Even today, at the beginning of the third millennium, Roma have not even started their emancipation. The current issue when Roma are concerned is still their survival. Roma, who are the most persecuted, the most humiliated nation, is at the very bottom of life. Roma community in diaspora has lived in conditions different from conditions of any other nation for over two milleniums. Due to persecutions through centuries, discrimination and troubles of Roma, this agonized nation is out of area not just of cultural, social and economic development of European civilizations, but out of the area of fundamental human rights.

It should be emphasised that there is an important tendency of more often bringing the issue of Roma to discussion in Serbia and Montenegro, Europe and in international level. It could certainly have positive reflections to their position.

Periodisation is one of the most important issues in historical studying of literature. Correct setting and solving of this problem is the key issue for description, interpretation, systematisation and correct evaluation of each literal microstructure separately and of macrostructure in their historical continuity.

In literature of other nations, who have larger and longer tradition than the tradition of Roma critique and historical research of literature, problem of periodisation was often practically solved by various researchers in various ways during historical research of literature, but also theoretically being set and solved by theoreticians using various methods, having different opinions, belonging to different schools. When Roma literature is concerned many other problems have not been considered. Without theoretical consideration of these problems, historical research of literature cannot be sufficiently aware of itself, of its instruments, methods, possibilities or limits.

One of the reasons for certain falling behind of theoretical and methodological opinion in our literary historiography is surely falling behind in development of critique and critical-historical mind in Romany literature. On the other hand, it could also be explained by historical misfortunes, five centuries of long oppression, after the Renaissance, when scientific mind and thus, literary mind, developed most quickly in Europe. We can claim today that Romany literature did not have critics, theoreticians or historians before the last world war, who followed its development, studied it systematically and prepared themselves for such study.

However, one cannot claim that Romany critique, theoretical and historical mind of literature before the World War II had never been, not in one case, at some serious level, on which grounds it was, although late, built. It is needed to emphasise that all those people who studied, even partially or occasionally, Romany literature and its history from the last decades of the nineteenth century till the first days of liberation, gave their contribution, very important to us and made the path for research of Romany literature today: they collected a part of literary works, they found and described some unknown works, they published works that were lost in mostly foreign libraries and archives, they wrote biography of some writers, they wrote down their records or memories about some of the writers they knew or about conditions in which they lived and worked.

Some of those witnesses and researchers of Romany literature had also tried to systematise those literary works occasionally, watching them in its path of development, continuity and differences, not just in historical but also in anthology character. They hesitated to engage themselves in periodisation of Romany literature. One could ask why? Because there were not organized attempts in study and periodisation of Romany literature, in the first place concerning the very subject of the literary history - literature as art, comprising by its periodisation the instruments, criteria and principles, applied in research of literature all over the world.

There are many and various reasons and they can be objective and subjective. Objective reasons are the following:

Some historians began historical research of Romany literature when it was not in period of stagnation any more and when it started to serve the nation or itself. Most of them tried to write historical literary texts in the time when Roma critical mind had just started to make its first steps. And it is widely known that critique, in addition to its other functions, serves for interpretation, explaining and evaluation of works of art, thus preparing ground for historiography.

Subjective reasons are the following: Until recent times, Romany literature was studied by historians of nations, linguists, ethnographers or writers, but not by literary critics. Most of historians of Romany literature are not specialized in study of literature, so that they did not have the necessary esthetic, theoretical, historical-literary and methodological preparations in order to engage successfully in such issues as issues of literature, its periodisation and history.

Language Policy

Although every society and every social group, probably since the beginning of the world, had some kind of language policy, and although global policy of every society comprises a certain attitude toward language, the notion of language policy appeared in linguistic literature rather late. Our language policy should be a set of actions, by which institutions, groups or individuals in this society could influence, directly or indirectly, language, use of language and linguistic situation in one segment or in the whole society, or in several synchronized societies.

Namely, language activities and their aspects, i.e. language and speech, is the object of language policy, but some of its forms and functions are only indirectly influenced, while others are influenced equally. Language policy should in the first place deal with language in public communication. But one should keep in mind that the language of public communication often has, in sociological respect, higher status in hierarchy than the language of private communication, so it is often influenced by language policy indirectly, but sometimes very strongly influences language of private communication.

I think that uses of language in administration, education, mass media and literature are the most relevant for the language policy. These so called sublanguages often interfere. Public communication, its language, standardisation and standard language represent only the linguistic side of language policy. But since they are all social phenomena (language policy is also social-linguistic phenomenon for linguists), it is impossible to neglect its social side, i.e. the fact that every language policy is not only present in specific social context, but it is also fundamentally determined by it.

Author’s Responsibility toward Romani language

Long time ago people started writing and translating prose and poetry of other nations. It started happening before the Renaissance in the Old and Mediaeval Ages, and later even more, particularly from Romanticism until today. During this last period, not only that many literary works and translations of such works appeared, but also translated collections of prose and poetry of all times. This work is to be done. A common reader,who does not speak any foreign language, cannot know about many writers.

Even after the war, there were not many collections or anthologies of stories, essays and poems of certain nations and certain epochs, of more nations and more epochs. It was not enough to publish just collections or anthologies of this or that nation; it is needed to publish collections of poems of this or that foreign nation, too. The reason is always small number of translators. To tell the truth, there are not enough translators indeed. It is clear and more important than anything else to create this basic cultural need, which today does not exist to an extent that would incite translators and publishers. It should be a task for schools in the first place, but also of magazines, periodicals, publishers and for every cultured man.

Culture of a nation is rising faster if the nation itself knows cultural achievements of other nations well and deeply.Every good writer is aware of the fact that his responsibility toward a language is large, but writers sometimes do not know, and it was confirmed in practice many times, that responsibility is particularly large in certain moments in history. One of these moments is the present moment. Responsibility toward language of Roma writers today can be said to be particularly large because dialects and vernaculars of Romany language in this period of cultural prosperity have started walking on the way of syntheses and creation of national literary language for the first time in its history.

Therefore responsibility of Romany language toward the language is dual: cultural and artistic, the former being a duty of all writers today, and the latter being a duty of all writers and all nations. They are not dependent; they complement and are in close dialectical connection. A writer, who does not take cultural responsibility will certainly not succeed in realizing the other one, artistic responsibility. And writers cannot ever be free from artistic responsibility, no matter how attentive they are toward their language or talent they have.

On the other hand, a writer who does not take artistic responsibility cannot take the other one, no matter how willing is he to accept it. Cultural responsibility can be considered realised if the writer is ready to accept national literary language or unique literary language, as linguists call it, and if he writes and publishes in this language.

Artistic responsibility can be considered as realized if a writer, after he had principally accepted the cultural responsibility, directs his efforts toward truthful realisation and as perfect as possible linguistic expression. In general, Roma writers accepted linguistic responsibilities, but not all of them. Unique literary language is today used by most of Roma writers, but not by all of them. Moreover, some of them are not willing to write in national literary language, and they keep trying to find arguments for not involving themselves in the linguistic circle of majority.

Their main, but quite naïve argument which they use as an excuse for resistance oward national literary language, i.e. toward cultural responsibility is the following: Kale and Sinti dialects have not been taken for the base of literary language; not because of natural development and becoming closer of three dialects (Kalderash, Gurbetian and Arlian), but because of extrenal factor, i.e. dictation, as they say.

A writer who is ready to take cultural linguistic responsibility, and thinks of cultural act as much more important than dialectic rivalry, will certainly ask questions that do not bring any solutions. It is not important for him which dialect was taken as a base for literary language. It is important that one of the dialects was chosen and that unique literary language was created. He is aware that a literary language of nation cannot be created in the mercy of the elements, but on agreements and practical scientific and artistic activities, just like the Romany national literary language was created.

Writers who now do not take linguistic responsibility should think about the destiny of their works written in dialect. Writers who continue to write in dialects are people who do not think about destiny of their works, they do not realize those works do not have any perspective. Since national language will become the language of everyday communication among all Roma, no matter how long it will take, there is no doubt that works, which are not written in this language, will become "older" more quickly than works written in it, even if they are of the same artistic value If the literary language spreads faster, language of writers who use dialects will become out of date.

Those works are written for readers in one state, who can enjoy them because of the language; entering the orbit of national literary language of Roma, they will be just documents on shelves in libraries, read only by rare researchers of language or language historians, who will have to translate them into literary language in order to make them closer to young readers. It is in fact a tragic destiny of workers created by writers who resist cultural linguistic responsibility, regardless of their esthetic value.

Writers who decided to use their strongest weapon-written word- to serve culture honestly, should be aware of dual linguistic responsibility. If there are ones who are not ready to take this responsibility, they should know that literary language keeps becoming richer, deeper and wider, while the nation will forget them as it forgot all others who turned a deaf ear to the voice of his will. Let it be so!
(Bajram Haliti)

Related articles:
A Lament over The Temple of Death
Bajram Haliti published a new book intitled "A lament over the temple of death for the Rromanys of Kosovo". Here follows a preface by Milica Jeftimijevic Lilic.
column: News | date: 13. 11. 2006