On Slaveno-Rusyn

SLAVIA ORIENTALIS TOM LIX, NR 1, ROK 2009

JĘZ Y K O Z N AW S T W O

Andrii DanylenkoNew York

Between the vernacular and Slaveno-Rusyn: the Huklyvyj Chronicle and the eighteenth-century Rusyn literary

language*

1. In a series of thought-provoking publications on the language question among the Subcarpathian Rusyns,1 Magocsi tried to substantiate a thesis about a separate ethno-linguistic identity of this national group.2 Rusinko3 asserted recently that Rusyns constitute an ethnic group with all the necessary objective characteristics – distinct speech, historical tradition, territory, customs – to become potentially a dis-

* This article is based on work supported by a 2007 Research Grant received from Dyson Col-lege at Pace University (New York) and a 2007 summer stipend from the Janineum Institute (Vienna, Austria). I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Norbert Brien, Director of the Library of the Insti-tute of Slavic Studies at Vienna University, and his colleagues for participating and assisting in my research. 1 I use the term ‘Subcarpathian’, modeled on the Czech/Slovak designation ‘Podkarpatská (Rus)’ (a province of Czechoslovakia in 1919–1938), in primarily the geographical sense, while retaining the term ‘Transcarpathian’ to refer to the Ukrainian dialects, spoken in what is today Ukraine, Slovakia (the Prešov region), and Poland (the Lemko region) (see František Tichý, “Písemnictví na Podkar-patské Rusi (Pohled s ptačí perspektivy),” in: J. Chmelař, S. Klíma, and J. Nečas, eds., Podkarpatská Rus (Praha: Orbis, 1923) 151–160. 2 Paul Robert Magocsi, The Shaping of the National Identity: Subcarpathian Rus’, 1848–1948 (Cambridge University Press, 1978) 272–275; Paul Robert Magocsi, “The language question among the Subcarpathian Rusyns,” in: Harvey Goldblatt, Ricardo Picchio, eds., Aspects of the Slavic Lan-guage Question, vol. 2: East Slavic (New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies, 1984) 65–86; Pavel Robert Magočij [Magocsi], “Jazўkovўj vopros,” in: Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., Rusyns’kўj jazўk (Opole: Instytut Filologii Polskiej, 2004) 85–112. 3 Elaine Rusinko, Straddling Borders: Literature and Identity in Subcarpathian Rus’ (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003) 9.

ANDRII DANYLENKO54

tinct nationality. Both scholars, however, are most concerned with a Rusyn literary standard4 as a cultural construction mediating ideological frameworks, thus providing one foundation for a Rusyn identity. The latter was allegedly shaped by several “offi -cial languages” – Church Slavonic (or Slaveno-Rusyn, as its Subcarpathian recension was called), Latin, Hungarian, Ukrainian, Russian, Czech, and Slovak.5

To make her position clear, Rusinko proceeded from a well-known study of Magocsi,6 who perceived Church Slavonic used in the Carpathian region to be of a Subcarpathian recension. However, some remarks are due here. It is useful to re-call the Moravian recension of Church Slavonic that emerged, according to Oltjanu, by the late 9th c. in northern Transylvania and Maramoroš (Hg. Máramaros, Rm. Maramureş).7 While introducing the term “Carpathian recension,” Oltjanu meant its two varieties, the older Moravian and the East Slavic recension (with local fea-tures) which appeared there later.8 Thus, the designation “Carpathian” tends to refer to a geographical and historical concept rather than a linguistic one. The interrelation of different recensions and their local features becomes somewhat convoluted if one takes into consideration the infl uence of Ukrainian (Meletian) Church Slavonic on the local dialects, as discussed by Baleckij.9

To use the conventional concepts of Ukrainian (Meletian) vs. Russian recension, Church Slavonic in eighteenth-century Subcarpathian Rus’ seems to have under-gone a switch from the Ukrainian recension to the Russian. According to Udvari, the Ukrainian recension is consistently represented in the Catechism (1698) and Primer

4 Premised on “the natural right of a people to […] exercise the right to free linguistic expres-sion,” Aleksandr D. Duličenko, “Carpatho-Rusyn in the context of regional literary languages of the contemporary Slavic world,” in: Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., A New Slavic language Is Born. The Rusyn Literary Language of Slovakia ([Boulder:] East European Monographs, 1996) 15, 9, noted that to investigate the genetic status of the Carpatho-Rusyn literary language is a separate question. Albeit peripheral and somewhat isolated, the dialect base of the Carpatho-Rusyn literary language, accord-ing to him, is connected with the Transcarpathian Ukrainian area (see Ivan Pan’kevič [Pan’kevyč], “Do pytannja henezy ukrajins’kyx lemkivs’kyx hovoriv,” in: Viktor Vladimirovič Vinogradov et al., eds., Slavjanskaja fi lologija. IV meždunarodnyj sjezd slavistov. Sbornik statej II (Moscow: Nauka, 1958): 164–199; Januš Riger [Janusz Rieger], “Stanovysko i zrižnycjuvanja “rusyns’kyx” dialektiv v Karpatax,” in: Paul Robert Magocsi, ed., Rusyns’kўj jazўk (Opole: Instytut Filologii Polskiej, 2004): 39ff., especially fn. 2). Contentiously, Duličenko, “Carpatho-Rusyn […]” 11, argued that, in the past [? – A.D.], the infl uence of the Ukrainian literary language in this region was insignifi cant. For a short survey of various genetic classifi cations of the Rusyn language (dialects), see Marc Stegherr, Das Russinische. Kulturhistorische und soziolinguistische Aspekte (Munich: O. Sagner, 2003) 113–120. 5 Rusinko 9. 6 Magocsi, “The language question among the Subcarpathian Rusyns” 68–69. 7 Pandele Oltjanu [Olteanu], “Nekotorye osobennosti slavjanskogo jazyka Transil’vanii,” Romanoslavica 2 (1958): 77–114. 8 Ibid. 82–98, 113–114. 9 Èmil’jan Baleckij, “Cerkovnoslavjanskij jazyk i slavjanskie dialekty (na osnovanii karpatskix ukrainskix dialektov),” Studia Slavica Hungarica 25 (1979): 31–36.

BETWEEN THE VERNACULAR AND SLAVENO-RUSYN… 55

(1699) of Joseph de Camillis (see fn. 18).10 In the parallel, Latin and Church Slavonic, text of the 1746 primer of Bishop Myxajlo Ol’šavs’kyj, Elementa puerilis institu-tionis in lingua latina. Načalo pysmenʺ dětemʺ kʺ nastavleniju na Latynskomʺ jazўkě, the Ukrainian recension is retained primarily in the non-liturgical part. For instance, the letter “Г” is transcribed hlahul, thus rendering the pharyngeal h in place of the ve-lar g.11 Finally, the predominance of the Russian recension asserts itself in the Primer of Bishop Ivan Bradač (1770), published in the “Illyrian” print shop of Joseph Kurz-beck in Vienna. The Primer was, in fact, a reproduction of the Kyiv primer of 1751.12

Returning to Rusinko’s reasoning, she argued that the continuity of the Slaveno-Rusyn standard was largely premised upon the blurred boundaries of the Rusyns’ literary and linguistic identity, caught between East and West in terms of religion and language.13 This split identity is purportedly traceable in seventeenth-century interpretative gospels and didactic miscellanies, comprising, for instance, various prayers, incantations, and koljadnykys. It is also observable, according to her, in original works, including the polemical treatises of Myxajlo Andrella of Rosvyhove (1637–1710), though his literary writings were rooted in the Galician literary tradi-tion14 or in the Ruthenian cultural model of the 17th c.15

For the discussion of the Rusyn literary language before the national awakening in 1848–1849, of paramount importance is Magocsi’s periodization of the Subcar-pathian language question, which, according to him, underwent fi ve stages from the

10 István Udvari, “Refl eksje o języku okólnika i utworów drukowanych J. De Camelisa (1641––1705) (Dane do ukraińskiego piśmiennictwa ofi cjalnego),” Salvica (Debrecen) 24 (1990): 45–56; see Lajos Szőke, “Reprint editions of Old Subcarpathian literacy,” Studia Slavica Hungarica 47 (2002), 202–205. 11 Elementa puerilis institutionis inlingua latina. Načalo pysmenʺ dětemʺ kʺ nastavleniju na Latyn-skomʺ jazўkě. Poveleniemʺ, y nakladomʺ B/o/holjubyvaho Myxajla Manuyla Olšavsky (Kolozsvár, 1746) 2, 40. I used a witness, held now at the New York Public Library, which was made by Hijador Stryps’kyj from the only extent copy; see Hijador Stryps’kyj, “Z staršoji pys’mennosty Uhors’koji Rusy,” Zapysky Naukovoho Tovarystva imeni Ševčenka 117–118 (1914): 179–195.Throughout the paper, I use the linguistic system of transliteration as recommended by the American Committee of Slavists. Note that the front (ь) and back (ъ) jers are rendered only for the Middle Period by one or two prime acutes correspondingly; for this period only, ў stands for the jerў; see George Y. Shevelov, A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1979) 21. 12 Evgenij Perfeckij, “Pečatnaja cerkovno-slavjanskaja kniga Ugorskoj Rusi v XVII-m i XVIII-m vekax,” Izvestija Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti 21.2 (1916): 277–294; Ištvan Udvari, Obrazčiky z istoriji pudkarpats’kyx Rusynuv. XVIII. Stolїtije. Izhljadovanja z istoriji kul’tury i jazyka (Užhorod: V. Padjak, 2000) 180; Szőke, “Reprint editions of Old Subcarpathian literacy” 204. 13 Rusinko 40–64; cf. Oleksa Myšanyč, Kriz’ viky. Literaturno-krytyčni ta istoriohrafi čni statti j doslidžennja (Kyiv: Oberehy 1996) 128–143. 14 Tichý, “Písemnictví na Podkarpatské Rusi (Pohled s ptačí perspektivy)” 151. 15 Andrii Danylenko, “Polemics without polemics: Myxajlo Andrella in Ruthenian (Ukrainian) literary space,” Studia Slavica Hungarica 53 (2008): 12–46.

ANDRII DANYLENKO56

17th c. to the present.16 During the fi rst stage, from the late 17th to early 18th cc., mainly church books and religious polemics were produced. In these early publica-tions, predominance of the vernacular is allegedly most evident, being infl uenced by Lutheranism and Calvinism spreading in northeastern Hungary, with their stress on translations of the Bible into living languages.17 Consequently, religious disputes between the Uniate and Orthodox adherents might well have triggered the production of polemical works.18

I will outline here a somewhat modifi ed vista of the Subcarpathian language question in the 17th to 18th cc. First of all, this period can be extended as far back as the second half of the 16th c. Suffi ce it to mention the sixteenth-century Njagove postilla (NP), extant in the 1758 copy found by Petrov and in the seventeenth-century witness discovered in the 1930s in Tekove (Ugosca province).19 Largely infl uenced

16 Magocsi, “The language question among the Subcarpathian Rusyns” 66. 17 Magočij [Magocsi], “Jazўkovўj vopros” 87ff.; cf. Vasyl’ Mykytas’, Davnja literatura Zakar-pattja. Narysy literatury Zakarpattja doby feodalizmu (Lviv: L’vivs’kyj universytet, 1968) 149. 18 Magocsi, “The language question among the Subcarpathian Rusyns” 67–68, was quick to con-nect the appearance of Andrella’s works with the publication of a Catechism (1698) and Primer (1699) by Joseph De Camillis (1641–1706), the fi rst Greek Catholic bishop of Mukačeve (Hg. Munkács, Rus. Mukačevo). Indeed, Andrella castigated not only the bishop, unfamiliar with the local language, but also Ioan Kornyc’kyj, a Galician monk, who translated the above Catechism into Church Slavonic of the Meletian recension with a plethora of Polonisms (Udvari, “Refl eksje o języku okólnika […]” 46–47; Georgij Gerovskij, “Jazyk Podkarpatské Rusi,” in: Československá vlastivĕda, vol. 3 (Praha: Sfi nx, 1934): 460–517). Yet Andrella was fastidious about all the Catholic and Orthodox proselytes to the Uniate Church. In addition, Andrella’s major treatises, Logosʺ and Obrona vĕrnomu každomu č(o)l(o)v(ĕ)ku (‘Defense for the Faithful Each Man’) were written somewhat earlier than De Camil-lis’s works, although Andrella worked on the canonical texts of his treatises until the early 18th c.; cf. Evmenij Sabov, Xristomatija cerkovno-slavjanskix i ugro-russkix literaturnyx pamjatnikov (Ungvar: Kelet, 1893), 186; Aleksej Petrov, Materialy dlja istorii Ugorskoj Rusi, vol 4 (St. Peterburg, 1906), 28; Ivan Pan’kevyč, “Myxayl Orosveguvskij čy Myxayl Theodul,” Naukovўjj zbornyk tovarystva “Prosvĕta” v Užhorodĕ za 1925 rôk 4 (1925): 5–11. 19 See Gerovskij, “Jazyk Podkarpatské Rusi” 485–486; idem., “Otčёt o zanjatijax G. Gerovskogo po istorii pis’mennogo jazyka Podkarpatskoj Rusi,” Ročenka slovanského ústavu X: Za rok 1937 (Praha: Orbis, 1928) 79–82. The time frame allotted by Magocsi for the fi rst stage looks also some-what fuzzy in the light of the chronology as posited by Julian A. Javorskij, Novye rukopisnye naxodki v oblasti starinnoj karpatorusskoj pis’mennosti XVI–XVIII vekov (Praha: Orbis, 1931); Julian A. Ja-vorskij, Materialy dlja istorii starinnoj pesennoj literatury v Podkarpatskoj Rusi (Praha: Orbis, 1934), for the written records extant from Subcarpathia of the 16th–17th cc. Magocsi’s chronology gets becomes less convincing if one takes into consideration earlier records. It is worthwhile mentioning the Tereblja prolohʺ and a Didactic Apostol of Gerlaxov (late 16th c.), both written in the Euthymian Church Slavonic spelling. The former collection is particularly interesting from the viewpoint of its language, containing, in addition to Slavonic scriptural texts, didactic interpretations in Ruthe-nian, though with an admixture of regional features (Javorskij, Novye rukopisnye naxodki […] 9–41, 101–109). More archaic appear the oldest dated Subcarpathian documents, the so-called Mukačevo Psaltyr’ of the 15th c. of the Moldavian provenance (Ivan Sokolov, Mukačevskaja psaltyr’ XV veka,” Sbornik statej po slavjanovedeniju, sostavlennyj i izdannyj učenikami V. I. Lamanskogo po slučaju 25-letija ego učёnoj i professorskoj dejatel’nosti (Sankt-Peterburg, 1883) 450–468) and especially


by the Reformation,20 the NP was written in relatively pure Ruthenian with a total of Magyarisms and other borrowings slightly exceeding three percent of all the lex-emes.21 Church Slavonicisms were introduced by subsequent amanuenses who tried to correct numerous “mistakes” of the manuscript “phrased in a very vulgar manner” (“duže sprosta”).22 Yet what is crucial for furthering our understanding of the earli-est developmental round as outlined by Magocsi, is that the NP, written in the local vernacular, and Andrella’s polemical works, premised on Meletian Church Slavonic, can tentatively be placed at the opposite ends of a scale of language normalization which, fuzzy as it may appear, demonstrates a wide range of transitional dignities and norms.23

Second, Protestantism, which proved so signifi cant in fi rmly establishing verna-cular languages in Church use in Western and Central Europe, never played an im-portant role in the Ruthenian lands, while disappearing from there altogether in the late 17th c.24 According to Petrov, Orthodox readers could hardly adopt something radically new on the language question from Protestant devotional works.25 Admis-sible in the East Slavic ritual and liturgical practice, Church Slavonic was always more intelligible as compared with Latin and other non-Slavic liturgical languag-es. Generally, vernacularization of the NP’s language was triggered by two factors.

the Užhorod Polustavʺ, a collection of prayers, psalms, monastic rules, and calendar tables, from the second half of the 14th c. which was written in pre-Euthymian Church Slavonic with a touch of regional (eastern Subcarpathian) features, e.g., the use of sequences hy, ky, xy instead of hў, kў, xў, the hypercorrect epenthetic l, 1 pl. imperative in -mo. It is believed to have been copied in the Hrušiv Saint Michael’s monastery in Maramoroš from the polustavʺ of the Kyivan Crypt monastery, which might have been brought to Subcarpathia by a monk in the retinue of Fedor Korjatovyč (Olek-sander Kolessa, “Užhorods’kyj “Polustavъ,” u pergaminovij rukopysi XIV v.,” Zapysky Naukovoho Tovarystva imeni Ševčenka 141–143 (1925): 1–59). We are left, therefore, with a somewhat fuzzy pre-fi rst stage of the development of the language question in Subcarpathia, with the predominance of Church Slavonic blended with Ruthenian, as was the case in the Ruthenian lands of the Polish Crown. 20 Aleksej Petrov, Otzvuk reformacii v russkom Zakarpat’e XVI v. (Praha: La Société Royale des Sciences de Bohême, 1923) (Mémoire de la Société Royale des Sciences de Bohême. Classe des Lettres. Année 1921–1922) 71, 88–103. 21 Laslo Dèžё [László Dezsö], Delovaja pis’mennost’ rusinov v XVII–XVIII vekax. Slovar’, analiz, teksty (Nyíregyháza: Ukrán és Ruszin Filológiai Tanszék, 1996) (Studia Ukrainica et Rusinica Nyíregyháziensia, 4) 199. 22 Petrov, Otzvuk reformacii v russkom Zakarpat’e XVI v. 59–60. 23 Julian A. Javorskij, “Značenie i mesto Zakarpat’ja v obščej sxeme russkoj pis’mennosti,” in: Jiří Horák et al., eds., Sborník prací I. sjezdu slovanských fi lologů v Praze 1929, vol. 2: Přednašky (Praha: Orbis, 1932), 74–89. 24 Michael Lacko S. J. Unio Užhorodensis Ruthenorum Carpaticorum cum Ecclesia catholica (Roma: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1955) 25–27; Mixail Vladimirovič Dmitriev, “Izmenenija v kul’turnoj i idejnoj žizni Reči Pospolitoj v èpoxu Reformacii i pravoslavnoe obščestvo,” in: Boris Nikolaevič Florja, ed., Brestskaja unija 1596 g. i obščestvenno-političeskaja bor’ba na Ukraine i v Belorussii v konce XVI – načale XVII v., part 1 (Moscow: Indrik, 1996), 42–60. 25 Petrov, Otzvuk reformacii v russkom Zakarpat’e XVI v. 64–67.

ANDRII DANYLENKO58

In addition to the infl uence of Western Protestantism, the language question in this record was primarily shaped by the indigenous Slavic Orthodox tradition of “linguis-tic democratism,” rooted, as I believe, in the proselytizing technique of Cyril and Methodius.26

Finally, one should bear in mind that, in the aftermath of the Užhorod union of 1646, the Uniates did not produce polemical literature capable of reining in the in-fl uence of the defenders of the “old faith.” Moreover, numerous translated works and original didactic miscellanies and interpretative gospels, originating primarily in eastern Subcarpathia, did not bring about polemics of the caliber obtaining in the Ruthenian lands after the Union of Brest in 1596.27 As a consequence, the ideological struggle between the Union and the “old faith” in Subcarpathian Rus’ did not become voiced in literary form as polemical tracts, save perhaps for Andrella28 whose works remained without a major written response from his opponents.29

One is left, therefore, with two options. First, a scholar may revise the chrono-logical framework of the fi rst, pre-modern round in the development of the literary language(s) in Subcarpathian Rus’ suggested by Magocsi and instead offer a perio-dization of the history of literature. Second, and I choose this option, one may focus on the “linguistic content” of the pre-modern round, roughly from the late 17th to the late 18th cc., in which the vernacular predominated in theological and ecclesiastical prose, as well as in oral folk poetry, and was subsequently superseded by Church Slavonic.30

26 Andrii Danylenko, “On the names(s) of the prostaja mova in the Polish-Lithuanian Common-wealth,” Studia Slavica Hungarica 51.1–2 (2006): 97–121. 27 Ivan Franko, Karpatorus’ke pys’menstvo XVII–XVIII vv. (Lviv 1900) (Zapysky Naukovoho Tovarystva imeni Ševčenka 37.5 (1900): 1–91, 38.6 (1900): 91–162). 28 Andrella’s style and language do not belong only in the heterogeneous culture of the Rusyns as argued by Rusinko 45-52. His religious allegiances and language show that Andrella fi ts well into a wider cultural context as observed somewhat earlier in the Ruthenain lands of the Polish Crown. As was practiced by the Ruthenian (both Ukrainian and Belarusian) authors (e.g., Simeon Poloc’kyj, Ivan Velyčkovs’kyj, Stefan Javors’kyj, Dmytro Tuptalo (Tuptalenko), Lazar Baranovyč), Andrella also used Church Slavonic and the prostaja mova in complementary distribution (Danylenko, “Polemics without polemics […]”). In his polemical works, written in Church Slavonic in defense of the “old faith,” he resorted in some narratives to the prostaja mova and even to the local vernacular; due to the multilingual environment in Subcarpathia, Andrella’s language was also open to various bor-rowings. However, his language was not cardinally different from the prostaja mova used in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. 29 Among other polemical works aimed against the precepts of Catholics, Uniates, and Protes-tants, Javorskij, “Značenie i mesto Zakarpat’ja v obščej sxeme russkoj pis’mennosti” 81, mentioned the treaties O presvjatoj Trojcě (‘On the Holy Trinity’) (16th–17th cc.), O presvětlomʺ Sioně (‘On the Illustrious Sion’) (mid-17th c.), as well as Tractatus contra latinos et graeco-catholicos, written in “Carpatho-Rusyn.” 30 Rusinko 52–63.


The vernacular paradigm of the fi rst round warrants clarifi cation. It is pertinent to distinguish the “bookish” vernacular standard like the prostaja mova (Ruthenian) used from the late 14th to the early 18th cc. from a plain vernacular31 which is found in the early seventeenth-century interludes and which later became integrated in the foundations of the new Ukrainian standard language.32 The thesis about the predomi-nance of Church Slavonic during the ensuing round also needs revision, especially if one looks into the tripartite relationships between Church Slavonic, Ruthenian, and the plain vernacular. Incidentally, the fi rst round coincided with the enlightened despotism of Maria Therese, empress of Austria and queen of Hungary (1717–1780), and the administration of Bishop Andrij Bačyns’kyj (1732–1772–1809), consecrated during the reign of Maria Therese.33

2. The role of Andrij Bačyns’kyj, the fi rst bishop of the independent Rusyn eparchy in Mukačeve was of perennial importance for the stimulation of Rusyn na-tional culture. However, the educational reforms of Bačyns’kyj, ushered in by the 1777 ratio educationis of Maria Therese’s government, did not stop the decline of knowledge of Church Slavonic, with Ruthenian extinct much earlier in these lands. Under pressure of Latinized ecclesiastical culture propagated in more than 300 paro-chial and theological schools, the priests and even their wives began using “kitchen Latin” outside of liturgical use at that time.34 As the main custodians of the regional self-identity and linguistic tradition, the Uniate clergy deemed it necessary to retain Church Slavonic not only as secular-religious literary language, but also as the main

31 Andrii Danylenko, “‘Prostaja mova’, ‘Kitab’, and Polissian Standard,” Die Welt der Slaven 51.1 (2006), 85–92. I am thankful to Dr. Michael S. Flier who suggested this term at the Seminar in Ukrainian Studies at the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute on 16 October 2006. I will reserve this term for a common vernacular with a conspicuous lack of standardized (and naturalized loan) elements. Showing obvious regional features, the plain vernacular is largely premised on a particular dialectal basis. 32 Andrii Danylenko, “The new Ukrainian standard language (1798): tradition vs. innovation,” American Contributions to the 14th Congress of Slavists in Ohrid, Macedonia, 2008 (forthcoming). 33 This period overlaps with the second, Middle period, in the periodization of Aleksandr Duličenko, “Das Russinische,” in: Peter Rehder, ed., Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen (Darmstadt: Wissen-schaftliche Gesellschaft, 1998) 135, thus stretching from the late 17th c. to the second half of the 18th c. A difference lies not so much in the chronology proposed by Duličenko as in the context of the cor-responding linguistic processes. Taking the late 17th c. as a starting point, I mark therewith the begin-ning of the demise of the prostaja mova in the Ruthenian lands, thus placing the periodization of the language question in Subcarpathia and Prešov Rus’ in the all-Ukrainian context. On the other hand, the years 1772–1809 of administration of Andrij Bačyns’kyj herald the appearance of jazyčije as cul-tivated at the bishop’s offi ce (see sections 2 and 4). Duličenko is cautious in characterizing the main language(s) of this period. In addition to Church Slavonic, predominantly used during this period, the vernacular (die Volkssprache) was also actively introduced in some Rusyn texts, including the NP. Duličenko does not specify which of the two witness he means, although they differ in the orthogra-phy and language features (Pandele Olteanu, P. Olteanu, “Postilla de Neagovo” în lumina “Cazaniei I” a diaconului Coresi (cca. 1564),” Romanoslavica 13 (1966): 105–131, especially 105–109). 34 Sabov 190; Petrov, Materialy dlja istorii Ugorskoj Rusi 26–27.

ANDRII DANYLENKO60

means of everyday communication with the parishioners who were en mass illiter-ate, particularly in Latin. However, since both the common people and the lower clergy were poorly versed in Church Slavonic, the priests resorted also to the (plain) vernacular elements, introducing them along with Ruthenian and loan elements into Church Slavonic.35

Having analyzed the Rusyn administrative koiné as used throughout the entire 18th c. in the chancelleries of Subcarpathian Greek Catholic bishops, Udvari tried to present the interrelation between the above-mentioned languages in an historical and functional perspective.36 According to him, in the fi rst half of the 18th c., the admin-istrative language was premised primarily on the vernacular and Middle Ukrainian (Ruthenian) elements as cultivated in the Galician chanceries.37 In the 50s–60s of the 18th c., the Rusyn literati, headed by Bishop Myxajlo Ol’šavs’kyj (1700–1743–1767) and his successor, Bishop Ivan Bradač (1732–1767–1772), tended to synthesize the (local) vernacular with Middle Ukrainian (Ruthenian) as used in the late 17th-early 18th cc.38 Finally, from the 70s–80s onward, the language of the circulars, dealing with both secular and ecclesiastical matters and issued by the chancellery of Bishop Andrij Bačyns’kyj, began demonstrating an archaizing tendency to use primarily Church Slavonic of the Meletian (Ukrainian) recension, albeit with a Russian tinge, at the cost of a diminishing share of Ruthenian. Udvari argued that the roots of jazyčije, the literary language of Subcarpathia in the 19th c., are traceable back to the lan-guage norm as cultivated at Bačyns’kyj’s chancellery.39 Thus, according to Udvari, the jazyčije is not a haphazard phenomenon but the result of a long literary practice at the bishop’s offi ce.40

2.1. In order to get a fuller picture of the language question in eighteenth-century Subcarpathian Rus’, it is illuminating to analyze the texts generated by a representa-tive of the so-called “middle-class” clergy mediating the upper echelon of the church hierarchy and the lower clergy together with the peasantry. Holding an intermediate position in the church hierarchy, such a person would serve as a transmitter of the circulars, dealing with state affairs, educational, and ecclesiastical matters and issued by the bishop’s chancellery for dissemination in all parishes and decanal districts. Ideally, such a priest should be highly versed in the administrative koiné, inasmuch as

35 Franko 3–4. 36 Ištvan Udvari [István Udvari], “Materialy k istorii karpatorusinskoj pis’mennosti. Okružnye poslanija Mixaila Grigašija (1758–1823),” Studia Slavica Hungarica 40. 1995: 311–330. 37 František Tichý, Vývoj současného spisovného jazyka na Podkarpatské Rusi (Praha: Orbis, 1938) 14–15. 38 Udvari Obrazčiky [...] 215–216. 39 Udvari Obrazčiky [...] 216. 40 Ibid.; for critical comments, see Andrii Danylenko, “The formation of new standard Ukrainian. From the history of an undeclared contest between Right- and Left-Bank Ukraine in the 18th c.,” Die Welt der Slaven 53.1 (2008) 85–87, especially fn. 1.


he had to copy the offi cial documents into the so-called protocollium, while correctly conveying their content to his parishioners.41 He also needed to utilize the standard vernacular (prostaja mova) in non-administrative genres concerned with the everyday life of parishioners, e.g., pomjanyky, marginal notes in the church books, chronicles of local events, etc.42 By comparing the administrative koiné and the common ver-nacular of such a speaker, and the level of their synthesis, if any, in literary practice, one can ascertain to what extent we can speak, in the time of Bačyns’kyj, of a proto-typical Rusyn standard (jazyčije).

Let me introduce here the fi gure of Myxajlo Grygašij/Hryhaš(ij) (MUkr. Myxayl Grygašĕ) (1758–1823). A native of Lazorpotok in Bereg (Ukr. Berehove) province and the son of a serf, Matvij Gryga (Matheas Griga, incola Lazorpatakensis), he received a theological education in the Užhorod seminary and served all his life as a priest in the village of Huklyvyj (Hg. Zugó).43 The only promotion in his career seems to have been his consecration as archdeacon of the Máramaros district in 1792.44 As archdeacon, Grygašij issued a number of circulars (29) concerned with matters ecclesiastical as well as educational.45 The language of his circulars was analyzed in detail by Udvari, who concluded that the tendency, though cut short at Bačyns’kyj’s chancellery, to employ the vernacular in the offi cial language, was to some extent retained at small administrative church sites. At this point, it would be also expedient to analyze the non-administrative texts of Grygašij which remained beyond the scope of Udvari’s research.

Grygašij is known to have copied and added new entries to the chronicle of events occurring in the village of Huklyvyj from 1660 to 1830, with the title Novějšaja, jaže kohda slučyšasja ‘New (events) which ever happened’ (LH, 1660/1).46 As early as

41 Udvari, “Materialy k istorii karpatorusinskoj pis’mennosti [...]” 318. 42 Petrov, Materialy dlja istorii Ugorskoj Rusi 34. 43 Udvari, “Materialy k istorii karpatorusinskoj pis’mennosti [...]” 311, cites another form of this name, i.e., Guklive, thereby disregarding a warning by Jaroslav Bilen’kyj [Stryps’kyj], “Uhrorus’ki litopysni zapysky,” Zapysky Naukovoho Tovarystva imeni Ševčenka 104.4 (1911) 74, that one deals here with the place name Huklyvyj and not Huklyve or Huklyva (cf. Petrov Materialy dlja istorii Ugorskoj Rusi 35). Today, the name of the village Huklyve (Volovec’ district, Transcarpathian region) is found in the register of towns and cities on the offi cial site of the Supreme Council of Ukraine at <http://gska2.rada.gov.ua/pls/z7502/A005?rdat1=20.10.2003&rf7571=11174> [accessed 3 June 2007]. The derivational model of the name Huklyvyj seems to be regional and reminiscent of the West Slavic pattern (cf. Cz. Huklivý) (Max Vasmer, Herbert Bräuer, eds., Russisches Geographisches Namenbuch, vol. 2. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1966) 605); cf. Ukr. hučlyvyj, hučnyj ‘noisy’; see Oleksandr Savyč Mel’nyčuk et al., eds., Etymolohičnyj slovnyk ukrajins’koji movy, vol. 1 (Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1982) 615. 44 Udvari, “Materialy k istorii karpatorusinskoj pis’mennosti [...]” 311. 45 Udvari, “Materialy k istorii karpatorusinskoj pis’mennosti [...]” 312–313. 46 All examples from the Huklyvyj Chronicle (Ukr. Litopys’ Huklyva – LH) are identifi ed by years and pages as found in Bilen’kyj, “Uhrorus’ki litopysni zapysky,” who was the fi rst to publish the entire chronicle. As early as 1893, Sabov published an excerpt (entries under the years 1660, 1699, 1702),

ANDRII DANYLENKO62

1780, he began recording, in the church birth and death registry, local (as well as some regional) events: the revolt of Prince Ferenc Rákóczi II, the death of Russian empress Catherine II, the 1812 defeat of Napoleon’s army in Russia, and the like. New entries were added after his death and, interestingly enough, the entries under the years 1821 and 1830 were made by another person in Latin. This chronicle has generally been treated as a signifi cant literary and historical achievement, heralding “the infusion of the vernacular into the Church books” (Mykytas’ 1968, 146; Bevzenko 1959),47 and compared stylistically and even linguistically with the chronicles written in Russian-ruled Ukraine.48 Thus, Tichý argued that the text of the LH, together with the miscel-lany of the priest Stefan Teslevcevyj, the Homilary Gospel from Danylove, and the polemical works of Myxajlo Andrella, belonged to the “golden age” of Subcarpathian literature.49

3. The whole text of the chronicle (up to the year 1780) was either copied or writ-ten by Grygašij, who also authored a series of administrative documents (circulars, letters, etc.). Thus, one can consider the language of the LH as a manifestation of one and the same language system—adjustable, if need be, to various narratives. A study of the LH should be conducted against the backdrop of the administrative use of Grygašij’s language as described by Udvari.

3.1. The phonetics reconstructed in the language of the LH are reminiscent of Grygašij’s circulars. I will limit myself to the most representative features.

The labialization of l (> [w]) in word-fi nal position in the preterit is realized in the circulars “almost consistently.”50 In the LH, Grygašij again prefers labialised forms of the type slědova(v)/ʺ/ (m. sg. pret.) ‘follow’ (1793/79) (more than 50x), and uses them in the pluperfect, e.g., bўv yzhynu(v)/ʺ/ (m. sg. pret.) ‘get spoilt’ (1665/76) (more than 10x). I have found in the entire text only three examples without labializa-

albeit with some misspellings and wrong readings, e.g., ovoščov in place of ovoco(v)/ʺ/ (gen. pl.) ‘fruit’ (LH, 1660/76). A nother publication was prepared by Petrov (Materialy dlja istorii Ugorskoj Rusi 34–37) who also introduced some erroneous spellings, e.g., žebrakў in place of žebraky (m. pl.) ‘poor man’ (LH, 1783/78), or měsjaca (1699) instead of měsjacja with the palatalized c’ (Central Transcarpathian); see Fedot Troxymovyč Žylko, Narysy z dialektolohiji ukrajins’koji movy (Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1966), 214; Ivan Paňkevič [Pan’kevyč], Narys istoriji ukrajins’kyx zakarpats’kyx hovoriv, part 1: Fonetyka. Praha, 1958 (Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Philologica, 1) 103. Some typos are also found in Bilen’kyj’s publication, though they are not likely to affect our study; cf. Stepan Pylypovyč Bevzenko, “Iz sposterežen’ nad movoju litopysnyx zapysok iz s. Huklyvoho,” Dopovidi ta povidomlennja Užhorods’koho universytetu. Serija fi lolohična 4 (1959): 39–43. Examples from the district circulars written/copied or edited by Grygašij are excerpted from the addendum to Udvari’s study of 1995; I provide the number of a circular and, in case Udvari cites a particular circular in the study itself, the number of a page. 47 Mykytas’, Davnja literatura Zakarpattja […] 146; Bevzenko, “Iz sposterežen’ […].” 48 Shevelov, A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language 708; “Formuvannja i rozvytok ukrajins’koji literaturnoji movy,” Movoznavstvo 6 (1985): 11–20. 49 Tichý, “Písemnictví na Podkarpatské Rusi (Pohled s ptačí perspektivy)” 152. 50 Udvari, “Materialy k istorii karpatorusinskoj pis’mennosti [...]” 320.


tion: bў(l)/ʺ/ (m. sg. pret.) ‘be’ (1789/76, 1783/78) and yzmalova(l)/ʺ/ (m. sg. pret.) ‘paint’ (1784/77); the form bў(l)/ʺ/ occurs also three times as an auxiliary next to the participle in -vʺ in the pluperfect, e.g., upa(v)/ʺ/ bў(l)/ʺ/ (m. sg. pluperf.) ‘begin’ (1813/81).

In the administrative language, Grygašij distinguishes orthographically between y/i and ў; he also retains the original sequences kў, hў, xў, and gў, typical of Central Transcarpathian, including his native Volovec’ (Central Verxovyna) dialect.51 In the LH, y/i and ў do not as a rule coalesce: e.g., solomў (gen. sg.) ‘hay’, morozў (m. pl.) ‘freezing temperature’, mўšy (f. pl.) ‘mouse’ (1787/77), Huklyvcy (pl.) ‘inhabitant of the village Huklyve’ (1784/77); cf. proxodўly (pl. pret.) ‘occur’ (1783/78) next to xo-dyly (pl. pret.) ‘go’ (1789/79). However, Grygašij often breaks the original sequences, e.g., velykўj (1796/80, 1798/80) next to velykij (m. sg.) ‘big’ (1719/76), xўžě (1660/75, 1795/79, 1812/81) next to xyžě (acc. pl. f.) ‘house’ (1787/77, 1783/78, 1790/79), also remeselnykў (m. pl.) ‘artisan’ (1783/78), Turkў (m. pl.) ‘Turk’ (1789/79), marhў (1813/81) next to marhy (gen. sg. f.) ‘cattle’ (1789/79) (Hg. marha), žebraky (m. pl.) ‘poor man’, etc. The sequences ky/ki, hy/hi, xy/xi, and gy/gi are likely to refl ect a Ruthenian literary norm spreading via Galicia.52

In Grygašij’s administrative language, Udvari noted three refl exes of the etymo-logical o and e in the newly closed syllables: (1) the fully-fl edged o and e infl uenced by Church Slavonic, (2) the refl ex ě [i], and (3) the refl ex u, introduced most likely by the speakers of ukannja-dialects; Udvari treated the refl ex ě [i] the result of interfer-ence of Grygašij’s native dialect.53 Leaving aside the borrowing of ohurky (m. pl.) ‘cucumber’ (cf. Gr. Dãïõñïò) as irrelevant, there seems to be only one example of the u-refl ex in the LH, while the ikavism is clearly predominant in closed syllables. To take a typical fi rst entry under the year 1660, it contains a rare form pudhorju (loc. sg. n.) ‘slope’ as opposed to po pědʺ ‘at, by’,54 věvcě (pl) ‘sheep’, xlěbʺ ‘bread’, zymyvlě (gen. sg. f.) ‘hay’, and lěto ‘summer’ (1660/75, 76). All in all, Grygašij ap-pears to use his native narrow pronunciation of etymological o and e,55 although his phonetics were open to minimal fl uctuations of the type věz sěna (1793/79) and voz sěna ‘cart-load of hay’ (1812/80).56

51 Žylko, Narysy z dialektolohiji ukrajins’koji movy 213–214; Ja. V. Zakrevs’ka et al., eds., Atlas ukrajins’koji movy, vol. 2: Volyn’, Naddnistrjanščyna, Zakarpattja i sumižni zemli (Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1988) 2, 97. 52 Bevzenko, “Iz sposterežen’ […]” 41. 53 Udvari, “Materialy k istorii karpatorusinskoj pis’mennosti [...]” 321. 54 Bevzenko, “Iz sposterežen’ […]” 41. 55 Zakrevs’ka et al., Atlas ukrajins’koji movy maps 25–30, 51, 52. 56 A peculiar refl ex of the etymological o can be reconstructed in the form pělja ‘at’ (2x) (LH, 1813/81), which is observed today in some Transcarpathian and Lemkian dialects. This form is likely to have derived from ESl. po-dъlě ‘along’ after the change of the etymological o (via delibialization of the ü-refl ex) into i in the dialects with ikavism. According to Vasyl’ Vasyljovyč Nimčuk, “Slovotvir

ANDRII DANYLENKO64

In his administrative language, Grygašij consistently inserts n’ after the dispala-talized m in the environment before the refl ex of ę, as in ymnja ‘name’ (G7/321) or pamnjatʹ ‘memory’ (G11/312). This kind of split palatalization is a well-known phe-nomenon in the Transcarpathian dialects and beyond,57 albeit in the LH Grygašij is more restrained in introducing this kind of palatalization. Apart from the regular East Slavic mjaso ‘meat’ (1786/77), I found but one vernacular form, mnjasnycʺ (gen. pl. f.) ‘carnium esus’ (Miklosich, 393–394), with a sonorant after m’ before a nasal as found in the native dialect of Grygašij.58

Remarkably, assimilation in voicing is attested in the circulars more consistently than in the LH.59 Although this phenomenon is bound to the bulk of south-western Ukrainian dialects, thus presenting evidence of a phonemic voicing system with neutralization before all obstruents,60 there are only limited examples of such as-similation in the LH: tjaško ‘hard’ (adverb) (1715/76, 1770/78), lexka (f. sg.) ‘easy’ (1798/80), both cited by Pan’kevyč;61 cf. yztjaly ‘kill’ (pl. pret.) without a neutraliza-tion at the morpheme boundary.62 It would be instructive to mention here an inter-esting case of “twofold assimilation” in roščaly (pl. pret.) ‘begin’ (1812/81) where the fi nal consonant in the prefi x roz- assimilated to the affricate č fi rst in voicing (z > s) and then in the manner of articulation (s > š). In a parallel form, ro(z)čavʺ (3 sg. pret.) ‘begin’ (1810/80), Grygašij stops short of introducing regional assimila-tion in voicing, following instead phonemic protensity typical of contemporary Ruthe-nian (and East Ukrainian). On the other hand, rosadў (gen. sg. f.) ‘seedling’ (1795/80) is typical of the westernmost Ukrainian dialects; the prefi x roz- fully assimilated its z to the following s in voicing. This type of dialect assimilation at the morpheme boundary is even more lapidary in the circulars of Grygašij. Due to historical confusion of two East Slavic prepositions/prefi xes sъ and iz, the resulting form is

pryjmennykiv u zakarpats’kyx hovirkax,” in: Fedot Troxymovyč Žylko et al., eds., Ukrajins’ka dialektna morfolohija (Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1969) 76, the latter refl ex coalesced with the y in the environment before l. Overall, the above form is closer to ESl. podъlě as compared with the standard bilja where the reason for voicing is unclear (Shevelov, A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language 482, 607). 57 Ivan Pan’kevyč, Ukrajins’ki hovory Pidkarpats’koji Rusy i sumežnyx oblastej. Z pryložennjam 5 dijalektolohičnyx map, part 1: Zvučnja i morfolohija (Praha: Nakl. Sboru pro výzkum Slovens-ka a Podkarpatské Rusi, 1938) 170; Shevelov, A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language 503. 58 Franz von Miklosich, Lexicon Palaeoslovenico-Graeco-Latinum (Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1862–1865) 394; Zakrevs’ka et al., Atlas ukrajins’koji movy map 76. 59 Udvari, “Materialy k istorii karpatorusinskoj pis’mennosti [...]” 322. 60 Andrii Danylenko, “From g to h and again to g in Ukrainian: between the West European and Byzantine tradition?,” Die Welt der Slaven 50.1 (2005): 49–51. 61 Pan’kevyč, Ukrajins’ki hovory […] 117. 62 Bevzenko, “Iz sposterežen’ […]” 41, cites also yzhyplo (n. sg. pret.) ‘die’ as found in Petrov’s publication of the LH (Petrov, Materialy dlja istorii Ugorskoj Rusi 36); Bilen’kyj provides an etymo-logical spelling, izhyblo (1708/76).


regularly realized by Grygašij as is before voiceless consonants, e.g., is kotorўx/ʺ/ (gen. pl.) ‘from whom’, but iz svoyma kuratorў (inst. pl.) ‘with [his] own curators’ (G21/330).

Overall, assimilation in voicing is poorly represented in the LH,63 despite the above-mentioned lexka and rosadў. East (and North) Ukrainian, with phonemic pro-tensity, might have experienced a setback in the case of h; at that time there was a strong tendency to devoice it before voiceless stops.64

Among minor dialectal features in the LH, deserving attention is the spelling of o after postdentals in (Horodʺ) Mukačovskyj (= Hg. Munkács) (1704/76, 1796/80), Mukačova (gen. sg.) (1789/79) and, according to Pan’kevyč, in some other forms like yšo(v)ʺ (m. sg. pret.) ‘go’.65 Due to a limited number of examples, it is hard to recon-struct the exact distribution of e- and o-forms in the language of Grygašij, though it might be very similar to the all-Ukrainian pattern with the predominance of e-forms under the infl uence of Church spelling, e.g., dyecözěja mukačěvska (with the “new ě” from e before -s’k- < -ьsk-) in the circular G12 (312) as compared with diecesija munkačo(v)ska ‘eparchy of Mukačeve’ in the LH (1796/80).66

Some rare dialectal changes are the following: Bojkian and Lemkian yščy ‘more’ (1789/79) (< ešče), attested as early as the 17th c. in the Ladomyr Homilary Gospel;67 nytko ‘nobody’ (1793/79) with a metathesis tko < kto;68 Central Transcarpathian što (1786/77) next to čto ‘that’ (2x) (1783/79);69 drўva ‘fi rewood’ (< *trъt) (1783/77), attested also in Grygašij’s dialect;70 žўdў (1783/78), with the (Lemkian) redundant palatalization of the palatal under Polish infl uence as compared with žydo(v)ʺ (gen. pl. m.) and žyda (gen. sg. m.) ‘Jew’ (1783/77);71 doždʺ (2x) (1793/79, 1795/79), with the dispalatalized d, cf. doždʹ ‘rain’ (1813/81) (ib., 120); and, fi nally, three examples of the substitution of u in the prefi x vў-, vuhorěla (f. sg. pret.) ‘burn down’ (1782/76), vuměnova(v)ʺ (m. sg. pret.) ‘exchange’ (1812/81), and vuhybly (1785/77), next to vўhyblў (pl. pret.) ‘perish’ (1665/76). The latter phenomenon is noteworthy since the

63 One explanation of the lack of assimilation is offered by Pan’kevyč, Ukrajins’ki hovory […] 168. He argues that this phenomenon, especially as observed in the language of the intelligentsia in the highlands, is a result of Hungarian interference. 64 Shevelov, A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian language 484. 65 Pan’kevyč, Narys istoriji ukrajins’kyx zakarpats’kyx hovoriv 70–72. 66 Zakrevs’ka et al., Atlas ukrajins’koji movy map 38. 67 Ivan Pan’kevyč, “Ladomyrovske Učytel’ne Evanhelije,” Naukovўj zbornyk Tovarystva “Pro-světa” v Užhorodě za rok 1923, vol. 2 (Užhorod, 1923) 98. 68 Pan’kevyč, Ukrajins’ki hovory […] 176. 69 See L. M. Hryhorčuk, “Spolučnyk ščo,” in: Fedot Troxymovyč Žylko et al., eds., Ukrajins’ka dialektna morfolohija (Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1969) 82–83, map 2. 70 Zakrevs’ka et al., Atlas ukrajins’koji movy map 70. 71 Pan’kevyč, “Do pytannja henezy ukrajins’kyx lemkivs’kyx hovoriv” 178.

ANDRII DANYLENKO66

emergence of u in this prefi x72 is common in Central Transcarpathian dialects and records.73

3.2. The morphosyntax of the LH’s language is almost identical with that of Grygašij’s administrative language. Since the nom., acc., and gen. n. retain old end-ings, I will discuss only some representative masculine and feminine declensional forms.

Aside from the old “correct and predominant” ending -ў, the nom. pl. m. takes other endings, e.g., -ove and -e for animates:74 Panove y Nemešě, prostě y žebraky, Žўdў i cyhane, voinў y remeslenykў ‘messieurs and noblemen, commoners and beg-gars, Jews and Gypsies, solders and craftsmen’ (1783/78), cf. panove, popў, nemešў ‘messieurs, priests, noblemen’ (1796/80). The ending -ove is found in all Ukrainian-speaking lands, while the ending -e, save, perhaps, for the form ljude, is observed primarily in the Ukrainian dialects of eastern Slovakia.75 The form ljude is used by Grygašij throughout the chronicle, albeit under the year 1813 one fi nds also ljuda (gen. sg. m.) ‘people’ (1813/81). The old ending -i (orthographically, -y/i) is not at-tested in the LH.

The distribution of the instr. pl. m. endings is similar in both types of Grygašij’s language. He prefers the new ending -amў/-amy, e.g., doždamy y xmaramy (instr. pl. m.) ‘showers and clouds’ (1783/78).76 In the entire text of the LH, I did not fi nd any example of the old ending -ў, which is commonly linked to particular groups of lexemes and is still attested in the highlands. This ending, however, is found more often than not in the offi cial documents authored by Grygašij.77

Both the standard instr. sg. f. ending -oju and dialectal ending -ov are found in Grygašij’s administrative language. In the LH there seems to be only one example of the ending -ov, zymo(v)/ʺ/ ‘in the winter’ (1813/81). The other feminine endings

72 The prefi x vu2dъ (< otъ) aside (Nimčuk, “Slovotvir pryjmennykiv u zakarpats’kyx hovirkax” 72–73), in the case of vў-forms one deals with the interplay of the prefi x vў- ‘away’, as found in the above examples, and vъ ‘in’ which, in the environment before j on the morphemic boundaries, was sub-ject to the replacement of ъ by ў (Shevelov, A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language 276). Pan’kevyč, Ukrajins’ki hovory […] 75, warned about a confusion of the two prefi xes in the Carpathian refl ex vў-. 73 Pan’kevyč, Narys istoriji ukrajins’kyx zakarpats’kyx hovoriv 81–82. 74 Pan’kevyč, Ukrajins’ki hovory […] 189. 75 Zakrevs’ka et al., Atlas ukrajins’koji movy map 190; Pan’kevyč, Ukrajins’ki hovory […] 203. 76 Udvari, “Materialy k istorii karpatorusinskoj pis’mennosti [...]” 324, excerpted a peculiar example from the LH: raznўma povelěnijanym (instr. pl. n.) (1783/78). Despite some confusion in its fl exion (because of the anticipative spelling?), the noun seems to have been used with the regular ending -(j)amy, though Petrov, Materialy dlja istorii Ugorskoj Rusi 36, offered another emendation: raznўma povelěnianymy. The adjective is used with the ending -ўma, perhaps, due to the western Carpathian interference (see Pan’kevyč, Ukrajins’ki hovory […] 308–309). 77 Udvari, “Materialy k istorii karpatorusinskoj pis’mennosti [...]” 323.


are less interesting since they are found in Andrella’s language, as well as in modern Central Transcarpathian dialects.78

In adjectival morphology, the gen. sg. m. ending serves usually as a kind of lit-mus test. In the circulars, according to Udvari, the vernacular ending -oho/-joho has one-tenth the frequency of Church Slavonic -aho/-jaho.79 The situation in the LH is quite revealing. I found nine bookish forms in -aho and the same number of geni-tives in -oho. Some of those lexemes occur in parallel use with both the bookish and vernacular ending, e.g., samoho (1782/77) next to samaho ‘himself’ (1796/80), slědujuščoho (1785/77) next to slědujuščaho ‘next’ (1795/80). Found in colloca-tion with other Church Slavonicisms, the form samaho is stylistically marked: ot/ʺ/ samaho dne voskresenija ‘from the very day of Resurrection’ (1796/80). Whether the form slědujuščaho is also stylistically marked, is less obvious in view of the neutral context in which it occurs: a zyma tepla slědovala slědujuščaho roku ‘a warm winter came next year’ (1785/77). In this respect, the language of the LH looks more “stand-ardized” as compared with Grygašij’s administrative language.

The distribution of long- (pronominalized) and short-form (nominal) adjectives deserves particular interest. In the administrative language, both forms are used indis-criminately in nom.-acc. sg. f.; the neuter adjectives are normally used in the pronom-inalized form in nom. sg., most likely under bookish infl uence. A similar distribution seems to be operative in the LH, in both predicative and attributive positions,80 e. g.: lěto dobroe bўlo y urodlyvoe y osěnʹ tepla suxa ‘the summer was good and the au-tumn [was] warm and dry’ (1719/76), cerko(v)/ʺ/ malovaly vyšnu y nyžnuju yzhanuly ‘[they] painted the upper church and pulled down the lower’ (1784/77).

The situation with the neuter forms continues into the entries written in the early 19th c. These forms are used there in both attributive and predicative functions. In all other Ruthenian lands, according to Shevelov, the entire 18th c. was a time of the optional use of new neuter forms in -eje and in -e modeled, in fact, on the functional and morphological opposition of feminines in -aja vs. -a.81 In the LH, there is no example of long forms in -eje or truncated forms in -e. This is why I view the forms in -aja and -a as respectively pronominalized and nominal, rather than (un)contracted or (un)truncated.

The verbal morphology also appears more “standardized” in the LH than in the offi cial documents. As was mentioned, in the chronicle the preterital forms end in -v (< lъ) almost without exception. In addition, there are in the LH only 3 sg. participial forms used without an auxiliary. It is not clear whether the auxiliary was dropped in

78 Laslo Dèžё [László Dezsö], “O jazyke ukrainskogo polemista M. Andrelly i zakarpatskoj “narod noj literature” XVII v.,” Studia Slavica Hungarica 27 (1981): 19–52, especially 34. 79 Udvari, “Materialy k istorii karpatorusinskoj pis’mennosti [...]” 323. 80 Bevzenko, “Iz sposterežen’ […]” 42. 81 Shevelov, A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language 677.

ANDRII DANYLENKO68

the analytical preterit, or whether the preterit was simply used without the auxiliary in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd persons.82 The situation with the pluperfect being consistently used with the auxiliary is more obvious, but has less bearing on the explanation of the preterit. First, the pluperfect forms, attested in abundance in the LH, often refer to events which occurred long before Grygašij began writing them down.83 Second, the pluperfect is still well attested in modern Transcarpathian dialects.84

In offi cial documents, Grygašij uses aorists, e.g., pryjaxomʺ (1 sg. aor.) ‘accept’, which do not seem malapropos in the Church Slavonic texture of the administra-tive koiné (jazyčije).85 In the chronicle, however, I found only three aorists. One of them, slučišasja (3 pl. aor.) ‘happen’ (75), occurs in the title of the chronicle. Another form, bўstʺ (3 sg. aor.) ‘be’, is attested fi ve times in stylistically neutral contexts, e.g., holo(d)/ʺ/ velykij bўstʺ ‘there was a big famine’ (1788/78; also 1699/76, 1783/78 (2x), 1782/77). Finally, the form voskrese (3 sg. aor.) ‘resurrect’, is a typical Church Sla-vonicism used in the religious context: y paky X(ry)stosʺ voskrese ‘and again Christ resurrected’ (1796/80). There is another Church Slavonicism in the same sentence, prija(l)/ʺ/ jestʹ (3 sg. m. pret.) ‘accept’ (ib.), with -lʺ (< lъ) retained in the participial form; cf. the pluperfect with an auxiliary form in -v (< lʺ), utěkʺ by(v)/ʺ/ (m. sg. pluperf.) ‘fl ee’ (1704/76).86 Overall, the past tense forms as attested in the LH occur in the bulk of Central Transcarpathian dialects. Unlike the preterit with the auxil-iary -jem fused with the participle in today’s western dialects,87 Grygašij’s past tense forms appear more morphologically uniform.

Among irregular verbal forms, deserving of attention is the Lemkian moholʺ (sg. m. pret.) ‘be able’ (3x; e.g., 1670/76) borrowed from Slovak.88 There is also a peculiar impersonal form mož/ʺ/ ‘(it is) possible’, e. g., ne mož bўlo žaty ‘it was not

82 Pan’kevyč, Ukrajins’ki hovory 313–314. 83 Petrov, Materialy dlja istorii Ugorskoj Rusi 35. 84 Pan’kevyč, Ukrajins’ki hovory 318. 85 Udvari, “Materialy k istorii karpatorusinskoj pis’mennosti [...]” 324. 86 Shevelov, A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language 472. 87 Pan’kevyč, Ukrajins’ki hovory 313–315. One of those synthetic forms, infl uenced by East Slovak/Czech, is a residual form of the aorist suffi x -x- blended with the auxiliary verb in the perfect tense, hence such peculiar derivatives as prijęly exmo ‘we have accepted’ in the Ladomyr Gospel copied in the 17th c. near Svydnyk from a Volhynian text (Pan’kevyč, “Ladomyrovske Učytel’ne Evan-helije” 104; Ivan Pan’kevyč, “Kil’ka zamitok do ostanku aorysta v zakarpats’kyx hovorax,” Zapysky Naukovoho Tovarystva imeni Ševčenka 141–143 (1925): 1–5; Shevelov, A Historical phonology of the Ukrainian Language 573). Similar forms, as evidenced in its copy of 1758, might have been used in the sixteen-century Vorlage of the NP; for a different explanation of such hybrid forms, in-cluding preterits like pryvjuhʺ (m. sg. pret.) ‘lead’, see Vatroslav Jagić, “[review of] Materialy dlja istorii ugorskoj Rusi. VII. Pamjatniki cerkovno-religioznoj žizni Ugrorussov XVI–XVII v. Teksty. A. Petrov. SPb 1914. VI. 295,” Archiv für Slavische Philologie 36 (1916) 500; Georgij Gerovskij, “Zur Behandlung der Lautverbindungen -dl-, -tl- im Südkarpatischen (Ugrorussischen),” Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie 6 (1929): 77–85. 88 Udvari, “Materialy k istorii karpatorusinskoj pis’mennosti [...]” 327.


possible to reap’, next to bўlo možno nakosyty ‘it was possible to mow’, used in the same sentence (1793/79; also 1787/77, 1795/79). Although not found in Grygašij’s administrative language, this impersonal form is attested in the NP and in modern Transcarpathian dialects.89

3.3. The vocabulary of the LH was subject to extensive borrowing, due to intense cultural pressure, enhanced by the author’s multilingualism.90

Unlike offi cial documents, there is a limited number of Church Slavonicisms in the LH. Some of them are religious terms (names of holidays, church dignities, and the like) or Biblical citations, and can therefore be disregarded for our case, e.g.: blahověščenie ‘Annunciation’ (1660/75, usěknovenie ‘decollatio’ (1715/76), aky Noeva potopa (gen.) ‘like Noah’s deluge’ (1813/81). To name just a few ob-vious Church Slavonicisms (some of them incorporated later in nineteenth-century Rusyn), which are paralleled in some cases in Ruthenian, the following instances may be adduced: tohda (1770/78)91 vs. tohdў ‘then’ (1715/76), tokmo (1665/76),92 zělo (1783/78)93 vs. barzo (1787/77) (from Polish) or duže ‘very’ (1665/76),94 paky ‘again’ (1796/80),95 poneže (1780/76), ašče (1786/77).96 One can add here noščʺ ‘night’ (1699/75), naypače ‘rather; most likely’ (1785/77),97 sozdanie ‘creation’, blaho (sg. n.) ‘good, blessed’ (1783/78),98 cf. na puščanja Pylypovo ‘on the St. Philip holiday’ (1660/75).

A few other lexemes in the LH, despite their seemingly Church Slavonic form, are of West Slavic provenance. To take non-pleophonic forms as an example, one

89 Pan’kevyč, Ukrajins’ki hovory 417, 479. Laslo Dèžё [László Dezsö], Očerki po istorii zakarpatskix govorov (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1967) 152, identifi ed this form as “abbreviated” (truncated), thus implying a change of the type možʺ < možʺno after the dispalatalization of the palatal in možʹno (cf. ESl. močьno). I believe that this is not a simple truncation. In fact, this is a morphosyn-tactic reversal to a more archaic (transitional) stage in the development of impersonal constructions from the personal (cf. Pol. można rzecz jest […], literally, ‘it is a possible thing, that […]’): ESl. nužda jestь ‘there is a necessity’ > nuždьno jestь ‘it is necessary’ (Andrij Danylenko [Andrii Danylenko], Predykaty, vidminky i diatezy v ukrajins’kij movi: istoryčnyj i typolohičnyj aspekty (Kharkiv: Oko, 2003) 250–262. 90 Neither Bilen’kyj nor Bevzenko and Udvari discuss Grygašij’s knowledge of different lan-guages. Yet in view of the socio-cultural and political situation in Subcarpathia, and especially in its eastern part, the author was likely to know Church Slavonic, Ruthenian, Latin, Hungarian used by the local administration, and German as the offi cial language at the Offi ce of the Governor General. 91 Laslov Čopej, Rus’ko madjarskyj slovar’ (Budapest, 1883) 394. 92 Vasyl’ Vasyljovyč Nimčuk, ed., Leksykon slovenoros’kyj Pamvy Beryndy. Facsimile reprint of 1627 (Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1961) 132. 93 Čopej, Rus’ko madjarskyj slovar’ 128. 94 Nimčuk, Leksykon slovenoros’kyj Pamvy Beryndy 39. 95 Čopej, Rus’ko madjarskyj slovar’ 246. 96 Nimčuk, Leksykon slovenoros’kyj Pamvy Beryndy 87, 5. Čopej, Rus’ko madjarskyj slovar’ 6. 97 Nimčuk, Leksykon slovenoros’kyj Pamvy Beryndy 81; Čopej, Rus’ko madjarskyj slovar’ 200. 98 Čopej, Rus’ko madjarskyj slovar’ 12.

ANDRII DANYLENKO70

should mention pre(d)/ʺ/ ‘before’ (1704/76), attested in the Lemkian dialects, next to the regular pleophonic form pere(d)/ʺ/ (1812/81); cf. pta(x)/ʺ/ pereletěvʺ čere(z) Beskědʺ ‘The bird fl ew over the Beskyd’ (1770/78). The non-pleophonic pre(d)/ʺ/ can be a Polish borrowing which, spreading over Subcarpathia, was most likely mediated by a similar Slovak form. By analogy, Slovak origin may be posited for the non-pleo-phonic hladʺ, next to the regular East Slavic holodʺ ‘famine’ used twice in the same entry (1783/78). However, hladʺ seems to be an old form which could hardly belong to the group of later Slovak borrowings of the type vlakў ‘sledge’, hlas ‘voice’, vlasў ‘hair’, mladў ‘young’ and the like.99 Overall, if non-pleophonic forms as attested in various Carpathian dialects belong to different chronological layers, one can hardly view, contrary to Oltjanu, the non-pleophonic forms (cf. hlava ‘head’, hrad ‘town’, hlahol ‘word’) as Moravianisms only.100

Taken as a whole, the language of the LH refl ects infl uence of Slovak (Czech) and, albeit to a much lesser extent, of Polish which were prestigious intermittently in Subcarpathian Rus’ from the late 14th c. onward.101 This is why some uncertainty, and some interesting complexity, sets in regarding the origin of the following lex-emes, mediated most likely by Polish literary tradition: ovoco(v)/ʺ/ (gen. pl.) ‘fruit’ (1660/76), barzo ‘fast’ (e.g., 1708/76), peršij vs. pervij ‘fi rst’ (1783/77), škoda ‘harm’ (1798/80), velmi ‘very’ (1812/80), next to the native vulʹmy in the NP102 if this is a continuation of ESl. velьmi > vělʹmi, jede(n)/ʺ/ tyžde(n)/ʺ/ ‘one week’ (1798/80).103 More transparent are slonce ‘sun’ (1699/76), borrowed from Pol. słońce (cf. Slk. slnce), the above-mentioned moholʺ ‘be able’ (e.g., 1670/76) and lem ‘but’, both bor-rowed from Slovak.

Unlike his administrative language, Grygašij used in the LH far fewer Latin forms from the Greek Catholic Church terminology, e.g., Ekscelencija ‘Excellence’ (about Bishop Andrij Bačyns’kyj), diecezija ‘eparchy, diocese’ (1793/78, 1796/80). Of inter-est is a morphological cliché found in one of Grygašij’s circulars (G16/325) and in the LH, i.e., vsě eho dekreta (acc. pl. m.) ‘all his decrees’ (1790/79). Udvari was right to identify the above construction as a Latinism mediated by Ruthenian rather than by Polish.104

99 Pan’kevyč, “Do pytannja henezy ukrajins’kyx lemkivs’kyx hovoriv” 176. Tichý, Vývoj současného spisovného jazyka na Podkarpatské Rusi 19-20, was particularly skeptical about the Polish provenance of some lexemes as hypothesized by Javorskij, Novye rukopisnye naxodki […]; Tichý viewed most of them as true Bohemianisms/Slovakisms, e.g., Ukr. budovca from Cz. budovca. Some of Tichý’s emendations, however, are open to doubt as is the case of ponevaž which can be also a Polonism (see Nimčuk, Leksykon slovenoros’kyj Pamvy Beryndy 87). 100 Oltjanu [Olteanu], “Nekotorye osobennosti slavjanskogo jazyka Transil’vanii” 84. 101 Tichý, Vývoj současného spisovného jazyka na Podkarpatské Rusi 14–15, 18–20. 102 Jagić 500; Dèžё [Dezsö], Očerki po istorii zakarpatskix govorov 126–127. 103 Shevelov, A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language 312, 275. 104 Udvari, “Materialy k istorii karpatorusinskoj pis’mennosti [...]” 325.


However, the main source of loan-words in the LH was Hungarian. To ascertain their place in the lexical make-up of the chronicle, suffi ce it to focus on their semantic features, thus leaving aside their morphonological assimilation in Ruthenian.105

In the circulars, Udvari sorted out only eight Hungarian and four Romanian bor-rowings, although their word-stock might be larger.106 In the LH, I encountered, in total, seventeen Magyarisms which fall into several groups.107 Thus, Grygašij incor-porated into his narrative Hungarian terms relating to social stratifi cation in the King-dom of Hungary: nemešʺ ‘nobleman’ (e.g., 1796/80), katunʺ and, in the same sentence, vartašʺ (1770/78), also vartyšʺ ‘soldier’ (1770/76).108 A second group is comprised of terms denoting cities/towns/countries, such as the old borrowings orsagʺ ‘province’ (1783/78) and varўšʺ/varyšʺ ‘city’ (1789/78, 1813/81), and, by extension, darabʺ ‘part, slice (of territories)’ (1796/80).109 There are in the text fi ve nouns referring to various aspects of the everyday life of Rusyn peasants: marha/morha used in the meaning ‘cattle’ only (e.g., 1789/79, 1699/75), marjašʺ ‘silver coin, 17 kreutzers’ (1783/77), vonašʺ ‘gold coin, fl orenus longus’ (1784/77), icja ‘cubic content’ (1783/78), and ezerʺ ‘thousand’ (1796/80), a numeral allegedly often heard by the peasants from local bureaucrats,110 cf. Church Slavonic tysjašča (1789/79). Two lexemes denote agricultural products: tenkerycja ‘maize’ (1785/77), also tengeryca (Hg. tengeri, kukoricza, málé),111 and kromplovynja (pl.) ‘tops of the potatoes’ (1786/77) which, though not attested in Dežё [Dezsö], is paralleled in the modern krompli ‘potatoes’.112

In the chronicle, I found also several Magyarisms with an abstract meaning. The lexeme kelčykʺ (1797/80), found in modern Transcarpathian dialects, denotes ‘expense(s)’;113 cf. also kelʹčyg (Hg. költség).114 Of interest is Grygašij’s derivative

105 Laslo Dèžё [László Dezsö], “K voprosu o vengerskix zaimstvovanijax v zakarpatskix pamjat nikax XVI–XVIII vv.,” Studia Slavica 4 (1958): 71–96; Laslo Dèžё [László Dezsö], “K voprosu o venger-skix zaimstvovanijax v zakarpatskix pamjatnikax XVI–XVIII vv.,” Studia Slavica 7 (1961): 139–176. 106 Udvari, “Materialy k istorii karpatorusinskoj pis’mennosti [...]” 325. 107 There is also an allegedly Romanian borrowing in the text, doveržay (pl. m.) ‘Steinwurf’ (1770/76), see Jevhen Tymčenko, ed., Istoryčnyj slovnyk ukrajins’koho jazyka, vol. 1 (1–2) (Xarkiv, Kyiv: Deržavne vydavnyctvo Ukrajiny, 1930–1932) 745. 108 Alexander Bonkáló, “Die ungarländischen Ruthenen,” Ungarische Jahrbücher 1 (1922), 333–334; Dèžё [Dezsö], “K voprosu o vengerskix zaimstvovanijax v zakarpatskix pamjatnikax XVI–XVIII vv.” (1961) 162, 165, 168. 109 Bonkáló 334, 340; Dèžё [Dezsö], “K voprosu o vengerskix zaimstvovanijax v zakarpatskix pamjatnikax XVI–XVIII vv.” (1961) 164, 168. 110 Bonkáló 334; Dèžё [Dezsö], “K voprosu o vengerskix zaimstvovanijax v zakarpatskix pamjat-nikax XVI–XVIII vv.” (1961) 141, 150, 162, etc. 111 Čopej, Rus’ko madjarskyj slovar’ 391. 112 Bonkáló 338; Riger [Rieger] 59. 113 Dèžё [Dezsö], “K voprosu o vengerskix zaimstvovanijax v zakarpatskix pamjatnikax XVI––XVIII vv.” (1961) 165–166. 114 Čopej, Rus’ko madjarskyj slovar’ 147. The fl uctuation g ~ k as found in the pairs tenkerycja ~ tengeryc(j)a and kelčykʺ ~ kel(ʹ)čyg(ʺ) is commonplace in all Ukrainian dialects, although it is

ANDRII DANYLENKO72

form, vytjastvo (Hg. vitézség, cf. Slk. vít’az), translated by Bilen’kyj as ‘prowess, valor’ (1789/79) but not cited in Dežё [Dezsö]; nagazjanyly (pl. pret.) ‘make dirty, mix’ (1783/78) is not attested in Dežё [Dezsö] either, but explicated by Bonkáló as ‘mit Kehricht, Unrat bestreuen’;115 fi nally, xosna (gen. sg. m.) ‘profi t’ (1797/80) is an old borrowing occurring in modern Transcarpathian dialects.116

4. Despite the high prestige of Hungarian and Latin in Subcarpathian Rus’, a stock of borrowings from those languages in the LH is insignifi cant, albeit somewhat larger in comparison with a small number of Magyarisms in the NP.117 The interference of West Slavic in the text is also minimal, especially if compared with the heavy inter-ference of Polish in the vocabulary and morphosyntax of the prostaja mova used in Polish-ruled Ukraine. The interference of Hungarian could hardly achieve the level of Polish, with its forms easily appropriated fi rst through script-switching and sub-sequent borrowing in Ruthenian as refl ected in Berynda’s dictionary of 1627. Even Andrella, with his notoriously “chaotic style,” which is purportedly indicative of the heterogeneous culture in Subcarpathia,118 did not employ many Magyarisms in his linguistic fl ow. Because of the typological differences between Slavic and Hungarian, he could only resort to transliterating Hungarian forms, often in parenthetical com-ments.119

As far as the Latin forms are concerned, their number in both the circulars and the LH is infi nitesimal. Yet the cultural role of Latin was so pernicious and the knowl-edge of Church Slavonic among the priests was so low that Grygašij, in the spirit of

overwhelmingly concentrated in the west, including Central Transcarpathian dialects (Shevelov, A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language 626). In different cases, the above fl uctuation is determined by semantic (e.g., affective vocalization of k) and phonetic factors (e.g., distant assimila-tion or assimilation in voicing). The above two pairs are results of distant assimilation, cf. WUkr. (from Romanian) gljag ~ kljag, gljeg ~ kljeg ‘curdled milk’ (Danylenko, “From g to h and again to g in Ukrainian” 44–46). 115 Bonkáló 336. 116 Riger [Rieger] 62. 117 Dèžё [Dezsö], Delovaja pis’mennost’ rusinov v XVII–XVIII vekax […] 199. 118 Rusinko 46. 119 It would be interesting to compare the extent of interference of Hungarian and Polish in Sub-carpathian and “Polish” Ruthenian, respectively. In this regard, the history of Berynda’s dictionary and the Uniate Leksikonʺ of 1722 is very instructive. In essence, the bulk of Polish words had sim-ply been transferred to Berynda’s dictionary and transliterated into Cyrillic script in order to make them appear more comprehensible to Orthodox readers. Conversely, the Leksikonʺ of 1722 appears as a “re-transliteration” of the (borderland) Polish lexemes appropriated previously in Berynda. The overall scenario was the following. In the early 17th century, Polish words were transliterated into Cyrillic in Berynda and one century later from Cyrillic back into Latin letters Polish in the Leksikonʺ; in the mid-19th century the same lexemes were again transliterated from the Polish Latin alphabet into Cyrillic by Teodor Vytvyc’kyj in his Polish-Church-Slavonic-Ukrainian dictionary; see Andrii Danylenko “The Uniate Leksikonʺ of 1722: a case of regional relapse from script- to language-switch-ing,” Slavia Orientalis 56.4 (2007): 543–557.


Bačyns’kyj, alerted the Rusyn literati to the dangers of denationalization. In some of his letters addressed to the local pastors, Grygašij wrote that students attending Latin schools had to take an exam in the mother tongue. Called by him ruščiznina or ruskўj jazўkʺ (G14/312, G18/313), this tongue was basically Church Slavonic of the Ukrain-ian recension. The prostaja mova had been by that time ousted by this language in those genres, including offi cial letters and circulars, which had previously been writ-ten in Ruthenian.

In the language of the LH, Grygašij retained a sizable number of Ruthenian el-ements as compared with the church elite’s language modeled heavily on Church Slavonic, with a touch of the Russian recension in the late 18th c.120 However, aside from the ethnic name ruskўj, referring to several (East) Slavic idioms in that time,121 Grygašij might have been at a loss as to what kind of language he was using in the offi cial documents in contrast to the LH. In his offi cial position, Grygašij was faced with the same kind of problem on matters of the mother tongue as was the intelligent-sia in Galicia and Subcarpathia.122 Neither at the Vienna Barbaraeum (1775–1783), where eleven of the forty-six places were reserved for seminarians from the eparchy of Mukačeve, nor at the Studium Ruthenum (1787–1809), established at Lviv Uni-versity at the behest of Emperor Joseph II, were they clear as to what lingua patria (Muttersprache, or Nationalsprache), they meant.123 To use a later defi nition of the language of instruction in the Studium Ruthenum, the offi cial language of Grygašij can be labeled narodnўj cerkovno-russkij jazўkʺ ‘vernacular Church-Ruthenian lan-guage,’ referring to its Church Slavonic basis with multiple admixtures of Ruthenian, the local vernacular and various borrowings.124 What is remarkable about this type of mixed language, or koiné (jazyčije), is that it did not practice the script-switching typical of the secular genres that were premised on another kind of mixed language, “Church Slavonic vernacular,” i.e., Ruthenian with admixtures of Church Slavonic and other languages.

The foregoing analysis shows that the language of the LH is totally opposite to the contemporary jazyčije, refl ected in Grygašij’s administrative language.125 Yet neither does the language of the LH, with its minimum of dialectisms, go as far as that of the NP. Apart from Church Slavonic elements introduced by later copyists, the sixteenth-century Vorlage of the NP was written, to an extreme even for Ruthenian linguistic democratism, in “the true local vernacular,” replete with many dialect and regional

120 Udvari, Obrazčiky z istoriji pudkarpats’kyx Rusynuv [...] 214. 121 Andrii Danylenko, Slavica et Islamica: Ukrainian in context (Munich: Otto Sagner, 2006) 126–128. 122 Stegherr 120–125. 123 Amvrozij Androxovyč, “Lvivs’ke “Studium ruthenum” (3), Zapysky Naukovoho Tovarystva imeni Ševčenka 136–137 (1925): 48–49. 124 Udvari, Obrazčiky z istoriji pudkarpats’kyx Rusynuv [...] 215. 125 Danylenko, “The formation of new standard Ukrainian […]” 94–95.

ANDRII DANYLENKO74

features.126 Thus, if regarded as a sequential series, marked by different levels of dignitas, the language of the LH can be placed tentatively at the intermediate point, halfway between the regional vernacular employed in the NP and hybrid Church Sla-vonic used by the Uniate hierarchy in matters secular and ecclesiastical. In other words, Grygašij’s language in the LH can be viewed as Ruthenian to its core, since its phonological, morphosyntactic, and lexical structures appear moderately mixed, at least to the extent accepted in the vernacular standard of the prostaja mova.

Unlike the prostaja mova as used in the Polish Crown, with a plethora of Polo-nisms, the prostaja mova of the LH reveals primarily Hungarian and West Slavic bor-rowings. However, in contrast to heavy Polish interference in the mainstream prostaja mova, the Hungarian and West Slavic word-stock in the prostaja mova of the LH does not infringe on its Ukrainian core. This language seems to reveal even more “cogent Ukrainian” features than the local chronicles compiled in Russian-ruled Ukraine in the 18th c. While the chronicles in Left-Bank Ukraine were acquiring more Great-Russian features at the cost of Ukrainianisms, the language of local chronicles in Subcarpathia and Polish-ruled Ukraine varied between Church Slavonic and the ver-nacular.127

To sum up, there are solid grounds to view the language of the LH, though com-piled in “peripheral” Subcarpathian Rus’, as exemplary Ruthenian (Middle Ukrain-ian), thus refl ecting the Ukrainian perspective of the local Rusyn ethno-linguistic and literary identity throughout the 18th c.

126 Petrov, Otzvuk reformacii v russkom Zakarpat’e XVI v. 25–26, 37. 127 Shevelov, A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language 708. To take randomly several less known chronicles written in Russian-ruled Ukraine, their language varied between Ruthenian and Church Slavonic of the Russian recension. Thus, the Chronicle of the Mhar monastery (near Lubni/Lubny, Poltava region), covering the years 1682–1775, is compiled in “pure” Ruthenian (with a plethora of Polonisms and a minimum of Church Slavonicisms), thus representing a mirror-image language standard as compared with Ruthenian of the LH (see Aleksandr Lazarevskij, “Otryvki iz letopisi Mharskoho monastyrja (1682–1775),” Kievskaja starina 25 (1889): 37–52); suffi ce it to cite the following naturalized Polonisms found in just one page of this chronicle: murovane ‘construction’, zyčymʺ (1 pl. pres.) ‘wish’, podluhʺ ‘according’, mohlʺ (m. sg. pret.) ‘be able’, dbalostʹ ‘diligence’, prezʺ ‘by; through’ (39), next to a few Church Slavonicisms like the sigmatic aorists proydoxomʺ ‘come’ and počaxomʺ ‘commence’ (48). Myxajlo Movčan’s chronicle (1727–1739), continued by Andrij Mazaraki (until 1787) (Vladimir Antonovič, “Priluckij polkovoj asaul Mixajlo Movčan i ego zapisnaja kniga,” Kievskaja starina 1 (1885): 57–84) seems to reveal a transitional language from Ruthenian, with a lot of administrative clichés, to Great Russian, cf. svjatkovalʺ (m. sg. pret.) ‘cel-ebrate’ next to čelobytnaja ‘petition’ (71, 79). Finally, the Sulymas’ chronicle (Aleksandr Lazarevskij, “Letopisnye zametki (1651–1749 g.),” Kievskaja starina 5 (1883): 680–682) is written basically in Great Russian, though some Ukrainianisms still occur in the text, cf. rokʺ ‘year’, Vkraina ‘Ukraine’ next to prevelykoj holodʺ ‘severe famine’ (681).


РЕЗЮМЕ

Статья посвящена проблеме формирования русинского литературного языка. Подвергнув критической оценке периодизацию литературного языка на Закарпатье, предложенную Полом Магочи, автор концентрирует свое внимание на «до-современ-ном» периоде, приблизительно с конца XVII в. до конца XVIII в. Автор анализирует язык, используемый Михайлом Григашием (1758–1823) в Хронике села Гукливый (1660–1830 гг.), на фоне административного койне в его циркулярах, которые были описаны Иштваном Удвари. В отличие от язычия, представленного в администра-тивном языке Григашия, язык Хроники, написанной на «периферийном» Закарпатье, можно рассматривать как образцово простомовный. Этот язык отражает общеукра-инскую перспективу этно-лингвистического и литературного самоопределения руси-нов на протяжении XVIII ст.

On Slaveno-Rusyn

Documents

Transcript of On Slaveno-Rusyn