Die russischen Lehnwörter im Slowenischen: Die in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhundertsübernommenen Wörter by Annelies LägreidReview by: H. LeemingThe Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Jul., 1976), pp. 453-455Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4207305 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 01:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 01:02:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS 453 izdaniy, Kharkov, i900. Two manuscripts from the library of Sophia Cathedral which date from the sixteenth century contain the texts in question (nos. 156 (33) and I 57 (34), Manuscript division of the Tsentral'na naukova biblioteka Akademii nauk UkSSR, Kiev). The second half of one of these manuscripts has been destroyed by the ink used (no. 156(33)). In addition, a manuscript of John Damascene (Theology and Dialectic) was found in the Seminary of Zhitomir (see A. I. Rogov, Svedeniya o nebol'- shikh sobraniyakh slavyano-russkikh rukopisey v SSSR, Moscow, I962, p. 66). This manuscript has been lost as have almost all Old Russian manuscripts of Wolhynia. One could check whether or not Kuntsevich used this manuscript in his edition of the Skaz o loike (see Sochineniya kn. Kurbskago, II, Manuscript of the Arkhiv Leningradskogo otdeleniya Instituta istorii AN SSSR, F. 276, delo 30, cols. 67-70). There he compares the Khludov manuscript with two other manuscripts (VI. and Dr.). One could cite several significant differences between the two editions: Eismann 66 b, 22: i k chemu khto khoshchet / Kuntsevich: i k chemu khoshchet; Eismann 67 a, 22: na svoy yazyk / Kuntsevich: na svoy im yazyk ('im' MS Khludov 6o has been added); Eismann 67 b, 7: sberezh'te / Kuntsevich: strezhte (variant in VI. 'sterezhete'); Eismann: is polupisania / Kuntsevich: ispolu pisania; Eismann: 67 b, 20: prezorlivym / Kuntsevich: prozor- livym. The advantages of Eismann's edition become clear when compared with that of Kuntsevich. The latter modernized the Old Russian ortho- graphy. Kuntsevich thought that easy readability was more important than the possibility of the reader checking the editor's editing methods- one of the most important principles of editing. Marburg/Lahn INGE AUERBACH

Lagreid, Annelies. Die russischen Lehnwdrter im Slowenischen: Die in der ersten Hdlfte des ig. jahrhunderts uibernommenen Wdrter. Geschichte, Kultur und Geisteswelt der Slowenen, XII. Dr Dr Rudolf Trofenik, Munich, 1973. '34 pp. Bibliography. Index.

AT the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, during the period of the Slovene national and cultural revival, the Slovene vocabulary was inadequate for the purposes of a fully-fledged language of literature and science. Excessive borrowing from the dominant alien cultural language had produced an unpleasant and ungainly hybrid, ex- emplified in the dialogue of A. T. Linhart's comedies. Jernej Kopitar refers to this predicament in the introduction to his Slovene grammar of I8o8, and proposes a number of steps which could be taken to correct this: writers should look to rural speech for their inspiration, since the urban dialects had degenerated into an unsavoury Macaronian; they should become acquainted with other foreign languages, not only German; furthermore, collaboration of informants from the various dialect regions would reveal a rich native lexical treasure, the envy of other Slavonic peoples.

Annelies Lagreid's monograph deals with another partial solution to the problem, namely with the loanwords from Russian which were adopted

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 01:02:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

454 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

by two lexicographers of the Slovene revival, Valentin Vodnik and Anton Janez Murko. Her work consists of a detailed and informative introduc- tion (pp. 9-58), two separate sections giving with commentary the loan- words met in Vodnik's manuscript (pp. 67-88) and Murko's published dictionary (pp. 89-II2), preceded by introductory comments on the material (pp. 59-65) and followed by an appendix giving information on the fate of these words in the nineteenth century. The articles on individual words (c. Ioo from Vodnik and c. go from Murko) provide much valuable information, including the Russian source, references to other Slovene dictionaries (Megiser, Hippolytus, Pohlin, Gutsmann, Janezic, Cigale, Pletersnik) and the subsequent fate of the loanword and its synonyms in nineteenth-century Slovene.

A striking feature of the material is the presence here of several words of Church Slavonic origin, e.g. glagol 'verb', izobilje 'abundance', soglasje 'agreement', predmet 'object' (Vodnik); blagoroden 'honourable', obUestvo 'community' (with substitution of Slovene c for Russian Church-Slavonic sU), obremeniti 'to burden', prapor 'flag', praporsak 'ensign', sredstvo 'means' (Murko). Not one of these exhibits any phonological proof of passage through Russian. Even the prefix of soglasje could be interpreted as the Slovene reflex of CS *sq-. In many cases therefore the evidence for borrowing rests on the statement of origin provided by the lexicographer. Is it not possible that some of these borrowings revived words which were latent in some regional dialects? For example, although Hippolytus gives aala as the Slovene word for 'eel', it does not follow that CS *pgorb had lapsed in all dialects, nor that we should regard modern Slovene ogor as an adaptation of R. yropE with a phonological substitution which would have demanded a precise knowledge of the etymology of an isolated word. In the case of velblod Liigreid admits that the word was used seventeen years before Murko published his dictionary by Mateus Ravnikar, one of whose great merits according to Matija (op was 'his considered usage of partly forgotten word-roots and popular words (izrazov) which had been pre- viously overlooked' (Jernej Kopitar and Matija top, Zbrano delo, Lju- bljana, 1973, p. i6o). Lagreid, following A. Breznik and A. Bajec, de- clares that Ravnikar adopted the beast's name from Russian, adding that Czech velbloud and Pol. wielblqd come from the same source. The latter statement is most unlikely; the Polish word is met in Queen Zofia's Bible, a translation made from Czech in the years 1453-5, while a debased form wielbrqd, indicating a certain measure of oral currency, occurs in the sixteenth century. As for Ravnikar's velblod, one wonders whether Church Slavonic or Czech could not be the source, rather than Russian.

What is the status of these words in the modern Slovene vocabulary? The author provides lists of surviving words, about a third of Vodnik's and a half of Murko's material. How many owe their presence solely to Russian influence? How many are archaic or regional words which have reentered the vocabulary, like various Americanisms in modern English? These are matters on which judgment may be withheld until the publica- tion of definitive historical and dialect dictionaries. Meanwhile we may express the hope that such important sources for the history of the Slovene

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 01:02:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS 455 vocabulary as the dictionaries of M. Kastelec, Fr. Hippolytus and Vodnik will eventually be published, and thank the author for this lexicological study which takes a worthy place in Trofenik's admirable series of mono- graphs. London H. LEEMING

Terras, Victor. Belinskyj and Russian Literary Criticism: The Heritage of Organic Aesthetics. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, I974. V11+307 pp. Index. $17.50.

I N his latest book Professor Terras, already celebrated for a scholarly and perceptive monograph on the young Dostoyevsky (see SEER, no. I12, July I970, p. 443), makes a hardly less important contribution to the study of Belinsky, a critic of undoubted greatness whose posthumous reputation has suffered as much from the naive misinterpretations of his epigoni as from the remarkably few serious attempts to challenge his theories.

Belinskij and Russian Literary Criticism is both synchronic and diachronic in approach, for, as the author amply demonstrates, Belinsky's influence was of paramount significance during the nineteenth century, as indeed in the formation of Soviet aesthetic ideas and literary theory, including the doctrine of Socialist Realism. The first three chapters deal mainly with the critic's precursors, the Greek, German and French sources of his aesthetics, and certain aspects of his ideological development and semantic usage. Chapters 4-6 form the book's core ('Art and Objective Reality', 'The Work of Art' and 'The Artist'), constituting easily the most thorough and perceptive study of Belinsky's thought yet to appear in English, quite superseding the study by Herbert Bowman which has held the field un- challenged for over two decades (Vissarion Belinski I8II-I848: A Study in the Origins of Social Criticism, Cambridge, Mass., 1954). The last part of the book, almost a third, traces in detail the heritage of the critic's principles and philosophy throughout the subsequent development of Russian criticism from Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov to the present day, not ignoring those tendencies, like Formalism in the twenties, that challenged virtually every position of the organic aesthetics championed by Belinsky.

Professor Terras's complex and erudite book is based on comprehen- sively documented research, but happily avoids any trace of the turgidity into which studies of aesthetic theory are prone to lapse. The great number of bibliographical references in the footnotes is no substitute for a formal bibliography; the index, however, has been prepared with the same care as the text of the book and represents a useful tool. Belinskij and Russian Literary Criticism is intended for scholars rather than students, and will undoubtedly become a standard work of reference by virtue of its scope, lucidity, thoroughness and penetrating analyses. A further monograph treating in greater detail the continuing influence of Belinskian organicist aesthetics on Soviet literary criticism is projected. It will be impatiently awaited. London ARNOLD B. MCMILLIN

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 01:02:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions