Kral versus Pekmezi – The struggle within the Albanian Literary Commission in Shkodra, 1916–1918

The Albanian Literary Commission[1] in Shkodra, 1916–1918, is an excellent example of the interweaving of all the relevant fields – the Field of Politics, the Field of the Military, the Field of Science and the Brückenkopf Field (in Albanian, Urë Lidhëse, "bridgehead") – in relation to Austro-Hungarian–Albanian relations. We refer here to Pierre Bourdieu's Theory of Practice (Praxeology)[2], which contains the following key terms: Field, Habitus, Illusio, Doxa, Capital, such as Economic Capital, Cultural Capital, Social Capital and Symbolic Capital, and Field of Power. The term "Brückenkopf" refers to the "Centre–Periphery" model[3], according to which the world consists of nations at the centre and nations on the periphery, and every nation has a centre and a periphery of its own. A key role in this model is played by the so-called "Brückenkopf", or bridgehead, as the basis of the influence of a centre nation over a periphery nation. This is a local elite class that is willing to cooperate, largely adopts the worldview of the metropole and has a vested interest in maintaining existing relations. This model is the starting point of Johan Galtung's Theory of Informal Imperialism, or Cultural Imperialism[4], with its key terms "structural violence" and "cultural violence".

The Albanian Literary Commission was founded on the initiative[5] of the civil commissioner August Kral and approved by order[6] of the Austro-Hungarian army corps command on 30 June 1916. It began its work with its first meeting on 1 September 1916.[7] Its members were almost all the experts on linguistic and literary matters who were in Albania at the time: Maximilian Lambertz and Rajko Nahtigal as advisory experts, Gjergj Pekmezi as chairman, appointed by the Austro-Hungarian military command, Aleksandër Xhuvani, Ndre Mjeda, Luigj Gurakuqi, Sotir Peci, Hil Mosi, Gjergj Fishta, Ambroz Marlaskaj, Mati Logoreci, Ndue Paluca and Luigj Naraçi.[8] The Shkodra linguist Tomor Osmani also lists other members: Hafiz Ali Korça, Vinçens Prenushi, Sali Nivica and Josif Haxhimima.[9] The commission's statutes stated: "The Albanian Literary Commission has the purpose and task of serving the general directorate of education and, as required, the army corps command as an advisory and supporting body on matters of the Albanian language (orthography, terminology, grammar of the literary language) and Albanian literature. It consists of the director general of education as chairman, a vice-chairman, a secretary, and full and corresponding (external) members."[10] The activities of this commission included: publishing the unpublished works of Albanian writers, issuing a monthly journal (linguistics, literature, history, reports of meetings) with the possible collaboration of Albanologists from Austria-Hungary and Germany, publishing school textbooks, publishing an Albanian–German dictionary, and advising other Albanian offices on matters of the Albanian language. The Albanian language and literature were to be developed further, the orthography of the two main dialects was to be improved and unified, and new words and technical terms were to be created for the administration and for the writing of school textbooks.[11]

One of the main focuses of the Albanian Literary Commission's activities was the creation of suitable teaching texts for schools, which began at the start of 1917.[12] The best school textbooks of the Monarchy were to be used as the basis for Albanian teaching texts, adapted in the spirit of existing Albanian literature, and the textbooks were to be written according to the principles of European morality and ethics, excluding all topics and theses that conflicted with the specific characteristics of any one of the three religious denominations in Albania. Fishta, Logoreci, Paluca and Gaspër Beltoja, head of the translation office, were charged with writing arithmetic and reading books, as well as a small language book for primary schools, by 15 April 1917 at the latest. In addition, the Albanian Literary Commission was instructed to write all the books for the civic schools (Bürgerschule) in agreement with the general directorate of education, partly through its own members and partly through other experts. The corps command stressed that it firmly insisted on the fulfilment of the obligations undertaken, because it was determined to place the Albanian school system on a modern and purely national footing as quickly as possible.[13] Subsequently the orthography and language to be applied in the school textbooks were fixed, the texts to be created and the provisional aids to be used were determined, the persons to be charged with the editorial work were chosen, and a precise, time-limited work programme was set.[14] Other authors of teaching texts – from which, according to the instructions[15] of the Ballhausplatz, everything that might lead to conflicts between religious communities was to be eliminated – were Aleksandër Xhuvani, Sotir Peci and Ndre Mjeda.

On the question of dialect there was an internal conflict: one side, around Kral and Lambertz, wanted to create a unified literary language based on the Elbasan dialect, while another side, around Pekmezi and Nahtigal, defended the coexistence of the two main dialects, Gheg and Tosk. The Dual Monarchy's principle was not to interfere in the substantive questions of language unification, but its diplomatic representatives tried to balance the hostile positions of the two sides. The Ballhausplatz leaned towards unifying Gheg, starting from Shkodra, and towards laying the groundwork for establishing the Elbasan dialect as the state language. All decisions taken on this matter, so important for the development of the Albanian language and for the education of the people, were communicated by order of the corps command to the general directorate of education and to the Albanian Literary Commission.[16] Finally, on 11 December 1916, the Albanian Literary Commission, in agreement with the Austro-Hungarian foreign ministry, confirmed the decision of the Congress of Elbasan in 1909 to choose the Elbasan dialect as the basis of a unified national language.[17] On 9 January 1917 the corps command approved the initiative to call in suitable experts, especially Xhuvani, a corresponding member of the commission living in Elbasan, for a closer study of the Elbasan dialect and the other dialects of Central Albania.[18]

At the centre of the conflict stood the rivalry between Kral and Pekmezi, the course of which we shall try to trace below through the private correspondence between Kral, Rappaport and Pekmezi, as well as through a memorandum by Pekmezi. It was Alfred Rappaport, head of the Albania department at the Ballhausplatz, who at the end of August 1916 strongly recommended Pekmezi to the civil commissioner Kral in Shkodra in connection with the formation of an Albanian literary commission: "This idealism, which distinguishes Pekmezi so favourably from many of his compatriots, will also find pleasing expression in his activity in Shkodra. The main purpose of these lines is to ask you to support him as far as possible in his work. Indeed, for obvious reasons we have an interest in ensuring that the future written Albanian language is not shaped according to the wishes of a few people from Shkodra, but has rather a pan-Albanian character, as corresponds to the view of Pekmezi and other linguists and as necessity demands, unless we wish to sever the ties between Ghegs and Tosks altogether."[19] Kral promised Rappaport that he would look after Pekmezi in every way and at the same time informed him of his official report on the Albanian Literary Commission, which he himself had founded. Through this report Rappaport could learn which ideas had guided Kral in founding it and what great tasks would fall to Pekmezi in leading it.[20] But only two and a half months later Pekmezi's position as head of the commission was already being called into question, and the antagonism between him and Kral was evident, as emerges from a private letter from Pekmezi to Kral: "In sending the Consul General the supplement to my report, I take the liberty of pointing out once again the differences that have unfortunately arisen concerning the fulfilment of the commission's task. I do so because, after careful consideration and recalling my conversations at the foreign ministry in Vienna, I believe I must draw attention to the fact that the creation of a so-called official language as proposed by Gurakuqi, in which the school textbooks were also to be written, was not the intention of the foreign ministry in Vienna and is not provided for in the commission's statutes issued by the highest command in Albania. If we were to try to create a mixed language, which would not be based on science, it would be essentially Gheg, because the commission consists solely of Ghegs, with the exception of myself and Peci. So it would be better for us to publish in Gheg now and for the time being. We must bear in mind that many people who will certainly return to the country after the war will not accept such a mixed language. Father Gjergj Fishta, too, will continue to use his own language for his private publications. I fear that we shall have to withdraw the school textbooks written in this language again, as already happened to us once over the alphabet question. In addition, there could also be political consequences. I ask you, Consul General, also to take into account that I am regarded personally solely as a philologist on account of my many years of work. I therefore cannot declare myself in agreement with unscientific work. I very much regret not being in agreement with the Consul General, but the foreign ministry in Vienna has not defined its view of my activity as chairman of the Albanian Literary Commission in such a way that I must always lead the commission against my own conviction, which is what would have to happen if I were merely to approve the agreements of individual members. I am not alone in my conviction; it is also shared by Dom Ndre Mjeda, Sotir Peci and Hil Mosi, so that a majority decision on this would not be possible."[21] Pekmezi felt betrayed and abandoned by the Ballhausplatz and thrown into a conflict of conscience because of his dual position: on the one hand as a linguist who felt bound only to scientific truth, and on the other as the head of a commission that had to achieve a politico-linguistic goal in the service of national unity. Perhaps at Kral's request, Rappaport addressed Pekmezi in a reassuring private letter, intended to back him as the defender of the scientific point of view within the commission and to motivate him to continue his work as its head: "Above all, you must consider that you could do the unscientific opposition you have to fight no greater favour than to give up. That would remove precisely the only Albanian defender of a linguistic point of view, and all doors would be opened to dilettantism ... Of course you must not expect the military administration to approve your demands in everything. It is, after all, not a research body but a state body, which takes other considerations into account alongside scientific ones. For precisely this reason you must keep your place, so that you can always raise your voice in the spirit of the results of research. In the formation of the written Albanian language the voice of science must therefore also be heard. On some, perhaps even on many points, the linguistic point of view will certainly be taken into account. If this does not happen for one reason or another, then you can console yourself with the thought that the responsibility for not following scientific principles will not fall on you but on the opposition, and the future will surely prove you right. Paluca's arrival in Shkodra will certainly be a valuable support for you, because he is a Gheg. People will therefore understand that science is not, after all, identical with the Tosk point of view, as many people in Shkodra presume."[22]

In mid-December 1916 Kral complained to Rappaport about Pekmezi's destructive behaviour and assured him that the compromise on the dialect question had been reached only through Rappaport's influence on Pekmezi.[23] The commission had been founded mainly for the purpose of creating a unified orthography for the Albanian language and of editing the decrees, ordinances and publications of the corps command in a form of expression that would be understood throughout Albania. This activity of the commission was intended not only to be of practical use to the current administration but also to lay the foundations for the future unified written Albanian language. For weeks, or rather months, the commission had now been debating the linguistic questions related to this programme, and Pekmezi's influence was unfortunately exerted not in the spirit of balancing the existing contradictions but rather in that of an almost fanatical exacerbation of them. According to Kral, it was true that some people from Shkodra, such as Fathers Fishta and Marlaskaj, resolutely defended certain Gheg forms, but even they could not close their eyes to Vienna's great goal, which was politically and nationally important. They too had given their consent at various meetings to a whole series of innovations that would bring Gheg spelling and pronunciation much closer to those of Tosk. On these last two points the commission's work was blocked because Pekmezi, although Kral and all the others had explained to him that this did not stand in the way of linguistic development, was not prepared to make any concession and had declared the commission entirely incompetent.[24] According to Kral, a few weeks earlier Pekmezi had already approached the corps command entirely personally and without the knowledge of the other members of the commission, demanding, first, that the corps command compel the Albanians to use a particular orthography; second, that every attempt to create a common written language be abandoned and that both dialects, Gheg and Tosk, be used side by side for the time being; and third, that the commission be strengthened by the appointment of a second Albanologist. The first demand had been openly contrary to the programme of the corps command. The second would have exacerbated the existing contradictions, for which the Monarchy would later have been held responsible. In practice it would also have brought the literary movement in Albania to a standstill, especially in education, and would have made the publication of school texts for the whole of Albania extremely difficult. The third demand sought the appointment of Professor Dr Nahtigal of the University of Graz, who was the real author of various works published by Pekmezi. Regarding this last demand, Kral made a somewhat ironic comment that did not flatter Pekmezi's prestige: "I can describe this demand as nothing other than an admission of the inadequacy and weakness of his abilities, because he is absolutely unable to solve the problems himself. I understand very well that a major part of his difficulties arises from the fact that, as a 'non-Albanian', he unfortunately has rather a poor command of the Albanian language and, above all, speaks it badly."[25] Nevertheless, in order to strengthen Pekmezi's position, Kral had taken up all his requests aimed at finding allies for him. Thus, at Pekmezi's request, a special working committee of the Albanian Literary Commission had been set up, with Naraçi, Mjeda and Xhuvani as members chosen by Pekmezi himself. When Xhuvani declined, Kral immediately approved the appointment of Paluca, as requested by Pekmezi. A very valuable collaborator of the commission was Gurakuqi, who strove to balance the contradictions with great tact, deep learning and ardent patriotism, and who had won over its strongest initial opponents, such as Fishta and Marlaskaj, almost entirely to Pekmezi's side.

The civil commissioner worked tirelessly, but in vain, on the chairman of the commission, until Rappaport successfully intervened with Pekmezi, which Kral described as follows in his letter to Rappaport: "I first tried, through countless very long conversations, to help the various members of the commission get past the deadlock in their deliberations and to secure a majority for Pekmezi artificially, without his noticing. But he remained unbending, calling himself the only appointed Albanologist and all the others dilettantes and ignoramuses. His professorial and wholly unpolitical behaviour, which disdains the opinions of others, has naturally created much discontent and division. When even personal influence did not succeed, I prompted an order from the corps command which set out its wishes to the commission clearly and energetically. Meanwhile, Pekmezi had received your private letter dated 1 December 1916. I cannot thank you enough for the excellent arguments in your letter, which were point for point identical to my own views. The effect was great. The principles expressed in both documents, to which Pekmezi could no longer close his eyes, brought about, at the commission meeting of 11 December 1916, a complete reconciliation of the contradictions, so that the Elbasan dialect was unanimously accepted as the basis of a common written Albanian language for the whole of Albania. This also resolved the question of a common orthography in the best possible way."[26] Kral and the members of the commission were enthusiastic about this decision, which was a complete victory for Pekmezi's ideas and could have been regarded by Gheg Shkodra, which until then had shown itself almost fanatically separatist, as a confirmation of the earlier decisions of the Congress of Elbasan. But instead of implementing the new decisions immediately, as the corps command demanded, and starting to use the new spelling both in "Posta e Shqypnis" and in other publications, Pekmezi, according to Kral, declared at the meeting of 12 December 1916 that this was supposedly not possible, because the Elbasan dialect and the other dialects of Central Albania first had to be studied by Albanologists with phonographs and so on. Until then, he claimed, the spelling could not be changed. Kral protested vehemently against Pekmezi's stance, which he called obstructionist. He drew attention, on the one hand, to Pekmezi's unique chance to gain Symbolic Capital for himself – to put it in Bourdieu's vocabulary – by fulfilling his duties as chairman of the commission, and, on the other, to the damage both to the Austro-Hungarian action in Albania and to Pekmezi personally if he continued to insist on his scientific point of view: "I do not want to allow the success so laboriously achieved to be diminished again or to vanish altogether. I therefore want to do everything to put the new, balancing way of writing and expression into practice as quickly as possible. This in no way pre-empts scientific research, and, as far as it lies in my power, I shall not oppose the appointment of other experts. But I would have to take a stand against every advance being postponed to the Greek calends if the workers Pekmezi wants were not ready to travel for some reason, or if financial obstacles were to pile up. Wrong spellings or wrong expressions could be corrected later according to the results of scientific research, as is the case in every living language. But it cannot be tolerated that the linguistic development of Albanian, important for political and national reasons, should be delayed for the sake of personal vanity. By making proper use of his current, highly honoured position as the first chairman of the first Albanian Literary Commission, Pekmezi could gain scientific glory much more quickly and easily than would be the case through many years of research in the villages of Elbasan, whose linguistic results science would perhaps have to wait years for. It is doubtful whether the political situation of the Albanian people at that more distant time would be such that they would welcome having the professors' research forced upon them. The whole tendency of the Albanian people always to want to be right, and all experience so far, especially in the question of the alphabet, speak against this. In practice, the point is not to give a people the scientifically and theoretically most perfect variant, but rather something that convinces the limited intelligence of the masses, balances the existing contradictions and is satisfactory on the whole. Further development, refinement and embellishment in detail can be left to a more distant future ... But the continued existence of the Albanian Literary Commission is very close to our hearts; it is a linguistic necessity for us, so I would be very sorry if Pekmezi continued to show no understanding of this, or even wanted to resign. I would be very grateful if you would continue to influence him accordingly and draw his attention to the damage that a lack of understanding on his part would cause, not only to our action in Albania but also to him personally."[27]

In mid-March 1917 Kral also found words of praise for the collaboration of Lambertz who, despite his earlier support for the view of Fishta – who saw the Shkodra dialect as the country's future language, even though it was spoken nowhere else in Albania – had encouraged an impartial stance on the part of the commission.[28] In October 1917, on the other very important question of the orthographic rules of the written Albanian language, Pekmezi set himself against the two members of the commission whom Kral had singled out for praise in his reports: Lambertz and Gurakuqi.[29] The commission therefore took a decision in Pekmezi's absence, which was accepted by the corps command. As a result, Pekmezi resigned. Kral, who had always supported Pekmezi until then, abandoned him because the corps command pressed him for a decision. Pekmezi's reasoning in his letter of resignation suggests that – regardless of the fact that he certainly had very personal motives for his decision – he felt himself to be more a member of the Albanological Field than of the Political Field and the Brückenkopf Field: "The result of the studies of the scientific delegation to Central Albania/Elbasan (Nahtigal, Lambertz, Pekmezi, Mjeda) shows the correctness of my view that a written language or standard language is, as a rule, determined not by a commission but by important writers. In this specific case, the best connoisseur of the Albanian language and the outstanding writer would be Kostandin Kristoforidhi of Elbasan. This man's language also served me as the basis for the newspaper I edited, 'Vellaznija', which had been founded before I was called to Albania. I must stress that this newspaper is the most widely read and most popular newspaper in the whole of Albania, which is further proof of the correctness of my views. When I returned to Shkodra from leave in order to continue the work in this spirit and finally achieve a definitive success, I noticed, to my greatest regret, that neither my plans nor the results of the scientific studies had been respected, but that matters had gone in a direction with which I could in no way agree, given my scientific convictions and my honour."[30]

The files of the Shkodra consulate archive in the Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv in Vienna show that the rivalry between Kral and Pekmezi apparently escalated into a personal enmity, referred to in the files as the "Pekmezi affair".[31] According to Kral, Pekmezi was intriguing against him with the corps command in order to find support in the Albanian Literary Commission from a new civil commissioner. In this connection Kral mentioned the improper lifestyle of Pekmezi's wife in Albania. According to Pekmezi, Kral allowed himself to be influenced by Pekmezi's opponents and therefore showed a hostile attitude towards Pekmezi. Kral even brought a lawsuit against Pekmezi over a defamatory remark, which he later dropped after a written statement by Pekmezi. Pekmezi had allegedly claimed in a Viennese café that Kral had been earning additional income in silver coins.

In July 1916 Pekmezi had addressed a memorandum to Kral which – according to the note in the relevant file – was never submitted to Kral for unstated reasons, and which, in retrospect, despite its exaggerations on some points, reads like a self-fulfilling prophecy.[32] It may be assumed that the line of argument expressed in it was, at least in broad outline, the same one that Pekmezi later defended within the commission. However, it is difficult to judge whether an earlier submission of the memorandum would have helped to avoid or to increase the mutual misunderstandings and prejudices between Kral and Pekmezi. In any case, Pekmezi divided his detailed memorandum into three aspects: a scientific one, a political one and a personal one. According to him, he had learned by chance that the administration of Albania planned to set up a commission whose task would be, first and foremost, to exert a decisive influence on the development of the entire intellectual activity of the Albanian people by dealing with linguistic and educational questions. Pekmezi had also heard that he would have the great honour of being called to this commission, whose initiator was Consul General Kral. Fully understanding, on the one hand, the nobility and importance of the purpose on which this commission was based and, on the other, the difficulty and responsibility that weighed on the shoulders of its members, he wished to express his opinion on the foreseeable success of this planned undertaking and to set it out in its scientific, political and personal aspects.

As far as science was concerned, Pekmezi believed "that the planned commission, because of its composition, whatever that may be, will not be able to carry out the required task in a desirable and satisfactory manner. With regard to the examination and treatment of the questions of a language that is still at the beginning of its development, an indisputable scientific decision can only be expected from experts ... But this knowledge is lacking in the men who will most likely be called to the commission. They all approach the work with a prejudice based on the ambitions of a single linguistic tribe. Moreover, there is no one among them who has the proper scientific training and the proper philological education."[33] One or another of them may know his own dialect equally well in speech and in writing, and may even be active as a poet and writer – but they were nevertheless supposedly not capable of determining a written language and an orthography that all the Albanian tribes would share. The distance from poet and writer to philologist and linguist was just as great as that from linguist to man of letters. In the literary history of other peoples there were examples of disputed language questions causing conflicts that had lasted for decades. Thus the fiercest battles and enmities had broken out when Vuk Stefanović Karadžić[34] introduced the letter –j– into the Serbian language. Karadžić had had to leave the country, although his view had been right and later prevailed. There were similar problems in the Albanian language. Referring to his intended activity in the commission, Pekmezi stated pessimistically: "In the planned commission my scientific point of view would find only little understanding and support. In a vote I would be left alone with my views, which would have consequences that I wish to explain at the end of my submission. Unfortunately, on the basis of my experience, I cannot expect a commission in which the majority decides to arrive at a solution to the open questions, especially the linguistic ones, that would serve the interests of the whole Albanian people."[35]

Politically, according to Pekmezi, the consequences of resolving the open questions could take on great significance. The commission, meeting in Shkodra, would have mainly or exclusively members from Shkodra, who wanted to see only their own views prevail and other opinions in no way emerge. Given their mindset, which considered the Shkodra dialect the most beautiful and expected good things to come only from Shkodra, persuading them of another point of view was almost entirely out of the question. If the demands of the Shkodra members found a majority in a vote and were consequently accepted by the administration, the dialect of one tribe, spoken at one point on the periphery of Albania, would be raised to the status of the written language. Communication with the other tribes, who lived at the opposite end of the Albanian territories and spoke other dialects, would not only become extremely difficult but almost entirely impossible. For an Albanian from Gjirokastra, for example, the Shkodra dialect was certainly incomparably more difficult than any dialect of Central Albania. The other Albanian tribes would rightly feel neglected if the Shkodra dialect were preferred to their own. In this connection Pekmezi, perhaps deliberately, painted a very gloomy picture of the future: "Enmities will arise among the Albanians themselves, the consequences of which may have an unimaginable impact. The Albanian people, who ought to be united and strengthened in themselves, being hot-blooded, would be driven by the action mentioned to a point where they would be torn apart. In addition, there is a great danger that the Tosks, through the adoption of the Shkodra dialect, would feel constrained and set back in their linguistic distinctiveness and deeply hurt, so that they would begin to embark on political adventures."[36] According to Pekmezi, the following circumstances supported his view: in all the Albanian churches of Italy, sermons were preached in Tosk, and in all the schools (e.g. San Demetrio Corone) teaching was in Tosk. The Albanian writers of earlier and present times in Italy were Tosks and wrote in their own dialect. An Albanian living in Italy had published a textbook with the Otto Sauer publishing house in Heidelberg, intended to enable Italians to learn the Tosk dialect. In addition, there was the weight of a large and well-organised Tosk colony in the United States, which for many years had used only Tosk in its newspapers and literary publications. The Tosk element among the Albanians was, as was well known, more spiritually alive and therefore more developed than the Gheg element. Pekmezi warned of a dangerous cooling between the Tosks and the Dual Monarchy: "The circumstances described could give rise in Albania to a current that might cause a gradual cooling towards the state that ought to be regarded as the liberator of Albania. The administration runs the risk of achieving, through the planned commission, the opposite of what it wants."[37]

In his final account of the personal aspect, Pekmezi drew attention to the risk to his Symbolic Capital – to speak once again in Bourdieu's terms – describing in detail the very delicate situation in which he would inevitably find himself by taking on the leading role within the commission, and which would predestine him to be the loser. To return to Pekmezi's own words: for more than twenty years he had been working in a field to which he had been drawn by love of the discipline and by a modest endeavour to help his people, as far as he could, reach a higher cultural level. His work in the field of philology and his other activity under the aegis of the Austro-Hungarian government, which he had served for many years with loyal gratitude and enthusiastic, selfless joy, had earned him appreciation, prestige and trust among his compatriots. Now, however, the following dilemma arose: "My honourable appointment to this planned commission for solving the oft-mentioned problems could easily put me in a situation from which it would be difficult to find a way out befitting my position. In the commission I could represent only the point of view that I have recognised as correct on the basis of my scientific studies and have already presented in my books and writings. A departure from this view would be compatible neither with my honour as a scholar nor with my honour as a man, and would make me ridiculous in the eyes of all serious and renowned philologists and Albanologists. But if I persist within the commission in my scientific conviction, I shall undoubtedly come into conflict with the gentlemen who are expected to be sent to the commission, whom I know both personally and by their way of thinking, and I shall certainly be outvoted."[38] Up to this point Pekmezi's arguments are, on the whole, understandable. But what he wrote next seems illogical and at least unclear: "Through this humiliation not only would my former friends among my compatriots become my sworn enemies, but at the same time I would lose all the prestige and trust I have laboriously earned over many years. I would be cast into insecurity, and perhaps my ideal life's work would be destroyed at a stroke."[39] We may rather suppose that Pekmezi, by being outvoted in the commission, would at worst have been made ridiculous in public and among his professional colleagues only temporarily; but his friends would certainly not have become his enemies for this reason, nor would his life's work have been destroyed. I believe that rather the opposite would have happened: because of his loyalty to the scientific point of view, which would have led to his being outvoted in the commission, his professional colleagues at least would have honoured him even more, which would have meant a considerable gain in prestige for him in academic circles. However – and this too must in fairness be said – it would have meant a great loss of prestige for him in political circles. This must have been why Pekmezi, who also considered himself an actor in the Political Field, once again issued a threat in the direction of Vienna: "Since my compatriots also know that I am in the service of the Austro-Hungarian government, it could not be ruled out that the resentment that would arise against me in this case might perhaps also extend to the Austro-Hungarian government and create circumstances on which the previous political interests and directives of the Austro-Hungarian government regarding this Albanian question could not exert much influence."[40]

Pekmezi's memorandum concluded with a pointer-like proposal which, in his view, corresponded theoretically and practically to the scientific ideal but offered little hope of acceptance, because the people of Shkodra, in their short-sightedness, held that they did not need experts but could decide for themselves: "Given the circumstances currently prevailing in Albania, the determination of the written language must take the path that all the Albanologists and philologists with whom I have had occasion to speak have regarded as the only right one: an Albanologist goes to Central Albania, accompanied by a few people who know the subject and the country, equipped with the necessary phonetic apparatus, in order to study the transitional dialects from Tosk to Gheg, record them with a phonograph, fix the phonetics precisely and in this way build the skeleton of the future written Albanian language. This skeleton would later have to be clothed and adorned with the beauties and riches of the phraseology and lexicography of all the Albanian dialects."[41] This proposal of Pekmezi's was indeed accepted and partly implemented later. He also pointed out that there were other ways in which a written language could come into being. It might be the case, for instance, that a poet or writer, through virtuoso mastery of his manner of expression and writing, exerted such great influence on society that his language became the norm and prevailed over every other dialect. This or any other path was for the time being ruled out in Albania, because the intelligentsia itself either could not read or had no desire for home-grown reading.

In conclusion, we can say that on the dialect question the Ballhausplatz, represented by Kral, wanted an accelerated agreement in favour of political goals and at the expense of science, while Pekmezi, torn between his positions as a scientific actor and a political actor, wanted to meet scientific criteria but in the end had to bow to pressure from Vienna.

[1] See the standard work Tomor Osmani (2009): Komisia Letrare Shqipe në Shkodër (1916–1918) dhe Shoqëria e të Shtypurit Shkronja Shqip (1879), Shoqëria „Bashkimi“ (1899), Shoqëria „Agimi“ (1901). Shkodra: Camaj–Pipa.
[2] The list of publications by and about Bourdieu is very long. See, as an introduction, Christian Papilloud (2003): Bourdieu lesen. Einführung in eine Soziologie des Unterschieds. Mit einem Nachwort von Loic Wacquant. Bielefeld: Transcript.
[3] See Immanuel Wallerstein: The Modern World-System, published in four volumes in 1974, 1980, 1989 and 2011.
[4] Johan Galtung (1971): A Structural Theory of Imperialism. In: Journal of Peace Research 8, 2, pp. 81–117; Johan Galtung (1990): Cultural Violence. In: Journal of Peace Research 27, 3, pp. 291–305.
[5] Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv Wien (hereafter: HHStA), Konsulatsarchiv Skutari, K 21–3 Literatur: Literarische Kommission, Privatbrief von Kral an Rappaport, 5.9.1916.
[6] Mariano San Nicolo (1918): Die Verwaltung Albaniens durch die k. u. k. österreichisch–ungarischen Truppen in den ersten zwei Jahren der Besetzung des Landes an der Hand der ergangenen Befehle. Zum Amtsgebrauch bearbeitete Sammlung der vom Höchsten Kommando in Albanien erlassenen Verordnungen normativen Charakters. Wien: Kriegsministerium, p. 248.
[7] Laimet e Komisis Letrare Shqipe, Shkodra, 1918, p. 2.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Tomor Osmani (1987): Çështje të gjuhës letrare shqipe gjatë viteve 1916–1918. In: Buletin shkencor, Shkodra, no. 1, p. 49 f.
[10] HHStA, Konsulatsarchiv Skutari, K 21–3 Literatur: Literarische Kommission, Korpskommando– Verordnung, Ev.nr. 2954/II, 10.11.1917, Statut für die Albanische Literarische Kommission in Skutari.
[11] Robert Schwanke (1977): Österreich–Ungarns Beitrag zur Gestaltung der albanischen Schriftsprache. In: Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums Innsbruck 1972 zum Gedächtnis an Norbert Jokl. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, p. 717.
[12] HHStA, Konsulatsarchiv Skutari, K 21–3 Literatur: Literarische Kommission, an die Unterrichtslandesdirektion und an die albanische literarische Kommission ergangener Befehl des 19. Korpskommandos vom 19.1.1917 betreffs Schaffung von Lehrtexten.
[13] Ibid.
[14] HHStA, Ministerium des Äußeren, Präs. Nr. 208, Schreiben vom 21.3.1917 an das Generalkonsulat in Scutari betreffs Arbeiten der literarischen Kommission und Herstellung von albanischen Lehrtexten.
[15] HHStA, Ministerium des Äußeren, Präs. Nr. 1668, Schreiben vom 6.4.1917 an Generalkonsul August Kral in Scutari betreffs Lehrbehelfe für die albanischen Schulen.
[16] HHStA, Ministerium des Äußeren, Präs. Nr. 208, Schreiben vom 21.3.1917 an das Generalkonsulat in Scutari betreffs Arbeiten der literarischen Kommission und Herstellung von albanischen Lehrtexten; Schwanke (1977), p. 724 f.
[17] HHStA, Konsulatsarchiv Skutari, K 21–3 Literatur: Literarische Kommission, Präs. Nr. 1165, Privatbrief von Kral an Rappaport, 16.12.1916.
[18] HHStA, Konsulatsarchiv Skutari, K 21–3 Literatur: Literarische Kommission, Verordnung des Korpskommandos vom 9.1.1917 an die Albanische Literarische Kommission.
[19] HHStA, Konsulatsarchiv Skutari, K 21–3 Literatur: Literarische Kommission, Präs. Nr. 900, Privatbrief von Rappaport an Kral, 31.8.1916.
[20] HHStA, Konsulatsarchiv Skutari, K 21–3 Literatur: Literarische Kommission, Privatbrief von Kral an Rappaport, 5.9.1916.
[21] HHStA, Konsulatsarchiv Skutari, K 21–3 Literatur: Literarische Kommission, Privatschreiben Pekmezis an Kral, 23.11.1916.
[22] HHStA, Konsulatsarchiv Skutari, K 21–3 Literatur: Literarische Kommission, Privatschreiben Rappaports an Pekmezi, 1.12.1916.
[23] HHStA, Konsulatsarchiv Skutari, K 21–3 Literatur: Literarische Kommission, Präs. Nr. 1165, Privatbrief von Kral an Rappaport, 16.12.1916.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] HHStA, Konsulatsarchiv Skutari, K 21–3 Literatur: Literarische Kommission, Kral aus Shkodra an das Ministerium des Äußeren, Präs. Nr. 190, 14.3.1917.
[29] HHStA, Konsulatsarchiv Skutari, K 21–3 Literatur: Literarische Kommission, Kral aus Shkodra an das Ministerium des Äußeren, 20.10.1917, betreffs albanischer Orthographie, Albanischer Literarischer Kommission und Pekmezis Demission.
[30] Ibid.
[31] HHStA, Konsulatsarchiv Skutari (1916–1918), K 10–5 Affäre Pekmezi.
[32] HHStA, Konsulatsarchiv Skutari, K 21–3 Literatur: Literarische Kommission, Memorandum Pekmezis an Generalkonsul Kral, Juli 1916.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Serbian philologist (1787–1864) who reformed the written Serbian language.
[35] HHStA, Konsulatsarchiv Skutari, K 21–3 Literatur: Literarische Kommission, Memorandum Pekmezis an Generalkonsul Kral, Juli 1916.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Ibid.