P E R S O N A L I J O S

ALDONAS PUPKIS

TO PROFESSOR ARNOLDAS PIROČKINAS ON HIS 80TH BIRTHDAY

The renowned philologist, linguist, historian, and cultural figure Professor Arnoldas Piročkinas turned 80 on February 25, 2011. Although, in these times of devaluing personalities, it has become unusual to write commemorative anniversary articles, Arnoldas Piročkinas’s achievements nevertheless deserve more attention than they have received in the Lithuanian historiography of linguistics to date. It is therefore fitting to say a few words about these achievements in tribute to the jubilarian and for the readers of the respected Kalbos kultūros journal.

A. PUPKIS. Profesoriui Arnoldui Piročkinui – 80 metų

285

Arnoldas Piročkinas’s years of life and work seem to differ in no remarkable way from those of other linguists of his generation: primary and secondary schooling and Lithuanian studies at Vilnius University, a brief period working in schools, postgraduate studies in the same city, many years teaching at the same institution of higher education, and continued concern for the Lithuanian language and culture after retirement. Yet a great deal was accomplished during those years—nearly half a century: almost thirty books were written or prepared for publication; some 500 scholarly and popular articles, reviews, and journalistic pieces were published; and a wealth of translations and edited books appeared. The list keeps growing: unlike most scholars at this stage of life, Arnoldas Piročkinas is full of energy and continues to publish article after article, enough to make up several studies or books.

To a wider public, Arnoldas Piročkinas is best known as the foremost researcher of Jonas Jablonskis’s legacy. For his work in this field—his books Prie bendrinės kalbos ištakų (1977) and J. Jablonskis – bendrinės kalbos puoselėtojas (1978)—he received the Lithuanian State Prize in 1979. His summative study Jono Jablonskio darbų reikšmė bendrinės kalbos raidai was defended in 1978 as a doctoral dissertation (now a habilitation dissertation). In addition to these major works, the scholar published two books on Jonas Jablonskis’s legacy: Jono Jablonskio laiškai (1985) and J. Jablonskis. Straipsniai ir laiškai (1991), as well as several teaching publications (among them, Jono Jablonskio kalbos taisymai, 1986, is especially important). In the 150th anniversary year of Jonas Jablonskis’s birth, Arnoldas Piročkinas also published a wealth of articles devoted to the renowned linguist. These are not repetitions of past ideas but new research that offers many fresh insights, elevating the study of Jablonskis’s legacy to a qualitatively new level.

Arnoldas Piročkinas began researching Jonas Jablonskis’s work while still studying at Vilnius University. His diploma thesis was titled 1922 m. J. Jablonskio lietuvių kalbos gramatika, and his supervisor, Professor Jonas Palionis, can be proud of having guided a talented student into the field of Jablonskis-legacy research. Although the young linguist later turned to syntax (in 1965 he defended a candidate-of-sciences dissertation, now equivalent to a doctoral dissertation, on the syntax of Lithuanian complex sentences), the seed planted by his supervisor did not let him forget Jablonskis. It was carefully tended and, a couple of decades later, began to yield an exceptionally rich harvest. In summary, it can be said that Arnoldas Piročkinas not only thoroughly investigated Jonas Jablonskis’s biography, scholarly activity, and works, but also clearly broadened the horizons of Lithuanian linguistics and enriched the history of standard Lithuanian—

286

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

—with significant discoveries and insights that were sometimes unexpected but well founded. It may be said that in the 1970s Jonas Jablonskis was, for the first time, duly recognized as one of the greatest Lithuanian linguists of the late nineteenth century and the first three decades of the twentieth, whose work played a decisive role in the history of the modern standard language.

In his studies of Jonas Jablonskis, Arnoldas Piročkinas categorically rejected a romantic view of the linguist’s work, discarded the long-used designation of Jablonskis as the father of the Lithuanian (standard, or written) language, and instead recognized him as a great scholar and practitioner of the Lithuanian language. It should be added that this position—perhaps first articulated more clearly in the works of the jubilarian’s teacher, Jonas Palionis—was developed by Piročkinas and substantiated with a wealth of collected archival evidence and astute interpretations of that evidence and of Jablonskis’s works.

Without undertaking a detailed examination of Arnoldas Piročkinas’s research on Jablonskis, it is worth drawing attention to several things that are often almost immediately apparent. First, the abundance of collected facts stands out in studies of Jablonskis’s legacy. It seems that no detail of Jablonskis’s life or work escaped the researcher’s attention—not even the smallest detail that might bear on a characterization of the great linguist’s activity or work. Moreover, the inquiry was not limited to facts about his life and work; it also sought to draw on the broad political, cultural, and linguistic context of the time, which makes it possible to characterize many circumstances of the period and strengthen the force of the interpretations. All of this was gathered from every archive, early printed work, memoir, and other source available to the author in Lithuania and abroad. This is also evident in the two volumes of Jablonskis’s letters and works prepared by Piročkinas himself, in which many items were discovered by the editor and published for the first time. A close reading of the author’s books about Jablonskis reveals an extraordinary respect for the authenticity of facts and sources, scrupulous citation, and, overall, a scholarly apparatus presented with exemplary care. Without exaggeration, one may say that Piročkinas’s cited sources can be trusted completely and, when necessary, relied on without checking the originals.

Second, interpretations of these abundant facts generally raise little doubt, and usually only those matters that can be firmly substantiated by source evidence are interpreted. Thus, for example, the sources of Jablonskis’s language standardization, and the criteria for selecting and evaluating norms, are described flawlessly; yet all of this is viewed historically, with the circumstances behind changes in opinion and the historical con-

A. PUPKIS. Profesoriui Arnoldui Piročkinui – 80 metų

287

whether there is a need to treat certain aspects of language differently. We should not forget that Arnoldas Piročkinas is a child of his time, unable to stand apart from the linguistic attitudes and accepted decisions of his era. I say this bearing in mind the fact that a figure such as Jablonskis is received distinctively by linguists and researchers into the history of linguistics in every generation, and assessed according to new conditions and needs dictated by the times. Perhaps, for example, someone now or in the future will assess differently Jablonskis’s principle of systematicity in language norms (more precisely, the principle he applied), the criterion of how widespread language forms are, or other matters, since the standard language itself has changed, and research needs are new, shaped by new circumstances or altered linguistic views. Nevertheless, it must be said that Piročkinas’s systematic approach to Jablonskis’s works, his consistent analysis of all those works, and the reliability of his interpretations leave many of his claims as irrefutable facts for history, beyond the reach of any historical changes. They allow us—or, more precisely, compel us—to view Jablonskis systematically and never to lose sight of the historical perspective on all this linguist’s works and assertions.

Third. Arnoldas Piročkinas rightly and with ample justification established Jablonskis’s place in the history of the standard language. Jablonskis now stands before us as the greatest codifier of the standard language of his time, who succeeded in consolidating an already existing standard-language system functioning on the basis of the western Lithuanian dialects, and in determining its directions and tendencies of development. This validation of the standard-language system at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries was perhaps Jablonskis’s greatest contribution to the entire history of the Lithuanian standard language. He elevated the very idea of a standard language to a new level and demonstrated its distinctiveness, independent development, and capacity to grow and improve on its own foundations.

Fourth. Arnoldas Piročkinas’s works have probably demonstrated beyond question that Jablonskis was a great scholar, not merely a language practitioner, as some of his opponents tried to claim. He had a firm theory of the standard language, founded on scientific principles, although he never set it out in “pure” form. Thanks to Piročkinas’s efforts, we now understand it well as a coherent mechanism of scholarly work, best suited to the needs of standard-language codification of that era. In addition, it should be noted that Arnoldas Piročkinas vigorously debated Jablonskis’s opponents, who called him merely a language practitioner and not a scholar of the Lithuanian language. Jono Jablonskis’s standing as a scholar is confirmed not only by the structure of the Lithuanian standard language, which he described systematically in grammars and works on syntax, but also by other works in the field of Lithuanian philology. Among these, his contributions to Lithuanian lexicography may be singled out—

288

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

or dialectology, where Piročkinas’s efforts have also brought to light Jablonskis’s considerable discoveries in the study of Lithuanian dialects, especially the structure of the northern Samogitian dialect (see the study published together with Aleksas Girdenis in the collection of scholarly works Kalbotyros in 1977). In recent years, Arnoldas Piročkinas has highlighted the efforts of Pranas Skardžius, an influential linguist of that period, to deny Jablonskis’s status as a scholar, and has rightly shown how futile those efforts were. Moreover, Piročkinas surveyed Jablonskis’s scholarly activity in the broad context of European linguistics of the time and showed that the linguist was regarded as a great scholar not only here at home but also far abroad.

In his studies of Jono Jablonskis’s works and activities, Arnoldas Piročkinas has emerged as a meticulous historian of language who projects his work into the present, where wisdom and tradition are drawn from the past. The connection between past and present established by the jubilarian is evident in many of his works, especially in books devoted to Jablonskis’s corrections. The scholar discussed these matters extensively in the aforementioned monographs on Jono Jablonskis’s life and work; later, separate books on Jablonskis’s corrections to lexis and morphology were published in 1970 and 1976, and in 1986 a combined work, Jono Jablonskio kalbos taisymai, appeared. These works are not repetitions of one another but qualitatively new studies, accompanied by extensive scholarly commentary. They are independent studies of language culture that contributed greatly to resolving issues in the codification of contemporary Lithuanian. Through these and other works, Arnoldas Piročkinas also distinguished himself as a distinctive practitioner of language culture, at times a rather strict defender and evaluator of particular matters. Here it is worth recalling his clear position that foreign names should be written only in Lithuanian letters and according to Lithuanian pronunciation. In this respect, he is one of the most prominent theorists of codification in this field.

Whatever he may write or say about practical questions of language, Arnoldas Piročkinas is always a man of his nation and state, an active citizen. I cherish the memories of a warm experience from the now-distant year 1991, when the Supreme Council asked us to review the language of the draft Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. We formed a small committee: Pranas Kniūkšta, the leading specialist in administrative (bureaucratic) language; Arnoldas Piročkinas, author of the instructional works Teisininkų kalbos kultūra (1980) and Administracinės kalbos kultūra (1990); and me. Each of us edited the text independently, then we met to compare our views and reach joint decisions. As far as I can remember, I do not recall our ever having had a serious disagreement or argument, and a consensus easily found its way into the memorandum we were drafting. Later, it was gratifying to see that almost all our proposals had been adopted in the final text of the Constitution, although I heard that other linguists had also contributed to editing its language. But among those discussions, what remained most vivid in my memory was Arnoldas’s repeated wish that, alongside the linguistic comments on certain articles of the Constitution, we should also add our opinion as citizens. After consulting one another, we wrote that too, of course, separating it from the main text...

A. PUPKIS. Profesoriui Arnoldui Piročkinui – 80 metų

289

We did not have any serious disagreements or arguments, and a consensus easily found its way into the memorandum we were drafting. Later, it was gratifying to see that almost all our proposals had been adopted in the final text of the Constitution, although I heard that other linguists had also contributed to editing its language. But among those discussions, what remained most vivid in my memory was Arnoldas’s repeated wish that, alongside the linguistic comments on certain articles of the Constitution, we should also add our opinion as citizens. After consulting one another, we wrote that too, of course, separating it from the main text...

Arnoldas Piročkinas’s civic-mindedness is evident in many of his works. Here it is especially worth highlighting a recently published series of articles on the state and history of education in East Prussia, the role of the Evangelical Church in education in the Klaipėda Region, and the efforts of pro-German groups to take control of life in the region. These articles could form the basis of a substantial study of the history of education in the Klaipėda Region.

Arnoldas Piročkinas, as a citizen and patriot of his homeland, also undertook another complex task: he compiled and edited a substantial book, Jurbarkas. Istorijos puslapiai (1996). Alongside the more technical work, the book also contains several articles by the editor himself: on the writer Antanas Giedraitis, other notable people from the region, Evangelical Lutherans, the circulation of books in Lithuania Minor, and more. For this work, as well as for his significant research in Lithuanian studies, Arnoldas Piročkinas was awarded the title of Honorary Citizen of Jurbarkas in the summer of 2011.

Through his numerous writings, the jubilarian emerges as a perceptive historian, well acquainted with the subject of his work, the historical circumstances of its existence, and its broad cultural context. These qualities of his writing are particularly evident in Piročkinas’s book, which appeared somewhat unexpectedly to the public at the time: Devyneri Adomo Mickevičiaus metai: biografinė apybraiža (1995; a Polish-language edition was published in 1998). Yet that surprise fades when we recall that as early as 1984 Piročkinas was one of the authors of Mokslas senajame Vilniaus universitete, a book published in the series Monuments of Lithuanian Scholarship. In writing it, he had undoubtedly gained not only encouragement to discuss the Lithuanian years of Adomas Mickevičius, but also gathered a wealth of material and facts and formulated new insights. His studies of Adomas Mickevičius may also have inspired the preparation of a substantial Lietuvių–lenkų ir lenkų–lietuvių kalbų žodyną, published in Warsaw in 2001.

Thus, the range of Professor Arnoldas Piročkinas’s work is truly broad and impressive. His many instructional works on Lithuanian have not yet been reviewed here, nor have his studies of Bohemistics been discussed. Regarding the latter, it should be noted that during a six-month research stay in then-Czechoslovakia in 1971–1972, the scholar

290

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 84

He searched for sources on Lithuanian studies and became well acquainted with Czech cultural and linguistic life. This led to articles on scholarly connections in that field, a Czech language textbook (1974), a Czech–Lithuanian and Lithuanian–Czech dictionary (2004), and a considerable number of translations from Czech of literary works and works in other genres (and a few from other languages).

In conclusion, it should once again be emphasized how broad Professor Arnoldas Piročkinas’s scholarly and cultural interests are, and how great his erudition as a scholar is; mention should also be made of the work in language science and practice that he has pursued diligently and consistently for half a century. Without the work he has done, we would be much poorer in many respects than we are now. It is gratifying that the Professor continues to drive these varied endeavors forward successfully, and so we wish him good health and new discoveries for the benefit of our entire culture.

Received 2011 11 30

A. PUPKIS. Profesoriui Arnoldui Piročkinui – 80 metų

291