From the History of Lithuanian Literary Scholarship Terminology: The Nineteenth Century

ASTA MITKEVIČIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

Literary studies as an independent discipline began to take shape in Lithuania in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (LTE VII 1981: 55), although works addressing questions of literary scholarship had appeared earlier. Such works became more numerous in the nineteenth century and more diverse, although most were syncretic: “they contain the beginnings of literary theory, literary history, and literary criticism” (LLI 2001: 206). In the nineteenth century, these works were also published i n L i t h u a n i a n, and Lithuanian literary-studies terminology began to develop.

SOURCES OF TERMINOLOGY

In the first half of the nineteenth century, literary subjects were discussed not in separate works, but in prefaces or other sections of various publications. In the 1824 edition of the fables of Aesop and K. Donelaitis, L. Rėza included a Lithuanian foreword about the fable, fabulists, and so on. An appendix to K. Nezabitauskis’s primer, published in the same year, Surinkimas visokiu raštų lietuviškų, žemaitiškų ir prūsiškai lietuviškų, is the first comprehensive bibliography of Lithuanian writings in the Lithuanian language (it includes a few brief comments) (Gineitis 1982: 125, 126). S. Stanevičius added a preface, Skaitysiantiems (which briefly discusses Lithuanian writing), to the Latin grammar of Lithuanian reprinted in 1829. An unknown author—J. J. V. Lietuvis nuo Šventos upės krašto—wrote a foreword (dated 1828) for the 1829 edition of fables by S. Stanevičius and S. Daukantas; this is “the first text related to poetics written in Lithuanian” (Girdzijauskas 2006: 77). The first work of theoretical poetics written in Lithuanian is considered to be S. Daukantas’s study Pasakos būdas (a theory of fable and of the tale, understood very broadly), included in his book Pasakos Fedro (printed in 1846, prepared in 1824) (ibid.: 79; LLI 2001: 214). In it, S. Daukantas “defines and explains concepts, substantiates their entire system, and adheres to strict logical consistency” (Girdzijauskas 2006: 79). In Žemaičių vyskupystėje (1848), M. Valančius focuses on religious literature. In the first half of the nineteenth century

110

Asta Mitkevičienė | Iš lietuvių literatūros mokslo terminijos...

writing in Lithuanian also addressed folklore. Brief prefaces can be found in the books Dainos žemaičių (1829) and Pažymės žemaitiškos gaidos (1833) by S. Stanevičius, a “scholar of literature.” S. Daukantas discusses folk songs in the preface to Dainės žemaičių (1846), where he “says things that are important not only for folklore studies but also for poetics in general” (Girdzijauskas 2006: 82).

J. Želvavičius wrote briefly about fables in the foreword to I. Krylov’s fable collection Pasakos (1863). Literary works (especially criticism) grew more numerous in the late nineteenth century as Lithuanian belles lettres flourished and Lithuanian periodicals emerged. Literary articles, reviews, annotations, writers’ biographies, and obituaries were published. Lietuvių literatūros kritikoje states that during the first twenty years of Lithuanian periodical publishing, about 400 critical writings on literature, language, and folklore appeared, half of them in Aušroje and Varpe (LLK I 1971: 138). Lithuanian books were regularly annotated and reviewed in Varpe. J. Šliūpas, J. Mikšas, J. Koncevičius, S. Dagilis, M. Dvainis-Silvestraitis, J. Mačys-Kėkštas, J. Zauerveinas, and others wrote about literary matters in Aušroje; in Varpe (in the late nineteenth century), the contributors included P. Mašiotas, V. Mačys, V. Kudirka, J. Jablonskis, A. Kriščiukaitis-Aišbė, S. Matulaitis, and others. In Varpe, V. Kudirka published the first Lithuanian poetics, Tiesos eilėms rašyti (1898). In the second half of the nineteenth century, literature, writers, or individual works were also discussed to varying degrees in Lietuviškoje ceitungoje, Garse, Žemaičių ir Lietuvos apžvalgoje, Naujoje lietuviškoje ceitungoje, Tėvynės sarge, Ūkininke, Žinyčioje, as well as in periodicals published in the United States: Lietuviškajame balse, Vienybėje lietuvninkų, Apšvietoje, Naujoje gadynėje, Garse Amerikos lietuvių, Lietuvoje, Tėvynėje, and others. The first history of Lithuanian literature, J. Šliūpas’s Lietuviškieji raštai ir raštininkai (1890), was published in the late nineteenth century. It grew out of a series of articles published in 1887–1889 in Lietuviškajame balse (one article appeared in the 1885 calendar of Aušros). In America, J. Žilius-Jonila published the booklet Lietuviški dainiai pradžios XIX šimtmečio (reprinted from Dirvos). A. Milukas presented an overview of nineteenth-century Lithuanian literature in the second part of Lietuviško albumo (1900).

The works listed above, from which material for this article was gathered,¹ ^{(see the list of primary sources), vary greatly in their terminology (without doubt,}

¹The periodical literature was not read in its entirety. The articles, reviews, and other items published in periodicals that are discussed or mentioned by literary scholars were consulted (drawing on A. Sprindys 1957, LLK I 1971, L. Gineitis 1982, LLK 2001, and J. Girdzijauskas 2006). In addition, several other works on literary matters published in periodicals (for example, in Naujoje lietuviškoje ceitungoje) were also reviewed.

Terminologija | 2007 | 14 111

(they also differ linguistically and in subject matter). In some works, for example, V. Kudirka’s poetics, approximately six pages long, contains about 120 terms of literary scholarship, whereas J. Šliūpas’s 234-page history of Lithuanian literature has comparatively few (about 150, including publishing terms). Other works are likewise of varying value for the history of terminology: some contain only one or two terms, while others offer definitions of terms, comments on the terms themselves, and so on. This article focuses on works in which a system of terms is clearly visible and terms are defined. The status of such terms as terms is generally beyond doubt. They are taken as a basis for revealing the state and features of nineteenth-century literary scholarship terminology. The focus is mainly not on individual terms, but on groups of terms, their relations, and their systematic organization—in other words, on the overall picture of the terminology. The assessments of concepts and terms currently offered by literary scholars are also taken into account.

T E R M S A N D T H E I R R E L A T I O N S

The relations among terms are most clearly seen in works on literary theory. S. Daukantas’s work Pasakos būdas reflects the hierarchical system of “narrative” in pasakos. The term pasaka is the generic term, while its specific terms are: 1) wejkalinė pasaka arba istorija DaukPB VII (about what happened), 2) mokslinė pasaka DaukPB VIII (about what is of doubtful veracity), “didactic (literary) narrative,” 3) žebele arba zauna DaukPB VIII (about what did not happen), “fable”². The basis of the classification is clear, and the terms are connected only by semantic relations. Compare also: a recorded tale “wadinas jeau padawimu, Łotiniszkaj tradicijî” DaukPB VII. S. Daukantas uses the systematic derivational antonyms sùmesgìmas ẽr išsìmesgìmas DaukPB X to name the concepts “complication” and “denouement.”

In 1883, J. Koncevičius’s article about K. Donelaitis, with J. Šliūpas’s notes in the footnotes, was published in Aušra. This is “the first modest attempt to classify literature and grasp its entire system <...>” (Girdzijauskas 2006: 85). The principal hierarchical terminological microsystems are: rasztai A 1883 7 204: tautiniai rasztai A 1883 7 204 “folklore” (proposed as a replacement for the term žodinistė A 1883 7 204) and dailus rasztai “compositions by learned men” A 1883 7 204 (by origin); tautiniai rasztai: pasakos A 1883 7 204 and dainos A 1883 7 204; dailus rasztai: proza A 1883 7 205 and poezija A 1883 7 205 (by language; compare “poēzija dar ira vadinama jungtine kalba” A 1883 7 205). J. Šliūpas immediately criticizes J. Koncevičius for “not distinguishing art or means (ars)”

² S. Daukantas either created the theory of narrative himself or took it from some other (unknown to us) author, while the theory of the fable is certainly not original (it was taken from S. Czerski’s Polish preface to an edition of Phaedrus’s fables) (see Girdzijauskas 2006: 465, 466).

1 1 2 Asta Mitkevičienė | Iš lietuvių literatūros mokslo terminijos…

“of scholarship” A 1883 7 204, i.e., belles lettres as distinct from non-fiction. In an unfinished article by S. Dagilis published in Aušra in 1886, the distinction between prose and poetry based on language (form) is rejected as a feature of “earlier times,” but the change in understanding is reflected only at the semantic level of the terminological system (the basis of classification and the content plan change), while the specific terms for rasztai A 1886 1 6 remain the same—proza A 1886 1 6, “scientific literature, etc.,” and poėzija A 1886 1 6, “~belles lettres”³. The author already describes the difference abstractly: “the former shows things as they really are, while the latter shows what they ought or ought not to be.” A 1886 1 7. He distinguishes the terms poėzija and giesmininkystė A 1886 1 6: the latter is considered narrower—“verses for singing or chanting.”

A review of the works listed above reveals terminological groups of greater or lesser size; the most prominent are terms for versification, names of artistic devices, and names of literary genres.

V E R S I F I C A T I O N T E R M S.

In the preface by J. J. V. Lietuvis from the region of the Šventoji River, although versification is not discussed separately, there are several terms from this semantic group. First, there are the antonymic terms suryszta kalba, tay ira, eyłos Liet V (eyłos tay ira suryszta kalba Liet VII) and liuosa kalba Liet IV. It is noteworthy that the compound antonyms are formed systematically: suryszta – liuosa (compare also J. Koncevičius’s jungtinė kalba quoted earlier). In S. Daukantas’s work, this opposition is expressed by the terms dajinė kalba and priprastinė kalba DaukPB XVI. J. J. V. Lietuvis connects the terms piedos “feet” Liet IV and mieros Liet IV “metres?” (LKŽe ×miera 1. “unit of measurement, measure”; compare Greek metron—measure): “eyłas piedom’s tay ira mierom’s gàleme raszity” Liet IV, “raŝzima būdas piedom’s (pedes poetici) arba mierom’s eyłû tay ira suryszstos kalbos” Liet VII. It is difficult to say whether they are related by synonymy or by hierarchical relations. In the 1880s, the term hegsametras and its variants were used. In the article mentioned above, J. Koncevičius briefly states the meaning of this term: eksamėtrai, t. i. szeszmierinės eilės A 1883 7 208 (compare also heksamėtrai, t. e. szeszmėrinės eilės Šliūp 22). Or is this not an explanation but a synonym? M. Juodišius defines the term hegzametras at the beginning of his article on K. Donelaitis, Vienybė lietuvninkų (1887, Nos. 41–42), Keli žodžiai apie supratimą poezijos...⁴: “When each line has six measures,”

³ At the very end of the nineteenth century, V. Kudirka used the terms eposas ir lyrika (Vrp 1898 3 42), epiška poezija ir lyrika (Vrp 1898 6 93). Terms found in sources from the last decade include graži literatūra Vrp 1894 3 36 (in the same source, belletristika Vrp 1894 8 116), dailioji literatura Mlk.

⁴ Šio straipsnio originalo nepavyko rasti, todėl naudotasi LPP 1985: 327–331 paskelbta jo ištrauka – adaptuotu tekstu.

Terminologija | 2007 | 14

1 1 3

or so-called feet, that is, six measures, then the line is called a hexameter (from the Greek: a line of six feet)”: It is interesting that hegzametras is used, although these are mieros, not metras (cf. also eilės mieruotos). Moreover, the author apparently considers the term eilės unclear, since he writes alongside it in Polish: “everything written in lines (wierszami)” (cf. K. Nezabitauskis’s 1824 bibliography: apraszitas Eylomis (arba wyrsays) Nz 47).

Vienas pagrindinių 1886 m. Lietuviškajame balse išspausdinto J. Adomaičio-Šerno straipsnio Apie musu poeziją terminų – sutartinumas [eilu] LB 172. Šiuo terminu vadinama ir eilėdaros sistema, ir rimas (žr. Girdzijauskas 2006: 86). Vartojami trys termino sutartinumas „eilėdara“ rūšiniai terminai: syllabiszkas sutartinumas LB 172, mėrinis sutartinumas LB 172 (plg. mēra [eilu] LB 172 „metras“, syllabiszka mēra / mēra syllabiszka LB 172), aleksandriszkas skambēsinis sutartinumas LB 172 (skambēsinis sutartinumas LB 172; „silabotoninė eilėdara?“). Kaip matyti, rūšiniai dėmenys sudaryti skirtingai. Kalbėdamas apie rimą autorius greta jo lietuviško pavadinimo sutartinumas skliaustuose pateikia ir tarptautinį sinonimą – sutartinumas (rymas) LB 172, porą kartų pavartoja vien rymą LB 172 (plg. TŽŽe rimas < pranc. rime < gr. rhythmos – darnumas, proporcingumas). Straipsnyje vartojamas ir panašios raiškos terminas sutarimas (bet tik kaip pagrindinis dėmuo) – widurinis sutarimas LB 172 (plg. sutarimai syllabiszki LB 172). Galima manyti, kad taip įvardijamas ritmas, nes po kablelio eina balsakūla (rytmas) LB 172 (toliau tik balsakūla LB 172)⁵. J. Adomaitis-Šernas terminų neapibrėžia, tik šiek tiek nusako terminų poēzija mērine LB 172 ir eilės baltos LB 172 bruožus.

The system of versification terms is clearly evident in V. Kudirka’s study Tiesos eilėms rašyti, in which concepts are systematically explained and classified, and terminological equivalents in other languages are sometimes provided. The terms—Lithuanian or Lithuanianized as well as non-Lithuanianized—are distinguished by italics. First of all, the terms eilės “the surface form of poetry that distinguishes it from prose” Vrp 1898 1 14, eilė Vrp 1898 1 14 “line” (earlier V. Kudirka used eilelė Vrp 1895 6 100, later both variants, eilė and eilelė Vrp 1898 6 93; his study also contains eilutė Vrp 1898 1 14), the international term ritmas Vrp 1898 1 14 (cf. ritmiškos pėdos Vrp 1898 1 15, ritmika Vrp 1898 1 15), and the still-Lithuanian atsiliepimas Vrp 1898 1 14 “rhyme”⁶, perkimtimas Vrp

⁵ Others at the time used the international term ritmas A 1884 5–6 201, ŽLA 1895 22 174, Vrp 1895 6 100, TS 1898 8 33, and elsewhere.

⁶ Atsiliepimas (cf. S. Didžiulis’s eilelių atsiliepimas ŽLA 1892 7 50) competed with the synonym rimas ŽLA 1895 22 174, L 1897 49 2 at the end of the nineteenth century.

114 Asta Mitkevičienė | Iš lietuvių literatūros mokslo terminijos...

1898 1 14 “caesura,” pėda Vrp 1898 1 14, and others; at the end, posmas Vrp 1898 3 41. Miera⁷ with its Greek equivalent occurs only in the definition of the term pėda. Latin equivalents are appended to terms that were apparently less familiar or less widespread, for example: perkirtimas, (caesura) Vrp 1898 1 14 (later used in varying forms—sometimes perkirtimas (cf. TŽŽė Latin caesura—a cutting-through), sometimes caesura; cf. also antraeilė caesura Vrp 1898 2 28, vyriška // moteriška caesura Vrp 1898 2 28), perdalinimas (diaeresis) Vrp 1898 3 40 “diaeresis” (cf. LTŽ II 1998 Greek diairesis—a cleft, division), eilės safiškos (versus saphicus) Vrp 1898 2 29, eilės adoniškos (versus adonius) Vrp 1898 2 29, poetų liuosybė (licentia poëtica) Vrp 1898 3 41, and so on. An equivalent is also given for hegsametras Vrp 1898 1 15, but only the first time; thereafter it is used alone, and the term hegsametrinis veikalas Vrp 1898 3 40 is derived from it.

V. Kudirka explains not only related terms but also specific terms. The specific terms are mostly formed systematically, for example: ritmas: metriškas ritmas Vrp 1898 1 14 “ancient quantitative versification,” toniškas ritmas Vrp 1898 2 28 “syllabo-tonic versification,” siliabiškas ritmas Vrp 1898 3 41 “syllabic versification”; eilės Vrp 1898 1 14: metriškos // toniškos // siliabiškos eilės Vrp 1898 1 14 (according to rhythm), eilės chorejinės // jambinės // amfibrachinės // daktilinės // anapesti-nės // maišytos Vrp 1898 2 29 (according to feet) (eilės maišytos: eilės safiškos // adoniškos Vrp 1898 2 29), vyriškos // moteriškos eilės Vrp 1898 3 40 (according to the final syllable), akatalektiškos // katalektiškos eilės Vrp 1898 3 40; pėdos Vrp 1898 1 14: dvisil iabinės pėdos “disyllabic feet” Vrp 1898 1 14, trisil iabinės pėdos Vrp 1898 1 14 (cf. 13 siliabinės // 11 siliabinės eilės Vrp 1898 3 41), and so on. The nominative singular of specific foot terms is given in non-Lithuanianized form (in Latin), for example: Pyrrhichius, Spondeus, Trochaeus arba Choreus, Tribrachys, Dactylus, Anapaestus (Vrp 1898 1 14), Dispondeus, Antispastus, Jonicus a majori “major ionic,” Epitritus I, Epitritus II (Vrp 1898 1 15); in other cases and in the plural, endings are added after an apostrophe, for example: trochaeus’ai, spondeus’u Vrp 1898 1 15, and so on, although adjectives derived from them take Lithuanian suffixes. The terms ištisinės eilės Vrp 1898 2 29 and perpintinės eilės Vrp 1898 2 29, which name contrasting concepts, are systematically formed using Lithuanian lexical antonyms (today iz osilabinės eilės ir heterosilabinės eilės).

⁷ That same year, in a review, Vaižgantas used the Lithuanian equivalent of this term, mąstas / mastas TS 1898 8 30 (cf. also maiszytas mastas TS 1898 8 30) (cf. LKŽė 1 mastas—4. “measure”; 3 mastas—3. “stanza, verse (in a poem)”).

Terminologija | 2007 | 14

1 1 5

Alongside white lines Vrp 1898 3 40, V. Kudirka uses the definite-form variant ⁸ white lines Vrp 1898 3 40 (compare also the aforementioned variant by J. Adomaitis-Šernas), but, for example, only free lines Vrp 1898 3 40. The meaning of some terms has now changed: for example, what in our time are called astrophaic lines were termed continuous lines (see LTŽ II 1998: 10), while what V. Kudirka called catalectic lines Vrp 1898 3 40 is now designated by the term hypercatalectic verses (ibid.: 26).

At the very turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (1900), a lengthy article by K. Macius (Samogita) on folk songs was published in Žinyčia. Although it is an article on folklore, it contains terms relating to versification. The author uses the terms metre Žnč 1900 1 72, metrics Žnč 1900 1 83, while mieras Žnč 1900 1 82 appears to mean both “metre” and “rhythm” (“whether our poetry has a verse metre, or rhythm, that is, whether the voice falls correctly on the words of the verses at the prescribed syllables” Žnč 1900 1 82). A number of specific terms derived from the latter term are used: metrical mieras / metrical mieras Žnč 1900 1 82, tonic mieras Žnč 1900 1 82, syllabic mieras Žnč 1900 1 82, accentual mieras Žnč 1900 1 83, trochaic mieras Žnč 1900 1 83, dactylic mieras / mieras dactylic Žnč 1900 1 83, mieras trochaic-dactylic Žnč 1900 1 83, iambic mieras Žnč 1900 1 83. All the foreign-derived modifiers are formed with the same suffix. The Lithuanian term atliepimas Žnč 1900 1 82 denotes “rhyme” (cf. V. Kudirka’s atsiliepimas). It is significant that K. Macius chose the international term stanza Žnč 1900 1 83 (not found in other sources) instead of the Belarusian-derived term posmas used earlier. The latter term is already found in the works of S. Daukantas (DaukD VII)⁹; J. Koncevičius links it by comparison to an older folk term of the same form (“bundle of threads”): “Poetry is also called joined speech, because words in it are always suitably joined, often in stanzas, evenly arranged and woven into stanzas like strands of thread, or, as it were, flowers collected from gardens and fields and neatly woven into a single bouquet (wreath)” A 1883 7 205. S. Stanevičius used, in the sense of “stanza,” the term atgranza, which did not subsequently become established, StnD 52/53¹⁰.

⁸ At that time, definite forms of specific modifiers were rare.

⁹ In 1852, in Keleivija from Königsberg <...>, a Germanism, perkšmas Kly 1852 59, was used in F. Kuršaitis’s article on the versification of hymns; according to J. Girdzijauskas, it means “stanza” (see LPP 1985: 390). According to LKŽe, perkšmas means “line,” but in that article a line is called eilė.

¹⁰ J. Lebedys argues that this term corresponds to the “etymological meaning of strophe and antistrophe (turning, turning back)” (Stanevičius 1967: 586; cf. TŽŽe strophe < Gr. strophē – turning, turning around; LTŽ II 1998 antistrophe < antistrophē – reversal).

116

Asta Mitkevičienė | Iš lietuvių literatūros mokslo terminijos...

Names of figures of speech.

The same article by K. Macius defines the names of figures of speech, most of which are probably used here for the first time. It also lists figures of speech that are not characteristic of folklore. The author explains the terms epytetas Žnč 1900 1 72, trope Žnč 1900 1 73, poetic figure Žnč 1900 1 72. These terms are regarded as being of the same rank. The specific terms for tropes and poetic figures are then explained (purely literary ones are merely mentioned): tropes: simile Žnč 1900 1 72, metaphora Žnč 1900 1 76, prosopopoeia Žnč 1900 1 77, hyperbole Žnč 1900 1 78 “exaggeration—increase and diminution”; metonymy Žnč 1900 1 82, synec- doche Žnč 1900 1 82; poetic figures: exclamation (invocatio) Žnč 1900 1 72 (subsequently, figure of exclamation (invocatio), or address Žnč 1900 1 79, exclamation Žnč 1900 1 79) “rhetorical exclamation and address” (cf. LLŽ 2007 Lat. invocātio – invocation; calling upon), repetition Žnč 1900 1 79 (a distinction from literary repetition is noted), antithesis Žnč 1900 1 80, irony Žnč 1900 1 81; gradation (gradatio) Žnč 1900 1 82, omission (ellipsis) Žnč 1900 1 82, silence Žnč 1900 1 82 “leaving unsaid.” As can be seen, Lithuanian names were found for some (borrowed, international) concepts, but not for others. Lithuanian terms were chosen with regard to the etymological meaning of the international term (a word of Latin or Greek origin); cf. also apostropa, or turning back Žnč 1900 1 43 (apostrofa Žnč 1900 1 43; atsigrežimas Žnč 1900 1 79) (cf. TŽŽe apostrofa < Gr. apostrophō – I turn toward). That terms had not yet become established at the time can be seen from the term palyginimas, used in the sense of “epithet” in Tėvynės sargas TS 1898 10 29. Other nineteenth-century works also contain one or another name for a figure of speech (e.g., parallelism ŽLA 1895 22 174).

Names of literary genres.

Nineteenth-century sources explain and define dramatic genres. In an article about theatre (1895) in Naujoji lietuviška ceitunga, Vydūnas explains: drama is “where a person with better or worse intentions perishes through his own fault”; tragedy is “where a person of noble [?] character and good intentions perishes because of a dark fate or evil people”; comedy is “one that turns all events [?] into laughter and mocks everything, without touching on morality” (NLC 1895 5 1). He links the definitions of the first two terms (what the main character is like and why he perishes). Drama is defined here as a genre (drama in the narrow sense?)¹¹, so all three terms would be co-hyponyms. Later (1897), these dramatic terms were used (though drama was called

¹¹ V. Mačys used the term pieša Vrp 1893 2 23.

Terminologija | 2007 | 14

117

drama) and their meanings were described by Vaižgantas in Tėvynės sargas: “If we see a depiction of how a person struggles against all kinds of adversities, against their own base inclinations, we call it, in general, a drama; if everything ends terribly, it is called a tragedy; if comically, then, as you already remember, a comedy” TS 1897 8 25. Thus, he defines tragedy and comedy by highlighting only one distinguishing feature of each concept. Drama terms are not distinguished from the names of musical works for the stage: after opera TS 1897 8 25 and operetka TS 1897 8 25, vaudeville is explained as “a short, comic depiction without a deeper moral” TS 1897 8 25.

In Aušra, the epic is described to some extent: “From secular poetry we also have songs and epics, that is, descriptions of the works of a people” A 1883 7 206 (an example is K. Donelaitis’s Metai). Also in Aušra, the term epigram is explained in parentheses: “brief thoughts, written in verse wisely and humorously” A 1884 1–2–3 16 (J. Šliūpas’s variant, epigram LB 1888 17 132, Šliūp 24).

Other terms are neither defined nor explained in the sources (with the exception of the previously mentioned terms of S. Daukantas, žėbele or zauna)¹², so it is often difficult to determine whether a particular term is a genre designation. Reviewers and critics of literary works relied mainly on the genre subtitles of works, but “a subtitle does not always identify a work’s genre affiliation” (Sprindytė 1996: 53). For example, the term short story, quite common in the sources, is now understood as a genre designation, whereas in the nineteenth century “the concept of the short story still denoted not so much generic as specific features of literature <...>, for a long time, the short story was a kind of general designation for belles lettres, without requiring the genre of a work to be precisely defined” (ibid.: 54). Short story, as a term with a broader meaning, is also used instead of poem (e.g., Vrp 1898 6 92). The term novella was unpopular at the time and appeared in the sources only once or twice. Its meaning was more or less the same as that of short story (for example, short story is used in the quotation, while novella appears in the author’s text, Vrp 1898 3 47). Tale (less common than short story and its variants) was also used in a non-literary genre sense. It (as were the synonyms narration A 1883 3 75 and account Vrp 1898 3 42) meant narration in general (see Zalatorius 1971: 19). After all, their primary lexical meanings are names of actions. J. Šliūpas uses the derivative with the ending apsakas to mean a literary work, Šliūp 220 (a fine tale Šliūp 219).

Poēmatas A 1883 8–10 246, NG 1896 19 5, epic A 1883 7 206 / ėposas Šliūp 21, epopeia NG 1896 19 5, kaimiszka idylla NG 1896 19 5, poe-

¹²Folklore terms are not specifically examined in this article.

118 Asta Mitkevičienė | Iš lietuvių literatūros mokslo terminijos…

ma TS 1896 11 37...—these are the various names used in sources for K. Donelaitis’s Metai. The subtitle of the first edition of Metai (by L. Rėza) is ein ländliches Epos “a rural epic” (LLI 2001: 206). S. Jurevičius explained that it is not an epopee (NG 1896 19 5). Epopee Vrp 1894 5 68 was also used at the time to mean a certain kind of novel (cf. national epic in prose form Vrp 1894 5 68).

Among the most frequent designations for nineteenth-century works in verse were verse, song, hymn and their various diminutive forms. Compound genre names were formed with these, e.g.: high hymn Rėz 1824 VII “epic, poem” (cf. Normanu „augsztoji giesme“ A 1886 1 5), àukszta dày na Liet IX “ode” (cf. “ode” Tvn 1898 12 389), allegorical verse Šliup 31 “verse fable.” In the translation of J. Katelė’s article about A. Strazdas in Aušra, the compound term ukiszka dainelė A 1883 8–10 245 is used, while later translations use idyll TS 1896 11 36, GAL 1897 3 2.

Diminutive forms of terms were quite common in the nineteenth century, e.g.: short tale VL 1900 45 540, little song Vrp 1898 6 93, little song Šliup 49, little verses Šliup 42, little hymn A 1886 1 3, little comedy TS 1897 8 25, little fable Šliup 100 “fable,” little picture Vrp 1898 3 47, etc.

19TH-CENTURY NOTES ON THE USE OF TERMS

Notes on the use of terms can already be found in S. Daukantas’s study Pasakos būdas. Although, as noted, he defines the terms žėbele arba zauna as “fable,” later in the work he more often uses the hyperonym pasaka in the sense of “fable.” He gives the reason for this decision: “Such little fables I have explained in my little book [DaukPB is devoted to fables. – A. M.], not calling them zaunas or žėbelės, as would have been required by their nature, but pasakos, so as not to appear strange to my reader” (DaukPB VIII). Thus, one can see that he takes tradition into account when using terms.

In the aforementioned article, J. Koncevičius offers reflections on several terms, once again drawing comments from J. Šliūpas. In J. Koncevičius’s view, “the word ‘literature’ is unfamiliar to our native Lithuanians”—instead, rasztai is used (A 1883 7 203)¹³. In a footnote immediately following, J. Šliūpas offers his own comment: by analogy with pilìava, rinkliava and the like, he himself calls litėratūra raszliava, although others use raszėjiste, razimene (A 1883 7 203). Thus,

¹³ However, in that same article he himself uses the noun in the Polish form literàtura A 1883 7 205. It is worth noting that in 1829 S. Stanevičius called himself mokslynynku lyteraturas StnD 10/11.

Terminologija | 2007 | 14 119

J. Šliūpas attempts to follow the principle of systematicity, but chooses unsuitable examples (the only words of the same derivational type are raszliava and rinkliava)¹⁴. In a “letter” dated 1883, published in Aušra in 1884, M. Akelaitis also expresses his view on naming “literature.” He does not equate literature with rašliava, and uses the term bilinas A 1884 5–6 199 (byla + ynas?) for “literature.” According to M. Akelaitis, “the word bilinas probably distorts the Latin noun literatura”; biloti means to recount truth and justice; he contrasts a bilininką with a rasztininkui (écrivain), “who puts down raszliavą, writes whatever comes into his head”; finally, he proposes calling it “bilinu literatura, one part of which is called poetry, daininu” (A 1884 5–6 199). As can be seen, the explanation is vague, the motivation weak, and the system of concepts seems confused. In 1897, in Tėvynės sarge, A. Jakštas speaks out against the then widespread practice of replacing international words with Lithuanian ones, mentioning among other examples the substitution of literaturos with rašliava TS 1897 3 38¹⁵. It has been noted that literatura became somewhat more popular in the last decade of the 19th century, especially in Varpe (cf. vaikų literatura Vrp 1894 1 10, svietiszka literatura Apšv 1893 13 777, graži literatūra Vrp 1894 3 36, dailioji literatura Mlk, etc.).

As already mentioned, J. Koncevičius also proposes that folklore (tautiniai raštai) be called by the term žodinistė A 1883 7 204, since it originates in living speech and is sustained in the living language of the people. J. Šliūpas’s conception of national writings is broader (he includes not only songs and tales, but also history, practical writings, and so on, among national literature), and therefore he rejects J. Koncevičius’s proposal. In addition, J. Šliūpas criticizes the word žodinistė, arguing that it is derived from žodinas and is therefore unsuitable as a term for national writings (A 1883 7 204). Nevertheless, the term is unsuitable for another reason: it is a derivative of an adjective formed with the suffix -inis, and abstract nouns are not formed from such adjectives. Without offering any arguments, J. Koncevičius proposes using the variant poiēsis instead of poezija, following the Greek original (A 1883 7 204–205).

In an article on S. Daukantas (Vrp 1893 11 167), J. Jablonskis inserted a note on the naming of the concept “content.” Drawing on examples from German and Russian, as well as Lithuanian words formed in the same way, he argues for the suitability of turinio (e.g., “Turinys = what is contained where, Inhalt (cf. mezginys, slėpinys) <...>” Vrp 1893 11 167). At that time, the term įtalpa was used in the sense of content.

¹⁴ Later, J. Jablonskis replaced rašliavą, which he regarded as a dubious word, with raštiją; today the former word has acquired a pejorative meaning (even of a single work).

¹⁵ This non-literary article also argues that the words autoriaus, poeto (“author, poet”) should not be replaced with Lithuanian words (see TS 1897 3 37, 38). In the 19th century, dainiais referred to both Lithuanian and foreign writers.

120 Asta Mitkevičienė | Iš lietuvių literatūros mokslo terminijos...

(capacity A 1883 3 75, Apšv 1893 13 775, VL 1893 2 22, capacity Šliūp 39 et al.), he rightly rejects it, because “the capacity of some object capacity would be the whole space into which something can fit” Vrp 1893 1 11 167¹⁶. In Varpa literary writings, the proposed term was used mostly consistently. Other publications retained capacity (Tvn 1898 12 389, Mlk, Žnč 1900 1 37), capacity (Žnč 1900 1 70), although content was also adopted (TS 1896 11 37, GAL 1897 3 2).

Vaižgantas distinguishes the terminological and non-terminological (of course, he does not yet use these concepts) meanings of the word comedy: “Lithuanians know the word ‘comedy’ well, only they pronounce it ‘komedijos’ and use it in an improper sense” TS 1897 8 23; “True comedies, or, more precisely, comedy, are something quite different” TS 1897 8 24 (on this, see p. 118 of this article). He proposes not using comedies to mean jokes or laughter, and himself writes it in quotation marks, unnecessarily attempting to eliminate the polysemy of this word (the word in particular, since as a term it is unambiguous).

CONCLUSIONS

Works on literature were already being published in Lithuanian in the early 19th century; their number increased especially with the advent of Lithuanian periodicals. At the end of the 19th century, the first history of Lithuanian literature (by J. Šliūpas) and Lithuanian poetics (by V. Kudirka) appeared, and critical articles were published. All this determined the formation of literary-studies terminology and fostered its development.

From the very first works on literary subjects, one can speak of semantic groups of terms and relations among terms. The sources define or explain the principal terms of literary studies (poetry, prose), terms of versification, names of artistic devices, names of dramatic genres, and so on. Since some concepts (e.g., versification and artistic devices) are classified, the relations among the terms denoting them are evident. V. Kudirka’s contribution was to lay, in the 19th century, a fairly solid foundation for Lithuanian versification terminology, which was quite systematic.

Lithuanian literary-studies terminology was still being created, so the terms used by individual authors inevitably differed. Compared with literary-studies terminology today, not only the expression of terms but also their content has changed. For example, what are now considered genre names (novella, short story) had a broader meaning at the time. Changes in concepts led to changes in the content of terms.

In the nineteenth century, Lithuanian equivalents were sought for international terms (sutartinumas ‘rhyme’, atsiliepimas ‘rhyme’, perdalinimas ‘diaeresis’, išleidimas).

¹⁶ In the sense of ‘content’, the 19th century also saw the use of the variants capacity A 1883 8–10 245, capacity LB 1887 1 5, capacity Šliūp 28, 122, capacity A 1886 1 9.

Terminologija │ 2007 │ 14 1 2 1

“ellipsis,” turning back “apostrophe”), the etymological meaning of the international equivalent is taken into account (cf. cutting through “caesura,” Lat. caesura – a division). Sometimes a foreign-language equivalent is given alongside a Lithuanian term, and a group of specialized terms is used without being adapted into Lithuanian. All these are natural features of a stage in the development of terminology. The expressive features of terms (variation, rare definite forms, the predominance of -iškas suffixal elements, etc.) reflect the general state of Lithuanian terminology and language at the time.

S. Daukantas, J. Koncevičius, J. Šliūpas, M. Akelaitis, J. Jablonskis, Vaižgantas, and others offered various comments on the usage of literary-studies terms, though not all were apt or important. Significant developments at the end of the century included the introduction of the term content and A. Jakštas’s urging to turn to international words. The comments of nineteenth-century authors reveal a reliance on tradition and an aspiration toward systematicity.

PRIMARY SOURCES

A – Auszra, 1883–1886.

Apšv – Apszvieta, 1892–1893.

DaukD – Dowkont S. Dajnes Žiamajtiū, Petropilie, 1846, VII–XII.

DaukPB – Pasakôs – Budas. – Szauklys Motiejus [S. Daukantas]. Pasakas Phedra, Petropilie, 1846, VII–XVIII.

GAL – Garsas Amerikos lietuvių, 1897.

Grs – Garsas, 1887.

Klv – Keleiwis isz Karaliaucziaus Broliams Lietuwininkams Žines parneszas, 1852.

L – Lietuwa, 1897.

LAK – Lietuwiszkas Auszros Kalendorius, 1885.

LB – Lietuwiszkasis Balsas, 1885–1889.

LC – Lietuwiszka Ceitunga, 1879, 1880, 1883.

Liet – J. J. W. Lituwys nu Szwentos Upes kraszta. Prakalba. – Szeszes pasakas Symona Stanewiczes žemaycze..., Wylnuje, 1829, III–IX.

Mlk – Milukas A. Lietuviškas Albumas 2: Musu raštynikai ir žymesni vyrai, Shenandoah, Pa., 1900.

NG – Nauja Gadynė, 1896.

NLC – New Lithuanian Gazette, 1893, 1895.

Nz – Collection of Various Lithuanian, Samogitian, and Prussian-Lithuanian Writings... – Niezabitawskis K. A New Method of Reading Instruction for Young Samogitian and Lithuanian Children... Vilnius, 1824, 45–48.

Rėz – Rhesa D. L. J. Aisópas arba Pásakos, Karalauczjuje, 1824, III–VIII.

StnD – Stanevičius S. Dainos žemaičių. Parengė J. Girdzijauskas, Vilnius, 1999.

StnS – Stanewicze S. Skaystisenyms. – A Brief Instruction in the Lithuanian or Samogitian Language..., Vilnius, 1829, I–VII.

Šliūp – The Lover of Lithuania [J. Šliūpas]. Lithuanian Writings and Writers, Tilsit, 1890.

TS – Guardian of the Homeland, 1896–1900.

Tvn – Homeland, 1898.

Ukn – Farmer, 1898–1899.

Val – Wołonczewskis M. Samogitian Bishopric 2, Vilnius, 1848, 66–78.

VL – Unity of the Lithuanians, 1891–1894, 1900.

Vrp – The Bell, 1890, 1892–1898.

Žil – Jr. Jonas [J. Žilius-Jonila]. Lithuanian Bards of the Beginning of the 19th Century. Classical-National Period. Shenandoah, Pa., 1899.

ŽLA – Samogitian and Lithuanian Review, 1892–1895.

122 Asta Mitkevičienė | Iš lietuvių literatūros mokslo terminijos...

Žlv – Želvovicž J. Pasakas, Wilnuje, 1863, 5–8.

Žnč – Žinyčia, 1900.

LITERATURE AND ADDITIONAL SOURCES

Gineitis L. 1982: Lietuvių literatūros istoriografija ligi 1940 m., Vilnius.

Girdzijauskas J. 2006: Lietuvių literatūros vadovė. Straipsnių rinkinys, Vilnius.

LKŽe: Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. – www.lkz.lt

LLI 2001: Lietuvių literatūros istorija: XIX amžius. Sudarytojas ir vyr. red. J. Girdzijauskas, Vilnius.

LLK I 1971: Lietuvių literatūros kritika 1: 1547–1917, Vilnius.

LLŽ 2007: K. Kuzavinis. Lotynų–lietuvių kalbų žodynas, Vilnius.

LPP 1985: Lietuvių poetikos pradmenys. Parengė J. Girdzijauskas, Vilnius.

LTE VII 1981: Lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija 7, Vilnius.

LTŽ II 1998: Literatūros terminų žodynas 2. Eilėdara. Sudarė J. Girdzijauskas, Vilnius.

Sprindis A. 1957: Lietuvių literatūrinė kritika 1861–1905, Vilnius.

Sprindytė J. 1996: Lietuvių apysaka, Vilnius.

Stanevičius 1967: S. Stanevičius. Raštai. Paruošė J. Lebedys, Vilnius.

TŽŽe 2002: Interleksis. Kompiuterinis tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. Ats. red. A. Kinderys, Vilnius (e. leidimas).

Zalatorius A. 1971: Lietuvių apsakymo raida ir poetika, Vilnius.

FROM THE HISTORY OF LITHUANIAN LITERARY TERMINOLOGY: THE 19^TH CENTURY

Literary science as an independent discipline in Lithuania began to develop at the end of the 19^th century and the beginning of the 20^th century, although literary works had been published before that. In the 19^th century those works were published in Lithuanian and Lithuanian terminology of literary science began to be created.

During the first half of the 19^th century literary subjects were discussed in prefaces or other parts of different publications, but not in separate works. The number of literary works rose during the second half of the century when Lithuanian periodicals appeared and became more numerous. At the end of the 19^th century the first history of Lithuanian literature (by J. Šliūpas), the first Lithuanian poetics (by V. Kudirka) appeared, and works on literary criticism were being published. This all determined the formation of Lithuanian literary terminology and its development.

From the first literary works we can talk about semantic groups of terms, relations between terms. In the literary material of the 19^th century basic literary terms (poezija ‘poetry’, proza ‘prose’), terms of versification (posmas ‘strophe’, hegsametras (now hegzametras) ‘hexameter’), names of stylistic devices (tropas ‘trope’, užtylėjimas (now nutylėjimas) ‘preterition’), names of genres of drama (drama ‘drama’, komedija ‘comedy’) etc were defined or explained. Since some of the concepts (for example, concepts of versification, of stylistic devices) were classified, relationships between terms of those concepts are visible. A merit of V. Kudirka is foundation of Lithuanian terminology of versification which is rather systematic.

Lithuanian literary terminology was just being created so it is no surprise that terms used by different authors varied. In comparison with present-day Lithuanian literary terminology not only the expression of terms, but also the content has changed. For instance, terms which are now considered to be names of genres (apysaka ‘novelette’, apsakymas ‘short story’) in the 19^th century were being used in a broader meaning. The changes in content of terms were determined by the development of concepts.

Terminologija | 2007 | 14 1 2 3

In the 19^th century Lithuanian substitutes for international terms were being sought (sutar tinumas (now rimas) ‘rhyme’, atsiliepimas (now rimas) ‘rhyme’, perdalinimas (now dierezė) ‘diresis’, išleidimas (now elipsė) ‘ellipsis’, atsigręžimas (now apostrofa) ‘apostrophe’), etymological meaning of international terms (of Latin or Greek origin) was taken into consideration (compare: perkirtimas ‘caesura’ (non-terminological meaning ‘cutting’; now cezūra), lot. caesura ‘cutting’). In literary texts of the 19^th century Lithuanian terms were sometimes presented with their foreign equivalents, while a group of terms was used without Lithuanian adaptation (Pyrrhichius ‘pyrrhic’). This is a natural feature of the stage of formation of terminology. Features of expression of terms (variability, rare pronominal forms, predomination of attributes with the suffix -iškas etc.) reflect the general situation of the 19^th century Lithuanian terminology and general lexis (LGP).

19^th century authors of literary texts S. Daukantas, J. Koncevičius, J. Šliūpas, M. Akelaitis, J. Jablonskis, Vaižgantas etc. made comments on some Lithuanian literary terms and their usage although not each one is right and acceptable. An important matter also is the introduction of the term turinys ‘content’ (in spite of former įtalpa, įturis etc.) by J. Jablonskis, A. Jakštas’ encouragement to turn to international terms at the end of the 19^th century. Appealing to tradition and striving for systematicality may be felt in the comments made in the 19^th century.

Received 2007-10-12

Asta Mitkevičienė

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

5 P. Vileišio St., LT-10308 Vilnius

Email: [email protected]

1 2 4 Asta Mitkevičienė | Iš lietuvių literatūros mokslo terminijos…