge the gap between church and state.47 In his analysis, Perica described this whole period as the catalyst of the crisis due to the presence of various factors that contributed to and strengthened the antagonism between the opposing parties. For example, as soon as the federal government agreed upon democratization of religious affairs in 1987, Catholic Slovenia whose political leaders did not worry about ethnic minorities, rushed to inaugurate religious liberty without restrictions.48 By contrast, this scenario was not possible in ethnically and ideologically heterogeneous Croatia where the campaigning candidates were interested in securing support from different religious institutions. Nevertheless, in the winter of 1989, the Croatian Catholic Church openly welcomed the foundation of the ethnic and nationalistic Croatian Democratic Union with Franjo Tudjman as its leader.49 Apart from these, Perica noted growing disputes in both the Catholic and Orthodox press over holy places as both parties felt entitled to religious sites that could serve as a testimony of their long presence in these particular regions.50 Indeed, to confirm this enmity, the author showed that in the summer of 1991 Serb militants destroyed numerous Catholic churches in predominantly Serb areas of Croatia.51 The Croatian Catholic Church advocated independence for the republic of Croatia and the link between religion and politics was even more accentuated when the Church decided to continue with provision of support to the newly elected president, Tudjman. Mojzes examined the events surrounding the elections and concluded that the Catholic Church showed significant support to the new regimes superpatriotic Croatianism.52 In the same vein, the members of the Croatian church attended the inauguration of the Parliament of Croatia and, as observed by the author, did not fail to use photo opportunities in order to be seen together in the media, and much
46 47 48 49 50 51 52
Ramet, Sabrina P., Balkan Babel, p. 162. Perica, Balkan Idols, p. 138. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 140-141. Ibid., pp. 152-153. Ibid., p. 153. Mojzes, Yugoslavian Inferno, p. 133.
was done to reinforce the notion of the church, nation, and state.53 As it could have somehow been predicted, the Ninth theological congress scheduled for September 1990 in Serbia did not host any representatives from the Faculty of Theology of Zagreb. Truly, the absence of Croatian delegates was due to the growing discord between the two Churches at the time a discord that was additionally stressed by Serbian accusations of the Croatian Catholic Church as responsible for the genocide against Serbian population during the Second World War.54 In this climate, by 1990, the conflict seemed inevitable. While the Serbian Communists advocated largely centralized Yugoslavia, the independence-oriented Slovenian Communists wanted more autonomy. Accordingly, both Orthodox and Croatian members of clergy decided to take advantage of the vacuum to approach respective believers and strengthen nationalistic feelings. The Vatican knew about everything that was happening across the Yugoslav federation. Interesting enough, much of diplomatic correspondence between the Catholics in Yugoslavia, Vatican diplomatic representation in Belgrade and the Holy See in Rome was channeled through the Vatican Embassy in Vienna.55 Although it remains unclear whether this particular office played any role in keeping European Community officials informed about the Catholics across the Yugoslav federation, its relevance might have been significant considering the overall Austrian policy towards the Yugoslav state crisis and Austrian involvement in the Communitys affairs at the time. More importantly, the EC official documents of this period show a growing interest in Yugoslavias religious mosaic among the Brussels administration.
FROM CHURCHES TO THE BRUSSELS OFFICIALS

The outbreak of war confirmed the importance of religious denomination in the Yugoslav federation. Both Orthodox and Catholic Churches representatives sought to undermine the opposing side and legitimize their own actions.56 As expected, some accounts have tried to address the extent to which the Vatican contributed to policy-making regarding the future of the Yugoslav federation. For example, Daniele Conversi limits his argument to the fact that although some Catholic churches across
53 54 55 56
Ibid. Tenek, Lecumenismo cattolico, p. 473. Interview with a senior Vatican source.
Palmer, Peter, The Churches and the conflict in former Yugoslavia, in Ken R. Dark (ed), Religion and International Relations (New York, NY, 2000), pp. 83-99.
the European Community provided humanitarian support based on a Christian vocation of social solidarity with the downtrodden, who in the case of Slovenia and Croatia, happened to be fellow Catholics, the Vatican itself did not play a major role.57 Somehow, in the authors view, the Vatican got fully involved with the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina when the Muslims became the new victims, not Catholics.58 By saying this, he denies the relevance of the religious aspect in the early stages of the Yugoslav crisis. By contrast, some other works note the importance of historical perspective, including both the situation characterizing activism of different churches across the SFRY and relations some of them cultivated with the Vatican. In this respect, Michael Weithmann insists that it is not possible to ignore the situation either in Titos Yugoslavia, a state where many things were never clarified and religion was often allowed to manifest itself in a salient form or in Yugoslavia after Tito, where religious aspects were apparently put on hold due to ever-increasing economic and political problems.59 In fact, this perspective helps to understand why the Vatican reaction and involvement from the very beginning were inevitable. As indicated by Weithmann, the Yugoslav crisis represented an opportunity for the renaissance of religion. Therefore, both Orthodox and Catholic Churches felt empowered to get involved and act as national representatives. While the Serbian Church blessed the beginning of a holy war,60 the Croatian Church, which relied on its unique and previously acknowledged position, counted on the Vaticans support.61 Aware of the state crisis, Croatian bishops got involved by contacting other bishops around the world. In their famous February 1991 letter, they suggested that Croatian Catholic Church sees a new political framework which would be based on the people getting their independence, as a possibility for acting more freely and for more peaceful coexistence in a pluralist society, including ecumenical relations.62
57
Conversi, Daniele, Germany and the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia, in Brad K. Blitz (ed), War and Change in the Balkans: Nationalism, Conflict and Cooperation (Cambridge, 2006), p. 65.
58 59
Ibid.
Weithmann, Michael W., Renaissance der Religion auf dem Balkans, Gewerkschaftliche Monatshefte, No.46 (1995), pp. 760-761.
60 61
For a detailed account, see Milorad Tomani, Srpska crkva u ratu i ratovi u njoj (Beograd, 2001).
In 1984, during a celebration of 1300th anniversary of the Christianization of Croatia, Pope John Paul II underlined: God put Croatia between West and East meaning that it plays the role of a diplomat, but not a defender (Quoted in Weithmann, Renaissance der Religion, p. 761). Our Bishops warn the world, Glas Koncila, 24 March 1991, p. 2.
62
The bishops used their position to try and influence Western perceptions about both the Yugoslav authorities and Catholic clergy. In their view, the political program advocating continuation of socialism was misplaced: The forces advocating this program are the leading Serbian politicians, army officers (mostly Serbs) and unfortunately certain leading figures in the Serbian Orthodox church. Thus, the communist ideology, greater Serbian aspirations and military force have found common goals and for this reason they are firmly opposing the western cultural tradition, and the republics with a pronounced West European tradition.63 The religious dimension of the crisis, division between us and them and Church advocacy of independence were further emphasized when the European Parliament decided to pass a resolution stipulating that the constituent Republics and autonomous provinces must have the right freely to determine their future in a peaceful and democratic manner and on the basis of recognized institutional and internal borders.64 This resolution was understood as an indication as well as encouragement for further steps. Accordingly, the Catholic representatives from Croatia believed that insisting on their religion-based maltreatment in the SFRY would further the goal of international recognition of independence. The Croatian bishops discussed politics at large. In their view, the Serbs were responsible for the rejection of the democratic parliamentary way of resolving open political questions and, accordingly, crime against mankind.65 More importantly, their standpoint towards the Yugoslav authorities and their destructive power culminated with the referendum in Croatia in May 1991 resulting in an unavoidable decision that Yugoslavia was facing disintegration.66 By insisting on the distinction between the two denominations, the bishops statements gained significant attention within the European Community due to its own religious outlook. In order to secure as much support as possible, Tudjman himself visited the Vatican on 25 May 1991. His successful visit was complemented by a reception at the Catholic St. Jerome Institute in Rome where he was greeted by the head of the Institute, Mons. Ratko Peri, who stressed that throughout its history, the Institute has always devotedly and tirelessly strived to preserve the identity of the Croatian nation and worked in favour of its territorial integrity.67 Once he had returned to Croatia, Tudjman enthu63 64 65 66 67
Ibid. European Parliament, Resolution on Yugoslavia, 13 March 1991. Quoted in Bulaji, The Role of the Vatican, p. 181. An unavoidable decision, Glas Koncila, 26 May 1991. Quoted in Bulaji, The Role of the Vatican, pp. 177-178.
siastically talked about the great support he was promised from the Vatican. In his analysis, Milan Bulaji points out that from this moment on, the Croatian Catholic Church adopted even stronger advocacy of independence and pressure on the international community to recognize Croatia as an independent state: They appealed to statesmen and international institutions in Europe and the world to urgently and actively speak out in favour of peace and a democratic resolution of the political crisis in our country.68 In the European Community, religion took on a deeply politicized role. This might seem unusual considering that the founding fathers of the Community, while busy with economic, political and social aspects of European integration, never discussed religious aspect of the Community and its relevance for politics. But still, if analyzed, the historical foundation of the Community had been largely ChristianDemocratic. Jeffrey Checkel and Peter Katzenstein describe this confessional tendency as a capacious political tradition that accommodates temperate offshoots of conservative political Catholicism as well as a social Catholicism that has proven in the past to be remarkably progressive in outlook and practice.69 This understanding is further developed and justified by Douglas Holmes for whom the period around the 1992 Maastricht Treaty embraced Catholic social doctrine to guide intellectually and regulate institutionally cognitive meanings and political exigencies of a pluralist Europe.70 Thus, while ignored in the early stages of the European Economic Community, with evident interest in the EU membership and new rounds of enlargement, the Europeans decided to pay more attention to the religious dimension of their polity. In this respect, Catholicism was tacitly given priority. According to some directly involved actors, many informal discussions in Brussels focused on Slovenia and Croatia in terms of their confessions that complemented the increasing perception of the Community as Catholic. The focus on the religious dimension was put, in their terms, due to the growing presence of the Vatican, both in the media with its statements about the Yugoslav crisis, and in the official correspondence that often insisted on religious similarities between the Community and the two republics. As explained by one respondent, the Vatican maintained that EC officials were sup-
68 69
Ibid., p. 181.
Checkel, Jeffrey T. and Peter J. Katzenstein, The politicization of European identities, in Jeffrey T. Checkel and Peter J. Katzenstein (eds), European Identity (Cambridge, 2009), p. 14.
70
Holmes, Douglas R., Experimental identities (after Maastricht), in Jeffrey T. Checkel and Peter J. Katzenstein (eds), European Identity (Cambridge, 2009), p. 63.
posed to take the religious outlook of Slovenia and Croatia seriously, when developing their policies.71 The understandings offered by Checkel, Katzenstein and Holmes could be justified by looking at formal actions occurring across the board. In Germany, for example, the Christian Social Union of Bavaria called the German government to recognize Slovenia and Croatia, partially out of solidarity with fellow Catholics and partially out of indignation at the brutal actions of the Yugoslav army which are unconstitutional and against the international law.72 Along these lines, the Austrian Peoples Party, a party fully devoted to the Roman Catholic Church,73 offered support: both Erhard Busek, the leader of the party and Vice-Chancellor of Austria, and Alois Mock, Foreign Minister of Austria, expressed their admiration for the Slovenes and Croats.74 Finally, in Italy, then the Christian Democracy and now the Union of Christian and Centre Democrats openly appreciated the two Catholic republics for their religious orientation.75 In regard to the Churchs interest and involvement in politics, it gained its further relevance with the visit Croatian bishops paid to Tudjman in August 1991. This meeting was an opportunity to criticize the Yugoslav Peoples Army and its war against the Croatian nation, including Croatian young men, houses, churches, schools and hospitals.76 Thus, most of the aspects covered reflected the Churchs multi-faceted interest in Croatian internal affairs. In his study, Alex Bellamy broadens the argument about the relationship between the Croatian republic, Croatian Catholic Church and the Vatican and concludes that Tudjman perceived the Catholic Church as a Croatian Church, while the Vatican considered itself as a global Church, thus concerned about both Croats and non-Croats.77 If analyzed, these notions lead to a twofold conclusion: first, the Church was an ideological tool of Croatian nationalism and, second, the Vatican was a global power, thus probably capable of influencing the final out71 72 73
Interview with a senior Italian official. Possible recognition of Croatia, Slovenia urged, Foreign Broadcast Service, 13 July 1991.
Rosenberger, Sieglinde K., Political parties and religion, in Gnter Bischof, Anton Pelinka and Hermann Denz (eds), Religion in Austria (New Brunswick, NJ, 2005),p. 70.
74
Zucconi, Mario, The European Union in the former Yugoslavia, in Abram Chayes and Antonia Handler (eds), Preventing Conflict in the Post-communist World (Washington, DC, 1996), p. 241.
75 During his visit to a religious site of Medjugorje, Giulio Andreotti, Prime Minister of Italy, expressed his sympathy for the Catholics in Yugoslavia (Andreotti in visita a Medjugorje, Glas Koncila, 4 August 1991). 76 77
T. Vukovi, The Astonishment of Buffer Generals, Glas Koncila, 4 August 1991.
Bellamy, Alex J., The Formation of Croatian National Identity: A Centuries-old Dream? (Manchester and New York, NY, 2003), p. 159.
come. Tudjmans idea to equalize Catholic and Croatian Churches was a strategic move that strengthened the overall objective. Even more, neither the state nor the Church had any problem with being associated with the other as long as they shared a common objective. In fact, as acknowledged by Bellamy: The Croatian Catholic Church played a vital role in redefining Croatian national identity in the 1990s.78 In addition, the author clarifies that with the outbreak of war, the Vaticans role switched from global to regional and by focusing on the events in Slovenia and Croatia, the Vatican reconfirmed its historical commitment to the Catholic republics.79 After having been provided with detailed knowledge about the domestic situation and decided upon the steps to be taken, the Croatian bishops approached Catholic bishops abroad. They offered clear facts in order to justify Croatian desire to secede and, as a matter of support, these facts were further publicized in sermons abroad.80 For example, Catholic churches such as Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, Dom zu St. Jakob in Innsbruck, Dom zu unserer lieben Frau in Munich and Hohe Domkirche St. Peter und Maria in Cologne all prayed for the peoples of Slovenia and Croatia and urged both the national and supranational authorities to recognize them as independent states. At the same time, this sentiment was cultivated across various Pontifical universities.81 Therefore, based on previously discussed developments, the Slovenian and Croatian Catholic Churches could reasonably count on political engagement by the Vatican. The characterization of the Communitys confessional structure supported an ideological concept about us and them based on denominational difference a divide somehow similar to the one about good us and bad them promoted by the media before and during the Yugoslav state crisis.82 As indicated, various churches across the European Community included sermons in their celebrations that openly discussed the situation in Slovenia and Croatia and called the Vatican officials to advocate their recognition by the EC.
78 79
Ibid., p. 163.
B. Sichtermann, Mit dem Segen der Kirche, Die Zeit, 17 February 1989. For a detailed account, see Hnsjakob Stehle, Eastern Politics of the Vatican, 1917-1979 (Athens, OH, 1981).
80
Palmer, The Churches, p. 89. Similarly, Daphne Winland examines churches in Canada and notes that Sunday sermons continuously talked about the political situation in Croatia (Daphne N. Winland, We Are Now a Nation: Croats Between Home and Homeland, Toronto, 2007, p. 65).
81 82
Interview with a senior Vatican source.
For a fuller analysis of us vs. them, see, for example, Patrick H. Patterson, On the edge of reason: the boundaries of Balkanism in Slovenian, Austrian, and Italian discourse, Slavic Review, Vol. 62, No. 1 (2003), pp. 110-141.
Apart from geographical proximity, which is often used as a valid reason for European Communitys support for the two Catholic republics of the SFRY, the Communitys political involvement, which was shaped within the Catholic framework, deserves equal attention. In his analysis, Homes correctly pointed out that [p]olitical discourse, under the terms of Catholic social theory, operates in such a way that issues are contextualized constantly within a wider interplay of interests and remedies.83 In order to apply this view to the Yugoslav case, I rely on the fact that most Brussels-based officials were Catholics themselves and many debates in the European Parliament about the Yugoslav crisis constantly insisted on the relevance of Catholic doctrine when shaping policies. For example, representatives of the Christian Social Union of Bavaria sitting in the EP openly expressed their anti-Serbian feelings and pressed for the recognition of the two Catholic republics.84 Therefore, while being an approach aimed at achieving a common good, it is impossible to argue that the Europeans ignored religious affiliation of the Yugoslavs. While seriously involved in the process of further European integration and enlargement, their perception about the non-Catholics was very much conditioned by their own denomination. Later, in his study, Svetlozar Andreev explained this attitude and concluded: Catholic/Protestant countries, countries with some previous experience with democratization, countries which had begun earlier their political and economic reforms and countries in which people who had not been officially connected with the former communist/socialist regime came into power after elections in the period 1989-91 have been viewed much more favourably by both the EU decision-makers and Western public opinion as a whole.85 On 29 November 1991, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, German Foreign Minister, visited the Vatican and expressed his attitude regarding the future shape of the Yugoslav federation. In his memoirs, he wrote that the Vatican agreed that the Serbs represented the greatest threat to the peaceful coexistence of the peoples of Yugoslavia, but [w]hen it came to recognizing Croatia and Slovenia, the Vatican displayed extreme reluctance.86 Although Genscher remains silent about his private chat with the Pope, the Vaticans refusal to recognize the two republics could easily be questioned consid83 84
Holmes, Experimental identities, p. 64.
Paterson, William, The German Christian Democrats, in John Gaffney (ed), Political Parties and the European Union (London, 1996), p. 64.
85 Andreev, Svetlozar A., Path dependence and external shocks: the dynamics of the EU enlargement eastwards, in Finn Laaursen (ed), Comparative Regional Integration: Theoretical Perspectives (Hampshire, 2003), p. 264. 86
Genscher, Hans-Dietrich, Rebuilding a House Divided: A Memoir by the Architect of Germanys Reunification (New York, NY, 1998), p. 91.
ering that the Vatican was amongst the first states to recognize them. Apart from this observation, Mario Nobilo, the chief foreign policy advisor to President Tudjman, analyzed the Vaticans behaviour and pointed out that it was actually the Vatican that used the Catholic Church in Germany to influence the German government to recognize Slovenia and Croatia.87 In fact, the communication between Germany and the Vatican continued, as Genscher paid another visit to the Holy See on 24 December 1991.88 However, he does not mention this stopover in his memoirs.89 While ignored, its content has remained prone to speculation about his relationship with the Vatican and some of its representatives. Apart from being questioned on a conspiratorial basis, his visit was important as it managed to overturn what Genscher himself initially argued to be the Vaticans position vis--vis the Yugoslav crisis and its settlement. The day after his visit, the German government decided to recognize the two republics. In Nobilos view, Pope John Paul II supported the disintegration of Yugoslavia.90 In fact, during his tour in Poland and Hungary in August 1991, he openly assured Croatian believers about the Vaticans awareness of Croatian aspirations and his intention to call the international community to assist the Croats. Glas Koncila headlined this visit as The Pope calls on the international community to help Croatia.91 In fact, the Popes standpoint was not something new, but rather the continuation of an approach the Vatican had adopted during the whole enigma surrounding the position of Catholic clergy in Titoist Yugoslavia. Now, his willingness to assist the end of the SFRY was appreciated among Vatican diplomatic representations around the world. As one author noted, correspondence between the Vatican and other states never ignored the fact that Slovenia and Croatia were Catholic republics in the Yugoslav federation, and thus deserved proper support.92
87 88
Nobilo, Mario, Hrvatski Feniks (Zagreb, 2000), p. 170.
Paul, Rachel, Serbian-American mobilization and lobbying: the relevance of Jasenovac and Kosovo to contemporary grassroots efforts in the United States, in Thomas Ambrosio (ed), Ethnic Identity Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy (Westport, CT, 2002), p. 108.
89
Here, Genscher wrote instead about various meetings in Brussels and the policy of recognition (Genscher, Rebuilding a House Divided, pp. 508-518).
90 91 92
Nobilo, Hrvatski feniks, p. 170. Glas Koncila, 25 August 1991.
Byrnes, Timothy A., Transnational Catholicism in Postcommunist Europe (Landham, MD, 2001), pp. 106-107. In his interview with Monsignor Celestino Migliore, undersecretary for relations with States, Byrnes noted that the Vatican considered normal that the Holy See would intervene in cases where the interests of Catholic states were involved and, as admitted by Migliore, for the Holy See, favouring of Catholic communities is natural, normal (Ibid.).
By late winter 1991, the Vatican advocated that the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia as independent states was essential.93 The Pope, while addressing his audience in St. Peters Square in Rome, expressed his concerns regarding the abuses of human rights within the Yugoslav federation. In fact, human rights represented a valid component as the EC officials claimed to have taken it seriously when shaping the policy of recognition.94 For example, in one of the declarations the Community and its Member States stressed that protection of human rights and rights of ethnic and national groups constitute universal, objective standards, which leave no room for compromise.95 Thus, the discourse about human rights consolidated the pressure in Brussels even more. As soon as the Vatican rushed to recognize Slovenia and Croatia, it sent a note to the Yugoslav authorities in Belgrade stipulating that its decision to recognize the two republics was not directed to have a character of a hostile act toward Yugoslavia.96 In response to these words, Tanjug, the Yugoslav news agency, quoted Milan Veres, Yugoslavias Deputy Foreign Minister, saying that the Vaticans decision could jeopardize peace, and that Belgrade would take the necessary steps against the Vatican.97 Indeed, while the Serbian authorities focused on their next action, Slovenian leadership optimistically thanked the Vatican for the efforts aimed at securing a longlasting peace across the Yugoslav federation and, in particular, support for Slovenian independence.98 For anticipating the decision of the European Community to recognize Slovenia and Croatia as independent states, the Vatican was subjected to a severe criticism. In his letter to the Pope, Serbian Patriarch Pavle wrote: You made great diplomatic and political efforts that many other European countries might do the same, immediately after you. In doing so, you employed not only the Vatican state mechanism,
93 94
Holy Sees position on Yugoslav states, LOsservatore Romano, 1-8 January 1992.
Commission of the European Communities, XXVth General Report on the Activities of the European Communities 1991, pp. 343-345.
95
Declaration on the situation in Yugoslavia, Brussels, 28 October 1991. Similar points are found in EC-US statement on peaceful and democratic transformation in the East (Brussels, 9 November 1991) and Declaration on the guidelines on the recognition of new states in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union (Brussels, 16 December 1991).
96 Cowell, Alan, Vatican formally recognizes independence of Croatia and Slovenia New York Times, 14 , January 1992. 97 98
Slovenia and Croatia win recognition, Wilmington Morning Star, 13 January 1992.
Zahvalno pismo Milana Kuana papeu Janezu Pavlu II ob mednarodnem priznanju Vatikana Slovenije, 13 January 1992.
but also the organism, structures and institutions of the Roman Catholic Church.99 More specifically, the Patriarch criticized the strong linkage between the Catholic Church and politics: We do not deny Your right as a Statesman to act in the interests of Your State, but, nonetheless, we request that You perceive the use of the authority of the Church in political aims ... In the same way, we do not contest the right of the Croat and Slovene Peoples to have their own States outside of Yugoslavia and outside of a common State with us Serbians; but we are astonished that Your Holiness does not recognize such a right for the Serbians as well.100 The Patriarchs letter, representing a joint sentiment existing both among the Serbian authorities and the Orthodox Church, suggests various conclusions. First, during the Yugoslav crisis, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches were identical with their respective republics. In fact, both of them believed that this unity was beneficial for pursuing their goals. Second, the Patriarch alone represented the State and the Church and that is how he approached the Vatican. As noted, for him the Vatican officials equaled the Roman Catholic Church. Third, he saw the Serbs being undermined by not having a right to secede. Here, the Patriarch ignored the fact that the wars were actually taking place on Slovenian and Croatian territories, not Serbian. Finally, the letter discussed a particular moment in Yugoslavias history while ignoring various events that had previously occurred across the federation and questioned its future. Some of the conclusions regarding the Patriarchs letter could surely inspire further discussions. However, as suggested by my overall analysis, the full picture is possible only if the historical dimension is taken into consideration, as well. For example, Timothy Byrnes is right when insisting on the historical events which both linked and separated the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and, more importantly, the peoples represented by these churches. While warning us against misinterpretations deriving from the Western media, which often saw the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia purely as Pope John Paul IIs decision to support the two predominantly Catholic republics, the author underlined that the Vaticans recognition could not be separated from two important realities: one, Croatia and Slovenia were the Catholic republics of Yugoslavia; and two, the notion of Croatian independence, as such, fairly or unfairly, was likely to be linked historically with the wartime regime and with its well-documented mistreatment of non-Catholics.101 Given such realities, as the au99
Letter presented at the Holy assembly of bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church, held in Belgrade, on 17 January 1992.
100 101
Ibid. Byrnes, Transnational Catholicism, p. 106.
thor concluded, it is understandable that the Vatican officials did not find it easy to convince the public that the two Catholic republics were recognized because of their interest in democratic values and the protection of human rights rather than because of their religious composition.102
CONCLUSION
Academic writings in the field have offered a number of very limited contributions, which remain silent about the Vatican and its relevance for the Brussels officials who were assigned significant responsibilities during the Yugoslav crisis. From its very beginning, the Catholics across Europe showed sympathy for Slovenia and Croatia.103 As noted throughout the article, the Pope never denied the Vaticans appreciation of, and readiness to assist, the two Catholic republics. Even when it seemed that the European Community needed more time to think about eventual policies, the religious aspect of the conflict as well as the Communitys religious composition gained significant relevance for policy-making. Still, it is important to keep in mind that Vatican support for the Catholic republics of Slovenia and Croatia in their fight for independence did not come purely as a result of the political conflict and war between the opposing parties, but as a result of an increasing religious dimension characterizing the conflict. As Misha Glenny later summarized, the wars increasingly assimilated the characteristics of religious struggle, defined by three great European faiths Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Islam, the confessional detritus of the empires whose frontiers collided in Bosnia.104 In such a complex situation, the memories of the past relations were resurrected. While the past was truly characterized by a set of problematic relations between the Vatican and the Yugoslav federation, thus between two sovereign states, relations between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in Yugoslavia and the deteriorating situation characterizing the last stages of the SFRY provided a social vacuum which further encouraged nationalistic feelings. In this vacuum, the representatives of the two Churches did their best to develop strong links with the nationalist elites while ignoring the consequences of these alliances. At the same time, some of them counted on support from abroad.
102 103
Ibid.
Newhouse, John, Bonn, der Westen und die Auflsung Jugoslawiens: das Versagen der Diplomatie. Chronik eines Skandals, Bltter fr deutsche und internationale Politik, No.10 (1992), p. 1192.
104
Glenny, Misha, Carnage in Bosnia, for Starters, New York Times, 29 July 1993.
With the outbreak of the Yugoslav wars, the Vatican did not openly force the EC to proceed with the policy of recognition. If analyzed, it did not react as sharply during the hostilities in Slovenia, when the Serbs fought against the Slovenes, thus Orthodox against Catholic, as it did during the Croatian war. In fact, the conflict in Croatia strengthened the Vaticans position, resulting in ever stronger advocacy of international recognition of independence of the two Catholic republics. In Brussels, denomination was not ignored. As noted, from the founding of the European Community to the Yugoslav crisis, the outlook of the Community reflected a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. For example, among others, Helmut Kohl, German Chancellor and the leader of the Christian Democratic Union, a party which together with the Christian Social Union of Bavaria openly promoted the religious dimension (i.e. Catholicism) in politics, supported the two Catholic republics. Their recognition confirmed the existence of a strong linkage between church and state, thus faith and politics: The cross of Christ stands next to the Croatian flag, Croatian bishop next to Croatian minister of state. Present at masses in churches are officers and Croatian soldiers. Guardsmen wear rosaries around their necks ... Here was not a battle for a piece of Croatian or Serbian land but a war between good and evil, Christianity and Communism, culture and barbarity, civilization and primitivism, democracy and dictatorship, love and hatred ... Thank God, it all ended well, due to the Pope and Croatian politics.105
REFERENCES:
Akmada, Miroslav. Uzroci prekida diplomatskih odnosa izmedju Vatikana i Jugoslavije 1952. godine. Croatica Christiana, vol. 27 (2003): 171-202. Alexander, Stella. Church and State in Yugoslavia since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Andreev, Svetlozar A. Path dependence and external shocks: the dynamics of the EU enlargement eastwards. In Comparative Regional Integration: Theoretical Perspectives. Edited by Finn Laaursen. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2003. 251-272. Arfi, Badredine. International Change and the Stability of Multiethnic States. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2005. Banac, Ivo. Yugoslavia. The American Historical Review 97, no. 4 (1992): 1084-1104.
105
Beljan, Josip, Priznata vjernost, Veritas, September/October 1992, quoted in Mojzes, Yugoslavian Inferno, p. 130.
Blessing the Collapse of Yugoslavia: the Vaticans Role in EC Policy-Making | 201 Bellamy, Alex J. The Formation of Croatian National Identity: A Centuries-old Dream?. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. Bulaji, Milan. The Role of the Vatican in the Break-up of the Yugoslav State, Belgrade: Ministry of Information of the Republic of Serbia, 1993. Burg, Steven L. and Michael L. Berbaum. Community, integration, and stability in multinational Yugoslavia. The American Political Science Review 83, no. 2, (1989): 535554. Byrnes, Timothy A. Transnational Catholicism in Postcommunist Europe. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001. Casaroli, Agostino. Il martirio della pazienza: La Santa Sede e i paesi comunisti, 1963-89. Torino: Einaudi, 2000. Checkel, Jeffrey T. and Peter J. Katzenstein. The politicization of European identities. In European Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 1-25. Commission of the European Communities, XXVth General Report on the Activities of the European Communities 1991. Conversi, Daniele. Germany and the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia. In War and Change in the Balkans: Nationalism, Conflict and Cooperation. Edited by Brad K. Blitz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 57-75. Declaration on the guidelines on the recognition of new states in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union. Brussels, 16 December 1991. Declaration on the situation in Yugoslavia, Brussels, 28 October 1991. Della Rocca, Roberto M. La vita cristiana nella Jugoslavia communista. In Storia religiosa di Croazia e Slovenia. Edited by Luciano Vaccaro. Gazzada: Fondazione Ambrosiana Paolo VI, 2008. 449-464. Dimitrijevi, Vojin. The 1974 constitution and constitutional process as a factor in the collapse of Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia, the Former and Future: Reflections by Scholars from the Region. Edited by Payam Akhavan and Robert Howse. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1995. 45-74. Dragovi-Soso, Jasna. Saviours of the Nation: Serbias Intellectual Opposition and the Rise of Nationalism, London: Hurst & Co., 2002. EC-US statement on peaceful and democratic transformation in the East. Brussels, 9 November 1991. European Parliament. Resolution on Yugoslavia. 13 March 1991. Genscher, Hans-Dietrich. Rebuilding a House Divided: A Memoir by the Architect of Germanys Reunification. New York, NY: Broadway Books, 1998.
202 | Branislav Radelji Holmes, Douglas R. Experimental identities (after Maastricht). In European Identity. Edited by Jeffrey T. Checkel and Peter J. Katzenstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 52-80. Meier, Viktor. Yugoslavia: A History of Its Demise. London and New York, NY: Routledge, 1999. Mojzes, Paul. Yugoslavian Inferno: Ethnoreligious Warfare in the Balkans. New York, NY: Continuum, 1994. Newhouse, John. Bonn, der Westen und die Auflsung Jugoslawiens: das Versagen der Diplomatie. Chronik eines Skandals. Bltter fr deutsche und internationale Politik, no. 10 (1992): 1184-1198. Nobilo, Mario. Hrvatski Feniks. Zagreb: Globus, 2000. Palmer, Peter. The Churches and the conflict in former Yugoslavia. In Religion and International Relations. Edited by Ken R. Dark. New York, NY: Palgrave, 2000. 83-99. Paterson, William. The German Christian Democrats. In Political Parties and the European Union. Edited by John Gaffney. London: Routledge, 1996. 53-70. Patterson, Patrick H. On the edge of reason: the boundaries of Balkanism in Slovenian, Austrian, and Italian discourse. Slavic Review 62, no. 1 (2003): 110-141. Paul, Rachel. Serbian-American mobilization and lobbying: the relevance of Jasenovac and Kosovo to contemporary grassroots efforts in the United States. In Ethnic Identity Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy. Edited by Thomas Ambrosio. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2002. 93-114. Pavkovi, Aleksandar. The Fragmentation of Yugoslavia: Nationalism and War in the Balkans. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. Perica, Vjekoslav. Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Ramet, Pedro. Catholicism and politics in socialist Yugoslavia. Religion in Communist Lands 10, no.3 (1982): 256-274. Ramet Sabrina P. Balkan Babel: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia from the Death of Tito to the Fall of Miloevi. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2002. Rosenberger, Sieglinde K. Political parties and religion. In Religion in Austria. Edited by Gnter Bischof, Anton Pelinka and Hermann Denz. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2005. 63-80. Sekuli, Duko, Garth Massey, and Randy Hodson. Who were the Yugoslavs? Failed sources of a common identity in the former Yugoslavia. American Sociological Review 59, no. 1 (1994): 83-97. Stehle, Hnsjakob Stehle. Eastern Politics of the Vatican, 1917-1979. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1981.
Blessing the Collapse of Yugoslavia: the Vaticans Role in EC Policy-Making | 203 Tenek, Tomislav Zdenko. Lecumenismo cattolico: dal Glas Koncila alla ricerca della riconciliazione dopo la guerra nella ex Jugoslavia. In Storia religiosa di Croazia e Slovenia. Edited by Luciano Vaccaro. Milano: Centro Ambrosiano, 2008. 465-486. Tomani, Milorad. Srpska crkva u ratu i ratovi u njoj. Beograd: Medijska knjizara Krug, 2001. Vodopivec, Janez. Ekumenizam je ipak poeo. Zagreb: Kranska sadanjost, 1968. Weithmann, Michael W. Renaissance der Religion auf dem Balkans. Gewerkschaftliche Monatshefte, no. 46 (1995): 753-768. Winland, Daphne N. We Are Now a Nation: Croats Between Home and Homeland. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Zucconi, Mario. The European Union in the former Yugoslavia. In Preventing Conflict in the Post-communist World. Edited by Abram Chayes and Antonia Handler. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1996. 237-280.
:
: , , . , . , , . : a a, , Received 17.05.2011 / Accepted 28.07.2011.
205

1. , (Word), Serbian Studies Research: serbian_studies@hotmail.com 2. : 25 (48.000 ). 3. : : Times New Roman; : 12; : Before: 0; After: 0; Line spacing: Single. 4. : : Normal; : (Col 1). 5. : () , () (). ( ), . 6. (): () , . . , , , , . . 7. : . , , . 8. : , , , , , , . a
206 |
, . 9. : ; . 10. : , , . 100 250 (, .) , . , . [ : : Times New Roman, Normal; : 10; Before: 0; After: 0; Line spacing: Single; (Col 1).] 11. : 10. . . [ : : Times New Roman, Normal; : 10; (Col 1).] 12. : ( ), , . : . 13. () : . , : ... ( 2001: 56-63)..., / (. 2001: 56-63)..., / (. 2001: 56-63)... / . (2001:56-63) ...[ : / ] 14. (): . , , ., . [ : Footnote
| 207
Text; (Col 1); 10; .] 15. : , . 16. (): (, .) , . , , ( -). , . , . . ( , , .) : [ ] Jeli, Vojislav. Antika i srpska retorika, Beograd: igoja tampa, 2001. [ ] Milutinovi, Dejan. anr pojam, istorija, teorija, Philologia Mediana (Ni), god. 1, br. 1 (2009): 11-37. [ ] Radulovi, Milan. Filosofski izvori Pekieve knjievnosti. U: Poetika Borislava Pekia, ur. Petar Pijanovi i Aleksandar Jerkov. Beograd: Slubeni glasnik Institut za knjievnosti i umetnost, 2009. 57-72. a, b, c , , , .: 2007a, 2007b 2009a, 2009. , , .: , ; : ( ) et al . [ : : Times New Roman, Normal; : 11; Before: 0; After: 0; Line spacing: Single; : , (Col 1: Hanging, Format)] : [ on-line] , . . . .
208 |
.: Veltman, K. H. Augmented Books, knowledge and culture. http://www.isoc. org/inet2000/cdproceedings/6d.. 02.02.2002. [ on-line] , . . , . . . .: Du Toit, A. Teaching Info-preneurship: students perspective. ASLIB Proceedings, February 2000. Proquest. 21.02.2000. [ on-line] . . . . .: Tesla, Nikola. Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/ EBchecked/topic/588597/Nikola-Tesla. 29. 3. 2010. 17. : . , . , . . [ : : Times New Roman, Normal; : 11; Before: 0; After: 0; Line spacing: Single; (Col 1).] Serbian Studies Research
209
GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Manuscripts to be considered for publication should be submitted in MS Word format by e-mail to: serbian_studies@hotmail.com. Papers are received on the understanding that they are not under consideration for publication elsewhere and have not already been published. There is no standard length for articles, but 48,000 characters is a useful target (excluding footnotes and references). The cover page should provide full affiliation, the mail and e-mail addresses, and telephone number(s) of the corresponding author. The title page should include the paper title and the names and affiliations of all authors. The article should begin with an abstract of 100-250 words describing the main arguments and conclusion of the article. The Chicago Manual of Style is to be followed. Ordinarily, we are able to report back to authors about their submissions within three months. The opinions expressed in the articles published in Serbian Studies Research are those of the authors and not necessarily of the editors of the journal. Serbian Studies Research accepts advertising that is of the interest to the membership of the scholarly Association for the Development of Serbian Studies.
CIP , 811.163.41 821.163.41 SERBIAN Studies Research / . - . 1, . 1 (2010)- . - : , 2011-. - 25 cm . - . - . . . ISSN 2217-5210 COBISS.SR-ID 262351623

SSR 2011 Sotirovicev Clanak o Vuku

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSR 2011 Sotirovicev Clanak o Vuku

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSN 2217-5210 , (Association for the Development of Serbian Studies, Novi Sad)

SERBIAN STUDIES RESEARCH

Serbian Studies Research Vol. 2, No. 1 (2011): 7-80.

VENCLOVIS AND ITS RELATION TO , I.E., CHURCH SLAVONIC

Ibid., 172. , -, 180.

Ibid., 23. Ibid., 23.

Costantini, La lngua di Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi, 75.

. , . . M , XVI-XVII . in his: (: , 1969), 146-66, the quotation appears on 147.

( : Stylos, 2005), with a list of pertinent literature; , , , XV-XIX (: , 1993), 7-157.

Blaevi, Ilirizam prije ilirizma, 352.

Quoted from , 1689/90 ( : , 1982), 364.

Quoted from Iovine, The Illyrian Language, 102.

See the illustrated title page by Zhefarovich in , , 49.

Iovine, The Illyrian Language, 104.

p or p)66 and or the i i

For example, Ivi praises Venclovis as follows: , . , , . . , , . , , , , , . , . , . , 112.

Nedeljkovi, Josef Dobrovsk and the Serbian Literary Language, 9.

ORTHODOX LINGUISTIC DIGLOSSIA, A DEVELOPMENTAL PHASE COMMON TO ORTHODOX PEOPLES

See fn. 61.

XVII ( ), in his , vol. II: - , 175-76.

Fleischmann, Szymon Budny, 94-104.

Struminskyj, op. cit., 20-26.

Struminskyj, op. cit., 26.

, , 86, (see fn. 4).

109 110 111

, , 184, (see fn. 4). , , 181. , , 99.

, , folio 7a. Cf. also: ... , ... , , 53.

, , folio 55a. Cf. also: [] , , 95.

About extended diglossia see fn. 77.

Serbian Studies Research Vol. 2, No. 1 (2011): 81-109.

THE INCEPTION OF THE SERBIAN HISTORY OF LITERATURE

Dragia ivkovi, Poeci srpske knjievne kritike (18171860), Belgrade 1957.

The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 83

Put srpske knjievnosti, p. 58.

The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 85

Duan Ivani, Knjievnost Srpske Krajine, Belgrade 1998, p. 50.

D. Pankovi, cited above, p. 24.

The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 87

Ibid. Ibid., p. 315. Ibid.

Pamjatnik, pp. [82][83].

The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 89

Ibid., pp. [86][90].

M. Flaar, cited text, p. 281. Pamjatnik, [p.79].

The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 91

The archives of SANU, iss. 252.

Prelomna decenija srpske knjievnosti /18101820/ (1974), Tvorci i tumai, p. 33.

The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 93

The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 95

The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 97

Transl. ore S. Kosti (italic J. P.).

The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 99

100 | Jovan Peji

The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 101

D. Pankovi, Srpske bibliogrqfije 17661850, Belgrade 1982, p. 33.

The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 103

111 112 113 114 115 116 117

104 | Jovan Peji

The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 105

106 | Jovan Peji

127 128 129

M. D. Stefanovi, Uvodna studija, p. 34, note 86. Ibid.

The Inception of the Serbian History of Literature | 109

Serbian Studies Research Vol. 2, No. 1 (2011): 111-125.

VUK, HRVATI I DUBROVNIK