The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe Also by Tomasz Kamusella

Home , Czech nationalism, Hans Kohn, Kevin Hannan, Magyarization, Matthias, Slovak nationalism

THE DYNAMICS OF THE POLICIESOF ETHNICCLEANSING IN SILESIA DURING THE NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH CENTURIES THE POLISH-ENGLISH-GERMAN GLOSSARY OF THE REGIONAL TERMINOLOGY OF THE OPOLE VOIVODESHIP THE POLISH-ENGLISH-GERMAN REGIONAL GLOSSARY THE SZLONZOKS AND THEIR LANGUAGE: Between Germany,Poland and Szlonzokian Nationalism SILESIA AND CENTRAL EUROPEAN NATIONALISMS: The Emergence of National and Ethnic Groups in Prussian Silesia and Austrian Silesia, 1848–1918 NATIONALISMS ACROSS THE GLOBE: An Overview of Nationalisms in State-endowed and Stateless Nations (Vol 1: Europe)(edited with W. Burszta and S. Wojciechowski) NATIONALISMS ACROSS THE GLOBE: An Overview of Nationalisms in State-endowed and Stateless Nations (Vol 2: The World) (edited with W. Burszta and S. Wojciechowski) The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe

Tomasz Kamusella Senior Lecturer, University of Opole, Opole, Poland and Thomas Brown Lecturer, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland © Tomasz Kamusella 2009 Foreword © Peter Burke 2009 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2009 978-0-230-55070-4 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted his right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2009 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin's Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries. ISBN 978-1-349-36196-0 ISBN 978-0-230-58347-4 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/9780230583474 This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kamusella, Tomasz. The politics of language and nationalism in modern Central Europe / Tomasz Kamusella ; foreword by Peter Burke. p. cm. Includes index. 1. Europe, Central—Languages—Political aspects—History. 2. Europe, Central—Politics and government—19th century. 3. Europe, Central— Politics and government—20th century. 4. Nationalism—Europe, Central—History. I. Title. P119.32.E848K36 2008 306.44'943—dc22 2008000162 10987654321 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 This book I dedicate to the fond memory of my grandparents, Stefania Borkowska neé Piórkowska (1918– 2005), Franciszek Borkowski (1910–1999), Katharina Kamusella neé Wylezol (1894– 1975), and Paul Kamusella (1898–1964) and to the future of my daughter, Anna Maria Language. Language is savage flesh, which grows in a wound, in the open wound of the mouth, nurtured on deceptive truth, [ ...] language, [ ...] is a beast domesticated withhuman teeth, something inhuman growing in us, and outgrowing us, a redflag, which we spew out withblood [ ...].

Translated from the Polish by Kevin Hannan (1954–2008) Suska (2003: 15) ‘Language is Savage Flesh’ Ryszard Krynicki (1943–)

[In Central Europe] [ ...] language is a precious commodity, symbol ofknowledge and status, root ofbloody wars of envy. Nations there destroy nations to possess a quantity of precious linguistic material.

‘Tongues’ Kevin Hannan (2006: 52) Contents

Foreword xi Preface xiii

Acknowledgments xxiv

1 Introduction 1 What is politics of language? 7 Where is Central Europe? 11 The states of Central Europe 14 On the similarity between the concepts of nation and language 23 The normative isomorphism of language, nation, and state 29 Languages andpolitics in an historicalperspective 37 Social scientists, nationalism, andlanguages 42 From languages to nations 44 From linguistic nations to linguistic nation-states 51 The normative isomorphism of language, nation, and state, today 56

2 Language in Central Europe: An Overview 62 Beginnings 63 The German language or languages? The first Central European vernacular made a written language 73 Latin: From lingua franca to ‘dead language’ 86 The Czechlanguage 99 ThePolishlanguage 108 TheMagyar language 121 TheSlovaklanguage 131 Official languages in Central Europe 136 Central European literacies 139

3 The Broader Linguistic and Cultural Context of Central Europe 149 From Church Slavonic to Ruthenian 150 The Russian language 158 What is in the name of a language? 164 Belarusian and Ukrainian 167

vii viii Contents

Lithuanian 180 Latvian and Estonian 192 Romanian, Moldovan, and other East Romance languages 201 From Slavic to Croatian and Serbian to Serbo-Croatian to Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian 217 Albanian 240 Macedonian 246 Greek 255 Turkish, Gagauz, Tatar, and Karaim 264 Bulgarian 276 Slovenian 288 Sorbian 301 Hebrew and Aramaic 307 Yiddish 311 Ladino 317 Armenian 320 Romani 327 Esperanto 335 Script variants, alphabets, andpolitics 341

Part I Central European Politics and Languages in the Long 19th Century

The advent of nationalism 365

4The Polish Case: From Natio to Nation 367 ThePolishlanguage and nationalism in partitioned Poland-Lithuania 368 Encyclopedias and politics 406 The rise of the Polish nation-state 408 Polish or Lekhitic? 416 Orthographyand politics 418

5 The Hungarian Case: From Natio tothe Ersatz Nation-State 431 Estates politics 431 Language enters politics 434 Magyar: From codification to official language 439 Magyarization and the rise of national minorities 447 The War of Independence 453 Magyar: The state language 456 The mythologization of language in the interest of the nation 472 Contents ix

6The Czech Case: From theBohemian Slavophone Populus to Czech Nationalism and the Czechoslovak Nation 481 Estates politics 482 Language enters politics 489 Landespatriotismus, Czech nationalism, and Pan-Slavism 495 Toward Czechoslovakia 510 Development of nation equates language development 513 Czechoslovakism 518

7TheSlovak Case: From Upper Hungary’sSlavophone Populus to Slovak Nationalism and the Czechoslovak Nation 522 Imagining Slovakia and theSlovaks523 Which Slovak language for which Slovak nation? 531 Slovak nationalism and Magyarization 547 Czechoslovakism 557 The difficult birth of standard Slovak 562

Part II Nationalisms and Language in theShort 20th Century

The triumph of the national 569

8ThePolish Nation: From a Multiethnic to an Ethnically Homogenous Nation-State 573 The emergence of Poland and linguistic nationalism 576 Language politics in interwar Poland 587 Polish: From a minority to hegemonic language 598 World War II: Polish is a minority language once again 609 The unprecedented monopoly of Polish in communist Poland 620 The national communist monolith cracks: From the end of communism to Poland’s accession to the European Union 628

9 The Hungarian Nation: From Hungary to Magyarország 645 The Magyar and Polish cases compared 648 The shock of Trianon 652 Interwar Hungary 663 Magyar: From the imperial to nationallanguage 667 Communist Hungary:Magyar is a small languageagain 688 The end of communism: Rediscovering the world and Greater Hungary? 706 x Contents

10 The Czech Nation: BetweenCzechoslovak and Czech Nationalism 714 In search of the Czechoslovak nation 719 Again: The twilight of German-Czech bilingualism 764 Czechoslovakia: A home to two nations? 771 No name: The Czech nation-state 787

11The Slovak Nation: From Czechoslovakia to Slovakia 803 National myths and the Slovak vision of the Slovak past 805 Interwar Czechoslovakia: TheSlovak renaissance and Czechdomination 820 The first Slovak independence: A brief prelude of Slovak monolingualism 851 The return of Slovak-Czech bilingualism 861 Confusing names: Slovakia independent again 883

12 Conclusion 905 The Central European languages and nationalisms in the long 19th century 905 The languages and nation-states of Central Europe in the short 20th century 919

Notes 956

Bibliography 994

Index 1054

Index of Dictionaries 1129 Foreword

Students of nationalism – whether historians, sociologists, or political scientists – have long been aware of the importance of the politics of language (witness the classic studies by Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson, and Eric Hobsbawm). For their part, linguists have long been aware of the importance of language for the rise of nationalism. All the same, despite their potential importance in both fields, relatively few in-depth studies have been made of the politics of particular languages in particular periods. The problem is that, generally speaking, the linguists do not know enough politicalhistory to takeonthe task,while politicalhistorians are ill-at-ease in the field of linguistics. Tomasz Kamusella is an example of that increasingly rare animal, a scholar who feels at home in more than one field. In this book he offers a major – indeed, a monumental – contribution to the scholarly exchange between linguists and historians (not to mention political scientists). Kamusella has produced a magisterial study, ambitious in its aims but supported by original research as well as offering asynthesis of specialized contributions in a number of languages. The book is concerned with what might becalled a topical topic – thepolit- ics of language. The author’s principal aim is to present historical case-studies, concentrating on the last two centuries, when languages have been particularly entwined with politics, and on four languages (Polish, Hungarian, Czech, and Slovak) that were chosen not only because of the author’s linguistic compet- ence but also because, as he says, ‘languages are more politicized in Central and Eastern Europethan anywhere else.’ Kamusella is nothing if not thorough. The core of his book consists of eight chapters, two for each of the key languages. However, a long introduction, vir- tually a short book in itself,defines key terms and places the case-studies in a wider context. The basic concepts require definition, since as the author observes, neither ‘nation’ nor ‘language’ is as transparent a term as it may seem, and what he describes as ‘ethno-linguistic nationalism’ or more technically as ‘the normative isomorphism of language, nation and state’ is a historical construct that cannot be taken for granted. The distinctions that Kamusella makes between ‘civic’ and ‘ethnic’ nations and between linguistic ‘codification’ and ‘standardization’ are particularly useful.

xi xii Foreword

In the second place, writing as he does mainly for Western European and Anglophone readers, Kamusella is careful to place the four languages on which he centers his attention among the many other languages of Central and Eastern Europe. He also places the 19th and 20th centuries in perspective by discussing the earlier history of these languages. Although this is a work of synthesis and comparative analysis, it includes unusual themes, among them the politics of dictionaries and national encyclopedias, as well as fascinating and little-known examples, such as the importance of the German model and even of German-speakers in the codification of Pol- ish and Hungarian; the use of census data on language in the long struggle of the Poles for recognition as a nation; and the regular temporary exchange of children in border areas so that they might grow up fluent in two, three, or four languages. Readers with an interest in cultural hybridity will be delighted to learn about trasianka (literally a mix of hay and grass), applied to the mix of Russian and Belarusian, or surzhyk (wheat with rye or barley), describing the mix ofRussianwith Ukrainian. It should be emphasized that the central part of the book does not merely offer four case-studies or parallel histories of the relation between language and politics. It analyses as well as describing, making use of both comparisons and contrasts in order to show how languages were affected by political ideas and events, notably by nationalism and by the coming to power of Commun- ist regimes after 1945. Conversely, Kamusella notes how the revival of written vernaculars contributedtothe rise of nationalism. The author avoids any monolithic view of his four languages and shows himself to be well aware of the importance of regional variation – noting, for instance, that the situation of Hungarian in Transylvania differed considerably from that in the Great Hungarian Plain. This book should appeal to linguists, historians, and students of politics. Its most obvious attraction is that it fills a major gap in the knowledge of Western European and Anglophone scholars, and that it can be used for reference as well as read from cover to cover. However, Kamusella’s study is more ambitious than that. The concepts it uses and the conclusions it reaches about language and politics are likely to provoke a more generaldiscussion. It is likely to remain the standard work in its field for a generation.

Professor Peter Burke University of Cambridge Preface

This book grew out of a frustration at almost no scholarly exchange between historians andlinguists. This realization came to me as a surprise during the 1990s, when the virtues of interdisciplinary research began to be extolled, while language was again employed for making history in Central and Eastern Europe, often with a vengeance. In 1991, the non-national Soviet Union split into the 15 ethnolinguistically defined nation-states and 2 years later, the ethnolinguistic nation-states of the Czechs and the Slovaks emerged. Prior to the fall of communism in 1989, Poland had three neighbors, namely East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union, in whichlanguage was not the main instrument of statehood legitimization. After 1993, all of them were replaced by seven brand-new straightforward ethnolinguistic nation-states, namely reunited Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, and Russia. Only the Baltic remained unaltered in this sea of change. Strangely enough, such a dramatic political overhauldid not trigger a single war. Politicians dealt a much worse hand to the Balkans. The 1989 mass expulsion of ethnic Turks from Bulgaria to Turkey almost ended in a military conflict. In the west of the region, between 1991 and 2006, the breakup of Yugoslavia produced five wars (in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia),six new ethnolinguistic nation-states (Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia), and entailed the splitting of the Serbo-Croatian language into Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and, perhaps soon, into Montenegrin aswell.1 Nationally mindedlinguists tabletheir various ideas about language customized to the needs of politicians and decision-makers, whereas political scientists andhistorians busy themselves analyzing and recordingpolitical changes carried out on the ethnolinguistic basis. In this division of labor, historians and political scientists tend to treat linguists’ proposals on languageasa ‘black box,’ believing the latter objectively and faithfully describe the linguistic reality on the ground in a wholly disinterested manner. Thus, when linguists decide that ‘a Bosnian language of centuries-long pedigree undoubtedly exists

xiii xiv Preface and is inherently different from Serbian,’ or that the ‘evidence clearly indic- ates that the Slovak dialectal area consists of three distinctive, though kindred dialects,’2 historians and political scientists usually accept such pronouncements as givens, not worth any further analysis. Conversely, linguists treat national master narratives developedby historians as a ‘blackbox,’ too. They donot question the anachronistic tendency to speak about theHoly Roman Empire as an early ‘German nation-state,’ Greater Moravia as the ‘first Slovak nation-state,’ Poland-Lithuania as the ‘true Polish nation-state,’ the Kingdom of Bohemia as an ‘early Czech nation-state,’ or Rus as the ‘first Russian nation-state.’ As a res- ult, more often than not linguists’ ideas about national languages end up as unquestioned ‘significant arguments’ used for propping historians’ pet national master narratives and vice versa. Artifacts created by both linguists and historians, although often only tentatively or merely nominally connected to linguistic reality and historical events, are offormative influence on the social and political reality in Central and Eastern Europe’sethnolinguistic nation-states, perhapsto a greater degree than anywhere else in the world. Somehow, these clear instances of politics of language did not register with scholars, who so far have failed to investigate them in a comprehensive manner. One explanation of the fact may be that ‘givens’ are accepted at the face value and one does not spare them a second thought; thus, theybecome ‘transparent categories,’ which one uses on the everyday basis to function in and to reflect on the social reality, without even realizing the fact. In a similar way,the ubiquitous concept of nation as employed for making and unmaking polities and societies during the last two centuries evaded a comprehensive scrutiny until the late 20th century. Probably, this elusive obviousness of nations and languages was produced by the unquestioned widespread popular use of both concepts and their foundational implication in the national projects, which de facto underlie all the polities extant at the beginning of the 21st century, because each of them is construed as a nation-state, with the rare exception of the Holy See. Most historians and linguists are in the pay of state-owned universities, which does not predispose them well to probing into national master narratives andlinguistic arguments that happen to be associated with them. Arguably, more independent private universities nevertheless prefer not to support any research projects which may disenchant (or even nullify) the legitimizing basis of national statehood in a polity where such universities happen to be located. The master narrative nurtures and requires to be nurtured back. The dynamics of this interdependence ostracizes contrarians, and in extreme cases leadstotheir persecution or even ‘disappearance.’ The danger is less when the scholar is based in a secure and affluent democracy, and directs one’s analytical attention to the regions of the world distant from one’s country of residence. That is why the first famous scholar of nationalism, Hans Kohn (1891–1971), who was of Austro-Bohemian-Jewish Preface xv origin, wrote copiously on European and Soviet nationalisms after 1931, when he had settled safely in the United States, far away from the European scene of both World Wars.3 Thanks to his hands-on experience of ethnolinguistic nationalisms in Central and Eastern Europe and in Central Asia, Kohn, as a historian, was also the first one among students of nationalism and ethnicity to reflect on language as an instrument of politics. However, the tradition of national his- toriography, forged in the 19th century, prevented him from devoting a single chapter of his renowned study, TheIdea of Nationalism (1944, New York),to language. Another scholar of the very same origin as Kohn, and also based in the United States, the political scientist, Karl W Deutsch (1912–1993), devoted more attention to language in his influential monograph Nationalism and Social Communication (1953). However, his focus was rather on the role of communication for the processes of nation- and nation-state-building than language itself, which explains why Deutsch unreflectively took data on languages as recorded in official censuses. Similarly, the German historian, Eugen Lemberg (1903–1976), did not transcend this pattern of acknowledging the significance of language for national projects without really analyzing the conceptinhis two-volume work Nationalismus (Nationalism, 1964, Reinbek near Hamburg). One of the first historians who made language the center of his analysis was the West German student of Central and Eastern European history, Holm Sundhaußen, in his all too little known book, Der Einfluß Herderschen Ideen auf die Nationsbildungbei den Völkern der Habsburger Monarchie (The Influence of Herderian Thought on the Process of Nation-Building Among the Nationalities of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1973, Munich). Likewise, the United States historian, Eugen J Weber (1925–), who stems from Romania, devoted a crucial chapter of his groundbreaking study, Peasants into Frenchmen (1976, Stanford, CA),toan analysis of the importance of language and ethnolinguistic homogenization for the French national project. In the penultimate chapter of his seminal study, Nations Before Nationalism (1982, Chapel Hill,NC), another American historian, John A Armstrong (1922–), probed into the rise of written languages and their influence on group differentiation and political projects in the pre-modern period. In a similar fashion, the French professor of medieval history, Philippe Wolff (1913–2001), made the interactions between the linguistic and political in Western Europe between AD 100 and 1500 into the leading theme of his popular 1971 book, Les origines linguistiques de l’Europe occidentale (Western Languages, AD 100–1500, 1971, London). However, until the late 20th century, not historians but scholars of other disciplines were more interested in researching the mutual influences between language-making and politics. The Catholic priest, Cyril Korolevsky (Cyrille Korolevskij, born: Jean-Baptiste Charon, 1878–1959), presented in his 1955 monograph, Liturgie en langue vivante (Living Languages in Catholic Worship, 1957, London), the tension between the actual use of vernaculars (often politically xvi Preface motivated) and the monopoly of Latin in Catholic liturgy, before the Second Vatican Council changed the situation overnight in favor of vernaculars in the late 1960s. In 1963, the Italian linguist, Tullio de Mauro (1932–),publishedhis so far unequalled monograph, Storia linguistica dell’Italia unita (A Linguistic History of United Italy, Bari), whose 9th edition remains in print to this day. Three years later, the American linguist, Einar Haugen (1906–1994), contributed an in-depth study, Language Conflict and Language Planning: The case of Modern Norwegian (1966a, Cambridge, MA),onhow the interaction between nationally minded linguists, nationalists, and state bureaucracy shaped the Norwegian language and Norwegian nationalism. In 1975, the versatile German linguist and sociolinguist, Harald Haarman (1946–), offered one of the first overviews of history of language politics in Europe in his monograph, Soziologie und Politikder Sprac- hen Europas (The Sociology and Politics of Europe’s Languages, 1975, Munich). Two years later, the American political scientist, David D Laitin (1945–),who uses the analytical instruments of linguistic anthropology in his research, published Politics, Language, and Thought: The Somali experience (Chicago), which was a starting basis for his magisterial Language Repertoires and State Construc- tion in Africa (1992, Cambridge). In 1981, later, the Russian linguist based in Estonia, AleksandrDDulichenko (1941–), publishedhis groundbreaking study, Slavianske literaturnye mikroiazyki (TheSlavic Literary Micro-Languages, Tallinn), devoted to theSlavic micro-languages associated with ethnic or religious groups, which did not manage to overhaul themselves into successful national movements. In 1973, the United States pioneer of sociolinguistics, Joshua Fishman’s (1926–) Language and Nationalism (Rowley, MA) came off the press. It was the first-ever monograph which attempted to look into and generalize about the role of language in nationalism, and the role of nationalism in language-making. In the Germanophone world, Sundhaußen’scolleague, the linguist, Norbert Reiter, replied with an equally interesting and rambling study like that of Fishman’s, namely Gruppe, Sprache, Nation (Group, Language, Nation, 1984, Wiesbaden). La questione della lingua has remained a central subject of research in Italy for the last two centuries, so it comes as no surprise that the seminal collection, The Emergence of National Languages (1984, Ravenna),editedbythe Italian classicist, Aldo Scaglione, was published in the country. Significantly, the British linguist, David Crystal(1941–), devoted muchplace, in his immensely popular Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (1987, Cambridge), to the mutual interferences between the linguistic, the political, and the social. However, the mainstream of linguists faced with the spectrum-like (that is, not easily divided into separate units) multitude of languages persisted in the simplisticallypositivistic approach to go out into the field in order to count and classify all the languages. In fact, their decisions on which idiom is a dialect and which a language time and again rather created and unmade languages Preface xvii than described them in a neutral manner. The same predicament besieged 18th- and 19th-century antiquarians and folklorists, whose writings on ‘little known peoples’ frequently engendered new ethnolinguistic national movements. The Czech historian, Miroslav Hroch (1932–), explained in detail the mechanism of this process in bothhis 1968 and 1970 German-language studies, published jointly in English as Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe (1985, Cambridge). In 1951, linguists connected to Christian missionary organizations published the first edition of the famous compendium, Ethnologue: Languages of the world (Dallas, TX), with an eyetoproviding translations of the Holy Writ to the speakers of all the world’s extant languages. In 2002, the International Organization of Standardization asked the Ethnologue team to draft a common classificatory system for identifying all the world’s languages. Three years later, the latest 15th edition of Ethnologue came off the press, and remains the most renowned compendium on human languages global-wide. (The danger is that when a language is not included in this compendium, it is as good as non- existent for the international audience, whereas this fact of non-inclusion gives a state where the languages is spoken an ‘argument’ to claim that the language is not a language but a mere dialect or jargon not worthy of any official status.) Although, in agreement with their political tenets, the Soviets created tens of languages per year in the interwar period,the Atlas narodov mira (Atlas of the Peoples of the World, 1964, Moscow) edited by the geographer and ethnolo- gist of Jewish origin, Solomon I Bruk (1921–1994), presented a static (‘given’) picture of the ethnic groups and their languages, similar to that offered by Ethnologue.4 The concepts of language and nation (hardly ever analyzed as salient instruments of classification) were brought together in Heinz Kloss (1904–1987) and Grant D McConnell’s monumental five-volume Composition linguistique des nations du monde (Linguistic Composition of the Nations of the World, 1974– 1984, Quebec). Significantly, Kloss, in his 1967 article ‘Abstand languages and Ausbau languages,’ published in Anthropological Linguistics, introduced a novel distinction useful for conceptualizing about languages. Abstand, or ‘standing apart,’ languages are so different from one another and clearly mutually incom- prehensible (for instance, German and Polish) that one is not inclined to treat them as dialects. On the other hand, Ausbau, or ‘built apart from,’ languages are mutually or semi-mutually comprehensible (for example, Czech and Slovak); so in order to become separate languages in their own right, whatever small differences existing between them must be minutely described and deepened in the course of politically (nationally) motivated standardization. The anthology, The Linguistic Turn: Recent essaysinphilosophical method (Chicago),which the American philosopher, Richard M Rorty (1931–),edited in 1967, popularized among social scientists (includinghistorians) the need to reflect on language not as a seemingly neutral medium of inter-human communication, but as the value-laden and contested instrument of creating and xviii Preface maintaining social reality. The work of structuralists and poststructuralists (for instance, Roland Barthes [1915–1980], Judith Butler [1956–], Jacques Derrida [1930–2004], Michael Foucault [1926–1984],Julia Kristeva [1940–],Thomas Kuhn [1922–1996], Jacques Lacan [1901–1981], or Claude Lévi-Strauss [1908–]) was decisive for the spread of the novel approach in the 1970s and 1980s. This change of approach in research facilitated the writing of the two groundbreaking studies, Imagined Communities (London) and Nations and Nationalism (Oxford), which married insightful analyses of the past and language in an effort to shed new light on the phenomenon of nationalism. Both were published in 1983, and it is notable that the former was authored by the American specialist in Southeast Asia, Benedict Anderson (1936–),and the latter bythe British anthropologist of Czech-Jewish origin, Ernest Gellner (1925–1995). The two monographs became the foundations of the present-day interdisciplinary study of nationalism and ethnicity. The thread was picked up by the British theorist of nationalism, Anthony D Smith (1928–), in his seminal TheEthnic Origins of Nations (1986, Oxford) and other numerous works, in which he did not shy away from analyzing the political significance of language. Signific- antly, the Britishhistorian, Eric JohnHobsbawm (1917–), took up thechallenge and employed the novel approaches to nationalism andlanguageinhis book Nations and Nationalism Since 1780 (1990, Cambridge). The fall of communism and the breakups of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia spawned a veritable flood of studies (some of doubt- ful merit and quality), when Sovietologists, who had just lost their subject of scrutiny, reinvented themselves as students of nationalism and ethnicity. When it comes to language as an instrument of politics, many of the new studies explicate phenomena already explainedbyscholars publishing in less known languages. For instance, the significant book of Miloš Okuka (1944–), aYugoslav linguist from Bosnia, now based in Germany, Jezik i politika (Lan- guage and Politics, 1983, Sarajevo), was not translated into English.Thus, the Western reader with no knowledge of Serbo-Croatian had to wait until the publication of the United States linguist Robert D Greenberg’s Languageand Identity in theBalkans: Serbo-Croatian and its disintegration (2004, Oxford) to comprehend the connection between the parallel breakupsofYugoslavia and Serbo-Croatian. The 1990s and the turn of the 21st century brought along more studies delving into the interface between the linguistic and the political from a historical perspective. And, once again, it seems that linguists and other social scientists contributed more to this effort than historians. For instance, in 1994, the British sociolinguist, John Edwards, published his popular overview of language andpolitics, Multilingualism (London).Ayear later, theEnglish translation (The Searchfor the Perfect Language, Oxford) of the Italian semiotician, Umberto Eco’s (1932–) La ricerca della lingua perfetta nellacultura europea (1993, Rome) came Preface xix off the press. It is devoted to the ideologization of language in Europe during the pre-modern period. In 1996, the American ethnolinguist, Kevin Hannan (1954–2008), published his meticulously researched case study of language, history, and ethnicity, Borders of Language and Identity in Teschen Silesia (New York). Two years later, the German linguist, Jürgen Schiewe’s (1955–) insightful Die Macht der Sprache (The Power of Language, Munich) on political and social uses of language from Antiquity to the modern days came off the press. Also in 1998, the French linguist, Louis-Jean Calvet (1942–), analyzed the role of language in social and political conflicts in world history in his popular La guerre des langues: Et les politiques linguistiques (Language Wars and Linguistic Politics, Oxford). In 2000, the Polish sociologist, Walter Ze˙ lazny, published a comprehensive analysis of the French language politics, Mniejszo´sci´ narodowe we Francji. Etniczno´´c,´ etnopolityka, etnosocjologia (The National Minorities in France: Ethni- city,Ethnopolitics, Ethnosociology,Tyczyn); a similar work is not availablein any other language, including French. The following year, the German Turco- logists, Jacob M Landau and Barbara Kellner-Henkele’s wide-ranging Politics of Languageinthe ex-Soviet States (London) came off the press. In their footsteps, the American linguist, Lenore A Grenoble, followed with her in-depth Language Policy in the Soviet Union (2003, Dordrecht). In 2003 and 2004, the UK-based specialist in Islamic Studies, Yasir Suleiman’s two topical studies The Arabic Lan- guage and National Identity (Edinburgh) and A War of Words: Language and conflict in theMiddle East (Cambridge) were published. Last but not least, in 2005, the Slavist and a colleague of Sundhaußen and Reiter, Siegfried Tornow, published his magisterial compendium of languages and politics in Central and Eastern Europe, from late Antiquity through the 19th century,aspresented through the prism of important texts recorded in these languages, Was ist Osteuropa? (What is Eastern Europe?, Wiesbaden). Historians slowly faced up to the challenge. For instance, in 1989, the French archeologist and historian, Maurice Olender (1946–), analyzed the role of linguists and scholars in the rise of racialized categorizations of peoples and their languages in his Les langues du Paradis (The Languages of Paradise: Aryans and Semites. A match madeinheaven, 2002, New York). A year later, the United States researcher of French history, R Howard Bloch, analyzed the political uses of linguistics in his article ‘New Philology and Old French,’ published in Speculum. The Hungarian historian István György Tóth’s (1956–2005) enlightening case study Mivelhogy magad írást nem tudsz ... Az írás térhódítása a m˝˝vel˝˝odésben a kora újkori Magyarországon (Literacy and Written Culture in Early Modern Central Europe, 2000, Budapest) came off the press in 1996. In the same year, the Ger- man historian Eva Rimmele’s Sprachenpolitik im Deutschen Kaiserreich vor 1914 (Language Politics in the German Empire Before 1914, Frankfurt am Main) was released to the market. Two years later, the American historian, Michael G Smith, published his insightful case study on the ideological preconditions, xx Preface interests, and everyday practice of Soviet language politics, Languageand Power in the Creation of the USSR, 1917–1953 (1998, Berlin). Also in 1998, the British historian, Robert J W Evans, strongly emphasized in his inaugurallecture, The Language of History and the History of Language (Oxford), that for an improved understanding of the past historians should research language and the uses to which it was put across ages. In 1999, the United States historian, Stephen G Alter, concentrated on a similar issue likeOlender in the monograph Darwin- ism and the Linguistic Image: Language, race, and natural theology in the nineteenth century (Baltimore, MD). A year later, the revelational collection, The Language Encounter in the Americas, 1492–1800 (New York),editedbythe American historians, Edward G Gray and Norman Fiering, was offered to readers. Also in 2000, thePolishhistorian, Jerzy Ogonowski’s much needed monograph Uprawnienia je˛zykowe mniejszo´scinarodowych w Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, 1918–1939 (The Lan- guageRights of the National Minorities in the Republic of Poland, 1918–1939, Warsaw) came off the press. In 2001, the United States historian Terry Mar- tin built on Michael G Smith’s study, and showed that language was at the core of the Soviet nationality policy in his TheAffirmative Action Empire: Nations and nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923–1939 (Ithaca, NY). Another United States historian, Patrick J Geary, closely analyzed the conceptoflanguage and its political uses in his influential book The Myth of Nations: Themedieval origins of Europe (2002, Princeton, NJ). However, the realbreakthrough was brought about bythe Britishhistorian Peter Burke’s (1937–) Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe (2004, Cambridge), in which he made Europe’s languages and speech communities the focus of his wide-ranging analysis. Burke’s work shows that there are many discoveries waiting in store for historians who dare follow this novel interdisciplinarypath. However, linguists will not give up ground in this contest easily, as evidencedbythe British scholar Nicholas Ost- ler’s comprehensive Empires of theWord:Alanguage history of the world (2005, New York).5 Having said that, I owe the reader an explanation to whyIembarked on researching and writing this study. I took the decision after I had realized that language was of crucial importance in the political and social transformation of Central Europe in the 19th century, and that it became the most important instrument of politics in this region after 1918. The situation has hardly changed to this day, which is quite unusual in a global perspective, because although outside Central Europe there are states where language is as intim- ately intertwined with nation-building andday-to-day politics as in the region (for instance in Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Turkmenistan, or Vietnam), the polities are not clustered in a single region likethose in Central Europe. I have analyzed this apparently unique feature of Central Europe in the Introduction, where I also reflect on the historical and ideological malleability of the concepts ‘Central Europe,’ ‘language,’ and ‘nation.’ Preface xxi

Hoping to shed light on the origin and the everyday practice of this unusual politicization of language in Central Europe, I made up my mind to devote my comparative study to Czech, Magyar (Hungarian),Polish,and Slovaklanguages and nationalisms. For practical reasons, I assumed that the four nations and their polities constitute the core of Central Europe, otherwise my work would have to cover a much more extensive region from Finland to Greece and Turkey, and from Germany to Belarus and Ukraine, which would require an entire bookshelf of monographs to do justice to such a vast subject matter. Likewise, I limited my research to published books and articles, since appropriate combing through the archives in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland,and Slovakia would take a lifetime, on the account of the wide comparative ambition of this work. The main argument of the book is presented in its two parts, each consisting offour chapters on the aforementioned four nations and their languages. In Part I, I have a look at how, during the long 19th century,the Czech,Magyar, Polish, and Slovak national movements utilized language for forwarding and justifying their national projects, and how, in turn, this process shaped the corresponding four national languages. In Part II, I observe the 1918 creation of ethnolinguistic nation-states as postulated by the national movements, and the evolution of the polities through the beginning of the 21st century. Appar- ently gaining these nation-states was not enough,sotheir governments put themselves to the task of deepening the ethnolinguistic homogeneity of the states’ populaces. The tendency was slightly reversed after the fall of communism (1989) when Central Europe reopened itself to the world and soon entered the runaway train of globalization upon the 2004 enlargement of the European Union. All the processes have also found their reflection in the four national languages analyzed here, mainly in the form of numerous linguistic borrowings from English. But despite all the changes, Czech, Magyar, Polish, and Slovak politicians have not ceased to employ their national languages for political ends. Although the focus of my monograph is the last two centuries, I found it necessary, for the sake of an uninitiated reader, to devote Chapter 2 to the presentation of the earlier development of Czech, Magyar, Polish, and Slovak, as traced since the languages’ inception, and as seen against the context of the rise and uses of Latin and German, which were the first written languages of Central Europe. The analysis is complemented with a glance at the spread of printing, and at the origin and use of different scripts in the region. Fur- thermore, Chapter 3 offers a wide panorama of all other Central and Eastern European languages from their beginnings to the 21st century. Without at least a cursory knowledge of these languages and political, national, or religious projects connected to them, it is difficult (and sometimes impossible) to understand the course of ethnolinguistic policies pursued by the Czech, Magyar, Polish, and Slovak national movements, and their subsequent nation-states. Obviously,the xxii Preface reader may choose to skip Chapters 2 and 3inorder to delve directly into the study’s main subject matter, but I would like to advise her or him to peruse at least Chapter 2 beforehand. On the other hand, the reader can refer to Chapter 3 on a come-and-go basis, when a need arises whilesheorheisreading the rest of the monograph. I trust that the book does not only fill in a conspicuous gap in research on Central Europe, but that it will also help the interested reader and scholars, especiallythose engaged in comparative research,understand the region and its peoples, cultures, history, and politics better. Furthermore, it seems that the process of the eastward enlargement of the European Union (EU) in 2004 and 2007 was so rapid that many nuances and even quite significant facts about Central Europe did not register with theEUadministration or the decision-makers in the Old Fifteen. However, the mutually beneficial functioning of this expanding anddeepening Union is pivoted as much on the new members’goodknowledge of and respect for their partners in Western Europe as on the old members’ very same attitude toward the newcomers. If this monograph contributes in whatever little way to the process, I will be glad that I have devoted 8 years of my life and research to compose it. Czissowa 2007

Note on the dedication

My grandparents were born to a Europe and the world without policedborders, passports, or visas, when Central European polities were multiethnic and mul- tilingual. They could speak any language of their choice, and moved across the continent and the globe as theypleased. What limited them were financial resources and their imagination. Despite these constraints, before 1918 Stefania Piórkowska’s peasant father went twice, in search of gainful employment, to the United States before the Great War ended. Franciszek Borkowski’s two brothers permanently left their impoverished and backward Mazovia, plagued with poor sand soils, for America in the 1930s. The siblings of Katherina Wylezol and Paul Kamusella roamed the width and breadth of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires as apprentices, workers, and servants. Following the fateful year of 1918, my grandparents saw the end of the old world as they knew it, though it had not been any belle époque to them, because they were simple peasants and workers. Their children were born to the age of ethnic cleansing, homogenizing nation-states, enforced monolingualism, authoritarianism, totalitarianisms, withheld passports, a Europeand the globe cleft with the Iron Curtain, borders closed with barbed wire and enforced with automatic fire response, alongside visas issued at the whim of a bureaucrat. Out of Katherina – Katarzyna was made, and out of Paul – Paweł. The ethnonation- ally minded authorities also imposed on them the Polonized version of their Preface xxiii surname: first, Kamsela, and later, Kamuzela. Our hometown, once known as Kandrzin, became Hydebreck, and now is Ke˛dzierzyn. My wife and I lived half of our lives in this short 20th century (bracketed by the outbreak of the Great War and the fall of communism) that with a hindsight appears to have lasted much too long. Our daughter was born on the threshold of the new in the year that intervened between 1989, which saw the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the communist system, as well as the disappearance of the Cold War division of the world, and the year of 1991, when the Soviet Union broke up. Luckily, she had no chance to experience ‘how it had been before.’ Being a child she did not share with her parents the trepidations of the systemic change and their longings for the time when Poland would at last become a ‘normal country.’ She is coming of age in a democratic and free state that is part of united Europe. As they used to be for my grandparents, borders once again are just lines on themap to Anna. These lines do not constitute any obstacletoher traveling, andher passport she wears lightly, because her life does not depend on it. This is just another document, rarelyembellishedby a visa. Neither her name and origin nor a tongue she may speak will cost her dearly, and now no authority will dare to impose them on her. Let it continue to be so. Acknowledgments

The work was 8 years in gestation andlabor, during which time numerous people helped me research and write it. Without their grace andgenerosity, I would not have been able to complete the book or to weed it of numerous errors and infelicities, which are bound to crop up when one dares to tackle such a broad region as Central Europe in the scope of the politically and socially complicated two last centuries. In the first words, I wish to thank my lecturers at the Central European University in Prague, especially Ernest Gellner, Ferdinand Kinsky, JiˇríMusil, and Otto Pick,whoall inspired my interest in Central Europeand the study of nationalism. I also extend my thanks to the following persons who encouraged and sustained my academic interests at their most tender: Peter Allen, Mark Behr, Brooke Astor, Fazy Bagherboum, Gra˙zynaand Wojciech Bartoszek, Diana Bajrami, Jakub Basista, Zbigniew Białas, Walt and Beverly Brown, Asia and Je˙z Capi, Frank Carter, Richard Chernis, Anette Combrink, Mr Con- rad(Chodura), Karl Cordell, Laurian M G Coughlan, Leentie and AMde Lange, Maria and Edward de Virion, Dan (Dragon) Draghici, Leboeuf, Mari- aan and Samuel du Plessis, Sheila Fugard, Elmer Kanwisher, Gundolf Keil, Leo Frankowski, Dymytro Gorun, Beata Gre ń,Valerie Hadley,Rysio Kalamarz, Ewa Klima, Bogusława Kozłowska, Jan-Louis Kruger, Dirk Laermans, Marek Lam- bert, Jerzy Łukaszewski, the Mataczy ńskis,Bradius V Maurus III, D-Michael McGreevey, Alister W Macintyre, Donna Marie Mominee, NjabuloSNdebele, Edward Nycz, Dr Olschowka, Retief Örffer, Asia and Piotrek Pawelec, Nevan Pet- rović,Emanuel Prower, Robert Pszczel, Iwona Rusek, David L Russell, Jitka and Andrei Savin, JohnSchoeberlein, Tadeusz Sławek, Stanisław S´migielski, Gosia and Radek Stanek, Neelakshi Suryanarayan, Pascale and Ante Tavernier-Dadić, Catalina and Louis Ulrich, Mark Vander Hart, Enik˝oVeres, Dorothy Voigt, Gunda Wiegmann, Denise Wilton, and Stefan Wolff. At the early stages of the project which resulted in this monograph, advice, encouragement, and letters of reference unstingingly offered by Manfred Alexander, Richard Blanke, Wojciech Burszta, Anna Cienciala, JohnKulczycki, Bernard Linek, Janusz Sawczuk, Kai Struve, Philipp Ther, István György Tóth,

xxiv Acknowledgments xxv and James Turner proved invaluable. The research for this book was generously supported by a Jean Monnet Fellowship, which I spent in the Department of His- tory and Civilization at the European University Institute in Florence, andby another fellowship granted by the John W Kluge Center, Library of Congress, Washington DC. For these two 1-year-longperiods the University of Opole, Opole, Poland, kindly gave me a sabbatical, followed by an unpaid leave. Later, during successive summers, I continued the work on an AndrewWMellon East-Central European Research Visiting Fellowship in the Institute for Human Sciences, Vienna, and on a research fellowship in the Herder-Institut, Marburg, Germany. Last but not least, thanks to Wojciech Chlebdaand Jerzy Lis, who were always on the readytobuttress novel research against all theodds, and the University of Opole for granting me a Habilitationsschrift leave and stipend, which I happily spent in West Ealing, London, writing and cooking dinners for my family. Richard Blanke, Cathie Carmichael, Kevin Hannan, and James Turner read and commented in detail on the first two drafts of my book. Professor Blanke also checked the Polish chapters in the prefinal draft, which was read in whole and usefully commented upon by the anonymous reader, commis- sioned by Palgrave Macmillan. Other persons who, at different stages and despite lack of time, decided to read through one or a couple of chapters in order to double-check facts and streamline my English prose include Elizabeth Anderson, Jamie Anderson, Ronald Bachman, Kurt Bassuener, Mimi Torchia Boothby, John Cox, Stephen F Cunha, Anthony Dutton, Jenny Fasal, William Harwood, Ramunas Janušauskas, Krzysztof Jaskułowski, Asbed Kotchikian, Svetlana Kujumdzieva, Lori Ann Lahlum, Alex Law, Mark R Lauersdorf, Matthew Lungerhausen, Alexander Markarov, Juraj Marušiak, Carol Mat- thews, Alexander Maxwell, Olaf Mertelsmann, Robert Nemes, Kenneth Nyirady, Katre Pall, Emilia Palonen, Peter Polak-Springer, Michael Pretes, Joachim von Puttkamer, Jason Strakes, Giedrius Subaˇcius,ˇ Claire Suther- land, Matyas Szabo, Ilona Teleki, Mark Vander Hart, Elena Verdolini, James Mace Ward, Eric Weaver, Irén Witte, Resul Yalcin, and Sherifa Zuhur. Furthermore, Abdusabur (Ozod) Abdusamadov, Daniel Abondolo, Ahmet Alibaši´c,´ Delphine Bechtel, Mark R Beissinger, Kamid Bektaev, Komil Bekzoda, Danuta Berlinska, ´ James Bjork, Hofiz Boboyorov, Marko Boki´c,´ Glenn Bowman, Anna Chilewska, Gary B Cohen, Artur Czesak, Piotr Długosz, Aleksandr Dulichenko, Karin Friedrich, Krzysztof Frysztacki, Łukasz Grabowski, Miroslav Hroch,Charles Ingrao, Artur Janicki, Franciszek Jonderko, Charles King, Jerzy Kochanowski, George Kolankiewicz, Dariusz Kołodziejczyk, László Kontler, Bogdan Ataullah Kopanski, Elena Korshuk, Dagmar Kusá, Languagehat.com, Sławomir Łodzinski, ´ Kristjan Luts, Piotr Madajczyk, Tatiana Majcherkiewicz, Alexander Markarov, Elena Marushiakova and Veselin Popov, Maria Mazzenga, Peter Mentzel, Anton Miklowicz, xxvi Acknowledgments

Anastasia Mitrofanova, Aleksandr Nadson, Neasa Ní Chinnéide, Jim Niessen, Ewa Nowicka, Cezari Obracht-Prondzy ńszczi, Nicholas Ostler, Piotr Pałys, Joost Platje, Glanville Price, Martyn Rady, Alfons Rataj, Hans Renner, Andras Riedlmayer, Andrzej Roczniok,Andrzej Sakson, Joanna Sńie˙zek (neé Usie ń), Ekaterina Sokirianskaia, Przemysław Sperling, Grzegorz Strauchold, Krzysztof Stro ński,Krzysztof Tarka, Jerzy Tomaszewski, Hunt Tooley, Robert Traba, Jürgen Trabant, Steven Bela Várdy, Tomasz Wielg, Anna Wolff-Powe˛ska, Walter Ze˙ lazny, Aleksandra Ziolkowska-Boehm, and Mikael Zolyan provided me with useful information and advice. A special word of thanks goes to Ianitza Ianachkova, my research assistant in theJohnWKluge Center, and to Jerzy Tomaszewski, for his sustained encouragement. I am also deeply indebted to the following friends and colleagues who helped me solve a mind-boggling plethora of everyday and professional problems: Sergio Amadei, Bernd Baumgartl, Peter Becker, Paulian Boche ńska,Anny Brem- ner, Tiziano Burani, Enzo Carro, Barbara Ciomei, Maria Luisa Fani, Sèbastien Jahan, Nicky Koniordos, Sabine Mengelkoch, Anthony Molho, Serge Noiret, Irina Ognyanova-Krivoshieva, Trond Nordby, Małgorzata and Olaf Osica, Rita Peero, Arfon Rees, Brian Sandberg, Angela Schenk and Bo Stråth, Irena and Aleksander Surdej, Helen Wallace, and Kataryna Wolczuk in Florence; Mustafa Aksakal, Liz and Robert Albro, Nancy and Alden Almquist, Jamie Anderson, Ronald Bachman, Kurt Bassuener, M Bolek Biskupski, Aleksandra B Borecka, Gregory Borecki, theBukowskis, Clarissa Burt, Anita Callaway, Peg Chris- toff, Anna Cienciala, Alfred de Zayas, Margaret Dikovitsky,Regina Fra˛ckowiak, Mary Ann Garth and Mary Lou Andrew, Prosser Gifford, Leor Halevi, Susan Hirsch,Elaine Hubert and William Harwood, Bartosz Jałowiecki, Ablet Kamalov, Ivan Katchanovski, JoAnne Kitching, Svetlana Kujumdzieva, Carol Matthews, Molly Mackinnon, Suzana Milevska, Anna Nadgrodkiewicz, Karen Oslund, Mariusz Pakieser, Katrin and Peter Polak-Springer, Robert Saladini, Regina Thielke, Gregor Thum, Lester Vogel, Jacquia Warren, and Sergei and Irina Zhuk in Washington; Lidia Antonik, Sabine Aßmann, Bernd Baumgartl, Naja Bentzen, Eilin Derakshan, Hanna Fischer, Susanne Fröschl, Petr Glombíˇcek, Ludger Hagedorn, Katherine Jolluck and Norman Naimark, Romek Kalin- owski, János Mátyás Kovács, Mikołaj S Kunicki, Susanne Lettow, Krzysztof Michalski, Shai Moses, Klaus Nellen, Maria Nicklas, Emilia Palonen, Ted Paul, Marcie Shore and Timothy Snyder, Hana and David Soucek,ˇ Michael Staudigl, and Astrid Swenson in Vienna; Julian M Cooper, Wojtek Piotrowicz, and Kataryna and Roman Wolczuk in London; Michael Becker, Sławomir Brze- zicki, Heidi Hein-Kircher, Mathias Häberle, Hans Georg Heinkleinz, Johanna Hocke Szparaga, Edeltraut Imhof, Winfried Irgang, Eligiusz Janus, Klaudia Kandzia and Till Scholtz-Knobloch, Danuta Konieczny,Inge Lind, Jaroslav Miller, Eduard Mühle, Wolfgang Schekanski, Ute Schmidt, Matthias Schneider, and Jürgen Warmbrunn in Marburg;and myparents, Anna and Stephan Acknowledgments xxvii

Kamusella; my parents-in-law, Maria and Andrzej Markowscy; my brother, Mateusz Kamusella; my brother-in-law, Mariusz Markowski; Iwona Charciarek, El˙zbieta˙ and Andrzej Czaplak, Kasia and Grzesiek Dysarz, Mateusz Figiel, Maria Grygierczyk, Stanisław Jałowiecki, Maria Kałamarz, Klaudia Kluczniok, Stanisław Kochman, Jurek Kula, Wanda Laszczak, Gosia (Franciszka) Lewicka, Agnieszka and Bernard Linek, Albert Lipnicki, Teresa Matczynska,´ Marysia and Herbert Melich, Józef Musielok, Stanisław Nicieja, Joanna Nowak, Sława Pazera, Tomasz Pichór, Basia and Robert Piechoccy, Anka Pietruczuk and Piotr Balcerowicz, Bartosz Poluszynski,´ Renata and Jarosław Radimˇeˇˇrský, Viol- etta and Jacek Ruszczewscy, Jacek Serwanski, ´ Marek Suchecki, El˙zb˙ ieta and Ja´sku´ Szykuła, Joachim Thannhäuser, Arek Tkocz, Teresa Waga, Aleksandra Wieczorek, Sebastian Wojciechowski, Agata Wo´zna,´ and Ryszard Zembaczynski´ inPoland. My research on this monograph profited immensely from the open-stacks libraries and excellent interlibrary loan services in the European University Institute, the Institute for Human Sciences, and the Herder-Institut. And it goes without saying that doing research in the Library of Congress was an adventure in itself, especially when I discovered extremely interestingpublic- ations of which I had not even been aware that they existed at all. Interest- ingly, midway through the project such web-based research instruments as the Karlsruher Virtuelle Katalog or Google Book Searchproved invaluable, alongside Wikipedias in many neglected Central and Eastern European languages. Peter Burke kindly advised on how to improve the prefinal draft. At Palgrave Macmillan, Michael Strang decided to take the manuscript aboard in spite of its length and complicated subject matter. I am also grateful to him and his assistant, Ruth Ireland, as well as Dhivya Sambath and her colleagues from Integra Software Services for careful editing. For the accuracy offact and the totality of interpretation of this book I alone take responsibility. At the final stage of the production of the book, my new colleagues in the Department of Russian and Slavonic Studies, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, were tolerant and supportive, especiallyOlga Artamonova, Ewelina Debaene, Justin Doherty, Ewa Grzegorczyk, Guido Hausmann, Natalia Kulachkovskaia, John Damian Murray, Conny Opitz, Sarah Smyth,and Dmitri Tsiskarashvili. Colleagues from other departments were also quite helpful, namely, Caitriona Leahy, Moray McGowan, Olek Michalak,and Martine Van Berlo. Significantly, the University of Opole in Poland, represented by Rector Krystyna Czaja, and courtesy of the unwavering support of Irena Jokiel and Wojciech Chlebda, co-financed the compilation of the book’s index, which I greatly appreciate. Kevin Hannan and Ryszard Krynicki (representedby Krystyna Krynicka) graciously agreed to my use of fragments of their poems as epigraphs for the xxviii Acknowledgments book. Moreover, Dr Hannan kindly translated the Polish version of Mr Krynicki’s poem into English. The project would have been unthinkable but for the love, patience, and forbearance of my wife, Beata, and my daughter, Anna Maria, who sustained and encouraged me during difficult moments, which I had to overcome while researching and writing this work.

IWM - Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen (Institute for Human Sciences), Vienna

CAORC - Council of American Overseas Research Centers

University of Opole, Opole, Poland