ssr 2011 sotirovicev clanak o vuku

8/4/2019 SSR 2011 Sotirovicev Clanak o Vuku

1/212

ISSN 2217-5210

,

(Association for the Development of Serbian Studies, Novi Sad)

SERBIAN STUDIES RESEARCH

. 2 / Vol. 2

. 1 / No. 1

2011

, 2011


2/212


Vol. 2, No. 1, 2011

PublisherAssociation for the Development of Serbian Studies, Novi Sad

Governing Board PresidentBoris Bulatovi, University of Novi Sad (Serbia)

Editorial AddressStevana Hristia 19, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbiatel (fax): +381 21 6396 488email: [email protected]

Editorial BoardTomislav 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 designNenad Svilar

PrintMALA KNJIGA, Novi Sad

Journal DescriptionSerbian Studies Research provides scholarly articles in the fields of Serbian linguistics and litera-ture, international relations, cultural studies, history, sociology, political science, economics, ge-ography, demography, social anthropology, administration, law, and natural sciences, as they re-late to the human condition.

Annual MembershipInstitutional: 35 usd (including subscription and postage)Individual: 15 usd (including subscription and postage)

Peer Review Policy and FrequencyAll research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer-review process, based on initialeditor screening and anonymized refereeing by at least two anonymous referees. Serbian StudiesResearch is published annually.

Indexing and Abstracting Inormation

EBSCO Publishing (full-text database)


3/212


. 2 , . 1, 2011

(),

()

19, 21000 (): +381 21 6396 488email: [email protected]

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


4/212


5/212

/ CONTENTS

Dr Olga NedeljkoviTHE LINGUISTIC DIGLOSSIA OF GAVRILO STEFANOVIVENCLOVI AND IN THE LITERATURE OF THEORTHODOX SLAVS ................................................................................................. 7

Mr Jovan PejiTHE INCEPTION OF THE SERBIAN HISTORY OF LITERATURE ............81

Dr Vladislav B. SotiroviVUK, HRVATI I DUBROVNIK ...........................................................................111

: 19001918 ......................................127

.......................143

-

( ) ........................................................................153Dr Anna Modelska-Kwaniowska

LITERACKIE OBRAZY BONI W WIETLE TEORII(POST)KOLONIALNEJ .........................................................................................165

Dr Branislav RadeljiBLESSING THE COLLAPSE OF YUGOSLAVIA: THE VATICANSROLE IN EC POLICY-MAKING .........................................................................177

.........................................................................................................205GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS ......................................................................209


6/212


7/212

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

UDC 821.163.41.08 Venclovi Stefanovi G.

Dr Olga Nedeljkovi1

University of Illinois at ChicagoDepartment of Slavic and Baltic Languages and LiteraturesUnited States of America

THE LINGUISTIC DIGLOSSIA OF GAVRILOSTEFANOVI VENCLOVI AND IN THE LITERATURE OF THE ORTHODOX SLAVS2

Abstract: In the first part of my study, I present the existing opinions about the rela-tion of Venclovis . Historians of the Serbian literary language havenever disputed the ordinary-peoples language in Venclovis texts, because they have readily

1 [email protected] This article was originally written as a contribution to Riccardo Picchios Festschriftas The LinguisticDualism 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, GiuseppedellAgata and Harvey Goldblatt (Roma: Edizioni dellAteneo, 1986), 597-613. In addition to the updatedbibliography, 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 lin-guistic diglossia that characterized their linguistic culture. The idea ofdiglossia was first introduced byCharles Fergusons seminal work, Diglossia, Word15, no. 2 (August 1959): 325-40, a concise typology,that gives examples ofdiglossic situations in the Arabic nations, Switzerland, Haiti and Greece. Thesediglossicspeech 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 usedfor literary discourse and the Low variety for ordinary conversation. Fergusons original definition ofdi-glossia is that the two varieties in a diglossic relationship are closely related, and therefore diglossia isnot bilingualism or dualism. An important component ofdiglossia is that speakers personally perceivethat the High variety is the real language and the low variety is an incorrect usage. Diglossia is pres-ently giving way in Greece, where it had held sway until a government decree ordained the shift fromHigh (katharevousa) to Low (demotiki) in many spheres of life. See also Ferguson, Epilogue: Diglossiarevisted in Southwest Journal of Linguistics 10, no. 1 (1991), 214-34; A. Hudson, Outline of a theory ofdiglossia, in International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 157 (2002), 1-48 (the entire volumehas been entitled Focus on diglossia). In my text, , in:American Contributions to the Tenth InternationalCongress 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 theOrthodox Slavs constant emulation of Byzantine linguistic and literary patterns.


8/212

8 | Olga Nedeljkovi

recognized a language which did not differ greatly from the modern Serbian literary languagethat they themselves use. The eminent French Slavist, Boris Unbegaun, completely denies thispure the status and function of a literary language. In his opinion, accord-ing to Venclovis own understanding, Church Slavonic was the sole literary language. TheItalian Slavist, Lionello Costantini, perceives Venclovis programmatic pronouncements ashaving the value ofloci communes, and that the peoples language is accorded the full rightof existence directly alongside the liturgical language; a certain state of bilingualism is pro-claimed. Constatini does not, however, enter into an analysis of Venclovis potential sourcesthat, incidentally remained unknown and unexamined to this day. In the second part, I de-fine Venclovis from a purely linguistic point of view. It was an independent lin-guistic system which was created completely within the Roman Catholic cultural sphere inthe Western Balkans under the name Illyrian. It was the original idiom of Dubrovnik, orjezik slaveno-iliriki izgovora bosanskoga of the Counterreformation missionaries. Fortheir missionary and political goals, they chose the tokavian dialect of Bosnia as the mostwide-spread idiom in the Central Balkans. The Illyrian language was specially developedand adapted for the use of the Orthodox Serbs from the sixteenth century onwards. At thattime, 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 ofByzantine 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 derKlassischen Altertumswissenschaft9, 1 (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1897), 385 ff.; H. G. Beck, Geschichte der byz-antinischen Volksliteratur,Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft12, 2, 3 (Munich: Beck, 1971); H. Hunger,Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, vol. I and II, in Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft12, 5, 2 (Munich: Beck, 1978); R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1983); idem, Greek diglossia yesterday and today, in International journal of the soci-ology of language, vol. 35 (1982), 49-68; idem, The language of Byzantine literature, in Byzantina kaiMetabyzantina I. The Past in Medieval and Modern Greek Culture, ed. Speros Vryonis, Jr. (Malibu: UndenaPublications, 1978), 103-33; E. Kriaras, Diglossie des deniers sicles de Byzance: Naissance de la litt-rature 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, Diglossiedes 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); NotisToufexis, 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. Inthis study, I recognize Byzantine diglossia as a theoretical framework for the interpretation of thelinguistic situation among the Orthodox Slavs and Romanians in the post-Byzantine centuries. Afterthe Fall of Constantinople in 1453, being an organic part of the broader diglossic linguistic system ofthe Byzantine period, the Orthodox peoples continued to imitate the latest stage of Byzantine diglos-sia, which took place in the period from 1204 to 1453, and during the centuries of Turcocratia whenthe Greek vernacular(s) was introduced into Byzantine and Post-Byzantine literature in parallel to ar-chaizing 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 Serbianscholars have written about Serbian medieval diglossia as well.


9/212

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 ref-erence to South Slavic people and their language, but also in reference to the ideology of theso-called Illyrism. This ideology was incorporated into the political and defensive platformof the Post-Tridentine Counter-Reformational Catholicism oriented towards institutionaland dogmatic consolidation as well as to the proselytistic expansion... Venclovis language was introduced into his ecclesiastical and still medieval texts within the ideologicalframework of Serbian Orthodox Illyrism on the territory of the Habsburg Empire. I pro-vide a number of concrete examples to corroborate all my statements. The third part of myanalysis reveals the Slavic Orthodox community as an impressive case of a supranational, re-ligious and linguistic unity. After the Fall of the Byzantine Empire and after the Turkish oc-cupation 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 pe-riod, introduced by Pavle Ivi into Serbian scholarship( , . , in his O je , in - . ,: , 1979, 167-75, the quotation appears on p. 169; see also his , 1170-1371, , 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)Iwould 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 seeany 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.


10/212

10 | Olga Nedeljkovi

renewed literary activities was the literature of the Eastern Orthodox Slavs. In this light, theSlavo-Russian cultural orientations of the Serbs, Bulgarians and Romanians was fully justi-fied from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century. The comparative analysis of Vencloviswritings in with other Orthodox texts written in the (vernacular),demonstrates that both belong to the same developmental phase of the Church Slavoniclanguage. This phase, characterized by the gradual introduction of the ordinary peopleslanguage into literature as a medium parallel to Church Slavonic, was common to the en-tire Orthodox community. This phenomenon first appeared during the fifteenth and six-teenth centuries among the Eastern Slavs in Moscovite Russia and the Polish-LithuanianCommonwealth. It occurred there first for two reasons: the Eastern Slavs were not occupiedby the Turks, and the Commonwealth, in particular, offered the most favorable conditions forthis kind of innovation. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Romanian vernacularmade its appearance in Wallachia and Moldavia. The same developmental phase emergedamong the Bulgarians in the second half of the seventeenth century and among the Serbs inthe first quarter of the eighteenth century when circumstances were favorable in the occu-pied Balkans. Thus, the linguistic diglossia found in Venclovis texts marks the beginning ofa new phase of Byzantine-Slavic diglossia. It was introduced into Serbian literature about twocenturies later than in the rest of the Orthodox world. It is only in the light of this phase oflinguistic diglossia that it is possible to interpret the subsequent stage that occurred amongthe 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; Counter-Reformational Catholicism and Serbian National Illyrism; The Serbian Orthodox Church inHungary and its linguistic policy.

Already in 1969, Irena Grickat extensively describes the basic criteria for deferring the literary lan-guage from the language of literature, emphasizing the impossibility of investigating the history of anylanguage, 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 rath-er impossibility of determining diglossia in Old Serbian literature, although he does not speak about di-glossia 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 excep-tionally 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.


11/212


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

This article considers the emergence of vernacular codifications and their in-troduction into Orthodox Slavic literature through an analysis of several fragmentsfrom manuscripts written by Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi (c. 1680-1749). As a start-ing point, I selected the language of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi, not because his

is also my native tongue, but because, as I will demonstrate, among allthe vernaculars of the Orthodox Slavs, his was structurally the furthestlanguage away from the common foundational language of the Orthodox Slavs:, i.e. Church Slavonic. Furthermore, of all the existing Orthodox Slavicvernacular codifications in opposition to Church Slavonic, at the time, it was the mostwell defined common peoples language. As such, Venclovis offers us thebest case for drawing conclusions about the linguistic status of other Orthodox ver-nacular formations. When we take the significantly earlier appearance of vernacularcodifications among the Eastern Slavs into account, the study of Venclovis language

seems especially desirable. I have in mind the so-called (simpleword) in the (Laodikijskij message) from the beginning ofthe sixteenth century, or the which appeared as early as the sixteenthcentury, in contrast to Venclovis which did not enter the Orthodox sphereuntil the first quarter of the eighteenth century.3

3 . . and . . , XIV-XVI (-: , 1955), 256-76; Ia. S. Lur'e, Unresolved Issues inthe 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 worthmentioning a Russian-Byzantine conversation book a, written in the fif-teenth 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 russischenLexikographie (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 linguis-tic models in Slavo-Russian texts in the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries:

... - - - - (, , ) ( ,) ... -

, [...] - -


12/212


From a purely typological point of view, in the period of late Byzantine and Post-Byzantine-Slavic diglossia, established through the introduction of ordinary speechinto official Orthodox religious and medieval literature, the only vernacular thatwas not formed according to literary Orthodox models was Venclovis .Venclovis was, in fact, one and the same with the Illyrian language thathad been created according to the Latin-Italian patterns. All other Orthodox vernac-ular codifications, including Romanian, were formed exclusively on the basis of com-mon typological models from the Orthodox community. While its genesis differedfrom 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 vernacu-lars, and, as such, posed a greater challenge than any of them (i.e., Orthodox vernac-ulars) to Church Slavonic as the only recognized literary language of the Orthodoxcommunity.

The problem of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi s language is unquestionably oneof the most interesting chapters in the history of the Serbian literary language. It isalso 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 underthe 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 fromStakhovas above-cited article, p.74; eadem, Attitudes to Greek Language and Culture in Seventeenth-Century 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-Russianlinguistic contacts of the early modern period:

, e , - 1627 ., ... , , : . , ,

- ; .


13/212


14/212


long to an exclusively ecclesiastic, still medieval literature. All of the scholarsfromGavrilo Vitkovi to Milorad Pavi and Aleksandar ladenovi4agree with ovanSkerlis findings that Venclovi employed two distinct languages:

When he writes something intended exclusively for ecclesiastical use, orwhen 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 thefield 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), 50-51, 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), 64-

67; Aleksandar Albijani, The Creation of the Slaveno-Serbski Literary Language, The Slavonic and EastEuropean Review48, no. 113 (October 1970): 485-86; idem, Serbian Church Slavic Elements in VojvodinaSources, 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 andthe 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): 90-109; idem, , , , , (: ,

1966), 542; idem, , in: O , , vol. 3 (: 1966), 81-122; idem,


15/212


-language as it was preserved in the church tradition helearned from his teacher, Kiprijan Raanin. But when he writes for the secu-lar reader, especially when he composes (homilies) in the manner ofa preacher, he employs the beautiful and pure (the languageof the ordinary people).5

Skerlis insistence on the presence of the common peoples language in Venclo-vis texts has never been disputed by Serbian philologists, primarily because theyreadily recognized a language that does not differ greatly from the modern Serbianliterary language they themselves use. This is probably the main reason why the

question of linguistic diglossia in Venclovis texts has never been raised, much lesssatisfactorily answered in Serbian philology. Precisely because of the appearance ofthe common peoples language in Venclovis works, scholars regard Venclovi as theturning point in the development of the Serbian literary language. He is seen as theforerunner 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 languelittraire chez les Serbes (Paris: H. Champion, 1935), 21-25; L. Costantini, A proposito della lingua di GavriloStefanovi Venclovi, Ricerche slavistiche 14 (1966): 53-76; idem, Gli Annalidel Baronio-Skarga qualefonte di Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi, in Ricerche slavistiche, vol. XVI (1968-69), 163-190; . . , XVIII . ( 1780 .) - , in . (: , , , 1979), 162-65; RosannaMorabito, 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.


16/212


century is at the head of a dark period.6

His texts are considered the beginnings ofthe modern Serbian language. They indicate, the ways in which the literary languageof 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 thecommon people in Venclovis texts was first raised by the eminent Slavist, BorisUnbegaun. On the basis of Venclovis own pronouncements regarding the use ofthe peoples language in his numerous manuscriptspronouncements that are, infact, more apologies than explanations by natureUnbegaun concludes that, for

Venclovi the only literary language is Church Slavonic of the Serbian recension.8Unbegaun underscores this assertion by completely denying Venclovis the status and function of a literary language: The ordinary Serbian language is usedonly in homilies and cannot be regarded either as a (legitimate) written language oreven as a literary language. The reasons for this are:

Venclovi limits the use of the ordinary language to his homilies, whichwere intended to be preached before country folk. His sole aim is for the peo-ple to understand fully the language so that its complete instructional valuewould be assured. Every time, or almost every time, that Venclovi uses the or-

dinary Serbian language, he never fails to point out that he uses it for purelypractical reasons.9

Furthermore, whenever Venclovi uses ordinary Serbian, he uses the popularlexicon as much as possible, not avoiding any words, not even German, Hungarian orTurkish words (which are exceptionally numerous), and he does this without regardfor the literary quality of his language.10 Yet, these reasons are neither sufficient norfully relevant for determining whether a certain linguistic code does or does not ful-fill the function of a literary language. While a discussion of these reasons exceedsthe scope of this article, here I will focus on Venclovis own conception of the liter-

ary language he was using, because that was precisely the conception that Unbegaunattempted to define when he concluded that, according to Venclovis own under-standing, Church Slavonic was the sole literary language.

6 Ibid., 172.7 , -, 180.8 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

Ibid., 23.10 Ibid., 23.


17/212


In his study, The Language of Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi: General Questions,theItalian Slavist, Lionello Costantini, continued the discussion begun by Unbegaun.11Through careful analysis, Costantini questions Unbegauns interpretation ofVenclovis programmatic pronouncements. In fact, he finds the pronouncementsdeceptive. Costantini cannot accept that Venclovis alleged transition to the spoken,ordinary Serbian language was simply to make his homilies maximally understand-able. Rather, Costantini finds that Venclovis apologies derive from his stylistic form:traditional Orthodox topoi that were adopted by the Raka school.12 Venclovis in-troductory formulas and explanations had the value ofloci 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 incisive-ness in the use of forms and stereotypical expressions inherited from a centu-ries-old tradition is evidence that we are dealing here with something differ-ent, something current, a design which should be kept in mind. What couldthat something current be? It seems to me that the answer can be obtainedon the basis of consecutive words which constitute the discriminating criterionfor 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 differ-ent, something very current and, as I shall further demonstrate, something decid-edly essential for the further development of Orthodox Slavdom and its linguisticunity. This is not yet the developmental phase of the Education Movement led byDositej bradovi, nor is it the Romantic epoch of Vuk aradi. Both of these menstruggled for the exclusive acceptance of the language of the common people inSerbian literature within the framework of secular culture. As Costantini accuratelypoints out, Venclovis activity unfolded in an entirely different cultural and spiritu-

al atmosphere, characterized by the absolute supremacy of religious and ecclesias-tical. Notwithstanding, his work has been mistakenly and repeatedly connected tobradovi and aradi in Serbian philology down to the present.14

11 L. Costantini, A proposito della lingua di Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi, 53-76.12 Ibid., 72-74.13 Ibid., 73.

14 Ibid. 75. Costantini does not, however, enter into an analysis of Venclovi's potential sources that, in-cidentally, remain unknown and unexamined to this day.


18/212


In contrast to Unbegaun, who denies the value of a literary language to the peo-ples language, Costantini, with great philological intuition, concludes the theoreticalportion of his analysis by stating:

... as defined in (Venclovis) clear programmatic statement, the peopleslanguage is accorded the full right of existence directly alongside the liturgical lan-

guage; a certain state of bilingualism is proclaimed[emphasis added] in whichboth of these linguistic modalities, [i.e. Church Slavonic and the peoples lan-guage] are postulated not as precluding one another, but rather as correlativesoperating in a symphonic relationship. Within the confines of secular cul-

tureeven though we cannot ever be forgetful of the fact that we are facinga fundamentally religious and ecclesiastical phenomenon here the peopleslanguage is accorded the dignity of a literary language, without any implica-tion that this fact means a break with tradition [emphasis added]. As regards thepractical part of the question, we can isolate two languages in Venclovis ex-tant 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 lackof textual analysis of Venclovis texts that could demonstrate to what degreeVenclovi was dependent on his sources, it is difficult to arrive at a single clearand well-rounded conclusion.15

Thus, Unbegaun and Costantini ultimately arrived at similar conclusions aboutthe relationship between the two idioms Venclovi used in his writings. His had the special function of clarifying the text and making the major literary medi-um, , i.e. Church Slavonic, more readily understandable. It was seeminglyable to follow Church Slavonic without tending to free itself and become separate.Furthermore, for Venclovi, was the sole recognized literary language inthe full sense of the word.

Venclovi seems to be neither the first nor the only copyist or writer during thefirst decades of the eighteenth century who introduced Serbian vernacular into histexts written in Church Slavonic. On the basis of Nikita I. Tolstojs short descrip-tion of the language of Jerotej Raanins i I (ATravelogue to the City of Jerusalem), written in 1727 in the monastery of VelikaRemeta, in the area of the Fruka mountain, I have concluded that Raanin used thesame type of diglossic language as Venclovi, similarly perceiving Church Slavonic as

15 Costantini, La lngua di Gavrilo Stefanovi Venclovi, 75.


19/212


the sole literary language.16

Church Slavonic was also the only literary language forthe writers of the so-called period, including Vikentije Ljutina17at the end of the eighteenth century, and Milovan Vidakovi in the first half of thenineteenth century.18 As with all these writers, Venclovis had a subordi-nate function in relation to the language, with its long literary and sacredtradition 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 indepen-dent linguistic system that differed structurally from Church Slavonic.19 In fact,Venclovis , as a literary form, was created entirely within the RomanCatholic cultural sphere in the Western Balkans during the fifteenth and sixteenthcenturies under the name of Illyrian. For the sake of illustration, I will quote from

16 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 isaccurate. It is puzzling that he does not take into consideration Irena Grickats analysis of Raanin andother 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 samelanguage. My further analysis will prove that all the Eastern Slavic writers and copyistsas well asVencloviwho introduced their vernaculars into Church Slavonic literature recognized ,i.e., Church Slavonic, as the sole and sacred literary language.17 L. Costantini, Slavo ecclesiastico e volgare nella Grammatika Italianskaja di Vikentije Ljutina, Studia his-torica 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.


20/212


John Fines monograph, When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans, in which hecorrectly describes the language of the Serbs living in Habsburg territory:

Many Serbs had also migrated into the Habsburg lands in the centuriesafter the Turkish conquest of Serbia. We find people called Serbs settled in theVojvodina, Srem, and Slavonia, where they had their own Church organiza-tion, which was often under pressure from the political authorities to convertto Catholicism or at least to accept Uniatism. Since the Serbs had their ownSerbian Church organization, the name Serb was used with frequency for thesepeople. However, the local vocabulary used by and about the Catholic Slavs

also penetrated Serb communities. Thus, for example, Jagi uncovered textsdiscussing the publication of their Church books in the 1770s, about them set-ting up their own Illyrian printing press (1771) and talking about the govern-ment decision, noted previously, from 1779 on language. In their discussion ofthe matter and descriptions of the ruling, the Serbs noted that only Cyrillic let-ters and Illyrian liturgical language (illyrica lingua lithurgica)20 could be usedin Church books, whereas in secular works and schoolbooks, the press wouldutilize the popular Illyrian dialect (dialecto vulgari illirica) and Latin letters.We find in 1794 that a Serbian Orthodox priest, Vikentije Ljustina, printed inCyrillic in Slavono-Serbski a 507-page Italian grammar for the use of Illyrian

youth (radi upotreblenia illyrieskija junosti). The local Serbs had come in thiscase to call their language Illyrian, distinguishing Church Slavonic (as liturgicalIllyrian) from everyday Slavic speech (as vulgar Illyrian). Thus, these Habsburg

20 The Illyrian liturgical language was the name of the language in which Croatian glagolitic litur-gical 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 problemswere aware of it. It was the Bishop of Zara, Mutius Callinus, who remarked that: in Dalmatia, the liturgyis 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 LitteraeTheologicae Pragae, 1906), XV, 115. A tendency to emphasize the difference between the lingua vul-garis and the liturgical language, i.e. lingua litteralis, appeared during the Council of Trent. In fact, thefunction of Church Slavonic, the literary language of Orthodox liturgy, was assigned to the lingua litte-ralis. Particularly after the foundation of the Congregatio de Propaganda fide in 1622, Catholic reform-ers elaborated on the concept of the sclavonice antique and attempted to force the introduction of thislanguage into literary practice. The illyrica litteralis was intended to become a means for achieving theChurch 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 expla-nation.


21/212


Serbs were calling their language by the same name that many of their Catholicneighbors were using for theirs.21

Illyrian, i.e., volgare illirico, was the original idiom of Dubrovnik, also knownas jezik slaveno-iliriki izgovora bosanskoga, i.e. the linguagio bosnese, or volgare il-lirico of the Counterreformation missionaries. Sante Graciotti convincingly explainswhy the Bosnian dialect was selected to serve as the basis of the common Illyrianlanguage:

When the problem of choosing a dialect to form the basis of the commonCroatian literary language was raised in Dalmatia, none of the Dalmatian dia-

lects 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 ofthe splendid development of Dalmatian-Ragusan literature, this choice musthave seemed inadmissible; but one could already detect the reasons for such asolution. From the beginning of the sixteenth century to the end of the seven-teenth century, scholars put forward to justify it [the choice]: a puristic reason- the Bosnian dialect was more authentic than any of the coastal dialects--, anda political reason -- the Bosnian dialect was the most widespread and the mostcomprehensible in the entire South Slavic area. Among other things, also noone should forget that the Ragusan dialect was recognized as belonging to thetokavian-Ijekavian dialect of Bosnia to such a degree that it was perceived asits offshoot; and sometimes one spoke explicitly about the languages of Ragusaand 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-NationalistCroatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods (Ann Arbor: The University ofMichigan Press, 2006), 543. In the context of Fines explanation, it becomes fully understandable why, in1773, Constantin Philippidi defined as the liturgical language of the Serbs, and called itiyi--.(Quoted from , XVIII . ( 1780

.), 170, fn. 29. Speaking about the language of the handbook, - , published in Vienna in1776, Dimitrije Kirilovi says: , . Clearly, Kirilovi refers to Slavo-Serbian, i.e. SerbianizedSlavo-Russian (see fns. 65 and 66), which at the time performed the function of Church Slavonic andwas 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 prais-es the high quality of Bosnian was the Benedictine monk, Mavro Orbini, from Dubrovnik. In his Il Regnodegli 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. (IlRegno de gli Slavi, 377). Sante Graciotti, op. cit., 128. Also, after quoting extensively from the available


22/212


Under the influence of the Counterreformation, the Renaissance language ofDubrovnik became, in subsequent centuries, the common, colloquial Illyrian lan-guage, which was gradually adopted by the majority of South Slavic territories in thecentral Balkans. It was also in wide use in the area of the Balkans occupied by theTurks, 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 ofthe theoretical pronouncements of the seventeenth and eighteenth-century philologists.Various com-

munities are referred to as di linguagio bosnese or di lingua Illirica. See her The Illyrian Language andthe 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. RiccardoPicchio and Harvey Goldblatt (New Haven: Yale Consilium on International and Area Studies, 1984), 101-156, the quotation appears on p. 125.23 For more about the use of the term Illyrian by Bulgarian Catholic missionaries, see Iovine, TheIllyrian 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 on35-37.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 lan-

guage of the breviary is a specific mixture of Church Slavonic, Croatian (i.e. Illyrian) and Neo-Bulgarian el-ements. 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 ofwrit-ten by the priest in 1747, and another one written in Banja Luka at the end of the seven-teenth century; , A, in ,vol.II (,1978), 60-68; , , in , vol XLI (1985), 35-64. Cf. also: Emanuela Sgambati, Cultura e azione europea di un missionariopatriota bulgaro: Karsto Pejki, inAtti dell VIII Congresso internazionale di studi sullalto medioevo, La cul-tura bulgara nel medioevo balcanico tra oriente e occidente europeo (Spoleto: Fondazione Centro italianodi studi sullalti medioevo, 1983), 1-21; Josip Turinovi, Misionar Podunavlja, Bugarin Krsto Pejki (1665-1731), inAnalecta croatica christiana, vol. 5 (Zagreb: Kranska sadanjost,1973); Janja Jerkov, Relazionidelle visite apostliche e altri documenti sui Pauliciani bulgari del XVIII secolo, First part in Ricerche slav-istiche, n.s., vol. 4 (2006), 85-205.; Second part, ib idem n.s. vol. 5 (2007), 45-190.24 M. , XV-XVIII . (, 1924),quoted from , , 92.

B , [=Illyrian] , - . XVI . - . , - - - ; - , - -

K; - , -, , , -


23/212


wars between the Habsburgs and the Ottomans intensified the migrations of refu-gees leaving the territories plundered and conquered by the Turks and settling in theCroatian lands (Slavonia, Lika, Kordun and others). Fearing Turkish occupation andoppression, an Orthodox Serbian population migrated to the free western area of theBalkans, bringing about the creation of nuclei of mixed (Serbian and Croatian) com-munities.25 Zoran Velagi cogently describes the activities of the Counterreformationmissionaries at the Frontier of Catholicism and Orthodoxy:

It is clear that the particular frontier location of Croatian authors ledthem to write extensively about the Orthodox Church. These authors pro-

duced works in the vernacular that dealt exclusively with Orthodoxy. Moreover,every larger catechism contained a section which specifically raised the ques-tion of the separated. Catholic authors felt the need to teach their flock whatOrthodoxy was and what should be done if one came into immediate contactwith Orthodox believers. Sometimes they only wanted to inform their believ-ers about the dangers of other denominations. However, other Catholic authorswanted to create a common ground for achieving unity more easily. This wasthe 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. Atthat 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. EszterAndor and Istvn Gyrgy Tth (Budapest: Central European University, 2001), 89-97, the quotation ap-pears on p. 97.27 An anonymous author wrote a letter (on July 5, 1627 in Rome) to the Cardinal of the Propaganda defide:

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 necessarioche 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 que-sta si servono li Moscouiti, Ruteni, Seruiani, Bosnesi et molti altri, et in questa offitiano li monaci di S.


24/212


teenth and eighteenth centuries, Rafael Levakovi and his followersMatej Karaman,Vicencije Zmajevi, Matvej Sovi, Ivan Patri and others who were sponsored by theSacra Congregation de Propaganda Fideintroduced the lingua Illyrica litteralis intoCroatian liturgical texts in order to make this language conform as closely as possibleto the liturgical Ukrainian version of Church Slavonic.28 Catholic reformers and ac-tivists were thoroughly acquainted with the linguistic development of the OrthodoxSlavs. Thus, the intensive endeavors of missionaries to advance the language led notonly to the augmentation of the Cyrillic alphabet but also to the graphic adaptationfor 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 peopleslanguage 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 perquesto mezzo qualque frutto in detti scismatici, li quali volontieri leggerano lopere nove uscite nel-la loro lingua e carattere; et a questo hebbe risguardo la santa memoria di PP. Gregorio XIII. che fecestampare qui in Roma il catechismo e Cannasio, a la fel. memoria del Cardin. S. Severina si hebbe par-ticolar 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 JAZU24 (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 zajednikopismo, Croatica Sacra 4 (1934), 143-74; , XVIII . ... , vol. XXXV (1903),117-25; J. , XVII(: , 1949), 1-147, especially 126; Olga Nedeljkovi, Josef Dobrovskand 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 del-la lingua letteraria croata e la polemica tra Karaman e Rosa, Ricerche slavistiche 13 (1965), 129; idem, Ilproblema della lingua letteraria nellantica letteratura croata, 148; Olga Nedeljkovi, The Humanistic

Concept of Krianis Language,Journal of Croatian Studies 31 (1990), 23-27.29 ime Budini prepared parallel editions in Latin and Cyrillic for use among the Balkan Catholics andOrthodox. See more about him and his writings in ime Budini, Izabrana djela, in: Planine, ed. Franjovelec (Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2002), 309-422, with a list of Budinis editions and pertinent literatureabout him on 327-30.30

There existed a general tendency not only to write books for the Orthodox Serbs and Bulgariansin this lingua illyrica litteralis, but also to identify this lingua antica illyrica with the Church Slavoniclanguage in which Orthodox books were written. For example, Father Rafo Levakovi made such anidentification 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 an-

tica illyrica, such as Bibles, Maenologies, Euchologies, Lives of Saint Fathers, and other ecclesiasticalbooks in the Greek rite.


25/212


pression.31

Having established the evident connection between Venclovis languageand Illyrian, we must conclude that Venclovis was completely unrelatedto Church Slavonic: it was neither modeled upon nor structurally connected to theliterary language of the Orthodox Slavs.

Common Illyrian became the language of Orthodox settlers who fled Turkishterritory and settled in the western parts of the Balkans, especially in the area of theMilitary Border in Croatia and Slavonia. As has already been mentioned, Illyrianwas the generally accepted language in all the Croatian provinces. These provincesformed part of the multinational Habsburg Empire, which also included Bohemia,

Moravia, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia. One should bear in mind that the Serbswere never united in a single political territory inside the Habsburg Monarchy.They were scattered and subject to different administrative systems.32 This said, theSerbian Orthodox Church exerted a unifying powerit held both spiritual and po-litical power over the Orthodox Christians33 under Ottoman rule, and endeavored to

Nedeljkovi, The Humanistic Concept of Krianis Language, 23. The quotation about RafaelLevakovi is taken from Evsebije Fermendin, O. Rafo Levakovi i Vlasi u Hrvatskoj g. 1641., Starine 20(1888), 27.

31 M, , 159-62. Idem, , 113-24. Since there is no critical edition of Venclovis manuscripts in general, and the manu-script 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 plausi-ble to assume that there were at least two if not three copyists involved in translating, though probablyonly copying, the text of Baranovys to the manuscript assigned to Venclovi (see thesix photocopies of the original text of the Spiritual Sword at the end of Mladenovis article). At the endof 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 ofthe letters , and that one encounters in Venclovis manuscripts can hardly be assigned to Venclovialone.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

Preobrazba bizantskog pravoslavlja u srpsku narodnu religiju, posebna organizacija Pravoslavnecrkve, odnosi izmedju Crkve i drave, sve je to odredilo ulogu Crkve u ivotu srpskog naroda za osman-


26/212


preserve the same privileges of the millet system34

in the Monarchy.35

Paul Pavlovichexplains the situation in which the Serbs found themselves thusly:

The rights and privileges which the Serbs had been granted upon enteringthe Hungarian lands in the Austrian Kingdom had been considerable: [emphasisadded] they had been given a form of autonomy in their religious and educa-tional affairs; they had been given the right to call and administer the church-people assemblies, and had been promised the appointment of the Courts ad-visors for matters related to Serb affairs; a vague promise of separate territoriesfor Serb settlements had also been made, and a series of taxes had been adjust-

lijske vladavine. Ta se uloga protezala tako rei na sva ivotna podruja pa je istovremeno osiguravalaiskljuivu duhovnu prevlast Crkve. Medjutim, to je bilo mogue samo pod turskom vladavinom, unutardrutvene 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:

, , . , , - , .

, . , - , .

34Millet 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, ChristianCanon 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 ofIslamic 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 secur-ing recognition of Arsenius Patriarchship and his overall position of leadership among the Serbs inthe Austrian Empire, in establishing the right to call assemblies which were to select only Serbs asArchbishops, 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 beobliged to serve in military service. This original or initial set of privileges had been issued in August of1690, and in ecclesiastical matters, the Serb Church head, in what is Voyvodina today, had been givenall the above rights as an Archbishop of all the people who follow the Greek church service (mean-ing 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.


27/212


ed and lowered in order to help the Serbs to quickly establish themselves eco-nomically. It is interesting to note that these rights and privileges had coveredall the Serbs, those who had been long time citizens of the Austrian Empire aswell as those who had just arrived with the 1690 migration, and that these samerights 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 EmperorLeopold granted the Vojvodina37 church organization, the Serbian Orthodox Churchwas free to promote education and culture, including the usage of language, books

and instructors. Until Empress Maria Theresa (1717-1780) came to the throne, ed-ucation and culture were entirely in the hands of the church. The Orthodox clergyregulated, approved and controlled all linguistic innovations, struggling to preservethe Slavo-Serbian and Slavo-Russian cultural orientation of the Serbs.38The cru-cial question, then, is: why would the Orthodox Church have sanctioned the use

o Illyrian in Orthodox religious literature?39 This question becomes even more

36 Ibid, 107-08.37 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 RepublicaSrpska entity in the South-West. It stretches over the Pannonian plain.38

, , , - .

, XVIII , 143.39 The existing explanations of the presence of Serbian vernacular in Serbian ecclesiastical literature ofthe 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 toclarify his idea further by saying:

, -,


28/212


intriguing when one takes into account the fact that after 1690, having escaped theTurkish yoke and settled in southern Hungary, the Serbs resisted all innovations that,by their reasoning, threatened the Orthodox tradition.40 Like all the Orthodox ingeneral, they rejected all that was Latin and Catholic. Living in the Catholic HabsburgEmpire, 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, Pavidid not fully understand the language problems of the Slaveno-Serbian writers in Hungary, in particu-lar Venclovis diglossia. Specialists of Slaveno-Serbian have not provided an adequate explanation ofSlaveno-Serbian and Venclovis language either (see fns. 65, 66 and 86). The Serbian Orthodox Churchcould never have introduced the Serbian vernacular into literary works or as the official language of theSerbian Orthodox Church. One can speak even less about the secularization of the Serbian traveloguegenre during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Such a westernized approach to the Orthodoxpeoples in general, and to the Serbs in particular, implies a serious distortion of their linguistic develop-

ment. 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, requestingteachers and books from Russia, illustrates well the anti-Latin and anti-Catholic feelings of the Serbs inVojvodina. In it, Metropolitan Petrovi describes the Catholic clergy as , , ( ) . In a letter to Count Golovkin, chancellor of the Emperor, Metropolitan Petrovi says that theSerbs find themselves . Furthermore, hebegs 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 theEmpire, a position which they thought they had attained with the guarantees and privileges grant-ed to them by Emperor Leopold I [...] In the Austrian Empire, on the other hand, the Serbs had foundthemselves in a multinational Empire, where Austrian and Hungarian parts of it predominated, andwhere the Roman Catholic Church was the church of the Imperial Court. Ever since the fall of the Serbstate, the Church head had also assumed Serb secular leadership, and the natural tendency had beento continue with that practice in the Austrian Empire as well. However, was it really realistic to expectthe Vienna Emperor to agree to this lessening of his temporal power in relation to Serbs, when that hadnot been the case in relation to any other of the many national groups within the Empire?[emphasisadded] Much of the Voyvodina Serb story was to be a constant struggle to remain Serb and Orthodoxand not to lose the faith of their forefathers, the story which of course was to be repeated many timesover, 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.


29/212


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-Russiancultural orientation of the Serbs demonstrates the strength of ties within the Slavic-Orthodox community. These ties were just as strong at the end of the seventeenthand the beginning of the eighteenth centuries as they were during the first centu-ries when Christianity was adopted from Byzantium. My analysis reveals the SlavicOrthodox community as an impressive case of a supranational, religious and lin-guistic 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 ecumeni-cal ambitions from Constantinople to Moscow, proclaiming Moscow - the Third Rome), the Russianswere 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 booksfrom Russia to revive their literary activities in Vojvodina.

With the arrival in 1726 of the Russian teacher, Maksim Suvorov, Russian-type schools were found-ed, 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 andVientije Jovanovi. After the departure of the Russian teachers, the development of education suffereda setback, but recovered during the tenure of Metropolitan Pavle Nenadovi.

Wayne Vucinich, The Serbs in Austria-Hungary, Austrian History Yearbook3, pt. 2, (1967): 3-47, thequotation 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 otherarticles in the same edition; Vladimir Moin,O periodizaciji rusko-junoslavenskih knjievnih veza, Slovo,vol. XI-XII (1962), 13-125; I. Mokuter, - XVIII , in Studia slavi-ca, vol. XVIII (1972), 1-29.43 See more about Slavia Orthodoxa in Riccardo Picchio, A proposito della Slavia ortodossa e del-la 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 wouldhelp them and eventually liberate them:

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries representatives of the southern Slavs who were underOttoman rule (e.g., despotitsa Angelina, the monasteries of Mt. Athos) actively promoted the idea ofMoscow as the only Orthodox center which retained religious independence...Russia seem to themthe country which retained the ancient piety ( ), able to a certain degree to pre-serve 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 theThird Rome. In many respects the appeal to Russia in their search for supportprimarily material,


30/212


Investigating Venclovis language in its socio-historical framework involves theuse of written documents as source materials. In order to define the officially recog-nized Slavic language within the multilingual setting of the Habsburg Empire, I willbriefly present the usage of the terms Illyricum and Illyrian by Slavo-Serbian authorsliving in Hungary and the Croatian lands. Recalling the Roman administrative titleof the ancient territory of Illyricum, Renaissance humanists in Italy and Dalmatiaapplied the term Illyrian to the South Slavs and their language.44 While this is notthe place to explore the long and rich tradition of the Illyrian language, I would liketo briefly clarify its major function. It was developed as the popular language, the

lingua commune nazionale, of the South Slavs. The terms Illyrians and Illyrianwere used not only in reference to the South Slavic people and their language, butalso in reference to the ideology of so-called Illyrism. This ideology was incorpo-rated into the political and defensive:

platform of the Post-Tridentine Counter-Reformational Catholicism ori-ented towards institutional and dogmatic consolidation as well as to the pros-elytistic expansion. [...] Counter-Reformational Illyrism [which] absorbed andmade use of modified elements of the Orthodox, above all the Serbian, histori-cal tradition.45

but also spiritualnaturally arose from the conditions of cultural life in the countries of the OrthodoxEast 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 XVIi XVII stoljea,iva antika 34 (1984): 1-2, 155-64. The best source and description of all the Renaissancehumanistic innovations and new approaches to the history of the South Slavs is Daniele Farlatis Illyricumsacrum (1751-1819), an ecclesiastical-historical work with a huge number of documents. More than ahundred collaborators collected the archival materials, which were presented in three hundred sheetsand nine huge volumes for the Jesuit church historians opus magnum. Cf. also Ivan rni, Prilozi k raz-pravi imena Slovjanin i Ilir u naem gostinjcu u Rimu poslije 1453. god., Starine JAZU18 (1886): 1-164.45 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 intofour distinct subcategories: Interconfessional, Franciscan, Curial-Habsburg and Dalmatian Illyrism. Atthe end of her analysis (319-45), she includes Serbian Illyrism, which is clearly expressed in the ideologi-cal 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:


31/212


If the Catholic counterreformers skillfully used Serbian elements for their po-litical and religious purposes, Serbs living within the Habsburg Empire graduallyabsorbed and adopted Illyrism. For example, Serbian leaders Djordje Brankovi andrsenije III arnojevi both fused the Serbian Orthodox tradition with analogousWestern models in order to make their national narrative transculturally legible.46Zrinka Blaevi has cogently defined this transconfessional and transnational modi-fication of Illyrism as Serbian national Illyrism. Serbian Illyrism

found its strongest expression in the appropriation of the Illyrian appel-lative and itsgradual nationalization. When one considers the first,47 condi-

tionally designated as the confessional-theocratic political paradigm [of thekey figures of Orthodox hierarchy, rsenije III arnojevi and Izaija Djakovi],the above-mentioned process can be followed in the modifications of the tit-ulatures of Arsenije arnojevi, Metropolitan in exile48 Thus, after 1690,arnojevi changed the title inherited from the Middle Ages and added newelements to it: the Archbishop of the Eastern Church, the First Justinian, theMetropolitan of all Illyricum, and later he signed his title of rank mostly asThe Slavo-Serbian Metropolitan.49

, , , ed. , trans. ( : , 1994). An analysis of Djordje Brankovis Illyrism exceeds the scope ofmy investigation. Brankovi was imprisoned in 1689 and could not have been responsible for the of-ficial introduction of the Illyrian language in the ecclesiastic literature of the Serbs. It would be hard tobelieve that the Illyrian language, i.e. the Serbian vernacular, could have appearance in Venclovi s textswithout the knowledge of the key figures of the Orthodox hierarchy at the time.46 Blaevi, Ilirizam prije ilirizma, 352.47 One can follow the second paradigm, i.e., the parallel tendency to transform from Illyrian to theSlaveno-Serbian nomenclature in the preserved works of Djordje Brankovi. See more about it in

Blaevi, Ilirizam prije ilirizma, 324-36.48 Ibid, 324.49 The full quotation from Arsenije III arnojevis memorandum to Emperor Leopold I, which most like-ly was composed by Count Djordje Brankovi, reads as follows:

Ultimatim, dum tandem aliquando inter duos potentissimos Monarchas, videlicet inter Augustiss-imam Vestram Majestatem, et Turcarum Szultanum exoptata pax concludere videretur, cum patria no-stra scilicet Slavo-Serborum, Bulgarorum, Rascianorum, Valachorumque una cum coeteris ditionibus,regionibusque eidem annexis, quae sub nomine Slavo-Illyriae, maxime autem,quibus principatibus, acprovinciis 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 willprovide the reader with Blaevis translation of this quotation:


32/212


Venclovis is of crucial significance for explaining the structureand characteristic features of the Serbian common peoples language, i.e. i within the ideological framework of Serbian Orthodox Illyrism onthe territory of the Habsburg Monarchy.50 The transformation and appropriation of

Napokon, poto se, kako se ini, izmedju dva najmonija vladara, naime Vaeg Uzvienog Velian-stva i turskog sultana zakljui udjeni mir, neka se pod naom domovinom, naime domovinom nasSlavo-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. godineu navodnom rodnom mjestu ilirskog cara Justinijna, iji je nesudjeni nadbiskup trebao biti RafaelLevakovi. Arsenijevo preuzimanje te titule izraz je ne samo njegovih legitimacijskih potreba nego inastojanja da odredi svoje jurisdikcijske ovlasti prevodei ih na katoliki eklezijalnopolitiki jezik. Uovom 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 tit-ulatures 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 unificationof 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 po-

sition of the Serbian Orthodox Church among the Orthodox Balkan Slavs. However, his ecumenical as-pirations were oriented towards much broader territories which would have included both the entireSlavo-Illyria and all the principalities and regions ofJustiniania prima i.e., of the Ohrid Archbishopric. Seemore about Serbian ecumenical imperialism in Hadrovics, Nacionalno poslanje srpske pravoslavnecrkve,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 tudessud-est europennes, vol. 14, nos. 1-4 (Bucarest, 2007), 73-85.50 The enormous topic of Serbian Illyrism has, for the most part, been woefully neglected in scholar-ship. 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 hisworks on Venclovis numerous innovations and contributions to Serbian literature in the 1730s and1740s 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 thescope of my investigation. In regard to Pavis literary, aesthetic, philosophical, rhetorical, etc. description


33/212


Reformational Catholic Illyrism by the Serbs in Hungary were related to the expe-rience of several centuries of migration in the areas of the Western Balkans. Takinginto consideration that Serbian Orthodox Illyrism represents an ideological modifi-cation of Catholic Reformational Illyrism, whose missionaries sought to achieve theconfessional unification with the Orthodox, I would like to mention an important as-pect that must have consciously or unconsciously contributed to the consolidation ofSerbian National Illyrism among the Orthodox Serbs in the Habsburg Empire. In thisregard, one must bear in mind that the formation of Orthodox Serbian confessionalidentities and boundaries did not coincide with their political and cultural bound-

aries within the Monarchy. In everyday life, Serbs were subject to an administrativeand civilizational system marked by a powerful confessionalist Catholicism that em-braced all spheres of public life. Despite the Serbian Orthodox Churchs efforts andstruggles to preserve the Orthodox faith and withstand the pressure to unify, theclear-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 hecorrectly 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 consid-erato autore, e quanto invece traduttore, compilatore o copista di tali testi: N ci risulta che tale indag-ine 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 skillfullyshed light on Venclovis sources, and cogently indicated a number of weak aspects of Pavis overly en-thusiastic evaluation of Venclovis revolutionary contributions to Serbian literature and language. Inthis regard, Venclovi seems akin to someone like Francysk Skaryna (ca.1485-1540 or 1490-1551), whoreceived a Doctors degree in Medicine from the University of Padova in 1512 (for more on his works, seethe beginning of the third part of this study). As the first Byelorussian printer, Skaryna was undoubtedlyconnected with the Counterreformers who composed, translated, appropriated and adapted numer-ous 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 mighthave 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 makeany 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, inhis , Nikola Radoji speaks about Rajis specific South Slavic orien-tation in his History: , , , , .Rad JAZU222 (1920): 75-113, the quotation ap-pears on p. 112. However, correctly detects the influences of Catholic ReformationalIllyrism (Mavro Orbini and Andrija Kai-Mioi) in s a and s C.See his C a a ,

, in: . , ed. (: , 1997), 108-18.


34/212


multinational Empire. Participating in the Catholic Habsburg state left an indelibleimpact on the formation of culture among the Serbs in Vojvodina, impacting lan-guage, 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 deploymentof the terms Illyricum and Illyrian, which have been frequently misunderstood ormisinterpreted in scholarship.51

Metropolitan Arsenije III arnojevi most probably was among the first to in-troduced the term Illyricum in his title: ...

51 In his well elaborated article, , 18. , in speaking about the attempts of the Viennagovernment to introduce the vernacular and Latin script for the Serbs in schools outside the OrthodoxChurch, 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 Hungariaeet 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 WohlUnsererlieben getreuen Illyrischen Nation den Unterrichtder nicht unirten Illyrischen Jugendin denenTrivial- oder Landesschulen, als einen der vorzglichsten gndigst ermessen, und dahero beschlossenhaben.. (Ibidem, 82) [bolding added]

Peter Herrity addresses the question of Serbian schools within the context of the same SchoolDecree, Ratioeducationis, emphasizing that:

...only church books could be printed in Cyrillic, and thatthe Illyrian language (the vernacularas used in Croatia and Slavonia), and the Latin alphabet had to be used in schools. This was, inone way, a natural move on the part of the government to try and equate the Croatian and Serbianpopulations 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 ac-cordingly their language is called . These terms are no longer clear today. For example, ofIllyrisch (see the full quotation and my explanation in fn. 59), senija Maricki Gadjanski says:

Illyrisch . See her: , in: . , 121.


35/212


[By Gods mercy, Arsenije arnojevi, the Orthodox Archbishop ofPe and Metropolitan of all the Serbs and Bulgarians and entire Illyricum].52 It wasalso used to reflect religious administrative units as in the title: Arxiepiskop pekskiji 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, theWestern part of Primorje, both sides of the Danube river, the Metropolitan of allIllyricum].53 One finds an almost identical appellation of rank on the title page ofHristifor efarovis (1726-1753) i, published in 1741 in Viennaand

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 Westernpart of Pomorije, Dalmatia, Bosnia, the both sides of the Danube river, and ofentire Illyricum, to the Metropolitan, the most Gracious Master)54

Seeking to spiritually conquer Orthodox populations by creating a common lan-

guage comprehensible to all the South Slavs, missionaries in the service of CatholicPropaganda created a huge corpus of texts written in Illyrian.55 I want to stress thatthe term Illyrian was widely used not only in the Western parts of the Balkans for

52 Quoted from , 1689/90 (: , 1982), 364.53 Quoted from Iovine, The Illyrian Language, 102.54 Quoted from s , 49. In the framework ofSerbian National Illyrism, it becomes understandable why efarovis i represents a

free elaboration and translation of Pavao Ritter Vitezovis (1652-1713) Stemmatographiae Illyricanaeliber primus authore equite Paulo Ritter(published in 1702). A new photocopied edition, Grbovi, biljeziidentiteta, trans. Ivo Banac, foreword Slobodan Prosperov Novak, contains descriptions of coat of armsby 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. Blae-vi, Ilirizam prije ilirizma. The basic guidelines are accurately described by Iovine in The Illyrian Lan-guage,101-156; see also Slobodan Prosperov Novak, Rano novovjekovlje: katolika obnova i prvoprosvjetiteljstvo, in: Povijest hrvatske knjievnosti, vol. 3, Od Gundulieva Poroda od tmine do KaievaRazgovora ugodnog naroda slovinskoga iz 1756 (Zagreb: Antibarbarus, 1999), 73-930. In his , Pavi incorporates the works and activities of numerous mission-aries 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 liv-ing in Hungary during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.


36/212


the both Orthodox languagesthe - , i.e. volgare illirico,and , i.e., Slavo-Russian, used both as the liturgical language andin secular writings, cf., for example,Ljutinas Italian Grammarwas written , )56but also among the Serbs in Hungary in the seventeenth and eigh-teenth centuries. For example, on the same title page of his i, Hristiforefarovi 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 Illyrian-Rashian people), which the future Serbian Metropolitan, Pavle Nenadovi, printedin Vienna in the

ssr 2011 sotirovicev clanak o vuku

Documents