Apie iškalbos ydą – tuštumą (pagal Antaną Baranauską ir Kazimierą Jaunių)

REGINA KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ Vilnius University ON THE FLAW OF ELOQUENCE — EMPTINESS (according to Antanas Baranauskas and Kazimieras Jaunius) The Latin biblical expression vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas (“vanity of vanities, and all is vanity”) is applicable to every circumstance in life: it describes the poverty of both earthly and spiritual life and false values. Vanity, or emptiness, also aptly describes a lack of inner substance in speech, its meaninglessness, hollow, garrulous speech (such a windbag, talks nonsense); emptiness is also the term for a person’s conceit, pride, and desire to show off their eloquence. It should be said that emptiness as a flaw of eloquence is scarcely mentioned in contemporary books on stylistics and rhetoric. This does not mean, however, that it was not discussed in earlier times. It is therefore worth recalling Antanas Baranauskas and Kazimieras Jaunius, who wrote about it and are better known to us for other fields of activity than as theorists and practitioners of eloquence. Their ideas1 about the requirements of eloquent style and its greatest flaws, grounded in the classical secular tradition, remain relevant and un outdated, and have enduring value for language culture in the broadest sense. This article will allow us to view these authors from a new perspective. A little history first. During the period when Lithuanian printing was banned, after teaching eloquence in Polish was prohibited at the Kaunas Priest Seminary, Bishop Motiejus Valančius assigned the teaching of this subject “in the Lithuanian or Samogitian language and 1 This is set out in their lecture notes, which were published as separate books. Throughout this article, the following editions are cited: Dvas iškoji iškalba, compiled from the lectures of Rev. Dr. K. Jaunius. Seinai, Laukaitis and Bves Printing House, 1909. (In the article, cited as KJ, followed by the book page number.); A. Baranauskas. Homiletika, arba Mokslas šventosios iškalbos. Raštai IV, Vilnius: Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore, 2005. (In the article, cited as AB, followed by the book page number.) It should be remembered that K. Jaunius’s lecture notes were published before those of his teacher A. Baranauskas: Jaunius’s booklet appeared in 1909, while Baranauskas’s was published in 2005, 96 years later. R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Apie iškalbos ydą – tuštumą (pagal Antaną Baranauską ir Kazimierą Jaunių) 283 to teach the students to deliver sermons2 to the author of “The Forest of Anykščiai,” A. Baranauskas (1835–1902)—he taught at this seminary from 1866 to 1884. His student K. Jaunius (1848–1908), who studied at the Kaunas Priest Seminary and attended A. Baranauskas’s lectures there in moral theology, the Lithuanian language, and “Homiletics, or the Science of Sacred Eloquence,” later taught these same subjects himself. After studying at the Catholic Theological Academy in Saint Petersburg, K. Jaunius returned to the Kaunas Priest Seminary and taught there from 1880 to 1892 (becoming a professor in 1885). K. Jaunius continued the work of teaching eloquence begun by his teacher A. Baranauskas, who had been appointed auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Telšiai in 1885 and bishop of Sejny in 1897 (though he did not simply copy him, but prepared entirely new notes on eloquence). Like his illustrious predecessor, K. Jaunius improved the Lithuanian-language skills of future preachers. Without knowledge of Lithuanian grammar, it was impossible to teach eloquence as well, so it is understandable why these priests, initially for purely practical purposes and later out of genuine vocation and “aptitude,” immersed themselves in the science of Lithuanian linguistics and, among other accomplishments, are known as scholars. To this day they astonish linguists with their broad linguistic erudition, vivid scientific imagination, command of their native language, its richness, fluency and clarity, and their knowledge of dialects3. The works of both authors as linguists have been studied by scholars in Lithuania and abroad, but their contributions to the branch of linguistic activity that A. Baranauskas called “sacred” eloquence and K. Jaunius “spiritual” eloquence remain almost entirely unknown. These creators of Lithuanian theory and practice of eloquence also deserve recognition as pioneers of the study of Lithuanian style. A. Baranauskas’s notes are considerably more extensive and contain more theoretical material, but they remained unpublished for a long time (the text published in 2005 is 297 pages long). K. Jaunius’s booklet (40 pages), though small, was printed much earlier (the year after his death). K. Jaunius set out the systematically organized course in the practice of eloquence4, with concise and clearly formulated requirements for a good speaker, as a kind of compendium. For the first time, in Lithuanian terminology (emptiness—also his term), alongside methodically enumerated characteristics of a good orator’s style— 2 This exceptionally important document for sustaining and promoting Lithuanian identity is held at the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore: a letter from Bishop M. Valančius to A. Baranauskas, dated December 31, 1870 (F.1–176). Thus, from 1871 (the very year K. Jaunius entered the Kaunas Priest Seminary), eloquence began to be taught in Lithuanian. 3 For more on this, see D r o t v i n a s V., G r i n a v e c k i s V. Kalbininkas Kazimieras Jaunius, Vilnius: Mintis, 1970. 4 At the beginning of his notes, K. Jaunius himself explains why he undertakes practical instruction in eloquence: “But practical rules are much easier and, truth be told, more necessary; without them, the proclaimer of God’s word cannot fulfill his ministry and calling” (KJ 3). 284 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 le, the shortcomings of style (which he calls jeibės; Latin defectus) are identified (we will not discuss them in this article): obscurity of speech (obscuritas), excessive ornamentation (fucus, artificia), poverty or vulgarity of language (vilitas), and—emptiness of speech (vanitas). As we shall see, emptiness encompasses obscurity and excessive ornamentation of speech, as well as many other ethical failings in the speaker’s character. In this article we will examine this stylistic flaw in eloquence, forgotten but once again relevant today. We will draw on the works of both authors, since their ideas do not conflict or contradict one another, nor do they repeat one another; rather, they support, complement, and develop one another. Thus, according to A. Baranauskas and K. Jaunius, emptiness of speech can be described as verbose, excessively ornate, loud-sounding yet obscure, as if shrouded in mist, unreasoned, unwise speech that says the same thing over and over in different words without saying anything concrete. A. Baranauskas calls an empty talker and a loquacious one a braggart. Such a speaker’s defective teaching is supposedly “clamorous and chatty” (AB 144). Indeed, it is the same idea we have in mind when we say: empty vessels make the most noise. The author believes that “holy words should flow like a great, calm river, not gush and tumble like a stream down a steep hill”5 (AB 184). Even if a speaker were to choose a good subject (that is, an appropriate topic), “vanity will not let him express it well, because the desire to boast, and vanity, always place glitter above substance [...]. Add to this the usual trappings of vanity: exaggeration in the embellishment of speech6, gathering an excessive number of rhetorical ornaments, speaking from on high, exaggerating gestures and delivery7—and it is no wonder that all the warmth, fragrance, and consequently all the benefit of a sermon by braggart preachers8 evaporates” (AB 105). Like A. Baranauskas, K. Jaunius defines empty speech as speech from which listeners gain no benefit. This happens when a speaker “strings together empty, meaningless words and sentences,” talks incessantly, speaks at great length, yet keeps saying the same thing over and over. Listeners “receive a considerable number of various unclear impressions, hear many things and survey them in their imagination, but learn nothing from the whole speech and gain no benefit whatsoever” (KJ 5). Thus, such “eloquence is barren and fruitless” (KJ 7). 5 When quoting, some sounds uniquely written by A. Baranauskas have been transcribed using modern orthography. 6Kalbos intaisymu is the term for style. 7Sukrutimai ir ištarmė refers to gestures and the voice, tone, intonation, and pronunciation. K. Jaunius calls this mostagavimais ir visu apsielgimu (KJ 6) when delivering a sermon. 8Kaznodėjas (Polish) means “preacher”; in some of AB’s notes, bylasakis. K. Jaunius calls a preacher Dievo žodžio apsakinėtoju. R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Apie iškalbos ydą – tuštumą (pagal Antaną Baranauską ir Kazimierą Jaunių) 285 Comparing the books on eloquence by the two authors, the causes of emptiness in speech could be briefly described as follows: 1. The speaker is unprepared and has not planned their speech. 2. The speaker is vain, takes pride in themselves, and wants to please the audience at any cost. 3. The speaker becomes so fond of rhetorical embellishments that they forget the content. We will discuss these causes of emptiness in speech in more detail. A. Baranauskas, drawing on St Bernard, writes: Infunde ut effundas (Latin), “one must first fill what one intends to pour out.” If the vessel is not filled (if one is unprepared), the speech is empty: many words, little learning, unclear thoughts, things are general9, arguments10 are only for appearance and often false (AB 121). Both authors stress the importance of diligence (labor)—preparing sermons seriously, gathering material, reading sources, writing, reflecting, revising, rewriting, preparing to speak, and delivering the speech properly. Otherwise, it is difficult to ensure that a sermon is delivered according to the rules of good oratory and, as K. Jaunius writes, is free of “jeibės,” that is, shortcomings. The authors mention both more remote preparation (reading the writings of the Church Fathers and secular classics, studying Holy Scripture, and cultivating oneself in various ways) and more immediate preparation for the sermon to be delivered—planning it, selecting and arranging arguments, composing the speech, and reflecting on all its parts. Diligence and good preparation are needed not only by preachers: “the idleness of both a spiritual and a secular worker breeds poverty” (KJ 11), says K. Jaunius, urging people to take the masters of secular rhetoric as models of diligence. “We do not approach those whom we honor and love with empty or foolish words,” A. Baranauskas writes of the respect for listeners shown through good preparation (AB 146). It should be emphasized that both authors showed great respect for the secular masters of classical rhetoric, highlighted their diligence and serious preparation for speaking, quoted many of their thoughts in the original language, and adapted them for their seminary audiences—on almost every page one can find the reflections, advice, and maxims of “thinkers” such as Aristotle, Demosthenes, Plato, Cicero, Horace, Seneca, Quintilian, and other wise men. K. Jaunius writes: “Demosthenes, longing to acquire eloquence, withdrew from the company of people, copied out the histories of Thucydides by hand seven times, and for many years struggled and practised— 9Abelni – general, abstract. 10Davad ai (Polish) – arguments, conclusions. 286 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 without truce. Cicero was no less industrious, for he himself says: “acerrimo studio tenebar”. Even today, all those who aspire to acquire secular eloquence shrink from neither labor nor practice. So now we must ask whether spiritual eloquence, which magnifies the glory of God and leads people to eternal salvation, deserves less effort? (KJ 11). Regarding the second cause of emptiness—self-love—A. Baranauskas says that “climbing into the pulpit11 when prompted by vanity or self-love is to oppose the images of Christ the Lord and the Apostles, to blaspheme God, to sin against one’s neighbor, and to harm oneself...” (AB 101–102). The author believes that speaking about oneself and seeking honor for oneself are the voice not of love for God and one’s neighbor, but of vanity. One must also “beware of boasting about one’s wisdom and learning: it is better to see to it that everyone understands him, rather than that he be called learned” (AB 137). It would be dishonorable if a preacher sought empty glory for himself and cared more about himself than about the spiritual salvation of his listeners. K. Jaunius emphatically stresses that speakers should “beware of the vile obstinacy of self-love” (KJ 17), considering self-love a great wickedness. In the chapter “On the goodness and holiness of life,” A. Baranauskas quoted Cato the Elder’s famous definition of an orator Vir bonus dicendi peritus, “A good man, skilled in speaking.” It must be emphasized that this definition of an orator, which places goodness above eloquence itself, endured for many centuries as a postulate in the schools of European countries. Both A. Baranauskas and K. Jaunius likewise place first the speaker’s goodness and the holiness of his thoughts and conduct. Having elaborated on and supported Cato the Elder’s words with verses from Virgil, A. Baranauskas commented on them and concluded with a rhetorical question: “If a pagan advocate had to be such a man, then what manner of man should a preacher be, teaching holiness and leading people to holiness?” (AB 106). The third cause of emptiness is that the speaker “need not display cleverness or seek excessively ornate eloquence” (AB 68). A. Baranauskas compares speakers of this kind to trees lush with leaves but bearing no fruit (AB 71). The author has set out at length his view of overly ornate speech, which “does not turn out well” but leads only to nothing. His arguments are as follows: truth should be lofty, thought profound, and words simple and clear, for Christ and all the saints spoke in this way and set such an example of speech. The pursuit of glitter does not indicate good style or a speaker’s taste. In his words, “exaggeration, as in everything, so also in spe- 11Kozelnyčia (Polish) – pulpit. K. Jaunius already uses the Lithuanian term. R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Apie iškalbos ydą – tuštumą (pagal Antaną Baranauską ir Kazimierą Jaunių) 287 in learning, one quickly loses one’s way.” Our eloquent preacher P. Skarga12 did not seek beautiful words, since that would contradict sound judgment. A. Baranauskas gives the example of Quintilian, the Roman teacher of eloquence, who reprimanded advocates for their fine speaking when, defending a person’s property or even life, they sometimes sought not so much to persuade and convince the judges as to boast of their ability to speak beautifully (AB 69). It may be added that although K. Jaunius did not blindly follow his teacher A. Baranauskas13, he was a very attentive and talented pupil who took in what he had heard in A. Baranauskas’s lectures that was truly valuable and what a good speaker needs to know. Thus K. Jaunius, too, associates emptiness of speech with the tricks and arts of secular eloquence (artificia), which speakers resort to in order to shine and make a display, or, as K. Jaunius puts it, to “show off.” Christian truth itself is so beautiful and powerful that it needs no artificial embellishments; it is enough to convey it clearly, and in this way it pleases listeners and moves their hearts. Yet it is not the beauty of eloquence that should be feared, but rather the risk that various embellishments may overshadow the importance of the content. The beauties of speech should not exist for their own sake, but should serve to help listeners better understand the subject and ensure that the truth “sinks deep into the mind and heart” (KJ 8), for “there is no other way to a person’s heart except through his mind” (KJ 18). CONCLUSIONS Emptiness of speech, one of the greatest flaws of style, should be discussed in contemporary works on rhetoric and stylistics. It would be useful to introduce this defect not only to clergy, but also to teachers, pupils, and university students. Even authors of books on sermon preparation, when writing about the style of sermons, nowadays fail to mention stylistic emptiness—a major defect that undermines a speech’s concision, clarity, and substance. For example, in the recently published book Pamokslų rengimo ir retorikos14, the chapter “Choosing the Style of Preaching” (pp. 54–62) sets out the requirements of style according to the contemporary pre- 12 Petras Skarga was the first rector of Vilnius University, an outstanding preacher renowned for his eloquence. 13 “Although Jaunius is my pupil, he does not blindly believe his teacher,” A. Baranauskas wrote in a letter to H. Weber (see Morkūnas K. Kazimieras Jaunius. – Kalbos kultūra 14, 1968, 92). 14 See Vaičiūnas V. S. Pamokslų rengimas ir retorika, Kaunas: Vytautas Magnus University Press, 2007. 288 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81 lay preachers among stylists. The bibliography mentions neither A. Baranauskas nor K. Jaunius. Yet A. Baranauskas was the first to lay the foundations of Lithuanian sermon rhetoric (albeit in manuscript notes), and K. Jaunius was the first to set out the requirements for sermon style in printed Lithuanian (and applied them directly to preachers, although they are applicable to all speakers). K. Jaunius was also the first to systematize and describe stylistic flaws, including the greatest of them all—emptiness of speech. When discussing the stylistic flaw of lack of concision, authors of contemporary rhetoric and stylistics books15 and school Lithuanian-language textbooks mention wordiness, but understand it much more narrowly—usually only at the levels of lexical semantics and grammar (morphology and syntax), as an excess of pleonasms, tautology, fillers, so-called parasitic and parenthetical words, the thoughtless insertion of function words, the pointless use of pronouns, verbal nouns, or unnecessary participial modifiers, repetition of the same words, and so on. As we have seen, the stylistic emptiness discussed by A. Baranauskas and K. Jaunius differs from wordiness understood in this way. Emptiness is a much broader concept, encompassing every level of eloquence, including matters of the speaker’s ethics. What is dangerous is that emptiness—this discovery, a stylistic disease among speakers of various professions—is spreading like an epidemic. Not only some clergy of our time (we shall not undertake here to assess their speech), but also laypeople—politicians, officials, television presenters, advertising copywriters, and others who like to speak abstractly, manipulate16 with fine-sounding but fruitless words, chatter at length and eloquently, and even boast of such chatter, could learn from the first founders of the science of Lithuanian eloquence and draw valuable insights from them. Received 2008 08 25 15 Žr.: P i k č i l i n g i s J. Kalbos glaustumas. – Dabartinė lietuvių kalba (straipsnių rinkinys), 1961, 23–105; P i k č i l i n g i s J. Glaustumas. – Lietuvių kalbos stilistika 1, 1971, 120–150; P i k č i l i n g i s J. Žodžiai, kuriais tuščiažodžiaujame. – Ūkininkas, 1990, nr. 2, 22–23; Ž u p e r k a K. Kalbos glaustumas. – Stilistika, 2001, 104–105; Ž u p e r k a K. Stiliaus kultūra [Kalbos glaustumo trūkumai]. – Stilistikos pratybos, 2005, 29; K o ž e n i a u s k i e n ė R. Ekonomiškumo principas. – Retorika: iškalbos stilistika, 1999, 105; K o ž e n i a u s k i e n ė R. Glaustumas. – Retorika: iškalbos stilistika, 1999, 191–192; V a i č i ū n a s V. S. Stiliaus glaustumas [Tuščiažodžiavimas]. – Pamokslų rengimas ir retorika, Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla, 2007, 58–60. 16 J o u l e R o b e r t - V i n c e n t, B e a u v o i s J e a n - L e o n. Manipuliacijos vadovas padoriems piliečiams, Vilnius: Alma littera, 2005. R. KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ. Apie iškalbos ydą – tuštumą (pagal Antaną Baranauską ir Kazimierą Jaunių) 289 ON VANITY, A VICE OF ELOQUENCE (after A. Baranauskas and K. Jaunius) Summary The authors of present-day textbooks in rhetoric and stylistics often discuss vices of brevity; they also mention irrelevant verbiage, which is often treated much narrower, often at the level of lexical semantics and grammar, and includes pleonasms, tautologies, bywords, an excessive use of the so-called parasitic words and parenthetical phrases, pronouns, deverbal nouns and participial attributes. A. Baranauskas and K. Jaunius in their works mention the vanity of style; however, it is different from irrelevant verbiage. The vanity of style is a broader concept including all levels of language culture, and the ethics is not the least important among them. Politicians, people in high-ranking positions, TV presenters, advertisers, who often use abstract but meaningless words, manipulate the language, should learn from the first Lithuanian rhetoricians. REGINA KOŽENIAUSKIENĖ Vilnius University Universiteto g. 5, LT-01513 Vilnius [email protected] 290 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 81