Horálek’s introduction to the Slavonic languages

Several days ago I came across Peter Herrity’s two-volume translation of Karel Horálek’s An Introduction to the Study of the Slavonic Languages (Nottingham: Astra Press, 1992) ISBN 0-946134-26-X (Volume I) and 0-946134-34-0 (Volume II). Horálek’s original Úvod do studia slovanských jazyků was published in 1955 in Prague, with a second edition following in 1962.

The first volume is the most wide-ranging, examining the Slavonic family from a diachronic perspective from Proto-Indo-European up to those specific changes which set each of the national languages apart from each other. Unexpectedly, the discussion of Proto-Indo-European takes laryngeal theory into account; either Horálek was unusually visionary for a Slavicist, or this came as part of the amendations which Herrity contributed. While the discussion of sound changes throughout this long span are more substantial than in most other introductions I’ve encountered, Horálek’s discussion of accent and intonation is skimpy and confused. I fear we still await a decent introduction to Slavonic historical accent for the beginning student, and I’ve seen graduate students of the subject forced to piece together a vague idea of the system from articles and monographs overly specific and far beyond the layman’s reach.

Horálek’s introduction uses a wealth of data from Sorbian, Kashubian, and Polabian. I’ve encountered no English-language introduction to the field that even gives these two acceptable passing mention, let alone treats them as just as worthy of attention as the rest of the family. But as the author wrote for a Czech audience, Czech gets the most attention of all. This is sometimes a problem, for Horálek often compares other Slavonic languages to Czech, making it difficult for the reader without knowledge of Czech to understand his point. And as the author was writing during the height of socialism, a common text presented in each of the Slavonic languages is taken from the Communist Manifesto instead of something less technical, though to his credit Horálek does make it obvious that he hates this obligation.

The lack of information on accent is more than compensated by the attention given to comparative syntax: fifty whole pages worth. I’ve never seen such a friendly introduction to the syntactical features of the whole family (Oxford’s Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages obviously only serves for Bulgarian and Macedonian in a Sprachbund context).

The second volume ends the comparative examination of the entire family with the matter of lexicology. Then a new theme arrives with a survey of the history of each of the literary languages from the earliest times (dialectal differences in OCS texts) to the age of nationalism. This is followed, putting the cart somewhat before the horse, with a history of Slavonic writing systems. Horálek sensibly upholds that Glagolitic was the first alphabet, making the usual arguments in favour of this point. After this there is a brief listing of the identifying features of each Slavonic language. Much of this information has already been presented in the first volume, but scattered long discussions of obscure features. This section is useful for quick reference when one is wondering how, say, Polish treats original dj.

The final portion of the book is an outline of the history of comparative Slavonic linguistics. This is quite brief, but I find it of enormous importance. Resources on Old Church Slavonic mention many famous personalities, but the reader is left to wonder at their biography and major overall achievements. Nor does the beginner in comparative Slavonic linguistics get much idea of what theories have already been tried and found wanting. I find Winfred Lehmann’s Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics (Routledge, 2005) the best overall IE primer specifically because it introduces the reader not only to the field as it stands today, but also to its growth and to those major figures who moved it along. Horálek has provided a great service by giving the same sort of history for his own specific field.

My biggest complaint about the book is the quality of the typesetting. I understand that this was probably a labour of love, brought out by a small press with little funding available, but there’s no excuse for such ugly pages. Hear me, O academics forced to self-publish: if you pay a graduate student (like me, for example) just a hundred euro or so, and promise a free copy, your book can be typeset to as high a standard a quality as if it came from Cambridge University Press or the Clarendon Press. Of course, even were the book nicely typeset, the printing of the volume is on cheap paper and from time to time one finds words a little blurry.

I couldn’t even tell you how much this book costs, as it’s not listed at Amazon, hence my posting my review here on my weblog. Still, seek out this through inter-library loan if you enjoy reading about the Slavonic languages. It’s a valuable resource alongside the English-language standards especially if you’re wondering who exactly were all these 19th-century gentlemen whose names constantly pop up.

7 thoughts on “Horálek’s introduction to the Slavonic languages”

  1. …though to his credit Horálek does make it obvious that he hates this obligation.

    I’d like to know how he did that without making it too obvious.

    Horálek sensibly upholds that Glagolitic was the first alphabet, making the usual arguments in favour of this point.

    Ignorant question… has anyone ever claimed otherwise?

  2. Horálek makes it obvious that he dislikes pressure to put Marxist references into his work by making the bare minimum of such references, as well as by balancing out the first volume’s quotation from The Communist Manifesto with an extract from St. Luke in the second volume.

    Among scholars who have argued at length that Cyrillic came first Horálek cites the early scholar J. Dobrovský and the 20th-century Bulgarian Slavicist E. Georgiev (Славянская писменность до Крилла и Мефодия, published in Sofia, 1952). There are others who have followed their work. In the case of the former, generally early scholars (since people subsequently learnt better). In the case of Georgiev, there seems to have flourished an interesting nationalistic movement around some minor East Slav scholars to the effect that, since Glagolitic is unattested in the East Slav regions, and since the developed civilization of Kyiv Rus must have needed an alphabet quite early, Cyrillic must be the first.

    Oh, and please don’t use the tag <i>. My website is XHTML 1.0 Strict, which doesn’t allow that tag. Every time you use it I have to edit your comment and replace it. If you want to indicate emphasis, please use the <em> tag. If you want to set a foreign-language word in italics, you can surround it with <span xml:lang="XX" lang="XX">given word</span> where XX is the two-letter ISO-639 code. My stylesheet instructs browsers to italicize most text that is thus marked as non-English. When I find some time I’ll add a list of acceptable tags to be shown on each post before the comment box.

  3. David,

    Has anyone ever claimed otherwise?

    Oh yes. In fact, it had been accepted as a fact until Pavol Jozef Šafárik came along. In 1858, he published a treatise entitled Über den Ursprung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus in he which proved that Glagolitic predated Cyrillic by using paleographic (palimpsest) and linguistic data.

    Occasionally you get a crackpot or two insisting he was wrong and Cyrillic was in fact the first alphabet. Just the other day I read an article to that effect by an Uniate monk by the name of Gorazd Andrej Timkovič. It seems that pseudohistory is not his only hobby, as he is in deep trouble with the bishop of Prešov for publishing several other error-ridden books (on the iconostasis and the history of the Uniate church), without imprimatur even.

  4. Ah, thanks a lot.

    I gather <blockquote> is acceptable? And <b> is not (you rendered my bold “too” in italics)?

  5. <blockquote> is fine, but within <blockquote> you should also use <p> tags for each paragraph (even if there is just one). I rendered your bold too in italics because I felt that the <em> tag was most appropriate semantically, which is expressed in italics in most browsers.

    That’s the difficult part about keeping a weblog in XHTML 1.0 Strict, you can’t assume those leaving comments are as obsessed with semantic markup as you are.

  6. Horálek, I knew it sounded familiar. Turns out I have a battered copy of the 1962 edition of Úvod do studia slovanských jazyků. On page 95, Horálek refers to laryngeal theory according to Benveniste and also quotes Kuryłowicz and Meillet. So I guess the “visionary” part applies.

  7. Many thanks for your review, Christopher. I have two questions:

    What do you think of The Slavonic Languages, ed. by Bernard Comrie et al. (2002)? Will this be a better introduction than Horálek for a newcomer to Slavic linguistics — one mainly interested, for the moment, in leveraging some IE knowledge toward learning Russian? You write: I fear we still await a decent introduction to Slavonic historical accent for the beginning student… Is Morris Halle’s “Stress and Accent in Indo-European” (Language, vol. 73, no. 2 (June, 1997), pp. 275–313 a good alternative?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *