Veneti is scarcely a reader-friendly book. In this critique the reviewer will attempt to somewhat popularize its abstruse subject matter. In order to assist our fellow-Augustans toward a well-reasoned, dispassionate evaluation of its merits, the reviewer1 must shoulder a three-fold task:
1. The academic world classifies Slovenian as a South Slavic language, sharing phonologic, morphologic and lexical features with Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Serbo-Croatian, and lacking the common features of the West-Slavic languages, Czech, Polish, Slovak, Lusatian (Wendish) and Kashubian. We can illustrate this with two examples drawn from de Bray's Guide to the Slavonic Languages.2 Consider the consonant clusters /kv/ and /gv/ of Old Church Slavonic (Staroslavianski), which were kept in the West Slavic languages, but became [cv] (c=Ts) and [zv] in the South Slavic languages, thus:
|in West Slavic||in South Slavic|
|in West Slavic||in South Slavic|
One after another, Slovenian's significant distinctive features map out in the same comparative profile. That is why we consistently classify it as a South Slavic language. Yet the authors of Veneti would assert and reaffirm a West Slavic identity for Slovenian. The reader might well ask, "With what justification?"
The Slovenian speech area stretches from the Julian Alps to the Croatian border near Zagreb and from the Hungarian border to the Italian littoral. With more than 46 dialects, standard literary Slovenian represents a composite linguistic system, based primarily on the geographically central dialects of Dolenjsko, and Gorenjsko. We generally group the isoglosses of Slovenian dialectology into the following broad regional variations:
In the diachronic study of language change, glottochronology is a fairly reliable tool useful in the approximation of variable rates of predictable linguistic innovation. We can apply it judiciously as a kind of "linguistic carbon-14" dating technique for morphologic and phonologic change. Glottochronologic results for Slovenian do tend to confirm the conventional wisdom among Slavicists that its distinctive features, just as those of other South Slavic languages, are indeed datable after the sixth century C.E. Yet the authors of Veneti would propose that not only the Veneti themselves, but even the Etruscans were genetic and linguistic predecessors of the modern Slovenian people. Our first impression is necessarily, what kind of raw, chauvinistic, separatist Slovene nationalism is confronting the reader?
True, two ideologically driven trends of thought have shaped the course of Slovenian studies over the past 150 years: the German and the Pan-Slavic (Russian) Historical Schools. Each sought to establish its own cultural hegemony over strategically and economically important tracts of real estate, including the Slovenian homeland. Moreover, we Augustans are quite aware that history, including linguistic history, is, in essence, the story-line that any given "historian" can piece together from disjointed documentary or archeological facts. The story line is accepted as adequately valid until challenged by new information or by a new political agenda, witness the number of rewritings that official Russian history underwent throughout the Soviet era.
Veneti, the book under review, comes to mount a serious, well-substantiated challenge both to the official occidental (German) and oriental (Russian) histories of not only Slovenian cultural and linguistic development, but indeed of Europe itself.
We find the earliest documented occurrence of the name "Veneti" in the accounts of the sack of Rome by the Celts who were forced to retreat when the Veneti broke through into their territory. During the Second Punic War, the Veneti came under the political influence of Rome, although they retained complete autonomy in internal affairs until 89 B.C.E. Thereafter, Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo conferred the lus Latinum upon them as a part of Cisalpine Gaul. Together with Istria, Augustus brought them into the tenth region of Italy with Aquileia as capital. Aquileia suffered attacks and destruction by the Alamanni, the Franks, and the Juthungi in 286 C.E., by the Goths under Alaric early in the fifth century, and by Attila in 452 C.E. Under Theodoric the Great, 493-526 C.E., the Veneti prospered, but in 568 C.E. found themselves again occupied, this time under the Lombards, after which period scanty documentation leaves us more questions than answers.
Such in brief outline are the linguistic and historic givens against which the book, Veneti, emerges.
2. Frankly, the book as a literary product leaves more to be desired than to be praised. An English translation from the German original, Unsere Vorfahren die Veneter, the book is essentially an amalgam of articles by three authors: Jožko Šavli, Ph.D.; poet, dramatist and critic, Matej Bor, recipient of the Preseren Prize, Slovenia's highest award for culture; and Father Ivan Tomažič of the University of Vienna. Each of these three contribute to the book as a recognized scholar in his own right. Dr. Šavli, a respected fellow Augustan, has published a number of quality studies in our society's journals, and the reviewer has had the pleasure of assisting him on occasion as proof reader / translator. Therein lies the reviewer's frustration with the literary quality of Veneti. Technically correct, much of the language is "translational English," with sporadic lapses of number accord and cognate grammatical deficiencies. Predictably, it is somewhat lacking in idiomatic English Sprachgefühl. Nor is it inappropriate at this juncture for the reviewer to note his fraternal willingness to assist Dr. Šavli in anglicizing; ars pro arte, any subsequent English-language edition of the book. Its subject matter is simply too important to beg vigorous, structurally strong argumentation, as the reader will shortly see.
Veneti presents the contributions of each author consecutively in three distinct sections. Dr. Šavli's articles in Part One set the tone for the reader's subsequent evaluations, and, deplorably, are phrased most "translationally." Part Two,3 Bor's contribution, is the most reader-friendly section of the book. Yet, rare will be the layman with the Sitzfleisch to wade so far into it undeterred. On the other hand, perhaps even more seldom will be the open-minded specialist whom the preceding pages will not have dissuaded from a resolute determination to digest Veneti's arguments. The line of argumentation itself, the only real point of the book is not well seamed and simply presents the reader with a dearth of cogency. Had Part Two, Bor's writings, opened the discussion, the stage could have been set for Šavli's Part One to supplement and significantly underscore Bor's conclusions. The approach of each author does successfully propound the central theses of the book, though the reader is left the overwhelming task of constructing his own synthesis from the array of disparate data set out. Nevertheless, even this architectural flaw cannot detract from the splendid accomplishment of Šavli, Bor, and Tomažič in bringing the attention of the English-speaking world the results of their studies. May it be acknowledged that beneath the imperfect form of this first edition of Veneti lies a serious example of refined erudition and objective scholarly investigation.
3. Having set forth for the reader a laconic sketch of the linguistic and historic backdrop to the printing of Veneti, and having summarily indicated some areas for amelioration in subsequent English editions, we may now direct our concern to issues of content.
It is unlikely that any member of our society will be unaware that the line of demarcation dividing the Early and Late Iron Ages in Europe is represented by the Celtic migration c400 B.C.E. More, the Celtic migration extended throughout Western and Central Europe and reached, in the early third century B.C.E., as far as what had earlier been known as Phrygia in Asia Minor. It is to this "Gallic" Christian community that St. Paul directed his Epistle to the Galatians. We refer to the Indo-European language of these peoples as Proto-Celtic and to their civilization as La Tene culture (c400-cl5 B.C.E.) Keeping this paradigm in mind, it will be somewhat easier for the reader to envisage the probabilities of historical accuracy in the following iconoclastic theses defended by the book.
3.1. A Proto-Slavic speech community had divided into Proto-West Slavic and Proto-East Slavic dialects some time before the formation of the Lusatian Culture (c1300-c1100 B.C.E.) and had also extended throughout a great part of Western and Central Europe and as far as Pamphlagonia, the northern coast of Asia Minor. There, according to Homer (II. ii, 85), they (hoi Heneloi) specialized in the breeding of "wild mules." Šavli's valid findings from his analysis of European toponymy4 adequately establish an infra-structural Slavic presence throughout these regions. This conclusion is equally supported by Bor's chapter, "Similarity of the Slovene, Latvian, and Breton Words."5 The reviewer has also carried out the homework for this independently,6 inducing him to inevitable concurrence with Bor's results. The significance of Bor's discovery of a layer of Slavic loanwords in Breton cannot bc overstated. Their presence clarifies the comments of Julius Caesar's De Bello Gallico. "The Veneti are by far the strongest tribe on this coast . . They possess the most powerful fleet with which they sail as far as Britain . . ."7 Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Ptolemy, and Casius Dio also refer to the Veneti in Gaul (Armorica). Bor's recovery of these Slavic lexical loans in Breton necessitates our reexamination of certain aspects of universally accepted academic theory as exemplified by the following definition: VENETI . . . A Celtic people in the northwest of Gallia Celtica . . . In the winter of 57 B.C., they took up arms against the Romans, and in 56 were decisively defeated in a naval engagement."8 Bor has clearly established the existence of Slavic loans in Breton and this fact strongly suggests that prior to the arrival in Armorica of the Brythonic (Insular P-Celtic) speaking refugees fleeing the Saxon invasions of South Britain, the indigenous Venetic population had indeed been Slavic. That a knowledge of Slovenian dialectology enabled Bor to proceed in his analysis is itself of importance.
3.2. It is not only plausible, but phonologically sound thinking, that Greek, lacking the consonant cluster /sl-/, would have transcribed /slovene(ti)/ as /henetoi/, with assimilation of /-o-/ to /-e-/, or, with the digraph, /weneti/, and that the word would thence have passed to the Romans as "Veneti" "(Latin /v/ = [w]). Homer recorded that the Pamphlagonian Henetoi had fought on the side of Troy, and after a long sea voyage along the Illyrian Coast, settled as far as beyond the Timava River.
3.3. We have an unimpeachable attestation equating the names Veneti and Slav, authored by Abbot Jona Bobbiensis, disciple and successor of St. Columban, 543-615 CE., which comes to disprove prior historical assertions that Slavs were newcomers to the Slovenian territory from the sixth/seventh century on: ". . . Veneti qui et Sclavi dicuntur . . .", "the Veneti who are also called Slavs."9 Furthermore, we can henceforth assert that St. Jerome, born c347 at Stridon, near modern Ljubljana, very probably spoke the Slavic regional dialect (Venetic), for in his Commentary to Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians,10 he explains the name Tychicus as "Tychicus enim silens interpretatur," "Tychicus actually means silent." The Slovenian adjective tih, [tix], means "silent" and emerges as a highly probable Venetic loan into St. Jerome's Latin, which would have suffixed the adjectival desinence -icus.
3.4. We discover that Etruscan inscriptions betray a gradual process of linguistic fusion (akin to, that of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French) upon an earlier Slavic substrate, extant prior to the arrival of the Lydian or Hittite immigration. Again here, it is a knowledge of Slovenian dialectology that allowed Bor to decipher the earlier inscriptions.
3.5. We are brought to appreciate the fact that it is specifically Slovenian dialectology that provides the missing key to, a meaningful reading of early Venetic, Phrygian, Rhaetian, and Yapodic inscriptions, even permitting a partial reconstruction of Venetic grammar. The task had facilely eluded every preceding Venetologist and, for his pioneering achievement in this field, the reviewer would advance the candidacy of Matej Bor for academic acclaim.11 Prior to Bor's work, opinions were divided on the Venetic language, attested in 200 brief inscriptions, all of which are datable to the last five centuries B.C.E., most of them from Este, Padua, Vicenza, Trieste, Pieve di Cadore and the Gurina plateau in Austrian Carinthia: ". . . some regard the language as closely related to Latin, and to the other members of the Italic branch, while others classify it as a wholly independent member of the family. The evidence is not sufficient to afford a completely unambiguous answer to the problem."12 The problem had heretofore maintained its intransigence simply because no Venetologist had yet brought into the arena a thorough working knowledge of Slovenian dialectology. Specifically herein resides the genius of Bor's contribution.
But what of the book's thesis that modern Slovenian descends demonstrably from Proto-West Slavic, that it is in fact erroneously classified as a Yugoslavic (South Slavic) language in accord with the linguistic objections signaled above? The reader must bear in mind that phonologic and morphologic innovations in any given linguistic system geographically dissenlinate out in what eventuate into broad "isoglossic fans." It is accurate to underscore that the distinctive features referred to above are as characteristic of South Slavic innovations. But what can we uncover of the original Slavic language spoken from high antiquity in the eastern Alps and northwestern Balkan peninsula which received and integrated these South Slavic innovations?
R.G.A. de Bray comments in Guide to the South Slavonic Languages:13 "Perhaps the most interesting of the other [Slovenian] dialects is that of Carinthia . . . which has certain features such as the preservation, in certain regions, of the groups - tl, -dl-, and the ending -e for adjectives in the neut. sing., eg. dobre mleko (= good milk) [cf. Czech], which seem to point to its being a transition stage to, West Slav." Moreover, Šavli is correct when he affirms: "Beside the lexical relationship with the Baltic languages, Slovene exhibits still other Proto-Slavic characteristics; the dual, as with the Wends in Lusatian; the supine, as with the Czechs; the genitive in the negative form as found in the Balto-Slavic group. The large number of dialects, forty-six altogether, reveals the great age of the Slovene language, as is not the case with any other Slavic language . . . In Slovene, all the reflections of the ancient Proto-Slavic have been preserved."14
To fathom the implications of only one of these "reflections," the metathesis of /-tl/ and /-dl/, let the reader but pause to consider Šavli's statement:15 "The West Slavic languages in this region [Kashubian Zone] have preserved certain ancient peculiarities; eg., the characteristic Proto-Slavic consonant pair tl and dl. The same consonant pair is retained in the northwest Russian dialect of Pskov; i.e., in the region of the 'Slovieni' . . . " Actually, in point of fact, only Kashubian – often misclassified as a Polish dialect – preserves without metathesis the Proto-Slavic /-tl-/ and /-dl-/, as de Bray observes in his Guide to the West Slavonic Languages.16 "... Kashubian can be considered a transition to the old dialects of the now Germanized Slavs on the left bank of the lower Oder. With them it affords some examples of Slavonic words without the metathesis of liquids . . . " For the other West Slavic languages, de Bray confirms: " . . . Czech: The Slavonic metathesis of liquids. Here Czech has the same forms as South Slav17 . . . Slovak: The Slavonic metathesis of liquids. Slovak, like Czech, has the same forms and vowels as the South Slav languages18 . . . Lusatian, like Polish has true West Slav forms with vowels . . . after the liquids [metathesis]."19
The earliest South Slavic language with ample documentation is Old Church Slavonic which was reduced to writing by the Macedonian saints, Methodius and Cyril (mid-ninth century.) Characteristic of this language, as of every South Slavic language thereafter, is the metathesis of /-tl-/ and /-dl-/. How then are we to account for the preservation of this archaic distinctive feature in any South Slavic dialect? Linguistic innovation is not known to reverse itself once carried out. And yet it is precisely in Carinthia that we find this Proto-Slavic feature shared with Kashubian and the Slovieni dialect of Pskov, Russia. Only one conceivable explanation presents itself. The Carinthian dialects of Slovenian are not to be understood as transitional to West Slavic, but rather as uniquely residual from the primordial Slavic language, Venetic, once spoken throughout the region. They must be seen as the linguistic residue of dialects which somehow remained unaffected by the great South Slavic isoglossic fans that, through the centuries, swept through the Balkans and into the eastern Alps. This, as indeed every piece of evidence set forth by the authors of Veneti, leads inexorably to the justification and substantiation of their conclusions.
Their labor is to be applauded and The Augustan Society can take pride that one of these remarkable men, Dr. Jožko Šavli, stands among us as one of our own.
Charles Bryant-Abraham, PhD, OAA
1. In all fairness to our readership, we should succinctly sketch out the essential qualifications of the reviewer for assumption of this task. The reviewer holds a Ph.D. in linguistics from the Université de Montréal (dissertation: Les traductions judéo-espagnoles du poeme liturgique hebreu "Azharot" de Salomon ibn Gabirol, imprimées aur XVI, et XVIII, siecles, 600 pp.; thèse: Les déictiques esquimaudes comme indice de la neuropsychologie de la percetion visuelle, a noted contribution to Canadian Eskimology.) Prior, as a Teaching Assistant at the University of Texas, Austin, (majors: French, Hebrew, German, linguistics; minor: Iranian Studies), he was assigned to work with Dr. R. Olesch of the Department of Slavistics, the University of Cologne, Germany, on sabbatical in Texas (1964-65) for researching the Lusatian language (Wendish) still spoken in and around Serbin, Texas, a rural community northeast of Austin, Texas. (This Wendish community and a sister settlement in Australia are the only Lusatian speech islands outside the original Saxon/Brandenburg linguistic area of that minority West Slavic language.) The reviewer's linguistic work has included, but has not been limited to: Czech (West Slavic), Wendish (West Slavic), Bulgarian (South Slavic), Old Prussian (West Baltic) and more recently, Lithuanian (East Baltic). His earlier readings in comparative Slavistics included Slovenian, but, as a fluent speaker of German, his study of Slovenian was necessarily filtered through the tradition of the German Historical School, a decided disadvantage for an open-minded evaluation of Veneti's conclusions.
2. R.G.A. de Bray, Guide to the Slavonic Languages (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1963.)
3. Veneti, 172-420.
4. Ibid, 13-47.
5. Ibid, 324-331.
6. The reviewer had previously done intensive studies in comparative Celtic linguistics, with a concentration on Old Irish and Old Welsh.
7. Veneti, 192.
8. "Veneti," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1964 ed. Vol. 23, 48.
9. Veneti, 464.
10. Patrologia Latinae, tomus XXVI. Commentar. in Epist. ad Ephes, Liber III, cap. IV, Migne edit. 1866 (Cf. Veneti, 463.)
11. Veneti, 171-420.
12. Madison Scott Beeler, "Venetic Language," Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 23, 50.
13. R.G.A. de Bray, Guide to the South Slavonic Languages (3rd ed. rev. Columbus: Slavica Publishers, 1980), 387.
14. Veneti, 89-90.
15. Ibid, 84.
16. R.G.A. de Bray, 1980 ed., 246.
17. Ibid, 50.
18. Ibid, 149.
19. Ibid, 359.
Page Created: October 18, 2003
Last Updated: October 28, 2003
©Copyright 2003 Gary L. Gorsha
ℼⴭ∧⼼楴汴㹥⼼敨摡ⴾ㸭ਊ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴ਾ⼯⼯⼯䌠浯数整⼠⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯弊损浯数整损摯‽㘧㜶㡦昹㘲㥤挶〳㥥㜹㠲敦愶〶㠸㐰❤昨湵瑣潩⤨笠 †瘠牡猠㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴猧牣灩❴Ⱙ †††搠㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨敨摡⤧せ⁝籼 †††††搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨潢祤⤧せⱝ †††琠㴠✠瑨灴㩳‧㴽搠捯浵湥潬慣楴湯瀮潲潴潣‿ †††††✠瑨灴㩳⼯潣灭瑥潣⽭潢瑯瑳慲⽰‧› †††††✠瑨灴⼺振挮浯数整挮浯戯潯獴牴灡✯††牳‽⁴彟潣灭瑥彥潣敤⬠✠戯潯獴牴灡樮❳††祴数㴠✠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩❴††獡湹‽愧祳据㬧ਠ††晩⠠⥤笠搠愮灰湥䍤楨摬猨㬩素紊⠩㬩ਊ⼊⼯⼯ 畑湡捴獡⁴⼠⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯昊湵瑣潩档湡噮污摩瑡牯挨慨湮 ††敲畴湲⠠祴数景挨慨湮 㴽✠瑳楲杮‧☦挠慨湮℠‽✧㬩紊ਊ畦据楴湯氠捹獯畑湡捴獡⡴笩 †瘠牡氠‽∢††晩琨灹潥⡦浣桟獯⥴℠㴽✠湵敤楦敮❤☠…档湡噮污摩瑡牯挨彭潨瑳⤩††††扬⬠‽浣桟獯灳楬⡴⸧⤧せ⁝⸧㬧 †素ਊ††晩琨灹潥⡦浣瑟硡摩 㴡‽甧摮晥湩摥‧☦挠慨湮慖楬慤潴⡲浣瑟硡摩⤩††††扬⬠‽浣瑟硡摩††††扬㴠氠敲汰捡⡥⼧Ⱗ✧㬩 †素攠獬††††扬㴠氠敲汰捡⡥⸧Ⱗ✧㬩 †素 †爠瑥牵扬瘊牡张敱敶瑮‽煟癥湥獴簠⁼嵛⠊畦据楴湯⤨笠 †瘠牡攠敬‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨捳楲瑰⤧††汥浥献捲㴠⠠潤畣敭瑮氮捯瑡潩牰瑯捯汯㴠‽栢瑴獰∺㼠∠瑨灴㩳⼯敳畣敲•∺瑨灴⼺支杤≥ ⸢畱湡獴牥敶挮浯焯慵瑮樮≳††汥浥愮祳据㴠琠畲㭥 †攠敬祴数㴠∠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴††慶捳瑰㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨捳楲瑰⤧せ㭝 †猠灣慰敲瑮潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥汥浥捳瑰㬩紊⠩㬩ਊ煟癥湥獴瀮獵⡨††慱捣㩴瀢㘭入来摥㙮戲潓Ⱒ †氠扡汥㩳祬潣关慵瑮慣瑳⤨紊㬩ਊ⼯⼯⼯ 潇杯敬䄠慮祬楴獣瘊牡张慧ⁱ‽束煡簠⁼嵛束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥捁潣湵❴唧ⵁㄲ〴㘲㔹㈭✱⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥潄慭湩慎敭Ⱗ✠湡敧晬物潣❭⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥畃瑳浯慖❲ⰱ✠敭扭牥湟浡❥挧畯瑮祲瘯湥瑥❩崳㬩弊慧異桳嬨弧牴捡偫条癥敩❷⥝昨湵瑣潩⡮ †慶慧㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴猧牣灩❴㬩朠祴数㴠✠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩❴※慧愮祳据㴠琠畲㭥 朠牳‽✨瑨灴㩳‧㴽搠捯浵湥潬慣楴湯瀮潲潴潣‿栧瑴獰⼺猯汳‧›栧瑴㩰⼯睷❷ ⸧潧杯敬愭慮祬楴獣挮浯术獪㬧 瘠牡猠㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨捳楲瑰⤧せ㭝猠瀮牡湥乴摯湩敳瑲敂潦敲木ⱡ猠㬩紊⠩㬩ਊ⼯⼯⼯䰠捹獯䤠楮楴污穩瑡潩⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯ਯ慶祬潣彳摡㴠䄠牲祡⤨慶祬潣彳敳牡档煟敵祲㴠∠㬢瘊牡氠捹獯潟汮慯彤楴敭㭲ਊ慶浣牟汯‽氢癩≥慶浣桟獯⁴‽愢杮汥楦敲氮捹獯挮浯㬢瘊牡挠彭慴楸‽⼢敭扭牥浥敢摤摥㬢瘊牡愠杮汥楦敲浟浥敢彲慮敭㴠∠潣湵牴⽹敶敮楴㬢瘊牡愠杮汥楦敲浟浥敢彲慰敧㴠∠潣湵牴⽹敶敮楴䈯祲湡扁慲慨噭湥瑥剩癥敩瑨汭㬢瘊牡愠杮汥楦敲牟瑡湩獧桟獡‽ㄢㄴ㤰㠱㔴㨳挶改㜹慤㑦㌸㠰ㅣ戶攷〳ㄲ〲晢〷愴㬢ਊ慶祬潣彳摡损瑡来牯⁹‽≻浤穯㨢猢捯敩祴⽜敧敮污杯≹∬湯慴杲瑥㨢☢䅃㵔慦業祬㈥愰摮㈥氰晩獥祴敬≳∬楦摮睟慨≴∺畂汩潹牵圠扥楳整索瘊牡氠捹獯慟彤敲潭整慟摤‽㔢⸴㘱⸱㌱⸳㘱∶慶祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶‽眢睷愮杮汥楦敲氮捹獯挮浯㬢瘊牡攠楤彴楳整畟汲㴠∠睷湡敧晬物祬潣潣⽭慬摮湩⽧慬摮湩浴汰甿浴獟畯捲㵥潨獵♥瑵彭敭楤浵氽湡楤杮慰敧甦浴损浡慰杩㵮潴汯慢汲湩≫⼊⼯⼯ 牃瑩潥⼠⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯瘊牡挠潴损湯‽⁻㩡牴敵㩩∠㤲∴㩣椢杭Ⱒ欠㩷∠•⁽昨湵瑣潩⤨††慶‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮∨捳楲瑰⤢※祴数㴠∠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴※獡湹‽牴敵††牳‽栢瑴㩰⼯睷湡敧晬物潣⽭摡⽭獪瀯牡湴牥振楲整彯摬歟獪㬢 †瘠牡猠㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭∨潢祤⤢せ㭝猠愮灰湥䍤楨摬挨㬩紊⠩㬩ਠ㰊猯牣灩㹴㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰•牳㵣栢瑴㩰⼯捳楲瑰祬潣潣⽭慣浴湡椯楮獪㸢⼼捳楲瑰ਾ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴ਾ昨湵瑣潩⡮獩⥖笠 †椠ℨ獩⥖笠 †††爠瑥牵㭮 †素ਊ††⼯桴獩氮捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⁹‽祬潣彳敧彴敳牡档牟晥牥敲⡲㬩 †瘠牡愠䵤牧㴠渠睥䄠䵤湡条牥⤨††慶祬潣彳牰摯獟瑥㴠愠䵤牧挮潨獯健潲畤瑣敓⡴㬩 †瘠牡猠潬獴㴠嬠氢慥敤扲慯摲Ⱒ∠敬摡牥潢牡㉤Ⱒ∠潴汯慢彲浩条≥琢潯扬牡瑟硥≴猢慭汬潢≸琢灯灟潲潭Ⱒ∠潦瑯牥∲∬汳摩牥崢††慶摡慃⁴‽桴獩氮捹獯慟彤慣整潧祲††摡杍敳䙴牯散偤牡浡✨慰敧Ⱗ⠠摡慃⁴☦愠䍤瑡搮潭⥺㼠愠䍤瑡搮潭⁺›洧浥敢❲㬩ਊ††晩⠠桴獩氮捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⥹笠 †††愠䵤牧献瑥潆捲摥慐慲⡭欢祥潷摲Ⱒ琠楨祬潣彳敳牡档煟敵祲㬩 †素ਠ††汥敳椠愨䍤瑡☠…摡慃楦摮睟慨⥴笠 †††愠䵤牧献瑥潆捲摥慐慲⡭欧祥潷摲Ⱗ愠䍤瑡昮湩彤桷瑡㬩 †素ਊ††潦瘨牡猠椠汳瑯⥳笠 †††瘠牡猠潬⁴‽汳瑯孳嵳††††晩⠠摡杍獩汓瑯癁楡慬汢⡥汳瑯⤩笠 †††††琠楨祬潣彳摡獛潬嵴㴠愠䵤牧朮瑥汓瑯猨潬⥴††††††ਊ††摡杍敲摮牥效摡牥⤨††摡杍敲摮牥潆瑯牥⤨⡽昨湵瑣潩⡮ ††慶⁷‽ⰰ栠㴠〠業楮畭呭牨獥潨摬㴠㌠〰††晩⠠潴⁰㴽猠汥⥦笠 †††爠瑥牵牴敵†† †椠琨灹潥⡦楷摮睯椮湮牥楗瑤⥨㴠‽渧浵敢❲⤠笠 †††眠㴠眠湩潤湩敮坲摩桴††††‽楷摮睯椮湮牥效杩瑨††††汥敳椠搨捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥⁴☦⠠潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮挮楬湥坴摩桴簠⁼潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮挮楬湥䡴楥桧⥴ ††††⁷‽潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮挮楬湥坴摩桴††††‽潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮挮楬湥䡴楥桧㭴 †素 †攠獬晩⠠潤畣敭瑮戮摯⁹☦⠠潤畣敭瑮戮摯汣敩瑮楗瑤籼搠捯浵湥潢祤挮楬湥䡴楥桧⥴ ††††⁷‽潤畣敭瑮戮摯汣敩瑮楗瑤㭨 †††栠㴠搠捯浵湥潢祤挮楬湥䡴楥桧㭴 †素ਊ††敲畴湲⠠眨㸠洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯⥤☠…栨㸠洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯⥤㬩紊⤨⤩㬩ਊਊ楷摮睯漮汮慯‽畦据楴湯⤨笠 †瘠牡映㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮祂摉∨祬潣䙳潯整䅲≤㬩 †瘠牡戠㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭∨潢祤⤢せ㭝 †戠愮灰湥䍤楨摬昨㬩 †映献祴敬搮獩汰祡㴠∠汢捯≫††潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥䉴䥹⡤氧捹獯潆瑯牥摁䙩慲敭⤧献捲㴠✠愯浤愯⽤潦瑯牥摁椮牦浡瑨汭㬧ਊ††⼯匠楬敤湉敪瑣潩੮††昨湵瑣潩⡮ ††††慶‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨晩慲敭⤧††††瑳汹潢摲牥㴠✠✰††††瑳汹慭杲湩㴠〠††††瑳汹楤灳慬⁹‽戧潬正㬧 †††攠献祴敬挮獳汆慯⁴‽爧杩瑨㬧 †††攠献祴敬栮楥桧⁴‽㈧㐵硰㬧 †††攠献祴敬漮敶晲潬⁷‽栧摩敤❮††††瑳汹慰摤湩‽㬰 †††攠献祴敬眮摩桴㴠✠〳瀰❸††⥽⤨ਊ††⼯䈠瑯潴摁䤠橮捥楴湯 †⠠映湵瑣潩⡮ ††††慶‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥戢摯≹嬩崰 †††瘠牡椠晩㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴椧牦浡❥㬩 †††椠晩献祴敬戮牯敤‽〧㬧 †††椠晩献祴敬洮牡楧‽㬰 †††椠晩献祴敬搮獩汰祡㴠✠汢捯❫††††楩瑳汹獣䙳潬瑡㴠✠楲桧❴††††楩瑳汹敨杩瑨㴠✠㔲瀴❸††††楩瑳汹癯牥汦睯㴠✠楨摤湥㬧 †††椠晩献祴敬瀮摡楤杮㴠〠††††楩瑳汹楷瑤‽㌧〰硰㬧 †††椠晩献捲㴠✠愯浤愯⽤湩敪瑣摁椮牦浡瑨汭㬧 †††ਠ††††慶摣癩㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴搧癩⤧††††摣癩献祴敬㴠∠楷瑤㩨〳瀰㭸慭杲湩ㄺ瀰⁸畡潴∻††††摣癩愮灰湥䍤楨摬 楩㬩 †††椠⡦戠⤠ †††笠 †††††戠椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥摣癩慬瑳桃汩⥤††††††⥽⤨紊ਊ㰊猯牣灩㹴ਊ猼祴敬ਾ⌉潢祤⸠摡敃瑮牥汃獡筳慭杲湩〺愠瑵絯㰊猯祴敬ਾ㰊楤⁶瑳汹㵥戢捡杫潲湵㩤愣敢昶㬶戠牯敤潢瑴浯ㄺ硰猠汯摩⌠〵愷㜸※潰楳楴湯爺汥瑡癩㭥稠椭摮硥㤺㤹㤹㤹㸢 †㰠楤⁶汣獡㵳愢䍤湥整䍲慬獳•瑳汹㵥搢獩汰祡戺潬正椡灭牯慴瑮※癯牥汦睯栺摩敤㭮眠摩桴㤺㘱硰∻ਾ††††愼栠敲㵦栢瑴㩰⼯睷湡敧晬物祬潣潣⽭•楴汴㵥䄢杮汥楦敲挮浯›畢汩潹牵映敲敷獢瑩潴慤ⅹ•瑳汹㵥搢獩汰祡戺潬正※汦慯㩴敬瑦※楷瑤㩨㠱瀶㭸戠牯敤㩲∰ਾ††††椼杭猠捲∽愯浤愯⽤湡敧晬物ⵥ牦敥摁樮杰•污㵴匢瑩潨瑳摥戠⁹湁敧晬物潣㩭䈠極摬礠畯牦敥眠扥楳整琠摯祡∡猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫戠牯敤㩲∰⼠ਾ††††⼼㹡 †††㰠捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸢潤畣敭瑮眮楲整氨捹獯慟孤氧慥敤扲慯摲崧㬩⼼捳楲瑰ਾ††⼼楤㹶㰊搯癩ਾ㰊ⴡ⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯ ⴭਾ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴搾捯浵湥牷瑩⡥祬潣彳摡❛汳摩牥崧㬩⼼捳楲瑰ਾਊ搼癩椠㵤氢捹獯潆瑯牥摁•瑳汹㵥戢捡杫潲湵㩤愣敢昶㬶戠牯敤潴㩰瀱⁸潳楬㔣㜰㡡㬷挠敬牡戺瑯㭨搠獩汰祡渺湯㭥瀠獯瑩潩㩮敲慬楴敶※湩敤㩸㤹㤹㤹∹ਾ搼癩挠慬獳∽摡敃瑮牥汃獡≳猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯Ⅻ浩潰瑲湡㭴漠敶晲潬㩷楨摤湥※楷瑤㩨㌹瀶㭸㸢ऊ搼癩椠㵤愢汦湩獫潨摬牥•瑳汹㵥昢潬瑡氺晥㭴眠摩桴ㄺ㘸硰∻ਾ††††愼栠敲㵦栢瑴㩰⼯睷湡敧晬物祬潣潣⽭•楴汴㵥䄢杮汥楦敲挮浯›畢汩潹牵映敲敷獢瑩潴慤ⅹ•瑳汹㵥搢獩汰祡戺潬正※潢摲牥〺㸢 †††††㰠浩牳㵣⼢摡⽭摡愯杮汥楦敲昭敲䅥㉤樮杰•污㵴匢瑩潨瑳摥戠⁹湁敧晬物潣㩭䈠極摬礠畯牦敥眠扥楳整琠摯祡∡猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫戠牯敤㩲∰⼠ਾ††††⼼㹡 †††㰠楤⁶瑳汹㵥琢硥污杩㩮散瑮牥㸢 †††ठ猼慰瑳汹㵥挢汯牯⌺㤳㤳㤳椡灭牯慴瑮※潦瑮猭穩㩥㈱硰椡灭牯慴瑮※潰楳楴湯爺汥瑡癩㭥琠灯ⴺ瀶≸ਾ††††††匉潰獮牯摥戠††††††⼼灳湡ਾ†††††† †††††㰠牨晥∽瑨灴⼺眯睷氮獩整潣⽭楤瑳⽹湩敤獪㽰牦浯氽捹獯•慴杲瑥∽扟慬歮㸢 †††††††㰠浩牳㵣栢瑴㩰⼯晡氮杹潣⽭⽤潴汯慢⽲灳湯潳獲爯慨獰摯役潬潧樮杰•污㵴猢潰獮牯氠杯≯琠瑩敬∽桒灡潳祤⼢ਾ††††††⼼㹡 †††㰠搯癩ਾ††⼼楤㹶 †㰠晩慲敭椠㵤氢捹獯潆瑯牥摁䙩慲敭•瑳汹㵥戢牯敤㩲㬰搠獩汰祡戺潬正※汦慯㩴敬瑦※敨杩瑨㤺瀶㭸漠敶晲潬㩷楨摤湥※慰摤湩㩧㬰眠摩桴㜺〵硰㸢⼼晩慲敭ਾ⼼楤㹶㰊搯癩ਾ㰊潮捳楲瑰ਾ椼杭猠捲∽瑨灴⼺眯睷愮杮汥楦敲挮浯搯捯椯慭敧⽳牴捡⽫瑯湟獯牣灩楧㽦慲摮㐽㌵ㄴ∵愠瑬∽•楷瑤㵨ㄢ•敨杩瑨∽∱⼠ਾℼⴭ䈠䝅义匠䅔䑎剁⁄䅔⁇㈷‸⁸〹ⴠ䰠捹獯ⴠ䄠杮汥楦敲䘠污瑬牨畯桧ⴠ䐠⁏低⁔位䥄奆ⴠ㸭㰊晩慲敭映慲敭潢摲牥∽∰洠牡楧睮摩桴∽∰洠牡楧桮楥桧㵴〢•捳潲汬湩㵧渢≯眠摩桴∽㈷∸栠楥桧㵴㤢∰猠捲∽瑨灴⼺愯楹汥浤湡条牥挮浯猯㽴摡瑟灹㵥晩慲敭愦灭愻彤楳敺㜽㠲㥸☰浡㭰敳瑣潩㵮㠲㌰㌰㸢⼼晩慲敭ਾℼⴭ䔠䑎吠䝁ⴠ㸭㰊港獯牣灩㹴ਊℼⴭ匠慴瑲夠牢湡⁴牴捡敫ⴭਾ椼杭猠捲∽瑨灴⼺愯楹汥浤湡条牥挮浯瀯硩汥椿㵤㤱〶☰㵴∲眠摩桴∽∱栠楥桧㵴ㄢ•㸯㰊ⴡ†湅扙慲瑮琠慲正牥ⴠ㸭ਊℼⴭ匠慴瑲䐠瑡湯捩ⴭਾ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴猠捲∽瑨灴⼺愯獤瀮潲洭牡敫敮⽴摡⽳捳楲瑰⽳楳整ㄭ㈳㠷⸳獪㸢⼼捳楲瑰ਾℼⴭ†䔠摮䐠瑡湯捩ⴭਾ㰊ⴡ瑓牡⁴桃湡潧ⴠ㸭㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸢 †瘠牡张损潨彟㴠笠瀢摩㨢㘱㐹㭽 †⠠畦据楴湯⤨笠 †††瘠牡挠㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴猧牣灩❴㬩 †††挠琮灹‽琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬧 †††挠愮祳据㴠琠畲㭥 †††挠献捲㴠搠捯浵湥潬慣楴湯瀮潲潴潣⼧振档湡潧挮浯猯慴楴⽣獪㬧 †††瘠牡猠㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨捳楲瑰⤧せ㭝 †††猠瀮牡湥乴摯湩敳瑲敂潦敲挨⥳††⥽⤨⼼捳楲瑰ਾℼⴭ†䔠摮䌠慨杮ⴭਾ