SOURCE: Herrity, Peter. “Francè Prešeren and the Slovene Literary Language.” In The Formation of the Slavonic Literary Languages, edited by Gerald Stone and Dean Worth, pp. 147-59. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, Inc., 1985.

[In the following essay, originally published in 1983, Herrity discusses the important role played by Prešeren in the formation of the Slovene literary language. Herrity asserts that the poet hoped this new language could be used to refine and express his people's cultural and intellectual needs.]

Although France Prešeren (1800-1849) is acknowledged to be the greatest of the Slovene poets, the important role that he played in the formation of the Slovene literary language is not always fully appreciated. His vigorous independent ideas about the cultivation and development of the literary language are to be found in his letters as well as in his poetry, often expressed in the biting wit and probing satire of verse epigrams. The influence of his creative writing and his opposition to the leading philologist of his time were particularly important, coming as they did at a time when the Slovene literary language had reached a watershed in its development, when indeed its very future as a separate literary language appeared in some doubt.

At the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries during the period of national revival there had emerged among the Slovenes an influential group of intellectuals anxious to develop their culture, literature and language in the spirit of their age. Prominent among them was the philologist Jernej Kopitar, who belonged to the circle of the enlightened Baron Sigismund Zois.¹

Kopitar's grammar of 1809, Grammatik der Slavischen Sprache in Krain, Kärnten und Steyermark, was the first conscious effort to legitimise an all-Slovene literary language based on a combination of Upper and Lower Carniolan structural features (Lenček 1976:125). This grammar and its exhortations on the need for purism in syntax and lexicon, on the need for writers to base their language on the unspoilt peasant vernacular, as opposed to the Germanized urban speech, and on the need for orthographic reform, exercised an immediate influence on Kopitar's conservative Jansenist contemporaries. These were men like M. Ravnikar, who established the Chair of Slovene at the Ljubljana lycée, F. Metelko, the first holder of the chair, and the Styrian grammarian P. Danjko (Tomšič 1956:19-21).

When Prešeren returned to Ljubljana in 1828 after reading Law at Vienna University, the written Slovene language was largely confined to grammars and theological works intended primarily for the peasant and lower middle classes. German was still the main language of the intellectuals and upper middle classes, especially in the sphere of scholarship (Auty 1979:67-8). The Slovene literary language was therefore in a state of stagnation. Prešeren, however, wanted the literary language to act as an instrument of great refinement and versatility, able to satisfy the needs of the Slovene intellectual and the cultural needs of the Slovene nation. It was with this aim in view that, together with certain other poets, he collaborated in the new poetry almanac Krajnska Čbelica (Auty 1973b:35). As he himself said in a letter to Stanko Vraz some years later (5th July 1837), “Die Tendenz unserer Carmina und sonstigen literärischen Tätigkeit ist keine andere als unsere Muttersprache zu kultivieren” (Slodnjak 1979:249).

Prešeren held strong views in four areas concerning the literary language: firstly about the type of literature to which the Slovenes should aspire in their efforts to cultivate their language, secondly about the actual nature of the language itself with special reference to the presence of foreign influences, thirdly the problem of the orthography of the Slovene literary language, and fourthly the right of the Slovene literary language to lead an independent existence as opposed to being swallowed up in a greater South Slavonic Illyrian. In his views in the first three areas Prešeren met with opposition from Kopitar and his supporters. In the fourth area Kopitar and Prešeren were at one in their advocacy of an independent Slovene literary language although their long-term views were not necessarily the same.²

The question of the nature of the literary language and purism is the first to surface in Prešeren's poetry. The initial edition of Krajnska Čbelica (1830) was received unfavourably on the part of the obscurantist Jansenists, who objected not so much to the language of the poetry but to its themes, especially the mildly erotic love element (Kidrič 1938a:lxxxiilxxxiii). Prešeren's reply to this criticism appeared in the following volume of the almanac in the poem “Nova Pisarija”. This poem takes the form of a dialogue between a Writer (Pisar)³ and a pupil (Učenec) on the question of which type of theme, language and literature one should aspire to. It would be incorrect to identify the Writer as Kopitar, Ravnikar or Metelko and the Pupil as Prešeren. One should really conceive of the two characters as two schools of thought, the Writer embodying the views of Kopitar and his followers and the Pupil representing the potential Slovene writer (partly Prešeren himself), seeking advice as to the best ways of promoting Slovene literature and the literary language (Legiša 1971:125-6; Kidrič 1938a:ccv-ccvii). Prešeren's ideas and aims are to be seen in the ingenuous logic of the Pupil's provocative questions, while the views of Kopitar and his supporters are to be seen in the absurd reactionary statements of the Writer. Kopitar's aesthetic views were in essence forced upon him by his own language programme. In his early years he had believed in the value of classical poetry and its role in the cultural advancement of a nation (Paternu 1976:147-9). However, his personal view that the Slovenes had in general no literature that was worthwhile and that what literature existed was written in a corrupt Germanized Slovene, made him believe that the regeneration of the Slovene literary language could come about only if it was drawn entirely from the unspoilt speech of the peasants and their oral literature (Toporišič 1981:399). Hence he advocated a linguistic programme based on these convictions.

Major elements in his programme were to be the establishment of a chair of Slovene, the recording of linguistic data from all Slovene dialects, the compilation of a dictionary to embrace the total wealth of the peasants' speech and an orthographic reform (Paternu 1976:149). His programme was strongly supported by M. Ravnikar, F. Metelko, P. Danjko and others. Ravnikar for example advocated the use of the ‘pure’ language of peasants and isolated shepherds in the introductions to his works (Legiša 1971:129-36; Paternu 1976:149-50), while Metelko and Danjko both produced grammars of their own dialects and each attempted an orthographic reform in the spirit of Kopitar's ideas (Auty 1963:396-8; Tomšič 1956:20-21). In “Nova Pisarija” Prešeren challenges both the aesthetic views of his opponents and their puristic concepts. The absurd figure of the Writer advises the Pupil to strive for prose naked of beauty and not to consult with Minerva (‘Naj proza tvoja bo lepote naga, Minerve nič ne prašaj’).⁴ He rejects sonnets, romances and tragedy in literature and considers that the ballads of the Krajnska Čbelica corrupt and poison the minds of Carniolan women (‘Balade od Čebelice zasrane … Da bi Kranjice strupa 'z njih ne pile’). He advises the Pupil to reject completely foreign words and the Germanized speech of the urban Slovenes, and counsels him to go and live among the peasants in remote areas. From their speech he will learn pure syntax and the roots of words and suffixes, from which he will then be able to form new Slovene words. Slovene words then in use must be put through a sieve and only the good seed retained, to which can then be added the new Slovene words. The existing handful of Slovene books written in what he terms corrupt Carniolan language he recommends be put on a fire so that a pure phoenix may arise from the ashes (‘al'bukev naše kranjšč'ne spakedrane, peščičico denimo na ognijšče, prerojen Fenis čist da 'z ognja vstane’). The Writer is adamant that only books on everyday themes written in pure Slovene based on the peasant vernacular will reveal to learned linguists the beauty of the language and will induce other Slavs to imitate the Carniolan purists. The absurdity of his views is summed up in his own final statement, when he announces the advent of the Golden Age of the Carniolan muses (“O, zlati vek zdaj Muzam kranjskim pride!”) on learning that the Pupil has taken his advice and intends to write about caterpillars, sheep mange, potato growing and the ways of getting rid of lice and mice. In “Nova Pisarija” Prešeren also ironically uses language as well as dialogue argument to make his points. The Writer, who is so against the influences of the classics and the use of foreign words, himself uses the names of Minerva, Orpheus, Horace, the image of the phoenix and the idea of the Muses and classics to illustrate his points, as well as words like lingvist, purist, klasik. He moreover refers to writers of his own school in pejorative terms. They are for example trop (herd) or pisari (hacks/scribblers). He sees beauty in pure peasant speech, yet he describes this speech as debelo gorjansko (thick peasant speech) which peasants še drekajo (still speak vulgarly) and which is revealed when the peasant zine (gapes). He tells the Pupil that if he wishes to be the new Slovene Orpheus he should know how to talk peasant nonsense (“ak' rovtarske vezati znaš otrobi, nov Orfej k sebi vlekel boš Slovene”). These descriptions of the peasant language do not conjure up an appealing picture of a model language. The irony is further driven home when the Pupil agrees to use peasant speech and bids farewell to urban speech with a foreign word: “Adijo mestne sence” (“farewell town shadows”) and then addresses the Writer as mojster and subsequently uses the German loan-words musi, žnablo (Germ. müssen, der Schnabel).

In Prešeren's struggle to establish a literary language the aesthetic considerations were vitally important, and he was later to transfer his attack from the vague image of the Writer in “Nova pisarija” to the concrete figure of Kopitar himself. These attacks occur in the poems that he published in the Illyrisches Blatt of June and July of 1833, following Kopitar's prejudiced attacks on his poetry and its themes (Kosir 1977:70-72; Auty 1973a: 8-9). Most notable among them was the sonnet “Apel podobo na ogled postavi”, originally conceived in 1830 or 1831 as a riposte to Kopitar's negative evaluation of his poetry, in letters to Matija Čop, and based on Pliny's tale about the painter Apelles and the cobbler. In it Prešeren bitingly advises Kopitar to stick to his philology, where he is an expert, and to avoid aesthetic criticism, where he has no expertise (Paternu 1976:163-5). The most critical poem of this series, however, was not passed at the time by the local censorship.⁵ It totally sums up, however, Prešeren's feelings about Kopitar's lack of literary appreciation and his abuse of his powers as censor (Paternu 1976:238-9). The poem is entitled “Ihr hörtet von dem Zwerge argem Sinnen” and in it Prešeren likens Kopitar to a character in a fairy tale: one of the evil red-haired dwarfs who, failing to win the love of beautiful maidens, kidnap them and lock them away so that no-one else may win their favour. The beautiful maiden is Slovene literature and the bolt that keeps her locked away is the Censor.

Wie Heißt der Wicht? Herr Barthelmä Kopiter
Die Schöne? Krainische Literatur
Der Riegel, der ihm zu Gebot? Zensur.

Apart from aesthetic considerations Prešeren was concerned with the emphasis that his opponents placed on purism. There are two schools of thought regarding his own attitude. Some consider that he was completely against purism (Urbančič 1972:46-9), while others believe that he did adopt a puristic approach towards Germanisms (Toporišič 1981:397). The truth is probably somewhere in between. Kopitar and his supporters were opposed to the corrupt Germanized speech of the urban Slovenes and saw in the uncorrupted speech of the peasants the source for the regeneration of the literary language and a seed-plot for new words. As the Writer in “Nova pisarija” says: “Tam pul'jo besedi se korenine, k tem deni konce: ača, išče, uha, on, ovka, ovec, druge pritikline, to trdno skupaj zvari”.⁶ Prešeren, through the Pupil, questions the practicality of his opponent's approach. The Pupil doubts that isolated shepherds and peasants have a sufficient wealth of vocabulary to create a literary language worthy of being a vehicle of literature. He notes that other Slav people use foreign loan-words: the Russians—Tartar, the Poles—French, the Serbs—Turkish; and that even the Czechs have at times to use German words (“da včasih vrli Čeh nemšk'vati musi”). He sees too no sense in driving out everything foreign and burning all the Slovene books that the writer considers to be written in corrupt Carniolan, because this would leave gaps in the language (“Č'mu bo nam, prašam, prazno pogorišče? Al' mutasti počakamo zijali, da 'z njega zrase novo besedišče.”).⁷ Such a language could not answer Slovenia's immediate literary needs. If indeed all the loan-words were removed and replaced by neologisms based on peasant roots and suffixes, the result would be čudna zmes' (a strange mixture), unintelligible to a Styrian, a Carinthian or even a woman from Ljubljana. The inference he is making here is that their speech was heavily Germanized and that this German element did at least form some sort of bond between Slovenes from different areas. Coining new words to replace foreign words for which there was no Slovene equivalent seemed illogical at a stage when Slovene was facing enough difficulties as it was in establishing itself as a vehicle worthy of expressing the highest literary forms. Prešeren, unlike Kopitar and his followers, saw the need to build on the foundation that already existed.

It has been stated that Prešeren was in fact opposed to the use of Germanisms (Toporišič 1966:56). This is an interpretation of a stanza in his first version of “Nova pisarija” in which the Pupil, who represents his views, points out that the Slovenes are indebted to Greek, Latin and German writers from whom they have borrowed words, and wants to know if he may use these words.

Včenost dobil' od ptujih smo pisarjov
Latinske, Gerške, Nemške so v deželo
Peršle besede z' njo, o razodeni
Al saj se bode tih poslužit smelo?

(Slodnjak 1965:287)

Prešeren's later amendment of the stanza to exclude German has been seen as an indication that he was no longer prepared to defend (through the Pupil) the use of German loanwords, but that he continued to accept classical loanwords. This too narrow interpretation, however, fails to take cognizance of the Writer's advocacy of peasant speech unspoilt by the use of German words, an advocacy which is designed to expose itself to ridicule.

Tam, kjer po stari šegi še drekajo
kjer ne zmajejo dost' al' nič jezika
besed nemšk'vavcev grdih ne poznajo.(8)

It also ignores the fact that the Pupil (who is Prešeren's mouthpiece) regards the language purged of Germanisms as a weird mixture unintelligible to Slovenes from areas where there is a strong German influence.

Because Prešeren believed in the beneficial influence of the classics he could not reject words acquired through their influence. His attitude towards Germanisms was probably more restrained. His own works contain comparatively few lexical and syntactical Germanisms (Mahnič 1980-81: 208), and quite often the lexical items are mainly used as stylistic devices to make a particular humorous point (Kidrič 1938a:ccxxxviii-ccxxxix). Prešeren moreover realised that people were not always aware which words were foreign, a point he makes in a letter to Čop, dated 5th February 1832. Commenting on Anton Murko's grammar and dictionary he says: “Das Wörterbuch scheint sehr wortreich zu sein. Der Kritiker dürfte jedoch unter dem vielen Golde auch viele Schlacken finden. Die nichtslowenischen Wörter e.g. bezeichnet er mit einem +; wer jedoch alle nicht bekreutzen Wörter für slowenische hielte, müßte ein blinder Patriot sein.” (Slodnjak 1979:219) Prešeren in fact was prepared to criticise excessive German influence and did so for example in his epigram “Krempeljnu” (Poezije, 1847), where he mocked the Germanized spirit of the language of the East Styrian priest Anton Krempl:

Nisi je v glavo dobil, si dobil le slovenščino v kremplje duh preonemčeni slab, voljni so kremplji bili⁹

Prešeren's attitude to Germanisms is in fact that of a pragmatic and practical realist: their complete eradication would cause more harm than good, while excessive use of them was undesirable.

One of the results of the demands by Kopitar and his followers for the de-Germanization of the language had been recourse to the use of words from other Slavonic languages. This was noticeable in the works of M. Ravnikar, who introduced not only Slavonic words but also archaic participle forms completely alien to the peasant audience at which he was aiming (Legiša 1971:139). Prešeren, in his mordant epigram Ravnikar¹⁰ (1832), wittily criticizes the introduction of these forms, by pointing out that the peasants' profane reaction on coming across such forms in prayers will be the religious Ravnikar's fault. Prešeren's more specific criticism of Slavonic loans, namely Croatisms, can be seen in his poem “Ne bod'mo šalobarde! Moskvičanov”¹¹ (1832). In this sonnet he attacks the poet Jakob Zupan who in the second volume of Krajnska Čbelica (1831) had published a poem “Kranjec dolžen hrovatenja” (Slodnjak 1969:KČII 38), in which he defended the exaggerated borrowing of words from other Slavonic languages, especially Croatian. Prešeren cleverly satirizes the exaggerated lengths that Zupan goes to by coining his own humorous Slavonicisms, e.g. bogmej (= Serb),¹²uzmat' (= to borrow ‹ Serbo-Croat uzimati), Moskvičan (= Russian).

He also points out that excessive borrowing from all areas of Slavdom will make the Slovenes like magpies, and their language like that spoken in the tower of Babel. This biblical allusion is all the more forceful when aimed at the convinced Jansenist Zupan. Again Prešeren cleverly denigrates this language of his opponent by his choice of pejorative words to describe it. The language proposed by Zupan is a čobodra (= gooey mess) like that which people žlobodrali (= babbled) in the tower of Babel.

Prešeren's decisive rejection of this Panslavonic Babel leads us on to his other two main concerns. Firstly the question of the Slovene orthography, and secondly the question of the independence of Slovene as a literary language. In both he was faced with what were apparently contradictions in Kopitar's programme (Stankiewicz 1980:97). Kopitar fully shared the view of his immediate predecessors that his native ‘krainisch’ was only a dialect of the Great Slavonic language family. Dialect in this sense meant an accepted written version of a single language, and his analogy for this usage was classical Greek with its variant literary dialects. Although his dialect was part of a wider whole he did not see the necessity to force it into closer relationship with the other Slavonic dialects. The analogy with Greek did, however, point to the ultimate disappearance of the separate dialects and the emergence of a single koine. At the same time he believed that the merger of the Slavonic languages could be accelerated by the advent of a new Cyril who would devise a new Latin Slavonic alphabet which would play the same integrating role for the Latin Slavonic world that Cyrillic had played at an early stage in Slav history (Lenček 1971:246-9).

Kopitar's encouragement of the right of all dialects to an autonomous literary development bore fruit in the works of Peter Danjko from Styria and Franc Metelko from Lower Carniola, who both produced grammars largely in their own dialects and each a new orthography including a number of Cyrillic letters.¹³ The provincial Styrian character of Danjko's grammar prevented it from gaining acceptance outside Styria, but Metelko's work, although retrograde in its adoption of Lower Carniolan phonology, was nevertheless within the tradition of the central dialects and closer in conception to Kopitar's ideas (Auty 1963:396-7). Kopitar, although not entirely happy with Metelko's new orthography, nevertheless supported it (Navratil 1880:82-3) and it was accepted widely in Carniola and in schools. Prešeren, who regarded Styrian as only half intelligible (Ilešič 1900:19-20), chose to ignore Danjko's work, realizing it would not gain wide acceptance. This view is to be seen in his letter to Matija Čop of 5th February 1832 where he caustically dismisses Danjko's attempts to get his orthography (dajnčica) accepted by the Gradec authorities. He notes that the priests are opposed to it and in order to avoid a schism prefer to adhere to the orthography of Metelko (metelčica), believing him to be the new Letternmessias (Slodnjak 1979:220). Prešeren therefore chose to attack metelčica, which had been introduced in 1825, probably seeing dangerous Metternich-type influences in an alphabet that could eventually embrace all Slavs and hence encroach upon the independence of Slovene (Ziherl 1951:xli). The demise of metelčica and the re-introduction of bohoričica¹⁴ is generally associated with the so-called ABC war conducted by Matija Čop,¹⁵ but it must be remembered that it was Prešeren who prompted Čop to enter the battle (Toporišič 1966:60).

Prešeren's initial attack on metelčica was his sonnet of 1832 “Črkarska pravda” (Al' prav se piše kasa ali ka∫ha). In biting form he dismisses the use of the Cyrillic letter in kasa, saying that if the porridge is not improved by different letters then what is the purpose. He then ridicules metelčica by using its first four letters “ABDE” to liken its users to the Abderites, the inhabitants of the Greek city of Abdera, known for their simpleness and stupidity, who at a trial quarrelled about whether a man hiring a donkey should also hire the donkey's shadow. A further attack on Metelko and his new alphabet is contained more obliquely in the epigram “Abecedarju” (1832), which derides Metelko's attempt to compile a Slovene dictionary based on Valentin Vodnik's¹⁶ material, and implies that the Slovenes should not expect a dictionary from an unsuccessful alphabet compiler. Prešeren's friend and mentor, the gifted scholar Matija Čop, had initially avoided offending Kopitar, although he had rejected Metelko's alphabet in a letter to Kopitar in December 1825. Prešeren, however, in his letter of 5th February 1832 urged Čop to go to print with his opinions: “Lasse einmal deine Ansichten über die Lettern drucken, ut infirmi corroborentur.” (Slodnjak 1979:220). He also urged him in two ribald poems, one in German (“Viel kratzfüsselnder Bücklinge”) and one in Slovene (“Čudni dihur”), not to bow and scrape before Kopitar and to produce something worthwhile instead of just reading books (Auty 1973a:7; Slodnjak 1979:128). Čop was finally stirred to action in 1833 when the Czech critic F. L. Čelakovský published a favourable review of Prešeren's poetry in the Časopis Českého musea and at the same time published a copy of his “Črkarska pravda,” congratulating him and supporting his stand against metelčica. In the Illyrisches Blatt of 16th and 23rd February 1833 Čop supported Čelakovský's appraisal of Prešeren's poetry and at the same time attacked metelčica and the principles behind it. Kopitar broke off correspondence with Čop and the battle commenced on various fronts, with supporters of Kopitar like the priest J. Burger taking a moral stance, claiming that the new alphabet had at least one advantage in that it was not profaned with offensive poetry. The polemics thus crossed philological boundaries. Čop launched into his so-called ABC war and attacked metelčica, which had become a symbol of backward literature. He destroyed Kopitar's and Metelko's arguments for a phonetic alphabet by pointing to its inherent contradictions and the fact that other leading Slavists disapproved of it. His basic argument was that if one really wrote as one speaks this would mean that every Slovene dialect would have its own orthography. Slovenes would then write the word gospod as gospod, gospovd, gospud, gaspud, gspud, gospot, gospos, etc. (Paternu 1976:233). Čop, like Prešeren, believed that a uniform Slovene literary language would come only with an etymological orthography, and thus preferred to stick to bohoričica which would disguise variabilities in pronunciation and offer continuity. At the time of Čop's attack the fourth volume of Krajnska Čbelica came before the Ljubljana censors and was given their imprimatur. Moral objections by Jurij Pavšek, professor of philosophy at the lycée, and unjustified criticisms from Kopitar as the ultimate authority in Vienna led to its rejection. Prešeren's criticisms of Kopitar's aesthetic competence, in “Des Sängers Klage” and “Literärische Scherze” in June and July 1833, together with Čop's decisive second and third ABC war articles led to Kopitar's defeat on these issues. Metelčica was replaced in schools by bohoričica in 1834 and the next volume of Krajnska Čbelica appeared. The demise of metelčica was celebrated by Prešeren in an epigram in the form of an epitaph (“Kdor ne zna napisa brati”) suggesting that the tomb inscription should be in metelčica in case no one realises what is buried there. He also ironically attributes its demise to a spoonful of porridge (“Nje smrt b'la je žlica kaše”), a reference to his own sonnet “Črkarska pravda” (Paternu 1976:234-41).

In 1835 Matija Čop died and Prešeren was left to fight his last battle alone. This was the battle for an independent Slovene literary language and in this struggle his former adversary Kopitar was to be an ally. Kopitar's ideas on orthographic reform had been aimed at creating a precondition for the evolution of an all-Slavonic literary language. A standardized graphic system would reveal the closeness of the existing written Slavonic dialects and facilitate the levelling of their differences. He insisted, however, that this ultimate goal, an all-Slavonic literary language, lay in the remote future. The two prerequisites for its realization were the recognition of all the existing literary dialects and natural evolution towards unity (Lenček 1971:249). He thus admitted the right of Slovene to exist as a literary language. In the late thirties this right was challenged by supporters of the Illyrian movement in Slovenia, most notably the East Styrian, Stanko Vraz.

The Illyrian movement had been inspired by J. Kollar's idea of four major Slavonic literary dialects (Russian, Czech, Polish, “Illyrian”) and a number of minor less cultivated sub-dialects for local purposes. Prešeren in his struggle to cultivate the Slovene literary language had from the very outset believed in its independence. To accept Kollar's ideas and the concept of Illyrianism would be a negation of his previous efforts. Prešeren's early opposition to Illyrianism is reflected in his correspondence with Vraz. Vraz had initially sought to associate with Prešeren and the Krajnska Čbelica circle, but his attempts to have his poetry published in the Krajnska Čbelica and the Illyrisches Blatt were unsuccessful. Both M. Kastelic, the editor of the Krajnska Čbelica, and Prešeren considered his work to be full of Serbisms and only half intelligible (Slodnjak 1952:63; Ilešič 1900:20). As a result of a developing friendship with Ljudevit Gaj, Vraz began to move towards Illyrianism and in the end ardently espoused its cause. Prešeren was not against Illyrianism as a symbol of Croatian renaissance but he was from the very start doubtful of its linguistic aims and finally came to oppose them vigorously. In a letter of 5th July 1837 he warns Vraz: “Die Vereinigung aller Slawen zu einer Schriftsprache wird wahrscheinlich ein frommer Wunsch bleiben. Es dürfte Euch nicht so leicht gelingen, den steirisch kroatischen Dialekt auf den philologischen Autokraten Thron zu erheben.” (Slodnjak 1979:249). In another letter to Vraz a year later (19th July 1838) he complains that Gaj will agree to publish Emil Korytko's collection of Slovene folk songs only if they are given an Illyrian and not a Carniolan tendency (“eine reine illyrische, nicht krainische Tendenz”).¹⁷ Prešeren finds this incomprehensible, pointing out that folk songs and the tradition of the past cannot be altered in this way. In the same letter he forcibly expresses his opposition to what he now realises is the serious desire of Gaj and other eminent Slavs to fuse Slovene and Illyrian Serbian into one language and bring about the demise of an independent Slovene literary language. Admitting that he is subjectively convinced of the impracticability of such an idea and acknowledging that he has not until then forcibly opposed it, he promises to publish his opposition to Kollar, Gaj and Šafařík in the journal Ost und West (Slodnjak 1979:251-2). Two years later in a long postscript to Andrej Smole's letter to Vraz of 26th October 1840 he mocks Vraz's desire to see Slovene fade away, and states that if closely related languages like French, Italian and Spanish, or Czech and Polish have a right to exist then so does Slovene. He further draws an analogy with Portuguese, pointing out that the 16th-century Portuguese poet Luiz de Camões did not choose to write in Spanish or any form of Pan-Romance, and argues that if this is so then Slovene too has the right to be an independent language since it differs from “Croatian kajkavic” far more than Spanish from Portuguese, and certainly differs even more from “eclectic” Illyrian (eklektisch Illyrischen). He concludes his postscript with ironic best wishes to Pan-Slavism and Pan-Illyrianism, but then adds a view close to Kopitar's integrating theory, stating that a language, like everything that grows, should be allowed to come to fruit and God alone would decide what was weak and what was strong. The full irony of this statement is forcibly brought home by the fact that God is qualified in brackets as the Greek God Pan (τὸ Pãν). Vraz's initial friendship with Gaj turned sour in the forties, following the greater politicization of the Illyrian Movement. The use of the term Illyrian was banned in 1843 but the aspirations of the movement continued and Vraz remained a firm advocate. He had hoped to win Prešeren over to Illyrianism but to the very end Prešeren kept up his opposition. It is significant that in Prešeren's Poezije, published in 1847 towards the end of his life, there are three biting epigrams rejecting Kollar's ideas, the Illyrian concept and Vraz's support of Illyrianism (Vidmar 1954: 55). The epigram, “Bahači četvero bolj množnih Slave rodov”, criticizes the idea that four major Slav nations have the right to use a cultivated language, while other minor nations like the Slovenes are to be regarded as the dogs of Slavdom, capable only of barking and licking the feet of others. In the epigram “Narobe Katon”, Vraz is attacked for his treachery to the Slovene language. Prešeren calls him a Slovene renegade and a reverse Cato (“Stanko Slovencev uskok, Vraz si narobe Katon”). Cato the Younger, who is alluded to here, always remained true to his republican ideals even in defeat. Vraz had not done so and had been seduced by the idea of fame in a more powerful language unit. Although Prešeren had not agreed with Kopitar on several issues he was at one with him in his opposition to Gaj's ideas. Kopitar had strongly attacked Gaj and his followers (Pogačnik 1977:107-110), and Prešeren, even after Kopitar's death, was prepared to use Kopitar's opposition and the authority of Josef Dobrovský to direct a fierce epigram entitled “Daničarjem” against the Illyrians. In the epigram Dobrovský greets Kopitar in Heaven and asks if Gaj's rabble (drhal) write in Serbian, Croatian or the language of Dubrovnik. Kopitar's answer is that they write a language of their own and he derides them as the janissaries (janičarji) of Slavdom and the South Slav languages. There seems little doubt that Prešeren's influence was significant in the rejection of Illyrianism by the Slovenes. Had Prešeren elected to support the movement a completely different state of affairs might have evolved. Vraz realized the importance of Prešeren and acknowledged that but for Prešeren there would be no Slovene secular poetry (Ziherl 1951:xlii). Prešeren, however, was not to be won over. The autonomy of Slovenia, which is a significant theme is many of his works, its cultural independence and the flourishing of its own Muses meant that Prešeren had to concern himself with questions concerning the form and status of the literary language.

In a letter to Vraz on 29th July 1843 he laments that he had not been asked to contribute to Janez Bleiweis's Kmetijske in rokodelske novice and adds “Mein Name in der slowenischen Welt ist verschollen” (Slodnjak 1979:258). Never has a statement proved more untrue. Prešeren's efforts to cultivate an independent Slovene literary language and a literature of European dimensions have ensured him a worthy place in Slovene cultural history.

Notes

1. Details of Zois's circle are to be found in F. Kidrič 1938b:205-690.

2. For Kopitar's views see Lenček 1971; Pogačnik 1977: 166-72.

3. The term pisar is used pejoratively and implies ‘hack’ or ‘scribbler’ in this context.

4. All quotations from Prešeren's poetry, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from Slodnjak 1979.

5. This poem was first published in the Laibacher Tagblatt on 7th September 1868.

6. “There you can pull words out to their roots. Stick suffixes on them, ača, išče, uha, on, ovka, ovec and other suffixes, and that welds them together firmly.”

7. “What will we have I ask, an empty burned down site. Shall we wait dumbly until a new vocabulary arises from the ashes?”

8. “There, where they still speak vulgarly in the old way, where they do not move their tongue enough or not at all and do not know the ugly words of Germanized speakers.”

9. “You seized hold of Slovene with your claws, not with your brains. Your claws were willing, but your Germanized spirit weak.”

10. The original title of this epigram was Poptujčvavcu.

11. The original title of this epigram was Ptujo-besedarjem.

12. This form is based on the interjection bogme (= really) used by the Serbs.

13. P. Danjko, Lehrbuch der windischen Sprache, Graz, 1824; F. Metelko, Lehrgebäude der slowenischen Sprache, Ljubljana, 1825.

14. Bohoričica was the traditional etymological alphabet introduced by Adam Bohorič in his grammar of 1584 (Arcticae horulae succisivae) and based on the orthographic reforms of Sebastian Krelj.

15. Details of the ABC War are to be found in Matija Čop, Izbrano delo (ed. A. Pirjevec), Celje, 1935, 47-49.

16. Vodnik was the first noteworthy Slovene poet and editor of the important journal Ljublanske novice (1797-1800).

17. Korytko was a Polish exile who assembled a collection of Slovene folk songs. See Kosir 1977:131-5. (See also H. Leeming's article in this volume, p. 161ff.—Edd.)

References

Auty, R.

1963 “The formation of the Slovene literary language against the background of the Slavonic national revival,” The Slavonic and East European Review, 41: 391-404.

1973a “Prešeren's German Poems,” Oxford Slavonic Papers, New Series, 6: 1-11.

1973b “The role of poetry in the early nineteenth-century Slavonic language revivals,” Revue des études sud-est européennes, 11: 31-7.

1979 “Language and Nationality in East-Central Europe 1750-1950,” Oxford Slavonic Papers, New Series, 12: 52-83.

Bohorič, A.

1584 Arcticae horulae succisivae, de Latinocarniolana literatura, Witemberg.

Ilešič, F.

1900 Prešeren in Slovanstvo, Ljubljana.

gKidrič, F.

1938a Prešeren 1800-1838. Življenje pesnika in pesmi (II. Biografija), Ljubljana.

1938b Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva, Ljubljana.

Kopitar, B.

1808-9 Grammatik der slavischen Sprache in Krain, Kärnten und Steyermark, Ljubljana.

Kosir, N.

1977 Znameniti slovenci. France Prešeren, Ljubljana.

Legiša, L.

1971 “Iz ozadja Prešernove Nove pisarije. Razmerje do Ravnikarja,” Slavistična revija, 19, No. 2: 125-42.

Lenček, R. L.

1971 “Kopitar's Slavic version of the Greek dialects theme,” W. E. Harkins, O. Horbach, A. Hurs'kyi (eds.), Symbolae in honorem Georgii Y. Shevelov, Munich, 244-56.

1976 ‘On dilemmas and compromises in the evolution of modern Slovene,” in T. F. Magner (ed.), Slavic Linguistics and Language Teaching, Columbus, Ohio, 112-52.

Mahnič, J.

1980-1 “Domača pokrajina in govorica pri Prešernu,” Jezik in Slovstvo, 26, No. 6: 200-8.

Navratil, J.

1880 “Jernej Kopitar,” J. Marn (ed.), Kopitarjeva spomenica, Ljubljana, 1-106.

Paternu, B.

1976 France Prešeren in njegovo pesniško delo, Ljubljana.

Pogačnik, J.

1977 Znameniti Slovenci. Jernej Kopitar, Ljubljana.

Prešeren, F.

1966 Zbrano delo, 2, ed. by Janko Kos, Ljubljana.

Slodnjak, A.

1965 France Prešeren. Zbrano delo (1. Poezije), Ljubljana.

1969 Krajnska Zhbeliza I-V, 1830-1848, Faksimile prve izdaje, Monumenta litterarum slovenicarum 6, Ljubljana.

1979 France Prešeren. Pesnitve in pisma, Ljubljana.

Stankiewicz, E.

1980 “Slovenian,” A. M. Schenker and E. Stankiewicz (eds.), The Slavic Literary Languages, New Haven, 85-102.

Tomšič, F.

1956 “Razvoj slovenskega knjižnega jezika,” L. Legiša and A. Gspan (eds.), Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva, I, Ljubljana, 9-28.

Toporišič, J.

1966 Slovenski knjižni jezik, 2, Maribor.

1981 “Kopitar-Prešeren-Čop,” Obdobje romantike v slovenskem jeziku, književnosti in kulturi, Mednarodni simpozij v Ljubljani od 26. do 28. junija 1980, Ljubljana, 389-408.

Urbančič, B.

1972 O jezikovni kulturi, Ljubljana.

Vidmar, J.

1954 Dr. France Prešeren, Ljubljana.

Ziherl, B.

1951 “France Prešeren—pesnik in mislec,” France Prešeren, Pesmi, Belgrade, ix-liii.