Lyginamoji kalbotyra ir tarybinės lietuvių filologijos uždaviniai

LACIE TU V TU RALBOTYROS KLAUSIMĄAL VI LIE TU V OS TS R MO K SL Ų AKADEMITA COMPARATIVE LANGUAGE IR COMMISSIONS LITHUANIAN PHILOSOPHY TASKS K. It is widely known that philologists have been very interested in the Lithuanian language since the very beginning of comparative-historical linguistics: Over more than a century and a half, starting with the founder of comparative linguistics, F. Bop, many famous linguists both in the West and in the Slavic countries have devoted many of their works to the study of the Lithuanian language and its related Baltic languages. Among these linguists we see such prominent figures of the linguistic science as A. Schleicher, F. Fortunatov, A. Leskinas, V. Tomsen, A. Becenberger, J. Boduenas de Kurtenė, A. Potebnia, F. Sosiura, A. Mejė, J. Zubati, H. Pedersen, N. van Wijk, V. Pisani and others. There is no need to remind here that the bibliography of international Lithuanian philology today consists of several thousand positions of various sizes, as there is no need to indicate why the Lithuanian language deserves such great attention in international linguistics. These are things that are well known to everyone, especially as far as they concern the older and pre-war times. Much less, unfortunately, is known about the international situation of Lithuanian philology in the post-war years. Without attempting to give a comprehensive overview of this state, which is a task of a separate work which our linguist specialists should undertake in the near future, we would like here only to point out one more important moment of its present development and to emphasize those actual tasks which today arise in this field for our Soviet philologists. ! A fairly detailed bibliographical overview of Lithuanian-- Baltic works published in the period 1945—1955, albeit mainly — with regard to the themes of Baltic-Slavic linguistic relations, has been — presented by V. Toporovas (see section 4.4). B. H. Tonopos. HoBeiimei pa6orti B 06AacTH H3YyueHHZ GaATO-CAaBSHCKHX SI3BIKOBLIX OTHOIIEHMIT, — BOripoChi CAABSHCKOTO S3bIKOBHAHHS. Bemyck 3, M., crp. 1958, 134—161). Some recent Lithuanian-Baltic iš works mentioned by the Italian linguist ir V. Pisanio 1953 m. published in a review of general comparatiir ve linguistics (see section 4.4). translation in the set OGmjee m nuAo0eBporneūckoe 3siK03Hamue. M., crp. 1956, 83—199), o also Soviet linguists T. Degteriova- 's book on contemporary comparative linguistics (T. A. Air pump. Ilyrn pasBurus coBpemeHHoit AumrBmcTHKH, M., 1, 1961, 215 crp. ; 2, M., 1962, 213 crp.) ir other Soviet linguists A. Desnicka, although in a somewhat outdated work on the me studies of the Indo-European language affinity (A. B. Ae cHHu IK a a. BonpoChl H3Yy4eHHZ POACTBA MHAOEBPOIEHCKUX S3LIKOB, M., and the -1955, 332 cTp. ). humanities in general. It is particularly important to talk about this in connection with the V International Congress of Slavists, the programme of which includes presentations on some problematic issues of Lithuanian language research, especially the historical development of Baltic-Slavic linguistic relations. While in the first post-war years studies of the Lithuanian language and related comparative linguistics problems among foreign linguists were somewhat reduced, in the last decade there has been a clear revival in this field. First of all, it should be noted that a considerable number of Russian Soviet linguists, such as S. Bernstein, V. Toporov, O. Trubachev, F. Filin, B. Larin, B. Gornung, P. Chernych, V. Ivanov, and others, have made a considerable contribution to this revival and are contributing more and more actively. It is mainly thanks to their efforts and newly published works that the use of Lithuanian and Baltic language material in general in Soviet linguistics has been revived again today, which had almost completely disappeared during the period of Mariism. Russian Soviet linguists, especially their younger generation, are today reviving and successfully continuing those old traditions of Russian philology, when the Lithuanian language was specially studied by such famous linguists as F. Fortunatov, A. Shakhmatov, G. Ulyanov, A. Potebnia, V. Porzhezinskis and when its facts were extensively used both in comparative-historical linguistics in general, and especially in the study of Baltic-Slavic linguistic relations, the ethnogenesis of the Baltic and Slavic peoples and other linguistic and historical problems. Today, in Soviet Russian linguistics, we see a return to both the solution of these problems and the use of Lithuanian language facts to solve them. This is evident even from Prof. S. Bernstein’s course on comparative grammar of Slavic languages, which he taught at the Moscow University in 1952—1954. The author of the course emphasizes that “the Baltic languages are of paramount importance for the comparative grammar of the Slavic languages. This is equally acknowledged both by the supporters of the theory of the proto-Belarusian language and by its enemies'"*. And elsewhere even more authoritatively: “The facts of the Baltic languages are extremely important to shed light on the history of the Slavic protolanguage (mpacaaBsiHCKOro si35IKa). The data of the Baltic languages are widely used by all linguists. The significance of the data of the Baltic languages for Slavists is also determined by the extraordinary archaic nature of these languages." These statements of the Soviet linguist are connected with the opinion of the renowned Bulgarian linguist V. Georgiev about the importance of the Lithuanian language for Indo-European studies in general. In his work "Comparative-historical studies of linguistics- ", solving the problem of the origin and homeland of Indo-European languages, V. Georgiev writes: "In Europe today we find the most archaic of all living Indo-European languages - Lithuanian. This can be explained by the fact that the Lithuanian language developed in its se-? See. J. Palionis. The contribution of Russian linguists to Lithuanian studies. V., 1963, p. 74. 38 €, B. BepHiuurežtu. Ouepk cpaBHHTEALHOH IrpaMMaTHKH CA8BSHCKHX SI3BIKOB. M., 1961, crp. 28. * Ibid., p. 37. within the borders of the new homeland (or close to it) was influenced only by the ir closest relative languages Slavic and Germanic only to a very small — extent Finno-Ugric languages. — ir — This fact has significance in establishing the Indo-European languages protévyne"®, It should be noted that the aforementioned V. Georgiev's work consists of jo somewhat extended lectures, read Moscow University, Faculty of Philology 1956 m. in autumn. Thus, it can be said that Lithuanian and other Baltic languages (Latvian ancient ir Prussian) importance for Slavistics in general and for ir all Indo-European studies in particular has been University of the Soviet capital in the most — famous center of Soviet science. At the same time, it should be noted that the authors of both the aforementioned works ne only declared the importance of these Baltic languages, ir but made extensive tų use of linguistic data to examine the issues addressed in their works." Tą we also see in the recently ir published book of the famous Russian Soviet linguist prof. F. In Filin's interesting work "The formation of the Eastern Slavic language". Jo The author, reviewing the problems of Baltic-Slavic linguistic relations and ethnogenesis in describing the historical ir formation of the East Slavic language, also in many cases relies on Lithuanian or Baltic etymologies, gives abundant examples of Lithuanian-Latvian languages, at the same time revealing one new moment in the prehistory of iš the Baltic ir tribes. ir ne Finally, it is necessary to mention another important work, truly innovative in its results, as iš the younger generation of Russian Soviet linguists V. Toporovo ir O. The Trubachev Studio ‘High Linguistic Analysis of Transnistria Hydronyms"®. In this work, the appearance of which was marked ir by our republic press, the linguistic aspects of the The names of the tributaries ir of the Dnieper are 800 determined by Baltic hydronyms. To support their analysis, the authors of the study used extensive Lithuanian toponymy and hydronymy material and a number of ir Lithuanian etymologies. Although some iš tų etymologiir es are o controversial, individual statements are only hypothetical, but ši overall the study gives a fairly solid basis for moving the inhabited area of ancient Balts tribes much further į east (not even two Seimas river basin), than it has been done so far, at the same time allows to treat completely differently ir the prehistoric relations of the Baltic tribes with only Slavs and Finns, but even ne su ir su Iranians, whose direct connectiosu ns with the whites have usually always been denied by scholars. 5B. H. Teoprues. HccaepoBanus mo CPaBHUTEABHO-HCTOPUYECKOMY SI3BIKO3HAHMIO, M., ctp. 1958, 247. ® Antai S. There are cases in Bernstein180 's work o V. Georgievo — 90 cases; where it operates on specific facts of Lithuanian language, not to mention general theoretical reasoning, assumptions statements concerning Lithuanian language Lithuanians and in general ir Baltic tribes linguistic relations in prehistoric ir times Slavs, Germans and other Indo-European peoples. su ir : 7 O. II. 1998-1999 On Ann. O6GpasoBaHUe s3biKa BOCTOYHBIX CAABSH. M., 1962, 292 cTp. 8B, H. Tonopos, O. H. Tpy6aues. AHHIBHCTHYECKHI aHAAH3 THAPOHUMOB BepxHero Ilopmenposbs. M., 1962, 270 crp. The summary of this work, jo especially of the Lithuanian part, tų consists of the authors’ own article ,,BaATHŽCKHS THADOHHMHS Bepxxero IlaAHeripoBsa”, published 1961 m. Issues of Lithuanian Linguistics IV (p. 195—218). -—The aforementioned works, published in the Soviet Union in the period 1958—1962, as well as a whole series of larger and smaller studies and articles (among whose authors, besides Russians, we find also other Soviet nations, as well as foreign linguists), published in the Soviet philological periodicals during this period, not only restored significant resonance to the Lithuanian language in the revived Soviet comparative-historical linguistics, but also again raised with emphasis the problems of the Baltic-Slavic protolanguage and homeland. Especially lively discussions and even passionate disputes about these problems took place on the eve and during the IV International Congress of Slavists, held in Moscow in 1958, and it can be expected that no less attention will be paid to them at the V International Congress of Slavists, to be held in Sofia this year. The problem of the Balto-Slavic proto-language and homeland has recently become one of the most relevant and widely discussed problems of comparative-historical linguistics on an international scale. In addition to Soviet linguists, this problem is particularly closely studied by a number of well-known contemporary Polish linguists, historians and archaeologists — T. Lėr-Splavinskis, J. Kurilovičius, J. Otrembskis, J. Safarevičius, K. Mošinskis, J. Kostževskis, K. Jazdževskis, K. Timinskis and others. Especially remarkable are the first postwar years of akad. T. Lėr-Splavinskis' works (,,On the Origin and Homeland of the Slavs" and "Praslavai", both 1946), the main statements of which the author later repeated in his articles, published in the Soviet press." The work of J. Kurilovič is of exceptional importance, in which the hypothesis of the Baltic-Slavic protolanguage is based on the closeness of the intonation systems of the Baltic and Slavic languages. J. Kurilovičius' long-term research in this field, which contributed considerable new information to the historical development of accentology in the Lithuanian language, was summarized in his capital work on the pronunciation of Indo-European languages, ; published twice (in 1952 and 1958) in the post-war years, and in some of his articles"- ?, It should be noted that in the last decade, the issues of Balto-Slavic accentology and the commonality of intonation systems have been more or less thoroughly examined in a whole series of works, studies and monographs that have recently appeared in both Slavic and Western countries, which in essence 9 Zr. ‘Bonpocsi ¢uaorornn’, ‘Borpockhi CAaBSHCKOTO S3bIKO3HaHHS’,,CAaBsmCcKas (OHAoAorus); 'Yuenmsie 3armmCkHu HHCTHTYTa CAaBsHOBepeHus' et al. 10 See 'Bortpocst 5351mK03Hanns', 1958, No 1, crp. 36—35; taip pat C60pHHk OTBeTOB Ha BOTIDOCEI IIO A3BIKO3HaHMIO (K IV MexayHapoapHOMy cCbe3Ay cAaBHcrToB), M., 1958, crp. 152-174, here expressed their opinion on this issue: T. Lēr-Splavinskis (Kraków), L. Bulachovskis (Kiev), K. Janaček (Prague), K. Trainer (Graz), S. Bernstein (Moscow), P. Trost (Prague), V. Kiparskis (West Berlin), M. Budimiras (Belgrade- ), I. Lekov (Sofia), V. Ernitsas (Tartu), V. Georgiev (Sofia), E. Dikeman (Bern). 11 Zr. BaATo-cAaBSIHCKast H3bIKOBas OOIMHOCTL M NIpoOAeMa BdTHOTreHe3a CAaBsSH.- —BoIIpOCbI CAABSHCKOTO S135IKO3HaHHA, BeIL 3. M., 1958, crp. 5—14. A detailed review of T. Lēr-Splavinskis’ works on the Slavic protolanguage and homeland, published in 1946—1955, has been made by Prof. V. Falkenhan (see „Zeitschrift fiir Slavistik- ”, 1956, No. 2, pp. 49—88). 12 See p.,,ON GAATO-CAGBSIHCK S13bICOBS eAHHCTBE. —BONpoCbki CAABSHCKOIO S13bIKo3HaHug, Ber. 3, 1958, crTp. 15—49. 8 changes the traditional views in this area, ir bases them on completely new principles. Recent work in this field is so significantly innovative that, according to the German ir linguist R. According to Aicetmüller, it is possible to talk about „the period of deterioration of the Baltic-Slavic accent and intonation (Accent) Intonationsverhiltnisse- )“ !3, Examining the problem of the Balto-Slavic protolanguage both specifically and in the context of other problems of Indo-European studies, the su issues of Balto-Slavic linguistic relations, prehistory, migration jų ethnogenesis have been ir touched in one aspect or another in recent ar years by many ir Western Linguists. Without į pretending to be exhaustive, we will mention at least the most important works jų in this field. This is a well-known Norwegian Slavist-Lithuanian Ch. Stango's study of the Slavic-Baltic ir verb, some later works (1942) ir on the Slavic-Baltic jo pronunciation; of the recently deceased ir well-known German Lithuanianist E. Frenkel's overview work on Baltic languages ir jų relations with other su Indo-European languages, as well as an (1950), o etymological dictionary of jo the Lithuanian language, providing considerable material for the elucidation of Lithuanian ir Slavic linguistic relations; this, finally, the famous French linguist A. Vajan's comparative grammar of Slavic languages in two (1950, 1958), volumes, which devotes considerable space to ir questions of the Baltic-Slavic protolanguage. ir Commemoration of the recently deceased famous German linguist M. Fasmerio, Norway K. Various works of R. Falk, French Schmitlein, su related ir to the Slavic Balts, including ir su Lithuanian toponymy and hydronymy, Lithuanian su place names kų and personal names, providing a lot of new information about the process of Slavification of Lithuanian toponymy in general and ir the relations of Baltic-Slavic prehistory and historical times. We do not set ourselves the task here to review or evaluate the very different and often severely contradictory solutions of the problem of Baltic-Slavic linguistic relations given in the ir aforementioned works, much less to suggest some ar other aspect of the — solution of this problem. ar This should be the task of our linguistic specialists. However, it is not possible to miss this opportunity to express some remarks and wishes, closely related to the further su development of Soviet Lithuanian studies and the direct ir su tasks of our philologists. The above-mentioned important recent works, which in one way or ar another have raised again the problem of Baltic-Slavic linguistic relations, which has been solved for many decades, essentially concern Lithuanian ir Soviet philology. Through those works,— some iš jų have already gained a wide international resonance and influence the whole further ir development of comparative linguistics,— one of our contemporary Lithuanianists, not only a specialist nė linguist, but a humanist in general, cannot pass by — ne indifferently. ir After all, in these works the Lithuanian language is used extensively, based on which often ir ja only philological, but historical, mi ethnic, archaeological ne generalizations and decisions are ir made. Check tų solutions and summaries YR Aitzetmiiller. The Baltoslavic Accent und Intonation system. Basic trains and basic problems, presented according to the current Stand and Research. ‘The Sprache”. VIII. Bd., Heft, 1. 1962, p. 46—58. The article provides a critical overview of recent work ir jį on this issue. scientific reliability on the basis of Lithuanian material should be a direct duty of our Lithuanianists. As practice shows, even in the works of qualified foreign scholars, when they use facts of the Lithuanian language, there are sometimes major inaccuracies and errors, which arise either because of insufficient knowledge of our language, or because of relying on outdated sources, or simply because of a certain subjectivity. Especially frequent are the cases when little reliable etymologies are derived, among which there are simply curious ones. As a striking example of such a case can be cited the etymological interpretation of the place name Sūduva presented by the well-known Polish historian and linguist M. Rudnickis'- *. Is it not a matter of honour for our Soviet linguists to notice and correct such inaccuracies, which do not always arise in good faith? Unfortunately, so far this has been done very rarely and with insufficient determination. It is an even more responsible task for our philologists and all Lithuanianists in general not to stand aside from the important problems solved by Soviet and international linguistic science, directly affecting the Lithuanian language and the past of the Lithuanian nation, but on the contrary to express their opinion on one or another solution of these problems, based on Lithuanianistic material, the latest data of Lithuanian linguistics and historiography. And such new material was accumulated in the Soviet years in an enormous amount, both by publishing the great “Dictionary of the Lithuanian language” and by supplementing its glossary, and by studying the dialects of the Lithuanian language and Lithuanian toponymy, and by conducting archaeological excavations or ethnographic expeditions. All this extremely valuable material, which often provides completely new data for solving the questions of Baltic and Slavic studies that are still disputed, should be introduced into scientific circulation as soon as possible, used as widely as possible, solving problems of linguistics or historiography of Union-wide and international importance. Let us take the same problem of the Balto-Slavic progeny and homeland, which is the subject of such sharp debates in both Soviet and foreign linguistics today. As we know, three main approaches to this issue have recently emerged. One of them is the view that there was a Baltic-Slavic protolanguage, and on the basis of its reconstruction they try to explain the commonalities of the Baltic and Slavic languages. This hypothesis is supported today by most of the above-mentioned Polish scholars, as well as such linguists as A. Vajan, V. Georgiev and others. On the other hand, the supporters of the second direction, which was started by A. Meje, argue that there was not only no Balto-Slavic protolanguage in antiquity, but also no special Balto-Slavic linguistic commonality. According to this view, which is perhaps the most categorically defended in recent times by A. Zenas, the Baltic and Slavic languages separated from the Indo-European linguistic community (s3s5rKOBAaS oGinHOoCTb, wspoėlnota, Gemeinschaft) independently of each other and | '+ Mr. Rudnicki. Praslavian language Lechia-Polska. II t., 1961, p. 36-37. For the falsehood of this etymology of M. Rudnickis see „Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai“, i.e., they continued to develop in parallel, only in separate historical periods meeting certain contacts, which VI are broken for p. 323—325. 10 long times. į ir Finally, the third position in the interpretation of the Baltic-Slavic linguistic relations is occupied by those scholars who, not agreeing with the Krastutiné views, believe that a separate group of tribal dialects has formed within the boundaries of the primary Indo-European linguistic community. These dialects, not being completely isolated from other neighbouring Indo-European dialects, were linked to each other by certain similarities. Not merging į into one language, they have undergone many common changes and close interaction in their historical development (cooGmHocTL, Verkehrsgemeinschaft). Tų the ancestors of the Proto-Baltic Slavic ir languages. The final breakup of the Indo-European language community (it is assumed that this occurred In the 19th century, the dialects of these two languages were closely iš related to each other, and the dialects of these two ir languages are now considered to be the same dialects. This commonality would eventually have disappeared completely if the Prabaltics and Praslavs had lost all contact with each other and had fallen into different natural or linguistic regions. But this did not happen, and the geographical and historical contacts, although, it is possible, with quite long interruptions in the past, between the Balts and the Slavs have survived to our time. Thus, instead of the Balto-Slavic protolanguage, the proponents of this view usually speak of the Balto-Slavic epoch or of the 'the Baltic-Slavic linguistic union, etc. This view, one of the pioneers of which was J. Endzelynas, is represented today by E. Frenkel, Ch. Stangas and some other Western linguists, and recently it is supported by such Soviet philologists as S. Bernstein, F. Filin, etc. I do not feel competent to say which of these three points of view is closest to the historical truth, but I would like to point out here that the aspect of solving many issues of Lithuanian philology, even the evaluation of the importance of the Lithuanian language itself in relation to this problem, depends considerably ir on one or another approach to the prehistoric problem of Baltic and ar Slavic linguistic relations. Antai akad. V. Georgiev has ne once stated that "Baltic and Slavic are so close to each other that in terms of phonetics and morphology the conservative Lithuanian language can to some extent replace the uncertified Praslavic language". Because of this categorical statement by the Bulgarian linguist, some Soviet linguists openly express the opposite opinion. For example, S. Bernstein says that V. Georgiev in this regard "goes very far", exaggerating the significance of Lithuanian for the reconstruction of the Slavic protolanguage'®, o F. Philin simply states that this V. Georgiev's statement is "rather a dogma of belief than a conclusion based on historical investigation- """, 5B, Teoprues. HecAeAoBaHHns mmo CPaBHUTEAbBHO-MCTOPUYECKOMY SI3BIKO3HAHHIO. M., crp 1958, same 221; — COOpHHK OTBETOB Ha BONpPOCHI IO $S3HIKO3HaHMIO. M., CTP. 1958, 174; ‘Slavia’, t. 28, 1. 16 C. B. BepHmrei. Otsepr cpaBHHTeAb5HOŽ TpaMMaTHKH CAaBSHCKHX SI3EIKOB. M., crp. 1961, 34. 7 @. You. OH Aun O6pasoBanne s35iKa BOCTOYHBIX CAABSH. M., crp. 1962, 126. 11 Which of these strictly contradictory statements, of vital interest to every Lithuanian, should be believed? So far, the voice of our republic’s linguists has not been heard in this dispute. O after all, the word of Lithuanians in this case ir could have a considerable scientific weight. It seems that in order to eliminate the passivity of our linguists in this field, we need to get rid of some negative suggestions. One of these iš suggestions, perhaps arising in connection with the discussion of the Balto-Slavic su problem at the International Slavist Congress, is that Soviet IV linguistics, in solving this problem, requires the hypothesis of a Balto-Slavic protolanguage. Some people abroad are deliberately trying to inflate this suggestion. Such a tendency, say, is clearly seen in some Lithuanian iš nationalist linguists, who į West, reviews about V. Mažiulio report'*, read at the International Slavist Congress IV Moscow. However, ši the suggestion is unfounded ir and completely inconsistent with the current practice of Soviet linguistics. : In the Soviet linguistics, today, the issue of the Balto-Slavic protolanguage is freely expressed and discussed by strongly contradictory views. It is most obviously seen that ir iš of the above-mentioned S. Bernšteino ir F. Philosophy and the Propositions It Raises. Antai F. Filin, after reviewing various theories and hypotheses on this ne subject, in one case openly declares that „the hypothesis of the Balto-Slavic protolanguage as a whole has no solid scientific basis“!®, o S. Bernstein goes even further, stating that “the theory of the Baltic-Slavic protolanguage has done great damage to comparative grammar of Slavic languages. Ji drove the mė researchers to mix linguistic phenomena of different epochs, led them to artificial į constructions of hypotheses, ir which hampered the study of the Slavic protolanguage history“*?. As we see, Bernstein S. speaks about the theory of the Baltic-Slavic protolanguage already in the past tense, as about a past stage of linguistics, although, it should be noted, today — there are Soviet linguists — ir who still hold to this hypothesis. Therefore, ir our Soviet Lithuanianists should not restrict themselves in this respect by any preconceptions, let alone by prejudices, to solve the ar question only sine ira studio, relying on the most o important of šį the Lithuanian language et ir Lithuanian Prehistory. I've had a chance before? ! to publicly rebuke the Lithuanianists of our republic for paying so far very little attention to the problem of Balto-Slavic relations. Without repeating what has already been said, I would like to emphasize once again that this problem is important purely from a linguistic point of view. ne Its much broader meaning, in our opinion, is well described by these prof. F. Filin's words: “However we explain the closeness of ir the Balto-Slavic languages, whose roots undoubtedly reach to the distant past (the Balto-Slavic problem is far from solved), this closeness, which has survived to our times, doubtless be 18 B, II, Max 10 AHc. O APeBHEHIINX OTHONICHHSX GAATHICKUX H. CAGBSHCKHX S3bIKOB. BuAsaroc, 1958, 20 crp. Manuscript Rights. 19 O. II. uarunn, ibid., p. 125 and others, € 0, B. Bepamreiin, ibid., p. 36. *! See. ‘Apyx6a Hapopos, 1962, no. 8, crp. 259; K. Corsair. Literary Friendship. V., 1962, p. 102—107. 12 testifies to the close neighborhood of ancient Balts and Slavs, at least in the last centuries BC in the first centuries AD. ir Ši circumstance is extremely important in determining the homeland of the Slavs. To determine where the Slavs lived in the neighborhood su of the Whites, means to answer the į question, where was the homeland of the White Slavs ir in the second half of the first millennium BC in the first centuries of our era"?2. ir Is this question, which has been so insistently attempted to solve for several decades by scholars of both Slavic and many other foreign nations, less relevant to Lithuanians and Baltists? After all, the people of every nation care to know their origins and past more accurately and fully, so Lithuanians cannot ir be an exception in this regard. Ir When this issue is being discussed sharply today in science, in ta individual cases even acquiring an actual ideological-political meaning, Lithuanianists of our republic should actively participate in it. In fact, the solution of many fundamental problems of Lithuanian studies depends significantly on ir one or another localization of the homeland of the Balts and Slavs. These problems should be solved in another way if, say, we follow the so-called “autochthonous” hypothesis of the Slavic ancestry (its most important representatives are the contemporary Polish linguists and historians T. Lėr-Splavinskis, K. Jaždževskis, M. Rudnickis, J. Kostževskis and others), according to which the Slavic ancestry is located between the Vistula and the Oder or even on the western shores of the Baltic Sea. Again, these important problems for Lithuanian studies would have to be solved in a different way, if we agreed with the theory, which is now increasingly beginning to take hold in Soviet science, that the Slavic ancestry should be sought south of the area inhabited by the ancient Balts, which "withdrew with a wide band from the Nemunas and Daugava lowlands to the east and for some time reached the upper Dnieper, Volga and Oka rivers"**, while "the Slavic tribes in the second half of the first millennium BC occupied the forested plains from the upper Western Bug to the middle Dnieper tékmés"?. According to this theory, neither the Baltic nor even the Slavic tribes had yet reached the Baltic coast, where the Western Finno-Ugrians lived (on this occasion, we will note that some people have recently proved that the name of our Nemunas is of Finnish origin, and that the names of such rivers as Vistula, Varta, Odra, which flow through today’s Western Slavic areas, are also not Slavic). This solution of the question of the ancient homeland of the Balts and Slavs, by the way, already has certain traditions in Lithuanian and Baltic studies. It is sufficient to recall the works of our K. Buga and Latvian J. Endzelins in this field, which today are again widely introduced into scientific circulation and become both sources of strong arguments in solving problematic questions of Baltic-Slavic historical relations, and objects of a certain criticism in the discussions on these issues. This is clearly evident even from the works of S. Bernstein, F. Filin and V. Toporov and O. Trubachev mentioned here. ? ? O, II. Puaruy Ten, op. cit., pp. 129-130. B®. II. 1998-1999 Puarun Ten pat, p. 133. “ O, II. ®uarun Ibid., p. 147. 13 Kobbix CBSI3€M AHTOBCKOTO HapoAa C PYCCKHM, OGeAOpyCCKHM H Ap. CAaBSHCKHMH HapOAaMH. 3 [Top KOHel[B CTaTbe IIepeA COBETCKUMH AHTYaHHCTaMH CTaBHTCA 3apava Oonee IPUCTAABHO, HEXKEAW AO CHX IIOP, M3y4aTh SI3BIK MH IIPOIIAO€ TaKHX, HbIHe COBEPIIEHHO HCYUS3HYBINHX OaATHŪCKHX IIAEMEeH, Kak APEBHHE IIDYCHI H SITBSITH, a TakyXe OOpaTHTb OOAbIIe BHHMAHHS Ha H3VueHHe SI3BIKOBBIX CBsi3el OaATHŪCKHX HApPOAOB C YTrpO-OHHCKHMH HapoAaMH B TAYOOKOM IIPOIIAOM. ABTOp craTbH BBIpa’kaeT HaAE€XAY, UTO BHOBb CO3AaHHasi nmpu MexAYHapOAHOM KOMMTETE CAaBHCTOB MeJKAyHapoAHasi KOMUCCHS TIO HCCAeAOBaHUIO GaATO-CAaBSHCKHX OTHOLIEHHN OyAeT cIriocoOCTBOBaTh aKTHBH3a1ĮMHH paboThl MO Ba’KHEWIIWM BONpocaM Kak B OOAACTH CAABHCTHKH, TaK H AHTYaHHCTHKH.