LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXX (1993)

PERIFERINĖS LIETUVIŲ KALBOS TARMĖS

[Rec.]: Druviete I. Kārlis Mīlenbachs. Rīga: Zinātne, 1990, 283 lpp.

This fine monograph about K. Mīlenbachs grew out of a candidate dissertation defended in 1985. The author had previously published several interesting articles about the distinguished Latvian linguist, in which particular attention was paid to his linguistic views and his contribution to the normalization of the Latvian literary language¹.

In the history of Latvian linguistics and the literary language, K. Mīlenbachs holds an honored place alongside his friend Jānis Endzelīns, and one can only wonder that, since L. Adamovičs’s more substantial article about K. Mīlenbachs, published in 1927², and A. Augstkalns’s bibliography of his works, published in 1933³, no more serious publications have appeared in Latvian linguistic literature.

The monograph’s author recounts the linguist’s life in a highly engaging manner, presenting interesting details, many of them previously unknown, for example, the Livonian origin of the Mīlenbachs family. Naturally, she devotes most space to K. Mīlenbachs’s linguistic work: his creation of linguistic terminology, his struggle for spelling reform in Latvian, his research on syntax, Latvian-language textbooks, and the most important work of K. Mīlenbachs’s life—the great Latvian dictionary, which Janis Endzelīns was destined to complete after the author’s death.

It is impossible to convey the monograph’s contents in greater detail in a short annotation; we will try to point out just a few facts that may be of particular interest and relevance to historians of the Lithuanian language and to Lithuanian readers in general.

As we know, Latvians, unlike Lithuanians, currently use international names for the grammatical cases. However, following the same path as our A. Baranauskas, K. Jaunius, and J. Jablonskis, K. Mīlenbachs had devised Latvian names for them: sakulis, attiecūlis, virzulis, papildulis, vietulis, saukulis. The well-known writer Jēkabs Janševskis (1865–1931) had supported the use of these case names, but most other Latvian cultural figures sharply criticized this innovation by K. Mīlenbachs.

The chapter of I. Druviete’s book entitled "Valoda un vārda māksla" (Language and the Art of the Word) should be of great interest to a Lithuanian-language specialist; in it, the author very cautiously, with

¹ Druviete I. Daži K. Mīlenbaha atzinumi par latviešu valodas normalizāciju // Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi. 1982. Ld. 17. Lpp. 38-49; Valodas normalizācijas teorētiskais pamatojums Kārļa Mīlenbaha darbos // LPSR Zinātņu Akadēmijas Vēstis, 1984. Nr. 5. Lpp. 51-61 ir kt.

² Adamovičs L. Kārļa Mīlenbacha dzīve un darbi // Filologu biedrības raksti. 1927. S. 7. Lpp. 74-97.

³ Augstkalns A. Kārļa Mīlenbacha raksti // Filoloģijas materiāli. 1933. Lpp. 19-23.

216

With great tact and respect for Latvian national culture, she substantiates the discussion between K. Mīlenbachs and Jānis Rainis about the language of J. W. Goethe’s "Faust" translation. In the academic history of Latvian literature⁴ and in some literary studies about J. Rainis, the linguist K. Mīlenbachs’s role was unfairly portrayed in a very negative light. Among other things, this discussion strongly recalls the debate between Lithuanian linguists and writers that began over Faustas Kirša’s translation of J. S. Kraszewski’s "Vitolio rauda". In that debate, V. Krėvė-Mickevičius called linguists “nitpickers” (J. Rainis had compared them to inquisitors).

When publication of K. Mīlenbachs’s dictionary was completed—a work that continues to be admired by all scholars of the Baltic languages—an article appeared in a Latvian newspaper claiming that the dictionary lacked “a feel and intuition for the Latvian language.” Should we be too surprised, then, by some of the reviews of K. Būga’s dictionary?

K. Mīlenbachs knew Jonas Jablonskis well: they both worked at the same Mintauja (Jelgava) gymnasium. Here is what I. Druviete writes about the relationship between these linguists:

"A true commitment to scientific linguistics began only around 1889, when Karlis Mīlenbachs became a senior teacher at the Jelgava Gymnasium. Jonas Jablonskis—the founder of the Lithuanian literary language, who taught classical languages at the Jelgava Gymnasium from 1889 to 1897—occupied a special place in his life. The Lithuanian linguist and national revival activist, seven years younger than Karlis Mīlenbachs, had already published several articles on linguistics. At that time, it was very unusual for gymnasium teachers to devote themselves to scholarly research; who knows, perhaps Jonas Jablonskis’s example encouraged K. Mīlenbachs to make his own contribution to linguistics. J. Jablonskis supplied K. Mīlenbachs with books, provided information about Lithuanian dialects, and was for him “a source of Lithuanian life” (p. 35).

In describing the relationship between these linguists, I. Druviete relies chiefly on K. Mīlenbachs’s letter to the prominent Czech Balticist Josef Zubatý. It may be added that, through K. Mīlenbachs’s letters, the Czech linguist learned that the Lithuanian linguist Obelaitis and Jonas Jablonskis were one and the same person.

J. Jablonskis was not the only one who helped K. Mīlenbachs become acquainted with the basics of Lithuanian; the Latvian linguist also studied Lithuanian while staying with his brother-in-law in Tauragė.

As we rejoice in this excellent monograph, we would like to hope that the time is not far off when we will also be able to read a similar book about Jānis Endzelīns, the great companion of Karlis Mīlenbachs.

Algirdas Sabaliauskas

⁴ Latviešu literatūras vēsture. Rīga, 1957. S. IV. Lpp. 477-480.

217