Pranas Skardžius ir didysis „Lietuvių kalbos žodynas“

ALDONAS PUPKIS Institute of the Lithuanian Language Research areas: Lithuanian phonetics, theory and practice of language culture, dialectology, and the history of Lithuanian linguistics. PRANAS SKARDŽIUS AND THE GREAT DICTIONARY OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE1 Pranas Skardžius and the grand Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language ABSTRACT The article examines the relations of the prominent Lithuanian linguist Pranas Skardžius with the great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, whose preparation began in late 1930, and its editor, Juozas Balčikonis. The circumstances surrounding the appointment of the dictionary’s editor are reinterpreted, and Skardžius’s later desire and efforts to improve the dictionary, his demands that the spelling he championed be adopted, and his attempts to take over the editor’s position himself when circumstances became favorable are presented. The article argues that discussions among prominent linguists gradually turned into a war of ambition over minor spelling issues. It concludes that the Scientific Auxiliary Commission, established in 1942 specifically to improve the preparation of the dictionary, although it accepted some good proposals, confirmed Balčikonis’s principal positions on the type of dictionary and other fundamental principles for its preparation. Balčikonis’s persistence and historical circumstances meant that volumes I and II of the dictionary were edited according to the principles formulated by Balčikonis and published using the spelling then in use. ABSTRACT The article addresses the relations of the well-known Lithuanian linguist Pranas Skardžius with the grand Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, the compilation of which began at the end of 1930, and its editor Juozas Balčikonis. It provides a new interpretation of the circumstances of appointment of the dictionary editor and shows the later Skardžius’ wish and attempts 1 The article was prepared within the project funded by the Research Council of Lithuania, Juozas Balčikonis Lexicographer (No. LTI-5-14). KEYWORDS: history of Lithuanian linguistics, lexicography, Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, dictionary slip archive, spelling. KEYWORDS: history of Lithuanian linguistics, lexicography, Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language, card index of the dictionary, spelling. Straipsniai / Articles 101 ALDONAS PUPKIS to improve the dictionary, his requests to approve the spelling promoted by him and to take over the office of the dictionary editor when the circumstances are right. The article asserts that the discussions of the famous linguists gradually evolved into the war of ambitions on minor spelling issues. It is concluded that even though the Scientific Auxiliary Commission set up in 1942 for the improvement of the compilation of the dictionary exclusively adopted some good proposals, it nevertheless approved the principal Balčikonis’ positions on the type of the dictionary and other fundamental principles of the compilation of the dictionary. Balčikonis’ persistence and historical circumstances determined that volume I and volume II of the dictionary were edited under the principles established by Balčikonis and published in the spelling used at that time. APPOINTMENT OF THE EDITOR OF THE GREAT DICTIONARY It is worthwhile to speak and write about the relationship of the distinguished twentieth-century Lithuanian linguist Prof. Pranas Skardžius to the great Lietuvių kalbos žodynas because no analytical studies on this subject have been published to date, and the problem has in fact been complex and complicated. The ideas expressed in the press discussions between Skardžius and the editor of the great dictionary, Juozas Balčikonis (Skardžius 1997: 227–230; 1999: 665–666, 666–667; Balčikonis 1978: 172–175), fragmentary information about the activities of the Scientific Auxiliary [Dictionary] Commission established in 1942 (see, for example, Dėk žodi prie žodžio 2006: 198–199, 380 et seq.), and claims made in later discussions of spelling issues (see, for example, Balčikonis 1978: 183–187, 187–188; Raila 1943; Salys 1944 et seq.) are scattered and have not been synthesized. They do not provide a clearer picture of the disagreements between two distinguished linguists—Balčikonis and Skardžius—that took place at the time, while the first volume of the great dictionary was being prepared, nor do they allow us to understand fully the origins, causes, and substance of those disagreements. In this article, drawing for the first time on a systematic analysis of the aforementioned discussions, statements by other authors published in the literature, the recollections of contemporaries, and, in particular, newly discovered archival documents, an attempt is made to synthesize the available material and offer a new interpretation of the history of the preparation of the Lietuvių kalbos žodynas during that period. As is well known, after Kazimieras Būga’s death, work on the Lietuvių kalbos žodynas came to a complete halt for several years. This does not mean that no thought was given to Būga’s dictionary legacy. In 1925, Būga’s last assistant, the dictionary secretary and student Antanas Salys, inventoried Būga’s archive and published the results in the scholarly collection Tauta ir žodis (Salys 1985: 136–154). In response to criticism in the press that the dictionary project was making no progress, the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Lithuania intervened. The faculty council meeting of September 14, 1926, also discussed matters concerning the Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. According to a report by the faculty dean, Vincas Krėvė-Mickevičius, the Ministry of Education had entrusted the faculty with looking after the dictionary, so 102 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Pranas Skardžius ir didysis Lietuvių kalbos žodynas at the dean’s proposal, the council established a commission for this purpose: Jonas Jablonskis as chair, with Balčikonis, Antanas Smetona, Alfredas Senas (Senn), and Krėvė-Mickevičius as members. It was decided to pay the chair a salary of 800 litas per month (CVA F. 4, ap. 817, lp. 7). Later, funds were also allocated to purchase furniture. The commission entrusted Balčikonis with inspecting Būga’s dictionary legacy. On October 2, 1926, he submitted an inspection report to the commission. Its conclusion states that “the chests in which the dictionary [i.e., the dictionary card files. – A. P.] lies are very poor, made of uneven boards, without proper lids, and dusty all over. The commission believes that the dictionary should be stored, until an editor is found for it, in such a way that it does not gather dust, get lost, or deteriorate” (Balčikonis 1978: 47). A note appended to the report says that on October 13 the commission decided to begin work. “A person is to be hired for this work, to work under the commission’s instructions and supervision. For the time being, Mr. Kepalas2 has been identified as such a person. The dean is charged with negotiating with him and with the Ministry of Education regarding the terms of employment” (ibid.). It has not yet been possible to find out whether Kazys Kepalas was hired, or how much work of what kind the commission accomplished. What remains particularly important in Balčikonis’s report is the fact that no candidate for dictionary editor was available at the time; consequently, Balčikonis’s candidacy was not even under consideration by the commission. Nevertheless, four years later Balčikonis was appointed editor of the dictionary. Until now, the literature has stated that Balčikonis was the sole candidate for the post of dictionary editor. For example, Vytautas Vitkauskas cautiously remarked: “There probably was no other person who could have prepared the great Lithuanian dictionary” (Vitkauskas 1986: 186). Another source (Pupkis 2010: 150) reports that, during discussions at the Institute of Lithuanian Language and Literature in the 1970s about publishing Balčikonis’s Rinktinių raštų, Kazys Ulvydas said that there had been no competition for the position of editor of the Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, while other better-known linguists had shunned the position3. In fact, as new archival documents show, these claims should be substantially reconsidered. The fact that the aforementioned claims were not supported by more substantial evidence is also suggested by the circumstance that Ulvydas was then still a pupil at the Jesuit Gymnasium, began studying at university only in 1930, and could hardly have known these matters directly from those involved in the relevant affairs— 2 Kazys Kepalas (born 1891 in Kamajai rural district), philologist, nephew of Jurgis Šlapelis’s sister; the Šlapeliai supported his education. He graduated from Vilnius II Gymnasium and studied philology at the University of St Petersburg. After the war, he worked on the Terminology Commission; in 1926 he graduated from the University of Lithuania (studying classical languages and Lithuanian studies). He worked in various schools as a teacher of classical languages and, from 1926 to 1932, taught classical languages and Lithuanian at the university (to non-specialists). He translated into Lithuanian an anthology of works by Latin authors and published articles on issues of terminology. At the end of World War II, he moved to the West. 3 Kazys Ulvydas’s later remarks also confirm this claim: “And who knows how long the work begun by him [Kazimieras Būga] would have remained untouched if J. Balčikonis had not made efforts to continue it—indeed, if there had not been a person like J. Balčikonis at the time. [...] He argued that the Lithuanian nation urgently needed a dictionary, and that the work begun by K. Būga had to be continued” (Ulvydas 1987: 5). Straipsniai / Articles 103 ALDONAS PUPKIS … from the lips of the people involved. Vitkauskas’s conjecture, too, was not based on any specific facts. Both informants—Ulvydas and Vitkauskas—also seem to have overlooked the fact that the contemporary press had voiced clear doubts about Balčikonis’s appointment as editor of the dictionary. In this regard, an article signed in the name of Ant[anas] Valys (Valys 1930), published in the November 27, 1930 issue of the daily Lietuvos žinių, just before Balčikonis was officially appointed dictionary editor on December 1, is quite informative. It states that the writer had heard that the dictionary work had been entrusted to Mr. Docent B. (undoubtedly meaning Balčikonis). The resumption of work on the dictionary was something to welcome, the article said, but it did not appear that all our best linguists had been brought into it. Mr. B. was a good stylist, but, in the author’s opinion, that alone was not enough for him to take on the further task of working on the dictionary. We had no scholars like Būga for historical and comparative linguistic work, so younger linguists and university professors should be brought in. “Entrusting the dictionary to Mr. B. is the highest recognition, both juridical and moral, of the rights of one B. By this act [...] the broader (historical-comparative) linguistic perspective on the facts of our language is seemingly ignored, and a narrower, more dogmatic linguistic position held by certain older-generation (school) linguists among us is officially approved4. We have no objection to the dictionary workers, but [we question] their qualifications for extensive scholarly work. In carrying out such work, it seems to me that we should have the fewest possible extraneous, nonscholarly considerations” (ibid.)5. It was not possible to determine who wrote this article. There is no doubt that he was close to the university’s Faculty of Humanities, one of the young linguists in the circle around Salys and Skardžius, perhaps Skardžius himself. As is known, Skardžius returned to Kaunas from his studies abroad, in Germany, at the end of 1928, and began teaching various linguistics courses at the University of Lithuania in the spring semester of 1929. There is no doubt that he first discussed his university workload with the faculty dean, Krėvė-Mickevičius, who then spoke with the Ministry of Education about it. The matter was probably discussed during those consultations, including the question of editing the dictionary, and apparently some arrangements were made. This is indirectly confirmed by a letter from Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas, then a university lecturer, to Petras Klimas, written on January 29, 1929. It is useful to quote an excerpt here. “With the reform of the University of Lithuania,” Tumas writes, “I will no longer be on the teaching staff as of the autumn semester. J. M.” 4 Juozas Balčikonis was then in his forty-sixth year, and thus at the very height of his creative and scholarly powers. Whether his position was “more dogmatic” is debatable, especially considering the work of lexicography. 5 According to Aleksandras Žirgulis, there was a certain skepticism in society about Balčikonis’s appointment as editor: “A new editor, virtually unknown in the linguistic literature, who had made himself known to the public only through translations of fairy tales, is taking on the editing of a scholarly dictionary of the Lithuanian language. Well, we shall see...” (Dėk žodį prie žodžio 2006: 200). When the dictionary’s card file was transferred from the university to Napalys Grigas, Vincas Krėvė said: “Now we’ll know who will continue the work of editing the dictionary, which no one has dared to take on since Būga” (ibid., 193). 104 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Pranas Skardžius ir didysis Lietuvių kalbos žodynas The President has already spoken with J. M., the Prime Minister, and they have already decided that on September 20 of this year I am to be sent into retirement, uniform and all. They want to entrust me with collecting place names (I began this as far back as 1903; see Dirva-Žinynas, 5,000 names); helping Skardžius edit the Lithuanian Dictionary, etc.” (Vaižgantas 1998: 215). Another very important document is the “Memorandum on Matters Concerning the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” signed on April 10, 1929, by Krėvė (as chair, though the commission is not identified) and Skardžius (as secretary), and addressed to the Minister of Education (NMMB RS VKM F. 9–229). The Manuscripts Department of the National Library of Martynas Mažvydas holds three documents in this file: Skardžius’s manuscript and two typewritten copies. The memorandum states that continuing to publish the Lietuvių kalbos žodyną as Būga had done would not be worthwhile for two reasons: 1) place names and personal names needed to be separated out, checked, supplemented with further collection, and published in a separate dictionary; 2) 60–70% of all the material still needed to be checked, “because much of it has not been recorded entirely faithfully or competently” (ibid., 4). New material would need to be collected on a large scale (by visiting foreign archives—for example, Königsberg for Bretkūnas, Wolfenbüttel, Chylinski’s Bibles, and so on—as well as Vilnius, Moscow, the archives of Lithuanian monasteries, the provinces, etc.). To speed up the work, more than one person would have to be involved (commissions of a dozen or more people were carrying out such work abroad). “Thus, for us to publish this dictionary, a commission of at least three people is necessary. The members of the commission must be people of the highest scholarly qualifications, and their remuneration must therefore correspond to the work they do” (ibid.). For technical work (excerpting words, cataloguing, organizing and checking new words, copying, correspondence, etc.), two people would initially be needed, devoting themselves exclusively to this work: a secretary who had completed higher education in Lithuanian studies and an assistant secretary who had completed at least secondary school. The commission would need people in the provinces whom it could call on to verify facts, search for words in the living language, and so on (one from Klaipėda, two from Samogitia, one from Dzūkija, one from Western Aukštaitija, two from Eastern Aukštaitija, and one from the Vilnius region); they should be budgeted at least 50 litas a month each, in addition to special compensation. The memorandum goes on to say that it would not initially be possible to start all the work at once. Foreign archives should be tackled first, and the provinces afterward. The desired sum for the coming year would be 10,000 litas, or 12,000 including other expenses (for a typewriter, etc.). This estimate was for 1930, and it was hoped to receive half the sum this year6. “This year it would be possible to begin preparing a dictionary of the Lithuanian written language, which is urgently needed by our society, especially schools, and also to begin the work of preparing the great dictionary itself, if not publishing it” (ibid., 6). 6 The state budget estimate included a specific sum for the dictionary. When the budget was revised in 1930, that sum was sharply reduced. Straipsniai / Articles 105 ALDONAS PUPKIS That these plans were not empty talk is also shown by two letters Skardžius wrote in February 1930 to Krėvė-Mickevičius, dean of the Faculty of Humanities. At the time, Skardžius was in Leipzig, attending to matters concerning his dissertation. Among other things, in his letter of February 10, Skardžius asks Krėvė what he had learned from the president about the dictionary, “whether the Council of Ministers had already reconsidered the dictionary budget” (NMMB RS VKM–69 F. 69). The thoughts expressed in the letter of February 22 are even more revealing: “As for the dictionary, I think this: Bukota7 absolutely must be appointed secretary. At first, until June, he should catalogue all the dictionary material. He should set place names and personal names apart and catalogue them. Salys could supervise this work. If you really reach an agreement with the Ministry of Education, I would write to Salys at once, and the two of us would agree on the work: until I return to Lithuania, he could collect material for a dictionary of the written language from the dictionary material catalogued by Bukota; besides, he could begin organizing the collection of material for the entire dictionary. J. Gerulis said that if the dictionary were under m y a n d S a l y s’s l e a d e r s h i p, he too would gladly take part in the work” (ibid.; published in LK XVII 197; emphasis A. P.). Nevertheless, Skardžius was not appointed editor of the Lithuanian Language Dictionary. What determined this, and what the main reasons were, cannot be stated precisely here; it is clear only that Skardžius very much wanted the position, while Balčikonis accepted it only after others persuaded him (see note 8 of this article). Many facts confirm Skardžius’s intentions: his subsequent relations with the dictionary’s editor, Balčikonis, and, many years later (in 1962), the thought he expressed, apparently with some bitterness, that the dictionary work had been led by Balčikonis, appointed by Smetona8 (Skardžius 1997: 581). 7 Juozas Liudvikas Bukota (born in 1896 in Išlandžiai village, Krosna rural district, Marijampolė County) studied in Rudamina and Marijampolė, and graduated from Voronezh Gymnasium in 1917. After returning to Lithuania, he studied at the Higher Courses and the University of Lithuania. In 1922 he worked in the editorial office of Būga’s dictionary. In 1928 he pursued further studies with Jurgis Gerulis in Leipzig; in 1931 he earned a licentiate degree in comparative Indo-European linguistics at the University of Paris. Unable to find work at Vytautas Magnus University, he worked at the Ministry of National Defence, where he dealt with military terminology (NMMB RS f. 130–1460, l. 612; LE III 334). 8 Balčikonis was appointed editor by resolution of the Minister of Education, Konstantinas Šakenis, an old acquaintance of his, probably dating back to their student days in St. Petersburg (later they would meet in newspaper editorial offices; both worked in the Lithuanian Society for the Relief of War Victims and taught together in Voronezh). There is no doubt that everything was coordinated with the country’s president (cf. the statement published in the press: “[o]ur government, prompted by the President of the Republic, Mr. Antanas Smetona, conceived the idea in 1930 of publishing the dictionary of the late Prof. K. Būga.” – Antanaitis 1933: 503). Balčikonis had known Smetona since the summer of 1909; later, their paths crossed in the editorial office of the newspaper Viltis and on other occasions. In 1934, for Smetona’s 60th birthday, Balčikonis published a collection of reminiscences (Balčikonis 1934). Another person who may have played a decisive role in Balčikonis’s appointment was Prime Minister Juozas Tūbelis (1882–1939). They too had been good acquaintances since their time in Voronezh; when Balčikonis moved from Panevėžys to Kaunas in 1924, he temporarily lived in the Tūbelis family’s apartment. Bronė Vosylytė, a collaborator in the dictionary’s editorial office, wrote that “Prime Minister Juozas Tūbelis persuaded Associate Professor Juozas Balčikonis to take on this work [editing the dictionary. – A. P.]. Balčikonis himself told me this” (Dėk žodį prie žodžio 2006: 195). 106 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Pranas Skardžius ir didysis Lietuvių kalbos žodynas Thus, one may suppose that, in appointing the dictionary’s editor, the interests of two institutions may first and foremost have intersected: the Faculty of Humanities at Vytautas Magnus University and the Ministry of Education. Between them stood the two candidates, Skardžius and Balčikonis. It may also have mattered that the faculty dean, Krėvė-Mickevičius, and the country’s president, Smetona, were not friends or close associates at the time, and that their relationship had deteriorated after the coup d’état of December 17, 1926. One should also remember the so-called debate between linguists and literary scholars, which had taken place not long before and in which Krėvė and Balčikonis were among the leading opponents. Thus, supported by Krėvė, Skardžius may have become a pawn in the interests or ambitions of two influential institutions. THE WORK OF THE DICTIONARY EDITORIAL OFFICE AND ITS CRITICISM After Balčikonis took over the leadership of the dictionary, Skardžius did not remain entirely removed from this important lexicographic undertaking. There is no doubt that he was genuinely concerned with matters relating to the dictionary. During the discussion of spelling reform, Skardžius’s 1934 statement is noteworthy: “the great Lithuanian language dictionary now being prepared for printing must be published with a standardized spelling, not the hitherto inconsistent one” (Skardžius 1999: 640). Even earlier, Skardžius and Salys had contributed to establishing the principles for compiling the dictionary. As is known from contemporaries’ reminiscences and other sources, the editor regularly consulted Lithuanian and foreign linguists on the dictionary’s character, composition, and other matters, and made decisions only after thoroughly examining and considering everything. For instance, Balčikonis categorically rejected the proposal by German linguist Ernst Frenkel (Fraenkel) to add an etymological section to the dictionary entries (LKI RF LKŽ f. 5–7, l. 41). He consulted extensively with Jurgis Gerulis (Gerullis), a professor at the University of Leipzig (from 1934, Königsberg), and in early spring 1935 went to see him “to talk things over, to discuss,” “to argue it out” (ibid., 26). There was more than one discussion with the young scholars of Vytautas Magnus University, Salys and Skardžius. According to Skardžius himself, on Sundays in Aleksotas, where the dictionary editorial office was located, the two of them and the editor would discuss the organization of the dictionary (Skardžius 1997: 601). Elsewhere, Skardžius wrote that Balčikonis, having been appointed editor, had to begin the work almost from scratch: “first of all, he himself had to get to grips with the work and find a way to edit that dictionary—we, A. Salys and I, had to discuss it with him for quite some time” (ibid., 544). In Aleksandras Žirgulis’s recollection, “the decision to ‘arrange words in nests’ may have been discussed with other linguists, first of all with Skardžius and Salys. Such a dictionary structure never later Straipsniai / Articles 107 ALDONAS PUPKIS nebuvo ginčijama“ (Dėk žodį prie žodžio 2006: 210). Napalys Grigas, ilgametis žodyno redakcijos sekretorius, atsiminimuose rašo, kad Skardžius ir Salys „irgi nemaža prisidėjo prie žodyno šablono sudarymo, nors dažnai su jais negalima buvo sutikti – jie vis daugiau norėdavo moksliškumo, kuris, kaip rodo praktika, buvo sunkiai pasiekiamas“ (Dėk žodį prie žodžio 2006: 194). Balčikonis’s and Skardžius’s views differed from Salys’s on more than one issue. For example, on May 8, 1935, Balčikonis signed a letter to the Third Department of the Ministry of Education, to which the dictionary’s editorial office was directly subordinate, stating that, in the view of the dictionary’s editorial office and Prof. Gerulis, the dictionary should include those barbarisms that were used in contemporary writing, while a separate dictionary should be published for the others. Salys and Skardžius believed that all cultured words used in living speech should be included, even if they were avoided in the language of contemporary writing ( Pranas Skardžius ir didysis Lietuvių kalbos žodynas the current editorial office had continually asked, through the press, for only less common words to be collected11 (the article later adds that, as a result, the dictionary would not show the actual usage of those common words; and that only less common words were collected from old writings as well). The procedure for collecting words had not been thought out in advance, and the collectors had not been prepared. Everyone who could be bothered had collected more interesting words; a dozen or so had simply pounded them into people. Unprepared collectors had not known how to write down words properly, and the disorder in marking stress was especially great. Finally, because the collection work had not been organized systematically, many words had been obtained from some places and very few from others. Another shortcoming was the inadequate planning of the editorial work. At first, the intention had been to prepare a dictionary better suited to practical needs, but in time it had become clear that, because of its size, the dictionary could not serve practical purposes. Therefore, after a while, it was decided to include in the dictionary loanwords that had at some point been used in writing or dialects, except for accidental barbarisms. This was the right course: such words are witnesses to culture and are also needed for the history of the language. It was simply a pity that these words had initially been separated from the whole, and that it would now be difficult to gather them together; consequently, the dictionary would give only a dim picture of their usage. The third issue was the unsystematized spelling. The editorial office followed the spelling of Jablonskis’s 1922 grammar, as prescribed by the Ministry of Education, but its inconsistencies greatly hindered the clear description of many aspects of living speech. “Publishing this dictionary in an temporarily unsystematized spelling is a great detriment to the entire practice of our language scholarship and everyday life” (ibid., 229). At the end of the article, the author concludes that spelling must be standardized and the dictionary published before it is too late. Written sources, especially older ones, must be reviewed systematically and according to plan, and regular, knowledgeable collectors of words from living speech must be organized and trained in various parts of Lithuania. “[T]he dictionary’s editorial office must be expanded; the work of compiling the dictionary must be further improved and made more rigorous, so that its results will be truly useful not only for practical purposes but also for language scholarship itself” (ibid., 230). Balčikonis did not respond to Skardžius’s criticisms in the press. Many of the shortcomings in dictionary preparation identified by Skardžius were no less familiar to him and the editorial office than they were to his opponent. Many came to light once the dictionary text began to be written, and the editor quickly began remedying certain shortcomings as best he could (for example, he had some of the old sources collected anew, etc.). As for spelling, Balčikonis did not yet have to worry: while the dictionary’s editorial office was subordinate to the Ministry of Education, the text was written in accordance only with the ministry’s instructions. 11 At a relatively early date (1933), Balčikonis began to state publicly that familiar words were also suitable, because “what matters to the editorial office is not the word itself, but the sentence in living speech provided with it” (Balčikonis 1978: 123). Straipsniai / Articles 109 ALDONAS PUPKIS DICTIONARY MATTERS AT THE INSTITUTE OF LITHUANIAN STUDIES The status of the dictionary’s editorial office changed in 1939, when the Institute of Lithuanian Studies was established in Kaunas. The editorial office became an integral part of the new scholarly institution (the Lithuanian Language Section, whose members were appointed as Mykolas Biržiška, Skardžius, Balčikonis, and the section head, Salys) and was required to comply with the institute’s general decisions. At the beginning of the institute’s activities, preparation of the great dictionary was declared a priority task, and it was agreed to ask the authorities to allocate more staff positions. It was decided to prepare a practical dictionary of the standard language for the wider public, standardize spelling (a spelling commission was formed in mid-1939) and prepare a practical guide to it, and organize courses for collectors of language data (held in May and June 1939). There seemed to be no major internal obstacles to continuing work on the dictionary and publishing Volume I sooner. Especially since Balčikonis could count on the goodwill of Kazimieras Masiliūnas, then director of the Institute of Lithuanian Studies12 (see below). This time, the obstacles came mostly from outside. In the spring of 1939, after Germany wrested the Klaipėda Region from Lithuania, the printing press equipment used to set the dictionary text had to be moved to Kaunas. In October 1940, the entire institute had to move to Vilnius. No less significant as a negative factor was the Soviet occupation of Lithuania in the summer of 1940. Masiliūnas, Balčikonis’s patron, was immediately dismissed from his post as director of the Institute of Lithuanian Studies (Biržiška was appointed in his place). Skardžius soon began raising the pressing issues of “improving” the dictionary in the press again. It is worth noting that barely a month and a half after the beginning of the Soviet occupation, Skardžius published an article in the daily Lietuvos žinių on July 31, in which he criticized the former Nationalist government for undermining Lithuanian studies and expressed bitterness over the “so-called scientific jugglers, speculators, or all sorts of wind-chasers” who had flourished at the time (Skardžius 1999: 992). One example cited was the history of Būga’s dictionary. After Būga’s death, the materials for that dictionary had lain for a long time gathering dust in an attic, until outsiders began to stir up the matter of publishing it; but the Ministry of Education “didn’t utter a peep or lift a finger. When the university itself became quite seriously resolved to undertake the work, the ministry suddenly came to its senses, took the dictionary materials away from it, and handed them over to be processed by a man who had lost his job at the Faculty of Theology and Philosophy. But that was not all: later, when from outside were pointed out the most elementary- 12 Kazimieras Masiliūnas (1902–1973), kalbininkas, visuomenės veikėjas. Įgijęs gerą išsilavinimą Lietuvoje ir užsienyje, nuo 1934 m. buvo Švietimo ministerijos departamento direktorius, generalinis sekretorius. Tapęs pirmuoju Lituanistikos instituto direktoriumi (1939–1940), visas atžvilgiais rėmė ir palaikė Balčikonį, pats buvo kilęs iš Balčikonio gimtojo krašto (Bistrampolio dvaro Ramygalos valsčiuje), taip pat buvo Balčikonio mokinys Panevėžio mokytojų seminarijoje. 110 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Pranas Skardžius ir didysis Lietuvių kalbos žodynas Although the most basic lexicographical requirements were not merely disregarded, but even several years later, after the Institute of Lithuanian Studies had been established, K. Masi­liūnas proposed in the council itself that publication of the dictionary be separated from the Language Section’s work and left entirely in the hands of one person: he said that young people could only hinder the work with their constant demands and refusal to leave things in peace!” (ibid.). Another example Skardžius gives is the history of the founding of the Institute of Lithuanian Studies, in which the interests of the Ministry of Education and the university also clashed. Masi­liūnas supposedly silenced the scholars and took care to make the institute’s statute “arrogantly Smetona-esque” (ibid., 993). The conclusion says that this is now a thing of the past and expresses the hope that in the future our young sciences will be cared for more sincerely and their work carried out more diligently, “so that the greatest possible benefit may come of it to our people” (ibid., 995). Balčikonis also remained silent about the claims in this article. We know little about what was going on inside the Institute of Lithuanian Studies; it seems that the main dispute concerned spelling, while Skardžius, in the autumn, on October 613, published another article, entitled “Is This Accurate?” (Skardžius 1999: 665–666). An editorial note appended to it stated that this was a contribution by a distinguished linguist, published on his responsibility. This piece by Skardžius is devoted solely to criticizing the editorial work on the great dictionary. At the outset, he repeats what he had written earlier about Balčikonis’s appointment as editor of the dictionary. “The new editorial team,” the author goes on, “having no experience in lexicographical work, did not know where to begin at first: it later tried to change its position, took Jablonskis’s writings as its criterion, patched and cobbled the work together in various ways, but nevertheless failed to demonstrate the necessary planning, especially in collecting material from living speech and old writings” (ibid., 665)14. How much the editorial team made use of the points the author had made in Gimtoji kalba (1937), we shall see; but now there is another matter on which one must certainly speak out: “the spelling of this great dictionary, which is completely unsystematized, must not be allowed” (ibid., 665). Although the former educational leadership had been unable to carry out a spelling reform, the editor had nevertheless been instructed to publish the dictionary in a more suitable diacritic spelling, or, if that was not to be heeded, to follow Jablonskis’s official spelling. But the editor, without consulting anyone or asking the Institute of Lithuanian Studies for its opinion, “all by himself, arbitrarily... 13 In Skardžius’s Rinktiniai raštai, the date on which his article reprinted from Tarybų Lietuva appeared is incorrectly given as October 16; it should be October 6. 14 Skardžius constantly sought to emphasize Balčikonis’s incompetence in directing the work of preparing the great dictionary; he did not even consider him a scholar, but only a language practitioner (cf. his 1962 opinion that Balčikonis “had no broader interest in matters of linguistics” (Skardžius 1997: 564)). On the basis of this absolutized distinction between pure language science and practice, Skardžius did not even consider Jonas Jablonskis a scholar (on this, see Piročkinas 2010). Straipsniai / Articles 111 ALDONAS PUPKIS decided and began using a somewhat idiosyncratically modified “Caveman” spelling, which no one had used since—not even J. Jablonskis himself, except before his death” (ibid., 666). The flaw in that spelling, he said, was that it used etymological spelling in some cases (kĭla, svĭla, kĭra, spūra), but elsewhere ignored the most vivid fact of living speech—that į should be written after b, p in the root of a word. “I can explain this in no other way than as blind obstinacy and disregard for everyone else” (ibid.). Thus, the editor’s venture was clearly unsuccessful and needed to be corrected as quickly as possible. “The leadership of the Language Section of the Institute of Lithuanian Studies must take the initiative at once, or, if that is not enough, even the Commissariat of Education itself” (ibid.). Exactly one week later, on October 13, the same newspaper, Tarybų Lietuva, published a response by the dictionary’s editor, Balčikonis, entitled “What Is the Purpose of Skardžius’s Writings?” (Balčikonis 1978: 172–175). At the outset, the author says that Skardžius is criticizing work that has not been completed and published, unlike the usual practice everywhere, and is instead basing his criticism on slips, proofs, or something else he saw in the editorial office. In fact, Balčikonis insists, the editorial team had always tried to adhere to official spelling. When, for a time, it seemed that diacritic spelling would be introduced15, the editorial team had even instructed the printing house to suspend typesetting the dictionary temporarily and had discussed how it should be changed to the new spelling. When that spelling was rejected and the spelling of Jablonskis’s 1922 grammar was reinstated, the editorial team was prepared to conform to it as well, but found that this led nowhere. Skardžius had been the first to disparage that spelling; he had started a spelling chaos that spread through Gimtoji kalba, which he edited, the ministry’s Book Publishing Commission, and elsewhere. To avoid spelling chaos, the editorial team decided to follow the spelling of the 1929 Visuomenės įnamiai, rather than that of Urvinio žmogaus, as Skardžius claims. It was closest to the spirit of Jablonskis and had its roots in the spelling of the 1901 grammar. The editor then responds to the alleged obstinacy in not writing iota after the consonants b, p. “A person of sound judgment would say that, for the purposes of a dictionary, such a distinction is no trivial matter [...] But until a new spelling is announced and imposed on everyone, the editorial team surely has the right to choose the spelling that has been more customary in our writing until now. The editorial team is more convinced by Jablonskis’s arguments than by Skardžius’s” (ibid., 173). It is further acknowledged that there had been ample discussion and consultation with many people both before typesetting began and after proofs began to be printed, including with Skardžius. “Why the editorial team chooses this opinion rather than another is its own affair—it is respon... 15 In 1929, the Ministry of Education established a Spelling Reform Commission, which, in its 1933 Rašybos reformos projektas (see Salys 1979: 46–65), proposed using the so-called diacritic spelling (marking long vowels with a line above the letter, as in Latvian). A long and heated debate began and continued for several years. After the public opposed and consequently rejected diacritic spelling, the so-called compromise spelling variant, devised in 1935, was widely promoted (combining the principles of etymological and phonetic spelling) (on this, see Salys 1979: 65–68), but it too was not put into practice. 112 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Pranas Skardžius ir didysis Lietuvių kalbos žodynas because of this, not against one person, but against society” (ibid., 174). At the end of the article, the editor says that he wishes to correct one more account by Skardžius, in which it is claimed that the editing of the dictionary had been entrusted to him after he had lost his university position16, “as if thereby implying that someone had done or begged a favor here. This is not true: the editing was entrusted to me while I was still at the university. Skardžius himself knows this well, so it is incomprehensible what purpose this and his other similar accounts serve” (ibid., 174–175). Without delay, Skardžius published a response in the same Tarybų Lietuvoje, entitled “Vis dėlto ne taip” (see Skardžius 1999: 666–667). First, he said that he did not wish to become embroiled in major disputes, especially in the daily press, and would merely point out one or two matters related to Balčikonis’s reply. Seemingly explaining some of his earlier remarks, he stated that he had previously written after reviewing only the material on slips, whereas he had now seen 16 printed sheets in finished form. Balčikonis should first have raised the spelling issue in the institute’s departmental council, rather than deciding everything on his own. The spelling of j was not a matter of hysteria (in Balčikonis’s words), but of living language—a point fully confirmed by many linguists (Būga, Endzelīns, Trautmann, Nesselmann). “The whole trouble is that J. Balčikonis does not want to, or is unable to, look beyond J. Jablonskis’s vacillating arguments about spelling” (ibid., 667). The author then offers another explanation: “In writing about the dictionary, I have no ulterior motives, as J. Balčikonis seems to suggest in his question. What matters to me is that publication of this dictionary should not be the execution of one person’s wish, which would be highly problematic, but a well-founded undertaking consistent with the requirements of contemporary scholarship” (ibid.). He therefore proposed that the matter be resolved by a commission, to which Endzelīns, Otrębski, Salys, Jonikas, Žiugžda, and others should be invited. The author was prepared to describe all the matters raised here in a dedicated forum and substantiate everything with documentary evidence. It should be noted that, while this discussion was taking place, initiatives were being taken behind the scenes to correct that “ill-judged move by the editor,” as Skardžius had demanded in the issue of Tarybų Lietuvos published on October 6, 1940 (Skardžius 1999: 666). It is noteworthy that draft documents dated October 8 were drawn up to dismiss Balčikonis from his position as editor of the comprehensive dictionary and appoint Skardžius as its responsible editor. 16 To be fair, it must be said that Skardžius’s claim that Balčikonis had been dismissed from the university was not entirely baseless; perhaps, however, he had confused or forgotten some details. Under the statute of Vytautas Magnus University approved in 1930, the entire university administration and academic staff were dismissed from their positions as of September 1, 1930. Many lecturers were immediately appointed to the same or similar positions, including Balčikonis. However, in the reorganization of the Faculty of Theology and Philosophy under the amendments to the statute of August 14, 1931, five professors and four associate professors of the Faculty of Theology and Philosophy were dismissed, including Balčikonis—that is, at a time when he had already been serving for more than six months as editor of the Lietuvių kalbos žodyno. Straipsniai / Articles 113 ALDONAS PUPKIS FIG. 1. Facsimiles of draft letters from the director of the Institute of Lithuanian Studies to the People’s Commissar for Education 114 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Pranas Skardžius ir didysis Lietuvių kalbos žodynas Those letters, addressed to the People’s Commissar for Education, have been preserved in Balčikonis’s home archive17 (see Fig. 1). The first is a handwritten request from the director of the Institute of Lithuanian Studies, dated October 8, 1940, to dismiss Balčikonis from his position as editor of the Lietuvių kalbos žodynas as of October 15, 1940. A typed letter with the same content, without any formal details (it bears only the seal of the Institute of Lithuanian Studies) or signature, is also in the file of outgoing letters from the Institute of the Lithuanian Language held in the Academy of Sciences archive (LMAA f. 2, ap. 1, b. 24, l. 339). The second letter requests the appointment of a commission for the editorial board of the Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, comprising Skardžius, Salys, Balčikonis, Jonikas, and Žiugžda, and the appointment of Skardžius as commission chair and responsible editor. This letter, typed and signed by the institute director Krėvė-Mickevičius18, is also in the aforementioned Academy of Sciences archive (ibid., 341) (see Fig. 2). The following resolution was probably written by the hand of Simas Sužiedėlis, then scientific secretary of the Institute of Lithuanian Studies: “The Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars has been asked to appoint Skardžius as chair of the commission. 1940.X.23.” The third letter (a draft)—a document project written in the same hand—is People’s Commissar for Education Antanas Venclova’s request No. 30197 of October 14, 1940, to the Chairman of the Council of Commissars of the Lithuanian SSR, asking that, as of October 15 of that year, Balčikonis be dismissed from his position as editor of the Lietuvių kalbos žodynas at the Institute of Lithuanian Studies and that Associate Professor Pranas Skardžius be appointed chair of the commission being formed as of October 15 (see Fig. 3). A transcribed version of this order has not been found in the archives. It should be noted that the handwritten text of the order has two annotations in the same hand: “Order [...] 1940” and “Order [...] 1941.” Perhaps they indicate that, having failed to sign an order with the same content in 1940, they tried to do so again in 1941? That this was not an entirely secret coup is indicated by a petition from the staff of the Lietuvių kalbos žodyno redakcijos to the People’s Commissar for Education (LKI RF LKŽ f. 5–17, l. 47). It states that the editor of the Lietuvių kalbos žodyno, Balčikonis, was being dismissed in those days and that the editing of the dictionary was being transferred to a commission. The former editor was withdrawing from the work altogether, which would considerably delay publication of the dictionary. A third of the dictionary had already been printed in final form, so that portion would have to be destroyed altogether. Balčikonis was well acquainted with the dictionary’s materials, and justifiably 17 Whose hand wrote those letters (Figs. 1 and 3) can, for now, only be guessed. They do not appear to be the work of Salys, Mykolas Biržiška, Krėvė, or Sužiedėlis. Until a graphological examination of various texts has been carried out, it is difficult to say whether they were written by Skardžius or someone else. The overall logic of events shows that, whoever wrote them, they would not have come into being without Skardžius’s initiative. 18 The dates of these and other documents on this subject raise questions, especially Krėvė-Mickevičius’s signature. It is officially stated that Krėvė-Mickevičius served as director of the Institute of Lithuanian Studies from November 1940 to January 1941 (VLE XII 484), so in October the director should have been Biržiška. The October 1940 payroll for institute employees indicates that Krėvė was already receiving the institute director’s salary that month (LMAA f. 2, ap. 1, b. 37, l. 96). Straipsniai / Articles 115 ALDONAS PUPKIS FIG. 2. Facsimile of a letter from Vincas Krėvė-Mickevičius, director of the Institute of Lithuanian Studies, to the People’s Commissar of Education (LMAA f. 2, ap. 1, b. 24, l. 341) 116 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Pranas Skardžius ir didysis Lietuvių kalbos žodynas FIG. 3. Facsimile of a proposal submitted in the name of People’s Commissar of Education Antanas Venclova to dismiss Juozas Balčikonis Straipsniai / Articles 117 ALDONAS PUPKIS critical (checking every unclear case and setting invented facts aside). “Having declined any other duties, J. Balčikonis lives solely for the work on the dictionary” (ibid.). The letter asks whether even one member of the commission would be able to familiarize themselves with the material so quickly and edit it with such dedication. Having nothing against the commission, the editorial staff ask to be allowed to finish volume I of the dictionary. The request was drawn up on October 15, 1940, signed by N. Grigas, E. Horodničiūtė (Samaniutė), A. Liberis19, E. Mikalauskaitė, J. Mikeliūnas, J. Senkus, Z. Ūselis, and K. Vosylius, and submitted to the People’s Commissar of Education that same day. It may be that because of this request from the editorial staff, or perhaps owing to other circumstances unknown to us, Balčikonis was not dismissed from his editorial post at that time and continued to edit the dictionary. THE DICTIONARY EDITORIAL OFFICE WITHIN THE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES SYSTEM AND THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMISSION A new stage in this entire story began when the puppet government of Lithuania established the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences by decree on January 16, 1941. Several academy divisions were set up; the Humanities Division comprised the reorganized Institute of Lithuanian Studies, now renamed the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, as well as the Institutes of Lithuanian Literature, Lithuanian History, and Ethnology. Skardžius was appointed director of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. In his first interview with the press (1941, Gimtoji kalba; see Skardžius 1999: 995–996), the new director spoke about the institute’s planned work but said nothing about the dictionary. Only somewhat later did he discuss it in an article published in the journal Gimtosios kalbos (Skardžius 1999: 996–998). Work on the dictionary would not only continue without interruption but also be substantially improved and intensified. “The first volume, prepared by the editorial office to date, will soon appear as it now stands; but subsequent volumes will have to be published without the shortcomings that may have been found in the preparation of the first volume. Above all, efforts will be made to organize a certain number of responsible collectors and verifiers of dictionary material throughout the territory of the Lithuanian SSR [...] and generally to improve the dictionary’s lexicographic system as much as possible” (ibid., 998). In fact, volume I of the dictionary, edited according to Balčikonis’s principles, was printed in late spring 1941. But here it was held up by Bolshevik censorship, which found “errors” of both an antisemitic and a bourgeois-nationalist nature. It is known that because of this 19 Thus, before the war, Antanas Lyberis’s surname was written this way. 118 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Pranas Skardžius ir didysis Lietuvių kalbos žodynas Skardžius went to Kazys Preikšas20 to explain himself. The latter had “agreed not to draw any punitive conclusions,” but had demanded that the volume be edited anew (Sabaliauskas 1999: 31). It seems that for some time the Lithuanian Language Institute itself was characterized by a normal, productive atmosphere. Several committees for the Institute’s publications were formed, among them a dictionary committee to which Balčikonis, Salys, and Skardžius were appointed; reports and plans of work were drawn up for the leadership of the Academy of Sciences. For example, the 1941 annual work report of the Lithuanian Language Institute (covering the period from June 15, 1940), signed by its director Skardžius on June 14, 1941, states that “[t]he overthrow of the bourgeois government in Lithuania and Lithuania’s accession to the USSR was the greatest achievement for Lithuanian science—the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences was established” (LKI RF f. 6–2, l. 144). It goes on to note with satisfaction that 11 people now work in the editorial office of the Lietuvių kalbos žodyno, compared with 8 previously, and states that “[t]hanks to the Soviet government, the Lithuanian Language Institute, which was established, is carrying out the work of Lithuanian linguistics at a Bolshevik pace, contributing to all the scientific work and achievements of our great socialist fatherland” (ibid.). The report included reports from all the Institute’s divisions, among them a report on the work of the dictionary editorial office prepared by Balčikonis. Nevertheless, a major reorganization of staff positions was taking place at the Lithuanian Language Institute at the same time. On June 16, 1941, the Institute’s director Skardžius signed a letter to the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences proposing that Balčikonis be dismissed from his position as editor of the Lietuvių kalbos žodyno and appointed assistant editor of the LKŽ (LMAA f. 1, ap. 9, b. 3579, l. 16). Acting on the Institute director’s proposal No. 113–115, the Academy of Sciences president Krėvė-Mickevičius signed an order on June 19 to dismiss Balčikonis from his position as dictionary editor and appoint him assistant editor, effective June 16 of that year. By the same order, Jonikas was dismissed from his position as head of the Practical Language and Terminology Subdivision and appointed editor of the Great Dictionary21 (ibid.). But the outbreak of war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union turned everything upside down. After German rule had been established, the Academy of Sciences chairman Krėvė-Mickevičius signed an order on July 26 appointing (that is, reinstating) Balčikonis as editor of the Lietuvių kalbos žodyno, and transferring Jonikas to work as secretary of the Practical Language and Terminology Subdivision (LKI RF LKŽ f. 5–18, l. 71). 20 Kazys Preikšas (1903–1961), sovietinis veikėjas, vienas iš komunistinės ideologijos diegėjų ir propag uotojų Lietuvoje. Kalbamu metu buvo LKP CK propagandos ir agitacijos skyriaus vedėjas. 21 Petras Jonikas served as dictionary editor for only one month and one week. As head of the Great Dictionary, he apparently managed to send just one letter concerning the dictionary (cf. his letter to the dictionary assistant Leonas Kuodis: LKI RF LKŽ f. 5–18, l. 71). Straipsniai / Articles 119 ALDONAS PUPKIS That seems to have brought Skardžius’s attempts to take charge of dictionary affairs to an end, but the promise to edit the dictionary through a committee and to revise its text from Volume II onward according to the principles of so-called būginė spelling had apparently not been forgotten. Nevertheless, there were no clashes for a time, all the more so because on November 11, 1941, Skardžius resigned as director of the Lithuanian Language Institute. The reasons for his departure are unknown, although it may also have been motivated by a desire to devote more attention to the publication of his completed Lietuvių kalbos žodžių darybos (the book was published with the date 1943). On December 3, 1941, the director’s duties were officially handed over to Salys. It seems that Salys was a somewhat more moderate leader: he had never publicly clashed with Balčikonis, had not become involved in the 1940 discussion between Skardžius and Balčikonis, and was more concerned with work in his own field. Nevertheless, in mid-1942, on July 31, director Salys wrote to the chairman of the Academy of Sciences, setting out his views on the establishment of a certain dictionary-preparation committee. The author of the letter argued that, because of the printing house’s slow pace, the second edition of Volume I22 would be printed slowly, creating an opportunity to supplement and correct that edition so that the changes could also be applied to the other volumes. The letter argued that this immense and highly important undertaking—the Great Lietuvių kalbos žodynas—“is beyond the capacity of a single chief editor” (LMAA f. 1, ap. 1, b. 68, l. 75), and that a committee should therefore be formed. “The task of this committee would be to decide general principles of dictionary structure, matters of spelling, and, in general, all questions raised by the editorial office itself and by individual members of this committee. [...] This committee would not be an executive editorial body, but a scholarly advisory one, whose decisions would be binding on the dictionary editorial office. The position of the chief executive editor would in no way be changed” (ibid.). This working group, named the Scholarly Advisory Committee, was quickly approved by the Academy of Sciences leadership following a proposal by the Institute director, and Salys was elected chair at its first meeting, held on September 28. Its other members were Skardžius, Balčikonis, Jonikas, and Vilnius University professor Otrembskis (Otrębski). According to Antanas Lyberis, Balčikonis expected genuinely scholarly assistance from the committee (Lyberis 2009: 272), but when the spelling question was raised again at a meeting, he firmly opposed any spelling reform. At the third meeting, on October 14, he expressed a dissenting opinion on spelling and did not attend those consultations again. It should be noted that during its entire period of work, the Scholarly Advisory Committee considered a considerable number of important questions concerning the dictionary’s structure over the course of 44 meetings (the last was held on July 2, 1943). Nevertheless, structural matters concerning the dictionary text were not reviewed- 22 After Volume I of the dictionary was published in 1941, its print run (3,000 copies) quickly sold out, and the leadership of the Lithuanian Language Institute, with the approval of the Academy of Sciences, decided to prepare a second edition of that volume. The text was already being revised, part of it had been corrected, and printing work was under way. It was hoped that the volume would be published in the autumn of 1942, but owing to the difficult wartime conditions, work proceeded slowly until it was finally halted altogether. 120 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Pranas Skardžius ir didysis Lietuvių kalbos žodynas — only particular cases were defined or clarified. For example, at the first meeting, “with regard to the relationship between the structure of Volume I and subsequent volumes, it was decided: 1. where possible, word meanings are to be classified on a historical basis; 2. hybrids are to be marked in cases where a Lithuanian word has a pejorative [? – A. P.] suffix or prefix; 3. only direct borrowings, but not their derivatives (with Lithuanian word-formational elements), are to be regarded as foreign words; 4. the next meetings of the Commission are to be devoted to establishing the spelling used in the dictionary (on the basis of the project drawn up by the Lithuanian Language Institute); 5. crosses are to mark unused loanwords and hybrids, as well as archaisms; 6. explanations of etymons are not to be included” (LMAA f. 1, ap. 1, b. 68, l. 85). Without going into an analysis of this resolution, it should be said that it essentially confirmed Balčikonis’s established conception of the dictionary and the principles for preparing Volume I, and that no major restructuring was envisaged. It is particularly important to emphasize that the resolution incorporated the fundamental provisions of the dictionary’s structure: omitting explanations of word origins and classifying word meanings on a historical basis. Some other principles for Volume I of the dictionary were established at subsequent meetings; for example, sentences from old writings (including those of Kleinas) were to be presented in modern spelling. At the meetings, these matters were discussed mainly on the basis of the written text of Volume II (the columns and proofs), whereas the cases in Volume I (the shortcomings, as the minutes put it), 29 in all, were considered at just one meeting. Thus, Skardžius’s efforts to “improve” and “make more scholarly” the dictionary were not put into practice, despite his own efforts over many years to declare them. During the German occupation, he admitted to Grigas: “I saw for myself that my theory is difficult to reconcile with practice in the dictionary” (Dėk žodį prie žodžio 2006: 194). It is doubtful whether even Skardžius himself had fully grasped what that theory was. Much later, on November 27, 1970, he wrote to Zigmas Zinkevičius: “Today I received Volume VIII of the LKŽ, which I have only had time to skim superficially, but even from that I can already see what a great and indescribably valuable treasure trove of the Lithuanian language it is: no researcher of Lithuanian or, more generally, Baltic languages can do without it. This, of course, is in reality only an explanatory dictionary of the Lithuanian language, not a thesaurus linguae lituanicae, which will still have to be prepared in time by certain specialists—not only linguists, but philologists as well. The history of the Lithuanian language will be most closely connected with that dictionary” (quoted in Rosinas 2011: 144). CONSEQUENCES OF DISAGREEMENTS OVER SPELLING After Balčikonis refused to consider changes to spelling and stopped attending the commission’s meetings, a spelling commission was formed at the Lithuanian Language Institute by order of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences (comprising the same members as the previous commission, except for Balčikonis). It acted swiftly: on November 11, 1942, it approved the spelling principles already prepared by the Lithuanian Language Straipsniai / Articles 121 ALDONAS PUPKIS Institute. They were considered and approved by a plenary meeting of the Academy of Sciences’ Division of the Humanities, Social Sciences and Economics, and then, on November 19, they were also signed by Pranas Germantas, the General Councillor for Education23. From the very beginning of the work of the Scientific Auxiliary Commission, a veritable war broke out between the commission—above all, Skardžius and Salys—and the editor, Balčikonis24. Having for some time been almost in the background, Skardžius once again sought to assert himself in meetings and on other occasions with his demands (there were some extremely sharp clashes and exchanges of insults), and tried to force Balčikonis to comply through administrative measures. The institute’s director, Salys, took over the helm of the “war” by virtue of his position, and the commission had to pursue its stated goal for a long time and with patience in order to implement the new spelling in the practice of compiling the great dictionary25. Without going into the course of that entire struggle, it should be said that the commission—or, more precisely, Skardžius, supported by Salys26—largely achieved its aims: the new spelling was officially approved. However, neither the Education Directorate nor the leadership of the Academy of Sciences approved the requirement that the dictionary text be revised in accordance with it. Only the leadership of the Lithuanian Language Institute could have made such a demand. For several months, utter confusion prevailed at the Lithuanian Language Institute. From the outset, even before the spelling principles had been approved, the dictionary staff were required to follow the new spelling, but the employees did not dare openly oppose the editor. At the director’s instruction, work at the printing house was suspended amid these disputes until the spelling issue was resolved. And when the General Councillor for Education finally approved the spelling principles, Balčikonis submitted his letter of resignation on November 24. 23 Pranas Germantas (until 1940, Meškauskas) (1903–1945), public figure, linguist, and doctor of science. He graduated from the universities of Lithuania and Leipzig, worked in the press division of the Lithuanian State Security Department, and, after the Germans arrived, became the General Councillor for Education (the Ministry). For his efforts to protect Lithuanians from German schemes to recruit young people into Nazi activity, and for other anti-Nazi actions, he was imprisoned in the Stutthof concentration camp in 1943, where he died. Among other works, he also wrote a considerable number dealing with language practice. 24 In my diary, under September 19, 1980, I recorded my impressions of the meeting of the editorial commission for Volume II of Balčikonis’s Collected Writings, at which it was discussed: “When [the claims in Balčikonis’s letter to Alfred Sen about editing the dictionary] were being discussed, Lyberis did not object, but was seething inside. When we went out, he poured all his bile out to me. He had been close to Balčikonis and was convinced that Skardžius and Salys had wanted to appropriate Balčikonis’s work, to add something or other of their own (specifically, at least the spelling), and thus become numbered among the dictionary’s authors. Skardžius, he said, had been a particularly great schemer.” 25 This is one of the more interesting, but also darkest, pages in the history of compiling the Lithuanian Language Dictionary, but this is a separate, specialized subject to be examined on another occasion. 26 Jonikas was more or less a figurehead on the commission, while Jan Otrębski did not get involved in the spelling disputes; he tried more to reconcile the two sides than to clearly support either one. Incidentally, Balčikonis particularly valued Otrębski’s opinion and sometimes relied on it even uncritically. 122 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Pranas Skardžius ir didysis Lietuvių kalbos žodynas A marathon of correspondence began among Director Salys, editor Balčikonis, and the leadership of the Academy of Sciences and the Education Directorate. Here, without recounting the arguments of both sides, one might cite only Skardžius’s separately expressed opinion, conveyed to the Academy’s chairman in a letter dated December 7, 1942. It stated that even after the spelling principles had been approved, there were people27 who would want to change something else. The purported justification was that Balčikonis was the executor of Jablonskis’s will and therefore should be allowed to continue using in the dictionary the spelling he had already begun using there. Skardžius writes in response that the Lietuvių kalbos žodynas was not Būga’s but Jablonskis’s will, and that Būga had not used Jablonskis’s spelling in his dictionary. “The current spelling used in J. Balčikonis’s Lithuanian-language dictionary is in fact not Jablonskian, but Balčikonian” (LMAA f. 1, ap. 1, b. 68, l. 106). But spelling was not everything. Balčikonis’s conduct and remarks apparently showed that he wanted nothing to do with the commission and had been opposed to it from the outset. In fact, the commission, which worked only briefly, “has found so many things that need correcting that any objective person can see it” (ibid., 107). Thus, Skardžius concludes, the great Lietuvių kalbos žodynas “necessarily must and can only be published using the newly approved spelling” (ibid., 108), while everything else should remain as it was. But if they could not reach an agreement, “then others must immediately and resolutely take up the work and continue it” (ibid.). At the end, Skardžius states that if outsiders who were not specialists were to take charge of everything, he himself could not contribute to the Lietuvių kalbos žodynas and “would thereby feel released from any ties with the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences” (ibid.) (see Fig. 4). Despite Skardžius’s ultimatum, Balčikonis was not dismissed from his post as dictionary editor but was granted leave retroactively “to restore his health” (from December 1, 1942, to January 1, 1943). And although many efforts were later made to ease the conflict somewhat, Balčikonis did not return to the editorial office. This overview presented here, without knowledge of all or at least the most important arguments made by Balčikonis, may be judged one-sided and biased. The editor’s arguments are set out best in articles published during the war, so at least a few explanatory words should be said about some of his claims. On December 31, 1942, an article by Balčikonis, “Patched Spelling,” was published in Panevėžio apygardos balsas (Balčikonis 1978: 183–187). The author writes that it is supposedly important to know why the editor did not want to use the principles of the new spelling. He recalls that from the very beginning of its work the editorial office had tried to conform to the official spelling, and explains why the spelling of Visuomenės įnamiai had been chosen. Re- 27 It was not possible to establish what people these were or where they were, but later, after Balčikonis’s article appeared in Panevėžio apygardos balsas (Balčikonis 1978: 183–187), articles were published in the press (letters of similar content were also sent to the institute) opposing the spelling reform and supporting Balčikonis’s position (see Raila 1943, Kronika 1943). Straipsniai / Articles 123 ALDONAS PUPKIS FIG. 4. Facsimile of a fragment of Pranas Skardžius’s letter to the chairman of the Academy of Sciences, dated December 7, 1942 (LMAA f. 1, ap. 1, b. 68, l. 108) 124 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Pranas Skardžius ir didysis Lietuvių kalbos žodynas The editor did not want two spellings to appear in a volume whose editing had already begun, nor did he want nearly the entire volume reworked because of spelling. “On the other hand,” the author writes, “as long as our other publications do not use the new spelling and there is no knowing whether they will want to use it—especially when, after the war, the whole nation gathers together and begins working calmly on cultural matters—what is the point of being the first to use it in a dictionary? Is spelling what a dictionary is essentially about?” (ibid., 185). Next, the author shows that the spelling principles inconsistently mix etymological and phonetic spelling: in some cases they prescribe spelling by origin, in others by sound (baigštus, supposedly because baigus, baiginti, although these words are not encountered in contemporary writing or heard in everyday speech, but žymus, although etymologically it should be žimus). “Spelling does not pursue more remote etymologies; its purpose is not to teach etymology” (ibid.). The greatest scandal arose over the writing of the letter j, because the authors had again forgotten the etymological spelling principle they themselves had set out (writing bjaurus, pjauti and kiaulė, šiaudas, which, as Jablonskis had rightly shown, “is merely a mixture of two spelling systems” (ibid., 186)). “If the ‘spelling principles’ are not a successful attempt to provide a more suitable spelling, what is the way forward?” (ibid.). The solution, he argues, is Jablonskis’s spelling, based on the etymological principle. In another article, written in 1944, now in a discussion with Salys (Balčikonis 1978: 187–188), it is emphasized that the editor had refused to accept the spelling proposed by the commission because the editorial office would have had to review the text, the print shop to reset it, the editorial office to proofread it, and so on. “After all, that doesn’t make a dictionary any more substantial! A dictionary needs words, not alterations to letters! [...] But the commission’s obstinacy was greater than those arguments” (ibid., 187). In the editor’s opinion, volume II of the dictionary should have appeared in the spring of 1943, or by summer at the latest. “I was of the opinion that changing the spelling during wartime was, in general, senseless. I said in many places that during wartime it would almost be preferable to publish the dictionary even with proofreading errors; those could be corrected later, whereas if the slips with the words were lost, no amount of money could bring them back. But the scholarly institutions took a different path” (ibid., 188). GENERAL REMARKS 1. The article analyzes the circumstances surrounding the appointment of the editor of the great Lietuvių kalbos žodyno, whose preparation was resumed at the end of 1930, and revises the long-standing view that linguist Balčikonis was the sole candidate for the position of dictionary editor. According to newly discovered archival documents, the first candidate was linguist Skardžius, who had just completed his studies abroad. It may be assumed that he was the one who initiated the revival of the dictionary editorial office, took care of finances, collaborators, and other dictionary matters, and had good grounds to expect to be appointed dictionary editor. The reason why Skardžius was not appointed editor of the great dictionary- Straipsniai / Articles 125 ALDONAS PUPKIS editor may have been the long-standing opposition between Smetona’s regime, especially President Smetona, and Krėvė-Mickevičius, dean of the Faculty of Humanities at Vytautas Magnus University, whose protégé Skardžius was. Thus, Skardžius may have become a victim of the ambitions or interests of two institutions. 2. Many facts, as well as the resentment that later surfaced in various forms over Balčikonis’s appointment as editor, point to Skardžius’s desire and efforts to become editor of the great dictionary. Relations with Balčikonis grew increasingly chilly, until they eventually turned into open warfare, expressed in actions that were not always aboveboard and aimed at removing Balčikonis from his editorial post and taking his place. Skardžius’s actions may have been motivated above all by an exaggerated separation of linguistic scholarship from language practice. Not considering even Jablonskis a scholar, he regarded Balčikonis all the more as merely an ordinary language practitioner, who, he claimed, “was not even broadly interested in matters of linguistics.” Skardžius viewed dictionary preparation as an exclusively pure scholarly undertaking and publicly advocated improving its preparation on scientific principles. On the other hand, Skardžius was a passionate devotee of linguistic scholarship, and his efforts to take part in the preparation of a highly promising dictionary may also be explained by a scholar’s excessive ambition. 3. In 1937, Skardžius was perhaps the first to launch a barrage of criticism in the press concerning the quality of the dictionary’s card index and the planning of the editorial office’s work. But only after the Institute of Lithuanian Studies was established in 1939 could he voice his criticism directly to the dictionary’s compilers and, when circumstances allowed, try to take the preparation of the dictionary into his own hands. One of the most unsavory periods in the dictionary’s preparation was the summer and second half of 1940, when, only a month and a half after the occupation began, Skardžius started a discussion with editor Balčikonis, in which he attacked the former regime and Balčikonis over the dictionary. At that time, not without Skardžius’s initiative, an attempt was made to appoint Skardžius editor in Balčikonis’s place by administrative means. Skardžius took a no more honorable position in 1942, when the so-called Scientific Advisory Commission was formed and tasked with resolving general principles of dictionary compilation, spelling matters, and so on. The discussion between Skardžius, Salys, and Balčikonis quickly turned from general dictionary matters into a battle of ambitions over several spelling cases, especially the writing of j in the roots of several words. 4. The criticism of the dictionary and Balčikonis published by Skardžius was not always well considered, nor was it always supported by facts and their chronology. Its claims were sometimes quite insulting and were often based not on arguments but on emotions. Many more well-argued proposals for correcting the dictionary were formulated at meetings of the Scientific Advisory Commission. Some were put to use in subsequent dictionary work by Balčikonis himself and by later editors. It should be emphasized that neither Skardžius nor the commission put forward any radical, structural plans for reorganizing the dictionary; the commission merely consolidated the most important principles for compiling Balčikonis’s dictionary- 126 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LVII Pranas Skardžius ir didysis Lietuvių kalbos žodynas compilation. Thus, all of Skardžius’s efforts to “improve the dictionary” amounted to rhetoric, as the linguist himself later acknowledged. His imagined theory of lexicography was never set out or described in detail anywhere, and remained vague and unclear. General remarks about the dictionary’s “historical character” and “scholarly character” did not reveal the essence of Skardžius’s theory, and we can only speculate about what the great Lietuvių kalbos žodynas would have been like if all the work on its preparation had been directed not by Balčikonis but by another prominent linguist of the time, Skardžius. LITERATŪRA Antanaitis J. 1933: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Netrukus sulauksime pirmojo lietuvių kalbos žodyno tomo. – Naujoji romuva 125, 503–504. Balčikonis Juozas 1934: Keletas atsiminimų apie Antaną Smetoną. – Vairas 8–9, 109–113. Balčikonis Juozas 1978: Rinktiniai raštai 1, sud. Aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: Mokslas. CVA – Lietuvos centrinis valstybės archyvas. Dėk žodį prie žodžio 2006: Dėk žodį prie žodžio – turėsi žodyną: Atsiminimai apie kalbininką Juozą Balčikonį, sud. Birutė Goberienė ir Aldonas Pupkis. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Kronika 1943: Varpai. Šiauliai, 322. Lyberis Antanas 2009: Leksikografijos teorija ir praktika, sud. Zita Šimėnaitė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. LE – Lietuvių enciklopedija 1–37. Bostonas: Lietuvių enciklopedijos leidykla, 1953–1985. LK – Literatūra ir kalba 1–22. Vilnius: Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla, 1956–1995. LKI RF – Lietuvių kalbos instituto Rankraščių fondas. LMMA – Lietuvos mokslų akademijos archyvas. NMMB RS – Nacionalinės Martyno Mažvydo bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius. Piročkinas Arnoldas 2010: Dėl kurių ne kurių samprotavimų apie Jono Jablonskio kalbinę veiklą. – Mokslo Lietuva, spalio 7 d. Pupkis Aldonas 2010: Lietuvių kalbos normintojai ir puoselėtojai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras. Raila Bronys 1943: Ir vėl nauja rašyba. – Tėviškė, sausio 8 d. Rosinas Albertas 2001: Pranas Skardžius: Gyvenimas ir darbai. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Straipsniai / Articles 127 ALDONAS PUPKIS Sabaliauskas Algirdas 1999: Lietuvių kalbotyra ir kalbininkai 1940–1945 metais. – Vilniaus kultūrinis gyvenimas 1940–1945. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas. Salys Antanas 1944: Paaiškinimas Lietuvių kalbos žodyno reikalu. – Ateitis, balandžio 11 d. Salys Antanas 1979: Raštai 1: Bendrinė kalba, red. Petras Jonikas. Roma: Lietuvių Katalikų Mokslo Akademija. Salys Antanas 1985: Raštai 3: Įvairūs straipsniai, red. Petras Jonikas. Roma: Lietuvių Katalikų Mokslo Akademija. Skardžius Pranas 1943: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Skardžius Pranas 1997: Rinktiniai raštai 2: Bendrinės kalbos dalykai, sud. Albertas Rosinas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Skardžius Pranas 1999: Rinktiniai raštai 5: Akcentologija. Bendrinės kalbos kultūra. Publicistika, sud. Albertas Rosinas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Ul vydas Kazys 1987: J. Balčikonio mokslinė, literatūrinė ir pedagoginė veikla. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 26, 4–12. Vaižgantas 1998: Laiškai Klimams, par. Petras Klimas jn. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas. Valys Ant. 1930: Dėl lietuvių kalbos žodyno. – Lietuvos žinios, lapkričio 27 d. Vitkauskas Vytautas 1986: Juozas Balčikonis (100-ąsias gimimo metines minint). – Ženklas ir prasmė. Vilnius: Mokslas. VLE – Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 1–22. Vilnius: MELC, 2001–2012. Pranas Skardžius and the grand Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language SUMMARY The article addresses the relationship of the well-known Lithuanian linguist Pranas Skardžius with the compilation of the grand Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language and the discussions with its editor Juozas Balčikonis. It corrects the idea expressed in the history of Lithuanian linguistics to this day that in 1930, when the work of compilation of the dictionary of Kazimieras Būga was resumed, Balčikonis was the only candidate for the editor’s position. The data from the new archival documents show that a young linguist Pranas Skardžius, who had just 128 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXVII Pranas Skardžius ir didysis Lietuvių kalbos žodynas made his return from the studies in Germany, was the first candidate. New sources lead to a conclusion that it was most likely him who initiated the revival of the dictionary’s compilation and took care of the staff and finances. His non-appointment as the editor could have been determined by the conflict of interests and ambitions of the government of that time and the dean of the faculty of Vytautas Magnus University Vincas Krėvė-Mickevičius. Even if he was not elected the editor of the dictionary, Skardžius always showed his interest in the work of compilation of the dictionary and contributed to the determination of the type of the dictionary and the principles of its compilation along with Salys, even though the opinions of the editor and the young linguists did not always coincide. Whenever possible, he did not hesitate to criticise Balčikonis in the press and often brought up the editor’s incompetence in directing the work of such significance. His continuous requests focused on the improvement of the compilation of the dictionary on scientific grounds and its publishing only after making the necessary spelling corrections. Such requests gradually evolved into a one-sided requirement to introduce the spelling promoted by him and turned into an ill-favoured war of personal whims and ambitions. This war witnessed Skardžius’ attempts to remove Balčikonis from the office of the editor of the grand dictionary by administrative means and to take up his position. Įteikta 2012 m. gegužės 18 d. ALDONAS PUPKIS Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, Vilnius LT-10308, Lietuva [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 129