Andrii Danylenko (Pace U, New York)adanylenko@pace.edu
KITAB, COSSACKS, AND LINGUISTIC ECUMENISM
IN EARLY MODERN LITHUANIA AND POLAND
1. Introduction(a) The Historical Setting
Time frame of ethno-linguistic and cultural tolerance:
Late 14th c. (Muslim Tatars founded first communities in Lithuania)
1569 (the emergence of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC) as aconstitutional union of Lithuania and Poland)
1648–58 (the Cossack Uprisings)(b) The Ethnic and Demographic Setting
Autochthonous Players:

Poles
Lithuanians
Ruthenians (Ukrainians, Belarusians)
Latvians

Smaller (‘colonial’) Players: Germans, Jews, Tatars, Karaites, Armenians, u.a.
Queries:








What is the nature of the ethno-linguistic and cultural relationships in the PLC?
What brought down this state by the end of the ‘Era of Tolerance’?
How did the ‘mechanisms’ of tolerance work?
Code-switching
Script-switching
Bilingualism vs. diglossia
Ecumenical debates

2. Classification of Languages?
(a) autochthonous languages/peoples: Slavic (Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian) andBaltic (Old Prussian, Latvian, Lithuanian);(b) colonial languages: German, Yiddish, Romani, Tatar, Karaite, Armenian;(c) liturgical languages: Latin (Catholics), Church Slavonic (Orthodox, Uniates),Hebrew (Aszkenazic Jews, Karaites), Arabic (Lithuanian Tatars), Old Armenian(Armenians);(d) secular [small] languages: Polish, Ruthenian, Lithuanian vs. Czech, French,
Italian, and Greek
Reczek (1989)

Bednarczuk (1993, 1997)‘linguistic community’ (‘wspólnota komunikatywna’) in reference to communal
languages or ethnolects (‘etnolekty’) traditionally singled out for this linguistic
area
Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian ethno-linguistic and cultural area
3. Before 1569: A Tandem of Major Players?
Following the Tatar invasion of Rus’ in the 13th c. and Lithuania’s subsequentannexation of Rusian lands, the enlarged GDL became a multiethnic entity
The rusьkij jazykъ played a unifying role between the pagan Lithuanian realm at the core
and the Christian Slavic component:
Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Polish settlers
only 10% of the GDL was populated by ethnic Lithuanians
Lithuanin-Ruthenian or Ruthenian-Lithuanian polity (Plochy 2006, 87, Danylenko
2011)
3.1. Ruthenian-Lithuanian Bilingualism?
(a) Ruthenian as a written language vs. Lithuanian as a spoken one
The Lithuanian Statutes of 1529, 1566, and 1588, as well as various legal entries were
written in Ruthenian
Slavic suffix -ovič, -evič:
Narbutovičъ or Rimgailovičъ (Lith. Norbutaitis and Rimgalaitis) in the parish
books of St. John Cathedral in Vilnius under the years 1602–16
Pol. Mickiewicz, Sienkiewicz, Kuryłowicz from Ruthenian (Belarusian) or from
Lithuanian in Belarusianized forms (Safarewicz 1982, Shevelov 1968)
Was it a case of language (code)-switching?
(b) The influence of Lithuanian on the rusьkij jazykъ within the GDL was conceivably
minimal (Stang 1935: 146–47)
In Middle Belarusian Žuraŭski (1970: 146–50) counted only forty reliable Lithuanianborrowings
In Middle Polish Urbutis (1969), and Dini (1997: 282) found up to 300-450
Lithuanianisms

(c) A multi-layered system of Slavic loanwords, comprising East Slavic proper, Polish or
loanwords mediated by Polish.
Almost three quarters of old borrowings are likely to be of either Belarusian or Polishprovenance (Dini 1997). By the 20th c., however, of about 3,000 Slavicisms, chosen by
Skardžius (1931), only 10% appear in standard modern Lithuanian, about 35% are foundin various dialects; all the remaining loanwords, 55%, are now unknown or very rarely
encountered (Zinkevičius 1998: 245).
3.2. Church-Slavonic–Ruthenian parallelism“Foolish Rus”: Church Slavonic was loosing its intelligibility
Two solutions to this problem:
(i)
(ii)

at the initial stage, Church Slavonic texts were printed/copied in parallel with
their Ruthenian versions
Church Slavonic originals, save perhaps for the Old Testament, tended to be
subsequently translated and printed in the prostaja mova

Church SlavonicМилосерçдовавъ же господь раба того, пустьти:RuthenianИ үмилосерçдилъсе панъ челѧдçникъ того,еˉго, ùдолъгъ, ѡ(т)пусьти еˉмупүсьтилъ еˉго. ù долъгъ, ѡ(т)пусьтилъ еˉмуThen the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt (Mt
18:27)

Was is it bilinguailism?
4. After 1569: A Clinch of Major Players?
The rusьkij jazykъ looses its privileged status as guaranteed in the 2nd Lithuanian Statuteof 1566 because of:(a) influx of Polish gentry(b) Polonization of the local nobility
Ruthenian becomes a Polish language written in Cyrillic
4.1. Polish–Ruthenian parallelism:(a) Kazanьe svjatoho Kirilla Patriarъxi ierusalimъskoho [...] / Kazanie ś. Cyrylla
Patryarchy Ierozolimskiego [...] (1596) by Stefan Zyzanij (Karataev 1883,
265-68),(b) the Volhynian Arian Valentyn Nehalevs’kyj’s [Niegaliewski] Rutheniantranslation of the 1581 Polish Gospel, which the Calvinist Marcin Czechowić
had published in Cracow in 1577 (Nazarevskij 1911, 23)
Czechowić’s original

Nehalevs’kyj’s “transliteration”

Ponieważ wiele ich za to się brało, żeby porządną
wydali powieść o sprawach tych o ktorych vnasżadney wątpliwości nie maszПонева(ж) много ихъ за тое сӕ брало, жебыпорӕдную выдали пове(ст) ѡ справахъ тыхъ ѡкоторыхъ ү на(с) жа(д)ное небезпечности немашьMany of them took this upon to be capable of authoring a solid narrative about which you do not have any
doubt

Script-switching?
4.2. Lithuanian Tatars
Muslim Tatars founded communities in the GDL in the early 14th c.
Arabic script with extra Turkish and Persian characters used to render a local Slavic
language – which one?

Ar ab ic

L a tin s ymbol

S lav ic

n ame

gr aphe mes ound pa ttern

tā’

‫ﺖ‬

t

sharp voiceless dental stop: /t’/

üā’

‫ﻄ‬

ü

voiceless dental stop: /t/

âā’

‫ﺡ‬

â

fricative velar: /x/

dze

‫ﺪ‬

dz

voiced dental affricate: /dz/

kāf

‫ﻚ‬

k

sharp velar stop: /k’/

qāf

‫ﻖ‬

q

voiceless velar stop: /k/

thā’

‫ﺙ‬

s

sharp voiceless fricative alveolar: /s’/

sīn

‫ﺲ‬

s

sharp voiceless fricative alveolar: /s’/

şīn

‫ڛ‬

ş

sharp voiceless fricative alveolar: /s’/

÷ād

‫ﺺ‬

÷

voiceless fricative alveolar: /s/

ûā

‫ﻇ‬

û

voiced fricative alveolar: /z/

Ùād

‫ﺽ‬

Ù

voiced fricative alveolar: /z/

zāy

‫ﺯ‬

z

sharp voiced fricative alveolar: /z’/

dhāl

‫ﺫ‬

d

sharp voiced fricative alveolar: /z’/

yā’

‫ﻯ‬

y

alveopalatal semivowel: /j/

wāw

‫ﻭ‬

w

bilabial semivowel: /w/[fol. 1b] (13) [...] muştebžebow ū nemaze

There are twenty five muştedžebs in the nemaz.
(14) dwadccat i pat / perwiy /hledeti ū nemaze /÷tōyūči (1b)First, while staying in the nemaz, you [must] look[fol.2a] (1) na üōye mesce /hdeh şedždeh poqlōnitişā / drūhiy /hledeti ū ruku‘ede
at that place, where you [should] bow in a şedždeh / second, in the ruku‘e,you [must] look (Kitab, 18th c.)

Typology of texts:
Qur’āntefsir ‘commentary on the Qur’ān’, viz. the book of the Qur’ān written in Arabic with aninterlinear translation in the vernacular (in all known cases, in Polish)tedžvid, a treatise on how to read the Qur’ān
xamail, a collection of prayers in Arabic or Turkish with an explanation of some rites in a
Slavic vernaculardalawars (from a Turkish plural form dua-lar ‘prayers’)kitab, known also as Belarusianized kicjab or kicjob, a collection of ritual prescriptions,stories and moral precepts, apocrypha and other narratives
4.2.1. Religious Ecumenism?
An excerpt from the 17th-century Kitab:Ja xōdīna śujū knihū is farśijskōhō i s tureckōhō jażika na ruś®ij jezik perelōžil dle nevmilīx / žeb jim pōdnū / ā mene xōdinū dōbrimī mōlitvamī uspōmonali ā tōj kniźe śe vmīle (41a) (l16th c. cf. Miškinene 2001,
108)‘I, Xodyna, translated this book from the Persian and Turkish languages into the Rusian language for theignorant [believers] so that they can use it every day, and remember me with the help of kind prayers, andbe familiar with this book’Contents of the Kitab:(a) various narratives about prophet Mohammad and his disciples(b) minor narratives reflecting polemics with the Jews and Christians(c) borrowing of some Christian narratives and interpretations[Religious] “ecumenism in the treatment of sources of the two religions” (Drozd 1997)
The Lithuanian Tatars prefaced their collections with chapters from the book of Genesis,
supplemented by the corresponding verses from the Qur’ān in Arabic and their Polishtranslation
Ethnic tensions?

Piotr Czyžewski, Alkoran Tatarski (1616), Alfurkan Tatarski (1617, 1640, etc.)
cf. Pol. furkanie, whence ‘Das tatarische Gesause (Geschwirre, Geschnurre)’(Suter 2004, 19)
4.2.2. Linguistic ecumenism(a) The Lithuanian Tatars used Polish along with the prostaja mova in confessional andsecular texts correspondingly (Danylenko 2006b)
A polemical adaptation by a Lithuanian Tatar of Krzysztof Pussman’s Historyja barzo
cudna i ku widzeniu potrzebna o stworzeniu nieba i ziemie […] (1543, first published in1551) (Drozd 1997, 22-23) may be identified as a kind of tefsir
It contains Qur’ānic verses in Arabic along with their Polish translation, supplemented
with quotes from the Old Testament. By that time the Arabic of the Qur’ān became
incomprehensible to the Lithuanian Tatars, whence the interlinear translation into Polish(Karskij 1922, 2; Suter 2004, 9) or borderland Polish (polszczyzna kresowa) revealing asubstantial East Slavic substratum.
(b) having abandoned their mother tongue(s) in the early 16th c., the Lithuanian Tatars
switched to the local East Slavic vernacular but retained the Turko-Arabic script as amarker of their identity
Language and script choice in the minor speech communities of Tatars, Armenians, andKaraites was likely to be derivative of the cultural and socio-linguistic environment
shaped by the local Orthodox Ruthenians interacting with the Catholics, Protestants, andlater the Uniates.
5. Ukrainian Cossacks
Gente Ruthenus, natione Polonus?
The Ruthenian gentry were confined to a closed and very traditional space defined by
local culture, Eastern Christian tradition, and native language epitomized by Cyrillic
script.
Stanisław Orzechowski (1513–66): ‘Poland is my parent, the Church is my mother,
Ruthenia is my nourisher, Peremyšl’ is my fatherland, […] and Rus’ is my birthplace’(Chimaera: 6)
Ethnic Lithuanian identity gradually became subordinate to Polish national identity,
since the Lithuanian boyars were inclined to full participation in the Polish politicalprivileges, expediently opting for Polish as a new state language (Zinkevičius 1988: 112–
14).
The equalization of noble rights went hand in hand with linguistic and cultural
Polonization.
The Cossack uprising and the proclamation of a Cossack Hetmanate were results of theincreasing social and religious pressure from the Commonwealth

Conclusions
 Language and script choice by Tatars, Armenians, and Karaites was derivative of
the cultural and socio-linguistic environment shaped by the local Orthodox
Ruthenians interacting with the Catholics and Protestants
 The multiethnic, multicultural, and multilingual Polish nation was vertically weakin the 16th-17th c. (Plokhy, Danylenko)
 A love triangle of Lithuanians, Poles, and Ruthenians failed and influenced thetype of interrelations among all other players
Selected Bibliography
Bednarczuk, Leszek. 1997. Moŭnaja suisnats’ Vjalikaha Knjastva Litoŭskaha. In: Bole,
Anna et al. (eds.). Słowianie Wschodni. Między językiem a kulturą. Kraków, 55–61.
Bednarczuk, Leszek. 1993. La communauté linguistique du Grand Duché de Lituanie.
Linguistica Baltica 2, 5–13.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2006a. ‘Prostaja mova’, ‘kitab’, and Polisian standard. Die Welt der
Slaven 51, 80–115.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2006b. On the Language of Early Lithuanian Tatars or, Have
Lithuanian Tatars Ever Written in Ukrainian? The Slavonic and East European
Review 84 (2), 201–36.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2006c. Slavica et Islamica. Ukrainian in Context. München.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2011. Linguistic and cultural border crossings in the Grand Duchy of
Lithuania or, can the Grand Duchy of Lithuania be defined as a Sprachareal? In Petit,
Daniel (ed.), Langues baltiques, langues slaves, Paris: CNRS Editions, 2011, 141-73.
Danylenko, Andrii. 2012. “…[I]s farsijskōhō i s tureckōhō jażika na ruśk’ij jezik
perelōžil”: Script and Language Choice in Medieval Ruthenia. In Izmirlieva,
Valentina and Boris Gasparov (eds.), Translation and Tradition in “Slavic
Orthodoxa”, Zürich, Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2012, 86-105.
Dini, Pietro U. 2005. Views on Languages and Polyglossia in the Grand Duchy of
Lithuania according to Johannes Stobnica’s Epitoma Europe (1512). In: Vyacheslav
V. Ivanov, Julia Verkholantsev (eds.). Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy,
Ruthenia and Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages, Moscow: Novoe izdatel’stvo, 36–43.
Drozd, Andrzej. 1997. Wpływy chrześcijańskie na literaturę tatarów w dawnej
Rzeczypospolitej. Między antagonizmem a symbiozą. Pamiętnik Literacki 88 (3), 3–
34.
Ivanov, Vyacheslav. 2005. Jazyki, jazykovye sem’ji i jazykovye sojuzy vnutri Velikogoknjažestva Litovskogo. In: Ivanov, Vyacheslav V., Julia Verkholantsev (eds.).
Speculum Slaviae Orientalis. Muscovy, Ruthenia and Lithuania in the Late Middle
Age. Moscow, 93–121 (UCLA Slavic Studies. New Series. 4).
Karataev, I. 1883. Opisanie slavjano-russkix knig, napečatannyx kirillovskimi bukvami,
vol. 1: 1491–1652. Sanktpeterburg. Martel, Antoine. 1938. La langue polonaise dansles pays ruthènes, Ukraine et Russie Blanche 1569–1667. Lille.
Karskij, E. F. Belorusskaja reč’ arabskim pis’mom. In Sbornik statej, posvjaščennyx
professoru Borisu Mixajloviču Ljapunovu po slučaju tridcatiletija ego
prepodavatel’skoj dejatel’nosti. 1892-1922, 1-2. Odessa, 1992.

Martel, Antoine. 1938. La langue polonaise dans les pays ruthènes, Ukraine et Russie
Blanche 1569–1667. Lille.
Miškinenė, Galina. 2001. Seniausieji lietuvos totorių rankraščiai. Grafika.
Transliteracija. Vertimas. Tekstų struktūra ir turinys. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetoleidykla.
Nazarevskij, A. A. 1911. Jazyk Evangelija 1581 goda v perevode V. Negalevskogo.
Universitetskie izvestija 8 (Kiev), 1–40; 11, 41–78; 12, 79–139.
Ochmański, Jerzy. 1990. Historia Litwy, 3rd ed. Wrocław, etc.
Orzechowski, Stanisław. 1972. Wybór pism, ed. by Jerzy Starnawski. Wrocław, etc.
Pervol’f, Iosif [Perwolf, Josef]. 1888. Slavjane. Ix vzaimnye otnošenija i svjazi, vol. 2:
Slavjanskaja ideja v literature do XVIII veka. Varšava: K. Kovalevskij.
Petrov, Aleksej. 1923. Otzvuk reformacii v russkom Zakarpat’e XVI v. Praha (Mémoirede la Société Royale des Sciences de Bohême. Classe des Lettres. Année 1921–1922).
Plokhy, Serhii. 2006. The Origins of the Slavic Nations. Cambridge University Press.
Reczek, Józef. 1989. Języki w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej. Język polski 69, 10–19.
Safarewicz, Jan. 1982. Rusko–litewska postać niektórych nazwisk polskich. Język polski
62, 335–36.
Shevelov, George, Y. 1968. Nazwiska słowiańskie na -kevič. In: Symboliae philologicaein honorem Vitoldi Taszycki. Wrocław, etc., 303–14 (Polsk Akademia Nauk. Oddziałw Krakowie. Prace komisji językoznawstwa. 17).
Skardžius, Pranas. 1931. Die slavischen Lehnwörter im Altlitauischen. Kaunas.
Stang, Christian S. 1935. Die westrussische Kanzleisprache des Großfürstentums Litauen.
Oslo.
Suter, Paul. 2004. Alfurkan Tatarski. Der litauisch-tatarische Koran-Tefsir. Köln,
Weimer, Wien: Böhlau.
Szynkiewicz, Jakób. 1935. Literatura religijna tatarów litewskich i jej pochodzenie.
Rocznik Tatarski 2 (Zamość), 138–45.
Ułaszyn, Henryk et al. 1915. Język polski i jego historya z uwzględnieniem innychjęzyków na ziemiach polskich, part 2. Warszawa, etc. (Encyklopedya polska, vol. 3,
series 3 (part 2)).
Urbutis, Vincas. 1969. Dabartinės baltarusių kalbos lituanizmai. Baltistica 5, 43–68, 149–
62.
Wexler, Paul. 1973. Jewish, Tatar and Karaite communal dialects and their importancefor Byelorussian historical linguistics. The Journal of Byelorussian Studies 3 (1), 41–
54.
Zinkevičius, Zigmas. 1987. Lietuvių kalbos istorija, vol. 2: Iki pirmųjų raštų; 1988, vol.
3: Senųjų raštų kalba. Vilnius.
Zinkevičius, Zigmas. 1985. Lenkų – Jotvingių žodynėlis? Baltistica 21, 61–82, 184–94.
Zinkevičius, Zigmas. 1977. Lietuvių antroponimika. Vilniaus lietuvių asmenvardiai XVII
a. pradžioje. Vilnius.
Žuraŭski, Arkadzij Iosifavič. 1970. Zapazyčnaja leksika ŭ starabelaruskaj move. In:
Baxan’koŭ, A. Ja. Et al. (eds.). Histaryčnaja leksikalohija belaruskaj movy. Minsk,
81–160.
Žuraŭski, Arkadzij Iosifavič. 1967. Historyja belaruskaj litaraturnaj movy, vol. 1. Minsk.