SOURCE: Pogačnik, Jože. “Jernej Kopitar and the Issue of Austro-Slavism.” Papers in Slavic Philology 2 (1982): 25-40.

[In the following essay, Pogačnik studies Kopitar's activity in recognizing and promulgating Slavic cultural identity within the Austrian Empire.]

The host of problems raised by Jernej Kopitar's cultural and political activities, including his scholarly work, will not be solved in any acceptable way for a long time to come.¹ His intellectual status established in modern research includes both elements of acceptance and denial, which is the reason why we still lack a historically objective value judgment concerning those meaningful aspects of his work which were relevant in his time and which are still relevant today. We are concerned here no doubt with a personality controversial and complex, whose evaluation cannot be simple, and the reason that it cannot be simple also lies in the fact that in Kopitar's numerous activities in most cases one ought to distinguish between causa efficiens and causa finalis. The world of today is, on the other hand, taken up with the present moment to such an extent that the complex forces that were at work in the first part of the nineteenth century cannot be easily understood, those forces which acquired—because of the specific geographic and historical factors on the Austrian cultural and political scene—an almost symbolic meaning. Kopitar's status in modern Slavic scholarship, however, is not only an outcome of approaches strictly limited in scope, but it, nevertheless, first and foremost, a reflection of a self-contradictory, though always living, psychodynamic structure. If anything in his life represents some kind of continuous action which would be based on some well-defined and consistent characteristics of his, then it is the dynamism which characterized his involvement in rebus slavicis. His initiatives and activities in this field were the radiating center of Kopitar's personality, and they produced such a number of successive ripples of such a quality, the far-reaching consequences of which could not be envisaged by the author himself. The metaphor of a water surface to describe history is well-known; a historical event is like a stone thrown into the water, causing such ripples. Kopitar was a very successful thrower of such stones, and the ripples which he caused on water (history) were only seldom regular; they were often intersected and therefore not to be easily grasped.

I

Kopitar and the problem of Austro-Slavism is one of the issues in relation to which the above observations need to be made. The concept of Austro-Slavism has already been analysed in sufficient detail, especially by Czech, Slovak, and Croatian historians;² real problems arise, however, when an attempt is made to evaluate it. There have also been different interpretations of Kopitar's role—if taken into account at all—in the development of the concept of Austro-Slavism.³ The only way to get to a correct formulation of the problem is to investigate chronologically the data that have been preserved and which yield the following factual evidence.

Explicit statements concerning the issue in Kopitar's writings are very scarce. Among the first which are worth mentioning is a letter to Ž. Zois (dated 23 and 24 January 1809) in which a remark is made to the effect that Austria, which is situated in medio Slavitatis, should not lag behind Alexander or Napoleon.⁴ The idea is typically cultural and political. It originates in the competition with Russia and Napoleon's France and in the acceptance of the opinion that in view of the number of its inhabitants, Austria was a Slavic country whose natural center was Vienna. This premise is corroborated by three sets of issues which could have been of importance in this region in the first half of the nineteenth century.

The first set is a result of a changed political orientation, which was often declared openly. Rulers such as Joseph II and Franz I began to discover that their state, for the most part, was not at all German. Kopitar quotes as an anecdote Joseph II's question, put by that monarch to his ministers, in which he proposed introducing either a Slavic language or German as the official language. Franz I is mentioned by Kopitar as being interested in the “Illyrian” peoples who had not reached the level of culture which they might have reached in proportion with their talents. To the above-mentioned peoples “so impressive in number and interesting in many aspects” special attention should be paid, Kopitar believed; the main goal must be cultural development.⁵ It should be stressed here that the motives and results of the climate which was created in this way are less important; the significant thing is the fact that the question became a special issue and that this led to some initiatives which were of great significance for the further development of the Slavic peoples.

The second set of issues is related to the numerical strength of the Slavic population. Kopitar estimated this ethnic complex at 50 million approximately, and the area in which they lived he described as “starting from the Adriatic as far as the Danube, from the river Kupa almost as far as the walls of Vienna.” He also knew of their former territory, which had been considerably larger and had stretched “as far as Bavaria and even the Tyrol.”⁶ The present was thus mixed with an element of historical tradition, which at the time of the ideas of a natural and historical right was not an unimportant matter. Kopitar, it is true, in principle still believed that the individualization of the South Slavs could be effected in an organized legal community, a state which bore the name of Austria, although even this premise had a special connotation. When he speaks of “Austria above all” (Österreich über alles) he uses this phrase as a cover term for the most cultivated Slavic state and thus, for the purpose of acting accordingly, he gives advice in Latin: Ceterum quidquid scribemus, te iudice animo proposito scribemus, ut sit modeste & sanamente dictum.”⁷ When Kopitar in this context accepts the need for bilingualism (German-Slavic), he does not see any national motives in the German language, but views it only as a means needed to ensure the unity of the monarchy, and, even more, as an instrument of cultural development.⁸ The existence of Austria is a political modus existendi; the idea of a monarchy is the idea of a whole which automatically includes that of parts making up the whole. The acceptance of the idea of the existence of the parts is related to the premise of cultural development, which is capable of being carried out only in the native language. For the sake of this process Kopitar accepts the concept of history as the realization of freedom; freedom is his moral ideal and a natural human right which has to be brought to life in an actual social and political situation. His opposition to force or violence is that of the Age of Enlightenment, but the organic quality of the development which he values above all already transcends the premises of the eighteenth century. When he speaks of the time in which there may be things that are still non-existent today, he is obviously not thinking only of “cultural nationalism,”⁹ but points to the actual social scene. He gives an explicit account of this in the review of Slavín when he analyses the causes of cultural backwardness (he refers to serfs, foreign domination, the separation and alienation of some Slavic ethnic nuclei), or when he ponders the non-existence of a Slavic national intelligentsia or an urban culture, the reason for which he sees in the fact that city dwellers and feudal lords were, for the most part, foreigners.¹⁰ Disregarding all of what has been mentioned above, Kopitar believed that “Austria is basically as Slavic a power as Russia, which means that it was equally interested in developing the culture of its Slavs.”¹¹ This was, at the same time, a line of action leading to the goal of the Slav people becoming “a respectable mass” (“eine respectable Masse”).¹²

The third set of questions is a coherent projection of organizational and institutional measures which were to be of use in the realization of the cultural-historical and social-political role of the South Slavs. Kopitar is very explicit and pragmatic on this, which points to the fact of his deep attachment to the cause and his realistic estimate of the existing possibilities. The cultural and political situation required that Kopitar should think seriously of practical measures which would prepare the South Slavs for the line of action that had been planned. The mutual geographical and political borders were to be overcome only by establishing cultural identity, and there inevitably arose the problem of the language of the ethnic group which is the chief instrument in the building of any national culture (Kopitar put forward the view that only a native language, as it was used in literature, was capable of cultivating a people). This is the reason why he initiated and supported the organization of chairs of Slavic languages which he thought necessary in all the important linguistic centers (chairs of the Slovene language, modeled on the Czech chair in Vienna, were started in Graz and Ljubljana). The most important center for Slavic scholarship, however, he assumed to be Vienna: “This is the place where all the Slavs should meet, from the south and the north, the west and the east!”¹³ At first he thought of founding a Slovene printing firm, and he was very active in making preparations for a chair of Old Church Slavic, in favor of which he adduced both scholarly and political reasons as early as 1810. Austria had the duty—and this was the basic Austro-Slavic premise—not to leave the idea to the Russians, which meant that the concept of a chair linguae slavice antiquissimae communis et ecclesiasticae at the Vienna University was both cultural and scholarly as well as political. Equally manifest was the idea of a central academy of arts which was to be the center of such institutions already in existence, and which was to have its branches in all the most important centers of the monarchy.

Slavic studies, organized in such a fashion, obviously needed a good library and publishing facilities. Kopitar wanted this activity to be carried out by the National Library of Vienna where he himself worked and where in his last years he held the position of Chief Librarian. He traveled to Italy, France, and England, where he searched for slavica, both out of a sense of duty and following his own interests; in this context the most important is his plan for the library, submitted to Chancellor Metternich of 28 March 1827, in which he proposed securing manuscripts and books from the Greek monasteries on Mount Athos. The accompanying letter dated 7 April of the same year is one proof of Kopitar's tactfulness in using Russophobia and the tendency to Austrian political centrism for his Slavic aims as well as for those of Slavic scholarship. E. Winter rightly called this text “a basic document of Austro-Slavism.”¹⁴

For the purpose of having a vehicle of communication between those who created cultural policy and the Slavic ethnic groups, Kopitar insisted on starting journals, which were, in his opinion, “the most influential by far in enlightening people as a whole and for this very reason were paid special attention by clear-sighted authorities in their practice of government.”¹⁵ He is known to have written very good reviews of Slavín, Slovanka, the Greek journal Mercur and Novine serbske,¹⁶ and he also played a role in the attempt to start a Ukrainian weekly. Even though it was not successful, the initiative itself is very characteristic of Kopitar's activity as a whole.¹⁷ There is also evidence that his programmatic essay “Blick auf die slavischen Mundarten, ihre Literatur und die Hilfsmittel sie zu studieren” was also published in Novine serbske (1815) and in the Czech Official Register (1813), where he was able, through the German original, to initiate processes which were right in the center of the Slavic cultural and political renaissance in the first part of the nineteenth century.¹⁸ Kopitar's principles thus descended from the theoretical level into the arena of life and thus became verifiable in the real world.

II

In establishing the intellectual physiognomy of Kopitar's personality it is significant to bear in mind that the author of the Austro-Slavic concept insisted on the genesis of certain elements which he had taken over from tradition. Thus he refers to B. Hacquet.¹⁹ But more important in this context is the line of thought which connects Kopitar with A. T. Linhart. In his work Versuch einer Geschichte von Krain und den übrigen Ländern der südlichen Slaven Österreichs, the first Slovene dramatist and founder of modern historiography gave an account of the consequences which were de facto to affect the Austrian state when it was discovered that it was not, for the most part, all German. In the manuscript of the preface to the second volume (the manuscript differs in part from the printed version) a passage by Linhart runs as follows:

They did not pay enough attention, in my opinion, to the fact that among the peoples of the Austrian monarchy the Slavs are the strongest and the most numerous, that—if the doctrine of the state were to observe the custom according to which the sum of all the united powers on which the greatness of a state depends should be named after the greatest homogeneous power—Austria should be named a Slavic state as well as Russia. To convince oneself of this one has only to look around … to count millions of Slavs and try to see what they mean to Austria and what they could mean! A great idea, worthy of a philosopher on a throne, intended for Leopold II, who in the first year of his rule made an attempt to evaluate his peoples. The assembly of the Illyrian people in Temešvar and the Illyrian Court Chancellery that was founded again in Vienna will remain an important epoch in Slavic history. In this light a complete history of the Slavs in Inner Austria should be regarded as being of prime importance by an Austrian statesman as well. In writing this essay I wish to do the preliminary work for the scholar who will be capable of writing it one day.”²⁰

Being typically politically minded Linhart paid attention to the change of Austrian policy in Southeast Europe. As early as 1770 Voltaire wrote: “Serbia waves its arms to the young ruler of the Romanovs and calls to him: Make me free from slavery to the Ottoman rulers!” Only twenty years later D. Obradović changes the addressee: “Vivat Joseph II—dear Master of Serbia!” These statements give evidence of a situation typical of the Balkans in Kopitar's time as well: the conflict of spheres of interest between Austria and Russia. Austria proved to be interested in the Balkan Peninsula in the eighteenth century (strictly speaking, in 1745), when it elected the Illyrian court deputation which was assigned the task of dealing with the problems of church and culture in the new sphere of interest. This commission discontinued its activity in December 1778, but on 20 February 1791 Emperor Leopold II founded the Illyrian Court Chancellery which was faced—among other things—with entirely practical tasks (such as making an “Illyrian” dictionary). Its short life (until the middle of 1792) did not produce any results, but an attempt of this kind reveals Austrian cultural and political tendencies of the time, which were more and more oriented towards Southeast Europe. In accordance with this there was, first and foremost, an increasing interest in things Slavic, and possibilities for Slavic studies were also on the increase. The authorities first sanctioned the Czech language (since 1752), and at the beginning of the nineteenth century, through Kopitar's effort, the Slovene language followed. F.K. Alter, a Greek scholar and the custodian of the Court Library, had already proposed that a chair of Old Church Slavic should be founded in Vienna.²¹ Among the people who were politically responsible and culturally conscious there began to ripen the idea of the Danubian capital as a natural center of South and West Slavs, while the Austrian governing tendencies were to meet the general tendencies of historical development. It was fortunate that the Austrian authorities had somebody like Kopitar; he embodied a harmonious blend of the objective possibilities with his own interest in the cause.

The problem of Linhart points to a broader cultural and political concept in Slovene history represented by Zois' circle. In his letter to A. Erberg (dated 14 April 1810) Baron Zois established a link between his own Slavic scholarship, which he had pursued for thirty-two years, and Kopitar's assignments in Vienna. He suggested that Kopitar should pursue the study of law, whereas his own vocation was to be, primarily, pursuing Slavic studies in the library, and that with the intention of “doing service to the most cultivated Slavic state and honoring Slavism in general.”²² The sentence is, no doubt, pro-Austro-Slavic, but it also expresses a definite tendency towards an actual program of Slavism. What results from this is the realization that the initiative taken in proposing Kopitar's Slavic studies, as is the case with the historical premise of Carantanism or with the philological theory of the Pannonian origin of Old Church Slavic, originated with the above-mentioned circle, which consisted of those involved in enlightenment who—as is well-known—had made a minimum program as well as a maximum one for the renaissance of the Slavs in general.

From the very beginning this circle had a high regard for the Slavic scholar J. Dobrovský, who on 25 September 1791 made a speech under the title “Über die Ergebenheit und Anhänglichkeit der slawischen Völker an das Erzhaus Östreich.” In the presence of Leopold II the author condemned the policy of Germanization; advocating the Czech language, he pointed to the possibility of “the right policy” along with the use of widely different languages. In his account Dobrovský brought up to date the old view according to which the Slavic peoples in the Habsburg monarchy should be interested in its survival, for their own sakes.²³ In this sense there was an uninterrupted tradition which may be considered to have started right at the beginning of the eighteenth century (starting with Ritter-Vitezović, Pešina z Čechorodu, from Bel to Heyrenbach, Durych and A. F. Kollár) and which may be characterized either as belonging to the humanist-baroque type (with a significant Catholic tendency) or as a traditional loyal dynastic feeling somewhat modified as there were Slavic peoples in the monarchy.²⁴

In literature one may come across the idea of Kopitar's being allied to the first type, the humanist-baroque type, which proves absurdly tendentious today if the historical data and his Weltanschauung are taken into account.²⁵ It is possible to relate Kopitar only to the other type, the loyal-dynastic type of the Austro-Slavic tradition, which was characteristic not only of the Slovenes but, first and foremost, of the Czechs and the Croats. In his evaluation of the poll which was to answer the question of the possibility of introducing Hungarian as an official language (1816) there are statements which—in addition to being strictly anti-Hungarian—bear witness to Kopitar's ardent support of the rights of the South Slavs, an apology for evolutionary freedom, and, above all, a proof that the author's dynastic feeling, which is equal to Austrian patriotism, did not exclude national consciousness.²⁶ It is obvious from this proposal that Kopitar believed that the sovereignty of a monarchy may include several nations with people's sovereignty remaining integral. A multilingual empire, according to him, had a chance of surviving in the new circumstances at the beginning of the nineteenth century only if it was to demonstrate the good influence of the central authority and its being capable of combining with the cultural differences of the Slavic ethnic groups. Such a premise found support among the Czechs and the Croats, and he also discovered a similar idea in the philosophy of B. Bolzano, among whose adherents was Kopitar himself. The Czech position in the above-mentioned speech was formulated by J. Dobrovský, while as far as the Croats are concerned it is enough to mention Declaratio ex parte nuncionum Regni Croatiae, quoad in (tro)ducendam Hungaricam linguam (1790) and the political pamphlet by J. Drašković which as a program of the future national movement of 1832 was published under the title Disertacija.²⁷ In these texts the claim was repeatedly made of the spatial superiority of the “Slavic” language over Hungarian, and the wish was also expressed for a politically independent Great Illyria, within the Habsburg Monarchy and having a close political relationship with Hungary. In view of the Czech example Bolzano's philosophy, however, predicted unification of all peoples on the basis of the equality of all languages. The atmosphere in which Kopitar's conception of Austro-Slavism developed was very suitable for theoretical premises becoming part of history.

III

After his initiation into Slavic studies, Kopitar made the problem of Slavism an ontological and historical issue. His predecessors had already had their conception concerning the Russians, the Poles, and the Czechs, which enabled him to concentrate to such an extent on the South Slavs. He broke down the South Slavic region ethnically, linguistically, and culturally, thus making that European region, as it really was, part of the intellectual consciousness of the time. Before him there had existed so-called apologiae for ethnic communities and their idioms, all of which had already resulted from tendencies to renaissance. With their emotional tone such “apologies” touched the hearts of contemporaries and caused something like linguistic-literary communities to come into existence. Kopitar made a further step: he was less concerned with praising the language, because he wanted to present the Slavs as a unit which was historically real and which wanted to find its place under the sun. His apology for South Slavic languages was no longer based only on rather questionable expressive qualities (as compared with Germanic and Romance languages, as well as with Greek); it was rather founded on the great number of their speakers, which meant physical and political power. The argument of the live force of living peoples—and that represented a new emphasis in the cultural and political genesis of the peoples of Southeast Europe—was supportive of the request that the Austrian state should provide conditions for achieving cultural identity, as well as meet some political demands. When Kopitar in his report to the Austrian authorities (in February 1822) stated the Vuk's work had provided the Serbs and the Croats with “a native center,” there is no doubt that here, above all, he was concerned with the recognition of political rights for those conditions in which a unique ethnic identity could be expressed and adequate historical continuity established in the area of Southeast Europe.²⁸

Wishing to make his way into the arena of contemporary issues Kopitar also raised the problem of history. By insisting upon the Latin (Western) source of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission, on the basis of the Carantanian-Pannonian theory of the origin of Old Church Slavic, and by discovering linguistic centers which were basically adequate in view of the situation of that time, he established dialectic unity between the present and the past which was a necessary condition for the emergence of a consciousness of historical tradition. Napoleon's action on the European stage had done away with the concept of legitimacy, which had been so typical of the eighteenth century; and the awareness of ethnic variety resulted in a moral imperative, both of which became factors upon which the national movement was based. This dimension gave a boost to the Slavic ethnic complexes toward achieving their national individualization. With his philosophy of history, which claimed, according to the Greek ideal, that each minute ethnic group could compete for the biggest prize in culture, Kopitar inspired creative enthusiasm especially in small nations. The results they achieved in their later history were sometimes diametrically opposed to the author's intentions, but the fact remains that the stone—which was the cause of the ripples both on the surface as well as in the depths—had been thrown by Kopitar, which means that undoubtedly his was the initiator's role.

Kopitar's belief in progress and his conviction that a part was significant for the whole had an important influence on the less numerous Slavic ethnic complexes. With the help of I. Kristijanović he wanted, for example, to preserve the Kajkavian linguistic and cultural community. This culturological aspect of his included three important elements which he wrote about in his correspondence. In his letter to Kristijanović (11 September 1838) he made a link between culture and the mother tongue (“people can become cultivated exclusively through their mother tongue”), whereas the ancient Greek model was used by him as an obvious example illustrative of the fact that in the intellectual sphere things are not decided upon by the majority or power but only by the human and cultural value of a particular act. As early as 1809, when his grammar was published, Kopitar elaborated two more elements of his culturological conception before Baron Zois. According to him, the Slavs were extremely fortunate because their literatures had only come into existence (“the childhood of our literature”). Such a level allowed the development of culture to be controlled; its participants were capable of watching it closely at its source; for that reason the responsibility of those who ought to be in charge of cultural development was all the greater and all the heavier (his letter of 18 October 1809). In the first half of the nineteenth century, the three elements mentioned above which determine the concept of culture as seen by Kopitar (the idiom of the ethnic group, the zero-level of its development, and its organic quality) carried enormous historical weight and were of enormous political importance.²⁹

Kopitar's view of history was, thus, completely modern; it sprang from the category of freedom which became a moral ideal and a natural right. A more intense social life of the Slavic ethnic groups followed when this category became a historical commitment of individual and social subjects. When the view of freedom as a prerequisite for historical independence was transmitted from the circle of enlightened intellectuals to the social groups of citizens or peasants—this is a sociological aspect of things which differs from nation to nation—the Slavic ethnic groups began to grow out of so-called literary peoples into those which existed both culturally and historically. The particular form they acquired from that moment was nothing but an authentic whole made up of individuals and groups linked by a common source, by the same historical memory, tradition, and life style. That type of process was stimulated by many factors as well as by the rulers of the Restoration, who were “delegated by God's Providence”—as was stated in the Charter of the Holy Alliance—to rule the peoples who are “branches of the same family” (les branches d'une même famille). Metternich, who wished to provide the centralized state with a leadership which would be less centralized but stronger, de facto paved the way for federalism. The revival of the autonomy of the provinces favored national tendencies recognized by the authorities, but at that time they still were not able to assess their total weight because they held that Austria jurisdictionally could be a unified state, in spite of administrative variety.³⁰ Fighting for the eighteen-century-old principle of legitimacy, which per definitionem depended on the linguistic unity of a people, they knew that it was necessary for them to be opposed to a polyglot empire, but at the same time they were so wise that they did not raise national suicide to such a level that it should have become a principle of their policy.

The significance of Kopitar's role in all this cannot be overlooked. In foreseeing the way which would lead to the cultural self-realization of the Slavs (he had similar plans for the Ukraine, which should have become the center for Eastern Slavs) he saw the possibilities that were available; he knew exactly what were the chances of success, and, if a need arose, he was always ready to reconstrue new concepts. In this respect his genius was both creative and operative; he too could be described with the phrase used by Metternich's biographer, F. von Gentz, calculateur par excellence,³¹ which, in fact, describes a man of violent passions and bold in his undertakings, in which one can discern a great talent, calm, cool, and dispassionate. Historians are obviously wrong in crediting Kopitar with very little or no merit in regard to the issue of Austro-Slavism. When they date Austro-Slavism as a systematic political doctrine to Count Leo Thun (with his article “Über den gegenwärtigen Zustand der böhmischen Literatur und ihre Bedeutung,” 1842), then it is obvious that they substitute effect for cause.³² Thun's premises of a sudden increase in national consciousness which was bound to break down a state made up of various peoples, the conviction that the protection against the expansion of the more powerful neighbors was a cohesive force which held together various peoples of the Austrian monarchy, the recognition of the fact that the state's further survival depended on the observance of the principle of respecting each other's national individuality and the right assessment of the role that was to be played by the South Slavic peoples in solving the Eastern question—all of this can be seen already in Kopitar's work. It is true, however, that Kopitar's ideas are not systematically presented together in a single work of his; they are explicit in detail and implicitly present in all his activity. For the purpose of understanding these ideas the social motives which brought them about are even less significant. But of extreme importance is the fact that the Austro-Slavic conception in the first part of the nineteenth century was the only possible Slavic policy. At the time of the danger of German unification and when the existence of numerically strong German minorities within the Slavic countries was a fact, Austro-Slavism acted as a counterbalance which brought about and helped to maintain elastic stability. The Illyrian slogan: Aula est pro nobis! was fully justified, and the title of Hönnigk's already archaic book Österreich über alles, wenn es nur will (from 1684),³³ which Kopitar incorporated in his letter to Zois, quoted earlier (25 April), had an attraction which was instrumental in starting cultural and political processes among the Slavic peoples. The idea of Austro-Slavism is associated with the names such as J. Dobrovský, J. Drašković, P. J. Šafárik, J. Kollár, F. Palacký, L. Štúr, K. Havliček- Borovski, which proves that this was not only a temporary tactical program, but a long-term concept which was of great significance at the time. The best example of this is the program of United Slovenia itself from 1848, which accepted Kopitar's premise as part of Slovene history as well.

In relation to the problems discussed this fact corroborates one of the basic tenets accompanying any investigation into Kopitar's cultural and political activities: it is possible not to agree with this fact, or have an aversion to it, but on no account can one avoid it.

Notes

1. Cf. Sergio Bonazza, “Zur Rezeption Kopitars bei den Slowenen,” Contributi italiani all VIII^o congresso internazionale di slavistica (Roma, 1978), pp. 1-13.

2. An account of the problems and an analysis of the relevant literature are given by Jaroslav Šidak in his paper “Austroslavizam i slavenski kongres u Pragu 1848,” in Studije iz hrvatske povijesti za revolucije 1848-1849 (Zagreb, 1979), pp. 95-289.

3. Ibid., pp. 95-96.

4. Cf. Zoisova korespondenca 1808-1810 (Ljubljana, 1941), p. 157.

5. Kleinere Schriften (Vienna, 1857), pp. 36-37, 126.

6. Ibid., pp. 61-62, 122, 193.

7. Zoisova korespondenca 1809-1810, p. 157.

8. Cf. Kazinczy Ferencz Tübingai pályamüve a magyar nyelvröl 1808. Published in Gusztáv Heinrich in Budapest in 1916; Kopitar's “Gutachtlicher Bericht” is on pp. 178-194; the relevant pages are pp. 180-181.

9. The term was first used by the American historian A. J. P. Taylor (see note 30).

10. Kleinere Schriften, pp. 18, 38.

11. Ibid., p. 126 and Kazinczy, p. 189.

12. Kazinczy, p. 186.

13. In his programmatic article “Patriotische Phantasien eines Slaven,” Kleinere Schriften, pp. 61-70 (see Appendix II of this volume).

14. “Eine grundlegende Urkunde des Austroslavismus,” Zeitschrift für Slawistik, III (1958), pp. 107-124. This is where both the text of the report and the letter addressed by Kopitar to Metternich on that occasion are published.

15. Kleinere Schriften, p. 73.

16. All the texts referred to are in Kleinere Schriften.

17. Cf. my paper “J. Kopitar i ukrajinsko pitanje,” which will appear in the collection of papers in honor of Zoran Konstantinović's sixtieth birthday, to be published in Innsbruck.

18. Cf. Rado L. Lencek, “Kopitar's Slavic Version of the Greek Dialects Theme,” Symbolae in honorem Georgii Y. Shevelov (Munich, 1971), pp. 253-254.

19. Kleinere Schriften, p. 125.

20. Cf. Fran Zwitter, “Anton Tomaž Linhart in njegovo zgodovinsko delo,” Naša sodobnost, V (1957), pp. 1-13. The reference is on p. 2 of the Preface of Linhart's second volume.

21. Further information is available in my book Bartholomäus Kopitar (Munich, 1978), in the chapter “Geschichte.”

22. Zoisova korespondenca 1809-1810, p. 151.

23. Cf. Flora Kleinschnitzová, “J. Dobrovského řeč ‘Über die Ergebenheit und Anhänglichkeit der slawischen Völker an das Erzhaus Östreich’ z r. 1791,” Listy filologické, XLV (1918). According to Zdeněk Simeček, “Slavista J. Dobrovský a Austroslavismus let 1791-1809,” Slovanský přehled (Prague, 1971), pp. 177-190.

24. Cf. Frank Wollman, “Slovanství v jazykově-literárním obrození u Slovanů,” Spisy Filosofieké fakulty (Brno, 1958), p. 137.

25. Such views were advanced especially by E. Winter.

26. See note 8.

27. Cf. J. Šidak, Studije iz hrvatske povijesti XIX stoljeća (Zagreb, 1973), pp. 8, 10-11.

28. Pogačnik, Bartholomäus Kopitar, p. 199.

29. Ibid., pp. 61-63.

30. For further information on the historical situation see: A.J.P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918 (London, 1948); Henry A. Kissinger, A World Restored (Boston, 1973); Benedetto Croce, Zgodovina Evrope v devetnajstem stoletju, (Ljubljana, 1934); Fran Zwitter,Nacionalni problemi v habsburški monarhiji (Ljubljana, 1962).

31. Kissinger, op. cit., p. 20.

32. Cf. Šidak, op. cit. (see note 2).

33. Quoted by Zwitter, op. cit., p. 73.