1 Uvod
Svjesni činjenice da se društveni procesi prije završene (izvršene) nacionalizacije ne mogu i ne smiju sagledavati iz vizure savremenosti i etnonacionalnih odnosa koji važe danas, umjesto klasičnih nacionalnih identitarnih pitanja ovdje iznutra propitujemo određene elemente drugih, sličnih identiteta, na primjeru bosanskih franjevaca Ambrože1 Matića i Augustina Miletić a, koji su poznati po udžbenicima koje su izrađivali upravo u vrijeme početka razvoja modernog bh. školstva savremenijeg tipa (posebna školska zgrada, angažman svjetovnih učitelja, definiran plan i program nastave i slično). Iako se i u evropskom i američkom kontekstu moderniji školski sistem kontekstualizira tek u prvim decenijama XIX vijeka, takvo što, u formalnom smislu, važi i za nas. Kao prva ili jedna od prvih obrazovnih ustanova modernijeg tipa kod nas uzima se osnovna škola u Tolisi kod Orašja, iz 1823. godine, u kojoj je fra Ambroža Matić svojevremeno i službovao. Fra Ambrožu Matića ovdje prije svega uzimamo u obzir kao autora jednog od prvih svjetovnih školskih udžbenika kod nas, a koji direktno afirmišu nominaciju bosanski jezik, kao što je slučaj s Matićevim matematičkim priručnikom. U Matićevo vrijeme je djelovao i fra Augustin Miletić, koji, baš kao i Matić, kao sastavljač udžbeničke školske literature u više navrata afirmira bosanski jezički identitet, direktno u kontekstu početaka razvoja modernijeg bosanskog školstva savremenijeg tipa, odnosno razvoja domaćeg odgojno-obrazovnog sistema uopće.
Rasprave o disperzivnom identitetu bosanskih franjevaca su široke i mnogo više obuhvatne nego što će nam to pružiti rasprava pokrenuta postavljenom temom, i ovdje, kako rekosmo, nemamo namjeru usko vezati bosanske franjevce za neki savremeni nacionalni koncept, što ne znači da ipak nećemo ili ne možemo propitivati i neke srodne identitete, kao što je npr. izrazito njegovani i postojani njihov rodoljubni, narodni ili jezički identitet, ne ulazeći pod svaku cijenu u potrebu dodatnog tumačenja, kontekstualiziranja, razvrstavanja, pripisivanja ili dodjeljivanja nekog dodatnog značenja svemu tome.
Zadržavajući se na jezičkom identitetu, govorimo li generalno o identitarnim pitanjima u srodnostima literarnog jezičkog izraza Hrvata i Bošnjaka u XVI, XVII i XVIII vijeku, odnosno prije druge polovine XIX vijeka, suočavamo se s početnim problemom: neki pisci koje danas uobičavamo zvati Hrvatima sami su se, koliko god bili i pristalice i nekih širih koncepcijskih društvenih stremljenja, naprosto počesto izjednačavali s bošnjaštvom, kako god mi to danas doživljavali. Naravno, govorimo ovdje i o onim bosanskim franjevcima koje, i pored najbolje namjere, ne možemo u identitarnom smislu odvojiti ni od bošnjaštva, ni od bosanskog jezika.
U kontekstu razvoja modernog školstva kod nas, odnosno u vezi sa samim počecima razvoja domaćeg školstva savremenijeg tipa, naročito je važno pratiti udžbeničku politiku i propitati statusna pitanja bosanskog jezika u konkretnim počecima uspostave modernog odgojno-obrazovnog sistema na bosanskom tlu. U novije vrijeme su aktualizirana saznanja o službenom bosanskom jeziku u bosanskoj osmanskoj administraciji, naročito u školstvu pred kraj osmanske vladavine, posebno u vrijeme uspostave Bosanskog vilajeta, pa i prije i kasnije; čak i prije otvaranja Vilajetske štamparije i zvaničnog razvoja domaće udžbeničke politike (up. Papić, 1978; Solak 2014). No, ovdje govorimo o periodu prije zvaničnih osmanskih reformi tadašnjeg obrazovnog sistema, proučavajući domaću udžbeničku literaturu s početka XIX vijeka.
2 Nominacija bosanski jezik u Matićevim i Miletićevim udžbenicima
Fra Ambroža Matić je, prilikom svog službovanja u Tolisi i Kraljevoj Sutjesci, kao učitelj u tamošnjim školama napisao udžbenik matematike Racsun za pervu i drugu godinu shkulsku, kao prijevod nekog od sličnih matematičkih udžbenika s kojima se Matić susretao tokom svoga školovanja u inostranstvu, pa tako na navedenom udžbeniku stoji: “iz latinskog' u bosanski jezik prinese P. Ambroxa Mathich, reda s. Frane od obs. derxave bosanske misnik i shkula grammaticski ucsitelj”, s naznačenom godinom 1827. (v. Matić, 1827).
Potvrda da je Matićev predani rad i službovanje u ranom bosanskom školstvu bio pokretački motiv i za izradu udžbenika, uzimajući u obzir činjenicu da je na naslovnim stranicama svojih udžbenika Matić isticao upravo bosanski jezik, dovoljno govori o dodatnoj vrijednosti njegova rada. Fra Ilija Starčević je dozvolom Husein-kapetana Gradaščevića 1823. pokrenuo u Tolisi kod Orašja školu (v. Baotić i dr., 1973; Nedić, 2013; Dubravac, 2008), pa se morao snalaziti i za učitelje i za udžbenike:
... fra Iliji Starčeviću su u poslu poučavanja pomagali i njegovi kapelani. Osobito je vrijedan bio rad fra Ambroža Matića (Blaževac, 1795. – Garevac, 1849.), koji je bio oduševljen Starčevićevim prosvjetnim radom te je za vrijeme boravka u Tolisi (1823. – 1826.) napisao matematički priručnik za učenike Racsun za pervu i drugu godinu shkulsku iz latinskog u bosanski jezik ... (istakao J. H.) (Nedić, 2013: 145).
Sl . 1. Naslovna stranica i dio iz predgovora matematičkog udžbenika “Racsun” (Matić, 1827)2
Iz dostupnih izvještaja postoje direktni podaci o tome šta je bio program prve bosanskohercegovačke škole modernog tipa, osnovne škole u Tolisi, osnovane već 1823. godine. Naravno, iako škola modernog tipa, ipak je to bila škola vezana za vjersku instituciju i dosta skromna škola, ali za ondašnje uslove naročito važna, kao ipak jedna forma klasične škole, i sa svjetovnim predmetima, učiteljima i školskom zgradom (up. Dubravac, 2008). U školi se učilo najosnovnije: čitanje, pisanje, računanje i pjevanje. Tačnije: “Šta se je učilo u ovoj školi zapisao nam je fra Martin Nedić u ‘Knjizi crkvenih troškova’ na str. 205. On naime piše: ‘U istom učilištu (govori o toliškoj školi) podučava se štiti, pisat, računat, pjevat bosanskim jezikom svetu misu’.” (istakao J. H.) (Mijić, 1973: 23).
Naravno, u ranom periodu školstva nije ni bilo potrebe imenovanja nastavnog predmeta imenom maternjeg jezika jer se, jednostavno, učilo čitanje i pisanje, što naročito važi ako u datoj školi nemamo i neki strani jezik (pa se domaći jezik podrazumijeva). Međutim, bogosluženje na maternjem idiomu nije uvijek podrazumijevajuća stvar, i stoga po prethodnom izvještaju imamo i direktno imenovanje jezika. Slično, takvo je stanje i u korištenim zvaničnim udžbenicima, gdje se jezik već imenuje bosanskim, pa tako A. Matić u odnosu prema stranom jeziku svoj (naš) domaći idiom u više navrata direktno imenuje bosanskim, bilo da je riječ o naslovnoj stranici, bilo unutar samog udžbenika:
...zatosam Racsun toliko u Ucsionici (shkulli) tomacsio, i pridavo, koliko na ocsitomu Izkushanju (Examine) iztomacsita od isti Mladicha, pomljivo izizkivo, i videchi iz Pisma slabu pomoch, hasnu i korist, pokraj slabog' zdravlja, malloumnog', i mallorazumnog' Nauka moga, kogasam na onim stranama chuo, primio, i zafatio u istomu Racsunu, ussilovo se jesam recheni Racsun za vechu lasnost, pomoch, i korist Mladexi bosanske, iz latinskog' u nash bosanski Jezik, razdielivshiga u dvie godine shkulske, ... (istakao J. H.) (Matić, 1827) (v. Sl. 1.)
Također, u nekoliko navrata Matić u svojim kazivanjima spominje mladiće bosanske, tj. bosansku omladinu kojoj su njegovi udžbenici namijenjeni, pa i jezik svojih đaka prirodno imenuje bosanskim.
Inače, Matićevo dobro poznavanje latinskog dalo mu je za pravo da sastavi i jedan priručnik za učenje latinskog jezika, naslovljen kao Knjixica rucsna s' upravam koristnim, i uveshtbanjem lasnim za mladiche latinski jezik ucseche, u bosanski izgovor sloxena, i na svitlost dana izdana, s navedenom 1832. godinom (v. Sl. 2). Zanimljivo je da poslije napisanog i prije potpisanog predgovora za ovaj udžbenik Matić navodi 1828. godinu, što će reći da je udžbenik napisan četiri godine ranije.
U predgovoru Knjižici ručnoj Matić spominje kako su svi narodi koji su ljubitelji znanja i nauke, koji s velikom pažnjom po stranim državama svijeta nauku traže, imaju običaj nastojati takvo znanje prenijeti u svoju domovinu, tako što će izraditi knjige svakojake vrste kojima će “ iz drugi razlicsiti Jezika u svoj vlastiti prinositi, i s'takim pomljivim nacsinom koliko istoj Otacsbini, toliko svoim mladichima vehoma koristni biti” (istakao J. H.) (Matić, 1832: 3). Inače, A. Matić u svojim tekstovima koristi izraze narod, domovina, kraljevstvo, otadžbina, država, a naročito je interesantno da navodi kako je njegov rad, potaknut napretkom drugih naroda, usmjeren za, kako kaže: “mladicha moji Domorodaca napredak i vechu fajdu” (Matić, 1832: 4). Matićeva djelatnost, dakle, ima i izrazitu rodoljubnu crtu. No, pitane je da li identitarno (u smislu jezičke identifikacije) svu tu aktivnost u konačnici pripisati hrvatstvu, ili pak bošnjaštvu, šta god ono kao takvo podrazumijevalo. Jedno od opravdanih mišljenja je da je i u narodnom i u jezičkom smislu nemoguće bosanske franjevce (koji to sami nisu činili) odvojiti od bošnjaštva i bosanstva, koliko god se ono moglo utapati i u neki širi kontekst. Potvrdu za prethodnu tvrdnju imamo i u zapažanju da (je): “Idiom koji je izabran za osnovicu bosanske franjevačke književnosti, imenovan kao ‘jezik slovinski kako se u Bosni govor’ ili čak ‘pravi i istiniti jezik bosanski’ (Nauk, 1611: 42)” (Nakaš, 2014: 259), po čemu možemo potpunu paralelu povući s onim danas. Jer, i danas govorimo o naporednostima i posebnostima unutar šireg južnoslavenskog dijasistema, koje jesu takve da čuvaju i ono što je na širem planu jedinstveno, makar se izrazite različitosti očitovale na užem planu, pa ono što je “u staro (je) vrijeme bilo moguće definirati kao bosansko narječje ilirskoga jezika” (Nakaš, 2014: 259), danas je bosanski jezik unutar južnoslavenske međujezičke zajednice. Međutim, neće biti uputno jednu ili drugu užu naporednost, bilo da je riječ o sadašnjem ili o prošlom periodu, identificirati prvo sa širim kontekstom, s kojim se identificira i neka treća, prvoj ili drugoj srodna naporednost, da bismo je nakon toga identificirali kao bilo koju od njih i samo ne kao onu koja stvarno to jest, jer bi se time svaka naporednost izgubila u zajedničkoj cjelini i naporedne posebnosti time ne bi ni postojale. Jasnije, sasvim je nepotrebno npr. bosanski jezički idiom u identifikaciji sa širim ilirskim naknadno mijenjati za, u širem ilirskom, njemu naporedni hrvatski, što ne sprječava neku njegovu identifikaciju po drugim vrstama srodnosti, religijskim na primjer. Ali, ove identitete ne bi trebalo miješati. To nam, uostalom, i u religijskom diskursu direktno pokazuje Matija Petar Karančić, koji u predgovoru Svetom pismu (izdanom u jezik “slavno-ilirički, izgovora bosanskog”, v. Sl. 3.) kaže: “sluxiosamse Pravopisom, koi vlastitosti nasheg jezika a izgovoru Bosanskom najpodobnii vidishe” (Katančić, 1831), jer upravo Katančić u istom tekstu navodi i Bošnjake kao i druge “Slavno-iliričke” narode. Pa s kojim od njih će identificirati bosanski jezički izraz ako ne s Bošnjacima koje spominje? U suprotnom, Katančićev “odabir” kao takav ne bi imao nikakvog smisla.3
Zapravo, nije pogrešno tvrditi da je bosanski jezik u ono vrijeme bio sinonim za štokavštinu, što je potvrđeno u više navrata i u široj južnoslavenskoj literaturi.
Sl. 3. Bosanska i latinska verzija prvog prijevoda Biblije (Stari zavjet) (Katančić, 1831)
Štokavština kao sinonim za standardni jezički izraz unutar južnoslavenskog dijasistema, direktno se poistovjećuje s bosanskim jezikom, ali upravo preko toga i s njemu srodnim drugim jezičkim standardima.4 Međutim, to ne znači da će, u dosadašnjem “nedostatku” ili “nedostupnosti” podataka o pozitivnom statusu bosanskog jezika i u ranijim društvenim odnosima,5 što je, uostalom, bilo uzrokovano i nepovoljnim društveno-političkim odnosima prema Bosni, Bošnjacima i bosanskom jeziku (i po tome dosad dominantnom, izdvojenom javnom mnijenju), dakle, ipak ne znači da će biti moguće prihvatiti da značajne elemente tipične bosanske jezičke samosvojnosti i identiteta na bilo koji način trebamo ili možemo odroditi od Bosne, ili takoreći, razbosančiti. Naprotiv.
Bosanski franjevci, naravno, nisu usamljena književnojezička pojava svoga doba. Uzmemo li u obzir ovdje i paralelan im krak starije bosanske literarne tradicije, bogatu bosansku arebičku (bosnevijsku ili alhamijado) književnost i pismenost, (u)vidjet ćemo da u oba slučaja imamo religijski obojenu literaturu, potpomognutu i bogatim korpusom literature s prosvjetnom namjenom, do direktne produkcije udžbeničke (školske) literature – a za sve to – i direktno na naslovnim stranicama i sporadično u širokom rasponu u različitim slojevima unutar takve građe – ističe se upravo termin bosanski jezik.6
Augustin Miletić u svojoj knjizi Istomaçegne stvarí potribitii nauka karstjanskoga za uvíxbagne diczè, i çegliadi priprostitè u darxavi bosanskoj 1828. godine (v. Sl. 4.),7 objašnjavajući neka svoja grafijska rješenja u tadašnjoj latinici, navodi: “(...) jerbo svako chegliade, koje Bosanski Jezik posiduje, lasnochese iz iztoga govoregna ositit, kako se koja rich ima izgovarat, dok nauçi slovva sastavgliat, i riçi izgovarat” (istakao J. H.) (Miletić, 1828: 8).8 Nešto ranije A. Miletić se osvrće direktno na udžbenike i na školstvo, kazavši: “Nit imamo Skula, ni Nauçiteglia ni Sctampe, ni naçina za çinit usctampat, dabi tko scto na naçin govoregna nashega Bosanskoga perom i zabilioxio...” (istakao J. H.) (Miletić, 1828: 6), a narod o kojem govori i koga zastupa naziva Bošnjacima, po zapisanoj sintagmi “A mi nevoglni Boscgnaczi”.9
Sl. 4. Uvodni dio i naslovna stranica Miletićeve knjige Istomaçegne stvarí ... (Miletić 1828)
Interesantno je da Miletić latinicu kojom piše i za koju iznalazi rješenja kao da ne smatra svojom, odnosno ilirskom i slavenskom (što su također nazivi jezika koje koristi), pa kaže: “Buduchise izgubila, i zabaczila stara vlastita slova nashega Illirickogh, iliti Slovinskog Jezika, usilovansam i u rukopisu, i u sctivegnu sluuxitise slovima latinskim, s' kojim nije moguche nike rici nashega jezika upisat nestavivshi vishe slova zajedno” (Miletić, 1828: 6).10 Također, određeni problem A. Miletić vidi u raznorodnosti u jeziku katolika na širem ilirskom ili slavenskom planu, pa kaže da se Slavonci, Dubrovčani i Dalmatini “ni u pisagnu, ni u izgovaragnu mnoghi rici neslaxuse, vech kakose komu bogle vidi, onako i pishe, i izgovara kakoje koi od svoji Roditeglia, i Mesctara naucio” (Miletić, 1828: 6), a Bošnjake vidi kao odcijepljene od svih drugih naroda “iliričkih”. No, posebno je važno uočiti da čak i unutar šireg bosanskog prostora Miletić raspoznaje određene jezičke (govorne) razlike (u Bosni, Posavini i Hercegovini), pa navodi da je nastojao “govorit, i pisat na nacin dame vas Puk nasc Bosanski, Posavski i Herzegovacki lasno moxe razumit (...)” (istakao J. H.) (Miletić, 1828: 7). Ako dodamo, tj. ponovimo da za naš “vas puk” i za svoj jezik A. Miletić kaže: “svako chegliade, koje Bosanski Jezik posiduje, lasnochese iz iztoga govoregna ositit, kako se koja rich ima izgovarat” (Miletić, 1828: 8), bit će jasno da se pored unutarnjih i vanjskih određenih raznorodnosti i razlika upravo bosanski jezik u djelatnosti bosanskih franjevaca postavlja kao integrativni faktor. Naročito se identitarna jezička pitanja u bosanskom katoličkom školstvu najprije mogu sagledati i preko nekih malih, dodatnih detalja, kroz konkretne podatke koji jesu najprije “identitarne naravi” – a ovdje u kontekstu rastrzanosti između onog što je stvarno bosansko (ukorijenjeno u domaćem tlu) i onog što je mogući širi kontekst, slaveno-ilirski, općeslavenski, hrvatski ili srpski. Tako, kada npr. bosanski franjevci nekada za bukvicu koriste i pridjev srpski ili srpsko-bosanski za nominaciju ćiriličnih slova (koja su se u starije vrijeme dominantno koristila i u Bosni i u Srbiji), to bi moglo navesti istraživača da ih svrsta u konkretan srpski kontekst, a kada koriste nominaciju ilirski istraživači ih preko ilirskog pokreta svrstavaju u konkretan hrvatski kontekst. Međutim, u oba slučaja, sasvim jasno i očito, franjevci ipak ostaju svoji – bosanski.11
3 Primjer don Franje Milićevića
U odnosu na dominantno djelovanje bosanskih franjevaca i rad uglavnom za rodoljubne probosanske interese, sasvim je drugi slučaj otvorenog zastupanja tzv. protubosanske politike, odnosno otvorene srpske ili hrvatske nacionalne politike, što je bio dio programskog djelovanja u Bosni. Upravo je školstvo sredinom XIX stoljeća već bilo upotrijebljeno i u političke svrhe, da bi se nerijetko direktno kroz udžbenike putem školstva širila nacionalna propaganda. Istovremeno je bilo slučajeva da kulturni i prosvjetni radnici budu i politički aktivisti.
Hercegovački franjevac don Franjo Milićević (1835–1903) označen je između ostalog i kao “pravaški ideolog i narodni učitelj” (v. Vasilj, 2016: 259), a V. Pandžić, kao poznati istraživač historije školstva kod nas i posebno hrvatskog jezika u Bosni i Hercegovini (up. Pandžić, 2006), označava don Franju Milićevića kao učesnika / zastupnika u: “provedbi hrvatske pravaške politike koja je podrazumijevala, između ostaloga, hrvatski domoljubni i rodoljubni odgoj te požrtvovano suprotstavljanje Kallayevu negiranju Hrvatske i ponižavanju Hrvata u okviru austrougarskih planova o stvaranju jedne ‘bošnjačke nacije’ u BiH.” (up. Vasilj, 2016: 260, odnosno Ševo, 2016). Naime, tačno je da je Milićević djelovao i u osmansko i u austrougarsko doba, no posebno je za historiju bh. školstva značajan njegov Pravopis za nižje učione katoličke u Hercegovini (Milićević, 1873, v. Sl. 5.), po kojem se već u Bosanskom vilajetu službeno baštini i promovira svijest o hrvatskom jeziku kod naših katolika. Milićevićev Pravopis iz 1873. godine (još je vrijeme Bosanskog vilajeta) hrvatski jezik direktno imenom spominje posebno, i to na dva mjesta.
Sl.5. Pravopis za nižje učione katoličke u Hercegovini (Milićević, 1873)
Zanimljivo, u uvodnom dijelu Milićevićevog Pravopisa stoji i spomen Hrvata kao naroda: “Kakovim se slovim sadašnji hervati služe? Većim dielom služe se latinicom” (Milićević, 1873: 4), mada u sekciji o velikom početnom slovu kada nabraja narode i države spominje uz hrvatsko i bosansko ime: “Na početku imenah narodnih n. p. ‘Slovinska, Njemaška, Talijanska, Francuzka’: kraljevstva i država, np. ‘Bosansko, Hrvatsko, Pemsko, Spanjolsko’” (Miliević, 1873: 9).
U kontekstu spomena hrvatskog jezika, u uvodnom dijelu Milićevićevog Pravopisa stoji: “U Hrvatskom se jeziku prvobitne, a osobito izvedene i promjenjene rieči pišu Riečoslovnički...” (Milićević, 1873: 3), dok se u poglavlju “O slovu h” navodi: “Jezik hrvatski imade mnogo rieči koje posjeduju ovo slovo H.” (Milićević, 1873: 10), i ovo su dva mjesta na kojima se imenom spominje hrvatski jezik.
Također, važno je napomenuti da je Milićevićev časopis Osvit nosio kao slogan sljedeće stihove: “Jer hrvatskog jezika šum / Može da goji / Može da spoji / Istok i zapad / Pjesmu i um”, što je citat iz Bašagićeve pjesme Čarobna kćeri,12 a don Franjo Milićević će uređivati i časopis Glas Hercegovca, s izrazitom prohrvatskom (pravaškom) orijentacijom.
4 Kratak osvrt na primjer Matije Divkovića i neke odjeke njegova rada
Rasprave o djelatnosti bosanskih franjevaca u kontekstu pisane riječi nisu potpune bez ukazivanja na značaj fra Matije Divkovića. S obzirom na Divkovićeve izvore o bosančici i bosanskom jeziku, kao npr. one u njegovom Nauku krstjanskom: “Ovi nauk rečeni fra Matija izvadi iz jezika diačkoga, privede; i složi u jezik slovinski kako se u Bosni govori”, ili: “I ovo istumači aliti privede iz jezika diačkoga, u pravi, i istiniti bosanski”, nije neobično za Divkovića vezati epitet rodonačelnika autorske bosanske književnosti, bez obzira na to što je, u konkretnom slučaju, i udio značajnog korpusa srednjovjekovne bosanske literature opravdano poistovjećen s bosanskim jezičkim i književnim identitetom. Ipak, Divkovićev Nauk krstjanski za narod slovinski predstavlja prvu štampanu knjigu na narodnom jeziku u Bosni, konkretno štampanu u Veneciji 1611. godine. Inače, Nauk krstjanski i druga djela fra Matije Divkovića obilježavaju početak protureformacijske franjevačke književnosti na narodnom bosanskom jeziku, a u pogledu organizacije školstva za nas svakako ima dodatnu vrijednost. Naravno, Divković je posebno zaslužan i za posebne odljevke slova bosančice franjevačkog tipa, pa time i za svu sličnu drugu štampanu djelatnost na bosančici. No, upravo po Divkovićevoj literaturi se širio kršćanski nauk i po Rumuniji i Bugarskoj, što je kod nas relativno nepoznat podatak. Naročito je važan i zanimljiv podatak koji od Nikole Žica (up. Žic, 1933) prenose Grmača i Žagar (2017) i Grmača (2019), da su u zapadnoj Bugarskoj, u Ćiprovcu, još 1625. godine franjevci otvorili školu u kojoj su bugarska djeca učila latinicu i bosančicu, odnosno “hrvatski jezik bosanskoga narječja” (Žic, 1933: 70, prema: Grmača, 2019: 52). Uz navedenu bugarsku školu povezuje se djelatnost bugarskih katolika Petra Bogdana Bakšića i Krste Pejkića, koji objavljuju djela, prvi na latinici, drugi na bosančici „uprav onako, kako su pisali i bosanski franjevci iz Divkovićeve škole“ (Žic 1933, 70, prema: Grmača 2019, 52), što će reći da je djelatnost o kojoj govorimo imala i određeni širi okvir i smisao, tj. svojevrstan uspjeh kolektivnih razmjera. Generalno, za Pejkića važi da svoj jezik imenuje istočnoilirskim ili slovinskim.13
5 Zaključak
Početak razvoja modernog bosanskohercegovačkog školstva savremenijeg tipa (s posebnom školskom zgradom, svjetovnim učiteljima i predmetima, rasporedom predmeta u planu i programu nastave i službenim odobrenjem – dozvolom za rad) veže se, kao i u širem evropskom kontekstu, za prve decenije XIX vijeka. Tako je još prije zvaničnih osmanskih školskih centraliziranih reformi koje su doprinijele organiziranijem pristupu usmjerenom razvoju školstva i kod nas, a što se dešavalo sredinom XIX vijeka (Tanzimatske reforme u vrijeme Bosanskog vilajeta), bosanskohercegovačko školstvo već 1823. godine, nakon odobrenja Husein-kapetana Gradaščevića fra Iliji Starčeviću da osnuje školu, dobilo u Tolisi kod Orašja prvu modernu školu savremenog tipa, čime možemo utvrditi da naše društvo 2023. godine obilježava puna dva stoljeća od početaka uspostave modernijeg obrazovnog sistema.
Po fra Martinu Nediću, na osnovu izvještaja iz Knjige crkvenih troškova, spomenuta škola koja je osnovana prije dvjesto godina imala je u planu i programu sljedeće: štiti, pisat, računat, i pjevat bosanskim jezikom svetu misu. Iako škola savremenijeg tipa, vidi se da je ona imala vjersku (franjevačku) osnovu i ipak relativno skroman plan i program. Također je primjetno da u rano vrijeme, kako je to bilo i uobičajeno, nije za čitanje i pisanje bio osmišljen poseban nastavni predmet imenovan nacionalnim jezikom. Međutim, bosanski jezik se, osim kod imenovanja jezika bogosluženja (crkvenog pjevanja), veže za ovu školu i generalno cjelokupno rano bosanskohercegovačko školstvo, još i preko nekoliko zvaničnih školskih udžbenika.
Fra Ambroža Matić, jedan od prvih učitelja u navedenoj školi, u vrijeme svog boravka u Tolisi napisao je za potrebe učenika matematički udžbenik Racsun za pervu i drugu godinu shkulsku iz latinskog u bosanski jezik, koji iz štampe izlazi 1827. godine. Također, Matićevo poznavanje latinskog jezika navelo ga je da sastavi i jedan priručnik upravo za učenje latinskog, naslovljen kao Knjixica rucsna s' upravam koristnim, i uveshtbanjem lasnim za mladiche latinski jezik ucseche, u bosanski izgovor sloxena, i na svitlost dana izdana, s navedenom 1832. godinom kao godinom štampe, dok se iz predgovora napisanog udžbenika vidi da je završen već 1828, tj. odmah nakon štampanja Matićevog matematičkog udžbenika. Osim termina bosanski jezik i bosanski izgovor s naslovnica Matićevih udžbenika, na osnovu njihovog sadržaja izdvajamo to da Matić spominje i termine drugi različiti jezici i svoj vlastiti jezik, te pojmove narod, domovina, kraljevstvo, otadžbina, država, a nadasve je vrijedno istaći i spomen mladića i mladeži bosanske, za koje je napisan udžbenik i za koje se veže i pojam naš bosanski jezik, kako ga Matić unutar udžbenika još naziva.
Po izradi udžbenika i velikom doprinosu našem ranom školstvu, Matića prati fra Augustin Miletić, koji u svome vjerskom udžbeniku Istomaçegne stvarí potribitii nauka karstjanskoga za uvíxbagne diczè, i çegliadi priprostitè u darxavi bosankoj 1828. godine spominje svako chegliade, koje Bosanski Jezik posiduje. Interesantno je da fra Miletić pokazuje i posebnu svijest o tome da nedostaje domaće školske literature, odnosno udžbenika na bosanskom jeziku, žaleći se što nema razvijenih škola, učitelja i štampe, ni mogućnosti da bi neko na naçin govoregna nashega Bosanskoga nešto perom zabilježio. Posebno je važno da je ovdje riječ o latiničnim udžbenicima, dakle, o ranoj fazi prihvaćene latinice kod nas, čija grafijska rješenja još za bosanski jezik nisu bila ujednačena i kojoj fra Miletić kao slovima latinskim suprotstavlja stara vlastita slova koja su se ranije koristila u našem iliričkom ili slovinskom jeziku, kako ga Miletić još naziva kada spominje pismo.
Miletićevoj i Matićevoj djelatnosti, naročito njihovom angažmanu u izradi udžbeničke literature i brizi za školstvo te uopće bosansko obrazovanje, pismenost i jezik, u radu suprotstavljamo don Franju Milićevića i njegov Pravopis za nižje učione katoličke u Hercegovini iz 1873. godine, kojim se može označiti početak organiziranog pristupa statusnim pitanjima hrvatskog jezika u bosanskom školstvu. Tako je tekuća 2023. godina značajna i za obilježavanje stoljeća i po od pojave Milićevićevog pravopisa, poznatijeg i po tome da se, iako to njegovim naslovom nije bilo naznačeno, unutar samog udžbenika referira konkretno na hrvatski jezik, koji je još i za vrijeme Bosanskog vilajeta statusno bio prisutan u našem društvu i obrazovnom sistemu. Za razliku od Milićevića, koji je otvoreno propagirao i hrvatske nacionalno-političke programe pred kraj osmanske uprave Bosnom, Matić i Miletić su u vrijeme s početka XIX vijeka imali izrazitu bosansku identitarnu orijentaciju, i u narodnom i u jezičkom smislu.
1 Introduction
Aware of the fact that social processes prior to the completed (performed) nationalization cannot and must not be viewed from the perspective of modernity and ethnonational relations deemed valid today, and instead of classic national identitarian questions, at this point we internally question certain elements of other, similar identities, using the example of two Bosnian Franciscans Ambroža14 Matić and Augustin Miletić, who are known for the textbooks they produced right at the inception of the modern public schooling system of B&H (a separate school building, the engagement of secular teachers, a defined curriculum, and the like). Although both in the European and American contexts, the more modern schooling system was contextualized only in the first decades of the 19 th century, such a phenomenon, in a formal sense, also applies to us. The primary school in Tolisa near Orašje, established in 1823, where Friar Ambroža Matić once served, is taken as the first or one of the first educational institutions of a modern type in our country. Friar Ambroža Matić is primarily considered as the author of one of the first secular school textbooks in our country, which directly affirms the term the Bosnian language, as is the case with Matić’s mathematics manual. Friar Augustin Miletić was also Matić’s contemporary, and having been a compiler of textbook school literature himself, repeatedly affirmed the Bosnian language identity, directly in the context of the inception of modern Bosnian schooling system of a more contemporary type, i.e. the development of the domestic educational system in general.
Discussions about the dispersive identity of the Bosnian Franciscans are broad and significantly more encompassing than what the discussion initiated by the set topic will provide us with, and at this point, as we said, we have no intention of closely tying the Bosnian Franciscans to a particular modern national concept, which does not entail that we will not or cannot question certain related identities, such as their extremely cherished and stable patriotic, national or linguistic identity, without the need for further interpretation, contextualization, classification, attribution or assignment of any additional meaning to it all.
Dwelling on linguistic identity, if we generally talk about identitarian issues in the kinship of the literary language expression of Croats and Bosniaks in the 16 th, 17 th and 18 th centuries, that is, before the second half of the 19 th century, we are faced with an initial problem: some writers whom we refer to as Croats today, they themselves, as much as they were supporters of some wider conceptual social aspirations, were simply often equated with Bosniakdom, regardless of how it is perceived today. Of course, here we are also talking about those Bosnian Franciscans who, despite the best intentions, cannot be separated either from Bosniakdom or from the Bosnian language in terms of identity.
In the context of the development of modern public schooling in our country, that is, in connection with the very beginnings of the development of a more contemporary domestic public schooling system, it is particularly important to monitor the textbook policy and question the status issues of the Bosnian language in the concrete beginnings of the establishment of a modern educational system on Bosnian soil. In recent times, knowledge about the official Bosnian language in the Bosnian Ottoman administration has been updated, especially in terms of schooling towards the end of the Ottoman rule, particularly at the time of the establishment of the Bosnian Vilayet, both before and after, and even prior to the opening of the Vilayet printing house and the official development of the domestic textbook policy (cf. Papić, 1978; Solak, 2014). However, here we are talking about the period before the official Ottoman reforms of the education system at that time by studying domestic textbook literature from the beginning of the 19 th century.
2 The formulation of the Bosnian language in Matić’s and Miletić’s textbooks
During his service in Tolisa and Kraljeva Sutjeska, Friar Ambroža Matić, as a teacher in the schools there, wrote the mathematics textbook titledRacsun za pervu i drugu godinu shkulsku [Mathematics for the 1 st and 2 nd School Year] , as a translation of one of the similar mathematics textbooks that Matić had encountered during his education abroad, so on the said textbook it is written: “ iz latinskog' u bosanski jezik prinese P. Ambroxa Mathich, reda s. Frane od obs. derxave bosanske misnik i shkula grammaticski ucsitelj” [“from Latin into Bosnian translated by Friar Ambroža Matić, a Friar in the Bosnian state and a grammar school teacher”] , with the indicated year of 1827 (see Matić, 1827).
The confirmation that Matić’s dedicated work and service in the early Bosnian education was the driving force behind the creation of textbooks, taking into account the fact that Matić emphasized the Bosnian language on the front pages of his textbooks, speaks volumes about the additional value of his work. Friar Ilija Starčević, with the permission of Husein-Kapetan Gradaščević, established a school in Tolisa near Orašje in 1823 (see Baotić et al., 1973; Nedić, 2013; Dominković et al., 2008), so he had to find both teachers and textbooks:
... Friar Ilija Starčević was assisted in his teaching work by his chaplains. Particularly valuable was the work of Friar Ambroža Matić (Blaževac, 1795 – Garevac, 1849), who was delighted with Starčević’s educational work and who, during his stay in Tolisa (1823–1826), wrote a mathematical manual for students titledRacsun za pervu i drugu godinu shkulsku iz latinskog u bosanski jezik ... [Mathematics for the 1 st and 2 nd School Year from Latin into Bosnian...] , (emphasized by J. H.) (Nedić, 2013: 145).
Fig. 1. Title page and part of the preface of the mathematical textbook “Racsun” [Mathematics] (Matić, 1827)15
From the available reports, there is direct information about the program of the first modern school in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the elementary school in Tolisa, founded as early as in 1823. Of course, even though it was a modern-type school, it was nevertheless a rather modest school, connected to a religious institution; however, it was extremely important for the conditions of the time, as a form of classical school, with secular subjects, teachers and a school building (cf. Dominković et al., 2008). The most basic skills were taught at school: reading, writing, mathematics and singing. More precisely: “What was taught in this school was written down by Friar Martin Nedić in the ‘Book of Church Expenses’ on p. 205. Namely, he writes: ‘In the same school (he is talking about the school in Tolisa) they teach one reading, writing, mathematics, and singing the holy mass in the Bosnian language’” (emphasized by J. H.) (Mijić, 1973: 23).
Of course, in the early period of schooling, there was no need to name the subject by the name of the mother tongue, because, simply, reading and writing were taught, which is especially true if no foreign language taught at the given school (so the native language is presupposed). However, acts of worship in the native idiom are not always a default matter, and therefore, according to the previous account, we also have the direct naming of the language. Similarly, this is the situation in the official textbooks used, where the language is already called Bosnian, so A. Matić, in relation to a foreign language, directly calls his (our) native idiom Bosnian on several occasions, whether it is on the title page or within the textbook itself:
...zatosam Racsun toliko u Ucsionici (shkulli) tomacsio, i pridavo, koliko na ocsitomu Izkushanju (Examine) iztomacsita od isti Mladicha, pomljivo izizkivo, i videchi iz Pisma slabu pomoch, hasnu i korist, pokraj slabog' zdravlja, malloumnog', i mallorazumnog' Nauka moga, kogasam na onim stranama chuo, primio, i zafatio u istomu Racsunu, ussilovo se jesam recheni Racsun za vechu lasnost, pomoch, i korist Mladexi bosanske, iz latinskog' u nash bosanski Jezik, razdielivshiga u dvie godine shkulske, ...
[...that is why I've interpreted mathematics at schools and taught the youth, from whom in an effortless exam I sought explanations, and since I realized the guidance and benefit of foreign textbooks, with my frail health and knowledge, and a modest mind and sense, and with the knowledge I've acquired abroad, from the same Mathematics, I made myself translate the said book from Latin into our Bosnian language, for a greater good and assistance to the Bosnian youth, dividing it into two school years... ] (emphasized by J. H.) (Matić, 1827) (See Fig. 1)
Also, on several occasions, Matić mentions Bosnian young men in his stories, i.e. the Bosnian youth for whom his textbooks are intended, and he naturally calls the language of his students Bosnian. As a matter of fact, Matić's decent knowledge of Latin gave him the right to compile a manual for learning the Latin language, titled Knjixica rucsna s' upravam koristnim, i uveshtbanjem lasnim za mladiche latinski jezik ucseche, u bosanski izgovor sloxena, i na svitlost dana izdana [Handbook with useful instructions and effortless exercises for the youth learning the Latin language, compiled into the Bosnian pronunciation and published], with the year 1832 listed as the publication date (See Fig. 2). It is interesting that, after the preface for this textbook was written and before it was signed, Matić mentions the year 1828, which means that the textbook had been written four years earlier.
In the preface to the Knjižica Ručna [Handbook], Matić mentions that all peoples who esteem knowledge and science, who search for science with great attention in foreign countries of the world, have a habit of trying to transfer such knowledge to their homeland, by making books of all kinds that will be “ iz drugi razlicsiti Jezika u svoj vlastiti prinositi, i s' takim pomljivim nacsinom koliko istoj Otacsbini, toliko svoim mladichima vehoma koristni biti” [“...translated from various languages into their own, carefully, for the benefit of the fatherland and all the students.”] (emphasized by J. H.) (Matić, 1832: 3). As a matter of fact, A. Matić uses the terms nation, homeland, kingdom, fatherland, and state in his texts, and it is particularly interesting that he states that his work, inspired by the progress of other nations, is aimed at, as he says: “mladicha moji Domorodaca napredak i vechu fajdu” [“…the progress and benefit of the native youth”] (Matić, 1832: 4). Matić’s work, therefore, also has a distinct patriotic trait. However, the question remains whether, in terms of identity (i.e. linguistic identification), all that activity should ultimately be attributed to Croathood or to Bosniakdom, whatever that entails. One of the justified opinions is that it is impossible to separate the Bosnian Franciscans (who did not do it themselves) from Bosniakdom and Bosniandom, no matter the extent to which that could be fitted in a wider context, both in terms of people and language. The confirmation for the previous claim can be found in the observation that: “The idiom that was chosen as the basis of Bosnian Franciscan literature, named as ‘the Slavic language as it is spoken in Bosnia’ or even ‘the real and true Bosnian language’ (Nauk, 1611: 42)” (Nakaš, 2014: 259), based on which we can draw a complete parallel with the one in use today. Because, even nowadays, we talk about the distinctive parallelisms and peculiarities within the broader South Slavic diasystem, which are such that they preserve what is unique on a broader level, even if marked differences manifested themselves on a much narrower level, so what “in the old days (was) possible to define as the Bosnian dialect of the Illyrian language” (Nakaš, 2014: 259), is today the Bosnian language within the South Slavic interlinguistic community. However, it is not advisable to identify one or another narrow, distinctive parallelism (whether it is about the present or the past) initially with a wider context, with which some third parallelism (related to the first or the second one) is also identified, in order for it to be identified as any one of them, and not as the one that it really is, because that would entail losing all the parallelism in the common whole and the peculiarities would then cease to exist. More clearly, it is completely unnecessary to replace, for example, the Bosnian language idiom in identification with the wider Illyrian idiom, with the Croatian one, which is similar to it, but which does not prevent its identification by other types of kinship, such as religious. Nonetheless, these identities should not be confused. Matija Petar Karančić directly shows us this in the religious discourse, when he, in the preface to the Holy Scriptures (published in the language of “Slavic-Illyrian, with the Bosnian pronunciation”, see Fig. 3) says: “ sluxiosamse Pravopisom, koi vlastitosti nasheg jezika a izgovoru Bosanskom najpodobnii vidishe” [“I used the orthography of our language, considering the Bosnian pronunciation the most appropriate”] (Katančić, 1831), because in the same text Katančić mentions Bosniaks as well as other “Slavic-Illyrian” peoples. Therefore, with which of them shall the Bosnian language expression be identified if not with the Bosniaks he mentions? Otherwise, Katančić’s “selection” as such would not make any sense.16
In fact, it is not wrong to claim that the Bosnian language was synonymous with Štokavian at that time, which has been confirmed on several occasions in the wider South Slavic literature.
Fig. 3. Bosnian and Latin version of the first translation of the Bible (Old Testament) (Katančić, 1831)
Štokavian, as a synonym for a standard language expression within the South Slavic diasystem, is directly identified with the Bosnian language but – precisely through that – with other language standards related to it.17 However, this does not mean we can accept that – in the current “lack” or “unavailability” of data on the positive status of the Bosnian language and in earlier social relations,18 which, after all, were also caused by unfavorable socio-political relations towards Bosnia, Bosniaks and the Bosnian language (and according to the hitherto dominant, isolated public opinion) – significant elements of the typical Bosnian language oneness and identity should or can be uprooted from Bosnia in any way or, in other words, de-Bosnianized. On the contrary.
The Bosnian Franciscans, of course, are not the only literary and linguistic phenomenon of their time. If we also take into account the parallel branch of the older Bosnian literary tradition, the rich Bosnian “Arebica” (“Bosnevian” or Alhamiyado) literature and literacy, we will see that in both cases we have a religiously colored literature, supported by a rich body of literature with an educational purpose, along with the direct production of textbook (school) literature, and for all that – both directly on the title pages and sporadically in a wide range in different layers within such material – the term Bosnian language clearly stands out.19
In his book Istomaçegne stvarí potribitii nauka karstjanskoga za uvíxbagne diczè, i çegliadi priprostitè u darxavi bosankoj [The Interpretation of the Necessities of the Christian Doctrine for the Education of the Illiterate Children and People in the Bosnian State] (see Fig. 4) from 1828,20 Augustin Miletić, while explaining certain graphic solutions in the Latin script of that time, states: “(...) jerbo svako chegliade, koje Bosanski Jezik posiduje, lasnochese iz iztoga govoregna ositit, kako se koja rich ima izgovarat, dok nauçi slovva sastavgliat, i riçi izgovarat” [“…because each living soul speaking the Bosnian language shall easily sense how to pronounce each word from speech, while they learn how to assemble the letters and pronounce the words”] (emphasized by J. H.) (Miletić, 1828: 8).21 Sometime earlier, A. Miletić had directly reflected on textbooks and the schooling system saying that: “Nit imamo Skula, ni Nauçiteglia ni Sctampe, ni naçina za çinit usctampat, dabi tko scto na naçin govoregna nashega Bosanskoga perom i zabilioxio...” [“We have no schools nor teachers, no literature nor the means to print, in order to record in ink how our Bosnian language is spoken…”] (emphasized by J. H.) (Miletić, 1828: 6), and the people he talks about and whom he represents are called Bosniaks, according to the syntagm used “A mi nevoglni Boscgnaczi” [“And we, the unfortunate Bosniaks”].22
Fig. 4. The introductory part and title page of Miletić's book “Istomaçegne stvarí...” (Miletić, 1828)
It is interesting that Miletić does not consider the Latin alphabet he writes and for which he finds solutions to be his own, that is, Illyrian and Slavic (which are also the names of the languages he uses), so he says: “Buduchise izgubila, i zabaczila stara vlastita slova nashega Illirickogh, iliti Slovinskog Jezika, usilovansam i u rukopisu, i u sctivegnu sluuxitise slovima latinskim, s'kojim nije moguche nike rici nashega jezika upisat nestavivshi vishe slova zajedno“ [“Given that the letters of our own, old Illyrian or Slavic language have long been forsaken and forgotten, I am forced to use the Latin letters in both writing and reading, which are of no use for some words of our language without joining several letters together”] (Miletić, 1828: 6).23 Also, A. Miletić sees a certain problem in the diversity of the language of Catholics on a broader Illyrian or Slavic level, so he says that Slavonians, Dubrovnikians and Dalmatians “ni u pisagnu, ni u izgovaragnu mnoghi rici neslaxuse, vech kakose komu bogle vidi, onako i pishe, i izgovara kakoje koi od svoji Roditeglia, i Mesctara naucio.” [“…neither in writing nor in pronunciation do they concord words, but they're written how one sees and thus writes and pronounces them, how one'd been taught by parents and teachers”] (Miletić 1828, 6), and he sees Bosniaks as separated from all other “Illyrian” peoples. However, it is especially important to note that even within the wider Bosnian area, Miletić recognizes certain linguistic (speech) differences (in Bosnia, Posavina and Herzegovina), so he states that he tried to “govorit, i pisat na nacin dame vas Puk nasc Bosanski, Posavski i Herzegovacki lasno moxe razumit (...)” [“…speak and write in a manner easily to be understood by our Bosnian, Posavinian and Herzegovinian populaces”] (emphasized by J. H.) (Miletić, 1828: 7). If we add, i.e. if we again stress that for our “all the people” and for his own language, A. Miletić says “svako chegliade, koje Bosanski Jezik posiduje, lasnochese iz iztoga govoregna ositit, kako se koja rich ima izgovarat” [“…each living soul speaking the Bosnian language shall easily sense how to pronounce each word from speech…”] (Miletić, 1828: 8), it will be clear that in addition to certain internal and external diversities and differences, it is precisely the Bosnian language that is positioned as an integrative factor in the activities of the Bosnian Franciscans.
In particular, identitarian language issues in Bosnian Catholic education can first be seen through some small, additional details, through specific data that are primarily of an “identitarian nature” – and here in the context of the scission between what is really Bosnian (rooted in the native soil) and what is a possibly broader context, Slavic-Illyrian, pan-Slavic, Croatian or Serbian. Thus, when Bosnian Franciscans sometimes use the adjective Serbian or Serbo-Bosnian to designate the Cyrillic alphabet (which in earlier times was dominantly used in Bosnia and Serbia), this could lead the researcher to place them in a specific Serbian context, and when the designation Illyrian is used, the researchers might classify them in a specific Croatian context through the Illyrian movement. However, in both cases, quite clearly and obviously, the Franciscans still remain their own – Bosnian. 11
3 The example of don Franjo Milićević
In relation to the dominant activity of the Bosnian Franciscans and their work for mainly patriotic, pro-Bosnian interests, there is a completely different case of open advocacy of the so-called anti-Bosnian politics, i.e. open Serbian or Croatian national politics as part of program activities in Bosnia. In the middle of the 19 th century, education itself was already used for political purposes, in order to spread national propaganda, often directly through textbooks. At the same time, there were cases where cultural and educational workers were also political activists.
A Herzegovinian Franciscan, don Franjo Milićević (1835–1903), was labeled, among other things, a “rightist ideologue and national teacher” (see Vasilj, 2016: 259), and V. Pandžić, as a well-known researcher of the history of education in our country and especially of the Croatian language in Bosnia and Herzegovina (cf. Pandžić, 2006), designates Don Franjo Milićević as a participant/representative in: “the implementation of Croatian right-wing politics, which included, among other things, Croatian patriotic education and self-sacrificing opposition to Kallay’s denial of Croatia and the humiliation of Croats within the framework of Austro-Hungarian plans on the creation of a ‘Bosniak nation’ in BIH” (cf. Vasilj, 2016: 260, i.e. Ševo, 2016). Namely, it is true that Milićević was active in both the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian times, but especially important for the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina is his Pravopis za nižje učione katoličke u Hercegovini [Ortography for Lower Grades of Catholic Schools in Herzegovina] (Milićević, 1873, see Fig. 5), based on which even in the Bosnian Vilayet the awareness of the Croatian language among our Catholics is officially inherited and promoted. Milićević’s Pravopis (Ortography) from 1873 (it was still the time of the Bosnian Vilayet) mentions the Croatian language directly by name in two places.
Fig. 5. Ortography for Lower Grades of Catholic Schools in Herzegovina (Milićević, 1873)
Interestingly, the introductory chapter or Milićević’s Pravopis mentions Croats as a people: “Kakovim se slovim sadašnji hervati služe? Većim dielom služe se latinicom” [“What script do today’s Croats use? For the most part, they use the Latin script”] (Milićević, 1873: 4); nonetheless, in the chapter on the initial capitalization, while listing peoples and countries, he lists Bosnian next to Croatian: “Na početku imenah narodnih n. p. ‘Slovinska, Njemaška, Talijanska, Francuzka’: kraljevstva i država, np. ‘Bosansko, Hrvatsko, Pemsko, Spanjolsko’ [“At the beginning of the names of peoples, such as ‘Slavic, German, Italian, or French’: kingdoms and countries, e.g ‘Bosnian, Croatian, Pem, Spanish’”] (Milićević, 1873: 9).
In the context of the mention of the Croatian language, the introductory part of Milićević’s Pravopis states: “In the Croatian language, original, and especially derived and changed words are written in a ‘Riečoslovnički’ manner...” (Milićević, 1873: 3), while in the chapter “ About the Letter H” it is stated: “The Croatian language has many words that have this letter H.” (Milićević, 1873: 10), and these are the two places where the Croatian language is mentioned by name.
Also, it is important to note that Milićević’s magazine Osvit carried the following lines as a slogan: “Jer hrvatskog jezika šum / Može da goji / Može da spoji / Istok i zapad / Pjesmu i um” [“Because the hum of the Croatian language / can sprout / can connect / East and west / Song and mind”], which is a quote from Bašagić’s poem Čarobna kćeri,24 and don Franjo Milićević would also edit the Glas Hercegovca magazine with a pronounced pro-Croatian (Rightist) orientation.
4 A brief overview of the example of Matija Divković and the impact of his work
Discussions about the activity of the Bosnian Franciscans in the context of the written word are not complete without highlighting the importance of Friar Matija Divković. With regard to Divković’s sources on bosančica and the Bosnian language, such as those in his Nauk krstjanski [The Doctrine of Christianity]: “Ovi nauk rečeni fra Matija izvadi iz jezika diačkoga, privede; i složi u jezik slovinski kako se u Bosni govori” [“The said friar Matija has translated this doctrine from the Latin language and adapted it to the Slavic language, as it is spoken in Bosnia”] or: “I ovo istumači aliti privede iz jezika diačkoga, u pravi, i istiniti bosanski” [“and thus he interpreted and translated this from the Latin language into the real and true Bosnian”], it is not unusual to attach the epithet of the progenitor of authorial Bosnian literature to Divković, regardless of the fact that, in this particular case, a significant body of medieval Bosnian literature is justifiably identified with the Bosnian linguistic and literary identity. Nevertheless, Divković’s Nauk krstjanski za narod slovinski [The Doctrine of Christianity for the Slav People] is the first printed book in the Bosnian vernacular, printed in Venice in 1611. In fact, Nauk krstjanski and other works by Friar Matija Divković mark the beginning of counter-reformation Franciscan literature in the vernacular Bosnian language, and in terms of the organization of education, it certainly has additional value for us. Of course, Divković is particularly responsible for special castings of Franciscan type Bosnian letters, and thus for all other similar printing activity in bosančica. However, it was through Divković’s literature that Christian doctrine spread throughout both Romania and Bulgaria, which is a relatively unknown fact in our country. Particularly important and interesting is the information reported by Grmača and Žagar (2017) and Grmača (2019) from Nikola Žic (cf. Žic, 1933), that in western Bulgaria, in Ćiprovec, as early as in 1625, the Franciscans opened a school, where the Bulgarian children learned Latin and bosančica, i.e. “the Croatian language of the Bosnian dialect” (Žic, 1933: 70, according to: Grmača, 2019: 52). The work of Bulgarian Catholics Petar Bogdan Bakšić and Krsto Pejkić, who published works (the former in the Latin alphabet, the latter in bosančica) “exactly as the Bosnian Franciscans from Divković’s school also wrote” (Žic, 1933: 70, according to: Grmača, 2019: 52) is affiliated with the aforementioned Bulgarian school. This entails that the said activity had a certain broader framework and meaning, i.e. a kind of success on a collective scale. In general, Pejkić is believed to have called his language either Eastern Illyrian or Slavic (orig. istočnoilirski and slovinski).25
5 Conclusion
The beginning of the development of the modern schooling system of a more contemporary type in Bosnia and Herzegovina (with a separate school building, secular teachers and subjects, the arrangement of subjects in the curriculum and with an official approval/permit to work) is linked, as in the wider European context, to the first decades of the 19 th century. Even before the official Ottoman, centralized school reforms, which contributed to a more organized approach to the development of education in our country in the mid-1800s (the Tanzimat reforms at the time of the Bosnian Vilayet), the Bosnian education system had got its first modern school of a more contemporary type in Tolisa near Orašje as early as in 1823, after the approval of Husein-kapetan Gradaščević to Friar Ilija Starčević. With this regard, we can claim that in 2023, our society will be marking two full centuries since the beginning of the establishment of a more modern education system.
According to Friar Martin Nedić, based on the report from the Book of Church Expenses, the aforementioned school, which was established two hundred years ago, had the following in its curriculum: reading, writing, mathematics, and singing the holy mass in the Bosnian language. Although the school is of a more modern type, its religious (Franciscan) foundation and a relatively modest plan and program are obvious. It is also noticeable that in the early days, as was customary, a special subject named after the national language was not conceived for reading and writing. However, apart from being named as the language of worship (church singing), the Bosnian language is also associated with this school and the entire early Bosnian schooling system in general through several official school textbooks.
Friar Ambroža Matić, one of the first teachers in the said school, during his stay in Tolisa, wrote a mathematical textbook Racsun za pervu i drugu godinu shkulsku iz latinskog u bosanski jezik [ Mathematics for the 1 st and 2 nd School Year] , which was published in 1827. Also, Matić’s knowledge of the Latin language led him to compile a handbook specifically for learning Latin, titled Knjixica rucsna s' upravam koristnim, i uveshtbanjem lasnim za mladiche latinski jezik ucseche, u bosanski izgovor sloxena, i na svitlost dana izdana [ Handbook with useful instructions and effortless exercises for the youth learning the Latin language, compiled into the Bosnian pronunciation and published], with 1832 as the year of printing, while the preface of the said textbook shows that it had already been completed in 1828, i.e. immediately after the printing of Matić’s mathematics textbook. In addition to the terms the Bosnian language and Bosnian pronunciation from the covers of Matić’s textbooks – based on their content – we highlight that Matić also mentions the terms other different languages and his own language, as well as the terms people, homeland, kingdom, fatherland, state, and above all, it is worth highlighting the mention of young men and the youth of Bosnia, for whom the textbook had originally been written and to whom the concept of our Bosnian language, as Matić still calls it in the textbook, is also associated.
In terms of creation of textbooks and great contribution to our early education, Matić was followed by Friar Augustin Miletić, who in his religious textbook Istomaçegne stvarí potribitii nauka karstjanskoga za uvíxbagne diczè, i çegliadi priprostitè u darxavi bosankoj [The interpretation of the necessities of the Christian doctrine for the education of illiterate children and people in the Bosnian state] from 1828 mentions svako chegliade, koje Bosanski Jezik posiduje [each living soul speaking Bosnian]. It is interesting that Friar Miletić also shows a special awareness of the lack of local school literature, i.e. textbooks in the Bosnian language, complaining that there are no developed schools, teachers and press, nor the possibility for someone to write down something na naçin govoregna nashega Bosanskoga [in the manner our Bosnian is spoken]. It is particularly important that here we are talking about the textbooks written in the Latin alphabet, that is, about the early phase of the accepted Latin alphabet in our country, whose graphic solutions for the Bosnian language were not yet uniform and which Friar Miletić refers to as the Latin letters as opposed to our old letters that had been previously used in our Illyrian or Slavic language (orig. ilirički and slovinski), as it was referred to by Miletić when he mentions the alphabet.
This paper contrast the work of Miletić and Matić, especially their involvement in the creation of textbook literature and care for the schooling system and Bosnian education, literacy and language in general, with the work of Don Franjo Milićević and his Pravopis za nižje učione katoličke u Hercegovini [Ortography for Lower Grades of Catholic Schools in Herzegovina] from 1873, the year which can be marked as the beginning of an organized approach to the status issues of the Croatian language in Bosnian education. The upcoming year of 2023 is therefore also significant for marking a century and a half since the appearance of Milićević’s Orthography, better known for the fact that – although not indicated by its title – it refers specifically to the Croatian language, which was still used during the Bosnian Vilayet both in our society and education system. Unlike Milićević, who openly propagated Croatian national-political programs towards the end of the Ottoman administration of Bosnia, Matić and Miletić had a distinct Bosnian identity orientation, both in the folk and in the linguistic sense at the beginning of the 19 th century.
6 Izvori / Sources
Katančić, Matija Petar. (1831). Sveto pismo starog' zakona. Budim: Slovima i troshkom kraljev. mudroskupshtine Macxarske.https://books.google.hr/books?id=dMRWAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=hr#v=onepage&q&f=false (pristup: juni 2022)
Marjanović, Stjepan.26 (1869). Bukvar s napomenkom članakah nauka vjere za katoličku mladež. Sarajevo: Vilajetska štamparija.
Matić, Ambroža. (1827). Racsun za pervu i drugu godinu shkulsku. Ossik: Slovima Divaldovima povlast. Knjigotisca.
Matić, Ambroža. (1832). Knjixica rucsna s' upravam koristnim, i uveshtbanjem lasnim za mladiche latinski jezik ucseche, u bosanski izgovor sloxena, i na svitlost dana izdana. Ossik: Slovima Divaldovima povlast. Knjigotisca.
Miletić, Augustin. (1828). Istomaçegne stvarí potribitii nauka karstjanskoga za uvíxbagne diczè, i çegliadi priprostitè u darxavi bosankoj. Rim: U sctamparii Svetogh Skuppa.
Milićević, Franjo. (1873). Pravopis za nižje učione katoličke u Hercegovini. Mostar: Tiskom poslanstva katolič. u Hercegovini (available at the Language Institute Archiv, copy)
Nedić, Martin. (1884). Stanje redodržave Bosne Srebrene.https://archive.org/stream/nedic-martin-tolisanin-stanje-redodrzave-bosne-srebrene-1884.-godine/Nedi%C4%87%2C%20Martin%20Toli%C5%A1anin%20-%20Stanje%20redodr%C5%BEave%20Bosne-Srebrene%2C%201884.%20godine_djvu.txt (pristup: juni 2022)
Varica (electronic version of the manuscript), registarski broj spisa u arhivi Franjevačkog samostana “Sv. Luke” u Jajcu: A.a. Samostana Jajce. 277/8-10, Varica, Fra Antuna Kneževića, a copy by Fra Josip Markušić, correspondence.