1 Introduction: The search for the optimal language regime
In November 2013 the then president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, refused to sign the long negotiated association agreement with the European Union. A short time later, he signed a business deal with Russia. In reaction to this, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians went to the “Maidan” in Kiev to protest, displaying a division in how Ukraine pe rceived her future. What followed has been well documented by the media as the Ukrainian conflict.
The crisis took its first deadly peak in February 2014 when several people were shot fatally on the Maidan. To calm the situation, a deal was struck between the government and the opposition and a new government was formed. The deal, however, was never quite held. Yanukovich fled the country and the tension of the situation increased. One of the first decisions of the Ukrainian parliament at this point was to adopt a revised language law banning the use of Russian as a regional language, which was officially introduced in 2012 only. This caused a wave of protest in Ukraine as well as internationally. The step was indeed not very wise – in a situation in which Ukraine had just declared to be ready to start afresh and reconcile itself to its Russian-speaking population, banning the language was not going to produce any positive reactions. Even though the acting president did not sign the law and it never came into effect, the symbolic effect of the act remained. It would be far too much to maintain that the Ukrainian conflict is one about language or that it was caused by a language law: the roots of the conflict, the parties involved and its further development are much more complex than that. But, it is a conflict in which at one point, the change of language regime could have possibly played a positive role by perhaps winning the loyalties of more Russian speakers – and it has played a negative one instead. As the conflict between pro-Russian separatists and the Ukrainian government forces continues, the language issue remains part of the demands of the former, and most importantly, a strong argument showing that Russian speakers are not (and never would be) treated well in Ukraine.
Ukraine is the most current example of the role language can play in conflicts. However, there are many more examples, and situations, that portray political dilemmas with regard to language. This book is not about Ukraine, it is about dilemmas concerning language regimes – and the search (and the limits) of an optimal language regime for multilingual contexts.
This question is not new. On the contrary, although not always formulated as a search for an “optimum”, many have asked what should be done about language conflicts, multilingual states or endangered languages. The most significant attempt to internationally codify treatment of languages was probably the “Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights (hereafter “Declaration”)” that was signed in Barcelona in June 1996.1 The initiative came from PEN International, and – probably not quite unsurprisingly in this context – the International Escarré Centre for Ethnic Minorities and Nations, based in Barcelona. However, despite a publication of the document in 1998 which included the expressions of support to its contents coming from renowned personalities, among them Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat,2 the document had not become what they had expected – to date, it has still not been passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The signatories, more precisely the Follow-up Committee which was established after the signing of the initial document and entrusted with the mission, have not even been able to gain official support from UNESCO, which had been providing moral and technical assistance to the project from the outset.3 In this sense, the document – and the attempt to make treatment of linguistic diversity subject of a detailed international document – was a failure. However, the question is whether it would not have been bound to fail, even if it had been passed by the General Assembly: Only the consequences would have become more severe.
1 The complete text of the Declaration in English can be found in Follow-Up Committee, Universal Declaration,19–31. It is also available at http://www.linguisticdeclaration.org/llibre-gb.htm, accessed 7 March 2015. The complete list of signatories is available at http://www.linguistic-declaration.org/index-gb.htm (under “Signers”), accessed 7 March 2015.
2 For the complete list of expressions of support, see Follow-Up Committee, Universal Declaration, 33–77.
3 Marí, “Globalisation and Linguistic Rights,” 78.
As a document with the ambition to determine worldwide standards for the treatment of linguistic diversity in a way which would contribute to the “promotion and respect of all languages”4 and universalism “based on linguistic and cultural pluralism”5 as envisioned in the preliminaries to the document, it was bound to contain strong provisions concerning the protection and use of languages. However, alongside provisions that ensure widely accepted rights of individuals such as the “right to be recognised as a member of a language community,” 6 the “right to the use of one's own language both in private and in public,”7 or the“right to the use of one's own name,”8 the probably somewhat more problematic –because difficult to accept in some societies – “right to interrelate and associate with other members of one’s language community of origin”9 or the “right to maintain and develop one's own culture,” 10 it also contained a number of potentially more controversial formulations. For example, the provisions “all language communities are entitled to have at their disposal whatever means are necessary to ensure the transmission and continuity of their language,”11 or “the use of other languages in this [socioeconomic] sphere can only be required in so far as it is justified by the nature of the professional activity involved. In no case can a more recently arrived language relegate or supersede the use of the language proper to the territory”12 contain a number of controversies. The definition of the “means necessary” or the determination of the group who came first and whose language is proper to the territory, and why this language necessarily has to be prioritised, can be very problematic and possibly radically interpreted as requiring violence for their realisation, and thus preventing the peace the Declaration was aiming at. In addition, with the exception of the first few general provisions, the Declaration was aimed at “language communities” as human societies
4 Preliminaries of the Declaration.
5 Ibid.
6 Article 3 of the Declaration.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Article 8 of the Declaration.
12 Article 47(3) of the Declaration.
“historically established in a particular territorial space” 13 treating the rights of the “new” and scattered groups as secondary, as well as makin g no statements on the definition of language in general. Along with the strong provisions which would have to be controversial not only from the point of view of states unwilling to grant any kind of protection to particular language groups, but also those who do so, this limited applicability to certain kinds of groups and members of these groups, might have been the main reasons for the failure of the document.
In general, definitions of highly conflict-laden terms, such as minorities, have never been among the strengths of global co-operation.14 The definition of “historically established language communities” would not prove any simpler, being that the definition of language itself is at times very controversial. It is sufficient to recall the recent events in Ukraine to see how problematic the application of the document would be. It would be a tool in the hands of those arguing (among others) with linguistic inequality for violent actions – as “necessary means for survival”, as well as in those who claim to only defend the language “proper to the territory”. In theory, the document could have possibly forced Ukraine earlier to acknowledge Russian as official language maybe winning some more loyalties of its Russian speaking citizens, in practice, however, Ukraine – along other states divided along linguistic lines – would simply not have ratified the document, viewing it rather as a threat than help.
13 Article 1(1) of the Preliminary Title (Concepts) of the Declaration. 14 Duchêne in Ideologies across Nations (230–233) very poignantly shows this problem at the level of the United Nations. He analyses the discourses and debates concerning the protection (or its absence) of minorities in the process of development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. The issue of the definition of minorities was particularly crucial in the development of the last named document, where both the presence and the absence of a definition had been perceived as inacceptable by some of the states. In the end, no definition was included. Moreover, due to a complaint made by France, the initial title “Declaration on Rights of Persons Belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious and Lingui stic Minorities” and the subsequent formulations with the same content were changed by inserting an “or” instead of a comma between “National” and “Ethnic” in order to impli citly suggest that only national minorities, and not such which are only “religious” or “et hnic”, were to be recognised.
Indeed, this seems to be confirmed by the experience of the Declaration Follow-up Committee during their attempts to gain support for the Declaration from UNESCO. As Isidor Marí, one of the signatories of the Declaration and the scientific coordinator of the Follow-up Scientific Council, reports, “the impressions gleaned by the Declaration Follow-up Committee in a long series of contacts with numerous State representatives in UNESCO confirmed that a declaration of this kind – affirming equality among all languages without exception and both the individual and collective nature of linguistic rights was disturbing for State powers-that-be, which, after all, would have to agree to its processing and official proclamation.”15
A failure in terms of the ambitions of the Declaration, it is nevertheless still useful to illustrate one dimension of the involvement of language in social relations being that it can become highly political, when it comes to decisions regarding the use of a particular language in particular contexts, by particular persons. The authors of the document tried to prescribe an answer to a set of questions which are, politically, very controversial – they assumed that the correct answer would have to be the protection of diversity, because the preservation of diversity seems a key aim of those involved in language-related conflicts. However, neither the conflict, nor its solution can be defined this simply. Ukraine is the most visible case at the moment, but there are others. In South Africa, for example. despite an officially multilingual language regime, many parents send their children to English-speaking schools, because they consider English language education to be more promising for their children. Certainly, it can be argued, as the authors of the Declaration probably would, that the situation in South Africa is the result of, first, colonisation and, second, of the years of apartheid, and therefore the decision of the parents cannot be considered free and correct. However, the question is whether this means that the parents should be convinced, or even forced, to make decisions against what they believe to be best for their children. The Declaration gives no clear answer to that.
In fact, in the end, the Declaration, even if it were passed, would have been unable to answer the complete range of questions connected to the use of language anywhere in the world. These questions do not just
15 Marí, “Globalisation and Linguistic Rights,” 78.
concern what a language or a speaker of a language should be entitled to, but also who should pay for the realisation of these rights and who should be given preference in those cases where the interests of two or more different groups stand in conflict. Conflict is likely to emerge in both situations – those in which resources are restricted with respect to some languages, as well as in those where every language, as the Declaration required, has all resources necessary at their disposal.
Most probably a single document could never give detailed answers to these questions in all possible contexts, because of the high complexity and conflict potential of the matter. However, this does not eliminate the problem of conflicts involving language and the question of how multilingualism at state and/or international level should be treated in order to prevent and/or resolve conflicts related to language – which are by no means rare. Is there a way of knowing what the optimal language regime for a multilingual situation should be? This question is the subject of my research and discussion in the present book. At the end of this chapter and in more detail in Chapter 7 of this book, I will argue that the answer is hidden in two concepts – stability and legitimacy.
1.1 Language-related conflicts
The conflicts the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights was hoping to solve, but most certainly would also itself cause, are conflicts at the level of the “politics of language”.16 “Politics of language” involves the decisions about which language is to be used (or not used) by whom and when. The decisison in the Ukraine forbidding the use of Russian as regional language was a decision at the level of politics of language. But there are also other, more „peaceful“ examples of conflicts related to politics of language of global range which touch upon our everyday-lives. A prime example of such a global conflict at the level of politics of language is the case of English, which seems to dominate the area of science, culture and business (even though the language with the most first language speakers in fact is Mandarin Chinese17). While in many
16 Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship , 111; see also Weinstein, Civic Tongue, 11–13. 17 “Summary by language size”, Ethnologue, http://www.ethnologue.com/statistics/size, accessed 7 March 2015. To this data, it has to be added, however, that the Ethnologue is a
states debated or even introduced as a compulsory foreign language or already holding this position, albeit unofficially,18 the dominance of English is at the same time often perceived to be leading to a diminished use and importance of other languages (and identities). While some authors consider this a pragmatic and understandable development,19 others refer to it as “linguistic imperialism”, regarding the spread of English as an effort to save the remains of the English-speaking colonial empire, thus emphasising, and in a negative manner, another important dimension of language, namely its relation to power.20
The focus of this book is on the “politics of language”. However, the second group of conflicts involving language – the “language of politics” – cannot be ignored. “Language of politics” refers to the vocabulary, metaphors and other expressions, verbal or non-verbal, chosen and used
controversial source, primarily because of not always naming the sources of its data. However, at the same time, it is a much cited source in works of scholarship because it offers a vast amount of data on states and its languages hardly available otherwise. After cross-checking some of its data with other sources, for example the UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, I consider it a source which is sufficiently reliable to be used for illustrative purposes.
18 For example, in the school year 2010/2011, English was mandatory in 14 countries (sometimes only regionally) out of the 27 member states of the EU plus Turkey, Croatia, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. EURYDICE, Key Data on Teaching, 11, 47. In 2009/2010 English was however the most frequently taught foreign language in primary education also in all of these states with the exception of Ireland and the United Kingdom where English is the first language of the majority of the population, as well as the Dutch speaking Belgium and Luxembourg, where other languages prevail (ibid., 60). This is also true for secondary education, with French-speaking Belgium forming an additional exception to the previous two (ibid., 72). Slovakia introduced English as compulsory starting in the year 2011/2012, Portugal in 2012/2013. The implementation of the policy however is complicated by low numbers of teachers actually qualified to teach English (ibid., 46).
Compulsory English, however, is not restricted to the “West”. In China, English has been a compulsory subject since 2001 from the third grade on (provided qualified teachers are present), previously it was taught from the age of 11. Nunan,“Impact of English,” 595.
19 For a summary of the two positions, see Kamwangamalu, “ Globalization of English,” 66–68 He refers to them as the “grassroots theory” and the “conspiracy theory”.
20 The term has been used in particular by Robert Phillipson in several of his works, e.g.: Phillipson, Linguistic Imperialism; Phillipson, Linguistic Imperialism Continued ; Phillipson, English-Only Europe (here esp. page 163), as well as in articles and chapters concerning the matter: Phillipson, “International Languages,” and Phillipson, Rannut, and Skutnabb-Kangas, “Introduction.”
by persons active in the political discourse.”21 The goals of particular language use are very varied, two of them being inclusion and exclusion. An example of an element of language of politics with the aim of inclusion is political correctness, for example in respect to gender when the use of gender-neutral forms is actively supported in order to work against gender related inequalities. An example of exclusion is the socalled “hate speech”, that is the choice of such expressions which could lead to the exclusion or even violence against certain persons.
Certainly, both conflict groups influence each other and cannot be clearly separated. Hate speech, for example, can be directed against a specific group, which can be defined by language and part of the “hatred”, or the means of exclusion, might be an appeal to limit the use of this language.22
In literature and practice, the conflicts taking place at the level of “politics of language” are sometimes explicitly referred to as “language” or “linguistic” conflicts.23 However, conflicts over the use of particular languages in particular domains are also often an important element in conflicts which are termed otherwise and referred to as “ethnic conflicts”, or “civil wars”. In the course of this book I use the term “languagerelated conflicts” to refer to any conflict involving language. This is in order to include into the conflict definition and my analysis both: conflicts involving language as their primary motive, as well as conflicts involving language, but not necessarily being motivated by “language issues” – for example the possibility of communication in one’s first la nguage with the administrative organs of a state.
Any analysis of conflict requires a definition of this term. I choose the same definition used by Donald L. Horowitz in his treatment of ethnic conflicts, which is a version of a conflict definition stemming from Lewis Coser.24 A conflict in these terms is “a struggle in which the aim is to
21 Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship , 111. See also Weinstein, Civic Tongue, 7–11.
22 For a detailed overview of possible influences and connections between language and politics, see Joseph, Language and Politics
23 “Linguistic conflict” is used for example by Patten , in “Liberal Neutrality,” Blake, in “Language Death,” and Rannut in “Common Language Problem.” De Swaan in Words of the World uses “language conflict”. Both interchangeably are used by Patten and Kymlicka in “Introduction.”
24 Coser, Functions of Social Conflict,8.
gain objectives and simultaneously to neutralize, injure or eliminate rivals.”25 Much of this book is devoted to the characterisation of language-related conflicts, therefore it would neither be wise nor particularly useful to try to define them comprehensively at this point. However, as a starting definition, I understand language-related conflicts as conflicts taking place over the move, or restraint from such a move, from one language regime to another. To use the words of Horowitz’ conflict definition in a language-related conflict, the “aim” is to establish a particular language regime and those hindering its establishment need to be neutralised, injured or eliminated – whereas these three terms can either be rather metaphorical with the conflict taking place in the political arena and being argumentational in character, or having an explicitly violent form. The most general definition of “language regimes”, a term which will also be defined and analysed more precisely throughout the book, is that these are constellations with specific relations between the languages and language groups in place in terms of the possibilities of mutual communication, status as well as institutional arrangements and sets of rules implicitly or explicitly regulating the use of languages in specific areas of life.
The setting I focus most on in this book is the state, since it remains the most relevant political unit serving as the point of departure and the context of language-related conflicts. Most prone to language-related conflicts are states which are usually referred to, either by themselves or by outside observers and commentators, as multiethnic and/or multinational. These are situations where more than one language is spoken and where two or more groups, often, but not always, “identifying” with one of these languages, exist in one political cont ext at the same time. These groups might refer to themselves, or be referred to as “national”, “ethnic”, “cultural” or a similar term implying a bond between the speakers of the language. However, the designation is subjective and I do not see the definition of ethnicity or nation as my goal in this book. The terms “multinational” and “multiethnic” thus also should be understood more broadly than for example the terms “polyethnic” and “multinational” used by Kymlickain Multicultural Citizenship which are limited to immigrant societies in the former and
25 Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict, 95.
societies containing national minorities in the latter case. 26 “Multinational” and “multiethnic” in this book do not point to such specific types of societies. In this sense I follow Rogers Brubaker and avoid the use of nations and similar references to “groupness” as analytical categories and attempt to restrict the use of these terms only to cases where they are used as categories of reference by the actors in the conflict without myself assuming that such groups need to exist or that every individual consciously or unconsciously is a member of such a group. 27 As I will show later, basically every state can be identified as multiethnic, multinational or at least linguistically diverse.
In spite of the state currently being the most frequent starting point of language-related conflicts, and the most important context of reference, this does not mean that language-related conflicts are restricted to the state. On the contrary, language-related conflicts often have an international dimension.
There are three ways in which language-related conflicts are internationalised. The first is the most general one and affects most states. It is the fact of globalisation and internationalisation, which are accompanied by increased migration, the strengthening of the position of English as global language – and possible resistance to it – and the existence of supranational bodies, such as the European Union, and international organisations. These can, alongside states themselves, become a starting point of language-related conflicts, and also influence the formation of language policies and regimes of states. At the same time, states are now not only expected to formulate language policies of their own, but they also contribute to the formation of a “world language regime” by using or supporting the use of particular languages at global level, that is at the level of international organisations.28
26 Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship , 6.
27 See Brubaker, “Ethnicity without Groups,” esp. 60–61.
28 Even though the formulation of the paragraph gives the impression of this kind of internationalisation only taking place in the “today’s world”, in history, similar processes took place and particular languages were dominating in the “known” world, or world consi dered “relevant” to the people in question. Best known is the example of Latin as language of the educated and the liturgical language in Europe during most of the time of the past two millennia. The resistance against the domination of Latin – also symbolising the political power of Rome – which started with the reformation and the printing of the Bible
The second dimension of language-related conflict internationalisation is more case-specific. Language-related conflicts might start in one state, but in many cases, other states might be interested or even involved in the course and the outcome of the conflict. One of the common reasons for this involvement is the fact that they regard some of the groups involved in the conflict as “their kin” in need of protection29. Another situation leading to active involvement of other states is the effort of speakers of one language living in several states, seeing themselves as a distinct nation, to create a state of their own. Through this a third mode of internationalisation of language-related conflicts comes into play. Language-related conflicts can be a part or a dimension of a larger conflict involving the delegitimisation or even disintegration of the initially existing state – turning a national conflict into an international one. The current situation in Ukraine shows that all three modes can be present at once. All these aspects will find consideration in the chapters of this book.
Language-related conflicts are, however, also not restricted to the state, national or supranational level. They can just as well take place at lower levels, such as in federal units or cities, or in domains not (or at least not always) regulated by the state, such as companies. Even though my book does not focus on these conflicts, they are similar in character and the principle of optimum, as I develop it in this book, largely applies to them, too.
Now that I have briefly characterised language-related conflicts and language regimes, it is impossible to avoid saying a few words on the definition of “language” itself.30 Since the definition of language (i.e. the
in local vernaculars instead of Latin and was opposed by the Roman-Catholic Church can be interpreted as an international language-related conflict. Cf. Anderson, Imagined Communities, 39–40.
29 This can take place in what Brubaker refers to as “homeland nationalism” whe n a state considers it an obligation to “monitor the condition, promote the welfare, support the activities and institutions, assert the rights, and protect the interests of ‘their’ ethnonatio nal kin in other states.” Brubaker, “Introduction,” 5.
30 There are authors, for example Elana Shohamy, who emphasise that language refers to more than a system of grammar or a spoken code of communication. To Shohamy, the languages of architecture or clothing are just as important. In this book I do not use the term “language” in such a broad manner. For other uses of language, see Shohamy , Language Policy, 1–21.
question of whether “something” is an independent language, a variety31 or a dialect of this language etc.) can itself lie at the core of a languagerelated conflict, I choose to approach the matter in a very open manner. In the following, I use language to mean a particular system of grammar and vocabulary, and the rules of their use, which is considered to be independent of other such systems. The question of whether a language “really” exists or “really” is independent or not , can be answered differently by a linguist and by the speaker of the language, or a person who believes to speak the language. Therefore, at least as a point of departure, it is sufficient if there is someone who considers that this language exists or should exist as an independent one. Because of these reasons, when considering a situation of official multilingualism, I will not judge whether the languages constituting this multilingualism objectively exist or should rather be referred to as varieties or dialects of the same language. By means of this definition, the question of whether the term “language” refers to an abstract set of rules no one really adheres to or the language actually spoken by individuals, which probably differs from one speaker to another, is resolved. I do not consider languages as entities which can be captured; this, however, does not change the fact that protection of languages or more often their speakers can be required no matter how they are defined and how “objective” this definition might be. Such understanding of language could in the end lead, however, to the inability of recognising a context as multilingual, particularly if the languages spoken are very close to each other and only one of them is officially recognised. In this sense, the fact as to whether speakers of all languages, for example in a state, are able to understand each other without having to actively learn the other language(s) or not, will later have implications on some elements of my argument.
31 I use the terms “language variant” and “language variety” as follows: language variants refer to two or more forms of the same language considered equally (e.g. US and British English), and language varieties to two or more forms of the same language considered unequally (e.g. the standard variety and a dialect). The “equality” of forms does not ne cessarily imply that both forms are recognised as equal in some setting, nor does it imply that everyone agrees with them being two forms of the same language, and not varieties instead. On the contrary, it is possible for a variety of a language to be recognised as a variant of a language, and vice versa, for a varia nt to be “degraded” to the position of a variety.
1.2 Optimum
The question of whether a particular language regime should be maintained, modified or entirely changed into another is bound to be controversial as long as there are at least two opinions about the possible direction. In addition, it is not easy to predict how a specific conflict situation will evolve, nor to evaluate the regime it seems to be heading towards. The latter is the point of departure of the questions that interests me most in this book: What would be the optimal solution, the optimal language regime as a resolution for conflicts arising in these contexts? Is there at least a meaningful criterion for evaluating whether a specific regime can be considered to be optimal? In short: what does optimum mean and how can it be recognised?
The search for the optimum has both empirical and normative aspects. Its empirical nature becomes particularly evident when it is directed to the past, since it is the variety of historical examples which suggest which factors are relevant and decisive for the establishment and change of a language regime. For the most part, however, the search is normative, because it requires answers to the question of “who should be granted what” when language use is concerned. In practice, a reply to these questions has relevance for two issues. First, answering the question of what is optimal would (provided actual interest in implementing the optimal solution were present) put at disposal a manual for treating multilingualism in cases where it leads or might lead to conflicts. Second, knowing what the optimum is helps to judge a multilingual (and conflicting) situation from the outside, which is relevant not only for understanding these situations and making analytical or political claims about them, but also for the development and implementation of international standards related to language.
While the former problem, i.e. the need to accommodate linguistic diversity, has existed for hundreds of years,32 the implementation of
32 Varennes in Language Minorities (5–9) names several historical examples of language regimes; e.g. the recognition of rights of certain religious communities during the spread of Islam in the Mediterranean Basin after the seventh century. Also China in the ninth century acknowledged some degree of autonomy in its southern regions; the Incas in preColombian America practiced an explicit policy of one language of communication while
international standards rather has been a matter of the past two decades. In this period, language rights or linguistic rights,33 often conceived of as part of minority rights, have been finding their way into international legal documents. However, to date, few of the documents concerning language are legally binding. 34 More precisely, they are either not binding
allowing other languages to exist. In addition to the examples named by de Varennes, the Habsburg empire and the Ottoman empire can be named as cases where language regimes were developed and maintained without democracy, as it is understood today, as a political regime in place.
33 Both terms, “language” as well as “linguistic” rights can be found in relevant literature, the term “linguistic”, however, usually in the context of a debate on “linguistic human rights”. Both terms have their difficulties, since one of them seems to awake an association with the discipline of linguistics, rather than language itself, while the other sounds as if languages, not their speakers, were the carriers of these rights. For the most part, it is the speakers who are meant. When speakin g of specific concepts using “linguistic”, I will use the term “linguistic” in this book: However, whenever I refer to rights related to the use of language, I prefer the term “language rights” to refer to both what is sometimes named language or linguistic rights.
34 “Group” or “collective” rights were for the most part banned from international documents after World War II, since the misuse of treaties concerning the rights of minorities in Central and South East Europe was considered to be one of the facilitating conditions that enabled the rise of Nazism. For an overview of the development of international standards and the shift from universally formulated rights to rights bound to the membership in certain groups, see e.g. Kymlicka, Multicultural Odysseys ,27-55. Even though it is generally claimed that there was no protection of minority or similar group-membership-connected rights in the decades after World War II, Varennes in “Linguistic Identity” (255–260) identifies several documents adopted before the general rise of interest in minorities and cultural diversity in the 1990s, which can be considered as sources of information on rights related to language. According to Varennes, it is usually assumed that the only document is Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Varennes corrects these assumptions by listing a number of documents including various types of rights concerning the use of language reaching several decades back. Among the documents concerning language in its various dimensions (interdiction of discrimination based on language, provision of translation in connection with criminal charges, rights protecting national minorities or indigenous peoples) are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights the American Convention on Human Rights, the African Charter on Human Rights and Peoples’ Rights the International Labor Organization Convention No. 107, International Labor Organization Convention No.169. In addition, rights to freedom of expression and private life, which are a standard part of
for every state, not binding in the same way for all states or not binding at all, which means that they cannot be legally enforced in equal measures in all cases.35
Apart from the general difficulty attempts to create any kind of world order are faced with, which is the missing of a higher authority – a kind of international “Leviathan” – able to enforce it, there is the problem of finding an agreement concerning the contents of this order. Formulation of provisions concerning minorities and language groups are no exception, and complicated by the inability to find a definition for these terms, the draft and the failure of the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights could once again serve as an illustration of this difficulty. At the same time, in many states, particularly in those recovering from conflict (e.g. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, several states in Africa) or transitioning towards democracy (e.g. post-Soviet states), international or foreign organisations, both global or regional ones, such as the United Nations, the European Union, or the OSCE, as well as NGOs (e.g. church organisations and political foundations), are present in order to contribute to or evaluate various elements of conflict settlement, peace-building and democratisation and refer to international standards, or in fact work on
many conventions, are important elements of the protection of language rights according to Varennes. More recently, several documents have appeared “in which language rights and freedoms have proliferated though not always in legally binding form” (ibid., 258), among them the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic minorities; the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; the Vienna Declaration on Human Rights; the OSCE Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension; the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages; the Central European Initiative Instrument for the Protection of Minority Rights, and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ibid.) .
35 On the various kinds of mechanisms of international supervision, see Eide “Mech anisms for Supervision”. Eide observes that a gradual development towards more binding mechanisms has taken place, particularly at the regional level, with the European Court for Human Rights being the “most advanced institution for the protectio n of human rights” (ibid., 22). However, the political mechanisms consisting of discussing, monitoring and reporting on the commitment of states to the Charters and proclaimed standards of the organisations they are members of, plays an important role in respect of states “which are reluctant to cooperate in the implementation of human and minority rights” (ibid., 25).
their implementation, including those which refer to language. 36 Dealing with language-related conflicts is part of what they do, because language can be involved in any component of the peace-building process. This makes the question of optimum to a pragmatic one, since it could, in an ideal case, suggest how the workers of such organisations should proceed, or at least what they should pay particular attention to.
When searching for (the criterion of) the optimal language regime, an answer to two sub-questions is necessary, both of which are again not normative but empirical in nature. First, the question of whether a language regime is optimal for a situation, that is, whether it is a solution to the language-related conflicts, actual or potential (if another regime were in place), requires an analysis of the language-related conflict itself – its nature as well as the context and reasons for its occurrence. Second, it requires a theory of language regimes themselves – their character as well as the reasons and processes of their establishment, maintenance and change. I discuss both starting with the next Chapter. Prior to that, however, in the following section, I explore the notion of optimum and the debates concerning its nature in relation to language regimes in a brief overview of literature on the matter.
1.3 Literature review
There is a vast repertoire of literature, impossible to review in its entirety, which in some way touches on language and politics and goes back centuries.37 Specific research on language policies and language rights, mostly conducted within the disciplines of sociolinguistics, and recently also political theory , is of a much newer date. Moreover, it was not until several years ago that works appeared calling for an
36 The OSCE in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia, for example, has a mandate to support the government in the area of education; education is also among the focus areas of UNICEF. The EU is particularly influential in its candidate and potential candidate countries, annually evaluating their progress in the policy areas of the acquis communautaire, which includes education and minority protection, and supporting projects in various areas, including education in these states.
37 In particular the sphere of the “language of politics”, especially the “art of persuasion” reaches back to Aristotle, see Weinstein, Civic Tongue, 7-11. For further examples, see Kraus, Union of Diversity, 78–83; Lagerspetz, “On Language Rights,”182.
interdisciplinary approach in an attempt to theorise the normative issues of this relation. Among them are the Language Rights and Political Theory volume edited by Will Kymlicka and Alan Patten, the Language Question in Europe and Diverse Societies edited by Dario Castiglione and Chris Longman as well as the Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method volume, which in fact is a textbook, but still an important contribution thanks to the high-profile contributors, edited by Thomas Ricento. Ricento is also one of the editors (the others being Yael Peled and Peter Ives) of a recent thematic issue of the Language Policy Journal entitled Language Policy and Political Theory also calling for more communication between political theorists and linguists. The hope is that interdisciplinarity helps to capture more effectively the complex role language plays in society.38 However, even though many disciplinary perspectives can be found in the volumes, their interdisciplinary approach primarily (even though not explicitly) stands for the existence of parallel chapters employing each for oneself its discipline-specific approach or method, rather than any of the authors attempting to combine these approaches with one another and compensating for the deficiencies or blind spots of their own approach. While in the pioneer volumes, which these three in fact are, this might be the result of the “review”-character of the books in questions, it might be more helpful in the long term to cross the disciplinary boundaries.39
The calls for interdisciplinarity, however, make evident that it is meaningful to examine how the question of optimal language regimes has been treated in a range of disciplines devoting their attention to the variety of issues related to the politics of language. Among the disciplines usually considered in edited volumes on language and politics are the already mentioned sociolinguistics, the “mother discipline” of language policy and language planning as disciplines of applied linguistics; then theories of nationalism, political science and theory and, to a limited
38 Similar attempts are also visible in respect to the analysis of other issues. For an intriguing account on the parallel discourses within social and political theory, their mutual complementarity and possible advantages arising from crossing the borders between them, see May, Modood, and Squires, “Charting the Disciplinary Debates.”
39 An exception here is the contribution of Yael Peled in the latest mentioned volume –she engages in a more fundamental discussion on the nature of interdisciplinarity in respect to “normative language policy”. See Peled, “Normative language policy”.
17
extent, also economics and international law and research on ethnic conflicts which either offer additional medothological approaches or (unintentionally) provide information on the wider context in which language-related conflicts take place.
The approaches to the study of the politics of language within these disciplines, to use the most general terms, have varied between description, historical and political analysis, and normative theory. However, it is not possible to link one approach with the authors of one particular discipline or research field only. The approaches correspond with the questions the respective disciplines usually attempt to answer. Theorists of nationalism contributed to the discussion of the relation between language and society indirectly by discussing the role of language in the modern nation-formation process, and thus focused mostly on the historical, structural and functional dimensions of the problem and generally refrained from normative judgements.
40 Sociolinguists have often turned their attention to small languages and the conditions of their vitality and survival, as well as the necessity of specific language policy steps meant primarily to protect, save or revive these languages or achieve a certain language policy equilibrium.
41 Political theorists, on the other hand, have been asking about the existence of precisely this necessity, representing diverse positions regarding the need and worth of protecting it. Scholars in international law, while not speaking about particular languages, and analysing and interpreting the existing norms protecting language (in general in the context of minority protection, but sometimes also with a specific
40 In this book I mainly refer to Anderson, Imagined Communities; Brubaker, Nationalism Reframed; Gellner, Nations and Nationalism; Hobsbawm, “Nations and Nationalism”; Hroch, Europa der Nationen; Münkler, “Nation als Modell politischer Ordnung.”
41 Examples of such an approach can be found in Phillipson, who speaks of languages that are “threatened” and should “flourish”, ( English-Only-Europe? 3), or in Kaplan and Baldauf, “Policy and Planning in Algeria” in which the authors speak about situations which “require planning”, or conclude that some situation lacked “serious language planning” (Kaplan and Baldauf, “Policy and Planning in Algeria, 17). Webb in Language in South Africa also has a strong image of the necessary language policy steps, however, unlike many other authors, he acknowledges this and justifies his position with reference to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa which defines the standards to be achieved (ibid., 2).
linguistic focus),42 sometimes take a clear stand in their introductory chapters where diversity is concerned, assuming a position very much protective of it, but without discussing the term in more detail; subsequently, they stand at the crossroad of the analytical and normative approaches.43
The rough links I have just made, however, are only helpful for the sake of the overview. There are several authors, such as the sociolinguists Joshua Fishman or Stephen May, who evidently cross disciplinary boundaries.44 Alexandre Duchêne is another sociolinguist who crosses the boundaries and at the same time stands in opposition to both mentioned authors, since he criticises the approaches in which language is objectified as an element of identity and therefore in need of protection or revival.45 Also, Lionel Wee, a linguist working on the border to political theory, criticizes the concept of language rights. Several political scientists, for instance Peter A. Kraus,46 Jonathan Pool,47 or Abram de Swaan, 48 work interdisciplinarily, either linking political theory with empirical analysis (Kraus) or employing statistical and economic methods in the analysis (Pool, De Swaan). Economic considerations of the costs of multilingualism and compensations for injustices are also visible, for example in the work of Jürgen Gerhards, who adopts the approaches of the economists François Grin and Philippe Van Parijs, who also write on linguistic diversity.49 With few exceptions, the works from most disciplines with a more ambitious theoretical focus remain focused on Europe
42 Fernand de Varennes is the most prominent example of an international lawyer with a focus on language, see Varennes Language Minorities; Varennes, “Linguistic Identity”; Varennes “Existing Rights of Minorities.”
43 E.g. Letschert in Minority Right Mechanisms (3) who expresses the conviction that “Different cultures, languages, and religions enrich society. If this assumption was e mbraced by everyone, there would not be a problem.”
44 E.g. Fishman, Handbook of Language, or May, Language and Minority Rights.
45 Duchêne, Ideologies across Nations, 6–9.
46 Kraus, Union of Diversity.
47 E.g. Pool, “Language Auction”; Pool, “Optimal Strategies”; Pool, “Optimal Language Regimes.”
48 De Swaan, Words of the World.
49 Gerhards, Mehrsprachigkeit im vereinten Europa; Grin, “Diversity as Paradigm”; Grin, “Economic Considerations”; Van Parijs, “Linguistic Justice”; Van Parijs, “Europe’s Li nguistic Challenge;” Van Parijs, Linguistic Justice for Europe
or at least the Western world.50 The field of ethnic conflicts, on the contrary, is itself quite wide and interdisciplinary in approach, international in focus and has parallels with the language-related conflicts problems. Therefore, it is particularly inspirational in terms of the approaches and instruments it offers for dealing with conflicts in which identity and culture are involved, which to some extent can be applied to language-related conflicts too.51
When asking about what literature has to say on the question “what is the optimal language regime“,, the honest answer has to be that for the most part, the question has not been formulated in this manner and therefore no direct answer can be found. The first reason why the question has never taken this form is that the term “language regime” is not quite established yet. Few authors have used this term and even more rarely a detailed treatment of the same can be found. 52 Researchers in sociolinguistics, political theory and the other disciplines treat other phenomena. The terms “language policy”, “language planning” (both mostly in sociolinguistics and theories of natio nalism) or “language rights” (or “linguistic rights”, mostly in political theory or normatively oriented sociolinguistic literature) are commonly used. However, for an analysis of language-related conflicts, it is not enough to regard these areas separately, since they merely stand for single aspects of languagerelated conflicts and their outcomes.
50 Certainly, sociolinguists, and also some political scientists – in form of reports and analyses of single cases – cover the whole globe (a prime example are the volumes published by Baldauf and Kaplan with detailed information on language planning and policies covering several countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America. See Baldauf and Kaplan, Africa Vol.1; Baldauf and Kaplan, AfricaVol.2; Baldauf and Kaplan, Asia Vol 1; Baldauf and Kaplan, Latin America Vol.1), however these analyses of single cases usually do not intend to make a more elaborate theoretical contribution. There are some examples of works of political theory with wider scope, for example those edited by Kymlicka in which the application of his concepts on Eastern Europe and Asia is explored (Kymlicka and He, Multiculturalism in Asia; Kymlicka and Opalski, Liberal Pluralism).
51 In this book I primarily reach back to the works by Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict, and McGarry and O’Leary, “Macro-political Regulation.”
52 Pool in “Optimal Language Regimes” treats the term in more detail; Castiglione in “Negotiating Language Regimes,” and Weinstock in “Complex normative foundations” are the only ones among the authors of the mentioned interdisciplinary volumes, who use the term. Castiglione does not discuss it further; Weinstock restricts his search to liberal democracies.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
Over your ankles
Lace on the white war-hose; Over your bosoms
Link up the hard mail-nets; Over your lips
Plait long tresses with cunning;— So war beasts full-bearded King Odin shall deem you, When off the gray sea-beach At sunrise ye greet him.”
T L ’ S (Charles Kingsley).
These instructions were carried out with scrupulous exactness by the Winiler women, and when Odin awoke and sat up in bed early the next morning, his first conscious glance fell upon their armed host, and he exclaimed in surprise, “What Longbeards are those?” (In German the ancient word for long beards was Langobarden, which was the name used to designate the Lombards.) Frigga, upon hearing this exclamation, which she had foreseen, immediately cried out in triumph that Allfather had given them a new name, and was in honor bound to follow the usual Northern custom and give them also a baptismal gift.
“‘A
name thou hast given them, Shames neither thee nor them, Well can they wear it. Give them the victory, First have they greeted thee; Give them the victory, Yoke-fellow mine!’”
T L ’ S (Charles Kingsley).
Odin, seeing he had been so cleverly outwitted, gave them the victory, and in memory of this auspicious day the Winilers retained the name given by the king of the gods, who ever after watched over them with special care, and vouchsafed them many blessings,
among others a home in the sunny South, on the fruitful plains of Lombardy.
Frigga had, as her own special attendants, a number of beautiful maidens, among whom were Fulla (Volla), her sister, according to some authorities, to whom she intrusted her jewel casket. Fulla always presided over her mistress’s toilet, was privileged to put on her golden shoes, attended her everywhere, was her confidante and adviser, and often told her how best to help the mortals who implored her aid. Fulla was very beautiful indeed, and had long golden hair, which she wore flowing loose over her shoulders, restrained only by a golden circlet or snood. As her hair was emblematic of the golden grain, this circlet represented the binding of the sheaf. Fulla was also known as Abundia, or Abundantia, in some parts of Germany, where she was considered the symbol of the fullness of the earth.
Fulla.
Hlin, Frigga’s second attendant, was the goddess of consolation, sent out to kiss away the tears of mourners and pour balm into hearts wrung by grief. She also listened with ever-open ears to the prayers of mortals, repeated them to her mistress, and advised her at times how best to answer them and give the desired relief.
Gna was Frigga’s swift messenger, who, mounted upon her fleet steed Hofvarpnir (hoof thrower), traveled with marvelous rapidity through fire and air, over land and sea, and was therefore considered the personification of the refreshing breeze. Darting thus to and fro, Gna saw all that was happening upon earth, and told her mistress all she knew. On one occasion, as she was passing over Hunaland, she saw King Rerir, a lineal descendant of Odin, sitting mournfully by the shore, bewailing his childlessness. The queen of heaven, who was also goddess of childbirth, upon hearing this took an apple (the emblem of fruitfulness) from her private store, gave it to Gna, and bade her carry it to the king. With the rapidity of the element she personified, Gna darted away, passed over Rerir’s head, and dropped her apple into his lap with a radiant smile.
Gna.
“‘What flies up there, so quickly driving past?’ Her answer from the clouds, as rushing by: ‘I fly not, nor do drive, but hurry fast, Hoof flinger swift through cloud and mist and sky.’”
A G (Wägner-Macdowall).
The king, after pondering for a moment upon the meaning of this sudden apparition and gift, returned home, his heart beating high with hope, gave the apple to his wife to eat, and to his intense joy was soon no longer childless, for his wife bore him a son, Volsung, the great Northern hero, who became so famous that he gave his name to all his race.
Besides the three above-mentioned attendants, Frigga also had in her train the mild and gracious maiden Lofn (praise or love), whose duty it was to remove all obstacles from the path of lovers.
Lofn.
“My lily tall, from her saddle bearing, I led then forth through the temple, faring To th’ altar-circle where, priests among, Lofn’s vows she took with unfalt’ring tongue.”
V T N (R. B. Anderson).
Vjofn’s duty was to incline obdurate hearts to love, to maintain peace and concord among mankind, and to reconcile quarreling husbands and wives. Syn (truth) guarded the door of Frigga’s palace, refusing to open it to those who were not allowed to come in. When she had once shut the door upon a would-be intruder there was no appeal which would avail to change her decision. She therefore presided over all tribunals and trials, and whenever a thing was to be vetoed the usual formula was to declare that Syn was against it.
Gefjon.
Gefjon was also one of the maidens in Frigga’s palace, and to her were intrusted all those who died virgins, whom she received and made happy forever. According to
some mythologists, Gefjon did not always remain a virgin herself, but married one of the giants, by whom she had four sons. This same tradition goes on to declare that Odin sent her ahead of him to visit Gylfi, King of Sweden, and beg for some land which she might call her own. The king, amused at her request, promised her as much land as she could plow around in one day and night. Gefjon, nothing daunted, changed her four sons into oxen, harnessed them to a plow, and began to cut a furrow so wide and deep that the king and his courtiers were amazed. But Gefjon continued her work without giving any signs of fatigue, and when she had plowed all around a large piece of land forcibly wrenched it away, and made her oxen drag it down into the sea, where she made it fast and called it Seeland.
“Gefjun drew from Gylfi, Rich in stored up treasure, The land she joined to Denmark. Four heads and eight eyes bearing, While hot sweat trickled down them, The oxen dragged the reft mass That formed this winsome island.”
N M (R. B. Anderson).
As for the hollow she left behind her, it was quickly filled with water and formed a lake, at first called Logrum (the sea), but now known as Mälar, whose every indentation corresponds with the headlands of Seeland. Gefjon then married Skiold, one of Odin’s sons, and became the ancestress of the royal Danish race of Skioldungs, dwelling in the city of Hleidra or Lethra, which she founded, and which became the principal place of sacrifice for the heathen Danes.
Eira, also Frigga’s attendant, was considered a most skillful physician. She gathered simples all over the earth to cure both wounds and diseases, and it was her province to teach her science to women, who were the only ones to practice medicine among the ancient nations of the North.
Eira.
“Gaping wounds are bound by Eyra.” V (J. C. Jones).
Vara heard all oaths and punished perjurers, while she rewarded those who faithfully kept their word. Then there were also Vör (faith), who knew all that was to occur throughout the world, and Snotra, goddess of virtue, who had mastered every kind of study.
With such a band of followers it is no wonder that Frigga was considered an influential goddess; but in spite of the prominent place she occupied in Northern religion, she had no special temple or shrine, and was but little worshiped except in company with Odin.
While Frigga was not known by this name in southern Germany, there were other goddesses worshiped there, whose attributes were so exactly like hers, that they were evidently the same, although they bore very different names in the various provinces. Among them was the fair goddess Holda (Hulda or Frau Holle) who graciously dispensed many rich gifts, and as she presided over the weather, the people were wont to declare when the snowflakes fell that Frau Holle was shaking her bed, and when it rained, that she was washing her clothes, often pointing to the white clouds as her linen which she had put out to bleach. When long gray strips of clouds drifted across the sky they said she was weaving, for she too was supposed to be a very diligent weaver, spinner, and housekeeper It is said she gave flax to mankind and taught them how to use it, and in Tyrol the following story is told about the way in which she bestowed this invaluable gift:
Holda.
Discovery of flax.
There was once a peasant who daily left his wife and children down in the valley to take his sheep up the mountain to pasture; and as he watched his flock graze on the mountain side, he often had the opportunity to use his cross-bow and bring down a chamois, whose flesh furnished his larder with food for many a day.
While pursuing some fine game one day he saw it disappear behind a bowlder, and when he came to the spot, he was amazed to see a doorway in the neighboring glacier, for in the excitement of the
pursuit he had climbed higher and higher until he was now on top of the mountain, where glittered the everlasting snow.
The shepherd boldly passed through the open door, and soon found himself in a wonderful jeweled and stalactite-hung cave, in the center of which stood a beautiful woman, clad in silvery robes, and attended by a host of lovely maidens crowned with Alpine roses. In his surprise, the shepherd sank to his knees, and as in a dream heard the queenly central figure bid him choose anything he saw to carry away with him. Although dazzled by the glow of the precious stones around him, the shepherd’s eyes constantly reverted to a little nosegay of blue flowers which the gracious apparition held in her hand, and he now timidly proffered a request that it might become his. Smiling with pleasure, Holda, for it was she, gave it to him, telling him he had chosen wisely and would live as long as the flowers did not droop and fade. Then giving the shepherd a measure of seed which she told him to sow in his field, the goddess bade him begone; and as the thunder pealed and the earth shook, the poor man found himself out upon the mountain side once more, and slowly wended his way home to tell his adventure to his wife and show her the lovely blue flowers and the measure of seed.
The woman reproached her husband bitterly for not having brought some of the precious stones which he so glowingly described, instead of the blossoms and seed; nevertheless the man sowed the latter, and often lingered near the field at nightfall to see his new crop grow, for to his surprise the measure had supplied seed enough for several acres.
Soon the little green shoots began to appear, and one moonlight night, while the peasant was gazing upon them, wondering what kind of grain they would produce, he saw a mistlike form hover above the field, with hands outstretched as if in blessing. At last the field blossomed, and countless little blue flowers opened their calyxes to the golden sun. When the flowers had withered and the seed was ripe, Holda came once more to teach the peasant and his wife how to harvest the flax stalks and spin, weave, and bleach the linen they produced. Of course all the people of the neighborhood were anxious to purchase both linen and flaxseed, and the peasant and
his wife soon grew very rich indeed, for while he plowed, sowed, and harvested, she spun, wove, and bleached her linen. When the man had lived to a good old age and seen his grandchildren and great grandchildren grow up around him, he noticed that his carefully treasured bouquet, whose flowers had remained fresh for many a year, had wilted and died.
Knowing that his time had come and that he too must soon die, the peasant climbed the mountain once more, came to the glacier, and found the doorway which he had long vainly sought. He vanished within, and was never seen or heard of again, for the legend states that the goddess took him under her care, and bade him live in her cave, where his every wish was gratified.
According to a mediæval tradition, Holda dwelt in a cave in the Hörselberg, in Thuringia, where she was known as Frau Venus, and was considered as an enchantress who lured mortals into her realm, where she detained them forever, steeping their senses in all manner of sensual pleasures. The most famous of her victims is doubtless Tannhäuser, who, anxious to save his soul, escaped from her power and hastened to Rome to confess his sins and seek absolution. But the pope, hearing that he had been in the company of one of the heathen goddesses, whom the priests taught were nothing but demons, declared that the knight could no more hope for pardon than to see his staff bear buds and bloom.
Tannhäuser.
“Hast thou within the nets of Satan lain?
Hast thou thy soul to her perdition pledged?
Hast thou thy lip to Hell’s Enchantress lent, To drain damnation from her reeking cup?
Then know that sooner from the withered staff
That in my hand I hold green leaves shall spring, Than from the brand in hell-fire scorched rebloom
The blossoms of salvation.”
T (Owen Meredith).
Crushed with grief at this sentence, Tannhäuser fled, and finding no rest, returned to the Hörselberg, where he reëntered the cave in spite of the entreaties of the German mentor, the faithful Eckhardt. He had no sooner disappeared, however, than the pope’s messengers arrived, proclaiming that he was pardoned, for the withered staff had miraculously bloomed, proving to all that there was no sin too heinous to be pardoned, providing repentance were sincere.
EASTRE or OSTARA.
“Dashed to the hip with travel, dewed with haste, A flying post, and in his hand he bore A withered staff o’erflourished with green leaves; Who,—followed by a crowd of youth and eld, That sang to stun with sound the lark in heaven, ‘A miracle! a miracle from Rome! Glory to God that makes the bare bough green!’— Sprang in the midst, and, hot for answer, asked News of the Knight Tannhäuser.”
T (Owen Meredith).
This same Holda was also considered the owner of a magic fountain called Quickborn, which rivaled the famed fountain of youth, and of a chariot in which she rode from place to place, inspecting her domain. This wagon having once suffered damage, the goddess bade a wheelwright repair it, and when he had finished told him to keep the chips as his pay. The man, indignant at such a meager reward, kept only a very few; but to his surprise found them on the morrow changed to solid gold.
“Fricka, thy wife—
This way she reins her harness of rams.
Hey! how she whirls
The golden whip; The luckless beasts
Unboundedly bleat; Her wheels wildly she rattles; Wrath is lit in her look.”
W (Forman’s tr.).
Eástre, the goddess of spring.
The Saxon goddess Eástre, or Ostara, goddess of spring, whose name has survived in the English word Easter, is also identical with Frigga, for she too is considered goddess of the earth, or rather of Nature’s resurrection after the long death of winter. This gracious goddess was so dearly loved by the old Teutons, that even after Christianity had been introduced they still retained a pleasant recollection of her, utterly refused to have her degraded to the rank of a demon, like many of their other divinities, and transferred her name to their great Christian feast It had long been customary to celebrate this day by the exchange of presents of colored eggs, for the egg is the type of the beginning of life; so the early Christians continued to observe this rule, declaring, however, that the egg is also symbolical of the resurrection. In various parts of Germany, stone altars can still be seen, which are known as Easter-stones, because they were dedicated to the fair goddess Ostara. They were crowned with flowers by the young people, who danced gaily around them by the light of great bonfires,—a species of popular games kept up until the middle of the present century, in spite of the priests’ denunciations and of the repeatedly published edicts against them.
In other parts of Germany, Frigga, Holda, or Ostara is known by the name of Brechta, Bertha, or the White Lady. She is best known under this title in Thuringia, where she was supposed to dwell in a hollow mountain, keeping watch over the Heimchen, the souls of unborn children, and of those who died unbaptized. Here Bertha watched over agriculture, caring for the plants, which her infant troop watered carefully, for each babe was supposed to carry a little jar for that express purpose. As long as the goddess was duly respected and her retreat unmolested, she remained where she was; but tradition relates that she once left the country with her infant train dragging her plow, and settled elsewhere to continue her kind ministrations. Bertha is the legendary ancestress of several noble families, and she is supposed to be the same as the industrious queen of the same name, the mythical mother of Charlemagne, whose era has become proverbial, for in speaking of the golden age in France and Germany it is customary to say, “in the days when Bertha spun.”
Bertha, the White Lady.
As this Bertha is supposed to have developed a very large and flat foot, from continually pressing the treadle of her wheel, she is often represented in mediæval art as a woman with a splay foot, and hence known as la reine pédauque.
As ancestress of the imperial house of Germany, the White Lady is supposed to appear in the palace before a death or misfortune in the family, and this superstition is still so rife in Germany, that the newspapers in 1884 contained the official report of a sentinel, who declared that he had seen her flit past him in one of the palace corridors.
As Bertha was so renowned for her spinning, she naturally was regarded as the special patroness of that branch of female industry, and was said to flit through the streets of every village, at nightfall, during the twelve nights between Christmas and January 6th, peering into every window to ascertain whether the work were all done.
The maidens whose work had all been carefully performed were rewarded by a present of one of her own golden threads or a distaff full of extra-fine flax; but wherever a careless spinner was found, her wheel was broken, her flax soiled, and if she had failed to honor the goddess by eating plenty of the cakes baked at that epoch of the year, she was cruelly punished.
In Mecklenburg, this same goddess is known as Frau Gode, or Wode, the female form of Wuotan or Odin, and her appearance is always considered the harbinger of great prosperity. She is also supposed to be a great huntress, and to lead the Wild Hunt, mounted upon a white horse, her attendants being changed into hounds and all manner of wild beasts.
In Holland she was called Vrou-elde, and from her the Milky Way is known by the Dutch as Vrou-elden-straat; while in parts of northern Germany she was called Nerthus (Mother Earth). Her sacred car was kept on an island, presumably Rügen, where the priests guarded it carefully until she appeared to take a yearly journey throughout her realm and bless the land. The goddess then sat in this car, which was drawn by two cows, her face completely
hidden by a thick veil, respectfully escorted by her priests. The people seeing her pass did her homage by ceasing all warfare, laid aside their weapons, donned festive attire, and began no quarrel until the goddess had again retired to her sanctuary. Then both car and goddess were bathed in a secret lake (the Schwartze See in Rügen), which swallowed up the slaves who had assisted at the bathing, and once more the priests resumed their watch over the sanctuary and grove of Nerthus or Hlodyn, to await her next apparition.
In Scandinavia, this goddess was also known as Huldra, and boasted of a train of attendant wood nymphs, who sometimes sought the society of mortals, to enjoy a dance upon the village green. They could always be detected, however, by the tip of a cow’s tail which trailed from beneath their long snow-white garments. These Huldra folk were the special protectors of the herds of cattle on the mountain sides, and were said to surprise the lonely traveler, at times, by the marvelous beauty of the melodies they sang to beguile their labors.
Thor’s foster parents.
CHAPTER IV.
THOR.
A to some mythologists, Thor, or Donar, is the son of Jörd (Erda), and of Odin, but others state that his mother was Frigga, queen of the gods. This child was very remarkable for his great size and strength, and very soon after his birth amazed the assembled gods by playfully lifting and throwing about ten loads of bear skins. Although generally good tempered, Thor occasionally flew into a terrible rage, and as he was very dangerous under these circumstances, his mother, unable to control him, sent him away from home and intrusted him to the care of Vingnir (the winged), and of Hlora (heat). These foster parents, who are also considered as the personification of sheet lightning, soon managed to control their troublesome charge, and brought him up so wisely, that all the gods were duly grateful for their kind offices. Thor himself, recognizing all he owed them, assumed the names of Vingthor and Hlorridi, by which he is also known.
“Cry on, Vingi-Thor, With the dancing of the ring-mail and the smitten shields of war.”
S V (William Morris)
Having attained his full growth and the age of reason, Thor was admitted in Asgard among the other gods, where he occupied one of the twelve seats in the great judgment hall. He was also given the realm of Thrud-vang or Thrud-heim, where he built a wonderful palace called Bilskirnir (lightning), the most spacious in all Asgard. It contained five hundred and forty halls for the accommodation of the thralls, who after death were welcomed to his home, where they were
treated as well as their masters in Valhalla, for Thor was the patron god of the peasants and lower classes.
“Five hundred halls And forty more, Methinketh, hath Bowed Bilskirnir. Of houses roofed There’s none I know My son’s surpassing.”
S ’ E (Percy’s tr.).
As he was god of thunder, Thor alone was never allowed to pass over the wonderful bridge Bifröst, lest he should set it aflame by the heat of his presence; and when he daily wished to join his fellow gods by the Urdar fountain, under the shade of the sacred tree Yggdrasil, he was forced to make his way thither on foot, wading through the rivers Kormt and Ormt, and the two streams Kerlaug, to the trysting place.
Thor, who was honored as the highest god in Norway, came second in the trilogy of all the other countries, and was called “old Thor,” because he is supposed by some mythologists to have belonged to an older dynasty of gods, and not on account of his actual age, for he was represented and described as a man in his prime, tall and well formed, with muscular limbs and bristling red hair and beard, from which, in moments of anger, the sparks fairly flew.
“First, Thor with the bent brow, In red beard muttering low, Darting fierce lightnings from eyeballs that glow, Comes, while each chariot wheel Echoes in thunder peal, As his dread hammer shock Makes Earth and Heaven rock, Clouds rifting above, while Earth quakes below.”
V (J. C. Jones).
The Northern races further adorned him with a crown, on each point of which was either a glittering star, or a steadily burning flame, so that his head was ever surrounded by a kind of halo of fire, his own element.
Thor was the proud possessor of a magic hammer called Miölnir (the crusher) which he hurled at his enemies, the frost giants, with destructive power, and which possessed the wonderful property of always returning to his hand, however far away he might hurl it.
Thor’s hammer.
“I am the Thunderer! Here in my Northland, My fastness and fortress, Reign I forever!
“Here amid icebergs Rule I the nations; This is my hammer, Miölnir the mighty; Giants and sorcerers Cannot withstand it!”
S K O (Longfellow).
As this huge hammer, the emblem of the thunderbolts, was generally red hot, the god had an iron gauntlet called Iarn-greiper, which enabled him to grasp it firmly and hurl it very far, his strength, which was already remarkable, being always doubled when he wore his magic belt called Megin-giörd.
“This is my girdle: Whenever I brace it, Strength is redoubled!”
S K O (Longfellow).
Thor’s hammer was considered so very sacred by the ancient Northern people, that they were wont to make the sign of the hammer, as the Christians later taught them to make the sign of the cross, to ward off all evil influences, and to secure many blessings. The same sign was also made over the newly born infant when water was poured over its head and a name given it. The hammer was used to drive in boundary stakes, which it was considered sacrilegious to remove, to hallow the threshold of a new house, to solemnize a marriage, and, lastly, to consecrate the funeral pyre upon which the bodies of heroes were burned, together with their weapons and steeds, and, in some cases, with their wives and dependents.
In Sweden, Thor, like Odin, was supposed to wear a broadbrimmed hat, and hence the storm clouds in that country are known as Thor’s hat, a name also given to one of the principal mountains in Norway. The rumble and roar of the thunder were called the roll of his chariot, for he alone among the gods never rode on horseback, but walked, or drove in a brazen chariot drawn by two goats, Tanngniostr (tooth cracker), and Tanngrisnr (tooth gnasher), from whose teeth and hoofs the sparks constantly flew.
“Thou camest near the next, O warrior Thor! Shouldering thy hammer, in thy chariot drawn, Swaying the long-hair’d goats with silver’d rein.”
B D (Matthew Arnold).
When the god thus drove about from place to place, he was called Aku-thor, or Thor the charioteer, and in southern Germany the people, fancying a brazen chariot alone inadequate to furnish all the noise they heard, declared it was loaded with copper kettles, which rattled and clashed, and therefore often called him, with disrespectful familiarity, the kettle vender.
Thor was twice married; first to the giantess Iarnsaxa (iron stone), who bore him two sons, Magni (strength) and Modi (courage), both destined to survive their father and twilight of the gods, and rule over the new world which was to rise like a phenix from the ashes of the first. His second wife was Sif, the
Thor’s family.
golden-haired, who also bore him two children, Lorride, and a daughter named Thrud, a young giantess renowned for her size and strength. By the well-known affinity of contrast, Thrud was wooed by the dwarf Alvis, whom she rather favored; and one evening, when this suitor, who, being a dwarf, could not face the light of day, presented himself in Asgard to sue for her hand, the assembled gods did not refuse their consent. They had scarcely signified their approbation, however, when Thor, who had been absent, suddenly appeared, and casting a glance of contempt upon the puny lover, declared he would have to prove that his knowledge atoned for his small stature, before he could win his bride.
To test Alvis’s mental powers, Thor then questioned him in the language of the gods, Vanas, elves, and dwarfs, artfully prolonging his examination until sunrise, when the first beam of light, falling upon the unhappy dwarf, petrified him. There he stood, an enduring example of the gods’ power, and served as a warning to all other dwarfs who would fain have tested it.
“Ne’er in human bosom Have I found so many Words of the old time. Thee with subtlest cunning Have I yet befooled.
Above ground standeth thou, dwarf, By day art overtaken, Bright sunshine fills the hall.”
S ’ E (Howitt’s version).
Sif, Thor’s wife, was very vain of a magnificent head of long golden hair which covered her from head to foot like a brilliant veil; and as she too was a symbol of the earth, her hair was said to represent the long grass, or the golden grain covering the Northern harvest fields. Thor was very proud of his wife’s beautiful hair; imagine his dismay, therefore, upon waking one morning, to find her all shorn, and as bald and denuded of ornament as the earth when the grain has all been garnered, and
Sif, the golden-haired.
nothing but the stubble remains! In his anger, Thor sprang to his feet, vowing he would punish the perpetrator of this outrage, whom he immediately and rightly conjectured to be Loki, the arch plotter, ever on the lookout for some evil deed to perform. Seizing his hammer, Thor soon overtook Loki in spite of his attempting to evade him by changing form, caught him by the throat, and almost strangled him ere he yielded to his imploring signs, and slightly loosed his powerful grasp. As soon as Loki could catch his breath, he implored forgiveness, but all his entreaties were vain, until he promised to procure for Sif a new head of hair, as beautiful as the first, and as luxuriant in growth.
“And thence for Sif new tresses I’ll bring Of gold, ere the daylight’s gone, So that she shall liken a field in spring, With its yellow-flowered garment on.” T D , O (Pigott’s tr.).
Thor, hearing this, consented to let the traitor go; so Loki rapidly crept down into the bowels of the earth, where Svart-alfa-heim was situated, to beg the dwarf Dvalin to fashion not only the precious hair, but a present for Odin and Frey, whose anger he wished to disarm.
The dwarf soon made the spear Gungnir, which never failed in its aim, and the ship Skidbladnir, which, always wafted by favorable winds, could sail through the air as well as on the water, and was so elastic, that although it could contain the gods and all their steeds, it could be folded up into the very smallest compass and thrust in one’s pocket. Lastly, he spun the very finest golden thread, from which he fashioned the required hair for Sif, declaring that as soon as it touched her head it would grow fast there and become alive.
“Though they now seem dead, let them touch but her head, Each hair shall the life-moisture fill; Nor shall malice nor spell henceforward prevail Sif’s tresses to work aught of ill.”
T D , O (Pigott’s tr.).
Loki was so pleased with these proofs of the dwarfs’ skill that he declared the son of Ivald was the most clever of smiths—words which were overheard by Brock, another dwarf, who exclaimed that he was sure his brother Sindri could produce three objects which would surpass those which Loki held, not only in intrinsic value, but also in magical properties. Loki immediately challenged the dwarf to show his skill, wagering his head against Brock’s on the result of the undertaking.
Sindri, apprised of the wager, accepted Brock’s offer to blow the bellows, warning him, however, that he must work persistently if he wished to succeed; then he threw some gold in the fire, and went out to bespeak the favor of the hidden powers. During his absence Brock diligently plied the bellows, while Loki, hoping to make him fail, changed himself into a gadfly and cruelly stung his hand. In spite of the pain, the dwarf did not let go, and when Sindri returned, he drew out of the fire an enormous wild boar, called Gullin-bursti, on account of its golden bristles, which had the power of radiating light as he flitted across the sky, for he could travel through the air with marvelous velocity.
“And now, strange to tell, from the roaring fire Came the golden-haired Gullinbörst, To serve as a charger the sun-god Frey, Sure, of all wild boars this the first.”
T D , O (Pigott’s tr.).
This first piece of work successfully completed, Sindri flung some more gold on the fire and bade his brother blow, ere he again went out to secure magic assistance. This time Loki, still disguised as a gadfly, stung the dwarf on his cheek; but in spite of the pain Brock worked on, and when Sindri returned, he triumphantly drew out of the flames the magic ring Draupnir, the emblem of fertility, from which eight similar rings dropped every ninth night.
“They worked it and turned it with wondrous skill, Till they gave it the virtue rare,
