Ianka Skryhan on the Belarusian Language

Concerns about the Belarusian Language: Excerpts from Belarusian Poet Ianka Skryhan’s Speech at the VII Congress of the Belarusian Writers’ Union, 11-12 May 1976 (Original in Belarusian)

At the 1976 Belarusian Writers' Union Congress, poet Ianka Skryhan delivered a quietly urgent plea: Belarusian literature had barely touched its own history, and the language itself was being eroded by sloppy Russification in newspapers, translations, and even on the stage of the republic's flagship theater. The appeal was passionate — and carefully framed as a literary, not a political, concern.

Original Source: BDAMLМ (Belaruski dziarzhauny arkhiu-muzei litaratury i mastatstva), f. 78, vop. 1., spr. 390, ll. 293-296.

Translated by Natalya Chernyshova

… One also needs roots, history. One needs an awareness that glorious deeds and great feats have been achieved not only through the efforts of one’s contemporaries, but also of one’s ancestors.

I am speaking from experience: this is how the events and deeds of the Russian past became native history to me. It is through literary images that I absorbed all the dizzying ups and downs of the Russian state’s history: the Mongol Yoke, the Battle of Kulikovo, the [peasant] uprisings of Pugachev and Sten’ka Razin, the boyars rule and the oprichnina, the False Dmitrys, palace coups, Napoleon’s invasion and the fire of Moscow, stately images of Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great.

Through the books of [Stefan] Żeromski and [Bolesław] Prus I learnt about Poland, and through Balzac’s [novels] I got to know France and its breathing and vivid history. Recently, while reading [Halldór] Laxness’s books I discovered Iceland. What a fascinating and brave country it is!

And it makes me sad when I think about Belarus. Where in literature are its vivid images from the ancient times and up to our days? History textbooks are one thing, but a literary image that is shaped by a whole succession of a people’s life portraits is quite another. It is something you feel, see, live through and recognize.

Our literature has touched, essentially, on just two historical moments: Francysk Skaryna and Kastus’ Kalinouski. A completely fresh and interesting attempt to glimpse into Belarus’ turbulent past has been made by Barys Sachanka in his novel Matsei Belanovich’s Diary, which has revealed to us the brilliant turns of the language of that time. But it is not hard to see that this is too little. Historiography offers a great deal of material for careful consideration and artistic courage. Was Belarusian history from the ancient times to the October Revolution really so tranquil and uneventful that it offers nothing to the writer’s eye? But this path of Belarus from antiquity to the October Revolution took it through the era of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where the Belarusian language predominated in administrative and social life. On this path from antiquity to the October Revolution, Belarus experienced popular uprisings and rebellions and became home to cultural and Enlightenment figures, philosophers, humanists, and poets. Perhaps, not all of them stayed in the Belarusian lands, unlike Symeon of Polotsk or Mikola Husouski [Mikołaj Hussowczyk]. There were dramatic and tragic stories, as well as love stories – of loyalty and betrayal, passions and aspirations – in all walks of human life. Yet, in our literature this entire long historical path, with the exception of Skaryna and Kalinouski, is one bank spot.

I would dearly wish that the writers, especially those who specialize in historical fiction, would set to fill in those blank spots, so that we can take pride in our history, so that through literature we can see the path of our Belarus, which was difficult but honest and humane. …

Fourthly, and this is my eternal love and worry: why are we, the writers, so indifferent to the fate of our language? [Belarusian poets] Buraukin and Hilevich have already talked here about illiterate writers. But is it any consolation to us that the newspaper journalists are even worse? Such terrible sloppiness and dismal clichés! Astonishingly, Litaratura i mastatstva [the newspaper of the Belarusian Writers’ Union], which really ought to set an example for other newspapers, is far from being a model in terms of the language. Just listen how the newspaper writes: ‘Over than 120 wall newspapers are produced at the factory’. But this isn’t the Belarusian language at all! If using ‘over’, one should write ‘over 120’, or if using ‘than’, it should be ‘more than 120’. And this kind of illiteracy is printed and claims to be the Belarusian language. This is not to mention that ‘translation’ into Belarusian sometimes consists simply of switching to Belarusian letters: e.g., writing ‘iashche b’, ‘stakan’, ‘chashka’, or ‘luzhaika’, when it is a simple matter of checking in the dictionary to see that in Belarusian these words ought to be: ‘dziva shto’, ‘shklianka’, ‘kubak’, ‘luzhok’. And that is not all!

Theatres, too, mess with the native language, especially the Yanka Kupala Theatre [the main Belarusian-language drama theater in the republic]. When they are on stage, most of the actors are unbearable to listen to: […] they speak like foreigners. Unfortunately, most of the non-Belarusian plays are sent to theatres with a similarly bureaucratic, clichéd translation.

Perhaps the Writers’ Union should occasionally organize meetings with some of the newspapers and theatres’ editorial teams to discuss language matters. The Philology Institute [could get involved]. Literary norms ought to be respected; otherwise, very soon the language will be undone and turned into a joke instead of a means of communication. …