Neužmirštamasis dvasios ir kūno daktaras

PRAEITIES AIDAI Stasys KEINYS THE UNFORGETTABLE DOCTOR OF THE SOUL AND BODY Do not admit into your mind the thought that you have already attained a perfection you do not yet possess at all. (From the resolutions of Father J. Pabrėža) In the past lie those 225 years since January 15, 1771, when a son was born to Jonas and Rozė Pabrėža in the village of Vėčiai, in Palatvė: in the books of the Lenkimai parish he was entered in Latin under the name Georgius (in Samogitian, this would be Jurgis). Forty-six years later, after entering the Franciscan (Bernardine) monastery in Kretinga, he took his father Ambraziejus’s name. For this reason, not only today but sometimes even in his own time, this alumnus of the Samogitian Priests’ Seminary—who, before that, had studied for two years at Lithuania’s oldest institution of higher learning, then called the Main School of Lithuania, as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was collapsing—was called, and sometimes signed himself, as the priest Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža. This man, who has rested in peace for almost a century and a half (he died on November 11, 1849), was destined to earn the distinction of being the Unforgettable. J. A. Pabrėža, without the slightest doubt, belongs among the nation’s greatest men, among the most illustrious Samogitians. The deceased’s friend, Jonas Krizostomas Gintila (1788–1857), administrator of the Diocese of Samogitia and vicar of the chapter, announced to the entire diocese shortly after his passing: “The late Ambraziejus Pabrėža, a secular priest at first, served the Church of God for many years; then, having donned the habit of the Third Order of St. Francis in the Kretinga monastery, he was an example of every virtue to others. <...> He left many manuscripts in the Samogitian language, both on spiritual and secular subjects”1. 1 Vaizganto Raštai. K., 1929. T. 11. P. 72. Iš lotynų kalbos šį vyskupystės kurijos pranešimą skelbdamas išvertė pats Vaižgantas. Kalbos dalykai čia netaisyti. 79 J. A. Pabrėža was also esteemed while he was still alive. In “Žemaitju Wiskupistė,” published in 1848, Father Motiejus Valančius (1801–1875), before becoming Bishop of Samogitia, included “the still-living, God-fearing writer, Father Jurgis Embraziejus Pabrėža” (it is stated that he was born in the Skuodas parish) in the chapter “Learned Men of the Nation,” after Petras Roizijus, Motiejus Strijkovskis, Mikalojus Daukša, Pranciškus Šrubauskis, Konstantinas Sirvydas, Mykolas Olševskis, and Stanislovas Čerskis, and devoted more space to him than to anyone else. Here Pabrėža is highly praised as a preacher (“People listen to his sermons with the greatest attention, as though to those of an apostle, and gain much spiritual profit”)2 and a botanist (“Father Pabrėža knows every herb that grows in our region, knows each one’s first and last name, and also understands what each is good for”3); a considerable number of his works and other merits are also mentioned. It ends as follows: “That friar never has enough time for his endless work. As soon as he has finished his prayers and other necessary duties, he writes day after day. Lengthen his life, God, and grant him a wealthy patron who will print the books he has written and make them known to the people!”4 Alas, neither then nor in the 146 years that elapsed after J. A. Pabrėža’s death was such a patron found. Consequently, little has been published: above all, the religious booklet “Parakratimą tan saužinės,” issued through the efforts of Motiejus Valančius himself (1849; a counterfeit edition, so the date is false), and, in America, part of the botanical work “Botanika arba taislius auguminis,” published in the journal “Dirva” in 1900 and as a separate reprint funded by the S. Daukantas Literary Society. Details have been printed in various publications. Gražiai J. A. Pabrėžą apibūdino ir kitas amžininkas Liudvikas Adomas Jucevičius (1813–1846), 1841 m. pažymėtame rankraštyje “Biografinės ir literatūrinės žinios apie mokytus žemaičius <...>” rašydamas: “Tai puikus žemaičių kalbos ir senovės žinovas, be to, talentingas pamokslininkas, tačiau ypatingai jis domisi botanika ir jau yra parašęs lietuvių kalba to dalyko knygą paprastiems žmonėms naudotis”5. 2 Valančius M. Writings. V.: Vaga, 1972. Vol. 2. P. 274. 3 Ibid. P. 275. 4 Ibid. 5 Jucevičius L. Mokyti žemaičiai / Reng. M. Lukšienė, V. Raudeliūnas. V.: Vaga, 1975. P. 112. 80 Father J. A. Pabrėža must have carried out all his duties and responsibilities conscientiously, devotedly and, there can be no doubt, creatively where necessary. This is evident from the abundance of manuscripts and the great love and respect people had for him. Pabrėža worked among people, with people, and for people, and so he was a deeply needed and cherished man and clergyman. This is borne out, no doubt, by the genuine queues at the confessional, the many people who came to hear his sermons, even from more distant parishes (and he himself travelled quite widely from church to church to preach), and the no smaller queues of sick or merely unwell people waiting in his reception room. His serious attitude to work and sense of responsibility are convincingly shown by the fact that he devoted himself to preparing for each task. Every sermon was carefully considered and written down, and much was learned by heart. When he began teaching at the school of the Kretinga monastery, he prepared teaching aids for his pupils and became perhaps the first writer of a Lithuanian geography textbook. Concerned with people’s physical health, he studied botanical and medical literature and researched plants. And then there were the many duties of a parish priest, and later of a monk... Oh, how rare such people are, and how much Lithuania needs them! People today often imagine the Unforgettable figures of past centuries as statues, raised on pedestals or altars. They seem like people without everyday lives, their duties and worries, earthly desires, longings, and sins. Even without feelings or life. Their lives all seem alike: they were born, studied, worked, wrote, and finally departed into eternity. But what kind of people were they? Perhaps some small part of that could be glimpsed, or at least sensed, by carefully reading and studying their works. Yet each person must do the research for themselves: there are almost no studies of this kind that try to trace manifestations of an author’s character and psychology through their works and texts. And, after all, could everything be read from those texts? What was Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža like? “He was short, dark-haired (=juodbruvys), always very cheerful, and fond of songs,”—this is Vaižgantas’s account6. And also: “On feast days he would deliver extraordinarily beautiful sermons”7. Both accounts were probably based on people’s memories, 6 Vaizganto Raštai. T. 11. P. 69. 7 Ibid. 81 for the writer himself had not seen or heard Pabrėža and could not have seen or heard him. Finally, there is the lovely image of him walking through fields, woods, and along riverbanks, surrounded by a group of children, gathering plants. These are the concerns of a man of science and a physician to the people. But what do the fairly numerous “resolutions” of his that have survived reveal? Do they show that he kept away from his parishioners and lived a secluded life, sunk in contemplation and meditation (cf. “Not to visit parishioners or stay with them,”8, “To speak with each person only as much as is absolutely necessary”9, “To avoid the world”10, “To die to the world, despising all its vanities, pleasures, and fickleness”11, etc.)? Or, being cheerful by nature and fond of and devoted to people, did the young priest resolve only to limit these encounters so that he would have more time to prepare for and carry out the great works demanded by his vocation as a priest and scholar? Indeed, these same resolutions also reveal his constant concern for people and his respect for them: “Do not speak ill of others, especially the poor and servants <...>”12, “Avoid harshness in sermons”13, “Do not grumble in the confessional or rebuke people”14, “A priest must be cheerful, always calm-faced, and pleasant in his dealings with people. <...> To be the best father and brother to everyone collectively and to each person individually”15. J. A. Pabrėža knew people’s lives well. His sermons are full of details about people’s behavior and dress. How could he have learned these things? Besides, people avoid anyone who shuns them. People flocked to Pabrėža and to his home. Apparently, he did not disappoint them. He must have enjoyed socializing. This is also suggested by his fairly wide connections with the intellectuals of Samogitia and beyond, and his friendly relations with people of higher rank. Otherwise, would he have written even the note to the aforementioned J. K. Gintila in such a joking style: “Bõwa pri musõ hoc anno No- 8 Father J. Pabrėža’s daily schedule and resolutions in Raudėnai // Gidžiūnas V. Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža (1771 – 1849). Roma – Vilnius, 1994. P. 233. 9 Resolutions made at the end of 1800 // Ibid. P. 237. 10 Resolutions made in Tverai in 1801 // Ibid. P. 239. 11 Resolutions made in Kartena in 1809 // Ibid. P. 243. 12 Other resolutions made in 1800 // Ibid. P. 236. 13 Resolutions made in Tverai in 1801 // Ibid. P. 238. 14 Resolutions made in Plungė in 1802 // Ibid. P. 239. 15 Resolutions made in Plungė in 1806 // Ibid. P. 242. 82 “... Juvenis calling himself Jomiiesta Pons Symóns Dawkąts: hic atsytoolindams a nobis ku S. Pieters Burg mnogo spopondit, ut primum hanc urbem advienet, sieyczas pas mus paraszik. – Bet, si non laborat aliquo morbo, vel in via kas Jo ne nookawa, arba jec kokio in szwarckamera niezasiad rekollckeyi, o? quam valde hreszny. Bo jau ketwyrts tam ira mensis, a On ani pisnąl o swoim pobyciu. Quid hic de hocce Juvenę dumare? O? per multum mendax? Kad butu galemae apie Jį dasvynare, sprasįbym Was Ullum de crimino hoc pessimo admonere, et bene Jemu nakiware”¹⁶. Perhaps this mixture of three languages here is no mere accident. It may be a concealment of the jargon of the learned people of that time, including clergy. But what a beautiful, playful style! The priest J. A. Pabrėža was a great stylist. His sermons are truly remarkable and still worth reading today. They breathe the living language of the coastal Samogitians at the end of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century. We must not toy with fate. These surviving sermons, written 150–200 years ago (this year marks exactly 200 years since J. Pabrėža was ordained a priest in Varniai), must finally be gathered together and published as one of the greatest monuments of the Samogitian language and the most valuable source on the life and customs of people of that time. Pabrėža would then become no less important to our culture than the authors or compilers of the old sermons (postils). As a teacher, treating people, and collecting, studying, and describing plants, J. A. Pabrėža also carried out great work on language. He was a great lover of his native land. Thus, carefully studying everything new that came his way, he strove to present it, together with his observations and research findings, in his native language. To this end, he devised an orthography expressing Samogitian prosody¹⁷. Defending the plant names he had coined, his orthography, and his right and need to do this independently, in another letter to J. K. Gintila (March 20, 1835 16 J. A. Pabrėžos laiškai kun. J. K. Gintilai // Ten pat. P. 263. 17 In a letter of October 19, 1834, J. K. Gintila was told by Pabrėža: “<…> the Samogitian Pólglowek adopted doubled vowels in his orthography, in order to show, in Samogitian words, the prosody of this language, which is essential not only for the speakers but also very useful for the natives themselves <…>” (Ibid. P. 263). 83 d.) he exclaimed: “Let the Greeks be Greeks with their letters and their sounds, and the Žmudžini be Žmudžini” (Let the Greeks be Greeks with their letters and pronunciation, and the Samogitians—Samogitians)18. And three years later, on October 9, 1838, he wrote to the same addressee that the priests of the deaneries of the Samogitian diocese, close to Lithuania, thought that Samogitians should not only write and speak Lithuanian, but even breathe it, and he immediately added: “Let Lithuania be Lithuania, mongrels mongrels, and Žmudžini Žmudžinami” (Let Lithuania be Lithuania, mongrels—mongrels, and Samogitians—Samogitians)19. J. A. Pabrėža worked all his life among the Samogitians, with the Samogitians, and for the Samogitians. He was a great man, a true hero of Samogitia, one of the great patriots of that land. J. A. Pabrėža worked very hard and sincerely as a priest, as a monk, and as a scholar. “He wrote more in Samogitian than all the other writers of the first half of the nineteenth century combined—perhaps with the exception of S. Daukantas,” writes his biographer V. Gidžiūnas20; this assessment is undoubtedly exaggerated. But it is true that even now, though considerably battered by time and partly faded, Pabrėža’s manuscript legacy remains impressive. In 1939, ninety years after his death, it was written: “Our scholars could learn from him planning, diligence, and love of work; his deep concern and care for the Samogitian language and orthography would inspire workers and men of letters; and clergy, after reading even one of his sermons, should blush at the emptiness and irrelevance of today’s sermons”21. The bibliography of J. A. Pabrėža compiled by Nijolė Kišūnienė22 gathers all the surviving works by this man, as well as those known from other sources or mentioned by others. It lists 107 works written by Pabrėža, of which 8 were published (only four poems during his lifetime!). The manuscripts cover geography (1), botany (19), medicine (17), and religion (18). “Lie- 18 Ten pat. P. 265. 19 Ten pat. P. 270. 20 Ten pat. P. 214. 21 Povilionis J. K. Ambraziejaus Pabrėžos pamokslų stilius // Dienovidis. 1939. Nr. 3. P. 122. 22 Kišūnienė N. J. Pabrėžos bibliografija // Jurgis Pabrėža (1771 – 1849). V.: Mintis, 1972. P. 95 – 107. 84 The “Lithuanian Encyclopedia” states that Pabrėža left 250 sermon texts, comprising 3,104 pages23. The remaining 44 items among his manuscripts (107–8–55) are writings on various matters, excerpts, fragments of manuscripts, and letters (many of them written in Polish). Unfortunately, a considerable portion of Pabrėža’s manuscripts has gone missing, perhaps lost forever. Fate and people have been, and continue to be, very unkind to the legacy of this hardworking Samogitian. The fate of J. A. Pabrėža’s collected and arranged herbarium was no better: perhaps only a sixth of it (about 150 sheets) has survived to our time in Lithuania. This is shown by data published by R. Jankevičienė and Ž. Lazdauskaitė24. The largest part of this unique collection of plants from the first half of the past century, irresponsibly divided up, transported, and never returned, has been lost. His native land finally marked the 225th anniversary of J. A. Pabrėža’s birth with the long-awaited publication of a monograph devoted to him—Viktoras Gidžiūnas’s book “Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža (1771 – 1849),” published in Rome in 1993 through the efforts of the Lithuanian Catholic Academy of Science25. One hundred pages of the book are devoted to Pabrėža’s life (Part One, “Pabrėža’s Person and His Apostolate”), and another hundred to an examination of his sermons (Part Two, “The Samogitian Parish in Pabrėža’s Sermons”). The appendices to the book are very valuable, containing one sermon, the priest’s resolutions, a couple of poems, wills, a bundle of letters, a list of sermons, and several other documents. Unfortunately, once again, our great Unforgettable One was let down—this was all the book’s author himself managed to accomplish. The dozen or so pages of Part Three (“Pabrėža—Scientist, Physician, and Pietist”), written by I. Vaišvilaitė from material, notes, and outlines gathered by V. Gidžiūnas, offer only a tentative glimpse of the most significant field of Pabrėža’s work for the history of Lithuanian science, and of that part of his legacy. To be sure, this field had already been examined well in the book “Jurgis Pabrėža (1771 – 1849),” published by the Institute of Botany in 1972. 23 Lithuanian Encyclopedia. [Boston, 1960]. Vol. 21. P. 303 – 304. 24 Jankevičienė R., Lazdauskaitė Ž. The surviving herbarium of higher plants of J. Pabrėža // Jurgis Pabrėža (1771 – 1849). P. 26 – 27. 25 Unfortunately, this interesting book contains a good many linguistic shortcomings. 85 The book presents J. A. Pabrėža extensively as a person, and especially as a priest and monk. He was a very upright, honest, and dutiful man. He cared not for himself, not for higher positions or a better life for himself, but for the spiritual and physical well-being of the wayfarers of this earth with whom he was destined to walk the paths of life. He gave his whole life, his entire self, to others. After this portrayal, it is hardly surprising that the author of the book in question, V. Gidžiūnas, wrote in the “Lithuanian Encyclopedia” that J. A. Pabrėža “possesses all the qualities the Church requires for proclaiming someone blessed”26. It is very, very regrettable that no one has yet come forward to undertake an in-depth study and account of J. A. Pabrėža as a scientist, as a creator of the Lithuanian language of science, and as a healer of people. Today, as a dozen or several dozen years ago, it can confidently be reiterated that his works remain an important source for science, terminology, and language in general, because he was the first to create terms consciously and systematically in Lithuanian, and was aware of what he was doing. He was the first to formulate principles for compiling Lithuanian scientific terminology and, in particular, to emphasize the importance of the living language for this purpose. Finally, he was the first to begin writing Lithuanian dictionaries of terms. To be sure, Pabrėža himself did all this in Samogitian, clearly recognizing and emphasizing his Samogitian identity. In “Notes on the Compilation of a True Flora of Samogitia” (“Uwagį tyczące się ułożenia doskonałey Flory Żmudzkiey. Miłośnikom Flory Żmudzkiey i znawcom języka żmudzkiego, poświęcone”), he explained in detail that a true Samogitian botanist must collect plant names personally, especially from elderly women and herbalists; collect them not only in his own parish or district, but throughout Samogitia and all of Lithuania; establish which plants are called by which names in different places; and, on the basis of thorough research, select the most suitable names27. 26 Lithuanian Encyclopedia. Vol. 21. P. 304. Incidentally, according to V. Biržiška, the idea of taking steps to have Pabrėža recognized as blessed first arose before the Second World War (see: Biržiška V. Aleksandrynas. Chicago, 1963. Vol. 2. P. 311). But it seems that people believe, or wish to foster and maintain the conviction, that even at God’s feet the nobly born and higher-ranking clergy find a place more easily than ordinary priests, or especially laypeople. 27 Iš Pabrėžos nespausdintų botanikos raštų // Kosmos. K., 1923. Sąs. 2. P. 183 – 184. 86 J. A. Pabrėža’s language, too, is worthy of careful and thorough study: it reflects remarkably well the living speech of the seaside Samogitians at the end of the 18th century and in the first half of the 19th, yet is at the same time carefully polished, graceful, and flowing in harmonious rhythm, like the nearby Samogitian Sea, now murmuring calmly, now crashing tumultuously. Pabrėža’s sermons are a remarkable blend of the art of eloquence and living speech, works by a true master of words. The language of his other writings is excellent as well. Pabrėža also sought to convey the living flow of speech in his spelling. In his letters to J. K. Gintila, he discussed various concerns about his spelling on several occasions, emphasizing that “the best way to write is as we speak”28. In his approach to the written language, J. A. Pabrėža must have differed greatly from his younger friend S. Daukantas. The latter, over time, began to accommodate all Lithuanians, perhaps sometimes hoping that his seaside Samogitian dialect might more easily take hold as the standard Lithuanian language, but perhaps more likely yielding to the tradition of writings composed on the basis of other dialects. In his numerous writings, however, Pabrėža must have sought to preserve as faithfully as possible the very same seaside Samogitian language of his own (he and Daukantas both came from the same Lenkiemiai parish). As a reliable monument to the language of that time, Pabrėža’s writings are therefore immensely valuable; alas, so far they have not been valued or properly appreciated. Without doubt, J. A. Pabrėža had far better conditions than S. Daukantas for preserving his living native dialect. He spent almost his entire life in Samogitia (except for a couple of academic years in Vilnius), and most of it in the environment of his native dialect, constantly communicating under all sorts of circumstances with people who knew no other way of speaking. Yet people generally create their own circumstances. Pabrėža arranged his life so that he would always be among the Samogitians, not as some official or a person cut off from the people, but as their simple, warm-hearted, and caring doctor of souls and bodies. He understood the people, and the people understood him. The people understood Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža and have not forgotten him. Flowers do not wither, nor does the path to his grave become overgrown. People even go around that grave on their knees, praying for help in their illnesses and earthly cares— 28 J. A. Pabrėža’s letters to Rev. J. K. Gintila // Gidžiūnas V. Min. veik. P. 264. 87 —because “from time immemorial, Father Ambraziejus has been considered a saint by the people of the Kretinga area”29. This is what he himself wished to be: in the prime of his life, while serving as a vicar in Plungė, in 1806 he resolved to be holy and blameless, holy in soul and body, in his life, exemplary conduct, learning, and praiseworthy deeds30. The hearts of the Samogitians he loved, their children, and their descendants have bestowed the honor of a holy man upon J. A. Pabrėža and continue to acknowledge it into the second century. His perfection became most clearly visible after his death. 29 Father Placidas Barius, OFM. Provincial’s explanation // Ibid. P. XIII. 30 Resolutions made in Plungė in 1806 // Ibid. P. 241. 88