GIEDRĖ ČEPAITIENĖ

Šiauliai University

JONAS JABLONSKIS ON JONAS ŠLIŪPAS’S BOOK LIETUVISZKIEJIE RASZTAI IR RASZTININKAI

KEYWORDS: review, Jonas Jablonskis, Jonas Šliūpas, literature, period, periodicals.

The work of Jonas Jablonskis is generally viewed from the perspective of the formation of the standard language and its codification. His other activities have been little studied; usually, they are merely mentioned: J. Jablonskis was a public figure, translator, and educator. The linguist’s reviews, too, are most often mentioned only as works reflecting certain criteria for language codification¹. This article examines two of J. Jablonskis’s works that discuss Jonas Šliūpas’s book Lietuviszkiejie Rasztai ir Rasztininkai². The book, published in Tilsit in 1890, was financed by the Lithuanian Lovers’ Society of Baltimore. It is the first history of Lithuanian writing, surveying Lithuanian works from 1547 to the end of the nineteenth century; the title page states that the book was prepared by a lover of Lithuania. J. Jablonskis discussed this book in two publications: in a review of the aforementioned book published in the “Criticism and Bibliography” section of the first issue of Varpas in 1894³ (V 1894 1: 10–11), and in the article “The Life and Writings of S. Daukantas,” published in the eleventh issue of Varpas in 1893 (V 1893 11: 165–168).

Jonas Jablonskis’s comments on Jonas Šliūpas’s book Lietuviszkiejie Rasztai ir Rasztininkai are important in several respects. These writings are J. Jablonskis’s first reviews; until then, he had not written works of this genre. Thus, they also reveal certain

¹ A few remarks on J. Jablonskis’s journalistic writing can be found in Arnoldas Piročkinas’s book Prie bendrinės kalbos ištakų (1977: 80–85).

² This is how it is written on the book’s title page.

³ In J. Jablonskis’s review, the book is referred to as follows: Lietuviškiejie Raštai ir Raštininkai. A literary survey prepared by Lietuvos Mylėtojas. Tilsit, 1890, 234.

G. ČEPAITIENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis apie Jono Šliūpo knygą Lietuviszkiejie Rasztai ir Rasztininkai

37

J. Jablonskis’s views, at the time a teacher at the Mintauja Gymnasium and an emerging linguist. It is also important that these are the first reviews of a work on the history of Lithuanian literature, and they show how the publication was regarded by its contemporaries. It is therefore worth determining what criteria the reviewer employs, what he considers positive, and what he criticizes. In addition, the reviews reveal certain personality traits of the reviewer himself. This article aims to show the criteria J. Jablonskis applied when reviewing Jonas Šliūpas’s book Lietuviszkieji Rasztai ir Rasztininkai, and the requirements he set for authors of Lithuanian books.

A review is an analytical genre of writing that conveys the review author’s relationship to the work under review and his or her assessment of it. Its most characteristic features are generally considered to be its critical nature, which encourages the reader to think (Bitinienė 2007: 95; Marcinkevičienė 2008: 152). Although scholarly and journalistic reviews are distinguished, the difference between them is probably reflected in linguistic expression, since only a review that reveals aspects of the work being assessed that can be recognized only by a competent specialist in a particular field is considered good (Bitinienė 2007: 95).

As already mentioned, the book Lietuviszkieji Rasztai ir Rasztininkai was published under the pseudonym of a lover of Lithuania, but J. Jablonskis knew the author’s identity. For most of the text, he does not mention the author’s surname, saying only that he “is a well-known emigrant of ours, settled in America” (V 1894 1: 10). In the review, J. Jablonskis introduces the reader to the book’s structure and highlights its strengths and shortcomings.

The reviewer notes that the book discusses sixteenth- to eighteenth-century writings briefly (pp. 1–23), while nearly ten times as much space is devoted to nineteenth-century publications (pp. 23–222). He observes that in the book’s chapter on sixteenth- to eighteenth-century writings, “the author, as one might expect, did not collect all the material about our writings”⁴ (V 1894 1: 10). At the same time, J. Jablonskis justifies this imbalance, “since at present such a task would scarcely be manageable for one person, especially one living far from his homeland” (V 1894 1: 10). Nevertheless, the chapter receives a serious criticism: its information is “not at all connected with the history of our nation” (V 1894 1: 10).

Nineteenth-century writings are discussed more fully in the review. According to J. Jablonskis, here the author “speaks of 35 writers of varying merit, beginning with D. Poška and the priest A. Strazdelis and concluding with the lives of M. Jankus and Rev. A. Bur-

⁴ Everywhere, quotations are taken from the original.

38

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85

bas” (V 1894 1: 10). In essence, this part is assessed positively in the review. J. Jablonskis writes: “Anyone wishing to become better acquainted with our nineteenth-century literature will certainly need the information gathered in the book under review” (V 1894 1: 10). At the same time, this chapter also draws criticism. The linguist considered the following features of the publication open to criticism:

1) in many places the author merely recounts what one or another person who made a contribution to Lithuanian writing had said, but presents it without any assessment, leaving the reader uncertain about the true value of the works described;

2) biased or tendentious information is provided about some authors;

3) Lithuanian writing contains important matters known to the book’s author, yet he has kept them unmentioned.

Although the publication under review is an overview of Lithuanian literature, J. Jablonskis assesses it not as a literary scholar but as a linguist. He points out that it is unclear to the reader how to assess the works of Mikalojus Akelaitis or the priest Mykolas Miežinis. Indeed, J. Šliūpas’s book presents M. Akelaitis’s naïve word etymologies without any comment, so readers might take them for scientific facts. For example, J. Šliūpas writes that, drawing on the science of linguistics, M. Akelaitis demonstrated in his book Rzut oka na starożytności narodu litewskiego (St Petersburg, 1885) that the name of the hill Šatrija is related to the Sanskrit words s’ath and adri, meaning “honorable mountain”; the name of the Carpathian Mountains is linked to an unknown Carpian people, whose name supposedly means “sheep shearers”; the name of the Thracian tribe is compared with the Lithuanian word draikus, which, according to J. Šliūpas, means that “people are scattered, living without kinship” (LRR 1890: 93–94); M. Akelaitis derived the name of the Russian people from the name of Rusnė Island, which J. Šliūpas likewise presents as an unquestionable fact (LRR 1890: 94). J. Šliūpas also gives examples from another book by M. Akelaitis, List otwarty do pana Leonarda Niedzwiedzkiego (Paris, 1887): in it, the author claims to have discovered a law of root alternation showing how words can change both within a single language and as they pass from one language to another. In this way, M. Akelaitis believes he proves that the words “skargas, skundas, klage, lugeo” in various languages are related. J. Šliūpas concludes this section with a quotation from M. Akelaitis, saying that his followers “push the science of linguistics to the fore, rising above German scholarship” (LRR 1890: 96). It is understandable that such views could not be acceptable to J. Jablonskis, who had completed classical philology studies.

G. ČEPAT tienė. Jonas Jablonskis apie Jono Šliūpo knygą Lietuviszkieji Rasztai ir Rasztininkai

39

In his review, J. Jablonskis draws attention to the fact that a great deal of the book is devoted to Andrius Vištelis-Višteliauskas, yet it offers no criticism of his work. Indeed, in the publication this figure appears to be the most important in the history of nineteenth-century Lithuanian writing: more than 30 pages are devoted to him (LRR 1890: 136–168), with only the section on Jonas Basanavičius being a couple of pages longer. J. Šliūpas’s book emphasizes that A. Vištelis-Višteliauskas was little known, although he had a major influence on Jurgis Mikšas⁵, Martynas Jankus⁶, Jonas Basanavičius, and other Lithuanian intellectuals. Most of this subsection consists of excerpts from A. Vištelis-Višteliauskas’s letters (the book does not say who they were addressed to), with the ideas expressed in them seemingly reinforced by excerpts from poems printed in Aušra. This fragmentary account of the author’s life discusses his understanding of Lithuanian identity and relations between Lithuanians and Poles, and notes that A. Vištelis-Višteliauskas spoke about the state of the Lithuanian language and emphasized the need for a grammar of Lithuanian.

J. Jablonskis assesses this subsection very harshly. One could say that he leaves no stone unturned. He even objects to the poems by A. Vištelis-Višteliauskas quoted by J. Šliūpas and to their commentary: “here we find remarks, entirely uncritical, about V-ko’s little songs, which, to tell the truth, are quite unsuitable” (V 1894 1: 10). Various ideas by A. Višteliauskas quoted in the book draw particularly impassioned criticism from J. Jablonskis: “V-o’s [Višteliauskas’s] babbling may appear to some reader to be genuine reasoning and scholarly observations.” (V 1894 1: 10). The reviewer directs his criticism at two main areas of A. Višteliauskas’s claims: 1) unfounded etymologies; 2) his understanding of the relations among various languages. As wholly unsuccessful etymologies, J. Jablonskis points to examples in J. Šliūpas’s book which claim that Lithuanian motina, French matin ‘morning’, and Polish mowa ‘speech’ are related words (incidentally, A. Višteliauskas gives still more “relatives” of this word: mutter, mater, madre, and even the “Lithuanian” word muterkė). J. Jablonskis also quotes A. Višteliauskas’s ideas to show how he understood the relations among various languages. Today they would raise a smile, but a reader at the end of the nineteenth century, especially one without a grounding in linguistics, might have taken them as fact. J. Jablonskis ironically quotes these ideas of A. Višteliauskas: “The Poles have a modified Lithuanian tongue, nothing else. The Germans have half Lithuanian words in their language, only terribly modified; the Lithuanian language, as the mother of Polish, cannot reject or disdain its own”

⁵ Jurgis Mikšas (1862–1903) was a press activist, Aušra movement member, and translator in Lithuania Minor.

⁶ Martynas Jankus (1858–1956) was a press activist, Aušra movement member, and printer in Lithuania Minor.

40

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85

daughter” (V 1894 1: 10). The reviewer draws the following conclusion: “V-s [Višteliauskas] belongs among those of our linguists who consider the Lithuanian language the mother of all languages, the language of Adam and Eve.” (V 1894 1: 10). At the same time, J. Jablonskis also criticizes J. Šliūpas. In his view, “[t]he author of ‘Lietuv. R. ir R.’ should have explained this ignorance and the weakness of our amateur linguists, and should not have called all such babble research” (V 1894 1: 10). Thus J. Jablonskis holds the publication to a standard of scholarly rigor.

Nevertheless, J. Jablonskis is somewhat biased here. One can agree with his objections to naive etymologies and claims about relations among languages. However, in his review the linguist says nothing at all about other facts mentioned in J. Šliūpas’s book: A. Višteliauskas’s views on the state of the Lithuanian language at the time, the need for a grammar of Lithuanian, and so on.

A considerable part of the review is devoted to showing how the book Lietuviszkiejie Rasztai ir Rasztininkai discusses the life and work of Antanas Baranauskas. In this part of the review, J. Jablonskis sees nothing positive. The reviewer writes that the author of the book under discussion had pledged not to mention the names of writers living in Russia (V 1894 1: 11), and that he supports this position. This is understandable: both the book and its review appeared during the press ban, when the authors of Lithuanian writings and their distributors were persecuted. Thus, the book discusses authors who had already died by the time it was published. The exception is Antanas Baranauskas. J. Jablonskis regards the mention of this author’s name as a mistake by the book’s author, since such conduct puts the author under discussion in danger. J. Šliūpas is also reproached for focusing not so much on A. Baranauskas the poet as on A. Baranauskas the clergyman, basing his account on impressions he had formed as a child. J. Jablonskis notes that “In the article about this man, the reader would search in vain for a critique of his ‘Šilelis’ and an assessment of the writer himself” (V 1894: 11). Indeed, the book Lietuviszkiejie Rasztai ir Rasztininkai contains no detailed assessment of the poem Anykščių šilelis. The author merely says that “[t]he best of his songs, in terms of its composition, is ‘Anykszsciu Szilelys’” (LRR 1890: 83). Here J. Šliūpas quotes A. Baranauskas’s own explanation of when and where “Šilelis” was written and lists the known editions of the poem: published in 1861 in Laurynas Ivinskis’s calendar, in 1875 through the efforts of Leopold Geitler, and in 1892 through those of Hugo Weber (LRR 1890: 83). The review says that the author of the book reproaches A. Baranauskas for being excessively devout (“spending several hours every day on study, while devoting the rest to reciting medieval prayers” (LRR 1890: 82)), as if he did not understand A. Baranauskas’s vocation. J. Ja-

G. ČEPATIENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis apie Jono Šliūpo knygą Lietuviszkiejie Rasztai ir Rasztininkai

41

blonskis does not mention in his review other facts about A. Baranauskas presented by J. Šliūpas (concerning relations between Lithuanians and Poles, and the bishop’s “nobleman-like” and “peasant-like” conduct), but says only: “How much truth and falsehood there is here, whether that man really was so ‘terrible’, is difficult for us to know at present; <...> the author should certainly have refrained from these vilifications of individuals, for the benefit and worth of the ‘Writings’ themselves required it.” (V 1894 1: 11). J. Jablonskis also accuses the book’s author of bias: “It is clear from everything that L. M-jas, while living in the home of His Grace A. B-ys (p. 82), developed a particular hatred for him and, wishing to ‘avenge’ himself, made use of his own ‘Writings and Writers’.” (V 1894 1: 11). Thus another requirement J. Jablonskis places on an author emerges here: the need to remain objective.

The final paragraph of the review is devoted to Lithuanian newspapers. In J. Jablonskis’s view, the book gives little attention to the Lithuanian press (pp. 223–229). He notes as a positive point that the book mentions newspapers from both Prussian Lithuania and America (Keleivis, Tilžės Keleivis, Garsas, Nemuno Sargas, Aušra, Šviesa, Lietuvių Balsas). At the same time, however, J. Jablonskis observes a certain bias. He writes ironically: “Most of the praise is given to Lietuv. Balsą and its former editor, Mr. J. Šliūpas; the author of ‘R. ir R.’ spared no words to ensure that Mr. Šliūpas emerged extolled, acquitted on every count, and defended....” (V 1894 1: 11). Knowing that J. Šliūpas is also the author of the book, the irony is clear. The reviewer is dismayed that the book says nothing about Varpas and Ūkininkas (as is known, these newspapers awakened national consciousness and were published at the time in large circulations—from 1,000 to 2,000 copies). J. Jablonskis’s following remark conveys his sense of grievance: “It seems that in L. M-jas’s eyes they rank below all kinds of ‘Letters’, ‘Travelers’, and ‘Ceitungas’.” (V 1894 1: 11).

In conclusion, the reviewer says: “With these words I end my remarks on a book published long ago, whose contents, one way or another, are very interesting” (V 1894 1: 11). This brief comment primarily shows two things: 1) the reviewer considers a book published four years earlier old, thereby indirectly telling readers that many newer books are available; 2) although the review contains a good deal of criticism, J. Jablonskis ends his text on a positive note, urging readers of Varpas to take an interest in the book under review.

The text of J. Jablonskis’s article “S. Daukantas’s Life and Writings” shows that its composition, too, was connected with the book Lietuviškieji Raštai ir Raštininkai. In it, the linguist writes: “How little we know about Simanas D., can be understood from the fact that such a bold author of ‘Lietuv. raštų ir raštininkų’ (Tilžė-

42

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85

… in 1890) and the assessment of his work, he could devote only one fifth of the space given to A. J. Višteliauckas, little known to us and recently deceased, a minor writer of ours” (V 1893 11: 165). Thus, J. Jablonskis’s article is, in a sense, a supplement to the information about Simonas Daukantas’s life and works. J. Šliūpas briefly discussed only the most important stages of S. Daukantas’s life (his studies at Vilnius University⁷, and his work in Riga and St. Petersburg) and listed S. Daukantas’s publications by year of publication. At the same time, he drew the general conclusion that history fosters interest in one’s own nation (LRR 1890: 37).

J. Jablonskis says that he draws on an article by Eduard Volter, material received from an unnamed person, and S. Daukantas’s own will. In this way, he supplements S. Daukantas’s biography with several facts. J. Jablonskis writes that his father, Jurgis D., a royal peasant, was a forester; that S. Daukantas’s education was supported by the Trikiai parish priest, Rev. Sim. Lopacinskis; that in 1814 S. Daukantas completed a four-grade school in Žemaičių Kalvarija; that it is unknown whether he associated in Vilnius with “the famous Ad. Mickiewicz and a few sympathetic student groups”; that he earned a master’s degree in philosophy in Dorpat (Tartu); and that he remained unmarried throughout his life. J. Jablonskis notes that S. Daukantas “was a very learned man, an excellent historian, acquainted and corresponding with the most famous friends and scholars of his nation in his time, with Pabrėža⁸, Kazim. Maigys⁹, Prof. Voigt of Königsberg¹⁰, and many others”; S. Daukantas himself had declined to write a biography and bibliography (V 1893 11: 165–167).

J. Jablonskis’s article presents, for the first time in Lithuanian bibliography, a classified description of S. Daukantas’s works (the publications are divided into historical works, philological works, booklets with useful reading for the people, and books of spiritual content). The language of S. Daukantas’s writings is discussed very briefly. It is said to be Samogitian, with a considerable admixture of Latvian words and constructions; sometimes

⁷ Incidentally, could it be that the legend that S. Daukantas arrived on foot at Vilnius University spread from J. Šliūpas’s book (LRR 1890: 34).

⁸ This refers to the priest Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža (1771–1849), a creator of Lithuanian religious literature and botanical terminology, and a poet.

⁹ The nobleman Kazimieras Maigys (1800–ca. 1858) not only corresponded with S. Daukantas but also sent him folk songs that he had collected himself in Eastern Aukštaitija. As the manager of several estates, he complained in his letters that the peasants were unable to work. This encouraged S. Daukantas to prepare booklets offering practical advice on farming (see Merkys 1991: 135, 146).

¹⁰ Profesorius Johanas Voigtas (Johann Voigt) (1786–1863) – žinomas istorikas, išleidęs 9 tomų Prūsijos istoriją (Geschichte Preussens von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Untergang der Herrschaft des Deutschen Ordens 1525), kryžiuočių ordino istoriją (Geschichte des deutsche Rittersordens). Šiais darbais S. Daukantas rėmėsi, rašydamas istorijos veikalus (žr. Kaunas 1996: 326, 438; Merkys 1991: 167).

G. ČEPATITENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis apie Jono Šliūpo knygą Lietuviszkieji Rasztai ir Rasztininkai

43

free constructions can be observed. J. Jablonskis himself understands that these are only minor observations, and therefore writes: “I leave the investigation of his language and the assessment of his true merits in our literature for a later time. For the time being, various material should be collected and published in „Varpas“—about his life, about his writings, manuscripts....” (V 1893 11: 168). Thus, in this article J. Jablonskis is less concerned with examining what J. Šliūpas’s book says about S. Daukantas than with supplementing its material with new facts and his own comments.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Jonas Jablonskis was interested in all Lithuanian publications; while still teaching at the Mintauja Gymnasium—that is, at the beginning of his career and activities—he sought to review them or supplement them with new facts.

2. The reviews show that J. Jablonskis viewed the book from a broader perspective: he sought to ensure that the history of books was inseparable from the general history of the nation.

3. The reviewer views the publication on the history of Lithuanian literature under review through the eyes of a linguist. The reviews reveal linguistic insights that became evident in J. Jablonskis’s later work. His observations on etymology, relations between languages, and the like are important.

4. Objectivity and scholarly rigor were important principles for J. Jablonskis, and these are precisely what he finds lacking in the book under review (cf. his observations on the space allotted to individual authors, the chapter on A. Baranauskas, the periodical press, etc.).

5. The reviews conclude on a positive note: both the authors of the books and other cultural figures are encouraged to undertake important work for the Lithuanian nation.

SOURCES AND LITERATURE

LRR – Lietuviškieji Raštai ir Rasztininkai: Raszliszka peržvalga parengta Lietuvos Mylėtojo, Tilsit, 1890.

V – Varpas – a monthly newspaper devoted to literature, politics, and science (published from January 1889 until 1906 in Tilsit and Ragnit).

Bitinienė A. 2007: Publicistinis stilius, Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginio instituto leidykla.

Kaunas D. 1996: Mažosios Lietuvos knyga: Lietuviškos knygos raida, Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

44

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 85

Marcinkevičienė R. 2008: Žanro ribos ir paribiai: Spaudos patirtys, Vilnius: Versus aureus.

Merkys V. 1991: Simonas Daukantas, Vilnius: Vyturys.

Piročkinas A. 1977: Prie bendrinės kalbos ištakų, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Received 2012 12 02

JONAS JABLONSKIS ON THE BOOK

LIETUVISZKIEJIE RASZTAI IR RASZTININKAI

(LITHUANIAN WRITINGS AND WRITERS)

BY JONAS ŠLIŪPAS

Summary

Works by Jonas Jablonskis are usually viewed from the positions of the formation of the standard language and its standardization. His other activities have been poorly researched. Jablonskis’ comments about the book prepared by Jonas Šliūpas – the first history of Lithuanian writings – reviewing Lithuanian writings from the year 1547 until the end of the 19^th century were published in the newspaper Varpas in 1893–1894. Jablonskis’ comments are an important historical fact showing how the publication was evaluated by the contemporaries. These essays are also the first reviews by Jonas Jablonskis. At the time of writing reviews, Jonas Jablonskis was working as a teacher at Mintauja gymnasium. Moreover, they reveal particular attitudes of Jablonskis as an improving linguist.

Comments expressed by Jablonskis allow drawing the following conclusions: 1) Jablonskis cared about all Lithuanian publications; working in Mintauja he tried to review them or supplement them with new facts; 2) As a reviewer, Jablonskis tries to be objective: he talks about the book disregarding his relations with its author; 3) Reviews show that Jablonskis viewed the book in the broader context: his aim was that the history of the book would be related with the common history of the nation; 4) Reviews end in the positive attitudes, in such a way encouraging both the author and other people in the cultural world to prepare the works which would be important for the Lithuanian nation; 5) Linguistic evidences which will be important in the further activities of Jablonskis show up in the reviews.

KEYWORDS: review, Jonas Jablonskis, Jonas Šliūpas, literature, periods, periodicals.

GIEDRĖ ČEPAITIENĖ

Šiauliai University

P. Višinskio g. 38, LT-76352 Šiauliai

[email protected]

G. ČEPAITIENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis apie Jono Šliūpo knygą Lietuviszkieji Rasztai ir Rasztininkai 45