SOURCE: Nedeljković, Olga. “New Perspectives on the Collaboration Between Maksimilijan Vrhovac and Jernej Kopitar.” Papers in Slavic Philology 2 (1982): 122-49.

[In the following essay, Nedeljković probes the sources of Kopitar's work on the South Slavic languages and discusses the mutual influence of Kopitar and the Zagrebian bishop-scholar Maksimilijan Vrhovac.]

Jernej Kopitar's ideas regarding the reform of the Serbian literary language were realized in the work of Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, thanks to the very close collaboration of these two men. The antecedents of that achievement, however, can be traced all the way back to the time of the Counter Reformation. They were gradually shaped, in the course of time, by numerous agents and workers in the cultural sphere of the nation's existence, by educators, patrons of learning, scholars and literary writers from Illyria. The eventual shaping of the Serbo-Croatian language is, then, the final result of the missionary activities of the Office for the Propagation of the Faith of the Roman Church in the South Slavic regions. The activities were marked by the express intent to introduce a unified standard language, a uniform “communiore dialectum.”

All the grammars, from the time of Kašić and Mikalja to Appendini, were based on the Štokavian dialect of Dubrovnik-Dalmatia-Bosnia. This fact, then, explains the evolution of the Croatian literary idiom, which, in its turn, was grounded in the Renaissance literature of Dubrovnik-Dalmatia of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.¹

It was during the time of the Renaissance and Humanism that the first works in lexicography appeared in Dalmatia (Valentiano, Vrančić, Mikalja).² Their number increased during the subsequent centuries and encompassed also Kajkavian Croatia (Habdelić, Belostenec, Jambrešić), and eventually came to its conclusion with the dictionaries of Della Bella, Voltiggi and Stulli. The works of the last two of these were the immediate predecessors of Vuk's Rječnik.

Although Voltiggi's work did not inspire Dobrovský or Kopitar,³ his Ričoslovnik, as well as the foreword to the same, must have had an impact on Kopitar, for it is in Voltiggi's work that we see the principle set forth requiring that both in the latin and in the cyrillic alphabets there be a separate symbol for every sound.⁴ It is in Vuk's work that we see the tangible application of that principle.⁵

Particularly with regard to the practical formation of the Serbo-Croatian language, one cannot overlook this “Illyrian” influence in the case of Kopitar. We know that theoretically Kopitar was not in agreement with Voltiggi⁶ and Appendini.⁷ Following in the footsteps of Kašić, these latter two adopted the monodialectal solution with respect to the Croatian literary language; they did so after the model of Italian Tuscan. Their solution was something which in their day was already largely an accomplished fact.⁸ However, the same type of a monodialectal solution could not be realized with regard to the pluralism of the total mosaic of Slavic languages, for, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, some of them already had their own respective established literary traditions. Because of this, Kopitar attempted to apply to the Slavic languages the model of the older phase of the development of Greek dialects, namely, as Lencek has put it, “a multiform, dialectal type literary language, evolving toward diversity rather than toward uniformity.”⁹

Later in his work with Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, Kopitar abandoned this erstwhile model of “a multiform, dialectal type literary language”; more precisely, he found it necessary to adopt the monodialectal solution with regard to the formation of the Serbian literary language, which is Serbo-Croatian. While he himself never spoke about this, the actual use of the language in the writing of Vuk's Grammar of the Serbian language, the Dictionary, and the translation of the Gospels confirms his changed position. An explicit confirmation of this new position can be found in Section I of the Vienna Literary Compact of 1850: “And so we have unanimously acknowledged that one should not combine dialects in order to form a new dialect which in fact does not exist among the people; rather, it is better to choose one of the spoken dialects to be the literary language, because: (a) It is not possible to write in such a way that everyone could read according to his own dialect; (b) because any such mixture, as is the case with such works of human creation, would be worse than any one of the actual dialects, which are works of God's making;¹⁰ (c) other peoples, also, as for instance the Germans and the Italians, did not construct new dialects from existing ones, but rather chose an actual spoken dialect in which they write books.”¹¹

Without entering here more deeply into the evolution of Kopitar's concept concerning the development of Slavic literary languages from multidialectal forms to a monodialectal solution, we do wish to underscore that Kopitar in his program concerning the South Slavic literary languages in many instances had to rely on already existing Illyrian, that is Croatian, models and examples. He had to depend upon accomplished facts as they had been already achieved not only in the language, but also in literature and folklore.

1.1 However, the Croats were indebted to both the activities of the missionaries and the grammarians of the Counter Reformation not only for the creation of a unified literary language, but also for a unified literature as such. As successors and propagators of humanist universalism and Renaissance ideals,¹² the activists and writers of the Catholic renewal further developed in the area of “Illyrian” (i.e., Croatian) literature and general culture ideas borrowed from Italian humanist historiography (Piccolomini and Biondo). It was thus that among the Illyrian humanists ideas about the ethnic and linguistic unity of all Slavs began to spread.¹³ During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, thanks to the systematic work of the whole Catholic Renewal movement in the Balkans, and particularly in the Croatian regions, a considerably homogeneous literature gradually evolved, first along the Dalmatian Coast of the Adriatic and in Dubrovnik, later also in Bosnia, Slavonia, and in Kajkavian Croatia. This is the period during which in the Croatian regions numerous writers and leaders in education came from the ranks of the Jesuits and Franciscans, and to a certain extent also from among the Dominicans and Paulists, these people then became a dominant force in the literary and cultural life of Croatia and defined its character.

It is the spread of these kinds of theoretical-ideological concepts of Italian Renaissance literature¹⁴ that constituted the cohesive force that linked all the aforementioned regional literatures into one single literary complex from the time of the Renaissance to the Croatian National Awakening.¹⁵ The broad Slav conception that triumphed in the sixteenth century (Vinko Pribojević, Korjenić-Neorić) grew into the first serious historiographic and philosophical whole in the work of Mavro Orbini, Il regno degli Slavi, in 1601.¹⁶ Those humanist ideas which were common to all Slavic patriotism gradually changed into a very potent South Slavic Slavophilism, which, in its turn, experienced one of its great culminations in the Pan-Slavism of Križanić in the seventeenth century when the Counter Reformation was at its zenith. It is, therefore, not surprising that Gundulić created at precisely the same moment his monumental poetic synthesis of Slavic patriotism (in Osman, Dubravka, and others). Liberation ideas, the spiritual superiority of the Slavs over their Turkish conquerors, a deep faith in the eventual political independence of the Slavs, and their unquestionable role—especially in the case of the Poles—as the Christian bulwark against Islam, strongly resounded throughout Gundulić's work. We can say with certainty that these patriotic ideas were not surpassed even in the literature of the National Awakening.¹⁷ It is extraordinarily easy to follow the history of these ideas throughout the entire time span from the Renaissance to the Awakening. They represent those driving forces which inspired and guided several generations before the National Awakening. These leading ideas of Humanist-Renaissance literature constitute one sole, indivisible continuity of literary historical processes.

Critics and historians of Croatian literature have noted essential differences between European Romanticism and the Croatian National Awakening.¹⁸ Furthermore, they have traced the ideas of the Croatian National Awakening, if not all the way back to their origins, then in any event through several generations of writers.¹⁹ Even individual researchers in the areas of Pre-Awakening and Awakening literature—while speaking of the rebirth of ideas of Croatian writers and scholars from the sixteenth century onward—have noted the fact that the Illyrian National Awakening is an autochthonous Croatian movement.²⁰ Even the Illyrians in Gaj's movement were highly conscious of their great predecessors, relating especially to the literary and political activity of Pavle Ritter Vitezović from Senj “who planted the seed which in the eighteenth century germinated into the first healthy sprouts of the Croatian Illyrian Awakening.”²¹ Nevertheless, it needs to be observed that the genesis and evolution of the Croatian National Awakening, as well as its broader ramifications and its influence upon the literatures and national movements of other Slavic peoples, are all subjects that need much more investigation before we shall have a complete and reliable understanding of the total problem. Leaving aside the further development of the ideas of the Illyrian Awakening within the framework of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy,²² we shall attempt to point out the factual influence of some Croatian Pre-Awakening ideas upon the activities of Kopitar himself, and in particular upon some aspects of his collaboration with the Bishop of Zagreb, Maksimilijan Vrhovac.

2.0 This influence of Croatian literature of the Pre-Awakening period upon Kopitar and upon many Slavic activists and philologists from the final decades of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth centuries is most characteristically reflected in relation to the area of collecting of the national treasure—an activity begun and to a large extent completed by the fore-runners of the National Awakening.

The love for the language of the common people and the zeal for the wider acceptance of the common tongue as expressed in the folk songs and national epics found their great advocates in the Franciscan friar, Filip Grabovac, and in his confrère Fra Andrija Kačić-Miošić. The Razgovor ugodni naroda slovinskoga enjoyed, in its time, wide popularity across all social strata, and the work soon made its way far beyond the boundaries of the region in which it originated. It is not surprising to find that the Razgovor was known among the Serbs and Macedonians, and even among the Bulgarian monks on Mount Athos, in the Monastery of Zographos.²³

Influenced by the famous work of Albert Fortis, Viaggio in Dalmatia (1774), Gvozdenica Ferić from Dubrovnik furnished much information which confirms the fact that in Dubrovnik, in the second half of the eighteenth century, there existed a thorough appreciation for the arts of all its people, the arts that expressed the mind and spirit of the sum total of the people.²⁴ The Latin translations by Ferić of the Hasanaginica, of Banović Strahinja, and other lyrical poetry in the manner of folk songs, as well as Kačić's Razgovor, could be found in practically all Slovene libraries of any consequence, likewise also in the library of the renowned Slovene patron of the arts, Baron Zois—all of which must have had its impact also upon Kopitar.²⁵ As we know, these Latin translations of the aforementioned lyric folk songs made a strong impression in German literary circles and engaged the interest of scholarly Europe in South Slavic folklore appreciably before the appearance of Vuk Karadžić. “It was definitely through the instrumentality of Fortis that Kačić entered into world literature, into the renowned collection of Herder's Volkslieder.” Thus Fortis “… linked a whole line of writers from Dalmatia and Dubrovnik with the cultural circles in Padua.”²⁶

At the end of the eighteenth century, a serious concern for the development of the literary language and for the ordering of the orthography made itself felt; likewise, a lively interest in folklore and the general creative genius of the people became perceptible among the educated. Both of these phenomena extended not only across Reljković's Slavonia and Divković's Bosnia, but also across Kajkavian Croatia. The Croatian National Awakening had been in the making for decades, fostered by a broadly based popular spectrum that drew its constituency from the entire people.

3.0 The central figure of this period in Zagreb was the scholarly bishop Maksimilijan Vrhovac (1752-1827). His reformist activities in the area of language and orthography preceded the reforms of Gaj and Karadžić, and are essential for an accurate understanding and full appreciation of the endeavors of the latter two.²⁷ Vrhovac, open-minded and imbued with the ideals of the brotherhood of man, through his extensive knowledge in many fields became a pioneer of new intellectual and political trends in Croatia, and particularly in Zagreb proper. In his political journeys to Vienna, Budapest, and Pressburg/Bratislava, Vrhovac had ample opportunity to become acquainted with various Slavic scholars studying the languages and literatures of their respective peoples. Through these contacts, Vrhovac became even more inspired to contribute in Croatia all that was within his power toward the development of the language; his efforts were guided by a strong desire to bring the Štokavian dialect closer to the Kajkavian. Several of his publications evidence this intention, particularly Rituale Romano-Zagrabiense, which he published in 1796, in parallel Štokavian and Kajkavian texts.²⁸

Vrhovac was highly conscious of the actual developmental stage of the Croatian literary language of his time. The language had been shaped in the ambit of the Counter Reformation and was based on the literary tradition of Dalmatia-Dubrovnik. From the very outset, the language had been conceptualized both as a uniform and unifying medium, with a strong leaning toward the Štokavian idiom of Bosnia. Such a conceptualization had been envisioned as a guarantee for the uniformity of one single, national language. It was against the background of this sort of consciousness that Vrhovac declared in 1805, in Parliament in Pressburg, that the Croats (that is, the speakers of Kajkavian) would follow the example of the Hungarians and introduce their own Illyrian language into public administration, and by doing so, would replace the official Latin.²⁹ As Professor Šišić explained in his day, what Vrhovac had in view under the designation “Illyrian” was the Štokavian idiom, not Kajkavian.³⁰

In 1790, Vrhovac came into contact with Barc, the very learned curator of the imperial library (Hofbibliothek) in Vienna. With Barc, Vrhovac carried on many political and cultural discussions concerning the investigation of languages and literatures, particularly the Slavic ones.³¹

To what great extent Bishop Vrhovac was renowned even then for his efforts in spreading education in his diocese, becomes evident through Josip Šipuš, a “Horvačanin” from Karlovac, who in 1796 published, through the episcopal printing office in Zagreb, his Temelj žitne tergovine polag narave i dogadjajev. In the dedication and foreword to this work, Šipuš speaks eloquently about the Bishop's reputation as a patron of scholarly endeavors. Šipuš expresses his desire that one single, literary language be established in Croatia, a language that would serve all the needs of the people in daily life: social situations, commerce, business, and not only the purposes of imaginative literature. He challenged everyone to action who was in any way responsible for the realization of this goal.³²

Vrhovac carried on an extensive social and scholarly correspondence with prominent people in Dalmatia and Istria. Information about this comes to us through Josip Voltiggi in the foreword to his Ričoslovnik (1803), in which he acknowledged most emphatically and gratefully the support given to literature and scholarship by Vrhovac. “Maksimilijan Vrhovac,” says Voltiggi,

the Bishop of Zagreb, is consumed with the desire to advance the Illyrian language. He has established his printing office; he has opened his huge library to the public; he nurtures the arts and sciences; he insists on much discernment in the assemblies of both the Croatian and the Hungarian Parliaments. He applies almost all his revenue to the advancement of our native land, to an extent which by far exceeds his predecessors in this activity. At the same time, encouraged by Vrhovac, other bishops likewise are working for the benefit of the people. Antun Mandić, from Zagreb, knows the Illyrian language very well, and he was chairman of the Royal Commission when that illustrious body worked out the new orthography for the Illyrian language.³³

It is not surprising that Vrhovac paid in advance for sixty copies of the Ričoslovnik with the intention of presenting them to individuals interested in the advancement of the language and literature. The circle of those individuals was quite extensive. Vrhovac corresponded also with the above-mentioned author, Latinist, and authority on folk songs from Dubrovnik, Gvozdenica Ferić;³⁴ with Slado Dolcij; with Josip Pavlović from Makarska; and also with the Metropolitan Archbishop of Karlovci, Stefan Stratimirović, who had requested Croatian books, especially dictionaries, from Vrhovac.³⁵

Bishop Vrhovac became acquainted also with Dobrovský whose works he had in his library. The two men exchanged their knowledge and their views concerning the Illyrian language, its age, and various alphabets that had been adopted in Croatia. This correspondence dates from 1798, though it is quite possible that scholarly contact between the two men had existed even before that date. As Novak pointed out in his thorough work about Vrhovac: “It is certain that the friendship of these two men and their scholarly exchanges continued beyond 1798.”³⁶ Correspondence materials of the period moreover inform us that Vrhovac was already in contact with Kopitar very early during that period. For example, on 21 April 1810, Kopitar wrote to Dobrovský that one of his students from Bonn, a nephew of Baron Zois, married a niece of the Bishop of Zagreb, Vrhovac. It was this same young man who brought to Kopitar's attention the fact that Stulli's dictionary had been published, a matter of which Dobrovský had not been aware. From the same letter we know that Vrhovac intended to send a copy of the dictionary to Dobrovský. Another copy he intended to send to Kopitar. Vrhovac further promised to send to Kopitar additional materials, works of Croatian writers from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries, Croatian folk songs, also some songs that were written in a gospel manuscript from 1694. These songs are: (1) “Lepo mi poje černi kos” (Beautifully sings the blackbird); (2) “Posejal sem bažulek—Posejal sem draga ljuba” (I have planted the peonies, I have planted them, dear love); (3) “Hranila devojka tri sive sokole—Igra kolo široko” (A girl was feeding the three grey falcons—a wide “kolo” is being danced). Kopitar also stated that these songs came complete with the notation of the melodies.³⁷

3.1 “In the Croatian territories along the river Sava, the aim for unification of dialects or regional speech into one literary language,” as Fancev emphasizes, “had been leaning toward Štokavian ever since the sixteenth century.”³⁸ At the beginning of the nineteenth century, this movement was already so strong in this region that a definite Dubrovnik-Štokavian orientation existed. From Kopitar's letter to Dobrovský, of 27 April 1810, we know that it was specifically the speech of Dubrovnik that was to be adopted as the general literary language.³⁹ In this letter Kopitar was rather skeptical with regard to the knowledge of the Zagreb scholars because, in his view, they did not have an accurate understanding of the Croatian dialect. Kopitar was horrified that the Zagrebans were largely dominated by the bias that the Illyrian dialect of Dubrovnik was the best Slavic dialect. From the same letter by Kopitar, the great broad-mindedness and good will of Vrhovac became evident when we note that Vrhovac allowed Kopitar to turn to him whenever and in whatever Slavic matter he, Kopitar, might want help. Kopitar mentioned to Dobrovský that Vrhovac read both in cyrillic and in glagolitic. Kopitar wanted to know whether Dobrovský was already in contact with Vrhovac.⁴⁰

Kopitar himself was brimming with beautiful schemes for scholarly work, particularly since he had become attracted to Vrhovac, who was the uncle of one of Kopitar's pupils. Based on this connection, Kopitar saw the possibility that both he and Dobrovský might be able to journey to the Croats and the Serbs, where they could investigate everything that attracted them concerning the language. Moreover, Kopitar had also become acquainted with Stanić, a Uniate Canon from Zagreb. Stanić was thoroughly familiar with the characteristics of the dialect.⁴¹

When Kopitar evaluated a Croatian grammar by an anonymous author in Annalen für Literatur und Kunst (Horvacka gramatika [Zagreb, 1810]), he also turned to Croatian folk songs. They were as beautiful as those published earlier and received with enthusiasm by Goethe. Kopitar pointed out the fact that the collection of Croatian songs in the church books Sveti evangeliumi, koterimi sveta cirkva katolička slovensko-horvacka žive (Vu Česke Ternave, 1694), of which the first edition had been published as early as 1619, contained, among other items, folk songs in which the Jesuits had replaced the old texts with new, religious texts, in order to uproot the ancient, pagan versions. He listed the titles of those songs, then he asked if anyone knew whether they were still being sung among the Croatians.⁴² Kopitar once more returned to the Croatian songs in a letter to his friend Jakov Zupan; again he was enthusiastic about their beauty. In his ecstasy, Kopitar compared these songs with some Icelandic songs that he knew.⁴³

The correspondence with Vrhovac, begun sometime during 1809-1810, continued for years. One can follow it quite nicely through the letters that Kopitar wrote to Dobrovský. After he had become a curator in 1811, in the Imperial Library (Hofbibliothek) in Vienna, Kopitar asked Vrhovac to send him the address of one of his protégés, to whom he, Kopitar, could turn “pro rebus Croaticis.” Kopitar for his part promised that in time he would become as skillful as the German Slavicists, such as Schlözer (died 1809). He likewise asked Vrhovac to send him duplicates of older, as well as newer, Slavic books published in Croatia.⁴⁴

3.2 Vrhovac did all he could to please both Kopitar and Dobrovský. As Novak emphasized, Vrhovac's entire correspondence, as well as his diary, remains unpublished to this day, and no one has yet undertaken a study of them.⁴⁵ In January 1813, Vrhovac made a notation that he had written to Kopitar “de provehenda lingua illyrica.” It was also in 1813 that Vrhovac addressed his famous request to the clergy to collect proverbs, sayings, words, and folk songs as materials necessary for the scholarly investigation of the language and for the development of the literary language.⁴⁶ This letter of Vrhovac is a brilliant testimonial to his farsightedness and profound insight concerning the tasks that lay before the investigators of the language, as well as before writers who sought to reduce the differences between the various dialects, and thereby to unify the language and to attract an ever wider readership:

Although the Illyrian language does show regional variations in its pronunciation [wrote Vrhovac], it possesses native integrity and beauty, both in its lexicon and in its application in speech. In some of its elements the language does, indeed, have variations; that is what makes it rich and sweet. Despite the variations between some of the dialects, and despite borrowed foreign terms, the language is prodigious in pure native words. Many separate collections of Croatian and Slavonian words are extant; likewise collections of songs and printed books exist; all of them prove that the language of the people is graced with charm and opulence, while great men always have been at work trying to perfect it.⁴⁷

Vrhovac perceived clearly all the possibilities, as well as the difficulties, related to the attempt to improve the Croatian language. Very wisely he started by collecting as much lexical material as possible, so as to have some hope for success in the great task of developing a unified literary language and orthography, at least as concerns the Croatian Latin alphabet. “Nevertheless,” he says, “whether we look either at word meaning, or at dialectal variations as they are reflected in the literature up until this time, we will always discover that there is much that is not found at all in these grammars, sermons and songs; nor is it contained in the school lists of root words …”⁴⁸ From among the writers he mentions Habdelić, Belostenec, Došen, Ivanošić, Kornig, Muliha, Mataković, Matijević, Kanižlić. In Vrhovac's opinion, the Croats did not yet have the kind of classical writers who would outdo one another like the writers, for instance, of the classical age of ancient Rome:

Therefore I think that for some scholars welcome help—if not the very wellspring of strength of the Illyrian language—is to be found in the general idiom of the clergy and the common masses of the people. For the purity, opulence and beauty of any language are determined first by common usage, and only secondarily by the authority of writers. Therefore, as perhaps was the case among the ancient Romans and elsewhere, we too can reap such beauty not only from ordinary folk. The literate, as well as the simple, often discover many a handy and worthy Illyrian word, and they preserve those words: The scholars, on the other hand, search in vain for those words. Not finding them, they introduce new ones, awkward ones. Thus they act against the advice of the philologists who say that it is wrong to coin new words where good words already exist, except in instances where new things must be named.⁴⁹

The wellspring of the native language must be sought among the masses of the people who are the real custodians of that national treasure. Vrhovac's entire letter to the clergy is a fervent appeal to collect that national treasure and to study it:

The common people are the loyal guardians of many chants which are instrumental in the development of the language. The prestige of the singer and poet is important in all languages, and so it is, likewise, among ourselves. Songs and poems preserve the memory of peace and war; of heroes and leaders; of customs and traditions; of the religious experience and the spirit of the people. Moreover, they reveal the character of words, the length or brevity of expressions, and the very genius of the whole language.⁵⁰

It is difficult not to recognize in the words of the Bishop an anticipation of Vuk's reform; an anticipation of the very principles that guided Vuk's work and of his persistence in publishing as much as possible of that national treasure: songs, proverbs, and stories. Vrhovac was, unquestionably, the forerunner who inspired Kopitar, Dobrovský, and others, and induced them to devote themselves to collecting the national treasure. That “lover of learning” and “patron of scholars” (Vrhovac) often pointed out the need to collect Croatian and Slavonian, that is Štokavian, words, so that the treasure of the language might be increased. The study of old books and manuscripts, especially by writers using the Slavonian dialect, in Vrhovac's view, would add to the strength, to the richness and beauty of the native tongue. Such study he perceived as being absolutely necessary toward an understanding of the language in all its dimensions. “I ask, and entreat, and beg you to send to me as quickly as possible all special Croatian and Slavonian words, proverbs, and fairy tales that you either have already collected or will collect in the future. Append for all words an elucidation of their power of expressiveness, their usage, meaning, and explications.”⁵¹

Up to the present, scholarly investigators have not sufficiently credited Maksimilijan Vrhovac for the role he played in the advancement and eventual introduction of the uniform “Illyrian” language and orthography, nor have they adequately sketched the results of his endeavors to get the whole national linguistic treasure collected. In the most recent monograph Putovima hrvatskoga književnog jezika, Zlatko Vince has devoted a minor chapter to this great pioneer and teacher, entitled, “The Activities of Maksimilijan Vrhovac in the Area of Culture and Language.”⁵² Nevertheless, it seems to us that the significance of Vrhovac's work is still not fully recognized. The same is true concerning the influence he exerted on his contemporaries through his enlightened ideas. An interpretation such as the following one does not seem to deserve any credence: “Inspired by Kopitar, Dobrovský and others, Vrhovac devoted ever more effort to the investigation of the language and to the collecting of the national treasure.”⁵³ We will be closer to the truth if we say that Kopitar first and foremost, Dobrovský to a certain degree, and others likewise followed in the footsteps of Vrhovac, who was not only the forerunner and impelling cause of a new revival period, the Croatian National Awakening, but who represents also the very confluence and synthesis of all previous efforts concerning the reform of the Croatian language. In him, these efforts reach their ultimate phase, namely the adoption of the Štokavian dialect by the speakers of Kajkavian.

As we have pointed out earlier, Vrhovac's activities found extensive response abroad. Being culturally and politically prominent, Vrhovac obtained permission from Emperor Francis II to establish in Zagreb a publishing house “de provehenda lingua illyrica,” as early as 1794. The publication of numerous writers both in Štokavian and in Kajkavian thus became possible.⁵⁴ The man who aroused the national consciousness and fostered the interest in folklore and in the language of the ordinary people was not merely a patron of many cultural and philological undertakings, but also their initiator.

3.3 Vrhovac's aforementioned letter of 1813 contains one very interesting item of information; he speaks of efforts to establish in Vienna a learned society for the study of the Illyrian language. “The association of men, presently being formed in Vienna, will bring out from obscurity the dialects of the Illyrian language, will study them and will make the language flourish to such a degree that it will become possibly better to understand, preserve, and increase its opulence, beauty and power.”⁵⁵

However, no further details are known about such an association or its actual foundation. It would be superfluous on several counts to try to prove that Kopitar knew about any initiative to found such an association because, for one, he was the central figure in Slavic philology in Vienna. For another, he constantly corresponded with Vrhovac, and he closely collaborated with him in many scholarly endeavors. Moreover, Vrhovac's meeting with Kopitar in Vienna in 1814, to discuss some important literary and linguistic matters, seems to bear out the same point. About the meeting, Kopitar wrote to Dobrovský on 24 June 1814:

I am invited day after tomorrow by Vrhovac to discuss the idea of a uniform and simple alphabet. This will be easier to discuss than actually to produce. Canon Korolija who has in manuscript a translation of the New Testament, and also another professor [this is understood to be Canon Marko Mahanović] have submitted all their comments in writing. That makes for greater ease and accuracy in the discussion.⁵⁶

Although earlier Šime Budinić of Zadar (1535-1600) had been aiming for a uniform latin-based orthography, the problem of adapting the latin alphabet to the Croatian language remained ever present. The problem arose de facto in the age of Humanism when the latin alphabet, together with the sum total of Latinity, had become the dominant factor of literature and culture in general in Dalmatia, and particularly in Dubrovnik. This problem of Croatian orthography refused to disappear until the time of Gaj's reforms.

3.4 At the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the conditions were favorable for political as well as for linguistic-literary unification, the desire to reorganize and simplify the orthography became strong not only among speakers of Štokavian in the Illyrian provinces and in Bosnia, but also among Kajkavian intellectuals. It is in this context that one has to mention the meeting between Vrhovac and Kopitar on 26 June 1814, in Vienna. In full recognition of Kopitar's prestige among Slavic scholars, and of his authority and tangible experience as the author of the Grammatik der slawishchen Sprache in Krain, Kärnten und Steyermark (1808), the Bishop of Zagreb arranged this important meeting with Kopitar after he had also prepared in advance the agenda for this meeting.

Some of the particulars in connection with that meeting are as follows. Canon Marko Mahanović (1773-1824), one of the Bishop's closest collaborators in linguistic matters, produced an extensive philological treatise under the title, Observationes circa Croaticam Orthographiam amatorum idiomatis Croatici gnarorum discussioni Zagrabiae Anno 1814 propositae.⁵⁷ These Observationes had to be the basis for the discussion with Kopitar. Present at the meeting, when it finally did take place, was also Canon Stjepan Korolija (1760-1825), who was, judging by Kopitar's letter to Dobrovský,⁵⁸ a very close associate of the Bishop. On the basis of Mahanović's elaboration in which he points with some emphasis to “eruditissimus linguae carniolae cultor,” and latter “celeberrimus linguarum slavicarum cultor, dominus Venceslaus Kopitar,” and “diligentissimus antiquitatum indagator Dominus Kopitar Venceslaus,” and similar additional phrases,⁵⁹ the chief and decisive voice at that meeting must have been Kopitar's. Moreover, that some document is good proof of Vrhovac's action to introduce one sole, common latin orthography for both Croatian and Slovene: “Sub uno regimine civile et uno alphabeto latino scribentes sunt Croatae, Slavonitae, Dalmatae et Carnioli ac alii.”⁶⁰ This, then, was the first Vienna meeting between the Croatians and Kopitar on topics of mutual interest.

Vrhovac was a pioneer, too, in this attempt to bring some uniform, systematic, overall order into the latin alphabet which at the time was using diverse complicated combinations of two, three, and sometimes four letters for a single sound. With the aforementioned document, Vrhovac anticipated Kopitar's notion of unifying at least “the Croatian, Dalmatian, and Carinthian orthography.”⁶¹

3.5 Mahanović's Observationes deserve the full attention of present-day linguists as well. The discussions of the past are still not evaluated, nor have they been given their due place in Croatian philology. The discussions are usually mentioned in extant scholarship in connection with the Kajkavian dialect. It needs to be pointed out that Kopitar, Dobrovský, and Miklošič counted Kajkavian in the collectivity of Slovene; in other words, Slovene included the Croatian Kajkavian speech, but did not include Croatian Štokavian.⁶²

During that romantic-positivistic age, when the first Slavic philologists were trying to get a clear overview of the authentic, unadulterated speech of the common people, it is not surprising that they confused the dialects with the literary language. In the given instance above, if we have in mind the authentic Kajkavian Croatian dialect, then we have to agree with Kopitar, who observed a great similarity between the Kajkavian speech and the Slovene language. However, the Kajkavian dialect that was being used in Croatian literature belonged to the “Illyrian” collectivity, and not to Slovene, as the adherents of the aforementioned theory would have it. After numerous analyses and investigations of more recent times this should no longer be a point of contention. It is in this regard also that the Observationes occupy a special place, because they illustrate how Kopitar's contemporaries—highly educated Croatian Kajkavians, the closest collaborators of Vrhovac—opposed Kopitar's thinking. Mahanović explains at great length why the Kajkavian writers belong to the Illyrian literary tradition; he cites a whole list of their most important works published between 1574 (Opus tripartitum …) and 1805, when “Pjesma od Ogulinaca vojnika po Demetrije Kosanoviću” appeared in Zagreb. These more than seventy printed works from the territory of Kajkavian Croatia (in the sixth section of Observationes: “Connotatio librorum in Croatico idiomate editorum”) leave no doubt about “solum modo videtur Croatica [that is, Kajkavian] ad Illyrica dialectus esse referenda.”⁶³ The same was later confirmed by Kristijanović, Gaj, and still more farsightedly by Ivan Derokos.⁶⁴ Ksaver Šandor Djalski sharply opposed this type of classification of the Kajkavian literary language, calling this sort of division a “terribilis error philologiae militantis.”⁶⁵ Definitely, this is an error that finds its roots in the age of positivism and is carried over, through neo-romanticism, all the way into the present.

Even the most cursory examination of Mahanović's Observationes points out how the author of that treatise spoke knowingly about the development of the language from the time of St. Cyril to his own time (De historia literaturae Croaticae—[1] Origo et civilis Croatarum status; [2] Religionis apud Croatas status; [3] Sermonis, dialecti et scripturae Croaticae origo). Mahanović pays special attention to the dialects ([4] Natura cujusvis dialecti et origo; [5] Illyricorum dialectorum species et mater), about which at that time neither Kopitar nor Vuk had any clear idea. Vuk, for his part, could learn about the philological and scholarly efforts of Vrhovac and his associates only through Kopitar. A letter of 10 March 1816, written in Šišatovac from Vuk to Kopitar, attests to that fact. In the letter, Vuk asks Kopitar to recommend him to the “Bishop of the Šokci, because I hope for little or nothing from our own.” “They seem,” says Vuk, “to think that the Serbian language will destroy their state of grace.”⁶⁶

4.0 At the center of Mahanović's treatise is a thorough analysis of the principles of orthography, of sources, and of various auxiliary means of recourse used in Croatian orthography; these topics are expounded in Chapters 2 and 3 (Caput [2] De generalibus orthographiae principiis; Caput [3] De fontibus et subsidiis orthographiae croaticae). Especially interesting is the section on tone and stress (De tonis et accentibus in linguis illyricis usitatis).⁶⁷ In that section Mahanović's comparative analysis of the diversity of stress illustrates how accurately he observed the changes in stress, considering that the rules governing those changes were defined only later, by Djuro Daničić.

In his longest chapter, Chapter 4, Mahanović speaks of the use of the latin alphabet among the Croatians (Caput [4] De latinarum literarum apud Croatas usu).⁶⁸ He dwells on each letter of the alphabet, analyzing the relationships between letters and sounds within the scheme of Croatian orthography. He pays special attention to those sounds of the language for which adequate graphic symbols had yet to be developed. Special points are made concerning diphthongs, vowel links and double consonants.

In a short section entitled “Corolaria”⁶⁹ Mahanović says among other things: “It is because the Illyrian language comprises the sounds and characteristics of a number of languages that the speaker of Illyrian easily learns other languages.” Later he adds: “At the same time, Illyrian has a high distribution of vowel sounds; therefore, like Italian, it lends itself well to singing (because of this, some people settled in Illyria since popular singing accompanied by the lyre, was a favorite pastime).” Kopitar crossed out these lines and wrote a note of caution: “non-subsistit haec deductio” (such a conclusion has no substance). Other than this, there are no major interventions to be found in the text of the Observationes. Chapter 5 treats syllabic stress and prosody (Caput [5] De accentu sylabarum et croatica prosodia). Chapter 6 states the rules of syllabification and the transfer (separation, division) of digraphs or multiple letter combinations representing one, two, or more sounds. Special attention is given in this context to the spelling of derived, compound words, and words undergoing flexion (Caput [6] De recta syllabarum divisione et translatione nec non vocibus compositis). In the last chapter, Chapter 7, he speaks of the use of capital letters, and of various shortcomings in Croatian orthography of that period (Caput [7] De magnarum literarum usu et croaticae orthographiae vitiis). And an “Appendix” summarizes the basic propositions and conclusions.⁷⁰

The outcome of this Vienna conference, the first of its kind, is not known. At least there are no traces of any further actions in conjunction with this event. In any case, this linguistic gathering (Vrhovac, Mahanović, Korolija, Kopitar) in Vienna, in 1814, needs further investigation and a detailed explanation as to why it produced no concrete results, despite the fact that it was based on very realistic and rigorous scholarly concepts, and had the prestige and authority of Bishop Vrhovac in its favor—Vrhovac, the initiator of a whole series of enlightened reformist actions, the exceptionally generous patron, the great patriot. During subsequent years, Vrhovac did not interrupt his correspondence with either Kopitar or Dobrovský.⁷¹ Further research may shed more light on this entire problem of the era before the Croatian National Awakening—an era during which that favorable atmosphere was created that eventually brought about the successful reforms of Gaj and Vuk Karadžić. Unquestionably a decisive role, not only in Vuk's ultimate triumph, but also in many other actions along the way—like the conference in Vienna in 1814—was played by Kopitar.

Notes

1. S. Graciotti, “Il problema della lingua letteraria nell'antica letteratura croata,” in Studi sulla questione della lingua presso gli Slavi, ed. R. Picchio (Rome, 1972), 121-62; id., “Il problema della lingua letteraria croata e la polemica tra Karaman e Rosa,” Ricerche slavistiche, XIII (1965), 120-62; id., “Introduzione” in the Italian edition of I. N. Goleniščev-Kutuzov, Il Rinascimento italiano e le letterature slave dei secoli XV e XVI, ed. S. Graciotti and J. Křesálková, 2 Vols. (Milan, 1973); L. Hadrovics, Zur Geschichte der einheitlichen kroatischen Schriftsprache (Budapest, 1942); R. Picchio, “Introduction à une étude comparée de la question de la langue chez les Slaves,” Etudes littéraires slavo-romanes (Studia historica et philologica-VI, sectio slavoromanica) (Florence, 1978), 159-96, especially 194-96; id., “Pour une étude comparée slavo-romane de la formation des systèmes littéraires slaves,” loc. cit., 7-22; id., “L'interprétation humaniste de l'histoire de Raguse de Giovan Mario Filelfo,” loc. cit. Cf. also Croatian works on that subject: F. Fancev, “Dubrovnik u razvitku hrvatske književnosti,” Ljetopis JAZU, 53 (1940), 104-39; J. Jurić, “Pokušaj ‘Zbora za širenje vjere’ god. 1627 da kod Južnih Slavena uvede zajedničko pismo,” Croatia Sacra, god. 4 (1934), 143-74; B. Vodnik, Povijest hrvatske književnosti, Bk. I, Od Humanizma do potkraj XVIII stoljeća (Zagreb, 1913); M. Kombol, Poviest hrvatske književnosti do Narodnog Preporoda (Zagreb, 1945), 53-404; Z. Vince, Putovima hrvatskoga književnog jezika: Lingvističko-kulturnopovijesni prikaz filoloških škola i njihovih izvora (Zagreb, 1978), especially 25-192.

2. V. Putanec, “Leksikografija,” Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, V (Zagreb, 1962), 503-508.

3. I. V. Jagič, Pis'ma Dobrovskago i Kopitara v povremennom porjadke, Vol. I (St. Petersburg, 1885), xxxix; Dobrovský's letters to Kopitar of 1 January 1810, (p. 80); February-6 March 1810 (p. 117); 7 August 1810 (p. 157); Kopitar's letters of 18 August 1810 (p. 165); 13 June 1811 (p. 206); J. D. Nagy, “Nekoliko pisama B. Kopitara F. M. Appendiniju (1811-1827),” Gradja za povijest književnosti hrvatske, IX (1920), the letter of 28 June 1811 (p. 111).

4. Jagič, Pis'ma, Kopitar's letter of 8 August 1810 (p. 160); Dobrovský's letter of 3 May 1812 (p. 259); J. Dobrovský, Slovanka, II, his review of Voltiggi's Ričoslovnik.

5. B. Vodnik, Stanojevićeva Enciklopedija (the article about Voltiggi) (Zagreb, 1929), p. 1147; Vince, op. cit., 163-64, footnote 190. Taking into account the fact that the whole question of the influence of Croatian grammarians and lexicographers upon Vuk Karadžić has not been adequately examined in Serbo-Croatian studies, we shall here not dwell upon the matter any further.

6. See Note 3.

7. Jagič, Pis'ma, xxxvii-xxxviii; Dobrovský's letter to Kopitar of 2 June 1813 (p. 340); 10 June 1812 (pp. 266-71); 22 June 1813 (pp. 353-54).

8. The activists of the Catholic Renewal had opted for the Dalmatian-Bosnian dialect, namely the language of Dubrovnik Renaissance literature, precisely because they recognized it as the most developed and the most widely used Štokavian dialect in the Balkans. Thus, this dialect had already been functioning for some two centuries as the basic literary idiom, gradually assuming that function also for regional literatures beyond the boundaries of Dalmatia and Dubrovnik. Consonant with fundamental laws concerning the development of literary languages, the Dubrovnik-Bosnian idiom absorbed, in the course of time, some characteristics of other dialects. One of the outcomes of this process is the formation of two basic variants of this literary language: Ijekavian-Štokavian and Ikavian-Štokavian, both of which are intrinsically members of the one literary code of the Illyrian, namely Croatian language. Compare most works treating a whole series of Bosnian, Slavonian or Kajkavian writers and confirming the ways in which the use of this Dubrovnik-Bosnian idiom spread; see Vince, op. cit., 38-192.

9. Lencek gives a detailed statement concerning this “Greek dialects theme” that dominates the entire early period of Kopitar's work. His statement contains quotes from Kopitar. Thus: “By accepting the analogy with Ancient Greek, however, the ultimate goal, i.e., an all-Slavic Schriftsprache, is bound to remain in ‘the gradual but certain course of Nature,’ in other words, in the remote future. In the meantime, a single spelling system could create ideal conditions for a universal Slavic intellectual community in which ‘the products of the talents of one tribe would be shared by all … as once in Olympia …’ Neither Kopitar nor those who after him entertained the Greek dialects theme could see the inner contradiction which their brilliant scheme contained in its very prerequisites.” (Rado L. Lencek, “Kopitar's Slavic Version of the Greek Dialects Theme,” Symbolae in honorem Georgii Y. Shevelov, Universitas Libera Ucrainensis, Facultas Philosophica, Studia T. 7, [Munich, 1971], p. 249).

10. See also a slightly different interpretation of the same Section I of the Vienna Literary Compact of 1850. It seems to me that the last two statements, namely, (a) and (b), reveal Kopitar's firm resistance to all proposals to achieve an amalgamated Slavic language by mixing the dialects mechanically or to introduce any arbitrary external intervention in the evolution of languages (Lencek, op. cit., p. 251).

11. V. Karadžić, Skupljeni spisi, Vol. III (Belgrade, 1896), p. 299.

12. “The foundation of a Jesuit upbringing was,” as Kombol aptly observed, “like a union of Christian philosophy and humanistic education acquired by reading the classics, especially Latin ones, and becoming acquainted with classical poetry and oratory. Although as a first order of business the Catholic Reformation intended to promote the spirit of faith among the Catholic populace through the humanistic orientation of its schools and the fostering of literature and refined style, as well as the arts and architecture, nevertheless it preserved the greater part of the cultural heritage of the Renaissance.” (Poviest hrvatske književnosti, p. 204.)

13. In particular, the notion that the Slavs to the North (the Czechs and Poles) descended from the South Slavs, namely from the Dalmatians. Likewise, the language of the Illyrians, that is Dalmatians, was proclaimed to be the oldest, and therefore the mother of all other Slavic languages. This claim is affirmed also by writings of certain Czech and Polish historiographers from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries. About this problem, see S. Graciotti, “Il pensiero del polacco Hosius (1558) sull'uso liturgico del volgare slavo,” Studi in onore di Arturo Cronia (Padova, 1967), 220-28; id., “Il problema della lingua letteraria nell'antica letteratura croata,” 126-27; id., “Introduzione,” 1-30.

14. R. Picchio, “Principles of Comparative Slavic-Romance Literary History,” American Contributions to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists, Zagreb and Ljubljana, September 3-9, 1978, Vol. 2, Literature, ed. Victor Terras (Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, Inc., 1978), 630-43 (summary in Russian, 641-43); id., “Introduction à une étude comparée de la question de la langue chez les Slaves,” 159-96; id., “Renaissance Drama and the Formation of Modern Slavic Literary Systems” (manuscript); Graciotti, “Introduzione,” 1-30.

15. “Croatian National Awakening” is used for the “hrvatski narodni Preporod,” i.e., the Illyrian Movement.

16. Graciotti, “Introduzione,” p. 24; Giovanna Brogi Bercoff, “Il Pribevo e Il regno degli Slavi di Mauro Orbini,” Ricerche slavistiche XXII-XXIII (1975-76), 137-54, with a survey of the previous literature.

17. “Gundulić was the ideal of Illyrian poets and he satisfied the fundamental requirements of the National Awakening”; see I. Frangeš, “Drevni glasi (Nacrt hrvatske književnosti do Preporoda),” in Forum, (March 1977), 319-73, especially p. 365.

18. I. Frangeš, “Evropski romantizam i hrvatski narodni preporod,” Studije i eseji (Zagreb, 1967), 7-28; M. Živančević, “Hrvatski narodni preporod i nacionalni književni pokreti u Evropi,” Hrvatska književnost u evropskom kontekstu, ed. A. Flaker and K. Pranjić (Zagreb, 1978), 313-40; I. Frangeš, “Umjetnost Ivana Mažuranića (nacionalna i evropska tradicija),” ibid., 341-62; A. Flaker, Stilske formacije (Zagreb, 1976), 65-67.

19. I. Frangeš, “Drevni glasi,” 319-73; M. Moguš, “Odnos iliraca prema kontinuitetu hrvatskog književnog jezika,” Prilozi VII medjunarodnom kongresu slavista u Varšavi, (Zagreb, 1973), 99-102; J. Vončina, “O kontinuitetu hrvatskoga književnog jezika od 15. do 18. stoljeća,” ibid., 165-76; Vince, op. cit., 1-269; H. Kuna, “Jezik fra Filipa Lastrića, bosanskog franjevca XVIII v.,” Djela XXVII, (Odjeljenje istorijsko-filoloških nauka, knj. 15, ANU BiH) (Sarajevo, 1967); id., “Udio franjevačke književnosti XVIII vijeka u stvaranju literarnog jezika zapadnog srpskohrvatskog područja,” Književni jezik I, br. 3-4 (1972), 41-61; id., “Jezik bosanske književnosti XVII i XVIII vijeka u svjetlosti književnojezičkog manira,” Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku, XIV/1 (1971), 33-52; id., “Štokavski u funkciji literarnog i standardnog jezika na kajkavskoj jezičkoj teritoriji (Kulturno-historijska analiza),” Književni jezik I, br. 1-2 (1972), 22-36; D. Brozović, “Uloga bosanskohercegovačkih franjevaca u formiranju jezika hrvatske književnosti i kulture-od Divkovića do fra Grge Martića,” Godišnjak Instituta za izučavanje jugoslavenskih književnosti u Sarajevu, br. 2 (1973), 25-53; id., “O ulozi Ljudevita Gaja u završnoj etapi hrvatske jezične unifikacije,” Radovi Instituta za hrvatsku povijest, 3 (1975), 35-63; id., “Hrvatski jezik, njegovo mjesto unutar južnoslavenskih i drugih slavenskih jezika, njegove povijesne mijene kao jezika hrvatske književnosti,” Hrvatska književnost u evropskom kontekstu, 9-83; I. Pederin, “Pojam jezičnog i književnog standarda kod bogoljubnog bogoslovca Stipana Margitića Jajčanina,” Kritika, br. 17 (1971), 211-74; M. Živančević, “Slavenska ideja od humanizma do ilirizma,” Zbornik Zagrebačke slavističke škole, 1 (1973), 137-46; S. Babić, “Jezik starih hrvatskih pisaca u Slavoniji,” Godišnjak Ogranka Matice hrvatske, (1968), br. 5, 71-84.

20. F. Fancev, “Uvod,” “Dokumenti za naše podrijetlo hrvatskoga preporoda (1790-1832),” Gradja za povijest književnosti hrvatske, XII (1933), VII-XLVI (Uvod), p. 320 (Dokumenti); id., “Hrvatski ilirski preporod jest naš autohtoni pokret,” Hrvatsko kolo XVI (1935); id., “Ilirstvo u hrvatskom preporodu,” Ljetopis JAZU 49 (1937); id., “Hrvatski preporod kao hrvatski opće narodni pokret,” Hrvatska revija, IX, 8 (1936), 412-27; F. Šišić, “O stogodišnjici ilirskog pokreta,” Ljetopis JAZU 49, (1937), 99-118; V. Novak, Vuk i Hrvati (Belgrade, 1967), especially 9-62.

21. Fancev, “Dokumenti,” X/XI; M. Moguš, “Pavao Vitezović kao jezikoslovac,” Zbornik Zagrebačke slavističke škole, II (1974).

22. F. Wollman, “Slovanství v jazykově literárním obrození u Slovanů,” Spisy Filosofické Fakulty v Brně, 52 (1958), especially 136-42; J. Šidak, Studije iz hrvatske povijesti XIX stoljeća (Zagreb, 1973), 3-124; id., “Austroslavizam i slovenski kongres u Pragu 1848,” Studije iz hrvatske povijesti za revolucije 1848-49 (Zagreb, 1979), 95-289; I. Leščilovskaja, “Austroslavizam i jugoslavizam u hrvatskoj nacionalnoj politici 1848. godine,” Radovi Instituta za hrvatsku povijest, 3 (1973), 285-98. Cf. the other articles in the same volume of Radovi devoted to the problems of the Illyrian movement and their activists; see too J. Pogačnik, “Jernej Kopitar and the Issue of Austro-Slavism,” in this volume.

23. D.A. Živaljević, “Kačić i srpski narodni guslari,” Bosanska vila, Vol. 8 (1893); B. Kovačević, “Kačić u Pomoravlju,” Prilozi za književni jezik, istoriju i folklor, X/2 (1930), p. 252; D. Vuksan, “Kačićeva pjesmarica u Metohiji,” ibid., p. 93; B. Kovačić, “Kačićeva pesmarica u Metohiji,” ibid., p. 246; F. Galinec, “O opsegu Kačićeva utjecaja,” Hrvatska revija, Vol. 10 (1937), 630-31; Iordan Trifonov, “Zografskata b”lgarska istorija,” Spisanie na BAN, LX (1940); B. St. Angelov, S”vremennici na Pajsi, Vol. I (Sofija, 1963), Razgovor ugodni, ed. T. Matić, Vol. I (Stari pisci hrvatski, knj. 27) (Zagreb, 1964), p. xxxv; Novak, Vuk i Hrvati, 16-25; cf. also: I. Pederin, “Grabovčeva koncepcija hrvatskog narodnog preporoda,” Kačić, II (1970), knj. 3; id., “Kačićev Razgovor ugodni naroda slovinskog-Susret srednjeg vijeka i modernog patriotizma,” ibid.; id., “Kačićeva književna terminologija i narodna pjesma,” Kritika, br. 16 (1971), 43-51; Frangeš, “Drevni glasi,” 364-68; I. Slamnig, “Hrvatska književnost osamnaestog stoljeća, njezini stilovi, veze i uloga u stvaranju nacionalnog jedinstva,” Hrvatska književnost u evropskom kontekstu, 282-83.

24. Vodnik, Povijest hrvatske književnosti, 316-18; Kombol, Poviest hrvatske književnosti, 326-27, 372-73; R. Bogišić (M. Franičević, F. Švelec), Povijest hrvatske književnosti u sedam knjiga, Vol. 3, Povijest hrvatske književnosti od Renesanse do Preporoda (Zagreb: Liber Mladost, 1974), 308-09, 317; Novak, op. cit., p. 25.

25. M. Janković, “Ossian kao poticaj za skupljanje pjesama kod Južnih Slavena,” Zbornik za narodni život i običaje Južnih Slavena, 38 (1954), 209-10; Novak, op. cit., p. 22.

26. Frangeš, “Drevni glasi,” p. 366; Slamnig, “Hrvatska književnost osamnaestoga stoljeća,” 285-86; M. Bošković-Stulli, “Usmena književnost u predromantičkim vidicima,” Hrvatska književnost u evropskom kontekstu, 289-311.

27. F. Fancev, “Dokumenti”; V. Deželić, Maksimilijan Vhrovac (1752-1827) (Zagreb, 1904); V. Novak, “Maksimilijan Vrhovac, 1752-1827,” Bratstvo, XXII (1928); Novak, Vuk i Hrvati, 25-62; Vince, op. cit., 165-71, S. Antoljak, “Jedan nepoznati akt o nacionalnom radu biskupa Maksimilijana Vrhovca,” Croatia Sacra, 7 (1937), 119-23.

28. Vince, op. cit., p. 167.

29. Deželić, “Maksimilijan Vrhovac,” 36-37; Novak, Vuk i Hrvati, p. 30; Vince, op. cit., 170-71.

30. F. Šišić, Hrvatska povijest, part III (Zagreb, 1913), p. 123.

31. Deželić, op. cit., p. 53; Novak, op. cit., p. 32.

32. Fancev, “Dokumenti,” 38-42; Novak, op. cit., 32-33; Vince, op. cit., 171-74.

33. J. Voltiggi, Ricsoslovnik illiricskoga, italianskoga i nimacskoga jezika (s'jednom pridpostavljenom grammatikom illi pismenstvom) (Vienna, 1803), xxxvii-xxxviii; see also: M. Breyer, “O Josipu Voltiću, Istraninu,” Vienac, Vol. 9 (1902); id., Prilozi k starijoj književnoj i kulturnoj povjesti hrvatskoj (Zagreb, 1904), 65-80; V. Dukat, Voltićev “Ričoslovnik,” Prilozi za književnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor, IX (1929), 19-31; V. Deželić, op. cit., p. 73.

34. Deželić, op. cit., p. 73.

35. Deželić, op. cit., p. 73; Novak, op. cit., p. 34; Vince, op. cit., p. 168.

36. Novak, op. cit., p. 34.

37. Jagič, Pis'ma, the letter of 21 April 1810, 138-39.

38. Fancev, “Dokumenti.” xxxii-xxxiii.

39. Jagič, Pis'ma, ibid.

40. Ibid.; Novak, op. cit., p. 34.

41. Jagič, op. cit., the letter of 30 September 1810, p. 171.

42. A. Pavić, Djuro Daničić, Rad JAZU, 77 (1885), 127-202; Novak, op. cit., p. 35.

43. Jagić, Neue Briefe von Dobrovsky, Kopitar und anderen Süd- und Westslaven (Berlin, 1897), the letter of 19 February 1812 (232-237).

44. Jagič, Pis'ma, 138-39; Deželić, op. cit., p. 187; Vince, op. cit., p. 169.

45. Novak, op. cit., p. 36; Deželić, op. cit., p. 130; Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, p. 543.

46. Fancev, “Štampani poziv biskupa Maksimilijana Vrhovca Rakitovačkoga od 26. lipnja 1813. svećenstvu zagrebačke biskupije zbog skupljanja knjiga, rukopisa i narodnog blaga,” “Dokumenti,” 60-62; Lj. Gaj, Danica, br. 24 (Zagreb, 1837), 93-96; S. Vraz, Kolo, Vol II (1842); J. Milaković, “Bibliografija hrvatske i srpske narodne pjesme,” Školski vjesnik, Vol. separatni otisak, (Sarajevo, 1908).

47. Fancev, “Dokumenti,” 60-62.

48. Ibid., p. 60.

49. Ibid., p. 61.

50. Ibid., p. 61.

51. Ibid., p. 62.

52. Vince, op. cit., “Djelatnost Maksimilijana Vrhovca na kulturnojezičnom planu,” 165-71.

53. Vince, op. cit., p. 169.

54. Novak, op. cit., 39-40; Vince, op. cit., p. 165; Fancev, “Dokumenti,” xxxix.

55. Fancev, op. cit., p. 62; M. Prelog, Slavenska renesansa (Zagreb, 1924), 133-34.

56. Jagič, Pis'ma, the letter of 24 June 1814 (p. 386); Fancev, “Dokumenti,” ibid.; Deželić, op. cit., p. 133; Novak, op. cit., p. 38.

57. Fancev, “Dokumenti,” 65-117.

58. Jagič, Pis'ma, p. 386.

59. Fancev, “Dokumenti,” pp. 65, 68, 101, 112.

60. Ibid., p. 116.

61. In his Grammatik Kopitar declares: “… the latin alphabet, uniting the Slavs with Europe, might be more advantageous, provided that its confusing graphic system becomes normalized and unified. There is a pressing need for the adoption of a uniform graphic system for all Western Slavs, or at least for all South Slavs while it is possible to reprint all their existing literature.” (R. Lencek, “Kopitar's Version of the Greek Dialects Theme,” p. 246); Jagič, Pis'ma, the letter of 8 August 1810, 159-60.

62. Vince, op. cit., p. 165.

63. Fancev, “Dokumenti,” p. 70.

64. Ibid., 198-206; 221-35; 273-96; 319-20; Vince, op. cit., 93-94, 164-65.

65. Vince, op. cit., p. 29.

66. Lj. Stojanović, ed., Vukova prepiska, Vol. I (Belgrade, 1907), p.156.

67. Fancev, op. cit., 75-77.

68. Ibid., 79-106.

69. Ibid., p. 105.

70. Ibid., 112-17.

71. Jagič, Pis'ma, the letters of 18 March 1815 (p. 400); 8 May 1822 (p. 473); 25 January 1823 (p. 485); 17 August 1825 (p. 525).