Славяномания и кельтомания в российской лингвистике XVIII века (Slavomania and Celtomania in the 18th Century Russian Linguistics)

Sergey Ivanov
{"title":"Славяномания и кельтомания в российской лингвистике XVIII века (Slavomania and Celtomania in the 18th Century Russian Linguistics)","authors":"Sergey Ivanov","doi":"10.54586/xbhi5585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our paper is concerned with the linguistic work of two Russian antiquarians, Vasily Kirillovich Tredyakovsky (1703–1769) and Alexander Petrovich Sumarokov (1717–1777). Both of them are renowned mostly as poets, but their antiquarian skills are much less known. For a long time their etymologies were regarded as a historical curiosity and it was only recently that there appeared a noticeable shift towards a more favourable opinion. But while dealing with history of linguistics, we should ignore correctness / falseness or plausibility / implausibility of etymologies and lay the emphasis on the task and purpose of an author. Etymological studies have always been a handy instrument for detecting the origins of peoples. The 18th century Europe witnessed an extraordinary rise of celtomania. Scholars tried to find Celtic roots of their nations, striving to emphasize their significance and priority, which was understood as antiquity or, one might say, indigenity. Tredyakovsky set himself a similar task in his “Three treatises on three main Russian antiquities” (1758). He starts with comparing Slavic and Germanic languages aiming to prove that Slavic is more ancient than Germanic and, accordingly, the Slavs are superior to the Germans. Taking into account the fact that the author did not distinguish between Slavic and Russian, it is obvious that in the end he sees his task in glorifying the Russian nation. Tredyakovsky’s treatise, for all its intents and purposes, is a rebuttal of German scholars who have claimed the superiority of Teutonic languages over Slavic. Tredyakovsky resorts to the best possible argument that was in store of contemporary linguistic science and appeals to Celtic language which was perceived as the last instance due to a celtomaniac wave that flooded all over Europe. For this purpose he first derives Slavic from Scythian, or rather identifies the Scythians with the Slavs, and then claims the antiquity of Scythian. Now, it turns out that the Slavonic language in fact is identical not only to Scythian, but also to Celtic, in a sense that Celts had spoken Slavonic before they formed a separate tribe and spread all over Europe where due to the natural language corruption they lost their original dialect and fell away from their roots. By means of such argument the Slavonic language at once takes the upper hand over Teutonic. In fact, Tredyakovsky tries to implant the European celtomania in the Russian ground, but substitutes the Slavs for the Celts, thereby changing celtomania into slavomania. In my opinion, Tredyakovsky’s etymologies should be considered against the background of this purely pragmatic task; in this case they cannot be regarded as ridiculous or curious. They should be taken as historical facts determined by extralinguistic causes. Certainly, Tredyakovsky’s use of linguistic arguments has often been ad hoc. Once Slavic was proclaimed as the most ancient language, it was necessary to show that the material of all other languages may be deduced and explained on the ground of Slavic. Naturally, the most valuable way of proving this was to derive from Russian ancient and modern ethnonyms as well as place names. In this manner a number of etymologies were produced, such as Etruscans – “hitroushki” (i. e. “sly ones”); Celts – “zhelty” (i.e. “yellow ones”) “after their fair hair”; Iberians – “oupery”, because they are locked (“ouperty”) from all sides by seas. Sumarokov published a treatise “On the origin of Russian people” which for the most part follows Tredyakovsky’s wake. Pragmatically considered, their work presents us with an interesting paradox: on the Russian ground the Western celtomania turns into slavomania. On the one hand, there is a noticeable and passionate desire to introduce the Russians into the European family of nations and, furthermore, to bring the Russian science up to the Western European standards. Making Slavs and Celts related, both scholars expanded the boundaries of Europe, presenting Russia as its natural part. From this point of view, they acted as predecessors of the 19th century “Westerners” in Russia. On the other hand, their method of etymologizing and the persistence with which they derived all the words of all languages from Russian, closely resembles the way of thinking which the 19th century slavophils adhered to.","PeriodicalId":370965,"journal":{"name":"Studia Celto-Slavica","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Celto-Slavica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54586/xbhi5585","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Our paper is concerned with the linguistic work of two Russian antiquarians, Vasily Kirillovich Tredyakovsky (1703–1769) and Alexander Petrovich Sumarokov (1717–1777). Both of them are renowned mostly as poets, but their antiquarian skills are much less known. For a long time their etymologies were regarded as a historical curiosity and it was only recently that there appeared a noticeable shift towards a more favourable opinion. But while dealing with history of linguistics, we should ignore correctness / falseness or plausibility / implausibility of etymologies and lay the emphasis on the task and purpose of an author. Etymological studies have always been a handy instrument for detecting the origins of peoples. The 18th century Europe witnessed an extraordinary rise of celtomania. Scholars tried to find Celtic roots of their nations, striving to emphasize their significance and priority, which was understood as antiquity or, one might say, indigenity. Tredyakovsky set himself a similar task in his “Three treatises on three main Russian antiquities” (1758). He starts with comparing Slavic and Germanic languages aiming to prove that Slavic is more ancient than Germanic and, accordingly, the Slavs are superior to the Germans. Taking into account the fact that the author did not distinguish between Slavic and Russian, it is obvious that in the end he sees his task in glorifying the Russian nation. Tredyakovsky’s treatise, for all its intents and purposes, is a rebuttal of German scholars who have claimed the superiority of Teutonic languages over Slavic. Tredyakovsky resorts to the best possible argument that was in store of contemporary linguistic science and appeals to Celtic language which was perceived as the last instance due to a celtomaniac wave that flooded all over Europe. For this purpose he first derives Slavic from Scythian, or rather identifies the Scythians with the Slavs, and then claims the antiquity of Scythian. Now, it turns out that the Slavonic language in fact is identical not only to Scythian, but also to Celtic, in a sense that Celts had spoken Slavonic before they formed a separate tribe and spread all over Europe where due to the natural language corruption they lost their original dialect and fell away from their roots. By means of such argument the Slavonic language at once takes the upper hand over Teutonic. In fact, Tredyakovsky tries to implant the European celtomania in the Russian ground, but substitutes the Slavs for the Celts, thereby changing celtomania into slavomania. In my opinion, Tredyakovsky’s etymologies should be considered against the background of this purely pragmatic task; in this case they cannot be regarded as ridiculous or curious. They should be taken as historical facts determined by extralinguistic causes. Certainly, Tredyakovsky’s use of linguistic arguments has often been ad hoc. Once Slavic was proclaimed as the most ancient language, it was necessary to show that the material of all other languages may be deduced and explained on the ground of Slavic. Naturally, the most valuable way of proving this was to derive from Russian ancient and modern ethnonyms as well as place names. In this manner a number of etymologies were produced, such as Etruscans – “hitroushki” (i. e. “sly ones”); Celts – “zhelty” (i.e. “yellow ones”) “after their fair hair”; Iberians – “oupery”, because they are locked (“ouperty”) from all sides by seas. Sumarokov published a treatise “On the origin of Russian people” which for the most part follows Tredyakovsky’s wake. Pragmatically considered, their work presents us with an interesting paradox: on the Russian ground the Western celtomania turns into slavomania. On the one hand, there is a noticeable and passionate desire to introduce the Russians into the European family of nations and, furthermore, to bring the Russian science up to the Western European standards. Making Slavs and Celts related, both scholars expanded the boundaries of Europe, presenting Russia as its natural part. From this point of view, they acted as predecessors of the 19th century “Westerners” in Russia. On the other hand, their method of etymologizing and the persistence with which they derived all the words of all languages from Russian, closely resembles the way of thinking which the 19th century slavophils adhered to.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们的论文是关于两个俄罗斯古物学家的语言学工作,Vasily Kirillovich Tredyakovsky(1703-1769)和Alexander Petrovich Sumarokov(1717-1777)。他们都是著名的诗人,但他们的古董技能却鲜为人知。在很长一段时间里,它们的词源被认为是历史上的奇闻,直到最近才出现了一个明显的转变,人们对它们的看法更加赞同。但是,在研究语言学史的时候,我们应该忽略词源学的正确/错误或合理/不合理,而把重点放在作者的任务和目的上。词源学研究一直是发现民族起源的便利工具。18世纪的欧洲见证了celtomania的惊人兴起。学者们试图找到他们国家的凯尔特根源,努力强调他们的重要性和优先地位,这被理解为古代,或者,有人可能会说,土著。特雷迪亚科夫斯基在他的《关于三个主要俄罗斯文物的三篇论文》(1758)中给自己设定了类似的任务。他首先比较了斯拉夫语和日耳曼语,目的是证明斯拉夫语比日耳曼语更古老,因此,斯拉夫人比日耳曼人优越。考虑到作者没有区分斯拉夫语和俄语这一事实,很明显,他最终认为自己的任务是美化俄罗斯民族。特雷迪亚科夫斯基的论文,就其所有意图和目的而言,是对德国学者声称条顿语比斯拉夫语优越的反驳。特雷迪亚科夫斯基诉诸于当代语言科学中最好的论据,并呼吁凯尔特语,凯尔特语被认为是最后的实例,因为凯尔特人狂热浪潮席卷了整个欧洲。为了这个目的,他首先从斯基泰语中衍生出斯拉夫语,或者更确切地说,把斯基泰人和斯拉夫人等同起来,然后声称斯基泰语是古老的。现在,事实证明,斯拉夫语实际上不仅与斯基泰语相同,而且与凯尔特语相同,从某种意义上说,凯尔特人在形成一个独立的部落并传播到整个欧洲之前就说斯拉夫语,但由于自然语言的腐蚀,他们失去了原始的方言,脱离了他们的根源。通过这样的争论,斯拉夫语立刻占了日耳曼语的上风。事实上,特雷迪亚科夫斯基试图将欧洲的celtomania植入俄罗斯的土地上,但用斯拉夫人代替了凯尔特人,从而将celtomania变成了slavomania。在我看来,特雷迪亚科夫斯基的词源学应该在这个纯粹的语用任务的背景下考虑;在这种情况下,他们不能被视为荒谬或好奇。它们应该被看作是由语言外原因决定的历史事实。当然,特雷迪亚科夫斯基对语言学论证的使用经常是临时的。一旦宣布斯拉夫语是最古老的语言,就有必要表明,所有其他语言的材料都可以根据斯拉夫语推断和解释。当然,证明这一点的最有价值的方法是从俄罗斯古代和现代的民族名称以及地名中得出的。以这种方式产生了许多词源,例如伊特鲁里亚人-“hitroushki”(即“狡猾的人”);凯尔特人-“zhelty”(即“黄色的”)“以他们金黄色的头发命名”;伊比利亚人——“oupery”,因为他们四面环海(“ouperty”)。苏马洛科夫发表了一篇论文《论俄罗斯人的起源》,其中大部分内容都是追随特雷迪亚科夫斯基的脚步。从实用主义的角度来看,他们的作品向我们展示了一个有趣的悖论:在俄罗斯的土地上,西方的celtomania变成了slavomania。一方面,有一种明显的、强烈的愿望,要把俄国人引入欧洲大家庭,而且要把俄国的科学提高到西欧的标准。这两位学者把斯拉夫人和凯尔特人联系在一起,扩大了欧洲的边界,把俄罗斯视为欧洲的自然组成部分。从这个角度来看,他们是19世纪“西方人”在俄罗斯的前辈。另一方面,他们的词源学方法和他们从俄语中派生出所有语言的所有单词的坚持,与19世纪斯拉夫主义者所坚持的思维方式非常相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Oral Literature in Brittany: A Short History of Breton Collections and Collectors From Kings to Dukes: Brittany between the 5th and the 12th Century 100 Years of Literature in the Breton Language (1920-2020) From Palaeolithic Caves to Roman Villas: Brittany's Distant Past La Villemarque's Barzaz-Breiz (1839-1845-1867): A Romantic Fiction to Reinvent Oneself
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1