GEDA MONTVILAITĖ, ANNA TOILAROVÁ

Charles University

Research areas: early Lithuanian–Slavic writings, lexicography, the history of Baltic studies, typology of Czech–Lithuanian national revival.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/al182-08

THE QUESTION OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE HANDWRITTEN DICTIONARY OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE: NEW FACTS REVEALED BY A FORENSIC HANDWRITING EXAMINATION^¹

The Matter of Authorship of the Handwritten Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language: the New Findings Revealed from a Professional Handwriting Analysis^²

ABSTRACT

The archival document Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (shelfmark IV A 11) is kept at the Department of Manuscripts and Early Printed Books of the Czech National Museum Library. This handwritten lexicographic relic is dated to the first half of the 19th century. It contains 1701 entries. This article examines the question of the dictionary’s authorship in light of previous research, which identified F. L. Čelakovský as its likely author. The article presents new findings from a forensic handwriting examination conducted in the Czech Republic. The evidence discussed is based on the assumption that F. L. Čelakovský is the author of the handwritten Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language.

^¹ The preparation of the article was funded by the Grant Agency of Charles University (GA UK). The project Rukopisný slovník litevštiny Františka Ladislava Čelakovského (No. 520317) is being carried out at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University.

^² The study was supported by the Charles University, project GA UK No. 520317.

Straipsniai / Articles

153

GEDA MONTVILAITĖ, ANNA TOLLAROVÁ

KEYWORDS: handwritten Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, František Ladislav Čelakovský, forensic handwriting examination, Lithuanian studies, Czech Baltic studies.

ABSTRACT

The archival document Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (shelfmark IV A 11) is kept at the Department of Manuscripts and Early Printed Books of the Czech National Museum Library. This handwritten lexicographic relic is dated to the first half of the ^19th century and contains 1701 entries. This article focuses on the matter of authorship of this relic following previous research studies, in which F. L. Čelakovský was suggested as the likely author of the Dictionary. The article presents new findings revealed from a Czech professional handwriting analysis. The evidence discussed in the article is based on the assumption that F. L. Čelakovský is the author of the handwritten Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language.

KEYWORDS: handwritten Dictionary of the Lithuanian language, František Ladislav Čelakovský, professional handwriting analysis, Lithuanistics, Czech Baltistics.

INTRODUCTION

The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (Litevský slovník), a handwritten relic from the first half of the 19th century, kept at the Department of Manuscripts and Early Printed Books (Oddělení rukopisů a starých tisků Knihovny Národního muzea) of the National Museum Library, shelfmark IV A 11, is a lexicographic work comprising 30 large-format sheets of paper (21.5 × 35.5 cm). It is a complete philological study of an etymological nature (arranged alphabetically from A to Ž), containing a total of 1701 entries.

The hypothesis that František Ladislav Čelakovský might have been the author of the lexicographic work first appeared in 2010 in Ilja Lemeškin’s article Františko Ladislavo Čelakovskio lietuvių kalbos žodynas, in which the author introduced the work to the scholarly community (Lemeškin 2010). The article focuses primarily on solving the problems of dating and authorship of the dictionary (Lemeškin 2010: 99).

I. Lemeškin drew attention to the erroneous identification of the Dictionary by František Michalek Bartoš, an employee (assistant) of the National Museum, in the catalogue of manuscript relics of the National Museum in Prague (Soupisu rukopisných památek Národního muzea v Praze), “Corresponds to Neselman’s German dictionary of 1850” (Bartoš 1926: 181), and raised several questions about the conception and nature of the Dictionary, established when it originated, and presented numerous arguments demonstrating that F. L. Čelakovský could have been the author of the Dictionary. As this Czech revival figure’s,

154

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII

Rankraštinio Lietuvių kalbos žodyno autorystės klausimas: nauji faktai, paaiškėję atliekant teismo rašysenos ekspertizę

the creative output of a scholar and literary figure, Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language is also mentioned in other works^³.

Continuing the work initiated by I. Lemeškin on the archival document discovered, from 2017 to 2019 a project of the Grant Agency of Charles University (GA UK), The Handwritten Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language by František Ladislav Čelakovský (Rukopisný slovník litevštiny Františka Ladislava Čelakovského) (No. 520317), was devoted to a more detailed analysis of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language.

During the project, the Dictionary was analyzed in the historical context of its composition. The researchers’ primary task was to examine this archival document as a philological study; the question of its authorship was also addressed. The results of this research are presented in detail in the study The Handwritten Lithuanian Dictionary in the Context of Czech Baltic Studies in the First Half of the 19th Century: The Conceptual Design of the Dictionary and the Question of Authorship (Rukopisný Litevský slovník v kontextu české baltistiky první poloviny 19. století: koncepční záměr slovníku a otázka autorství), published in the journal Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae – Historia litterarum 65(1–2), 2020, 5–18. To make the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language accessible, an electronic database was created during the same project and can be accessed at http://lsc.ff.cuni.cz.. Seeking to confirm the date of origin of the Dictionary established by their predecessor, the research team decided to conduct a handwriting examination; its findings are presented in this article.

Thus, the aim of the article is to present in detail the results of the examination, which may confirm that the Dictionary was authored by the aforementioned Czech scholar of Baltic studies.

The arguments for identifying F. L. Čelakovský as the author of the archival document in question are based chiefly on the literary and scholarly works and surviving correspondence of the first professor of Slavic studies at the University of Prague. The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language fits perfectly within the context of the interests and philological theses of this eminent Czech literary and scholarly figure.

The most important circumstances are: 1) the correspondence of this figure of the national revival, which reflects an interest in Baltic material; one of the best examples is an excerpt from a letter by Josef Vlastimil Kamaryto to F. L. Čelakovský, which explicitly discusses a Lithuanian dictionary;

³ For example, it is mentioned in the following studies: in the preface to the Encyclopedia of Baltic Mythology (Bětková, Blažek 2012: 20), which discusses the use of theonyms in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language; in Vaidas Šeferis’s article The Works of Kristijonas Donelaitis in the Czech Philological Horizon (Šeferis 2009), which discusses “Donelaitisms” occurring in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language; and in the bibliography of Czech Baltic studies, which also conjectures that F. L. Čelakovský was the author (Čeladín, Blažek, Kabeláčová, Seitlová 2016: 305–306).

Straipsniai / Articles

155

GEDA MONTVILAITĖ, ANNA TOLLAROVÁ

2) F. L. Čelakovský’s lexicographic work, which is typologically similar and with which the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language fits perfectly (e.g., Dictionary of the Polabian Language (Slovník polabštiny), supplements to Josef Jungmann’s dictionary, etc.);

3) the ideological congruence of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language and other works by F. L. Čelakovský (e.g., ideas expressed in F. L. Čelakovský’s lectures, first published in 1877, Readings on the Beginnings of the History of Education and Literature of the Slavic Nations (Čtení o počátcích dějin vzdělanosti a literatury národů slovanských), which relate to the problems of Baltic-Slavic ethnogenesis and glottogenesis);

4) the failure to substantiate hypotheses that other individuals may have compiled the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (e.g., Karel Jaromír Erben, whose name is written in pencil on the title page of the Dictionary).

All the arguments mentioned, discussed systematically in earlier studies, are important and fundamental. Given F. L. Čelakovský’s interest in translations and his other lexicographic work, the evidence from his correspondence suggests that the author began working on the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language around 1825 and continued writing it later (see Lemeškin 2010 for more details). Considering the spelling conventions used in the manuscript under study and in the insert transcribed from Nesselmann’s dictionary in 1851, it is clear that the analyzed version of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language was compiled around 1850.

METHODOLOGY

The conclusions of a forensic handwriting examination could dispel doubts and provide reliable proof of authorship. This would be possible only if the identification of the author of the manuscript under study were fully confirmed. However, even if the results of the forensic handwriting examination ruled out F. L. Čelakovský as the writer of the extant version of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, this would not mean that F. L. Čelakovský was not the author of this written monument. The evidently plausible possibility cannot be ruled out that the original version of the Dictionary, compiled in the third decade of the 19th century, was copied around 1851 by another person in the field of philology—for example, one of F. L. Čelakovský’s followers or simply a professional copyist. It is likely that the idea of printing the Dictionary arose at that time.

To conduct a forensic handwriting examination, the research team approached a recognized forensic handwriting expert, JUDr.⁴ Jiří Straka, a manuscript specialist, chairman of the Czechoslovak Forensic Handwriting Examination Association and the current head of the forensic science association. J. Straka has worked in this field

⁴ JUDr. – Doctor of Laws.

156

Acta Linguistica Lituanica LXXXII

Rankraštinio Lietuvių kalbos žodyno autorystės klausimas: nauji faktai, paaiškėję atliekant teismo rašysenos ekspertizę

for more than forty years. The specialist worked at the Prague Institute of Criminalistics and the Institute of Criminalistics and Forensic Expertise at the Higher School of Karlovy Vary; he also periodically works with the Justice Minister’s team of advisers conducting forensic handwriting examinations. It is important to mention that J. Straka has experience researching historical manuscripts using handwriting identification methods. One example is the authorship investigation of the Czech writer Jaroslav Hašek’s (1883–1923) short story The Pork Story (Vepřová historie), written in the early 20th century and discovered in 2002 among the bequest of Oldřich Tregl’s mother.

Historical handwriting analysis is not a particularly common branch of criminalistics research. Consequently, there are few specialists in forensic writing who have devoted themselves to this work. As an independent research methodology, “the need for forensic linguistic analysis arose as early as the second half of the 19th century [...], when new objective scientific methods were sought to identify a person who had committed a crime” (Ryngevič 2000: 123). Researchers of old writings therefore enlist the help of forensic experts. This practice was used by Diego Ardoino as he investigated the origin of the Basel trace⁵, and somewhat earlier in the studies conducted by Rūta Čapaitė (research on the Gothic script of the chancery of Vytautas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, and the handwriting of Simonas Daukantas, among others)⁶, Birutė Triškaitė (Analysis of the Manuscript Dictionary of Lithuania Minor, Clavis Germanico-Lithvana)⁷, and other scholars.

Another important point should be noted: compared with the texts mentioned above that have been studied, the archival document in question is relatively recent, having been written in the second quarter of the 19th century (before 1851) (Lemeškin 2010: 112). When the question of handwriting identification arises, this circumstance, on the one hand, facilitates the investigation, but on the other, requires a larger body of material to be examined.

This practical field of research developed independently in each country, resulting in the absence of a unified terminology, although the methodologies and tools used may coincide or be similar.

Since the study presented here was conducted in the Czech Republic, the article uses terminology characteristic of the Czech Republic’s tradition of criminalistics and linguistics, as well as its established research procedure

⁵ Ardoino Diego 2018: Bazelio pėdsakas tarpdisciplininių tyrimų fone: rašysenos ekspertizė. – Baltistica 53(2), 245–261.

⁶ Čapaitė Rūta 1996: Jurgio Ambraziejaus Pabrėžos, Juozo Butavičiaus, Simono Daukanto bruožai ir charakteriai. – Lietuvių Atgimimo istorijos studijos 8: Asmuo: tarp tautos ir valstybės, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 114–142; Čapaitė Rūta 1996a: Simono Daukanto rašysena Didžiajame lenkų–lietuvių kalbų žodyne, – Simono Daukanto raštai. Didysis lenkų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas 3, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 7–19; Čapaitė Rūta 1996b: Vytauto laiškai kaip Viduramžių epistolinio žanro pavyzdys. – Senoji Lietuvos literatūra, 4 knyga. Metraščiai ir kunigaikščių laiškai, Vilnius: Pradai, 47–96.

⁷ Triškaitė Birutė 2008: Rankraštinio Mažosios Lietuvos žodyno Clavis Germanico-Lithwana genezė: daktaro disertacija, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla.

Straipsniai / Articles

157

GEDA MONTVILAITĖ, ANNA TOLLAROVÁ

and the procedures it employs. For the reasons noted above, the forensic handwriting analysis presented here may differ from the methods used in Lithuania. In some respects, it may be argued that the set of tools used by J. Straka encompasses a broader context for evaluating the text under analysis. Some specific terms had to be translated and supplemented with explanations of their meaning (for example, “dotting”). Recasting the findings of one of the Czech Republic’s leading forensic handwriting experts in the language and terminology used by Lithuanian specialists would give rise to more uncertainties than the descriptive approach we have chosen.

In this type of investigation, the Czech Republic uses the following scale of conclusions⁸:

1. Definitive positive conclusion (the questioned and comparison texts were written by the same person). 2. Highly probable positive conclusion. 3. Moderately probable positive conclusion. 4. Slightly probable positive conclusion. 5. Impossible to prove. 6. Slightly probable negative conclusion. 7. Moderately probable negative conclusion. 8. Highly probable negative conclusion. 9. Definitive negative conclusion (the questioned and comparison texts were written by different people).

The researcher J. Straka used several examination methods: analytical-synthetic, comparative, and graphometric. He also used a stereoscopic microscope; a camera with a polarizing filter that eliminates reflections and enables precise measurements (AM4113ZT); a USB camera (AD4113T-12V-Pro2) with IR and UV illumination; a multispectral detector, HS3B; and the drawing and writing robot AxidDraw V3 (Straka 2018: 2).

COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION

The first consultations concerning the forensic handwriting examination began in the autumn of 2017, and the work continued the following year. The final document containing the investigation’s findings was submitted to the research team in September 2018.

At the very beginning of the collaboration, the research team was warned that working with material of this kind would present numerous difficulties, since studies of 19th-century written monuments to establish authorship are unique in the Czech Republic. Difficulties arise in selecting the methodology and

⁸ https://www.pismoznalectvi.org/odborne-cinnosti/standardy-spp/standard-pro-stanovovani-zaveru/ [žiūrėta 2020–05–18].

158

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII

Rankraštinio Lietuvių kalbos žodyno autorystės klausimas: nauji faktai, paaiškėję atliekant teismo rašysenos ekspertizę

tools. A specialist working with contemporary materials relies on the characteristics of modern handwriting and applies the corresponding forensic document examination instruments. When working with historical materials, however, the specialist lacks experience in identifying certain features characteristic of handwriting from that period, as well as knowledge of word usage and meanings. For the reasons listed, it is possible to identify the characteristics of a manuscript’s handwriting in support of one’s opinion, but without a broader context, proving that it corresponds to reality is impossible.

In conducting the forensic handwriting analysis, it was necessary to develop tools that would minimize the emergence of the aforementioned problematic questions. To this end, the forensic expert asked the lead project researcher, in addition to the material under examination and the comparative material (the Dictionary and F. L. Čelakovský’s autograph), to find and provide samples of manuscripts by other people who wrote around the same time and had an education and profession similar to those of F. L. Čelakovský. These were needed so that the expert could first analyze their handwriting and determine whether handwriting during the periods under study was sufficiently individual and had certain features that would make it possible to distinguish one hand reliably from another.

For this purpose, the team of researchers provided the expert with high-quality photocopies of the following handwritten documents:

1) Letters by Karel Slavoj Amerling, Osip Maksim Bodiansky, Kazimierz Brodziński, Jean de Carro, Piotr Dubrovsky, Josef Vlastimil Kamaryt, Vuk Karadžić, Piotr Keppen, František Malewski, Nikolai Melgunov, František Palacký, and Aleksandr Shishkov, held in the Literary Archive of the Museum of Czech Literature (Literary Archive of the Memorial of National Literature, hereafter — LA PNP), in the F. L. Čelakovský collection;

2) A copy from 1833 of Pavel Josef Šafařík’s Extracts on the Lithuanian Language (Výpisků o gazyku litevském), held at the Department of Manuscripts and Early Printed Books of the National Museum Library (shelfmark IX E 4);

3) Minutes of the Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences, written by Václav Hanka and held in the Archives of the Czech Academy of Sciences (collection: Královská česká společnost nauk, folder 10, No. 26);

4) A letter dated August 8, 1846, from Karel Jaromír Erben to the Imperial and Royal Provincial Presidium, held in the National Museum Archives (shelfmark M6/44).

The sources provided for comparison made it possible to reach the following conclusions: “already in the first half of the nineteenth century, handwritten texts were individualized to such an extent that they could be distinguished from one another. Thus, there is no obstacle to distinguishing the handwriting of František Ladislav Čelakovský, as the writer of the manuscript under examination, from that of other people” (Straka 2018: 12).

Straipsniai / Articles

159

GEDA MONTVILAITĖ, ANNA TOLLAROVÁ

In addition to the archival materials listed, the expert was also provided with photocopies of F. L. Čelakovský’s letters, which can be compared with the Dictionary manuscript, and with F. L. Čelakovský’s autograph (the dates on which they were written span a sufficiently long period (1818–1851)).

The following sources were provided:

1) Letters to Josef Vlastimil Kamaryt, 1818–1828 (LA PNP, f. J. V. Kamaryt);

2) Letters to Martin Aleksandr Pržibil, 1842–1845 (LA PNP, f. F. L. Čelakovský);

3) Letters to Jan Planek, 1820–1851 (LA PNP, f. F. L. Čelakovský).

In the conclusions section, J. Straka noted that “comparing the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language manuscript with other handwriting samples by František Ladislav Čelakovský revealed features of varying evidential value. Features that coincide partially or completely predominate; nevertheless, some were also found that are not sufficiently similar. Importantly, these features were identified not in the general but in the specialized part of the examination [...]. However, when determining whether particular features coincide, the main difficulty lies not in identifying certain details, whether at the general or specialized level of examination, as is done when working with modern manuscripts, but in comparing individual letter forms with handwriting standards [...]” (Straka 2018: 15).

Coinciding Features

J. Straka discussed the partially or completely coinciding handwriting features in the introduction to the conclusions section of the document summarizing the analysis:

1) letter slant: in both the manuscript under analysis and the comparison texts, the handwriting is consistently slanted to the right, usually at about 50°,

2) letter connectivity: the degree of connection between letters is medium in both the manuscript under analysis and the other texts provided for examination. Diacritical marks are usually written separately, with a different stroke; in other cases, interrupted writing strokes occur less frequently,

3) height proportions: compared with the upper and lower zones, the middle zone of the line is often compressed,

4) width proportions: in the manuscript under analysis and in the samples provided for comparison—documents mostly from around 1850—the predominance of secondary expansions over primary ones is striking: the connections between letters are wider than the letters themselves.

5) coincidences in writing technique:

a) complexity of the stroke used to form the ovals of the letters <a> and <o>: the oval of the letter <a> is written in a single stroke in various positions, whereas in the texts mentioned, alongside the ovals of the letter <o> written in a single stroke, atypical—

160

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII

Rankraštinio Lietuvių kalbos žodyno autorystės klausimas: nauji faktai, paaiškėję atliekant teismo rašysenos ekspertizę

“rounded” ovals, written in two strokes, especially at the end of a word (see Fig. No. 1 and No. 2, arrow),

b) the way the letter <d> is written: according to the spelling standard, the upper parts are turned into a loop to the left, or the handwriting’s turning feature curves to the left (see Fig. No. 1 and No. 2, circle),

c) in all the samples submitted for analysis, the way the letter <g> is written: the ovals are smaller and straighter, and the loops are narrower and longer, as well as straight,

d) the way the letter <i> is written: forms with a sharper top are common, with no looped flourish at the bottom, although loops in the lower part of this letter are sometimes found (see Fig. No. 1 and 2, small arrow),

e) the way the letters <m>, <n> are written: the arches do not tend to turn into flourishes (see Fig. No. 1 and 2, frame),

f) the way the letter <p> is written: forms resembling both rounded handwriting and cursive occur (see Fig. No. 2, small arrow),

g) when writing <s> in the Latin alphabet, the writing form coincides; there is also partial coincidence in writing the letter <t>,

h) there are similarities in the writing of the letters <e>, <l>, <u>, although they are of little significance for identification (cf. Straka 2018: 16–17).

Figure No. 1: Examples of matching signs in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, the word “bohynė žemė” (overall sequence No. 163, letter B – sequence No. 104) (Straka 2018: 17).

Straipsniai / Articles

161

GEDA MONTVILAITĖ, ANNA TOLLAROVÁ

Figure No. 2: Examples of matching features in F. L. Čelakovský’s handwriting. Letter written by F. L. Čelakovský on 2 February 1851. (Straka 2018: 19).

Non-matching features

J. Straka also drew attention to handwriting features that do not match or cannot be compared because they were written at different times. We recall that the version of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language under analysis may have been written around 1850–1851; it was therefore assessed according to the spelling conventions of that period, when letters pronounced as [j] were written as <j>, those pronounced as [g] as <g>, those pronounced as [v] as <v>, and [i] as <i>; instances of the diphthong <ou> also occur. J. Straka noted that, alongside these corresponding features, other variants can also be found which F. L. Čelakovský no longer used in the manuscripts submitted for comparison, mostly written around 1850 (that is, letters written around 1850 and in 1851), but which do occur in the manuscript under analysis.

J. Straka identified the following difficult-to-explain cases of handwriting features: 1) Forms of diacritic hooks: the texts submitted for comparison, including those written around 1850, are characterized by hooks usually curved to the left. No such hooks were found in the texts of the manuscript under examination (cf. Figs. 3 and 4, lilac-colored circle (3) and lilac-colored dashed circle (4)).

162

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII

Rankraštinio Lietuvių kalbos žodyno autorystės klausimas: nauji faktai, paaiškėję atliekant teismo rašysenos ekspertizę

2) Word endings: the examples submitted for comparison, including those written around 1850, are characterized by more pronounced extensions at the ends of some words. This handwriting feature does not occur in the manuscript under examination (see Fig. 4, dashed arrow).

3) <z> form of writing: the most characteristic variants in the manuscript under examination, corresponding to older handwriting conventions, have a loop at the bottom; this form is no longer found in the texts submitted for comparison, dated to around 1850 (cf. Figs. 3 and 4, circle (3) and dashed circle (4)).

4) <st> consonant cluster: in the text under examination, these clusters often show traces of the cursive script. This handwriting feature is no longer found in F. L. Čelakovský’s manuscripts written before 1850 (cf. Figs. 3 and 4, frame (3) and dashed frame (4)).

5) “Nabodeníčka” (“Dotting”)⁹: throughout the text of the manuscript under examination, it is clearly evident that after the letter <s>, which is written not in cursive script, there is either a small mark (usually in the shape of a dot or a small hook), or the letter is extended when writing the next letter following <s>. This manner of writing is not typical of František Ladislav Čelakovský’s usual handwriting (Straka 2018: 21–22).

Figure No. 3: Examples of non-matching features in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, the word “sivý” (overall serial no. 1339, letter S – serial no. 192) (Straka 2018: 23).

⁹ “Nabodeníčko” (“Dotting”) is a Czech linguistic term whose authorship was attributed to Jan Hus in the 19th century. The term is usually used when discussing representatives of 15th-century diacritic orthography. “Nabodeníčko krátké” (“short dotting”) usually means a dot above a letter; “nabodeníčko dlúhé” (“long dotting”) means a stroke above a letter. This terminology is described in greater detail (including the question of authorship of the term in question) in a study by Jana Pleskalová (see Pleskalová 2007: 147–151 for more). In the expert report, the term was used to refer to the mark found above the letter <s>, which does not indicate any phonetic feature.

Straipsniai / Articles

163

GEDA MONTVILAITĖ, ANNA TOLLAROVÁ

Figure 4: Examples of nonmatching characters in F. L. Čelakovský’s manuscript. Letter by F. L. Čelakovský, written on 2 February 1851 (Straka 2018: 23).

Comment

At the request of J. Straka, the project supervisor, I. Lemeškin, commented on these conclusions. In the scholar’s opinion, the discrepancies noted can be explained as follows: “The Dictionary [...] must have come into being in parts during the first half of the 19th century. F. L. Čelakovský’s Letawském Słowniku (Lithuanian Dictionary) is first mentioned in 1827; unfortunately, however, no earlier version of it, written according to older spelling norms, is available.”

The main Czech–Lithuanian text of this lexicographic relic was written (more precisely, copied) in the 1830s. The latest possible date is established by a secondary Lithuanian–German insert, added (no earlier than February 1851) to the main text of the dictionary. The Dictionary was thus supplemented with kinship terms. In 1851, Neselmano žodynas, as the printed source of the Dictionary, is cited on fol. 2r. It should be mentioned that the title Wörterbuch der littauischen Sprache, like the German explanatory section entered alongside the kinship vocabulary on fol. 2v, is written in Fraktur. This circumstance may be important in understanding certain specific features of the handwriting.

Philologists in the first half of the 19th century drew on lexicographic works produced in the 18th and 19th centuries at the Lithuanian Language Seminar of the University of Königsberg

164

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII

Rankraštinio Lietuvių kalbos žodyno autorystės klausimas: nauji faktai, paaiškėję atliekant teismo rašysenos ekspertizę

(Albertus-Universität Königsberg). The lexicographic works most frequently consulted were those of Pilypas Ruigys (Lexicon Germanico-Lithuanicum et Lithuanico-Germanicum, 1747), Kristijonas Gotlibas Milkus (Littauisch-deutsches und deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch, 1800), and Georg Heinrich Ferdinand Neselman, already mentioned (Wörterbuch der littauischen Sprache, 1851). The dictionaries published in Königsberg, from which the author drew important material for his research, were printed in Schwabacher up to 1851. In the 19th century, German printed in this typeface was rendered in Fraktur, whereas for Lithuanian and Czech, at the author’s suggestion, the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language was to use Antiqua. It is also important to remember that Lithuanian held the central position in the process of writing the dictionary: from the sources available to him, the author selected lexemes which, when pronounced, sounded similar to words in Slavic languages. Lithuanian, and its printed form in East Prussia (Schwabacher), took precedence; this may also have been reflected in the graphic rendering of linguistic examples. When transcribing Lithuanian texts in Antiqua, certain “discrepancies” may have arisen—for example, a greater likelihood of writing graphemes as clusters (<st>, <sz>, <sk>, <sl>, and so on).

Overall, the manuscript gives the impression of being legible and “exemplary.” The writer took care to ensure that the presentation of Lithuanian words left no room for doubt (this “excessive” precision was later carried over into writing in Czech as well; naturally, the Lithuanian and Czech sections merge in the same work). Accordingly, among the possible variants, the form of the grapheme whose phonetic value is indisputable was chosen. This is understandable if we bear in mind that the intended reader of the manuscript (another 19th-century philologist) or a typesetter in a printing house would not have known Lithuanian and therefore could not have inferred the phonetic meaning of disputed characters from context. This seems to be reflected, among other things, in the spelling of the character <s> with a diacritic in the right margin (cf. the use of this variant of the character on the title page of Ohlasů písní ruských (Echo of Russian Songs), published in 1829)” (Lemeškin 2018).

Conclusions of the Forensic Handwriting Expert

J. Straka took these important remarks into account and used them in his conclusions:

“Ad 1. (forms of diacritical hooks)

Regarding diacritical hooks, examples from the many F. L. Čelakovský manuscripts submitted for comparison, written at different times, include variants that do not curve to the left. However, hooks curving to the left are clearly identifiable and, most importantly, characteristic of manuscripts dated to around 1850; this, of course, does not indicate that the material is unreliable. Nevertheless, even on the basis of Associate Professor Lemeškin’s opinion, it is not possible to conclude that this could somehow have been connected with certain factors that influenced the manuscript’s creation, if F. L. Čelakovský is the author of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,

Straipsniai / Articles

165

GEDA MONTVILAITĖ, ANNA TOLLAROVÁ

as Associate Professor Lemeškinas points out. Thus, given the present situation, this handwriting feature, assessed as corresponding, cannot be reliably explained.

Ad 2. (Word endings)

The feature of word endings, that is, the extension of words in some instances in the material supplied for comparison, whereas this does not occur in the manuscript under examination, is generally of little significance. On the one hand, Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language was written according to the principle of economy. This may have influenced the way word endings were written, that is, their compression. Despite the fact that extensions of word endings occur in the texts from 1850 and 1851 supplied for comparison, compressed endings nevertheless predominate in them—that is, endings of the kind also characteristic of the manuscript under examination.

Ad 3. (The way <z> is written)

The way the letter <z> is written and the form of writing used in the manuscript under examination largely follow the norms in force before 1849. Other forms can also be found, but they are few in number [...].

On the one hand, it must be stated that the differences observed between the form of the letter <z> used in the manuscript under examination and the examples provided for comparison from other sources, most of which were written after 1849, are evident; on the other hand, factors that influenced the manuscript's creation could account for the cursive forms. However, it must be acknowledged that this is a hypothetical explanation that cannot be proven on the basis of examples from the same period.

Ad 4. (The <st> combination)

As in the case of explanation 3, here too it must be stated that the combination <st>, written in cursive, has not appeared for some time in the comparative examples of F. L. Čelakovský (it is no longer found in the available sources from March 1820 onward). Since this combination, influenced by cursive, can be found before 1820, Associate Professor Lemeškinas’s hypothesis should not be dismissed: it may reflect the influence of a particular period, in view of the circumstances in which the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language came into being, which probably may have had an influence.

Ad 5. “Dotting”

Finally, even with regard to the so-called “dotting,” Associate Professor Lemeškinas’s hypothesis cannot be ruled out: it may have been used in the manuscript under examination to distinguish letters from one another clearly enough for the printer to read them. On the one hand, it is of course significant that Associate Professor Lemeškinas himself proposed an explanation for why such a mark was used in a manuscript written by F. L. Čelakovský; however, as can be seen in the illustration provided (Fig. 5), it cannot be claimed that this writing practice never occurred in the handwriting of František Ladislav Čelakovský.

166

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII

Rankraštinio Lietuvių kalbos žodyno autorystės klausimas: nauji faktai, paaiškėję atliekant teismo rašysenos ekspertizę

Figure No. 5: “Dotting” in F. L. Čelakovský’s handwriting.

Title page of “Ohlas písní ruských,” 1829

(Straka 2018: 26).

This hypothesis is somewhat complicated by the fact that, for example, J. V. Kamaryt uses the “dotting” method as a matter of course, unlike F. L. Čelakovský, and not only in letters but also in texts intended for print [...].

Considering current practice, it seems difficult to believe that these features in the comparative examples, whether written much earlier than the manuscript under investigation or around the same time (1850, 1851), would have been used by chance, or that they would appear consistently throughout the text of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. Assuming that the dynamic stereotypes according to which the manuscript was produced are significant, this would be an unusual result by today’s standards. However, to attach greater weight to this feature, the manuscripts of both F. L. Čelakovský and his contemporaries would need to be examined in great detail” (Straka 2018: 24–27).

Taking all the references mentioned above into account, J. Straka stated in the conclusions of the expert report: “The investigations conducted clearly show that no features were found that would allow one to state categorically that F. L. Čelakovský was the person who wrote the archival document Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. Moreover, the fact that not only matches of high probative value but also obvious differences were found objectively makes it more difficult to assess the facts analyzed, in view of the objective conditions—namely, that the possibilities for examining a manuscript dating from the mid-nineteenth century are limited. On the one hand, there are features that cannot be reliably explained (sometimes only hypothetically), whereas, on the other hand, there are

Straipsniai / Articles

167

GEDA MONTVILAITĖ, ANNA TOLLAROVÁ

demonstrable matches with F. L. Čelakovský’s manuscripts. Because spelling conventions changed fairly often, and sometimes substantially, at the time, and because of the lack of knowledge on this subject, it is not possible to explain unequivocally how regular these changes were for a particular writer. The matches therefore cannot be treated as reliable in the way they might be in an examination of a contemporary manuscript. For all the reasons stated above, the most objective conclusion of the forensic handwriting examination is that the attribution of authorship to F. L. Čelakovský as the writer of the archival document Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language is positive, corresponding to the classification “moderately probable” (Straka 2018: 27).

According to the assessment scale presented above, the expert’s assessment corresponds to the third of nine points. A positive conclusion is reached when “the evidence supports the assertion that the disputed material and the comparative material were written by the same person. Nevertheless, the features identified are insufficient to warrant a positive conclusion of high probability”¹⁰.

In the concluding section, J. Straka summarized the analysis: “The archival document under consideration, namely the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (shelfmark IV A 11), the original of which is kept in the Department of Manuscripts and Early Printed Books of the National Museum, was probably written by Pranciškas Ladislavas Čelakovskis, born on 7 March 1799 and died on 5 August 1852, whose manuscripts were submitted to me for examination” (Straka 2018: 27).

APIBENDRINIMAS IR BAIGIAMOSIOS IŠVADOS

The conclusions of the forensic handwriting examination conducted by JUDr. J. Straka are convincing. J. Straka found F. L. Čelakovský’s authorship to be “probable.” The following handwriting features of F. L. Čelakovský and the person who wrote the Dictionary coincide in part or in full: the slant of the letters, the way they are joined, the ratios of their height and width, matches observable in the writing of the letters <a>, <o>, <d>, <g>, <j>, <m>, <n>, <p>, <s> in the Latin alphabet; less frequent correspondences in the writing of <t>, of little significance for identification, are also observable, as are correspondences in the writing of the letters <e>, <l>, <u>.

The following features are more difficult to explain: the writing of diacritical hooks, the extension of word endings, the letter <z>, the way the cluster <st> is written, and “dotting.” It may be assumed that certain factors influenced the emergence of these differences

¹⁰ https://www.pismoznalectvi.org/odborne-cinnosti/standardy-spp/standard-pro-stanovovani-zaveru/ [accessed 2020–05–18].

168

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII

Rankraštinio Lietuvių kalbos žodyno autorystės klausimas: nauji faktai, paaiškėję atliekant teismo rašysenos ekspertizę

circumstances affecting the person who wrote the Dictionary, as a result of which handwriting features cannot in some cases be explained unambiguously.

Other facts related to this Czech figure, discussed in detail in previous studies, should also be taken into account. What is meant, of course, is

his correspondence (especially a fragment of a letter from J. V. Kamaryto, which refers directly to the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language),

the fact that the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language does not conflict with the scholar’s other lexicographic work, which is typologically close to the work mentioned,

similar ideas expressed not only in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language but also in other scholarly works by this figure of the Czech national revival.

No less important is the fact that the research ruled out the possibility that the archival document might have been written by another scholar of the period.

There were few figures in the Czech lands in the first half of the 19th century who could have written a dictionary of this kind. The aforementioned K. J. Erben (1811–1870) was undoubtedly a notable Czech writer, who, like F. L. Čelakovský, drew inspiration for his literary texts from oral folk creativity. However, the way K. J. Erben uses Baltic material in his scholarly works suggests that he was not an experienced specialist in Lithuanian studies. A more convincing explanation of the comment “Erben?” written on the verso of the title page of the archival document under discussion could, it is thought, be that it was a designation used for internal archival purposes. This explanation is also supported by the fact that K. J. Erben served from 1846 to 1851 as the first director of the then newly established Regional Archive (Archiv Vlastenecký, from 1848 the Czech Museum Archive, now the National Museum Archive).

The candidacy of the renowned linguist and Balticist Pavel Josef Šafařík (1795–1861) cannot be excluded from the list of possible authors of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. In this case, however, the structure of the work under analysis rules out this possibility. The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language is distinguished by its evident Romantic motivation and is influenced by trends characteristic of the period. It may be assumed that although the possibility cannot be ruled out that P. J. Šafařík might have decided to write a dictionary of Baltic and Slavic languages, it is more likely that he would have undertaken this task more conscientiously.

Naturally, other 19th-century figures may also be considered as candidates, including not only F. L. Čelakovský’s contemporaries but also his students and followers. Among them, for example, Ignác Jan Hanuš (1812–1869), author of the first biography of F. L. Čelakovský, published in 1855¹¹, may be mentioned. However, in the absence of evidence supporting this hypothesis, whether in the case of I. J. Hanuš or anyone else, it is considered not worthwhile to investigate this question further.

¹¹ Hanuš Ignác Jan 1855: Život a působení Františka Ladislava Čelakovského, Praha: Tisk umělecko-knihtiskařského ústavu K. Bellmanna.

Straipsniai / Articles

169

GEDA MONTVILAITĖ, ANNA TOLLAROVÁ

Nevertheless, it is important that the conclusions of the forensic examination identified F. L. Čelakovský as the “probable” creator of the manuscript. Although the possibility has not been entirely ruled out that the Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, in the form available to us, was copied by another person, identifying the authorship as “moderately probable” (taking into account the difficulties encountered in analysing the sources) is another very important piece in the puzzle confirming F. L. Čelakovský’s authorship, corroborated by comparison with the surviving literary and scholarly works of this Czech Revival figure.

Although the handwriting analysis did not establish beyond doubt that F. L. Čelakovský was the person who wrote down the Lietuvių kalbos žodyną, and his authorship cannot be firmly affirmed, conceptually speaking, F. L. Čelakovský’s authorship may be considered proven.

ŠALTINIAI

Lietevský slovník. Knihovna Národního muzea, oddělení rukopisů a starých tisků, signatura IV A 11.

Lemeškin Ilja 2018: Vyjádření k psané podobě „Litevského slovníku“, Praha.

Standart pro stanovování závěrů znaleckého zkoumání. Prieiga internete: https://www.pismoznalectvi.org/odborne-cinnosti/standardy-spp/standard-pro-stanovovani-zaveru/ [žiūrėta 2020-05-18].

Straka Jiří 2018: Znalecký posudek z oboru písmoznalectví, specializace ruční písmo, zabývající se otázkou zda předmětnou archiválii, tj. Litevský slovník (sing.: IV A 11), jehož originál je uložený v Oddělení rukopisů a starých tisků Knihovny Národního muzea, napsal František Ladislav Čelakovský, narozený 7. března 1799 a zemřelý dne 5. srpna 1852, Praha.

LITERATŪRA

Bartoš František Michálek 1926: Soupis rukopisů Národního musea v Praze, Praha: Melantrich.

Běťáková Marta Eva, Blažek Václav 2012: Encyklopedie baltské mytologie, Praha: Libri, 2012.

Čeladín Jindřich, Blažek Václav, Kabeláčová Tereza, Seitlová Eva 2016: Čekų baltistikos bibliografija. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 74, 305–351.

Lemeškin Ilja 2010: Františko Ladislavo Čelakovskio lietuvių kalbos žodynas. – Leksikografija ir leksikologija 2, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 98–113.

170

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII

Rankraštinio Lietuvių kalbos žodyno autorystės klausimas: nauji faktai, paaiškėję atliekant teismo rašysenos ekspertizę

Pleskalová Jana 2007: Nabodeníčkka v české lingvistické terminologii. – Slavica Slovaca 42(2), 147–151.

Ryngevič Renata 2000: Lingvistinė ekspertizė Vokietijoje ir Lenkijoje: raidos tendencijų apžvalga. – Jurisprudencija 18(10), 122–128.

Šeferis Vaidas 2009: Kristijono Donelaičio kūryba čekų filologijos akiratyje. – Senoji Lietuvos literatūra, knyga 28, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 41–62.

The Matter of Authorship of the Handwritten Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language: the New Findings Revealed from a Professional Handwriting Analysis

SUMMARY

The article addresses the authorship of the handwritten relic of the first half of the 19^th century – The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (Lietuvių slovynų) – kept at the Department of Manuscripts and Early Printed Books of the Czech National Museum Library (shelfmark IV A 11; 30 large-format (21.5 × 35.5 cm) pages).

To continue the research of Ilja Lemėškin and other researchers, the project František Ladislav Čelakovský’s Handwritten Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (Rukopisný slovník litevštiny Františka Ladislava Čelakovského) (No. 520317), which was dedicated to a more detailed analysis of The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language and was funded by the Charles University Grant Agency (GA UK), was conducted at the Faculty of Philosophy of Charles University from 2017 to 2019.

Authorship related arguments had to be supplemented with the conclusions of a professional handwriting analysis carried out by JUDr. J. Straka.

Expert Straka used several analysis methods: analytic-synthetic, comparative-graphometric. To analyze the manuscripts, the expert also resorted to specialized equipment.

In the final part Straka summarized his analysis by the statement that F. L. Čelakovský’s authorship is “probable”. The following features match in the handwriting of both F. L. Čelakovský and The Dictionary author in part or in full: slant angle of letters, coherence of letters, height and width ratio; coincidence in the shapes of letters <a>, <o>, <d>, <g>, <j>, <m>, <n>, <p>, <s> in the Latin script is observed; there is less coincidence in the writing of <t>; matching shapes of letters <e>, <l>, <u>, which do not play an

Straipsniai / Articles

171

GEDA MONTVILAITĖ, ANNA TOLLAROVÁ

important role in the analysis. The following features are more difficult to explain: the writing of diacritical hooks; the extension of word endings; the way of writing the letter <z>, the combination <st> and “dotting”. It may be assumed that the above differences were determined by the influences that affected the writer in composing The Dictionary; despite the above, in some cases the features cannot be explained absolutely reliably.

Though we cannot fully reject the possibility that the form of The Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, which is at our disposal, was transcribed by a different person, the determination of authorship as “moderately likely” (bearing in mind the difficulties encountered in the analysis of sources) is yet another very important piece of the puzzle confirming Čelakovský’s authorship, which was testified by comparing it with the surviving literary and scientific works of this Czech figure of national revival.

Based on the findings of all the available studies on this topic, we may consider F. L. Čelakovský’s authorship a proven fact.

Įteikta 2020 m. gegužės 1 d.

GEDA MONTVILAITĖ ANNA TOLLAROVÁ Karolio universitetas Filosofijos fakultetas nárm. Jana Palacha 1/2, Cz-11638 Praha, Čekija [email protected] [email protected]

172

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXII