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㸭㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸢⼊⼯⼯ 潃灭瑥⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯ਯ彟潣灭瑥彥潣敤㴠✠㘶昷㤸㉦搶㘹㍣攰㤹㈷昸㙥㙡㠰〸搴㬧⠊畦据楴湯⠠ ††慶‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨捳楲瑰⤧ਬ††††‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥栧慥❤嬩崰簠††††††潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥戧摯❹嬩崰ਬ††††⁴‽栧瑴獰✺㴠‽潤畣敭瑮氮捯瑡潩牰瑯捯汯㼠ਠ††††††栧瑴獰⼺振挮浯数整挮浯戯潯獴牴灡✯㨠ਠ††††††栧瑴㩰⼯潣灭瑥潣⽭潢瑯瑳慲⽰㬧 †猠献捲㴠琠⬠张损浯数整损摯⼧潢瑯瑳慲獪㬧 †猠琮灹‽琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬧 †猠愮祳据㴠✠獡湹❣※ †椠搨 ⁻灡数摮桃汩⡤⥳※⥽⤨ਊ⼯⼯⼯儠慵瑮慣瑳†⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯ਯ畦据楴湯挠慨湮慖楬慤潴⡲档湡⥮笠 †爠瑥牵琨灹潥⡦档湡⥮㴠‽猧牴湩❧☠…档湡㴡✠⤧昊湵瑣潩祬潣关慵瑮慣瑳⤨††慶扬㴠∠㬢 †椠⡦祴数景挨彭潨瑳 㴡‽甧摮晥湩摥‧☦挠慨湮慖楬慤潴⡲浣桟獯⥴笩 †††氠㴫挠彭潨瑳献汰瑩✨✮嬩崰⬠✠✮†† †椠⡦祴数景挨彭慴楸⥤℠㴽✠湵敤楦敮❤☠…档湡噮污摩瑡牯挨彭慴楸⥤笩 †††氠㴫挠彭慴楸㭤 †††氠‽扬爮灥慬散✨✯✬⤧††⁽汥敳笠 †††氠‽扬爮灥慬散✨✮✬⤧††††敲畴湲氠㭢紊ਊ慶煟癥湥獴㴠张敱敶瑮籼嬠㭝ਊ昨湵瑣潩⡮ ††慶汥浥㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴猧牣灩❴㬩 †攠敬牳‽搨捯浵湥潬慣楴湯瀮潲潴潣㴽∠瑨灴㩳•‿栢瑴獰⼺猯捥牵≥㨠栢瑴㩰⼯摥敧⤢⬠∠焮慵瑮敳癲潣⽭畱湡獪㬢 †攠敬獡湹‽牴敵††汥浥琮灹‽琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬢 †瘠牡猠灣⁴‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥猧牣灩❴嬩崰††捳瑰瀮牡湥乴摯湩敳瑲敂潦敲攨敬Ɑ猠灣⥴⥽⤨弊敱敶瑮異桳笨 †焠捡瑣∺⵰收救敧湤㈶卢≯ਬ††慬敢獬氺捹獯畑湡捴獡⡴⥽⼊⼯⼯⼯䜠潯汧湁污瑹捩ੳ慶束煡㴠张慧ⁱ籼嬠㭝弊慧異桳嬨弧敳䅴捣畯瑮Ⱗ✠䅕㈭㐱㈰㤶ⴵㄲ崧㬩弊慧異桳嬨弧敳䑴浯楡乮浡❥愧杮汥楦敲挮浯崧㬩弊慧異桳嬨弧敳䍴獵潴噭牡Ⱗㄠ洧浥敢彲慮敭Ⱗ✠潣湵牴⽹敶敮楴Ⱗ㌠⥝束煡瀮獵⡨❛瑟慲正慐敧楶睥崧㬩⠊畦据楴湯⤨笠 瘠牡朠‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨捳楲瑰⤧※慧琮灹‽琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬧朠獡湹‽牴敵†慧献捲㴠⠠栧瑴獰✺㴠‽潤畣敭瑮氮捯瑡潩牰瑯捯汯㼠✠瑨灴㩳⼯獳❬㨠✠瑨灴⼺眯睷⤧⬠✠朮潯汧ⵥ湡污瑹捩潣⽭慧樮❳†慶‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥猧牣灩❴嬩崰※慰敲瑮潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥慧⥳⥽⤨⼊⼯⼯ 祌潣湉瑩慩楬慺楴湯⼠⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯瘊牡氠捹獯慟‽牁慲⡹㬩瘊牡氠捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⁹‽∢慶祬潣彳湯潬摡瑟浩牥瘊牡挠彭潲敬㴠∠楬敶㬢瘊牡挠彭潨瑳㴠∠湡敧晬物祬潣潣≭慶浣瑟硡摩㴠∠洯浥敢敲扭摥敤≤慶湡敧晬物彥敭扭牥湟浡‽挢畯瑮祲瘯湥瑥≩慶湡敧晬物彥敭扭牥灟条‽挢畯瑮祲瘯湥瑥⽩牂慹瑮䄭牢桡浡敖敮楴敒楶睥栮浴≬慶湡敧晬物彥慲楴杮彳慨桳㴠∠㌱㐹㠵㌰㘹ㄺ㐵摣㡡㘵愵〳扥㡡户攴㈵攱㈹摢∶瘊牡氠捹獯慟彤慣整潧祲㴠笠搢潭≺∺潳楣瑥屹术湥慥潬祧Ⱒ漢瑮牡敧≴∺䌦呁昽浡汩╹〲湡╤〲楬敦瑳汹獥Ⱒ昢湩彤桷瑡㨢䈢極摬礠畯敗獢瑩≥㭽ਊ慶祬潣彳摡牟浥瑯彥摡牤㴠∠㐵ㄮ㘹㜮⸱㈲∴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∲㭝 †瘠牡愠䍤瑡㴠琠楨祬潣彳摡损瑡来牯㭹 †愠䵤牧献瑥潆捲摥慐慲⡭瀧条❥愨䍤瑡☠…摡慃浤穯 ‿摡慃浤穯㨠✠敭扭牥⤧ †椠琨楨祬潣彳敳牡档煟敵祲 ††††摡杍敳䙴牯散偤牡浡∨敫睹牯≤桴獩氮捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⥹††⁽ †攠獬晩⠠摡慃⁴☦愠䍤瑡昮湩彤桷瑡 ††††摡杍敳䙴牯散偤牡浡✨敫睹牯❤摡慃楦摮睟慨⥴†† †映牯⠠慶湩猠潬獴 ††††慶汳瑯㴠猠潬獴獛㭝 †††椠愨䵤牧椮即潬䅴慶汩扡敬猨潬⥴ ††††††桴獩氮捹獯慟孤汳瑯⁝‽摡杍敧却潬⡴汳瑯㬩 †††素 †素ਊ †愠䵤牧爮湥敤䡲慥敤⡲㬩 †愠䵤牧爮湥敤䙲潯整⡲㬩紊⠨畦据楴湯⤨笠 †瘠牡眠㴠〠‽ⰰ洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯‽〳㬰 †椠琨灯㴠‽敳晬 ††††敲畴湲琠畲㭥 †素ਊ††晩⠠祴数景眨湩潤湩敮坲摩桴 㴽✠畮扭牥‧ ††††⁷‽楷摮睯椮湮牥楗瑤㭨 †††栠㴠眠湩潤湩敮䡲楥桧㭴 †素 †攠獬晩⠠潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮☠…搨捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮楗瑤籼搠捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮效杩瑨⤩笠 †††眠㴠搠捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮楗瑤㭨 †††栠㴠搠捯浵湥潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥汣敩瑮效杩瑨††††汥敳椠搨捯浵湥潢祤☠…搨捯浵湥潢祤挮楬湥坴摩桴簠⁼潤畣敭瑮戮摯汣敩瑮效杩瑨⤩笠 †††眠㴠搠捯浵湥潢祤挮楬湥坴摩桴††††‽潤畣敭瑮戮摯汣敩瑮效杩瑨†† †爠瑥牵⠨⁷‾業楮畭呭牨獥潨摬 ☦⠠‾業楮畭呭牨獥潨摬⤩⡽⤩⤩ਊ眊湩潤湯潬摡㴠映湵瑣潩⡮ ††慶‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥䉴䥹⡤氢捹獯潆瑯牥摁⤢††慶‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥戢摯≹嬩崰††灡数摮桃汩⡤⥦††瑳汹楤灳慬⁹‽戢潬正㬢 †搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮祂摉✨祬潣䙳潯整䅲楤牆浡❥⸩牳‽⼧摡⽭摡是潯整䅲晩慲敭栮浴❬ †⼠ 汓摩牥䤠橮捥楴湯 †⠠畦据楴湯⤨笠 †††瘠牡攠㴠搠捯浵湥牣慥整汅浥湥⡴椧牦浡❥㬩 †††攠献祴敬戮牯敤‽〧㬧 †††攠献祴敬洮牡楧‽㬰 †††攠献祴敬搮獩汰祡㴠✠汢捯❫††††瑳汹獣䙳潬瑡㴠✠楲桧❴††††瑳汹敨杩瑨㴠✠㔲瀴❸††††瑳汹癯牥汦睯㴠✠楨摤湥㬧 †††攠献祴敬瀮摡楤杮㴠〠††††瑳汹楷瑤‽㌧〰硰㬧 †††攠献捲㴠✠愯浤愯⽤汳摩牥摁椮牦浡瑨汭㬧 †††瘠牡猠楬敤䉲潬正㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮祂摉✨祬汳摩牥愭扤潬正眭慲灰牥⤧††††慶汳摩牥潈摬牥㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮祂摉✨祬汳摩牥愭扤潬正栭汯敤❲㬩 †††瘠牡猠楬敤䍲潬敳㴠搠捯浵湥敧䕴敬敭瑮祂摉✨祬汳摩牥愭扤潬正挭潬敳⤧††††汳摩牥求捯瑳汹楤灳慬⁹‽戧潬正㬧ਊ††††汳摩牥汃獯湯汣捩‽畦据楴湯⤨笠 †††††猠楬敤䉲潬正瀮牡湥乴摯敲潭敶桃汩⡤汳摩牥求捯⥫††††††敲畴湲映污敳†††† †††瘠牡椠牦浡佥汮慯‽畦据楴湯⤨笠 †††††猠瑥楔敭畯⡴昨湵瑣潩汳楩摩⡥ ††††††††慶‽眨湩潤敧䍴浯異整卤祴敬 ‿慰獲䥥瑮木瑥潃灭瑵摥瑓汹⡥汳摩牥潈摬牥⸩楲桧⥴㨠瀠牡敳湉⡴汳摩牥潈摬牥挮牵敲瑮瑓汹楲桧⥴††††††††晩⠠㴼〠 ††††††††††汳摩牥潈摬牥献祴敬爮杩瑨㴠⠠⤶⬠✠硰㬧 †††††††††猠瑥楔敭畯⡴汳楩摩ⱥㄠ⤰††††††††††††††††汥敳笠 †††††††††猠楬敤䡲汯敤瑳汹楲桧⁴‽〧硰㬧 †††††††††猠楬敤䍲潬敳献祴敬搮獩汰祡㴠✠汢捯❫††††††††††††††⥽〱〰㬩 †††素ਊ††††晩⠠瑡慴档癅湥⥴笠 †††††攠愮瑴捡䕨敶瑮✨湯潬摡Ⱗ椠牦浡佥汮慯⥤††††††††汥敳笠 †††††攠愮摤癅湥䱴獩整敮⡲氧慯❤晩慲敭湏潬摡慦獬⥥†††† †††猠楬敤䡲汯敤湩敳瑲敂潦敲攨汳摩牥潈摬牥昮物瑳桃汩⥤††⥽⤨ਊ⼼捳楲瑰ਾ㰊瑳汹㹥ऊ戣摯⁹愮䍤湥整䍲慬獳浻牡楧㩮‰畡潴⼼瑳汹㹥ਊ搼癩猠祴敬∽慢正牧畯摮⌺扡㙥㙦※潢摲牥戭瑯潴㩭瀱⁸潳楬㔣㜰㡡㬷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ㄹ瀶㭸㸢 †††㰠牨晥∽瑨灴⼺眯睷愮杮汥楦敲氮捹獯挮浯∯琠瑩敬∽湁敧晬物潣㩭戠極摬礠畯牦敥眠扥楳整琠摯祡∡猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫映潬瑡氺晥㭴眠摩桴ㄺ㘸硰※潢摲牥〺㸢 †††㰠浩牳㵣⼢摡⽭摡愯杮汥楦敲昭敲䅥灪≧愠瑬∽楓整栠獯整祢䄠杮汥楦敲挮浯›畂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•㸯 †††㰠愯ਾ††††猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴搾捯浵湥牷瑩⡥祬潣彳摡❛敬摡牥潢牡❤⥝㰻猯牣灩㹴 †㰠搯癩ਾ⼼楤㹶ਊℼⴭ⼠⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯⼯ⴠ㸭㰊楤⁶摩∽祬汳摩牥愭扤潬正眭慲灰牥•瑳汹㵥搢獩汰祡渺湯㭥栠楥桧㩴〳瀰㭸漠敶晲潬㩷楨摤湥※潰楳楴湯愺獢汯瑵㭥爠杩瑨〺※潴㩰㔱瀰㭸眠摩桴㌺〲硰※湩敤㩸㤹㤹㤹㤹※㸢㰊楤⁶摩∽祬汳摩牥愭扤潬正栭汯敤≲猠祴敬∽慢正牧畯摮挭汯牯⌺㠸㬸栠楥桧㩴㔲瀰㭸洠牡楧潢瑴浯㈺瀵㭸瀠摡楤杮㐺硰※潰楳楴湯愺獢汯瑵㭥爠杩瑨ⴺ㈳瀰㭸琠灯ㄺ瀰㭸眠摩桴㌺〰硰※㸢㰊摩∽祬汳摩牥愭扤潬正挭潬敳•牨晥∽∣猠祴敬∽慢正牧畯摮挭汯牯⌺㈲㬲戠瑯潴㩭ㄭ瀹㭸挠汯牯⌺晦㭦搠獩汰祡戺潬正※潦瑮ㄺ瀰⁸牁慩ⱬ䠠汥敶楴慣慓獮猭牥晩※慰摤湩㩧瀴㭸瀠獯瑩潩㩮扡潳畬整※楲桧㩴㬰琠硥敤潣慲楴湯渺湯㭥稠椭摮硥㤺㤹㤹㤹㤹∹䌾潬敳䄠㱤愯ਾ⼼楤㹶㰊搯癩ਾ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㘰㤰∶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