Dobrovsky and the South Slavic Literary Languages* RADO L. LENCEK 1. The Slavic literary languages have been said to stem from two different cultural traditions, identified by Roman Jakobson with the two civilizing currents pervading the Slavic world from the time of its appearance in history: Greek, embodied in Church Slavonic, and Latin, embedded in Old Czech and penetrating deep into the East.1 Among the several independent traditions created in these currents were two prototypes of Slavic literary languages: modern Russian, based on Church Slavonic, and modern Czech, based on Old Czech. Both share a dependence on tradition and a slow evolution. A third prototype, Serbo-Croatian, has neither of these two features, having begun with a deliberate break with the past. It has been suggested that Serbo-Croatian "has lost connection with any literary-linguistic tradition", and that the South Slavic literary languages, with the exception of Bulgarian, * This paper is a contribution to a topic which has been receiving growing at- tention in Slavic scholarship during the postwar period. See B. Havránek, "Josef Dobrovsky, zakladatel védecké slavistiky", Co daly nase zeme Evrope a lidstvu, 2nd ed. (Prague, 1940), pp. 228-233; idem, "Vliv nové spisovné CeStiny na spisovné jazyky jihoslovanské", ibid., pp. 304-307; F. Wollman, "Josef Do- brovsky a jazykové literární obrození u Slovanú", Sborník prací filosofické fakulty brnénské university, III (D) (Brno, 1955), pp. 5-40; idem, Slovanství v jazykové literárním obrození u Slovanü (= Spisy filosofické fakulty v Brné, 52) (Prague, 1958). For a detailed account of the state of contemporary Slavic literary languages, see Slovanské spisovné jazyky v dobé pritomné, ed. M. Wein- gart (= Dobrovského kniznice duchovédná, 1) (Prague, 1937). This paper at- tempts to bring into focus a new aspect of Dobrovsky's intercourse with the South Slavic world: the formation of the linguistic models underlying the codi- fication of the literary languages. The writer should like to express thanks to his colleague F. Y. Gladney for his helpful remarks. 1 See R. Jakobson, "The Kernel of Comparative Slavic Literature", Harvard Slavic Studies, I (Cambridge, 1953), pp. 1-71. Cf. also M. Weingart, "O poli- tickych a sociálních slozkách v starSích déjinách spisovnych jazykú slovanskych, zvláSté církevnéslovanského", Sborník Jaroslavu Bidlovi (Prague, 1928), pp. 157-187. Dobrovsky and the South Slavic Literary Languages 1045 belong to neither the Church Slavonic group of literary languages nor the Western tradition.2 In spite of their venerable traditions, however, the present-day Slavic literary languages are generally believed to be of more recent date. Although the models on which they were formed mutually influenced each other, each of these literary languages developed independently from a living spoken idiom. The models of modern literary Polish, Lusatian, Czech, and Slovak, on the one hand, and Slovene and Serbo- Croatian on the other, were shaped at about the same time during the wave of linguistic romanticism. For a long time, the center of this influence, for all Western and Southern Slavs, was Prague. In the period to be considered, the movement spread by way of Vienna to the Southern Slavs.3 In this linguistic romanticism - specifically, Slavic linguistic romanticism, which had such a powerful impact on the devel- opment of the various Slavic literary languages - there originated three different linguistic models, which will be contrasted in this paper. They are identified with the names of Dobrovsky, Kopitar, and Karadzic; from them stem contemporary Czech, Slovene, and Serbo-Croatian. Our purpose is to discuss these three models and make some inferences about their origin.4 2. Slavic linguistic romanticism - a movement at the turn of the nine- teenth century characterized by the search of the awakened Slavic com- munities for their linguistic identity - is the grafting of German em- pirical linguistics on a native ideological legacy. Slavic ideological tradition, inherited from the Middle Ages and faithfully preserved through the centuries by the so-called humanist and baroque Slavism, charged Slavic romanticism with a vigorous 2 Cf. N. Trubetzkoy, The Common Slavic Element in Russian Culture, Slavic Studies, Philology Series (ed. L. Stilman), 2nd rev. ed., Columbia University, Department of Slavic Languages (New York, 1952), p. 26. 3 Cf. M. Murko, Deutsche Einflüsse auf die Anfänge der Slavischen Romantik, 1. Die Böhmische Romantik (Graz, 1897). 4 The term "literary language" is used here for a codified grammatical system, specifically as postulated and described at the beginning of the nineteenth cen- tury. Although the discussion will touch upon "norm", particularly in connec- tion with contemporary Czech, the notion of a grammatical norm or of a dis- parity between the norm and the codification barely existed then. At that time, the codified systems of Slavic languages existed merely as symbols of favored or desirable forms of speech within the linguistic communities. In Dobrovsky's and Kopitar's language, the term "Schriftsprache" expresses this concept. In the titles of their books, there appears simply "Sprache"; elsewhere, "Sprache", "Dialekt", or "Mundart" are used as synonyms. 1046 Rado L. Lencek dynamism. The dominant tenets of this Slavic ideology were the fol- lowing: idealization of the Slavic tongue, belief in the linguistic unity of all Slavs, consciousness of native literary traditions, and, above all, an awareness of the Cyrillo-Methodian teachings, which claimed equal rights for all national tongues. The German grammarians of the Enlightenment in the second half of the eighteenth century, on the other hand, supplied a linguistic theory and set an example for practical work on languages. The con- temporary German lands were witnessing an intense effort to create a standard German literary language. Only recently had the German language been introduced as a subject into the schools. The need for textbooks called for a good many new grammars. A vigorous puristic drive was launched, and a number of orthographic reforms was pro- posed. The endeavors of Slavic grammarians of linguistic romanticism can be properly understood only against this background. Two German linguists of that period are usually mentioned: Friedrich Karl Fulda (1724-1788) and Johann Christoph Adelung (1732-1806). The writings of the latter had perhaps the greatest and most profound influence on the formation of the Slavic literary languages. Adelung's Versuch eines vollständigen grammatisch-kritischen Wörterbuches der Hochdeutschen Mundart (1774-1786), and his classical Umständliches Lehrgebäude der Deutschen Sprache (1782), for a long time the authority for literary German, offer a synthesis of the post-Gottsched German grammarianship, and Dobrovsky, Kopitar, and Karadzic make frequent reference to them.5 The extent to which Adelung's ideas under- lie their models of literary languages remains to be investigated. Most typical of the teachings of German grammarianship to which the Slavic grammarians of linguistic romanticism were exposed at the end of the century are the following.6 (1) Language is the tool of communication; its efficiency depends on the degree of lucidity of the ideas expressed and the refinement of its speakers' taste. (2) A good grammar is the pragmatic history of the language. 5 It is interesting that Vuk Karadzic, in his introduction to the first edition of his Pismenica serpskoga jezika (Vienna, 1814), mentions Adelung's and Do- brovsky's grammars, although it is clear that he did not use either as his model. Cf. Vuk S. Karadzic, Skupljeni gramaticki i polemicki spisi, I (Belgrade, 1894), p. 6. " These principles are summarized from Adelung's Umständliches Lehrgebäude ... (1782). Cf. also M. H. Jellinek, Geschichte der Neuhochdeutschen Gram- matik von den Anfängen bis auf Adelung (Heidelberg, 1913). Dobrovsky and the South Slavic Literary Languages 1047 (3) A literary language is the creation of taste. Its perfection depends on the knowledge and refinement of educated speakers.7 It is based on the dialect of that region which shows the highest development of its culture. (4) The usage (Sprachgebrauch) of the best literary works decides what is good and correct in a language. (5) The grammarian is a legislator; he respects usage, but discrimi- nates between "correct and incorrect usage" and combats arbitrariness. Arbitrary usage is the greatest danger to which a literary language can be exposed. (6) The ideal orthography is governed by the "natural" law of writing: Write as you speak! This law, however, is applicable only when a literary language is based on a single dialect, and when such a rule does not run counter to existing usage. Stability and continuity of the orthography are indispensable to the growth of a literary lan- guage. Many of these points may be readily recognized as features in our own concept of a literary language and obviously point to the continuity of the German Enlightenment, inherited by linguistic romanticism and passed down to our time. 3. It is not surprising that Josef Dobrovsky's views on literary Czech proceeded from the same positions as those of Fulda and Adelung for literary German. He was, after all, their contemporary and shared their grammatical traditions and ideals; they all faced strikingly similar prob- lems: a dangerous drift toward arbitrary usage, phonetic and morpho- logic deviations from established usage, a growing frequency of vulgar- isms,