Naudinga žymaus mūsų kraštiečio knyga

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXX (1993) PERIFERINĖS LIETUVIŲ KALBOS TARMĖS A USEFUL BOOK BY OUR FAMOUS COUNTRYMAN Recently, a shipment of books arrived from Moscow, sent by the linguist, Slavist, renowned researcher of the Bulgarian language, and Doctor of Philology Grigory Venediktov, with dedications in Lithuanian (“The Literary Language of the Bulgarians in the Era of Revival”1 and “Bulgarian Studies”2) to Lithuanian linguists (specifically, to the historian of the language, Dr. A. Sabaliauskas). Of these two books, the first is more interesting and accessible to our readers, but the second is more exotic: written in Bulgarian, it is introduced by the author himself in a postcard with New Year’s greetings: “I received only a few copies of the book ‘Българистични студии’ from Bulgaria. The one I am sending you may be the only copy in my homeland, Lithuania. Yours, G. Venediktov.” The scholar, who speaks and writes Lithuanian beautifully, was born and grew up in northern Lithuania, near Obeliai. He attended the local primary school and completed secondary school in Vilnius in the 1950s. The author therefore jokes that he learned Lithuanian first and Russian only afterward. Having completed Slavonic studies at Moscow University, he devoted himself to Bulgarian studies. G. Venediktov is now the author of many books and one of the most distinguished scholars of the history of the Bulgarian language in the former Soviet Union. His research focuses on the problems of the formation and standardization of the Bulgarian standard language during the period of national revival. He has already discussed many of these problems in the collection of articles “From the History of the Modern Bulgarian Literary Language”3. Lithuania and Bulgaria are linked by many historical parallels and other direct or indirect connections. Both are Central European states, and both began to free themselves from foreign rule in the 19th century: the Bulgarians from Turkish rule and Greek spiritual oppression, and the Lithuanians from tsarist Russia and the spiritual yoke of the Poles. Just as Polish was customarily regarded in Lithuania as the language of scholarship, literature, and religion, Greek served the same function in Bulgaria. J. Basanavičius, patriarch of the Lithuanian national revival, left a significant mark on the revival cultures of both peoples, Bulgarians and Lithuanians. As early as 1825, the eminent researcher of the Bulgarian language and folklore, J. Venelin, attempted to count the inhabitants of Lithuania by nationality. In the 1877–1878 struggle to free Bulgaria from Turkish rule, many Lithuanians fell fighting on the Russian-Bulgarian side. This can be seen from 1 Венедиктов Г. К. Болгарский литературный язык эпохи возрождения. Проблемы и выбора диалектной основы. М., "Наука", 1990. 206 с. 2 Венедиктов Г. Българистични студии. София. 1990. 242 с. 3 Венедиктов Г. К. Из истории современного болгарского литературного языка. София. 1981. 270 с. 218 the names of the defenders of the Shipka Pass in the Balkans and the Lithuanian prayer books preserved in the Shipka Museum4. In addition to the historical parallels between the Lithuanian and Bulgarian peoples, there are many differences, shaped by the specific circumstances of their development. It is worth remembering that Bulgaria is the homeland of the ancient Church Slavonic language, also known as Old Bulgarian. In the 9th century, Bulgaria’s baptizers, the Greek monks Cyril and Methodius, adapted the script for the Bulgarian language. Having endured nearly five centuries of Turkish oppression, the Bulgarians developed an immunity to resistance earlier and rose up to fight for their native language and freedom. The same tsarist empire that sought to rule the entire Slavic world and helped the Bulgarians free themselves from the Turkish yoke reserved for itself the right to patronize a larger part of Bulgaria and to continue to suffocate the Lithuanian nation. Many analogies (as well as differences) with the history of the Lithuanian national movement can be found in G. Venediktov’s works on the formation of the Bulgarian standard language during the national revival. Until the beginning of the 19th century, religious works written in Old Church Slavonic (or Old Bulgarian) predominated. The first signs of secular literature appeared at the end of the 18th century, and from the beginning of the 19th century an increasing number of secular books began to appear, written in the dialects of modern Bulgarian (eastern or western). In all of them, Bulgarian national consciousness was actively fostered and the need for a native language emphasized. At the same time, linguistic works proliferated, and debate arose over the basis on which the Bulgarian standard language should be formed. In 1835, the first printed Bulgarian grammar, by N. Pilski, appeared. That same year, the first school teaching in the native language began operating in Gabrovo. In 1844, the first Bulgarian newspaper began publication. In 1865, the first Bulgarian dictionary, compiled by N. Gerov, was published in St. Petersburg. The most vigorous national movement lasted from 1860 to 1878. In 1869, the Bulgarian Society of Friends of Science was founded; J. Basanavičius later became one of its members. After Bulgaria won broad autonomy, a university was established in 1888. According to G. Venediktov’s research, the Bulgarian standard language in fact took shape during the second and third quarters of the 19th century, based on the eastern (or Balkan) dialect, since the majority of writers came from this area. G. Venediktov’s book under review, “The Literary Language of the Bulgarians in the Era of Revival (Problems of Standardization and the Choice of a Dialectal Base),” is exceptionally rich in factual material. The first chapter focuses mainly on manifestations of the Bulgarian national movement and the preconditions for the formation of the standard language, as well as the earliest approaches and trends in standardizing Bulgarian. It separately discusses G. Rakovski’s attempt to develop a concept of an archaizing standard language (with numerous elements of Old Church Slavonic) and the disputes over what the Bulgarians themselves should be called—that is, the ethnonym “Bulgarian, Bulgarians.” 4 For fragments of recollections recorded from that war, see Lithuanian Dialects. A Reader. Vilnius, “Mintis,” 1970, p. 335. 219 The second chapter of the book is devoted mainly to discussing the development of the more important features of Bulgarian standard-language grammar, especially various morphemes and particles resembling the article, as well as the spelling and use of different cases and common nouns. The third part, which makes up half the book, is devoted to questions surrounding the choice of a dialectal basis for the Bulgarian standard language during the Revival era. It begins by introducing the classifications of dialects current at the time: Eastern Bulgarian (also called Bulgarian Highland, or Balkan—Eastern and Central Bulgaria and Thrace) and Western Bulgarian (sometimes called Bulgarian Lowland, or Macedonian and Shop—Southern and Western Bulgaria or Macedonia). The discussions that took place over the choice of a basis for the standard language and the various criteria are then examined. A monodialectal basis for the standard language was adopted in most cases. Some advocated basing it on Eastern Bulgarian dialects, others on Western ones, while still others proposed drawing on a synthesis of those dialects. The author methodically discusses the arguments for and against all these positions. The fact that Bulgarian took shape on the basis of Eastern Bulgarian dialects was determined by the number of authors who wrote in that dialect and the quantity of books published, which exceeded by six times that of authors from Western Bulgarian regions. The book is written in an engaging, innovative way, free of outdated ideological clichés. Through its wealth of material and its methodology, G. Venediktov’s book is valuable both to historians of the Lithuanian language and, more generally, to all researchers of the culture of the Lithuanian national revival. It allows us to take a broader and deeper look at the dramatic development of our country’s culture. Aloyzas Vidugiris