J. Miliauskas-Miglovara apie lietuvių kalbos tarmes

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXVIII (1997) Bronius PRĖSKIENIS J. MILIAUSKAS-MIGLOVARA ON LITHUANIAN DIALECTS Juozas Miliauskas-Miglovara (1845–1937) jau mokyklos suole skyrė didesnį dėmesį lietuvių kalbai negu jo amžiaus mokiniai. Besimokydamas Biržų reformatų mokykloje iš rusiškų ir lenkiškų gramatikų, galvojo: jei kada būsiąs mokytas vyras, parašysiąs lietuvišką kalbamokslį. While living in Riga, at the beginning of the 1880s, he decided to write such a work on language. At first, to be sure, in Polish. J. Miliauskas constantly emphasized the great importance of the science of language. A fervent Catholic who regarded religious worldview as the measure of human worth, he called the science of language the first science. Although “the science of spiritual human life, of faith” is “the most necessary of all,” it takes second place (VUBRS3: 46). Without the science of language, “other sciences, too, cannot properly flourish” (VUBRS1: 32). The science of language is so important because, according to J. Miliauskas, a nation’s history and customs are reflected in its language. The Lithuanian’s spiritual treasure lies first and foremost in language; the “Lithuanian himself is in language.” That is why J. Miliauskas studied it so diligently and defended and promoted it so enthusiastically. J. Miliauskas’s reflections in Lithuanian and Polish on the history, dialects, orthography, grammar, and lexicon of the Lithuanian language have mostly remained in manuscript. Among these works, held in the Manuscripts Department of Vilnius University Library, are “The Science of the Lithuanian Language,” “A Word on the Publication of a Lithuanian Grammar,” “A Word on the Clarity of the Lithuanian Language,” “Errors in the Lithuanian Language and Writing,” and others. These manuscripts, though containing numerous repetitions and similarities, amount to about 480 pages. In addition, some of his linguistic views are set out in published letters and in the booklet “The Viduklė Region.” J. Miliauskas, who had not even managed to complete four grades, was not prepared for linguistic research. Thus, “his linguistic explanations, especially his etymologies, are marked by much amateurism, unfounded speculation, and naïve reasoning. Nevertheless, his efforts to revive, enrich, and develop the literary language, and his desire to contribute to Lithuanian writing and linguistics, show that he, too, though considering himself a nobleman, /…/ strove to work for the benefit of the people and culture of his homeland” (Kruopas 1974: 140). In the 19th century, life itself made it necessary to address the problems of developing a standard language. From the late 17th century, the Samogitian dialect for a long time, one might say, became the standard written language. In the final decades of the 19th century, when Western Aukštaitians began to play an active role in cultural life and the first newspapers in that dialect appeared, it came to be regarded as the standard language. Anyone who wrote had to decide not only which dialect to write in, but also which dialect should form the basis 231 for the creation of a literary language. At that time, almost every writer, especially every poet, “was known for self-taught language studies /…/. In the absence of schools of their own to shape Lithuanian modes of thought and speech, such studies were an unavoidable prerequisite for preparing to write Lithuanian poems, and for quite a long time featured as a necessity in the biographies of Lithuanian poets /…/” (Kubilius 1982: 46). J. Miliauskas believed that at first all Lithuanians spoke alike, but later the language was corrupted by foreign influence and various dialects arose (he calls them kalbesiais). The dialects took shape during the years of serfdom (VUB RS⁵: 5). In a 1923 letter to K. Būga, J. Miliauskas compares the Lithuanian language to a tree. A tree has a trunk that sends out branches, which protect the trunk from the winds. The trunk of our language is one dialect, and its branches are the other dialects (LNB RS: 1). Having noted that the Lithuanian language abounds in dialects—approximately as many as there are people who speak Lithuanian—J. Miliauskas nevertheless distinguishes nine dialects: Viduklė, Šiauliai, Marijampolė, Tilžė, Kretinga, Telšiai, Panevėžys, Anykščiai, and Merkinė. In making this classification, he provides neither a linguistic characterization nor a geographical definition (Jonikas 1972: 321). As we know, K. Jaunius and A. Salys identified two main dialects. Present-day linguists also follow this view. In the introduction to his grammar of Lithuanian, written in Polish, J. Miliauskas notes that each dialect also has its own subdialects at its edges, but does not list them. In his view, the Viduklė dialect covers a large area of ethnographic Lithuania. This is not only the territory between the Nemunas, Dubysa, and Jūra rivers, but also the areas around Pakapė, Kruopiai, Šakyna, and Žagarė; “with minor variations it also reaches the Neris (Vilija). This shows that the dialect occupied a considerably larger area of Lithuania” (Jonikas 1938: 486). The Šiauliai, Marijampolė, Telšiai, Tilžė, and Kretinga dialects are similar to the Viduklė dialect. However, they have been more or less influenced by German and Latvian. The remaining dialects—Panevėžys, Anykščiai, and Merkinė—“having been separated from the Viduklė dialect for a number of centuries, became more Latvianized and somewhat Russified” (Jonikas 1938: 486). From his earliest publications, J. Miliauskas gave preference to the Samogitian dialect. Its rules, he argued, should be adopted for the developing standard language, since it had not yielded—or had yielded least—to the influence of foreign languages. Having expressed these views, J. Miliauskas initially proposed resolving the question through discussion. Addressing experts and enthusiasts of Lithuanian literature, he asked them to write “in a known dialect and according to their own rules,” to express their views in this regard on works written by others, and to discuss the general, specific, and dialectal features of the Lithuanian language, “so that in this way, over time, by comparing various opinions and principles, it might be possible to establish general rules best suited for universal use in literature” (Biržiška 1937: 19). An even clearer and more precise position is stated in “Writings”: “All dialects are good, and each has its own foothold. In time, the dialect that has the largest and freest body of writing will be universally accepted” (Miglovara 1884: 32). After some time, J. Miliauskas’s views on the formation of a standard language became increasingly categorical. Whereas at first he proposed deciding through discussion which dialect should be taken as the basis of the written language, later, when already 232 Almost no one doubted the suitability of the Western Aukštaitian dialect, and he became a staunch advocate of the Viduklė dialect. In letters, conversations, and writings he repeatedly said the same thing: only this dialect should be used in writing. He gave several arguments. First, learned people had long regarded the Viduklė dialect as the true Lithuanian language. Writing first appeared there. Second, later Gediminas and other rulers issued various instructions in that dialect. Third, in the first half of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Lithuanian writers recognized it as the true Lithuanian language. Fourth, L. Ivinskis published his calendars in this dialect. M. Valančius (whom J. Miliauskas always regarded as the greatest authority), well versed in the Telšiai and Raseiniai dialects, “liked to acknowledge the Viduklė dialect” (VUBRS2: 7). Finally, K. Jaunius, too, wrote something in this dialect. It is a great pity that no one wrote a grammar of the Lithuanian language in this dialect. Thus, the history of the Lithuanian nation and its language came from the Viduklė region. The Viduklė region is the heart of Lithuania, its ethnographic center. The old Viduklė dialect was not only the cradle of our earliest writing; even then it was known to be the best and most correct form of Lithuanian, the trunk of the language, distinguished by the most beautiful sound of its words. To demonstrate the superiority of the Viduklė dialect, J. Miliauskas transcribed two stanzas of “Anykščių šilelis” in it. In his view, the passage “set down in my spelling is even clearer than when he himself wrote it” (LMABRS: 4). J. Miliauskas reasoned that we should give preference to “corrupted” dialects only if “the first speech is still alive and sound, and we have no right to scorn it as a worn-out garment: for no fashion suits an old and living language” (VUBRS4: 12). Other dialects had strayed from their original form, from their trunk. The first Lithuanian writing was “twisted from the right path and turned toward the speech of the Tilžė and Marijampolė dialects” (VUBRS: 4). J. Miliauskas notes that we must all know the dialects, and that “a person writing a work (that is, a grammar – B.P.) must first learn the language thoroughly, with all its dialects /…/” (Jonikas 1938: 485). However, learning the dialects seems more necessary for general education and cultivation. As the basis of the language, we must take its trunk, that is, the Viduklė dialect. After all, “we recognize and value every tree by its trunk, not by its branches” (VUBRS4: 9). The Viduklė dialect may be supplemented with other dialects only if “something in it has worn away, while it has survived in others /…/” (Jonikas 1938: 487). The Viduklė dialect is not only the source of the other dialects; it is also best understood by speakers of all dialects. Its words are easy to render in the Latin alphabet. Examples from other languages are also cited: they have several dialects, but writing is done in only one, the dialect recognized by scholarship. While considering writing a grammar of the Lithuanian language, J. Miliauskas expressed his opinion of the grammars already written. He said that he had learned a great deal and gathered material from A. Schleicher, especially from F. Kuršaitis’s grammars. But to the author of the grammar he was writing, these seemed inadequate because they were based on the wrong dialect. He therefore decided to “write a grammar himself that would portray the Lithuanian language better” (Jonikas 1938: 483). J. Miliauskas’s attitude toward earlier grammars, as toward dialects, changed. Initially he evaluated the grammars of F. Kuršaitis and A. Schleicher relatively favorably; later 233 he regarded them, as well as J. Jablonskis’s grammar, as even harmful to the Lithuanian language, since they were based on dialects influenced by German and Polish (Kruopas 1975: 130). J. Miliauskas thought that in earlier times our written language had developed slowly but successfully. In his view, until the second half of the nineteenth century, Lithuanian writing was easy and understandable, but the situation changed during the years of the press ban. At that time, writers who had previously been active almost laid down their pens. Their places were taken by people who had acquired an evil spirit in Russian schools and had not learned to speak and write Lithuanian well. Along with the Lithuanian press in Tilžė, a new current arose in Lithuanian writing, bringing various confusions. When “Aušra” began publication, drawing on the Western Aukštaitian dialect, J. Miliauskas sent it not only writings in the Samogitian dialect but also urged it to adopt his spelling. The journal wrote to its active contributor that “our orthography (straight spelling, orthography) is the one established by Schleicher /…/” (Aušra: 120), but he continued to disregard the editorial instruction. “Aušra” continued to edit his works written in the Viduklė dialect. The author, of course, was dissatisfied with these corrections. In “Raštai,” J. Miliauskas sets out his principles of spelling. He continued to follow them later. Until the end of his life, he was dissatisfied both with scholarly research on the Lithuanian language and with its practical use. In his view, after independence was restored, the situation of the language deteriorated further. J. Miliauskas most often puts the words present-day written language in quotation marks. It is not a pure language, but a paper language, full of all kinds of confusion. J. Miliauskas tries to explain why the situation of the language had become so utterly catastrophic. The main reason, he argues, was the abandonment of the Viduklė dialect in writing and speech. “Because of the departure from Viduklė speech,” he states bluntly, without any circumlocution, in a letter to K. Būga, “unreadable errors have prevailed in writing” (LNBRS: 5). Having described at some length the poor state of the language and its causes, in his view, J. Miliauskas also points to a way out. It is very simple. There is no need to search somewhere for perfection in the Lithuanian language. It lies in the Viduklė dialect, so we must return to it as the most comprehensible and best dialect. J. Miliauskas was convinced that his own language, based on this dialect, was perfect. He therefore stubbornly adhered to his own Viduklė spelling. He was truly as stubborn as a true Samogitian. He was distressed that the booklet “Viduklės krasztas,” published at his own expense, was unsuccessful: he had carried it around to bookstores, but no one bought it. Apparently, this was because of its strange Viduklė spelling. Yet he was convinced that this was the true spelling. When giving away “Viduklės krasztas,” he would write: “I write as Lithuanian ought to be written” (LA), “According to my understanding, my spelling ought to be universally accepted” (Juškevičius 1995: 112). He also pressed his spelling on the Lithuanian language spelling reform commission. In a letter to K. Būga, he argues that “all our sciences (here he means the sciences of language – B.P.) are still speechless, so long as the Lithuanian language remains uncorrected in the science of language, on the basis of the one purest living Lithuanian speech” (LNBRS: 7). 234 At the beginning of the 19th century, S. Valiūnas warned D. Poška in a verse letter not to treat the Viduklė dialect as the standard of our language when writing a dictionary: Do not hope, /.../ That Viduklė is called by the Samogitians from the interior, And that the speech of that one region is unspoiled (Valiūnas 1976: 207). A hundred years later, J. Miliauskas might have received more than one similar letter. But he would, no doubt, have met with no response. In this respect, J. Miliauskas was convinced of his own correctness. LITERATURE AND SOURCES A u š r a – Auszra. Laikrasztis iszleidžiamas Lietuvos milėtųjų. Tilžėje, 1883, Nr. 4. B i r ž i š k a V. 1937: “Raszliavos pacztas” of 1883. – Mūsų senovė 2, No. 1(6), Kaunas. J o n i k a s P. 1938: Juozo Miliauskio gramatikos prakalba. – Mūsų senovė 2. Nr. 3(8), Kaunas. J o n i k a s P. 1972: Lietuvių bendrinės rašomosios kalbos kūrimasis antroje XIX a. pusėje, Čikaga: Ped. Lituanistikos institutas. J u š k e v i č i u s E. 1995: Aušrininkų palikimas Kauno technologijos universiteto bibliotekoje. – Knygotyra 22(29), Kaunas. K r u o p a s J. 1974: J. Miliauskio (Miglovaros) leksikografiniai darbai. – Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai. A serija 3 (48). K r u o p a s J. 1975: J. Miliauskio (Miglovaros) leksikografiniai darbai. – Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai. A serija 1 (50). K u b i l i u s V. 1982: Lithuanian Lyric Poetry of the 20th Century, Vilnius: Vaga. LA – Lietuvos aidas, March 18, 1933. LMABRS – Manuscripts Department of the Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, F 267 – 694. LNBRS – Manuscripts Department of the Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania, KB 22–104. M i g l o v a r a J. 1884: Rasztai, Įvairės eilas. Pirmas pluukštas, Tilžiej. V a l i ū n a s S. 1976: Ant marių krašto, Vilnius: Vaga. VUBRS – Manuscripts Department of the Vilnius University Library, F D 902. VUBRS₁ – Manuscripts Department of the Vilnius University Library, F D904. VUBRS₂ – Manuscripts Department of the Vilnius University Library, F 1 F192. VUBRS₃ – Manuscripts Department of the Vilnius University Library, F1 D1074 (Įvairės dogmas). VUBRS₄ – Manuscripts Department of the Vilnius University Library, F1 D1074 (Errors in the Lithuanian Language and Writing). VUBRS₅ – Manuscripts Department of the Vilnius University Library, F1 D1074 (All Our Dialects). J. MILIAUSKAS-MIGLOVARA ON LITHUANIAN DIALECTS Summary J. Miliauskas’ considerations about the Lithuanian dialects are mainly found in his manuscripts. He distinguishes nine Lithuanian dialects: Viduklė, Šiauliai, Marijampolė, Tilžė, Kretinga, Telšiai, Panevėžys, Anykščiai, and Merkinė, but he neither gives their linguistic characteristics nor defines their geographical boundaries. J. Miliauskas indicates that each of these dialects is divided into subdialects, but he does not enumerate them. When the problem of choosing one 235 dialect as the basis of the Lithuanian written language arose the Vakarų aukštaičių dialect was undoubtedly considered as the most suitable for that purpose. But contrary to this statement J. Miliauskas insisted that only Viduklės dialect should be used in writing and grounded his arguments on facts. J. Miliauskas was of the opinion that during the years of Lithuania’s independence the state of the Lithuanian language became even worse and the main reason for this was the rejection of the Viduklės dialect both in the scientific research and practical usage. The only way out of such an abnormal situation was the returning to the Viduklės dialect in which, in his opinion our first writings were being written. 236