GIEDRĖ ČEPAITIENĖ

Šiauliai University

JONAS JABLONSKIS – A VARPININKAS

(Mintauja, the path to Varpas)

Jono Jablonskio veikla aptarta Arnoldo Piročkino monografijose (1977, 1978), tačiau apie kai kuriuos klausimus jose kalbama tik prabėgomis. Šiame straipsnyje parodomas J. Jablonskio tapsmas varpininku, aptariama su Varpu susijusi jo veikla Mintaujos laikotarpiu, atskleidžiant publikacijų tematiką ir kai kurias J. Jablonskio – prisiekusio „litvomano“, mokslininko, kalbininko nuostatas.

1. THE PATH TO VARPAS

When discussing Jonas Jablonskis’s collaboration with Varpas, it is worth recalling the path by which his national consciousness took shape. When he attended the Marijampolė Gymnasium (1872–1881), young people did not debate the question of national identity, and most of the gymnasium students considered themselves disseminators of Polish culture. Thus, when J. Jablonskis left to study at the University of Moscow, he was still an undecided young man. His own recollections show his national awakening¹:

“Among the university students I found quite a few Lithuanian acquaintances. Without much enthusiasm (‘I could not do otherwise’), I joined the Lithuanian circle. One of my Lithuanian friends did not do so; I did not blame him, and, while he justified himself to me, I did not blame him either, and I myself excused my failure to join. Gradually, I began to like my new friends, the little group of ‘Lithuamaniacs,’ although I still looked askance at many of them. Among those friends was Jonas Šliūpas, who seemed to me the most diligent and the hardest-working of them all. It was difficult not to agree with them on the common questions concerning the interests of the Lithuanian nation; nevertheless, Lithuanian identity was not merely an invention of reason: at least at that time, other motives also carried weight—old ideals and the impressions of being a ‘Pole.’ Had someone been able to show that we, too, could truly rouse ourselves, as one person, and live a national life, there would probably have been no doubts, though I did not dare speak of them. Among the friends

¹ Quoted from the writings of Jablonskis prepared by J. Balčikonis, since their authorship of the articles is clear from them.

30

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

There were, of course, more such lukewarm people, but they did not attract me. Whenever a conversation began, Russian could often be heard on Lithuanian lips as well. Perhaps this was justifiable at the time, yet it always made a very painful impression on me, a Lithuanian awakening from sleep. Time passed, and in me, one way or another, willingly or unwillingly, a “Lithuoman” was maturing and growing. After staying for about half a year, I would already have been able openly, wherever necessary, to justify and defend the good side of the Lithuanians’ “madness”: that half-year accomplished much, demolished much, and explained much.” (JR I: 71)

This rather long extract reveals at least several things: 1) when he came to study in Moscow, Jonas Jablonskis had no particularly clear national aspirations; 2) he joined the activities of the Lithuanian students’ circle not deliberately, but by chance; 3) of all the circle’s participants, Jonas Šliūpas had the greatest influence on him; 4) within half a year, J. Jablonskis’s national consciousness had matured. Although the quotation shows that he initially associated his national commitment with the activities of the so-called Lithuomans², philological studies themselves undoubtedly also played a role, as did the respectful attitude of professors Fyodor Korsh and Filip Fortunatov toward national minorities, and especially their attention to the Lithuanian language and their recognition of its scholarly value. The maturation of J. Jablonskis’s national consciousness is also evident in his work: while still studying at Moscow University, he took up his pen, writing in the Russian press on the prohibition of the Lithuanian press; and when Aušra began publication, he published six pieces in it. Another expression of his national commitment may be seen in a letter written in the spring of 1883 to Vincas Kudirka, in which the latter is reproached for identifying himself with the Polish nation: “You follow all their ways and customs, and have already adopted—as your writing testifies—their language, with which you pour onto paper the gift of your mind, as though you had already lost your native language, that is, the language of your father and mother, who fearlessly lulled and raised you in Lithuanian. If as recently as last year I wrote to you not in Lithuanian but in Polish, it was only out of old habit, which is hard to break; today I can tell you this openly.” (Piročkinas 1985: 196).

2. WAYS OF COLLABORATING IN VARPAS

Jonas Jablonskis encountered Varpas not only as a person with a settled national commitment, but also as someone who had begun cultural work. His most active collaboration with Varpas took place while he was living and working in Mintauja (1889–1895). This collaboration took several forms: from

² The group of Lithuanians who had committed themselves to the cause was called the “Society of Lithuanian Students in Moscow” (see Piročkinas 1977: 35).

G. ČEPAITIENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis – varpininkas (Mintauja, ėjimas į Varpą)

31

In 1890, he headed the “Literary Commission,” which encouraged the recruitment of as many Lithuanian intellectuals as possible to collaborate in Varpas; 24 articles of various kinds written by him were published; 3) Varpas was financially supported.

The entire Mintauja period was not equally intensive: 2 articles were published in 1890; in 1891, there were no publications attributable to his pen; in 1892, 2 articles; in 1893, 13; and in 1894, 8 articles. Thus, the largest number of publications appeared in 1893, with almost one article written each month.

3. THEMES OF VARPAS PUBLICATIONS

The journalistic writing published in Varpas can be divided by topic into four groups: 1) Mintauja and the Lithuanians living there; 2) the history of Lithuania; 3) the history of Lithuanian writings; 4) language issues.

3.1. Mintauja and the Lithuanians living there

An article devoted to Mintauja was published in the fifth issue of 1890. Its structure, narrative tone, and title itself (“From Mintauja”) suggest an informational piece. It first recalls what had earlier attracted Lithuanians to Mintauja (before there was a railway, Lithuanians used to bring grain there); why people travel to Mintauja now (peasants come to sell cereals, linseed, and flax); and how they feel there (a Lithuanian who has reached only the outskirts of the city finds signs there “where he can drink and amuse himself well” (JR I: 10), regrets that the signs are “indescribably garbled,” but does not mention that in Lithuania itself, because of the ban on Latin script, there were not even signs of this kind.

A considerable part of the article is devoted to describing those Lithuanians who have settled in Mintauja. First, it discusses the Lithuanian Catholic parish (comprising 1,000–1,200 people), noting that there are no Evangelicals (Lithuanian Calvinists) in Mintauja at all. It describes how the Lithuanians settled there make their living: the men are mostly servants, “carters,” and day laborers, while those of a higher social stratum “work in shops as assistants to the proprietors themselves, or in offices, into which they have managed to get by knowing the Belarusian language” (JR I: 12); the girls are servants in Polish, German, and Latvian homes. The author regrets that in Courland (that is, in Mintauja too) Lithuanians occupy a low social position, whereas Latvians who have moved to Lithuania occupy higher positions. The following conclusion is drawn from this: “Thus

32

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

one may say that the migration of Lithuanians to Courland and, in turn, of Latvians to Lithuania points only to the very pitiful condition of us Lithuanians: the further we go, the lower and weaker we become, leaving everything dearest and most precious—our land—to newcomers, the Latvians, who in return give us only the task in Courland of guarding, driving Germans, and serving them.—” (JR I: 12). It seems that after a century this idea of J. Jablonskis is once again becoming relevant.

In the final part of the article, Lithuanians are urged to send their children to the Mintauja gymnasium. It is explained that there are still vacancies in the gymnasium classes, that older pupils are also admitted, and that the school administration “looks first at the child’s mind, and not at the wealth of his parents” (JR I: 13). At the end of the article, a continuation of this topic is promised: “I hope to write in another letter about those of our male and female pupils, as well as all our young people, who seek enlightenment in Courland (Kurzeme) and Vidzeme.” Unfortunately, J. Jablonskis did not pursue this topic further in Varpe.

3.2. Lithuanian History

Publications related to Lithuanian history consist mainly of reviews of various books and studies. In Varpe, J. Jablonskis reviews not only works prepared by Lithuanians, but also scholarly publications by Russians, Poles, and Germans, or works that at least aspire to be scholarly. J. Jablonskis greatly valued the principles of scholarly analysis. When discussing the proceedings of the Ninth Russian Archaeological Congress (1893, No. 9) and urging participation in the Tenth Congress, he had already written that “all kinds of investigations into antiquity may be read at the congress, if they are based on a scientific foundation.” This “scientific foundation” is also sought in his discussion of the papers presented at the aforementioned congress. J. Jablonskis’s observations on the organization of the congress itself in Vilnius are useful to historians of science. It turns out that it was organized and materials collected “not by subject experts and true pioneers of the region, but by teachers (almost all of them hired Russifiers), by district clerks (Russians), by Russian priests, and finally… by the police” (JR I: 16). His remarks on the languages used at the congress are important: although there were three congress languages (Russian, German, and French), people from the territory of the Russian Empire at the time had to speak only Russian at the congress; papers in German or French were permitted only for scholars from abroad. J. Jablonskis points out that the congress organizers’ policies seemed unacceptable to many Lithuanian and Polish archaeologists, and that they therefore did not participate in the congress at all. Of the 80 papers read at the congress, he discusses three, focusing on A. Bezzenberger’s

G. ČEPAITIENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis – varpininkas (Mintaują, ėjimas į Varpą)

33

paper “On the Ancient Past of the Land of East Prussia.” According to J. Jablonskis, this scholar refuted the idea advanced by many Russian presenters that the origins of the Russian people themselves should be sought on the Prussian coast; on the contrary, he proved “that in the Lithuanian governorates and in many places where the Belarusians now live, our compatriots had their homes at least some 7,000 years ago. According to that view, now generally accepted, our land cannot therefore be called ‘искони русский край (a Russian land since time immemorial),’ as our Russifiers would wish. This paper shows that our entire land has been purely Lithuanian since the remotest antiquity.” (JR I: 22).

Separate reviews are devoted to Pavel Briancev’s book Очеркъ древней Литвы и западной Россіи (Вильна, 1891) and Teobaldas’s work Литовско-языческие очерки (Вильна, 1890). Both works were discussed in the tenth issue of the 1893 Varpo. J. Jablonskis takes a critical view of the works under review. According to J. Jablonskis, the author of the first study, “like a true Russifier, wants all Lithuanians to cease being what they want to be and turn entirely into Russians; in writing his textbook, he tells his readers that our ancestors were already almost Orthodox, had always become Russians, and had to become Russians” (JR I: 23). In many passages of the review, attention is drawn to the study’s author’s bias: the distortion or omission of historical facts, and discussion of matters that serve the Russifier’s preconceived position.

Teobaldas’s work is also assessed poorly. Applying the criterion of scholarship, errors are identified that can be linked to several causes: 1) Teobaldas did not know Lithuanian, and consequently offers mistaken interpretations in more than one place (for example, he called the Lithuanians of Veliuona Vilnians); 2) the author discusses publications with which he is not familiar (for example, he claims that F. Fortunatov and V. Miller’s collection of songs was translated from German, whereas in fact the songs were recorded from Lithuanian informants); 3) the author is unable to assess earlier works critically, and thus continues to spread obvious misconceptions and errors. Summing up, J. Jablonskis writes: “If any Lithuanian wished to make use of this book, he should not forget that the material included in this collection must be handled with great caution: all kinds of relics of antiquity are jumbled together in it, and they cannot all be trusted.” (JR I: 27).

Iš esmės teigiamai J. Jablonskis vertino Volyniako knygą Bazylianie na żmudzi (1894, Nr. 4), kurioje aiškinama bazilijonų, unitų vienuolių, įsikūrimo Padubysyje istorija ir šio vienuolyno nunykimo priežastys, susijusios su 1831 metų sukilimu, vadinamuoju krakosmečiu. Vis dėlto esama vieno didelio priekaišto: knygutė skiriama „visiems Žemaičiams, kurie dar jaučiasi

34

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

“with the Poles” (JR I: 58). J. Jablonskis says he does not understand how Lithuanians can be regarded as part of a province of Poland, when the Lithuanian nation itself has already changed considerably and has about 10 newspapers, and is therefore nationally conscious.

J. Jablonskis gave a particularly favorable account of the collection published in Heidelberg, Mitteilungen der Litauischen literarischen Gesellschaft (18. Heft). The review devoted to it was published in the 12th issue of the 1893 Varpo. The reviewer acquaints readers with the publication’s contents, drawing attention to the section prepared by Eduard Volter, from which one can learn “about our books and newspapers; many various pamphlets and books in which foreigners write about us—our history, literature, language, etc.—are also mentioned there” (JR I: 41). J. Jablonskis notes that all the sections are interesting, and looks more closely at the section written by A. Kuršaitis, “On the History of the Prussian Lithuanians.” He repeats for Varpo readers the statistics presented by A. Kuršaitis on the decline in the number of Lithuanians in Lithuania Minor, quotes this author’s thoughts on the causes of that decline, and poses a question to readers: “We would like to know whether anything is being done on the Lithuanian side against Germanization, how much has been done, and by what means it is being done” (JR I: 43).

3.3. History of Lithuanian Writings

While living in Mintauja, J. Jablonskis wrote reviews for Varpas of two Lithuanian publications: Jonas Šliūpas’s book Lietuviszkieje Rasztai ir Rasztininkai (Lietuviškieji Raštai ir Raštininkai; 1894, No. 1) and Jonas Basanavičius’s Etnologiškos smulkmenos (1894, No. 2).

As is well known, J. Šliūpas’s book is the first history of Lithuanian literature. J. Jablonskis’s review assesses the work favorably overall. It identifies only a few shortcomings: 1) the history of writing is examined separately from the history of the nation; 2) criticism of the writings under discussion is lacking, since authors who made important contributions to Lithuanian writing and those who contributed little are treated alike; 3) the author could not avoid subjectivity when discussing Antanas Baranauskas and his writings, as well as Lithuanian periodicals. This subjectivity seems to have hurt J. Jablonskis deeply. In the review he writes: “The article says not a word about Varpas and Ukininkas, as though those newspapers had never existed at all when writing about ‘Lithuanian writings and writers.’ It appears that in L. M-jaus’s^[3] eyes they stand lower than all sorts of ‘Laiškai,’ ‘Keleiviai,’ and ‘Ceitungas’” (JR I: 46). The book’s reviewer himself was well acquainted with Lithuanian writing of the period.

^[3] L. M-jas is Lietuvos Mylėtojas (Lover of Lithuania; this was the pseudonym under which this book by Jonas Šliūpas was published).

G. ČEPAITIENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis – varpininkas (Mintauja, ėjimas į Varpą)

35

J. Jablonskis views Jonas Basanavičius’s book through the eyes of a linguist. His criticisms of the author mainly concern poor word etymologies, since similarity in the sound of words alone is not sufficient grounds for proving their historical kinship. Attention is also drawn to the language of the book. In J. Jablonskis’s opinion, quotations are needlessly used without being translated into Lithuanian: “In this way, few people can read Mr. B-aus’s little book—only those who, besides knowing Lithuanian, also know Latin, Polish, German, and Russian” (JR I: 55). Another criticism concerns the spelling of place names. J. Basanavičius needlessly writes Beržinė, Duna, Gartynas, Miniškis instead of Berezina, Dauguva, Gardinas, Minskas, “for we should treat the names of foreign peoples as we would like them—that is, foreign peoples—to treat our own names” (JR I: 56). The reviewer also objects to the use of one or another inappropriate word or form, although, overall, he draws this conclusion about J. Basanavičius’s linguistic expression: “If we had to give a direct opinion of Mr. B-aus’s language, we would have to say that Mr. B-us writes Lithuanian quite beautifully, much better than many of our other writers” (JR I: 56).

Two other articles written by J. Jablonskis in Mintauja can also be assigned to the topic of the history of Lithuanian writings: “S. Daukantas’s Life and Writings” (1893, No. 11) and “Two Nezabitauskis” (1893, No. 12). In the first article, he presents a biography of Simonas Daukantas based on three sources: articles by E. Volter and D. Silvestraitis, and information supplied by an unknown author. J. Jablonskis briefly explains the reason for the article. Regretting that J. Šliūpas’s book Lietuviškieji Raštai ir Raštininkai devotes so little space to S. Daukantas, he tries to fill the resulting gap. The article contains not only S. Daukantas’s biography, but also a Lithuanian translation of his will, quoted in full, and a list of his works arranged by subject. J. Jablonskis only briefly mentions S. Daukantas’s language: “he wrote in Samogitian, with a considerable admixture of Latvian words and sometimes constructions. [...] If D-to’s language sometimes displays unfree and awkward features, rather difficult and elaborate constructions, one must also acknowledge that his writings reveal a great and extraordinary knowledge of his native language, not only its living form but also its older form” (JR I: 38).

The second article introduces a Polish text found in a manuscript, which lists the works of Kajetonas and Kiprijonas Nezabitauskis. J. Jablonskis says that he has himself examined Kiprijonas Nezabitauskis’s booklet translated from Polish, Apie bites, and Kajetonas Nezabitauskis’s 1824 primer, Naujas mokslas skaitytima diel mažų waykų Žemaycziu yr Lietuwos, but feels that he knows too little about the Nezabitauskis brothers’ works, and therefore

36

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

he writes: “It would likewise be pleasant to learn more about the life of the Nezabitauskis (one or the other), if that life can shed even a little light on the national movement and literature of Lithuania at that time.” (JR I: 40). This quotation allows us to conclude that the beginnings of the Lithuanian national movement in the early nineteenth century and the particular forms in which it was expressed were important to J. Jablonskis.

3.4. Matters of Language

A large body of J. Jablonskis’s articles is devoted to matters of language. Some analyze issues of spelling, etymology and semantics, and syntax; others review grammars and dictionaries; still others offer linguistic analyses of other publications.

In Varpas, a discussion of Lithuanian spelling began for the first time in the history of our written culture⁴. In the article “A Few More Words about Our Spelling” (1893, No. 1), J. Jablonskis discusses five questions of spelling: distinguishing long and short vowels in writing (i-y, u-ū); dialectal equivalents of the diphthongs ie, uo and the particularities of their spelling; he proposes using the digraph tš instead of the affricate č: “one way or another, we will go directly against grammatical logic if, alongside dž, we stubbornly retain in our writing the letter č, which stands separately in our language” (JR III: 6); the spelling of nasal vowels and tautosyllabic combinations with n; and the use of the so-called softening sign—the letter i—after soft consonants. He also proposed that the editorial board of Varpas use the alphabet he had devised.

J. Jablonskis’s proposals were not acceptable to everyone. In the eighth issue of Varpas for 1893, he once again returns to the need to distinguish long and short vowels with letters (“Are Certain Signs Needed to Represent Long i and u?”). J. Jablonskis writes: “Mr. Sk-dra^[5] is badly mistaken if, not knowing where to write y, he demands that this vowel be completely eliminated from our spelling. What would happen if everyone, in order to make learning easier, wanted to reject everything they do not know as some kind of unnecessary trifle?!” (JR III: 11). Thus, the linguist was convinced that special letters to mark long and short vowels were essential in the Lithuanian alphabet.

The spelling issues already mentioned, along with others, are discussed again in the article “The Spelling of Dr J. Basanavyčius” (1894, No. 5). Here, too, the discussion turns to the spelling of affricates

⁴ In 1884, articles about the Lithuanian alphabet appeared in the Russian daily newspaper Современные известия (it seems that J. Jablonskis himself wrote a couple of them), but they discussed the restoration of the Latin alphabet, not the structure of the alphabet (see Piročkinas 1977: 42).

^[5] Sk-dra – M. Skiedra (the pseudonym of Mikalojus Kuprevičius, a physician and public figure).

G. ČEPAITIENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis – varpininkas (Mintaują, ėjimas į Varpą)

37

b (J. Jablonskis criticizes J. Basanavičius for proposing the introduction of entirely new letters for the affricate [č] and its voiced counterpart consonant: this would make the alphabet more complicated); he objects to the failure to distinguish the sounds [e·] and [ė·] (Basanavičius wrote the forms musė and muse identically), to confusing e and ia (writing žale liepele, “green little linden tree,” and antelia, “little duck”), to failing to distinguish long and short vowels (the letters i and y are confused), and to using the letter ū needlessly in place of uo. In conclusion, J. Jablonskis says that one cannot simply follow a spelling used in the past, but must remember “the simple laws of grammar and consistency” (JR III: 17).

In the eighth issue of Varpas for 1892, the “Language Matters” published by J. Jablonskis focus mainly on clarifying unfounded etymologies. The article responds to remarks on Lithuanian vocabulary published by Prusas6 over several issues of Varpas. Before analyzing individual words, J. Jablonskis notes that language contains many confusing matters and encourages others to discuss them, while also expressing the wish that “any polemic that might arise from those short articles should always be based on pure science” (JR IV: 9). The article shows why attempts to link the words pinigas, kunigas, grašis with pynė, kūnas, gręžti are unfounded; abundant dialect examples refute the view that the word trūkti does not mean “to be lacking”; the meaning of tardymas is explained, with an example from K. Donelaitis provided to attest to its usage and its derivational pattern explained through other words; and, on the basis of sound correspondences, it is shown that the name of the Lithuanian duke cannot be Olkertas or be connected with the phrase uolą kertu (the linguist himself calls Algirdą Algirdžiu).

Šio straipsnio tęsinyje (1892, Nr. 12; 1893, Nr. 5) J. Jablonskis aiškina, kuriais žodžiais keistini anuo metu buvę populiarūs skoliniai (rėdas, parėdas... urėdas), taip pat kai kurių žodžių semantikos ryšį su jų darybos ypatybėmis. Remdamasis pamatinių žodžių struktūra atmeta kaip netinkamus darybos žodžius rašėjas, prekėjas, o į jų vietą siūlo rašytoją ir prekininką ar pirk­lį, teikia vartoti žodžius pirkinys (vietoj tavoras), prekymetis (vietoj pagal vokiečių kalbos pavyzdį sudaryto meturgis), tautietis (vietoj viengentis, vientautis – jie esą būdvardžiai), velionis (ne slavišką skolinį nabašnikas). Čia aiškinama, kad pagal lietuvių kalbos dėsnius neįmanoma sudaryti būdvardžių draugijinis, tikėjimiškas, tėvyniškas ir siūloma vietoj jų vartoti junginius su nederinamuoju pažyminiu: draugijos reikalai, tikėjimo dalykas, tėvynės varpai (JR IV: 14–20). Kalbėdamas apie veiksmažodžius kalbininkas nurodo, kad vengtina slaviška priesaga -avoti.

⁶ Prusas is the pen name of the physician and writer Vincas Pietaris.

38

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

These articles also reveal a search for words denoting various concepts. Drawing on foundational words, J. Jablonskis proposes using ateitis, praeitis instead of the words ateitinė, praeitinė, which had begun to be used in writing; because of the Slavic suffix –ūnas⁷, which denotes a person, he recommends abandoning the words šviesūnas, apšviesūnas, tamsūnas and using the better-formed pir(m)uolį, tamsuolį.

J. Jablonskis’s first works on syntax also appeared in Varpas. A few observations on syntax had already appeared in the fifth issue of Varpas in 1893. He draws attention to the difference between the prepositional constructions nuo, per with the accusative and the genitive (the expression arklys nuo žmogaus pirktas does not mean the same as arklys per žmogų pirktas); drawing on numerous examples, he points out that constructions with the preposition dėl are used to express cause, and therefore the expressions iš priežasties should not be used. Here J. Jablonskis also shows that infinitive constructions are better suited to expressing purpose: not mokyklos dėl žmonių apšvietimo, but mokyklos žmonėms apšviesti (JR IV: 26–27).

Purpose⁸ is discussed in greater detail in the article “Medega sintaksii” (1893, No. 10). This article seems to lay the foundations for J. Jablonskis’s later work as a linguist. It briefly formulates the ways of expressing purpose in Lithuanian, often comparing them with Latvian and also mentioning features of other Indo-European languages. All theoretical observations are supported by numerous examples of usage. Examples are taken from folk speech, folklore, and the works of Lithuanian writers—Donelaitis, Aleknavičius, Baranauskas, Valančius, Šiaulėniškis Senelis (Dovydaitis), and Didžiulienė-Žmona. J. Jablonskis explains his choice of authors as follows: “I chose these works as examples because their language—or, to put it another way, the syntax of their language—has, in my view, not yet strayed far from the language of the people and has not been greatly corrupted by the influence of foreign languages.” (JR IV: 28). The selection of examples reveals the principles of J. Jablonskis that he summarized in 1901 in Lietuviškos kalbos gramatikoje.

In Varpas, the linguist reviewed works on the Lithuanian language published at the end of the nineteenth century: Mykolas Miežinis’s grammar, published in Tilsit (1890, No. 6), and his Lithuanian–Latvian dictionary (1894, No. 7), as well as Mykolas Akelaitis’s grammar, published in Poznań (1893, No. 12). In undertaking to review M. Miežinis’s grammar, J. Jablonskis first sets out the principles that should

⁷ Kazimieras Būga, in the article “The Origin of the Suffix –ūnas and the Diphthong uo” (Lietuvos mokykla, 1921, Nos. 10–11, pp. 417–457), refuted the view that the suffix –ūnas is of Slavic origin. Editorial note.

⁸ In this article J. Jablonskis calls purpose siekiu.

G. ČEPAITIENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis – varpininkas (Mintauja, ėjimas į Varpą)

39

an author writing on the basis of grammar. In his view, two things are important: 1) to know the laws of language well; 2) to draw on folklore (songs, riddles, proverbs, tales) and writers who “themselves based their works on the language of the people” (JR IV: 3)⁹. Unfortunately, the authors of the works under review had disregarded these matters, and J. Jablonskis therefore spares neither grammars nor dictionaries a variety of reproaches. M. Miežinis’s grammar showed that its author had only a meager grasp of the structure of Lithuanian and had not sufficiently understood its features (he considered the vocative form Petrai a polite plural, the words visas, visok­s, tūlas adjectives, did not understand the meanings of the old postpositional locatives, failed to distinguish Latvian and Slavic loanwords, regarded some of them as old Lithuanian words, and so on). The reviewer therefore concludes: “Only someone who has not read it, and whose nerves it has not frayed, can speak favorably of Father Miežinis’s work.” (JR IV: 8). The linguist’s opinion of M. Miežinis’s dictionary is somewhat better. Although it, too, contains many errors and includes invented, impossible Lithuanian and Latvian words, J. Jablonskis praises the dictionary under review for two things: 1) it contains vocabulary not found in the dictionaries of Kuršaitis and Nesselmann; 2) the examples are taken “from good sources, namely, from the language of the people” (JR IV: 46).

J. Jablonskis’s view of M. Akelaitis’s grammar is particularly critical. Attention is drawn to the fact that its author was merely an amateur, unfamiliar with the science of philology, who had undertaken a task beyond his abilities. He had invented sound laws for himself and used them to offer impossible explanations (he connects the word merga with the word margas, “such a stretch of land”; considers the words ilgas, iltis, arti, jautis, and so on, to have the same root). The linguist writes of M. Akelaitis’s study of sounds: “In Ak-iaus’s phonetics (phonology)^[10] there is not the slightest bit of genuine science—the author had no knowledge whatsoever of comparative grammar, or of the formation of words from a root, stem, suffix, and inflection.” (JR IV: 38). Nevertheless, J. Jablonskis considered M. Akelaitis an important figure in Lithuanian culture. This view may be supported by the fact that, at the end of the review, drawing on an article by V. Gaštov’ (Goštautas?) included in the grammar, he adds a brief biography of M. Akelaitis to supplement the information published in J. Šliūpas’s book Lietuviškieji Raštai ir Raštininkai.

While living in Mintauja, J. Jablonskis also wrote reviews and critiques of other publications. These include the article “The Language of Our Writings” (1893, No. 3), Ūkininko

⁹ A. Piročkinas wrote of these claims: “One can only marvel that a scholar just beginning his career at the age of thirty formulated them so well that there was no need to abandon them either ten or forty years later!” (Piročkinas 1977: 95).

^[10] It seems that this is the first time the word fonologija. was used in Lithuanian linguistics.

40

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

išleistų knygelių apžvalga (1894, Nr. 5), M. Valančiaus Vaikų knygelės (1894, Nr. 4) ir Giedrio išleisto rinkinio vaikams Gražūs pamokinimai (1894, Nr. 5) recenzijos.

In surveying the language of writings from 1883 to 1893, J. Jablonskis analyzes no publications and discusses no specific linguistic matters. He emphasizes that writers must learn Lithuanian, since a large proportion of them had not only “received their education in foreign languages” but had also lived far from Lithuania. All this affected both the writers’ vocabulary and their syntax. He urges them to learn the language from folklore and offers as an example the Latvians, who collect and publish folk songs.

J. Jablonskis discusses the booklets published as supplements to Ūkininko from several perspectives. First, he acquaints readers with the subject matter of publications from 1893 (distinguishing four thematic groups), then discusses the strategy for preparing such publications: he proposes taking into account both their subject matter and their intended readers, and identifies six topics for popular publications. The survey concludes with a few remarks on the language of the “Supplements.” These concern inadmissible foreignisms (bujoti, buinus, kytras, and others).

J. Jablonskis discusses books for children from two perspectives: 1) he emphasizes their didactic value; 2) he analyzes their linguistic expression. The publishers of M. Valančius’s booklet are criticized because, in turning the Samogitian-written Vaikų knygelę into a “Lithuanian work,” they failed to avoid numerous errors. He groups all of them into two types: 1) errors arising from a misunderstanding of M. Valančius’s text; 2) Samogitian forms left unchanged. As the review notes, later publishers of M. Valančius’s writings will be able to make use of the full list of these errors. The second booklet, Gražūs pamokinimai, is a translation from other languages. J. Jablonskis highlights the didactic value of the texts, but laments the poor language of the translations, points out numerous lexical errors, and draws this conclusion: “There is nothing for us to rejoice about in the appearance of a new children’s booklet. I, for my part, when I see such booklets, not only do not rejoice, but become terribly saddened—they leave such a heavy impression on me” (JR I: 68).

The articles and reviews J. Jablonskis wrote for Varpui in Mintauja attest to the author’s extraordinary diligence: alongside his work as a gymnasium teacher, he also found time for extensive journalistic writing. They reveal the perspective of a nationally conscious person and maturing scholar on the history of the Lithuanian nation, the importance of education, and the distinctive features of creating written literature. In reviewing publications, J. Jablonskis addresses their substance, setting aside personal relations with their authors. These articles already reveal Jonas Jablonskis’s principles as a linguist and the methods he would use in his future work.

G. ČEPAITIENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis – varpininkas (Mintauja, ėjimas į Varpą)

41

LITERATŪRA

Piročkinas A. 1977: Prie bendrinės kalbos ištakų: J. Jablonskio gyvenimas ir darbai 1860–1904, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Piročkinas A. 1978: J. Jablonskis – bendrinės kalbos puoselėtojas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Piročkinas A. (sud.) 1985: Jono Jablonskio laiškai, Vilnius: Mokslas.

JR I – Jablonskio raštai 1. Visuomenės straipsniai. Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas, 1933.

JR III – Jablonskio raštai 3. Rašybos dalykai. Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas, 1934.

JR IV – Jablonskio raštai 4. Kalbos dalykai. Red. J. Balčikonis, Kaunas, 1935.

Gauta 2010 11 22

JONAS JABLONSKIS IN THE VARPAS (The Mintauja period)

Summary

The article discusses the development of J. Jablonskis’ national consciousness and his work in the periodical magazine Varpas (The Bell). The focus of attention is on Jablonskis’ publications from the Mintauja period. The time when the linguist lived in Mintauja was rather uneven in terms of productivity: in 1890 he published two articles, yet none came out in the following year. Two articles of 1892 were followed by thirteen publications in 1893 and eight in 1894. So the year 1893 could be seen as the most productive with a new article coming out every month.

Jablonskis’ texts published in the Varpas could be classified into four topic categories: 1) Mintauja and local Lithuanians, 2) the history of Lithuania, 3) the history of writing in Lithuania, 4) language issues. The only article on Mintauja expresses the linguist’s desire to raise the level of education among Lithuanians – he encourages the readers to study in the Mintauja gymnasium.

In his historical texts, which are reviews of various publications by other authors, J. Jablonskis emphasizes the importance of empirical research validity. He criticizes such authors whose writings on history are based on their preconceived ideological notions, e. g. J. Basanavičius, P. Briancev, or who fail to properly interpret the facts, e. g. Theobald. The requirement of scientific approach, in his opinion, is equally applicable to language study. According to Jablonskis, the authors of grammars should be aware of linguistic laws which are to be derived from the study “people’s language”. He names a few good sources of real language, namely, folklore and certain Lithuanian authors (K. Donelaitis, A. Baranauskas, M. Valančius).

42

KALBOS KULTŪRA | 83

During his life in Mintauja, J. Jablonskis published articles in the Varpas. These texts demonstrate his mature national consciousness and a linguist’s awareness of the Lithuanian history, the importance of education and specificity of written language. As a reviewer, he focuses on essential aspects and leaves out personal preferences. His early articles outlined research principles and methods which he adhered to in the later work.

GIEDRĖ ČEPAITIENĖ

Šiaulių universitetas

P. Višinskio g. 38, LT-76352 Šiauliai

[email protected]

G. ČEPAITIENĖ. Jonas Jablonskis – varpininkas (Mintauja, ėjimas į Varpą)

43