Bosnian Cyrillic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bosnian Cyrillic is an extinct Cyrillic script, that was used in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia (Dalmatia and Dubrovnik). Its name in Bosnian and Croatian is bosančica and bosanica (Croats also call it unofficially Croatian script, Croatian-Bosnian script or Western Cyrillic). Serbs use the designation Bosnian Cyrillic- in order to stress its affiliation with greater Cyrillic cultural areal.

1 History and characteristic features
2 Controversies and polemic
3 See also
4 External links

[edit] History and characteristic features

It is hard to ascertain when features of characteristically Bosnian type of Cyrillic had begun to appear, but paleographers consider that the Humac tablet from 11th century (supposedly) is the first document of this type of script. It is preserved in Franciscan monastery of Humac near Ljubuški in Herzegovina. In this stone inscription are visible patterns that

Historically, a few areas of Bosnian Cyrillic had been prominent:

passages from the Bible in documents of Bosnian Church adherents, 14th and 15th century.

numerous legal and commercial documents (charters, letters, donations) of nobles and royalty from medieval Bosnian state in correspondence with Dubrovnik and various cities in Dalmatia, beginning in the 12th and 13th century, and reaching its peak in the 14th and 15th centuries

tomb inscriptions on marbles in medieval Bosnia and Herzegovina, chiefly 14th and 15th centuries

legal documents in central Dalmatia, like the statute of Poljica principality (1440) and other numerous charters from this area

liturgical works (missals, breviaries, lectionaries) of the Roman Catholic Church from Dubrovnik, 15th and 16th century (the most famous is printed breviary from 1520)

the comprehensive body of Bosnian literacy, mainly associated with Franciscan order, from early 1600s (actually, 1611) to mid-1700s and early 1800s. This is by far the most abundant corpus of works written in Bosnian Cyrillic, covering various genres, but belonging to the liturgical literature: numerous polemical tractates in the spirit of Counter-Reformation, popular tales from the Bible, catechisms, breviaries, historical chronicles, local church histories, religious poetry and didactic works. Among the most important writings of this circle are works of Matija Divković, Stjepan Matijević and Pavao Posilović.

after the Ottoman conquest, Bosnian Muslim or Bosniak nobility used this script (along with Arabic), chiefly in correspondence, mainly from 15th to 17th centuries-although isolated families and individuals could write in it even in the 20th century

The conclusion on main traits of Bosnian Cyrillic would be:

it was a form of Cyrillic script mainly in use in Bosnia and Herzegovina, central Dalmatia and Dubrovnik

its first monuments are from the 11th century, but the "golden epoch" covered the period from 14th to 17th centuries. From the late 1700s it rather speedily fell into disuse to be replaced by Latin script

its primary characteristics (scriptory, morphological, orthographical) show strong connection with Glagolitic script-unlike "ordinary" Church Slavonic form of Cyrillic associated with Eastern Orthodox churches

it had been in use, in ecclesiastical works, mainly in Bosnian Church and Roman Catholic Church in historical lands of Bosnia, Hum, Dalmatia and Dubrovnik. Also, it was a widespread script in Bosnian Muslim circles, which, however, preferred modified Arabic aljamiado script. Serbian Orthodox clergy and adherents used mainly standard, Resava orthography version of Serbian Cyrillic.
the form of Bosnian Cyrillic has passed through a few phases, so although culturally it is right to speak about one script, it is evident that features present in Bosnian Franciscan documents in 1650s differ from the charters fom Brac island in Dalmatia in 1250s.

[edit] Controversies and polemic

The polemic about "ethnic affiliation" of Bosnian Cyrillic started in 1850s and is not settled yet. Without going into nuances and details, the polemic about attribution and affiliation of Bosnian Cyriliic texts seems to rest on further arguments:

Serbian scholars claim that it is just a variant of Serbian Cyrillic; actually, a minuscle, or Italic script devised at the court of Serbian king Dragutin. This general claim ranges from the contention that other nations had been using a form of Serbian script to the rather ludicrous idea that all who wrote in Bosnian Cyrillic were ethnically Serb. According to them, all Bosnian Cyrillic texts belong to the corpus of Serbian literacy. Some consider that a strong argument in favour of the Serb side is the fact that there are a few mentions of Bosnian Cyrillic as 'Serbian letters' or 'Serbian characters' among Catholics (in Bosnia and Dubrovnik) and Muslims. The main Serbian authorities in the field are Jorjo Tadić, Vladimir Ćorović, Petar Kolendić, Petar Đorđić, Vera Jerković, Irena Grickat, Pavle Ivić and Aleksandar Mladenović.

The Croatian side is split. One school of paleography basically challenges the letters being Serbian. It claims that majority of the most important documents of Bosnian Cyrillic had been written either before any innovations devised at the Serbian royal court happened, or did not have any historical connection with it whatsoever- the Serbian claims on the origin of Bosnian Cyrillic are unfounded, and the script, since belonging to the Croatian cultural sphere should be called not Bosnian, but Croatian Cyrillic. Another school of Croatian philologists acknowledges that "Serbian connection", as exemplified in variants present at the Serbian court of king Dragutin, did influence Bosnian Cyrillic- but, they aver, it was just one strand, since scriptory innovations have been happening both before and after the mentioned one. First school insists that all Bosnian Cyrillic texts belong to the corpus of Croatian literacy, and the second school that all texts from Croatia and only a part from Bosnia and Herzegovina are to be placed into Croatian literary canon (they exclude ca. half of Bosnian Christian texts, but include all Franciscan and the majority of legal and commercial documents). Also, the second school generally uses the name Western Cyrillic instead of Croatian Cyrillic (or Bosnian Cyrillic, for that matter). Both schools mention that various sources, both Croatian and other European (German, Italian,..) call this scripz "Croatian letters" or "Croatian script". The main Croatian authorities in the field are Vatroslav Jagić, Mate Tentor, Ćiro Truhelka, Vladimir Vrana, Jaroslav Šidak, Herta Kuna, Tomislav Raukar, Eduard Hercigonja and Benedikta Zelić-Bučan.

Bosniak scholars have always considered the issue to be obvious. Their opinion is that Bosnian Cyrillic is neither Croat nor Serb, but "ethnically" Bosnian and, subsequently, Bosniak, as the ethnic descendants of medieval Bosnia and the native Bosnian Church. Bosniak academic community has not yet produced a prominent authority in the field of Bosnian Cyrillic studies, due to the only recent national awakening and independence of Bosnia and Bosniaks.

The irony of the contemporary status of Bosnian Cyrillic is as follows: the Latin script seems to be triumphant all over Bosnia and Herzegovina (although Serbian authorities try to halt this course of events), and, in the same time, scholars are still trying to prove that Bosnian Cyrillic is ethnically "theirs"- while simultaneously relegating the corpus of Bosnian Cyrillic written texts to the periphery of national culture. This extinct form of Cyrillic is peripheral to Croatian paleography which focuses on Glagolitic and Latin script corpora while Bosniaks, although paying lip service to Bosnian Cyrillic heritage, have been focusing efforts on investigation of their vernacular literature in modified Arabic script. The heated dispute on the nature and status of Bosnian Cyrillic is, in all probability, destined to remain confined to specialist academic circles.