Kristijono Gotlybo Milkaus žodyno „Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch“ (1800) prãtarmės: datavimas ir intertekstinės sąsajos

Ona Aleknavičienė

doi:10.35321/all85-04

Go to original

Preparing document pages…

1 short passage of this localized version is shown in the original language because it could not be localized reliably.

ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

ORCID id: orcid.org/0000–0003–4704–6308

Research areas: the heritage of Lithuanian studies, the history of the language, literature, and culture of Lithuania Minor.

DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all85-04

PREFACE TO KRISTIJONAS GOTLYBAS MILKUS’S LITTAUISCH-DEUTSCHES UND DEUTSCH-LITTAUISCHES WÖRTER-BUCH (1800): DATING AND INTERTEXTUAL CONNECTIONS

The Preface and Forewords to Christian Gottlieb Mielcke’s Dictionary Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800): Dating and Intertextual Connections

ANNOTATION

The article analyses four prefaces to Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus’s dictionary Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800), written by its compiler, cantor Milkus (Pilkalnis); pastor Daniel Jenisch (Berlin); Christoph Friedrich Heilsberg, Councillor of War and Domains and inspector of schools in East Prussia (Karaliaučius); and philosopher Immanuel Kant (Karaliaučius). The aim of the study is to date the prefaces and assess their intertextual connections. On the basis of Milkus’s letter to Heilsberg dated 11 April 1799, it is established that Milkus could have written his preface in April–May 1799 at Heilsberg’s urging. An analysis of intertextuality shows that Immanuel Kant drew on all three; consequently, his preface should be dated after 24 December 1799 (after Heilsberg’s preface). Intertextual connections link Jenisch’s preface with Milkus’s, and Heilsberg’s with Jenisch’s and Milkus’s. Since Heilsberg initiated Milkus’s preface and wrote one himself,

Straipsniai / Articles

ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

he acted as an intermediary between Milkus and the printers, maintained contact with all the authors, and possessed governmental authority; this could have created conditions for them to draw on one another’s texts and thus shape a contemporary discourse on the use of the Lithuanian language and the publication of educational books.

KEYWORDS: Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus, Daniel Jenisch, Christoph Friedrich Heilsberg, Immanuel Kant, dictionary, preface, intertextuality.

ANNOTATION

The paper focuses on the analysis of the preface and three forewords to Christian Gottlieb Mielcke’s Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800). They were written by cantor Mielcke (Pilkalnis), the compiler of the dictionary, priest Daniel Jenisch (Berlin), Christoph Friedrich Heilsberg (Königsberg), an assessor at the War and Domains Chamber and a school inspector of East Prussia, and philosopher Immanuel Kant (Königsberg). The research was aimed at (1) the dating of the preface and the forewords and (2) the evaluation of intertextual connections. Based on Mielcke’s letter to Heilsberg of 11 April 1799, it has been determined that encouraged by Heilsberg, Mielcke wrote the preface in April–May 1799. Intertextual analysis shows that as Kant resorted to the preface and two forewords, his foreword should be dated after 24 December 1799 (after Heilsberg’s foreword). Intertextual connections link the foreword by Jenisch with that by Mielcke’s preface and the foreword by Heilsberg with Jenisch’s foreword and Mielcke’s preface. Since Heilsberg was the initiator of Mielcke’s preface, wrote one himself, was an intermediary between Mielcke and the printing-house, maintained contacts with all the authors and was also an official with certain powers, he was in the position to enable the authors to refer to each other’s texts and thus form a discourse relevant for the use of the Lithuanian language and publishing of educational books.

KEYWORDS: Christian Gottlieb Mielcke, Daniel Jenisch, Christoph Friedrich Heilsberg, Immanuel Kant, dictionary, preface, intertextuality.

0. INTRODUCTION

The preface to Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus’s dictionary Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800) has been discussed on various occasions and for various purposes. There are four prefaces in the dictionary: the first by Milkus himself, the second by Daniel Jenisch (1762–1804), the third by Christoph Friedrich Heilsberg (1726–1807), and the fourth by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). In the historiography of Lithuanian linguistics and literary scholarship, they have been treated as a declaration of solidarity in defence of the Lithuanian nation and language, a programme of resistance to Germanisation

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Prefaces to Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus’s dictionary Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800): Dating and Intertextual Connections

a programme of resistance to Germanisation (Rickevičiūtė 1968: 56–65; Koženiauskienė 1990: 546, cf. Girdzijauskas 1990: 25–26), an effort to preserve Lithuanian as important for knowing the nation (Zinkevičius 1990: 266), and an attempt to shape public opinion on the occasion of the publication of books (Gineitis 1990: 123–124). Nevertheless, attention was usually focused on Kant’s preface: scholars repeatedly sought connections between the founder of classical German philosophy and the Lithuanian nation. His preface, “Nachschrift eines Freundes” (“A Friend’s Postscript”), is favourable both to the Lithuanian language and to Lithuanians as an ethnic group in the Kingdom of Prussia. Lithuanian and foreign scholars have examined the reasons for its appearance, its ideas, Kant’s personal and professional relations with the authors of the other prefaces (Rickevičiūtė 1968: 56–65; Putinaitė 2004: 287–299; Bense 2006: 209–212; Sidabraitė 2020: 192–208 and elsewhere), and the relationship between its propositions and philosophical views (Putinaitė 2004: 298–299; Putinaitė 2005: 34–40; Shell 2010: 1–38). It is thought to be the last work published by Kant himself (Kant 2008: 431, cf. Kern 2007: 82), which makes it intrinsically intriguing, as if encouraging a search for his “final word.”

Although the preface has already been written about, the question of when it was created remains relevant; data concerning the initiator and circumstances are still lacking, and possible versions of the connections continue to be discussed (cf. Putinaitė 2004: 294–295; Sidabraitė 2020: 194–197, 202, 205). Taking the prefaces to Milkaus’s dictionary as the object of this study, the following aims are proposed: to establish the chronology of their composition, their intertextual connections, and the continuity of the claims. In pursuing these aims, three tasks arise: 1) to establish the dedication of the prefaces; 2) to find new data to clarify their dating and the initiative behind their creation; 3) to identify the general claims and assess the strategy of their appropriation.

In examining the dating and circumstances of their creation, the study relies on historical methods (analysis of archival documents); in analysing intertextual relations, the theory of text linguistics, intertextuality, is applied as a methodological approach; and in summarising the research data, the analytical-descriptive and interpretive methods are used (for further discussion of methodology and terminology, see Section 2.1). Intertextuality is a broad concept encompassing both the creation of texts on the basis of other authors’ texts (by quoting, paraphrasing, or modifying them) and a theory of reading those texts (for the concepts intertext⟧, intertextuality, see Heinemann 1997: 21–37; Melnikova 2003: 5–99 and the literature cited there; Bitinienė 2005: 68–72; Koženiauskienė 2007: 1; Petrauskaitė, Šinkūnienė 2015: 69–71). Since this theory encompasses not only the problem of identifying sources and influences but also the relations between an adopted and a newly created text, it is particularly suitable for analysing works in the scholarly style. In such works, new information is created on the basis of what is already known, selected according to particular criteria, and directed, together with the newly created text, to an addressee in the expectation of further dialogue. Reliance on another text is usually made explicit, but not always: an earlier text is often paraphrased, integrated, and assimilated; thus intertextuality may take two forms: explicit and implicit (Bitinienė

Straipsniai / Articles

ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

2005: 69). The clearest example of intertextual relations is direct quotation, that is, an explicit appeal to another text, which is incorporated into one’s own while simultaneously being distanced by displaying its “otherness” in quotation marks (Melnikova 2003: 55; Bitinienė 2005: 69; Helbig 1996); however, intertextual relations are also evidenced by quotations, allusions, and hints not enclosed in quotation marks or otherwise distinguished—both with and without a reference to the source.

1. PRATARMĖS PRIESKYRA IR CHRONOLOGIJA

A preface is an important element of paratextuality: it presents a work’s purpose and helps the author establish a relationship with the reader by encouraging an appropriate understanding of the work. The prefaces to Milkus’s dictionary were written in German. The first three have no thematic titles; they are merely numbered “Erste Vorrede,” “Zweite Vorrede,” and “Dritte Vorrede,” while the fourth is entitled a friend’s postscript: “Nachschrift eines Freundes” (for their content and connections, see Sections 2, 2.1–2.4). All the prefaces are placed between the dictionary’s title page and its text, and are therefore traditionally treated as paratexts of the dictionary. Their importance is also indicated by the dictionary’s title, which states that it is published with prefaces, while the authors’ offices are also given: Milkus—cantor in Pilkalnis; Jenisch—pastor in Berlin; Heilsberg—Councillor of War and Domains; Kant—professor:

Littauič=deutsches || und || Deutsch=littauisches || Wörter=Buch, [...] || vermehret || und verbessert worden || von || Christian Gottlieb Mielcke, || Cantor in Pillckallen. || With a preface by the author, || the Reverend Prediger Jenisch in Berlin, || and by the Hon. Krieges= und Domainen=Raths || Heilsberg, || as well as an afterword by Professor || Professor Kant (Mielcke 1800: 1r).

In fact, however, Milkus’s own preface is devoted to two works—not only the dictionary but also a grammar published in the same year at the Hartung printing house. This is Anfangs-Gründe einer Littauischen Sprach-Lehre (1800). The first part of the preface, oriented toward the dictionary, describes the area in which Lithuanian was used in the Kingdom of Prussia, its users, lexicographic sources, and the aims and principles of its preparation (M 2r–4r)¹. The second part indicates the principles according to which the grammar was prepared, its structure, and the dialect selected (M 4v–5v). Since both books are presented in the preface as educational aids, they were then regarded as a publishing convolute,

¹ The metadata of the prefaces below is formed from the first letters of the surnames M, J, H, K and the folio number.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Kristijono Gotlybo Milkaus žodyno Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800) pratarmės: datavimas ir intertekstinės sąsajos

printed in the expectation that they would be bound and distributed as a single book (although this plan was not followed later, and they were also distributed separately).

Both books were prepared on the basis of works published in Karaliaučius 53 years earlier: the foundation of the first was Pilypas Ruigys’s (Philipp Ruhig, 1675–1749) dictionary Littauisch–Deutsches und Deutsch–Littauisches Lexicon (1747), and that of the second was his son Povilas Frydrichas Ruigys’s (Paul Friedrich Ruhig, ~1721–~1784) grammar Anfangsgründe einer Littauischen Grammatick (1747). Milkus updated and supplemented the works, and, instead of Pilypas Ruigys’s preface, which had appeared in the dictionary, added four new ones. In 1800 the grammar was reissued without any preface, although the 1747 edition had one: the author presented the motives for publication and the principles of preparation.

Jenisch dedicated his preface to Milkus’s dictionary: he regarded it as a work of exceptional importance and added words of praise for its compiler (J 7r; J 11v). Heilsberg’s preface contains the general proposition that Lithuanian is difficult to learn in the absence of good grammars and dictionaries. Yet he identified the dictionary as the most reliable and entirely sufficient aid for learning: “er hiezu das ficherte und hinreichend=llfte Mittel geliefert hat,” and at the end of the preface, when assessing the significance of Milkus’s work and writings, he likewise singled out only the dictionary (H 15r). Kant, by contrast, mentioned neither the dictionary nor the grammar nor the compiler. The title of his preface shows that it is merely an addition to what has already been discussed, a kind of post scriptum, by which one usually states either a secondary matter that did not fit well with the main one or a relevant thought that had been forgotten or lost among others.

In his preface, Milkus mentioned only one of the authors—Heilsberg, as the person who encouraged him to prepare a new dictionary and, together with unnamed friends, determined his decision to undertake it:

Allein ‖ das Andringen meiner Freunde, die Aufmunterung des ‖ Herrn Kriegs= und Domainenraths Heilsberg, die Noth=||wendigkeit eines folchen Buches, [...] || alle diefe Gründe bewogen mich zu dem ‖ Entfchluß, ein neues Wörterbuch auszuarbeiten (M 3r).

In the Secret State Archive of Prussian Cultural Heritage (German Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz; GStA PK) in Berlin, letters are preserved that testify that Milkus corresponded with Heilsberg. At that time (from 1787), the latter held the position of inspector of schools in East Prussia (Malter 1990: 20) (see section 2). At least three letters from Milkus to him, written in 1799–1800, demonstrate intensive communication concerning Lithuanian studies: the preparation of three works is mentioned, and there is also discussion of sending students to the seminary (for the publication of the letters, see Triškaitė, Sidabraitė 2019: 226–235). The letter of April 11, 1799, provides important information for dating Milkus’s preface and identifying its initiator. Milkus states that, taking Heilsberg’s advice into account, he would write a preface to the dictionary and send it to him together with the grammar within four weeks. The latter was also intended to be given to Professor Krause so that he could finally “polish” it.

Straipsniai / Articles

ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

Milkus agreed in the letter to have the grammar reviewed, which shows that the idea of reviewing it too came not from him but from Heilsberg:

In accordance with Your Well-Born’s highly esteemed counsel, I shall compose a preface to the Lithuanian Dictionary= and will not fail to send it, together with the Grammar, within four and a half= weeks; I also regard it as a particular kindness if Mr. Professor Kraufe would take the trouble to polish it completely (Mielcke 1799–04–11: 11r; Triškaitė, Sidabraitė 2019: 226–229).

Thus Milkus wrote the preface in response to Heilsberg’s advice and, judging from the letter, was to do so between mid-April and mid-May 1799. In the letter he also requested that the printers Gottlieb Lebrecht Heering and Georg Karl Haberland relieve him at that time of translating the postil^². In addition, Milkus sent Heilsberg four sermons from the postil and a letter to be delivered to the printers (Mielcke 1799–04–11: 11r; Triškaitė, Sidabraitė 2019: 226–229). In a letter dated 27 March 1800, Milkus wrote about a journey to New East Prussia and sent another sermon, promising to send the other two later. This shows that Heilsberg was also an intermediary between Milkus and the printing house concerning the postil. Thus not only the dictionary preface but also other texts first came into Heilsberg’s hands, after which he determined their further course.

Heilsberg wrote his preface considerably later than Milkus: on 24 December 1799: “Königsberg, den 24ten Decbr. 1799. C. F. Heilsberg” (H 15v). Jenisch’s preface, written in Berlin, is dated a month and a half earlier than Heilsberg’s: 7 November 1799: “Berlin, den 7ten Novbr. 1799. Jenisch” (J 11v); chronologically, it falls between Milkus’s and Heilsberg’s. Since Kant also drew on Heilsberg’s preface (for an analysis substantiating this reliance, see Sections 2, 2.1–2.2), it was written after 24 December 1799, perhaps as early as 1800. On the basis of the data currently available, the following chronology of the composition of the prefaces is likely:

^{¹ LENTELĖ.}Dating the Prefaces to Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus’s Dictionary

Milkus’s preface | April–May 1799, Pilkalnis Jenisch’s preface | 7 November 1799, Berlin Heilsberg’s preface | 24 December 1799, Karaliaučius Kant’s preface | after 24 December 1799–1800, Karaliaučius

^{² At that time Milkus was also translating, together with others, the postil by Johann Gottlob Heym (1738–1788),}Vollständige Sammlung von Predigten für christliche Landleute über alle Sonnund Festtagsevangelia des gantzen Jahrs (1796); the aforementioned printers also printed it in 1800 under the title Mišknygos.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Kristijono Gotlybo Milkaus žodyno Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800) pratarmės: datavimas ir intertekstinės sąsajos

2. INTERTEXTUAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE PREFACES

Judging from the time when the first three prefaces were written, Jenisch could have drawn on Milkus’s preface, Heilsberg on Jenisch’s and Milkus’s, and Kant on all three. Since the timing of Kant’s preface is the most relevant issue, it is first necessary to assess its intertextual connections with the others and use them to verify the chronology. The relationships among the individuals are also important for the analysis; therefore, both these relationships and previous views on communication among the authors of the prefaces are briefly reviewed.

Some scholars have proposed that the preface entitled A Friend’s Postscript and attributed to Kant was written as a supplement to Heilsberg’s preface (cf. Shell 2011: 7–9). They had been fellow students. Heilsberg came from Ragainė and was matriculated at the University of Karaliaučius on 19 May 1742: “Heilsberger Christoph. Frdr., Ragnit. Pruss.” (Erler 1911/1912: 396). From 1767 he was Councillor of the War and Domains Chamber in Karaliaučius; from 1787 he was inspector of schools in East Prussia in Karaliaučius (Malter 1990: 20), and a member of the Royal German Society.

In a letter to Samuel Gottlieb Wald on 17 April 1804, Heilsberg wrote that he had entered the university a year later than Kant (Malter 1990: 18–20); however, judging from the matriculation dates, Heilsberg entered two years after Kant. Kant was matriculated on 24 September 1740: “Kandt Eman., Regiomonte–Pruss., manu stip.” (Erler 1911/1912: 385). Kant lent him books on the latest philosophy and helped him amicably with preparing for seminars; the two of them and a student from Pilkalnis, Johann Heinrich Wlōmer (1726–1797), used to play billiards together (Malter 1990: 18–20). Heilsberg’s letters to Kant attest to close relations later as well; some of the letters are quite domestic in nature, especially those written in the last decade of the eighteenth century (Heilsberg 1795, 1796, 1798). Kant withdrew from active academic work in 1796.³ In view of their communication during and after their student years, it is also commonly believed that the “Friend’s Postscript” was intended for Heilsberg precisely because he called Kant his friend (Shell 2011: 7–9, cf. Putinaitė 2004: 291, 294–295).

The opinion that Kant regarded Milkus as a friend is fairly widespread (cf. Koženiauskienė 1990: 548). In seeking connections between Kant and the Lithuanian nation, much has been written about his possible Lithuanian (as well as Scottish, Curonian, or Swedish) origin, and kinship ties with some families of Lithuania Minor, including the Milkus family, have been sought⁴. One of Kant’s great-grandmothers was supposedly Anna Mielcke (Meyer 1927: 122). It was thought that the preface arose precisely because of kinship or even friendship, but both regarding Kant’s Lithuanian origin and his kinship with the Milkuses, there is still a lack of

³ On 12 July 1755 Kant defended his dissertation and became a master of philosophy and a privatdocent, and began lecturing; in 1770 he became professor of logic and metaphysics; he ceased lecturing in 1796 (Malter 1990: 24–32).

⁴ For an analytical overview of research on Kant’s origin, see Putinaitė 2003: 389–396; Putinaitė 2004: 299–316.

Straipsniai / Articles

ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

reliable data. Milkus was born in Įurbarkas (German Georgenburg, Įsrutis district) around 1733 and was matriculated at the University of Karaliaučius on 15 May 1751: “Mielcke, Christ. Theophil., Mehlkem. Boruss.” (Erler 1911/1912: 440). It is not known whether he completed his studies at the university, since he did not become a pastor. He was installed as cantor at the Evangelical Lutheran church in Pilkalnis on 11 July 1762 and worked there throughout his life (Triškaitė 2019: 94).

Kant was in contact with Jenisch. Jenisch came from Šventapilė (German Heiligenbeil) and was matriculated at the University of Karaliaučius on 8 March 1780: “Jenisch Daniel, Heiligenbeil. Boruss.” (Erler 1911/1912: 559); he studied theology and philosophy and was Kant’s student. Kant regarded him as one of his three best pupils (Malter 1990: 158, 353). After his studies (from 1786), Jenisch lived in Berlin, where he was preacher at the churches of St. Mary and St. Nicholas and professor at the Berlin Academy of Art and the University of Berlin. In Berlin he publicly explained the significance of Kant’s philosophy and corresponded with him⁵, but they belonged to different generations. Jenisch was the youngest of the authors of the prefaces.

2.1. Connections between Kant’s Preface and Jenisch’s and Heilsberg’s Prefaces

Kant’s preface contains no quotation distinguished by any means (quotation marks, a different typeface, or paragraph indentation); none of the authors of the prefaces is mentioned, and thus there are no clearly defined boundaries between one’s own and another’s text. When the thoughts of another person that serve as the basis for propositions are neither distinguished nor documented, it is appropriate to use not the concepts quotation and quoting, but adoption and adopting (for their definitions and types of adoption, see Aleknavičienė 2020: 158–161). It should be said at once that some of Kant’s sentences contain connections not with the propositions of a single author but with those of several; therefore, the results of the analysis are best presented by comparing them together (Sections 2.1–2.2)⁶.

Two types of adoption can be distinguished in Kant’s preface: referential⁷ and paraphrastic. A referential adoption is a hint at another text or texts in the first sentence: an earlier description is mentioned: “ift aus obiger Beschreibung derselben zu ersehen”. The singular form is used, which raises the question of which preface or prefaces

⁵ See the register of letters: https://korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/briefe/gesamt.html.

⁶ To make the analysis clearer, the propositions of the prefaces being compared are first presented in Lithuanian translation and numbered, and the original language is quoted thereafter. The translations have been updated on the basis of Liucija Citavičiūtė’s translations (Koženiauskienė 1990: 580–591).

⁷ Here, a referential adoption is understood as the mention of a source and a reference to its content.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Prefaces to Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus’s dictionary Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800): Dating and Intertextual Connections

were intended, that is, with which intertextual connections may exist both here and below.

(1) K 16r

It is clear from the description given above that it is indeed worthwhile to preserve the distinctiveness of the character of the Prussian Lithuanian, and since language is the most important means of forming and preserving it, to preserve its purity as well—both in school and in church.

K 16r

That the Prussian Lithuanian deserves very much to be preserved in the distinctiveness of his character and, since language is an excellent means of cultivating and preserving it, also in the purity of the latter, both in school= and pulpit instruction, can be seen from the description of it above.

Both Jenisch and Heilsberg described the character of the Prussian Lithuanian favourably, but the former emphasised more moral qualities—friendliness, hospitality, independence, and honesty (J 10v–11r), whereas the latter valued traits useful to the state: courage, endurance, industriousness, helpfulness, loyalty, and communality (H 13r–14v)^⁸. Both highlighted patriotism (J 10v; H 14r).

The views on preserving the language in Jenisch’s and Heilsberg’s prefaces, however, differ considerably. Heilsberg argued that it was inadvisable to introduce German in Prussia as the common language of the entire state. Although he was a high-ranking official—a Councillor of the War and Domains Chamber in Karaliaučius—he believed that this would not benefit the state, and that state officials, rather than the opposite, should learn the provincial language. Heilsberg argued as follows: if a Lithuanian lost his language, he would also lose his nationality, since the harmful influence of the German language and customs was already becoming apparent among Lithuanians living near the border or close to towns (H 15r). In contemporary terms, this would mean the loss of national identity. Moreover, according to Heilsberg, Lithuanians themselves were convinced that their morals would suffer if they exchanged their language, which was why they preserved it (H 14v).

Although Jenisch emphasised that Lithuanians were strongly attached to their language, he maintained that if German became an important means of expanding education and culture, “one could not object to the nobility of introducing German,” but that this was supposedly impossible because of the Lithuanians’ particular attachment to their language (J 10r–10v). Moreover, Jenisch prophesied the death of the Lithuanian language, which is characteristic of small nations because of their alignment with larger ones (J 6v–7r).

The earlier prefaces contain no direct proposition that language is the most important means of forming and preserving character; nevertheless, the basis for such an idea

^⁸ On Kant’s understanding of the character of nations, see Putinaitė 2005: 34–38.

Straipsniai / Articles

ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

is present in both. Jenisch began his preface by stating that every language is an exact reflection of the thinking and sensibility of the nation that uses it, a picture of the human spirit and inner experiences (J 6r). In his view, a Lithuanian’s love of his language deserves respect because through it “the uncorrupted customs of a small nation” have survived (J 10v). Heilsberg’s aforementioned words about the connection between language and morality and the loss of national identity that occurs when a language is lost lead to a similar proposition. Moreover, he said that the Lithuanian language contains many instructive aphorisms, proverbs, and sayings through which the seeds of decency and national virtues are planted in the souls of young people (H 14v); thus he understood language as a tool for forming and maintaining social and cultural identity.

When writing about Lithuanian pride, Kant compared Lithuanians with other nations, especially with one neighbouring nation, but did not name it:

(2) K 16r

I will add to this that he is less inclined to curry favor than his neighboring nations, accustomed to speak with his superiors as an equal with equals, openly and sincerely, while they do not take offense at this or manneredly refuse to shake his hand, because they know that he will gladly do everything. His haughtiness, unlike that of a certain well-known neighboring nation when someone nobler appears among them, is in fact pride, signifying courage and guaranteeing loyalty.

This comparison is related to Jenisch’s preface, where the claim is advanced as a justification that Lithuanians differ from their neighboring Poles through a self-respect resembling pride, whereas Poles have long been attributed blameworthy obsequiousness and haughtiness. This distinctive quality of Lithuanians has survived even through centuries of Polish rule, thereby revealing the independence of their character:

K 16r

I add to this one more thing: that he, more than the peoples neighboring him, is accustomed to speaking with no superiors in the tone of equality and familiar openness=, which they likewise do not take amiss or churlishly refuse the handshake=, because they find him willing in everything that is reasonable. A pride entirely distinct from all arrogance or from that of a certain neighboring nation, when someone among them is of higher rank—or rather, a sense of his own worth, which indicates courage and at the same time provides an assurance of his refined loyalty.

J 10v–11r

Rühmlich || zeichnen sie sich vor ihrem öffentlichen Nachbar, dem Po=||len, durch ein an Stolz grenzendes Selbstgefühl aus: || unterdeß der Beobachter an diesen von jeher einen gewis=||sen Geist der Kriecherey und der Wegwerfung zu tadeln || fand. Es verräth eine achtungswürdige Selbständigkeit || des littauischen Nazional=Charakters, daß sich jener edle || Zug, selbst während der manche Jahrhunderte durchdau=||renden Herrschaft der Polen über die Nazion, nicht ver=||wischte.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

The prefaces to Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus’s Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800): dating and intertextual connections

Paraphrasing Jenisch’s thought about the differences between Lithuanians and Poles, Kant added that the Lithuanian is accustomed to speak with his superiors as an equal with equals, openly and sincerely, and that they do not take offense at this or refuse to shake his hand. And if the Lithuanian appears haughty beside his superiors, this is not haughtiness but pride, signifying courage and guaranteeing loyalty. In this case, Kant’s borrowing was formed by applying an extensive strategy—by adding supplementary information.

(3) K 16r [the superiors] know that he will gladly do everything

The thought about the Lithuanian’s loyalty to his superiors is found in Heilsberg’s preface. The only difference is that Heilsberg, as an official, paid greater attention to compliance with ordinances and laws:

K 16r because they find him willing in all that is fair H 13v he submits to new official or=rders and laws

Heilsberg regarded the Lithuanian’s inborn quality as respect for the king, and love of his native land and sense of community as the reasons why the Lithuanian is a loyal citizen and a good soldier (H 14r).

The question of benefit and harm appears several times in Heilsberg’s preface: he considers what is useful or useless to the interests of the state. It has already been mentioned that, when describing the Lithuanian character, he likewise emphasized those traits that are useful to the state (H 13r–14v). Kant also acknowledges the benefit that the state can derive from such a nation:

(4) K 16r Yet, apart from the benefit that the state can derive with the support of a nation of such a character [...]

K 16r–16v But also apart from the benefit that the state || can derive from the assistance of a people of such character || [...]

Nevertheless, for Kant the significance of the Lithuanian language for scholarship was more important than Lithuanian support for the state (see section 2.2).

2.2. Connections between Kant’s preface and the prefaces of Jenisch and Milkus

Already in the first sentence of the preface, Kant, while referring to the ideas of the earlier prefaces, also stated his own distinctive idea: the purity of the language must be preserved.

Straipsniai / Articles

ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

Then, in advancing the claim about the importance of the language for scholarship, especially history, he emphasized its purity once again:

(5) K 16v

the advantages that an unmixed language of a very ancient tribe, now confined and isolated in a small territory, could offer scholarship, especially to the ancient history of the migrations of peoples, must also be properly appreciated, and for that reason preserving its distinctiveness is in itself of great importance.

Jenisch emphasized the importance of language for scholarship. In his preface he generally addressed scholars: linguists, historians, psychologists, and philosophers. It is precisely to them that the distinctive structure of any language, word formation, the combination of words, proverbs, and sayings provide the greatest amount of material (J 6r–6v). Jenisch sought to arouse the interest of scholarly unions and societies in ensuring that the languages of smaller nations, including Lithuanian, would not disappear through their attachment to dominant languages, or at least would not disappear without a trace, but would leave at least written sources (J 6v–7r).

Jenisch described in considerable detail the kinship of Lithuanian with other languages, especially Greek (J 7v–9r), and its similarity to Latin (J 7r–7v), thereby also positing the antiquity of Lithuanian. Moreover, he discerned features of the ancient proto-language in Lithuanian (J 7v–9v)⁹. That Jenisch was intensely interested in relations among languages is also shown by his work Philosophisch-kritische Vergleichung von vierzehn älteren und neueren Sprachen Europas (1796), where Lithuanian is compared with Polish and regarded as an independent language rather than a dialect of Polish. He considered the two languages related and descended from a single proto-language, and also discerned the kinship of Lithuanian with Prussian (Jenišch 1796: 417), and thus its antiquity. In the dictionary preface Jenisch argued that, through their kinship, languages become a historian’s magic ball, showing the way through the labyrinths of the origins, migrations, and mixing of ancient peoples (J 6v). Kant partly applied this to Lithuanian: the advantages that an unmixed language of an ancient and isolated tribe can offer scholarship, especially the ancient history of the migrations of peoples, must be valued. Jenisch, however, spoke neither about linguistic purity nor about localization and non-mixing with others—he merely mentioned that Lithuanians possess all the advantages and few of the shortcomings of peoples living separately (J 10v).

That Prussian Lithuanians lived compactly and in some areas had not mixed with Germans was written by Milkus (M 2r). He defined the area of Lithuanian usage as follows: it consisted only of five Prussian districts—Klaipėda, Tilžė, Ragainė, Labguva, and Įsrutė—and additionally New East Prussia, annexed to Prussia

⁹ He particularly valued the euphony of Lithuanian and its suitability for poetry (Jenišch 1796: 416–417, 351, 49; for his research and connections with the preface, see also Sidabraitė 2020: 197–200).

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

The prefaces to Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus’s Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800): dating and intertextual connections

Kingdom in 1795 during the third partition of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth¹⁰. According to Milkus, after the annexation there may have been about 200,000 Lithuanians throughout Prussia. In some places the old inhabitants had allegedly already mixed with German colonists, but there were many areas inhabited almost exclusively by Lithuanians, especially around Klaipėda and along the eastern border, where one would scarcely find even a single German in twenty villages in succession (M 2r). Only near or beyond Vilnius had Lithuanian already changed considerably because of admixtures from Polish and Russian (M 4v–5r). Cf. Kant’s, Jenisch’s, and Milkus’s ideas about the localization, antiquity, purity, and scholarly value of Lithuanian:

K 16r–16v

But even apart from the benefit that the state can derive from the assistance of a people of such character: the advantage that the sciences, especially ancient history of the migrations of peoples, can derive from the still unmixed language of an ancient tribe of people, now confined to a narrow district and, as it were, isolated, is also not to be regarded as insignificant, and therefore preserving its distinctiveness is in itself of great value.====

J 6v

Moreover, since every language is related to some other to a greater or lesser degree, just as all languages are related to one another, it will, precisely through this relationship, often be a guiding thread for the historian, by which he may pursue his path with confidence through the darkness of antiquity and through the labyrinths of the descent=====, migrations, and mixtures of peoples.

J 10v

The Lithuanian possesses all the virtues of simply= and separately= living peoples, and few of their faults.

M 2r

The Lithuanian language is spoken within the borders of old East Prussia only in the district comprising the former five chief administrative areas, namely Memel, Tilsit, Ragnit, Labiau, and Insterburg, and in a few surrounding places, by the native common people. In some areas of this district the old inhabitants are very strongly intermixed with German colonists; in others, however, the Lithuanians still live almost alone, especially in the Memel region and in the strip of land along the eastern border, where one often finds scarcely a single German in twenty villages in succession. To these Lithuanians in the old Kingdom there has now been added, through the latest partition of Poland, a very large number in that part of New=East Prussia which adjoins that district to the east.=

¹⁰ The Suvalkija region of Greater Lithuania was annexed to the Kingdom of Prussia in 1795 during the third partition of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Suvalkija, together with the annexed part of Poland, was called New East Prussia or New East Prussia (German Neuostpreußen, 1795–1807).

Straipsniai / Articles

ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

Thus Kant constructed his claim on the basis of: 1) Jenisch’s statement about the antiquity of Lithuanian and the benefit of languages to scholarship; 2) Jenisch’s statement about the advantages possessed by Lithuanians as a people living in isolation; 3) Milkus’s information about Lithuanian life in a strictly defined territory and limited mixing with other nations, especially in Prussian Lithuania. Kant supplemented their statements with the idea of the importance of linguistic purity. Language appeared valuable to him for scholarship not because of its kinship or similarity to other languages, as it was to Jenisch, but because of its authenticity. He considered only a pure language important both for forming and maintaining a nation’s distinctiveness and for its education (K 16v).

As a discursive (allusive) connection with Jenisch’s thought that knowledge of German might become a means of expanding Lithuanian education and culture, one may interpret Kant’s contrary claim about the great importance of a pure national language for the education of a nation and the necessity of using it as widely as possible (cf. J 10r and K 16v).

It should be added that although Milkus did not impose requirements of purity on the language in his preface, when presenting the section on poetry appended at the end of the grammar and seeking to encourage the translation and composition of hymns, he indicated the following main rules: to use purely Lithuanian expression, pure rhymes, and to scan correctly: „Dabey gilt es als Grundregel, fich durchaus eines echten || littauischen Ausdrucks, reiner Reime und einer richtigen || Scanſion zu beſleißigen“ (M 5r–5v). His thoughts in this respect, however, were limited to a relatively narrow sphere—the composition of poetic texts alone. Milkus’s preface was generally prepared as an auxiliary informational text describing the purpose and contents of the dictionary and grammar and the principles of their preparation; therefore, Kant’s and other authors’ connections with it are not particularly prominent, and their common ground mostly concerns generally known matters (see also 2.3, 2.4).

In summary, Kant’s preface reveals the coexistence of ideas from three prefaces. Earlier texts were paraphrased and integrated without seeking to demonstrate their former authorship; thus he adopted indirect, implicit borrowings, except for the first, referential one. Since Kant drew on all three, his preface should be dated after December 24, 1799 (after Heilsberg’s preface), but was most likely written already in 1800 (for dating, see section 1).

2.3. Connections between Jenisch’s preface and Milkus’s preface

Jenisch’s preface is connected with Milkus’s through its mention of Ruigio’s dictionary as a rare book requiring correction and supplementation, and through its articulation of the need for a new book of a similar kind.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Kristijono Gotlybo Milkaus žodyno Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800) pratarmės: datavimas ir intertekstinės sąsajos

(6) | 10r

Since in Lithuania church servants and teachers are now mostly Germans, for example Prussians or Silesians, an improved and comprehensive Lithuanian dictionary will be a particularly welcome gift to them, because Ruigio’s dictionary, although it had undeniable usefulness and great merits, was not only in need of correction but also out of print (which most clearly shows that a new work of this kind is needed) and had become an almost rare book.

Milkus stated that Ruigio’s dictionary had no longer been obtainable for 15 years; moreover, it was incomplete, containing not even half the words of the Lithuanian language. The need for such a book and the fear that Ruigio’s dictionary might be reissued with its old and perhaps new errors were the principal reasons why he undertook to prepare a new one. Having supplemented Ruigio’s dictionary with new words and expressions, the Lithuanian section became twice as large as Ruigio’s, while the German section was also expanded, though less (M 3v–4r). Moreover, when distinguishing the non-Lithuanian groups who needed to learn Lithuanian and consequently needed instructional aids, Milkus likewise mentioned preachers and teachers first; cf. the fragments from Jenisch’s and Milkus’s prefaces:

| 10r

Since it is now chiefly Germans, e.g. Prussians or Silesians, who devote themselves to the school= and church= offices in Lithuania, an improved and complete dictionary of the Lithuanian language must therefore be a welcome gift to them in particular, since Ruhig’s=, despite all its undeniable merit and estimable advantages, not only left several things still to be desired, but also—which most clearly demonstrates the need for a new work of this kind—is out of print and must almost be counted among rare books.=

M 2v

First || for the preacher and teacher of this people, who is to impart || religious instruction to them in their language.

M 3r

Since the only Lithuanian dictionary so far published in print=, Ruhig’s, has not been available for 15 years; since, moreover, it is so incomplete that one may well say that not even half of the vocabulary of this language is contained in it [...], the necessity of such a book, indeed the fear that the old Ruhig work might be reprinted with all its faults=, [...] in which case no further assistance could be expected==: all these reasons moved me to resolve to compile a new dictionary.

M 4r

Nevertheless, the Lithuanian part is still twice as extensive as in the Ruhig= dictionary and, despite the smaller type, contains far more than half again as much as the latter. The German part, however, has not been enlarged to quite the same extent.

Straipsniai / Articles

ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

Jenisch, in describing the Lithuanian language, compared it to the language of small and simple-living nations¹¹, lacking sufficient means to express scholarly concepts:

(7) | 7r

Like every language of a small and simple-living nation, it has few such words and concepts as are created for its needs only by culture and philosophy

Cf. also the qualities of Lithuanians identified by Jenisch, similar to those of other simple and isolated peoples (“einfach= und || abgefondert=lebender Völker“ | 10v). Such descriptions, revealing social and cultural aspects of language use, are connected with those found in Milkus’s preface, where it is written that Lithuanian is spoken “only by common people” (“sie blos von dem gemei=||nem Manne gefpro=chen wird“ M 2v), “by native common people” (“von dem eingebornen || gemeinen Manne gefprochen“ M 2r), “only by the ordinary peasant of distinctive customs and traditions,” who cannot even provide information about his language:

| 7r

Like every language of a small and simply living= people, it is poor in words and concepts that are merely the products and requirements of culture and philosophy.

M 2v

that it is spoken only || by the common peasant, entirely distinct in customs and || usages, who does not know how to provide proper || information about his language.

Jenisch highlighted the value of proverbs and sayings as reflections of a nation’s sensibility, thought, and value systems, continuing Johann Gottfried Herder’s (1744–1803) Romantic myth of the spirit of a nation embodied in language and folklore:

(8) | 9v

proverbs and short narratives are characterized by wit, insight, and practical wisdom, as is customary for the finest spiritual creations of this kind.

This connects Jenisch’s preface with Milkus’s. Because of the abundance of proverbs and sayings, the latter particularly valued the manuscript dictionary of the Trempai precentor Jokūbas Brodovskis (Jacob Brodowsky, 1692–1744) Lexicon Germanico-Lithvanicum et Lithvanico-Germanicum (before 1744) (M 3r–3v), from which he in fact adopted many minor folklore genres, especially sayings and proverbs. According to Milkus, the spirit of the language is most fully revealed in these (M 3v–4r), while Jenisch compares them to the finest spiritual creations (| 9v):

¹¹ A simple way of life should be understood as sedentary, agrarian, and limited.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

The prefaces to Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus’s Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800): dating and intertextual connections

J 9v

Proverbs and short narratives ‖ but bear the imprint of wit, observational=||spirit, and experiential wisdom, as can be characteristic of the finest ‖ intellectual productions of this kind.

M 3v–4r

My chief concern was now directed toward || [...] adding many Lithuanian || proverbs, in which the genius of the language || is chiefly revealed

Both Milkus and Jenisch regarded Lithuanian as suitable for translating hymns (cf. M 5r–5v and J 7r). All of Jenisch’s borrowings are indirect, implicit; Milkus’s ideas are paraphrased and integrated¹²

2.4. Connections between Heilsberg’s preface and the prefaces of Milkus and Jenisch

Heilsberg’s preface was written approximately seven months later than Milkus’s and six weeks later than Jenisch’s, so he could have drawn on both. Nevertheless, there are no prominent intertextual connections with Milkus’s preface, except perhaps the indication of those higher social strata who must know Lithuanian, while learning the language well is supposedly difficult in the absence of dictionaries and grammars:

(9) H 15r

They must learn the language, and in the absence of good grammars and dictionaries, doing so is very difficult. Therefore, both their knowledge of the language and their speaking skills are often far from perfect.

H 15r

They must learn the language, which is made very=||difficult for them by the lack of good grammars and dictionaries. Hence their knowledge=||of the language and fluency often remain very imperfect.

M 2v

Thus, even to make use of this means, but above all, ‖ in order to grasp this language in a shorter time, with reasonable completeness and cor=rectly, a dictionary together with a ‖ grammar is indispensable, and especially at the pres=||ent time constitutes an exceedingly urgent need.

¹² It should be added that, in describing the kinship of Lithuanian with Slavic, Greek, and other languages in his preface, Jenisch also drew on Pilypas Ruigys’s treatise Betrachtung der Littauischen Sprache, in ihrem Ursprunge, Wesen und Eigenschaften (1745), as well as other sources. Some have already been identified (see Koženiauskienė 1990: 629–630, Sidabraitė 2020: 197–200), but determining the sources on which he drew still requires a special study.

Straipsniai / Articles

ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

More connections are found with Jenisch’s preface: Heilsberg relies on some statements and contradicts others, but in neither case identifies the author of the statements; thus the intertextual connections are only implicit.

It has already been mentioned that Jenisch regarded the alignment of small nations, their customs, and their language with dominant ones as something automatic, arising “through the progress of culture” (J 6v), that is, as acculturation. Nor was he inclined to oppose the introduction of German in Prussian Lithuania (J 10r–10v); he even considered its benefit to culture and education, but the Lithuanians’ special attachment to their native language “disarmed” him, making this seem impossible to him (J 9v–10v). Heilsberg likewise began his preface by considering the possible benefit to the state of a common language of the region, but soon turned in another direction: “the advantages appear rather supposed than real, and pursuing it is more inadvisable than advisable” (H 12r–12v). These considerations initially connect the two prefaces, but their authors are distinguished by their different views of the subsequent direction: to Heilsberg it seemed more natural that state officials should learn the provincial language, rather than the reverse. Lithuanian should be preserved because, if the language were lost, national identity would also be lost (H 14v–15r). Nevertheless, the influence of language is emphasized morally in both prefaces (see section 2.1, analysis of example (1)).

Like Jenisch, Heilsberg describes the Lithuanian character, but develops it further. The descriptions differ, but there are connections among the characteristic traits: 1) both emphasize love of the homeland and native language, communality, friendliness, hospitality, nobility, restraint, constancy, and superstition (H 13r–14v; J 10v–11v); 2) women’s virtue (H 14r–14v; J 11r). Jenisch, however, assigned national pride to the shortcomings (J 11r), whereas Heilsberg regarded restraint toward other nations, especially immigrant foreigners, not as a vice but as strength and constancy of character. Here too elements of a discussion are visible: Heilsberg counters by saying that those who already know that this nation has experienced the negative effects of innovations imposed by newcomers, their haughty claims, and contempt, will judge such restraint on its part more leniently (H 13v–14r).

Heilsberg drew attention to the fact that foreigners aspired to occupy the positions of Lithuanian preachers and teachers. He mentioned those arriving from Silesia, Pomerania, and Germans in general—they had to learn Lithuanian, and therefore good instructional aids were needed: grammars and dictionaries (H 15r). Jenisch likewise wrote that in Prussian Lithuania church servants and teachers were mostly Germans—Prussians or Silesians—and that they greatly needed a comprehensive dictionary of the Lithuanian language:

(10) H 15r

It is precisely for this reason that foreigners seek to occupy the positions of Lithuanian preachers and teachers: Silesians, Pomeranians, in short, Germans. They must learn the language, and in the absence of good grammars and dictionaries, doing so is very difficult.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

The prefaces to Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus’s Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800): dating and intertextual connections

H 15r

For this very reason, it is foreigners—||Silesians, Pomeranians, ^eabove all Germans—who seek to qualify themselves for Li=thuanian preacher= and school= positions. They must learn the language, which is made very=||difficult for them by the lack of good grammars and dictionaries. ‖ It is

J 10r

Da es nun mei=ſtentheils Teutſche, z. B. Preußen oder Schleſier ſind, || welche ſich den Schul= und Kirchen=Aemtern in Litthauen || widmen; ſo muß dieſen inſbesondere ein verbeſſertes || und vollſtändiges Wörterbuch der littauiſchen Spra=||che ein willkommenes Geſchenk ſeyn

Heilsberg emphasized the trust that teachers and judges gain if they know Lithuanian. Jenisch made a similar claim: superiors can acquire the trust of Lithuanians in no other way than by speaking to them in their language:

(11) H 15r

It is incredible how much trust the teacher and judge, his teaching, and his order acquire if he knows the language of the people.

H 15r

It is incredible how much the teacher and judge gains in the people’s trust in him, his teaching, and his commands=||when he is master of the vernacular.

J 10r

their superiors || of every kind can acquire their trust by no surer means || than by speaking to them in the language || of their tribe.

Jenisch, describing the Prussian Lithuanians, claimed that they possess all the advantages of peoples living modestly and in isolation, and few of their disadvantages, assigning to the latter national pride, a tendency toward drunkenness, and superstition (the latter should probably be understood as adherence to the old pre-Christian religion). Education will help eliminate these shortcomings: pride, through the enlightenment ideas of their western neighbours, will be transformed into a general respect for human beings; the tendency to drink will gradually disappear under the influence of culture; and enlightened teachers will be able to protect them from superstition and preconceived notions (J 10v–11v). Heilsberg agreed that the Lithuanian respected religion but was not yet entirely free from superstition; nevertheless, under the influence of education, he was already advancing rapidly:

(12) H 13r

and although at present he is still not entirely free from superstition, there can be no doubt that he is becoming increasingly enlightened.

Straipsniai / Articles

ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

H 13r

and although he is || still not entirely free from superstition, one nevertheless || cannot deny him that he is progressing in en=||lightenment.

J 11v

Enlightened and conscientious youth= and folk=||schoolteachers will finally know how to preserve him from superstitious erro=||rs and prejudices.

Jenisch, speaking about all languages in general, including those of uncultivated peoples, singled out their capacity to convey wit, display powers of observation, the ability to judge, and insight; therefore, the distinctive structure of each language, its word formation, word combinations, idioms, and proverbs provide scholars with material (J 6r–6v). Moreover, he emphasized that Lithuanian proverbs and brief narratives are distinguished by wit, insight, and practical wisdom (J 9v) (for the connection between Jenisch’s statements and those of Milkaus, see section 2.3, example (8)). Heilsberg, paraphrasing Jenisch’s statements, presented similar ideas: in the first case, he treated wit, powers of observation, and the ability to judge as manifesting themselves in the giving of apt nicknames, while in the second he attributed an educational function for the young to the minor forms of folklore:

(13) H 14v

They display wit in judging others and the ability to judge correctly; hence those apt nicknames which they devise and which so precisely describe an individual, inseparable characteristic of character.

H 14v

Their acumen in judging others and the accuracy of their judgments are outstanding; hence the aptness of the epithets they give, which so accurately characterize the =individual and the most prominent features of the character.

J 6r–6v

In every language, however crude and uneducated it may be, the human spirit develops a wealth || of wit, powers of observation, judgment, and acu=||men [...] every language offers rich material through || its distinctive structure, through word formation, word combination, || idioms= and proverbs.

(14) H 14v

The language itself is rich in instructive aphorisms, sayings, and significant proverbs. Through these, they plant in the souls of the young the seeds of propriety and national virtues.

H 14v

The language itself is rich in moral maxims= and || aphorisms and significant proverbs. Through || these they plant in the souls of the young the seeds of || righteousness and their national virtues.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus’s dictionary Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800) prefaces: dating and intertextual connections

∫ 9v

Proverbs and short narratives || but bear the stamp of wit, observational=||spirit, and experiential wisdom, as can be characteristic of the finest || intellectual products of this kind.

Jenisch’s preface also inspired Heilsberg’s idea about Lithuanian songs, although Heilsberg initially highlighted the general fondness for singing, singing before and after work, and subsequently supplemented the claim with the feelings characteristic of songs on the theme of love:

(15) H 14v

Lithuanians like to sing. They sing and rejoice before work and after completing it, and their songs (Daynos) exude the tenderest feelings of love and friendship.

H 14v

The Lithuanians are fond of singing. || They sing and are cheerful, before and after work, || and their songs (Daynos) exhale the tenderest fee=||lings of love and friendship.

∫ 9v

The small love songs of the Lithuanian, Dai=||nos called, breathe naturalness, intimacy, and || tenderness

Jenisch valued the songs especially favorably; in his preface he also mentioned the German literary theorist Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781). In 1759, he introduced them to German men of letters by publishing German translations of two songs published in Pilypas Ruigys’s treatise Betrachtung der Littauischen Sprache, in ihrem Ursprunge, Wesen und Eigenschaften (1747).

Heilsberg’s borrowings were formed similarly to Jenisch’s and Kant’s: through paraphrasing and integration, while developing and specifying some claims. Heilsberg’s preface contains elements of polemic with Jenisch, especially concerning the survival of the Lithuanian language and the assessment of the national character.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The sequence of the prefaces to Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus’s dictionary Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800), written by the compiler, cantor Milkus (Pilkalnis); the pastor and philosopher Daniel Jenisch (Berlin); Christoph Friedrich Heilsberg (Königsberg), councillor of the War and Domains Chamber in Königsberg and inspector of schools in East Prussia; and the philosopher Immanuel Kant (Königsberg), corresponds to the chronology of their composition. On the basis of Milkus’s letter to Heilsberg dated 11 April 1799, it has been established that Milkus may have written the preface at Heilsberg’s urging in April–May 1799.

Straipsniai / Articles

ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

Since the analysis of intertextuality shows that Kant drew on all three, his preface should therefore be dated after December 24, 1799 (after the Heilsberg preface).

2. Milkaus’s preface is devoted not only to the dictionary but also to the grammar Anfangs-Gründe einer Littauischen Sprach-Lehre (1800); Heilsberg mentions both works, Jenisch only the dictionary as a work of particular significance, whereas Kant’s preface “Nachschrift eines Freundes” is not linked to either work—it serves the function of a post scriptum and raises the idea of the importance of the purity of the language and the necessity of preserving it.

3. Intertextual relations connect Jenisch’s preface with Milkaus’s, Heilsberg’s with Jenisch’s and Milkaus’s, and Kant’s with the prefaces of Milkaus, Jenisch, and Heilsberg. The borrowings are paraphrastic and implicit, except for one referential borrowing at the beginning of Kant’s preface. The borrowings were formed most often by combining statements from several prefaces and applying an extensive strategy—modifying them and adding supplementary information.

4. Since Heilsberg initiated Milkaus’s preface, wrote one himself, acted as an intermediary between Milkaus and the printers, maintained relations with all the authors, and possessed governmental authority, he could collect all the prefaces, create conditions for their authors to draw on one another’s texts, and thus shape a relevant discourse on the use of the Lithuanian language and the publication of educational books.

5. The main statements having connections across several prefaces: the distinctiveness of the character of the Prussian Lithuanian and language as a means of shaping and preserving it (Jenisch, Heilsberg, Kant); the antiquity of the Lithuanian language and its significance for scholarship, especially history (Jenisch, Kant); the territorial isolation of the Lithuanian nation and language (Milkus, Jenisch, Kant); the relationship between language and morality (Jenisch, Heilsberg); the expansion of the use of the Lithuanian language (Milkus, Heilsberg, Kant); the necessity for non-Lithuanians working in the region to learn the language (Milkus, Heilsberg); the possibility of gaining the trust of officials who speak only Lithuanian (Jenisch, Heilsberg); the need for and value of the dictionary and grammar as language textbooks (Milkus, Jenisch, Heilsberg); the Lithuanians’ love of their language (Jenisch, Heilsberg); the sincerity and gentleness of sung folklore (Jenisch, Heilsberg); the value of minor folklore genres (Milkus, Jenisch, Heilsberg); patriotism (Jenisch, Heilsberg); national pride (Jenisch, Heilsberg, Kant); distrust of foreigners (Jenisch, Heilsberg); loyalty to superiors (Heilsberg, Kant); wit, insight, and the ability to evaluate (Jenisch, Heilsberg); women’s virtue (Jenisch, Heilsberg); superstition and the possibility of overcoming it through education (Jenisch, Heilsberg).

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Kristijono Gotlybo Milkaus žodyno Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800) pratarmės: datavimas ir intertekstinės sąsajos

SOURCES AND LITERATURE

Aleknavičienė Ona 2020: Povilo Frydricho Ruigio Anfangsgründe einer Littauischen Grammatik (1747)—the fifth grammar of the Lithuanian language of Lithuania Minor. – Aleknavičienė Ona, Blažienė Grasilda. Povilas Frydrichas Ruigys. Monografija, gramatikos indeksai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 123–271.

Bense Gertrud 2006: Mielcke, Kant und Königsberg. – Navicula litterarum Balticarum, hrsg. von St. Kessler, Ch. Schiller, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 209–212.

Bitinienė Audronė 2005: Mokslinis stilius ir jo intertekstualumas. – Žmogus ir žodis 1, 68–72.

Erler Georg 1911/1912: Die Matrikel und die Promotionsverzeichnisse der Albertus-Universität zu Königsberg i. Pr. 2, Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker & Humblot.

Gineitis Leonas 1990: Kristijonas Donelaitis ir jo epocha, Vilnius: Vaga.

Girdžijauskas Juozas 1990: Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus. – Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus. Pilkainis. Poezija, proza, par. L. Citavičiūtė, J. Girdzijauskas, Vilnius: Vaga, 5–34.

H – Heilsberg Christoph Friedrich 1799 [1800]: Dritte Vorrede. – Mielcke Christian Gottlieb. Littauisch=deutsches und Deutsch=littauisches Wörter=Buch [...], Königsberg: Im Druck und Verlag der Hartungschen Hofbuchdruckerey, 1800, [12r–15v].

Heilsberg Christoph Friedrich 1795–11–07: Brief an Immanuel Kant. Available online: https://korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/briefe/686.html [accessed 2021–06–04].

Heilsberg Christoph Friedrich 1796–05–22: Brief an Immanuel Kant. Available online: https://korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/briefe/705.html [accessed 2021–06–04].

Heilsberg Christoph Friedrich 1798–02–27: Brief an Immanuel Kant. Available online: https://korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Kant/briefe/800a.html [accessed 2021–06–04].

Helbig Jörg 1996: Intertextuality and Marking. Investigations into the Systematics and Function of Signaling Intertextuality, Heidelberg: Winter.

Heinemann Wolfgang 1997: On Delimiting the Concept of Intertextuality from a Text-Linguistic Perspective. – Text Relations. Linguistic and Literary-Studies Contributions to Intertextuality, ed. by J. Klein, U. Fix, Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag, 21–37.

Straipsniai / Articles

ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

J – Jenisch Daniel 1799 [1800]: Second Preface. – Mielcke Christian Gottlieb. Littauisch=deutsches und Deutsch=littauisches Wörter=Buch [...], Königsberg: Printed and published by the Hartungſche Court Printing Office, 1800, [6r–11v].

Jenisch Daniel 1796: Philosophical-Critical Comparison and Assessment of Fourteen Older and Modern Languages of Europe [...], Berlin: at Friedrich Maurer’s.

K – Kant Immanuel 1800: Postscript by a Friend. – Mielcke Christian Gottlieb. Littauisch=deutsches und Deutsch=littauisches Wörter=Buch [...], Königsberg: Printed and published by the Hartungſche Court Printing Office, 1800, [16r–16v].

Kant Immanuel 2008: Anthropology, History and Education, eds. by G. Zöller, R. Louden, Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press.

Kern Udo 2007: For I Have Been a Human Being. Introduction to the Life and Work of Immanuel Kant. – Kern Udo (ed.). What Is and What Should Be. Nature and Freedom in Immanuel Kant, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 43–92.

Koženiauskienė Regina 1990: Prefaces and Dedications of the Sixteenth–Eighteenth Centuries, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Koženiauskienė Regina 2003: Intertextuality: Reference, Imagined Dialogue, and Other Forms of Stylistic Expression. – Lithuanian Language 1, 1–10.

M – Mielcke Christian Gottlieb 1800: First Preface. – Mielcke Christian Gottlieb. Littauisch=deutsches und Deutsch=littauisches Wörter=Buch [...], Königsberg: Printed and published by the Hartungſche Court Printing Office, 1800, [2r–5v].

Malter Rudolf, ed. 1990: Immanuel Kant in Speech and Conversation, Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.

Meyer William 1927: Kant’s Great-Grandmother Anna Mielcke. – Old Prussian Genealogy 1, 121–122.

Melnikova Irina 2003: Intertextuality: Theory and Practice, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press.

Mielcke Christian Gottlieb 1799-04-11: Letter to Christoph Friedrich Heilsberg. GStA PK: XX. HA, Rep. 5, Titel 22, Nr. 13, 12r; published in: Triškaitė, Sidabraitė 2019, 226–229.

Mielcke Christian Gottlieb 1800: Littauisch=deutsches und Deutsch=littauisches Wörter=Buch [...], Königsberg: Printed and published by the Hartungſche Court Printing Office.

Petrauskaitė Rūta, Šinkūnienė Jolanta 2015: Once Again on Intertextuality. What Does It Say about the Scholarly Text? – Linguistics 67, 67–85.

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Kristijono Gotlybo Milkaus žodyno Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800) pratarmės: datavimas ir intertekstinės sąsajos

Putinaitė Nerija 2004: The Last Revolution of Reason. A Study of Kant’s Practical Philosophy, Vilnius: Aidai.

Putinaitė Nerija 2005: Kant and Donelaitis on the Character of the Lithuanian. – Naujasis židinys-Aidai 1–2, 34–40. Available online: https://nzidinys.lt/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/NZ-2005-nr-1-2.pdf [accessed 2021-06-03].

Putinaitė Nerija 2003: (Non-)Lithuanian Kant. – Naujasis židinys-Aidai 7–8, 389–396. Available online: https://nzidinys.lt/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/NZ-2003-nr-7-8.pdf [accessed 2021-06-04].

Rickevičiūtė Kristina 1968: I. Kant’s View of the Lithuanian Language and Culture. – Problemos 1, 56–65.

Shell Susan 2011: ‘Nachschrift eines Freundes’: Kant on Language, Friendship and the Concept of a People. – Kantian Review. Cambridge University Press. Prieiga internete: https://vdocuments.mx/nachschrift-eines-freundes-kants-postscript-of-a-friend.html [žiūrėta 2021-05-06].

Sidabraitė Žavinta 2006: Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus. Life and Literary Activity, Vilnius: Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore.

Sidabraitė Žavinta 2020: Immanuel Kant’s Preface in Christian Gottlieb Mielcke’s Dictionary (1800). – Res Humanitariae 28, 192–208. Available online: https://e-journals.ku.lt/journal/RH/article/2240/info [accessed 2021-06-06].

Triškaitė Birutė 2019: The Milkus Family in Prussian Lithuania in the 17th–18th Centuries: A Reconstruction of the Genealogy. – Archivum Lithuanicum 21, 73–216. Available online: https://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/object/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2019~1602792393041/J.04~2019~1602792393041.pdf [accessed 2021-05-06].

Triškaitė Birutė, Sidabraitė Žavinta, eds., 2019: Revelations of the Eighteenth-Century Lithuanian Movement in Prussia 2. The Documentary Legacy of the Milkus Family = Die Hintergründe der lituanistischen Bewegung im 18. Jahrhundert in Preußen 2. Das dokumentarische Erbe der Familie Mielcke, Vilnius: Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore.

Zinkevičius Zigmas 1990: History of the Lithuanian Language 4. The Lithuanian Language in the 18th–19th Centuries, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Straipsniai / Articles

ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

The Preface and Forewords to Christian Gottlieb Mielcke’s Dictionary Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800): Dating and Intertextual Connections

SUMMARY

The paper focuses on the analysis of the preface and three forewords to Christian Gottlieb Mielcke’s dictionary Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800). They were written by cantor Mielcke (Pilkalnis), the compiler of the dictionary, priest Daniel Jenisch (Berlin), Christoph Friedrich Heilsberg (Königsberg), an assessor at the War and Domains Chamber and a school inspector of East Prussia, and philosopher Immanuel Kant (Königsberg).

The order in which the preface and forewords are presented in the dictionary corresponds to their writing chronology. Based on Mielcke’s letter to Heilsberg of 11 April 1799, it has been determined that encouraged by Heilsberg, Mielcke wrote the preface in April–May 1799. Whereas the intertextual analysis shows that Kant resorted to the preface and two forewords, his foreword should be dated after 24 December 1799 (after Heilsberg’s foreword).

Mielcke’s preface was not only written for the dictionary but also for the grammar Anfangs-Gründe einer Littauischen Sprach-Lehre (1800); Jenisch’s and Heilsberg’s forewords were only dedicated to the dictionary by regarding it a treatise of exclusive importance, whereas Kant’s foreword “Nachschrift eines Freundes” is not linked with either work – it plays the post scriptum function and gives prominence to the ideas about the importance of language purity and its preservation.

Intertextual connections link the foreword by Jenisch with Mielcke’s preface and the foreword by Heilsberg with Jenisch’s foreword and Mielcke’s preface. Meanwhile, Kant’s foreword has links with Mielcke’s preface and Jenisch’s and Heilsberg’s forewords. Citations are paraphrased and implicit, except for a single referential citation in the beginning of Kant’s foreword. They are usually formulated by combining the statements from several texts and applying the expansion strategy – by modifying and adding supplementary information.

Since Heilsberg was the initiator of Mielcke’s preface, wrote one himself, was an intermediary between Mielcke and the printing-house, maintained contacts with all the authors, and was also an official with certain powers, he was in the position to collect all the texts and to enable their authors to refer to each other’s texts and thus form a discourse relevant for the use of the Lithuanian language and publishing of educational books.

The principal statements, which have connections across several texts, are the following: the peculiar character of a Prussian Lithuanian and the language as the means for its

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXV

Kristijono Gotlybo Milkaus žodyno Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800) pratarmės: datavimas ir intertekstinės sąsajos

formation and preservation (Jenisch, Heilsberg, Kant); Lithuanian as an old language and its significance for science (Jenisch, Kant); the isolation of the Lithuanian nation and language from the territorial perspective (Mielcke, Jenisch, Kant); the link between language and ethics (Jenisch, Heilsberg); the expansion of the use of Lithuanian (Mielcke, Heilsberg, Kant); the necessity for non-Lithuanians working in the region to learn the language (Mielcke, Heilsberg); the exclusive possibility of acquiring confidence by those servants who are fluent in Lithuanian (Jenisch, Heilsberg); the demand for the dictionary and grammar as educational books for learning the language and their value (Mielcke, Jenisch, Heilsberg); the love of Lithuanians for their language (Jenisch, Heilsberg); sincerity and tenderness of folksongs (Jenisch, Heilsberg); the value of small folklore genres (Mielcke, Jenisch, Heilsberg); patriotism (Jenisch, Heilsberg); national pride (Jenisch, Heilsberg, Kant); distrust of foreigners (Jenisch, Heilsberg); loyalty to superiors (Heilsberg, Kant); wit, insight and ability to make evaluations (Jenisch, Heilsberg); morality of women (Jenisch, Heilsberg); prejudices and the possibility to overcome them with education (Jenisch, Heilsberg).

Submitted on 4 October 2021

ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Petro Vileišio St. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania

[email protected]

Straipsniai / Articles

Document details