A \ B \ C \ D \ E \ F \ G \ H \ I \ J \ K \ L \ M \ N \ O \ P \ R \ S \ T \ U \ V \ W \Z

Historical View of the Languages and Literature of the Slavic by Therese Albertine Louise von Jacob Robinson

T >> Therese Albertine Louise von Jacob Robinson >> Historical View of the Languages and Literature of the Slavic




Before we enter upon our examination of the different branches, we
must not neglect to direct the attention of the reader to the whole
great trunk, which in the most ancient times appears to have ramified
into two principal stems.

A boundless confusion indeed reigns in the classification of the
Slavic nations among the earlier historians and philologists. It was
the learned Dobrovsky of Prague, who first brought light into this
chaos, and established a classification, founded on a deep and
thorough examination of all the different dialects, and acknowledged
by the equally great authority of Kopitar. Adelung, in his
Mithridates,[9] has adopted it. The specific names, however, Antes and
Slavi, which Adelung applies to the great divisions, and which were
first used by Jornandes, are arbitrary, and less distinct than those
adopted by Dobrovsky, Kopitar, and Schaffarik; who divide all Slavic
nations, according to certain philological affinities and differences,
into the _North-Western_ and _South-Eastern_ Stems.[10]

Far better would have been the terms 'Northern _and_ Western,'
'Southern _and_ Eastern,' divisions; which indeed can be the only
proper meaning of those appellations. The Slovaks in Hungary, for
instance, who belong to the first division, can in no way be called a
_North_-Western people; and the Russians, who belong to the second,
still less a _South_-Eastern nation. The _origin_ from the South is
common to all the Slavic tribes; hence the appellation of Northern and
Southern can be applied to them only in a relative sense; and that
portion of the Slavic race, which inhabits Russia, is not known to
have ever lived in a more southern region than their Bohemian
brethren. We adopt, therefore, the division of the Slavi into EASTERN
and WESTERN Stems; which seems indeed to be the only strictly proper
one.[11]

The following enumeration of the still existing distinct nations of
the Slavic race, may serve to give a clearer view of them.


A. EASTERN STEM.

I. RUSSIAN BRANCH.

1. RUSSIANS. The Russians of Slavic origin form the bulk of the
population of the European part of Russia. All the middle provinces of
this vast empire are occupied almost exclusively by a people of purely
Slavic extraction. The numerous Slavi who are scattered through
Asiatic Russia, are of the same race. They belong to the Greek
Church. To ascertain the exact numbers of the different races of one
and the same nation, is exceedingly difficult. The statistical tables
of the government afford little help; since it is the policy of the
latter to annihilate as much as possible the difference of races.
Schaffarik, in his Slavic Ethnography, gives the number of the
Russians proper at 38,400,000. We follow him, as the most diligent and
most consistent investigator of this matter; but we also feel bound to
remark, that his statistical assertions have occasioned surprise, and
met with contradiction.

2. RUSSNIAKS or RUTHENIANS, also called _Russinians_ and
_Malo-Russians_. These are found in Malo-Russia, the South of Poland,
Galicia, Ludomeria or Red Russia, the Bukovina, also in the
north-eastern part of Hungary, and scattered over Walachia and
Moldavia. The Kozaks, especially the Zaporogueans, belong chiefly to
this race; while the Kozaks of the Don are more mixed with pure
Russians. Their number is given at more than thirteen millions. They
all belong to the Oriental Church; though a portion of them are
Greek-Catholics, or adherents of the United Church.


II. ILLYRICO-SERVIAN BRANCH.

1. The ILLYRICO-SERVIANS proper, frequently called _Rascians_ or
_Raitzi_, comprising five subdivisions.

a) The SERVIANS in Servia, lying between the rivers Timock, Drina,
Save, the Danube, and the Balkan mountains; and, as a Turkish
province, called Serf Vilayeti. Their number is at least a million. In
earlier times, and especially at the end of the seventeenth century,
many of them emigrated to Hungary; where even now between three and
four hundred thousand of them are settled; exclusive of their near
relatives, the Slavonians, in the kingdom of Slavonia so called.

b) BOSNIANS, between Dalmatia, the Balkan mountains, and the rivers
Drina, Verbas, and Save; from four to five hundred thousand in number.
Most of them belong, like their brethren the Servians, to the Greek
Church; about 100,000 are Roman Catholics. There are of late many
Muhammedans among them, who still retain their language and most of
their Slavic customs.

c) MONTENEGRINS (Czernogortzi). The national name of the Montenegrins,
here given as _Czernogortzi_, is better written _Tzernogortzi_; see p.
119, n. 17. Their number is given by Sir J.G. Wilkinson at 80,000, or
more. These are the Slavic inhabitants of the Turkish province
Albania, among the mountains of Montenegro. They have spread
themselves from Bosnia to the sea-coast as far as Antivari. This
remarkable people the Turks never have been able to subjugate
completely. They enjoy a sort of military-republican freedom: their
head chief being a Bishop with very limited power. They amount to
nearly 60,000 souls, belonging to the Eastern Church.

d) SLAVONIANS. These are the inhabitants of the Austrian kingdom of
Slavonia and the duchy of Syrmia, between Hungary on the north and
Bosnia in the south, about half a million in number. A small majority
belongs to the Romish Church; the rest to the Greek Church.

e) DALMATIANS. The country along the Adriatic, between Croatia and
Albania, together with the adjacent islands, is called the kingdom of
Dalmatia, and belongs likewise to the Austrian empire. It has,
together with the Istrian shore north of it, towards 600,000
inhabitants; of whom 500,000 belong to the Slavo-Servian race. They
are all Roman Catholics; with the exception of about 80,000 who belong
to the Greek Church.

2. The Austrian kingdom of CROATIA in our time, between Styria,
Hungary, Slavonia, Bosnia, Dalmatia, and the Adriatic, is not the
ancient Croatia of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Together with the
Croatian colonists in Hungary, and the inhabitants of the Turkish
Sandshak Banialouka, it contains about 800,000 souls. Of these less
than 200,000 belong to the Greek Church; the great majority are
Catholics. We shall see further on that the Croats are divided in
respect to their language into two parts: one of them having affinity
with the Servians and Dalmatians, the other with the Slovenzi of
Carniola and Carinthia.

3. SLOVENZI or VINDES. These names comprise the Slavic inhabitants of
the duchies of Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, (the two latter
forming the kingdom of Illyria,) and also those of the banks of the
rivers Raab and Muhr in Hungary. Their number is over one million.
With the exception of a few Protestants, they are all Catholics. They
call themselves _Slovenzi_; but are known by foreign writers under the
name of _Vindes_.


III. BULGARIAN BRANCH

The BULGARIANS occupy the Turkish province Sofia Vilayeti, between the
Danube, the Euxine, the Balkan, and Servia; they are about three and a
half millions in number, the remnant of a great nation. About 80,000
more are scattered through Bessarabia and the other provinces of South
Russia. Schaffarik enumerates seven thousand as Austrian subjects,
living in that great receptacle of nations, Hungary. Most of them
belong to the Greek Church.


B. WESTERN STEM.

I. CZEKHO-SLOVAKIAN BRANCH.

1. BOHEMIANS and MORAVIANS (Czekhes). These are the Slavic inhabitants
of the kingdom of Bohemia and the Margravate of Moravia, both
belonging to the Austrian empire. They are about four and a half
millions in number; of whom 100,000 are Protestants, the rest
Catholics. Schaffarik includes also 44,000 of the Slavic inhabitants
of Prussian Silesia in this race.

2. SLOVAKS. Almost all the northern part of Hungary is inhabited by
Slovaks: besides this they are scattered through the whole of that
country, and speak different dialects. They are reckoned at between
two and three millions.


II. POLISH OR LEKHIAN BRANCH.

This comprises the inhabitants of the present kingdom of Poland; of a
part of what are called since 1772 the Russian-Polish provinces; of
the duchy of Posen; and of Galicia and Ludomeria. The bulk of the
people in this latter country are Russniaks or Ruthenians. In the
Russian provinces, which were formerly called White Russia, Black
Russia, and Red Russia, and were conquered by the Poles in former
times, the peasantry are Russians and Russniaks; in Lithuania, they
are Lithuanians or Lettones, a race of a different family of nations.
In all these countries, only the nobility and inhabitants of the
cities are really Poles, or Slavi of the Leckian race. To the same
race belongs also the Polish population of Silesia, and an isolated
tribe in the Prussian province of Pomerania, called the Kassubes. The
Slavi of the Leckian race hardly amount to the number of ten millions;
all Catholics, with the exception of about half a million of
Protestants.


II. SORABIAN-VENDISH BRANCH.

There are remnants of the old Sorabae; and several other Slavic races
in Lusatia and some parts of Brandenburg. Their number is less than
2,000,000; divided between Protestants and Catholics.

There is no doubt, that besides the races here enumerated, there are
Slavic tribes scattered through Germany, Transylvania, Moldavia, and
Walachia, nay, through the whole of Turkey. Thus, for instance, the
Tchaconic dialect, spoken in the eastern part of ancient Sparta and
unintelligible to the other Greeks, has been proved by one of the most
distinguished philologists to have been of Slavic origin.[12] But to
ascertain their number, at any rate very small, would be a matter of
impossibility, and in every respect of little consequence.

We thus distinguish among the nations of the Slavic race two great
families, the connection of whose members among each other is entirely
independent of their present geographical situation; and this division
rests upon a marked distinction in the Slavic language. To specify the
marks, by which the philologist recognizes to which of these families
each nation belongs, seems to be here out of place. The reader,
without knowing the language itself, would hardly be able to
comprehend them sufficiently; and he who understands it, will find
better sources of information in philological works. All that concerns
us here, is the general character, the genius of the language. For
this purpose we will try to give in a few words a general outline of
its grammar; exhibiting principally those features, which, as being
common to all or most of its different dialects, seem to be the best
adapted to express its general character.

The analogy between the Slavic and the Sanscrit languages consists
indeed only in the similar sound of a great many words; the
construction of the former is purely European, and it has in this
respect a nearer relation to the Greek, Latin, and German; with which
idioms it has evidently been derived from the same source.[13] The
Slavic has three genders. Like the Latin, it knows no article; at
least not the genuine Slavic; for those dialects which have lost their
national character, like the Bulgarian, or those which have been
corrupted by the influence of the German,[14] employ the demonstrative
pronoun as an article; and the Bulgarian has borrowed the Albanian
mode of suffixing one to the noun. For this very reason the
declensions are more perfect in Slavic than in German and Greek; for
the different cases, as in Latin, are distinguished by suffixed
syllables or endings. The Singular has seven cases; the Plural only
six, the vocative having always the form of the nominative. As for the
Dual, a form which the Slavic languages do not all possess, the
nominative and accusative, the genitive and local; the dative and
instrumental cases, are always alike.

For the declensions of adjectives the Slavic has two principal forms,
according as they are _definite_ or _indefinite_. The Old or Church
Slavonic knows only two degrees of comparison, the positive and
comparative; it has no superlative, or rather it has the same form for
the comparative and superlative. This is regularly made by the suffix
_ii_. mostly united with one of those numerous sibilants, for which
the English language has hardly letters or signs, _sh, tsh, sht,
shtsh_, etc. In the more modern dialects this deficiency has been
supplied; in most of them a superlative form is made by prefixing the
particle _nai_; e.g. in Servian, _mudar_, wise, _mudrii_ wiser,
_naimudrii_, the wisest. The Russian, besides this and several other
superlative forms, has one that is more perfect, as proceeding from
the adjective itself: _doroghii_ dear, _doroshe_ dearer,
_doroshaishii_, dearest. Equally rich is this language in augmentative
and diminutive forms not only of the substantive but also of the
adjective, a perfection in which even the Italian can hardly be
compared to it; of which however all the Slavic dialects possess more
or less. Almost all the Russian substantives have two augmentatives
and three diminutives; some have even more. We abstain with some
difficulty from adducing examples; but we are afraid of going beyond
our limits. It deserves to be mentioned as a peculiarity, that the
Slavi consider only the first four ordinal numbers as adjectives, and
all the following ones as substantives. For this reason, the governed
word must stand in the genitive instead of the accusative: _osm sot_
(nom. _sto_), eight hundred. In all negative phrases they employ
likewise the genitive instead of the accusative. A double negation
occurs in Slavic frequently, without indicating an affirmation; for
even if another negation has already taken place, they are accustomed
to prefix to the verb the negative particle _ne_ or _nje_.

In respect to the verb, it is difficult to give a general idea of its
character; for it is in the forms of this part of speech, that there
reigns the greatest variety in the numerous dialects of the Slavic
language. The same termination which in Old Slavonic and in Russian
indicates invariably the first person of the present, _u_ or _gu_, is
in Servian that of the third person Plural of the present and
imperfect; and the general termination of the Servian and the Polish
for the first person of the present, _am, em_ or _im_, is in Old
Slavonic and Russian used for the Plural, _em_ and _im_. There is
however one fundamental form through all the Slavic dialects for the
second person of the present, a termination in _ash, esh_ or _ish_;
and this is consequently the person, by which it is to be recognized
to what conjugation a verb belongs.

The division of the verbs adopted in all other European languages into
_Active_ and _Passive_, seems to be useless in Slavic; for their being
active or passive has no influence upon their flexion; and the forms
of the Latin Passive and Deponent must in Slavic be expressed by a
circumlocution. A division of more importance and springing from the
peculiarity of the language itself, is that into verbs _Perfect_ and
_Imperfect_. Neither the Greek, nor the Latin, nor the German, nor any
of the languages derived from them, admits of a similar distinction.
It seems therefore difficult for persons not perfectly acquainted with
any Slavic dialect, to form to themselves a clear idea of it. It is
however one of their most striking features, which adds very
considerably to their general richness and power. The relation in
which the perfect and imperfect verbs stand to each other, is about
the same as that of the perfect and imperfect tenses in the
conjugation of the Latin verb. Perfect verbs express that an action
takes place a single time, and therefore is entirely completed and
past; from their very nature it results, that they have no imperfect
tense, and their conjugation must be in general incomplete. Imperfect
verbs express that the same action continues. Both have in most cases
the same radical syllable, and may be formed with a certain degree of
freedom; thus in Servian, _viknuti_, to cry once, _vikati_, to be
crying; _umriyeti_, to die, _umirati_, to be dying. There are however
others, which stand in the same relation to each other without issuing
from the same verbal stock; e.g. in Servian, _tchuti_ and _sluskati_,
to hear; _retji_ and _govoriti_, to speak, etc.

The Polish language, which is remarkably rich in every kind of
flexion, has a still simpler and more regular way of forming also a
frequentative out of almost every verb; e.g. _czytam_, I read,
_czytivam_, I read often; _biore_, take, _bieram_, I take often, etc.
In Bohemian, which in respect to grammar is by far the most cultivated
of the Slavic languages, there is a refinement in the tenses, of which
even the most perfect knowledge of the classical languages gives
hardly any idea, and the right use of which is seldom, if ever,
acquired by foreigners. Duration, decision, repetition, all the
different shades of time and purpose, which other languages have to
circumscribe in long phrases, the Bohemian expresses by a slight
alteration of one or two syllables.

Not less rich in these variations of the verb is the Russian. Besides
a vast treasure of original, genuine _indefinite_ verbs, as they call
all those, which have the general character of the verb of other
languages, without any allusion to the duration or continuance of the
action, they have verbs _simple, frequentative_ and _perfect_. A
single example will illustrate the fact:

Verb indefinite, _dvigat'_,[15] to move.

Verb simple, _dvinut'_, to move a single time.

Verb frequentative, _dvigivat'_, to move repeatedly.[16]

Verb perfect, _sdvigat'_, to move completely.

The reader may judge for himself, of what precision, compactness, and
energy, a language is capable, which has so little need of
circumlocution. It must be mentioned, however, that not all these
verbs are complete; as indeed it is obvious from their very nature,
that in many of them, various tenses must be wanting. It is probably
for this reason, that some of the most distinguished grammarians do
not acknowledge this division of the verb itself; but put all its
variations under the conjugation of a single verb, as different
tenses,--a proceeding which contributes much to make the Slavic
grammar a horror to all foreigners.

If this short and meagre sketch is hardly sufficient to give the
reader an idea of the richness, precision, and general perfectibility
of the Slavic languages, it will be still more difficult to reconcile
his mind to their _sound_; against which the most decided prejudices
exist among all foreigners. The old Slavic alphabet has forty-six
letters; and from this variety it can justly be concluded, that the
language had originally at least nearly as many different sounds,
although a great part of them are no longer to be found in the modern
Slavic languages. It is true, that all the dialects are comparatively
poor in vowels, and, like the oriental languages; utterly deficient
in diphthongs.[17] They have neither the _oe_ nor _ue_, which the
Germans consider as the best sounds of their idiom: nor the
Greek,[Greek: ei], [Greek: ui], [Greek: au], [Greek: eu], and the
like; still less the variety of pronunciation of one and the same
vowel, peculiar to the English. The Poles, Russians, and Bohemians,
possess however a twofold _i_, [18] a finer and a coarser one; the
latter of which is not to be found in any other European language, and
is unpleasant to the ear of foreigners. The Poles, besides this, have
_nasal vowels_, as other languages have nasal consonants.[19]

It is a striking peculiarity, that Slavic words very seldom _begin_
with a pure _a_,[20] hardly ever with _e_.[21] There are in the whole
Russian language, only two words of Slavic origin, which have an
initial _e_, and about twenty foreign ones in which this letter has
been preserved in its purity; in all the rest the _e_ is introduced by
_y_; e.g. _Yelisaveta_, Elizabeth; _yest_', Lat. _est_, it is;
_Yepiscop, episcopus_, bishop; _yeress_, heresy, etc. The initial _a_
is more frequent, and is especially preserved in most foreign proper
names, e.g. Alexander, Anna; or in other foreign words, where they
omit the _H_, as _Ad_, Hades, Hell, _Alleluya_, Hallelujah. But the
natural tendency of the language is to introduce it likewise by _y_;
thus they say _yagnya_, in preference to _agnya_, Lat. _agnus_,
although this last also is to be found in the old church books:
_yasti_, to eat, _yakor_ anchor, _yavor_, maple, German _ahorn_.[22]
The _o_ in the beginning of words is pure in most Slavic dialects,
i.e. without a preceding consonant. In Russian it sounds frequently
more like an _a_ than an _o_; e.g. _adin_, one, instead of _odin;
atiotz_, father, instead of _otetz_. But the Vendes of Lusatia
pronounce it _vo_; as also the Bohemians in the language of common
life; although in higher style they have a pure initial _o_. The
Croats, on the other hand, have no pure initial _u_; they say _vuho_
ear, instead _uho_ or _ucho_.

As to consonants, there is a great variety in the Slavic languages.
There is however no _f_ to be found in any genuine Slavic word; and
even in words adopted from foreign languages, this letter has
frequently changed its sound. So the Bohemian has made _barwa_ from
the German _farbe_, color. In respect to the connection of the Slavic
with the Latin, it is interesting to compare _bob_ with _feba, bodu_
with _fodio, vru_ with _ferveo, peru_ with _ferio, plamen_, with
_flamma, pishozala_ with _fistula_, etc.

The greatest variety among the Slavic letters exists in the sibilants.
Of these there are seven, perfectly distinct from each other; some of
which it would be difficult to denote by English characters[23]. They
are the favourite sounds of the language. Not only the guttural
sounds, _g, ch,_ and _k_, but also _d_ and _t_, are changed in many
cases into analogous sibilants, according to fixed and very simple
rules. On the other hand, the Slavic nations have a way of softening
the harshness of the consonants, peculiar in that extent to them
alone. The Frenchman has his _l mouille,_ the Spaniard his _elle
doblado_ and _n_. the Portuguese his _lh_ and _nh_; the Slavic nations
possess the same softening sound for almost all their consonants. Such
is the usual termination of the Russian verb in _at'_ or _it'_, etc.
where other Slavic nations say _ati_ or _iti_ or those of the western
branch _acz_ or _ecz_. In the same manner it occurs after initial
consonants; thus _mjaso_, meat; _bjel_, white; _ljbov_, love, etc.

The letters _l_ and _r_ have in all Slavic languages the value of
vowels; words like _twrdy_, _wjtr_, which judging from their
appearance a foreigner would despair of ever being able to pronounce,
are always in metre used as words of two syllables. Thus _Wlk_, _Srp_,
are not harsher than _Wolk_ and _Serp_. We feel however that these
examples cannot serve to refute the existing prejudices against the
euphony of the Slavic languages. Instead of ourselves, let one of
their most eloquent and warmest advocates defend them against the
reproach of roughness and harshness.[24] "Euphony and feminine
softness of a language are two very different things. It is true that
in most of the Slavic dialects, with the exception of the Servian, the
consonants are predominant; but if we consider a language in a
philosophical point of view, the consonants, as being the signs of
ideas, and the vowels, as being mere bearers in the service of the
consonants, appear in a quite different light. The more consonants,
the richer is a language in ideas. _Exempla sunt in promtu_. The
euphony of single syllables is only partial and relative; but the
harmony of a whole language depends on the euphonic sound of periods,
words, syllables, and single letters. What language possesses these
four elements of harmony in equal measure? Too many vowels sound just
as unpleasantly as too many consonants; a suitable number and
interchange of both is requisite to produce true harmony. Even harsh
syllables belong to the necessary qualities of a language; for nature
herself has harsh sounds, which the poet would be unable to paint
without harsh sounding tones. The roughness of the Slavic idioms, of
which foreigners have complained so frequently, is therefore
exclusively to be ascribed to the awkwardness of inexperienced or
tasteless writers; or they are ridiculous mistakes of the reader, who,
unacquainted with the language, receives the sounds with his eyes
instead of his ears."--"The pure and distinct vocalization, which does
not leave it to the arbitrary choice of the speaker to pronounce
certain vowels or to pass them over, as is the case in German. French,
and English, gives at the same time to the Slavic languages the
advantage of a regular quantity of their syllables, as in Greek; which
makes them better adapted than any other for imitating the old classic
metres. We must confess, however, that this matter has been hitherto
neglected in most of them, or has been treated with little
intelligence. We mean to say: Each Slavic syllable is by its very
nature either short or long; since each Slavic vowel has a twofold
duration, both short and long. This natural shortening and lengthening
of a syllable is, as with the Greeks, entirely independent of the
grammatical stress or falling of the voice upon them, or in other
words, of the _prosodic tone_; the _quantity_ being founded on the
nature of the pronunciation, on the longer or shorter duration of the
vowel itself, and not on the grammatical accent. This latter may lie
just as well on syllables prosodically short, as on those which are
long."

Copyright (c) 2007. bestextbooks.com. All rights reserved.

Frederick J. Furnivall - "Caxton's Book of Curtesye"

Stella M. Francis - "Campfire Girls in the Allegheny Mountains"

Henry Bibb - "Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Henry Bibb, an American Slave, Written by Himself"

Edmund Burke - "The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Vol. VI. (of 12)"