J. Gerulio „Senieji lietuvių skaitymai“: sudarymo principai ir reikšmė lituanistikai (lyginant su „Lietuvių literatūros istorijos chrestomatija“)

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XXXVI (1996) LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE: RESEARCHERS IR STUDIES Juozas KARACIEJUS J. GERULIO "OLD LITHUANIAN READINGS": SUDARYMO PRINCIPAI IR REIKSME LITUANISTIKAI (compared to su "Lithuanian literature history chrestomaty") Most of both pre-war Kaunas (from 1930 m. The Lithuanian students of the Vytautas the Great University, as well as the post-war Lithuanian students of Vilnius University (except at least from 1945 to 1955) usually started their acquaintance with ancient Lithuanian writings, their linguistic features and literary elements from the chrestomacy "Senieji lietuvių skaitymai" (Old Lithuanian Readings) prepared by J. Gerulis and published in 1927. Part I: Texts with jvads”! (hereinafter: Readings). The former probably still had at hand M. Biržiška's "Collected Writings of Our Antiquity" (hereinafter: Writings) published in the same year, and the latter — the "Chrestomatia of the History of Lithuanian Literature" (hereinafter: Chrestomatija) edited by K. Korsakas and J. Lebedis and published in 1957. The authors of the latter were determined to overthrow all previous publications of a similar nature, because "the earlier published chrestomatias and collections of writings of the old Lithuanian literature (E. Volterio, M. Biržiškos, J. Gerulio and others) are outdated and do not meet the requirements of today". Since J. Gerulio Readings were used (and are still used) more frequently not only by students, but also by researchers of the Lithuanian language (and partly of ancient Lithuanian literature- ), it becomes clear that the Chrestomatija cannot replace the Readings. Thus, the significance of Chrestomatia for Lithuanian studies is much smaller than expected. Therefore, the question arises quite rightly, what determined the popularity of J. Gerulis Readings? In order to answer this question, we should first clarify the criteria used to select the texts and the principles used by the authors of both chrestomatias in presenting the selected texts to the reader. However, before beginning to search for answers to the above-mentioned questions, we should not forget that the Chrestomatija edited by K. Korsakas and J. Lebedys is closer in scope, content and partly in purpose to M. Biržiškos Raštai than to J. Gerulio Skaitymai, which covers only Lithuanian writings of the 16th—17th centuries. Therefore; 1 "Now it is only regrettable that J. Gerulis did not keep his promise and did not prepare part II of this publication, in which he promised not only to "explain those genders and those words that are not understandable to all Lithuanians", but apparently he had intended to answer practically the question raised during the preparation of part I: "shouldn't we print at least a few pages from the originals of the stolen Otynia and Poland? Because the vast majority of our old writings sta, and therefore it would be interesting to see how the translators with their sources ht (p. V). ? The History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. epoch. Red. K. Korsakas and J. Lebedys. New York: National Library of Medicine, 1957. 25 only Lithuanian texts of these centuries and their commentaries presented in both publications can be compared. Furthermore, the authors of similar publications had in mind, first of all, the future readers, i.e. who these publications were intended for and what objectives were pursued. It is these circumstances that determined the principles of text selection and their preparation. J. Gerulis does not state clearly in the "Talk" of the Readings to whom the book is intended, but from its beginning it can be inferred that the publication is intended for specialists, cf.: "Our ancient monuments of language are widely scattered around the world. Rarely anyone is able to use them at all, and there are not many new licenses either. Part two a. a. At the urging of the author, I print the short texts in full, and the longer ones in large excerpts”- ®. It also explains how the texts were selected for this publication. The authors of the chrestomaty in the Preface of the publication specify more specifically to whom they dedicate their publication, cf.: "The primary sources of ancient Lithuanian literature, developed in the feudalism era, most of the ancient Lithuanian writings, are today difficult to access: they have become bibliographical rarities, of which even in the great libraries of the republic there is only one other copy. The task of this chrestomacy is to make the findings of the car ‘bent bi iu din gesniagsias jus idtrankas more accessible to our society, especially to schoolchildren (iSretinta mano. —J. K.). The criteria for selecting the texts are also discussed here: "This chrestomacy is a chrestomacy of Lithuanian literature, not of the history of Lithuanian writings in general. Thus, it contains only that material whose genre or stylistic characteristics allow it to be assigned to historically developing fiction. However, this chrestomaty does not include those ancient Lithuanian texts that are either purely of a state administrative nature (e.g., various documents, legal acts, summonses of the authorities, etc.), or directly belong to religious cult (e.g., various prayers, hymns as such, etc.), or are entirely of a philological and pedagogical content (e.g., texts of dictionaries, grammar books, elementary texts). This chrestomacy differs from previously published chrestomacies of ancient Lithuanian literature, which usually included texts of all Lithuanian scripts, regardless of their genre or stylistic characteristics. The authors of these chrestomatias were usually concerned to provide material not so much for our literature as for the study of Lithuania’s past and its culture, the history of the Lithuanian language. In addition, the chrestomatias published during the bourgeois rule were particularly overloaded withvarious texts of a purely religious and cult nature (prayers, hymns, sermons, translations of the Bible). In this way, the role of religious writings in the cultural life of the Lithuanian nation was emphasized. (iSretinta mano. —J. K.) and, on the other hand, clearly too little attention is paid to secular writings and fictional literature 3Gerulis J. Ancient Lithuanian readings. Part I. K.: University of California Press, 1927, [p.] V. A History of the English Language, 2. 26 in the ancient Lithuanian writing. In this chrestomaty, on the contrary, the main place is given to writings of secular content and to those texts of ancient Lithuanian literature in which secular motifs and the first elements of artistic expression are expressed. That is why this chrestomaty is richly presented with speeches, dedications, panegyrics of various religious books, in which secular motifs and means of artistic expression were mainly expressed*”. From these lengthy excerpts of the "Preface" of Chrestomatia we see that this book, which meets the requirements of those days, is not intended for specialists (not even students!- ), but for the public, especially schoolchildren, and its main purpose is to introduce readers to the ancient writings or at least to the most characteristic excerpts of them in a distinctive and innovative way. Unfortunately, it is immediately said that due to the prevailing ideological positions at the time, the organizers of the Chrestomatia did not fully realize this idea. This is clearly shown by the volume of some of the ancient Lithuanian writings presented in Chrestomatia." One could think that the authors of the Chrestomatia themselves understood and felt this, and that is why in the book “Pratarmeé” there appeared the most sophisticated deductions, which try to convince the reader that the ancient religious writings are not a very significant source for studying Lithuanian culture and literature. Such statements, I dare say, have greatly helped to overcome the negative attitude towards the ancient writings. Since the recipients of the chrestomatias are different, it goes without saying that the principles of presentation of selected Lithuanian texts must also differ, because what is necessary for a specialist is not at all necessary for the ordinary reader and vice versa. So how are the selected texts presented in both publications? J. Gerulis writes about the principles of presentation of the texts: "I neither corrected nor compared the language and spelling. After all, we want to experience how people really spoke and wrote in those days, and not how someone of us in the place of Mažvydas, Daukša or Širvydas would have written. I only corrected the major press errors in the notes, but, as it seems to me now, that was also completely unnecessary." Therefore, J. Gerulis tried to present authentic Lithuanian texts, i.e. such as are needed by a specialist. The authors of the Chrestomatia treated the old texts in a slightly different way. They say: "In preparing this chrestomacy, the difficult question of the linguistic presentation of the texts had to be solved. As is known, Lithuanian writings of the feudalism era are written in a peculiar, very diverse spelling, different from our current spelling, and their language has a considerable number mų of dialects and dialectisms that are no longer used in our literary language. All this makes reading the tų scripts much more o difficult, in some cases making the jų content even difficult to understand. With the aim of this chrestomaty to present materials of Lithuanian literary history “ Idem. wy 6 For example, the most famous XVI a. writer M. Many Lithuanian writings ChrestomatiIt represents only a partial 21 Postile row of (18 rows iš 7 page ir 2,5 rows iš 339 (see page 4). Todel varė ar iš such passages can at ką least say about M. Many Lithuanian scripts have language and style characteristics, literary ir jų elements and means of expression. "Guerillas J. English literature, [p.] V. 27 to study, it was necessary to ensure that the texts of the ancient Lithuanian script included in the chrestomacy were easily understood. As a result, they have been transposed into the current spelling and partly into the current literary language, renouncing many phonetic and morphological archaisms and dialects, but without changing the lexicon and syntax. From the ancient morphological genders, only those that are particularly characteristic of the historical development of the Lithuanian language and that give the language and style of the ancient Lithuanian scripts a peculiar color are retained in the transposition. All ancient lexical, morphological and syntactic genders that might be incomprehensible to the modern reader are explained in footnotes to each transposed text?*. "In order to show as clearly as possible the character of Lithuanian writings of the feudalism era not only in terms of content, but also in terms of language, spelling, printing technique, this chrestomaty presents authentic photocopies of the transposed texts, except in those cases where the original text has not survived"". From the last quotation of the Chrestomatia "Pratarmes" it becomes clear not only that the book is not intended for specialists (which is why it was necessary to "translate" the Lithuanian texts of the 16th—17th centuries into the present language), but also another interesting thing: the editors of the Chrestomatia, having several times emphasized the uniqueness of the book, its superiority, in the "Pratarmes", which was marked with the compulsory ideological stamps of the time, undoubtedly understood that when preparing the old Lithuanian | texts on such principles, the said statements are suspended in the air. However, students or the general public do not need a photocopy of each text, and professionals do not need transposed texts. Perhaps it is even possible to doubt whether this book is really intended for the public, especially since at the end of the "Preface" it is stated: "The photographed texts make it possible to use the material of this chrestomacy not only for the history of our literature, but also for the cause of the Lithuanian language"!- *. Recalling the principles of texty selection and their preparation, in the latter statement, it seems to be possible to discern a contradiction. Thus, even without going into a more detailed comparison of the two chrestomatias, it is clear that the "Chrestomatia of the History of Lithuanian Literature" prepared in this way cannot replace J. Gerulis' "Old Lithuanian Readings", because the Chrestomatia prepared on such eclectic principles can not be used as a textbook — students always look first at the transposed text, not at the photographed one. Probably that is why a number of Lithuanian scholars, even those with diplomas, are now almost unable to read M. Daukšos or K. Sirvydo writings. Now that J. Gerulis’ Readings have become a bibliographical rarity, weeping requires a new chrestomacy of ancient writings. When preparing it, we should not overdo it, but follow the path indicated by J. Gerulis, guided by principles. 8 The latter statement is very reminiscent of the promise of J. Gerulis in the second part of the Readings; “explain jo the gender and the words that are not understood by all Lithuanians" (P.) 9 History of Lithuanian Literature, 6. ; Idem. 28 * k * When the article was written and submitted to the press, I drew attention to the objective and rigorous review of the first version of the "Chrestomatia of the History of Lithuanian Literature" by Prof. J. Lebedys, published in his writings (see Lebedys J. Lituanistikos baruose, vol. 2, V.: Vaga, 1972, pp. 16-35), which, among other things, raises questions about the selection and presentation of texts, which are not diametrically opposed to the ideas expressed in the article. Moreover, from the aforementioned source it becomes clear that only after this review, which ends with a rather strict conclusion, —"All the above points to the fact that the chrestomaty is not ready to be prepared, but it is very necessary" (ibid., p. 35), —prof. J. Lebedys was invited to edit and correct the book, but apparently not on all issues J. Lebedys’s vote was decisive. 29