Monografija apie metskaitlių leidėją

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXXI (1994) KALBOS NORMALIZACIJOS KLAUSIMAI REVIEWS, NOTES, CRITIQUES, BIBLIOGRAPHY A Monograph on the Publisher of the Metskaitlis Petkevičiūtė D. Laurynas Ivinskis. V.: Mokslas, 1988. 247 p. In 1990, 180 years had passed since the birth of L. Ivinskis. Lithuanian encyclopedias describe L. Ivinskis as a public educator and man of letters. Yet in the mind of an ordinary Lithuanian intellectual, the image of this noble man is probably associated first and foremost with the notions of “calendar publisher” and “teacher.” And also with the image of a kind-hearted, enlightened, solitary man. J. Basanavičius, J. Šliūpas, Vaižgantas, V. Mykolaitis-Putinas, and others were interested in L. Ivinskis’s personality and work. J. Kruopas, J. Palionis, V. Vitkauskas, and other linguists wrote about his contributions to our standard language. D. Petkevičiūtė’s monograph, which brings together research on all of L. Ivinskis’s writings, greatly highlights and systematizes facts about his biography and relationships with his contemporaries, and assesses the contributions of this renowned educator and man of letters to our culture. The monograph’s author is right to observe that “L. Ivinskis’s calendars are a unique publication in the entire history of Lithuanian literature.” It is said that some bend the future, while others are overtaken by the past. L. Ivinskis was an enlightened and progressive man. His talent as a pragmatic scholar was more pronounced than his talent as a creator. L. Ivinskis was esteemed by prominent scholars of his time: A. Bilenšteinas, A. Flamincynas, F. Kuršaitis, M. Voroninas, and others. D. Petkevičiūtė emphasizes that L. Ivinskis “was the first of Lithuania’s educators to raise the perennial and pressing issue of nature conservation.” Moreover, he was the first popularizer of science and one of the first terminologists. This monograph is valuable in many respects. First and foremost, it should be noted that it—especially the section devoted to the biography—is based on abundant archival material, thorough study of the sources, and their sound synthesis. D. Petkevičiūtė views L. Ivinskis’s legacy chiefly through the eyes of a historian, literary scholar, and linguist. In our opinion, her perspective as a historian is perhaps the most insightful. The monograph’s author has effectively reconstructed the setting of the Kolainiai school, where L. Ivinskis studied; described in detail his teaching work at the Rietavas parish and agronomy schools, the Joniškėlis parish school, and in Kaunas; and recounted his final days in Milvydai. Newly identified literary contributors to the calendars are significant for literary history: Mikalojus Gadliauskas (1818—1890), Jokūbas Kurmavičius (1794—1858), Karolis Brunas Rimavičius (1808—1874), Motiejus Žūtautas (1828—1880), and others. The monograph also discusses in detail L. Ivinskis’s own literary legacy. Traditionally, he is credited with the short story “Apženėjimas,” the tales “A matinininkas ir čebatorius,” “Turtingas ir menkas kaimynas,” “Susimokymas,” and “Pasigodėjimas,” as well as several brief sketches. L. Ivinskis’s poetic legacy is also modest: 181 two fables, two verse tales, and several poems. Discussing L. Ivinskis’s works and translations, D. Petkevičiūtė rightly emphasizes that his greatest contribution to literature lies in the fact that his calendars were the first to publish S. Valūnas’s poems “Rašančiam lietuvišką žodinį” and “Birutė,” A. Baranauskas’s “Anykščių šilelis,” K. Praniauskaitė’s translation “Žalčio motė,” D. Poška’s “Mano darželis” and “Gromata pas Tadeušą Čackį,” J. Pabrėža’s “Artojas,” and others. D. Petkevičiūtė does not examine L. Ivinskis’s lexicographical or terminological work. Other linguistic matters, especially terminology, are explained somewhat superficially and not entirely accurately in places. For example, page 141 states: “The names of the zodiac constellations have been most successful in the calendars. Even now, more than 100 years later, the zodiac constellations continue to be called by the names translated in L. Ivinskis’s calendars: Avinas, Jautis, Dvynėj, Wiežis, Lewas, Pana, Swarstikles, Kurklis, Strielczius, Ožis, Wandu, Žuvis.” In fact, the names of the zodiac constellations are not terms translated for L. Ivinskis’s calendars. D. Poška (and, even earlier, M. Sarbievijus) maintained that Lithuanians knew the zodiac constellations and provided their Lithuanian names¹: “First—Avins, second—Bulius, third called Dvynaičiai, fourth—Vėžys, fifth Levas, sixth—Panaitė, seventh—Svąras, eighth—Parplys Kirminėlis, ninth—Šaudytójas, tenth—Ožragėlis, eleventh—Vandeninks sem ūkanų naudą, twelfth—Žuvis dievų su tinklu negaudo”². The constellation names in calendars of that period varied somewhat. For example, the following names were also used in the “Aušra” calendar: Tekis (Avinas), Jautis, Dvinučiai, Vėžis, Liutas, Pana, Swarstiklė, Kurklis, Strėlczis, Ožis, Vandensvaras, Žuvis³. L. Ivinskis also coined new terms. This is evidenced by the terminology of plant taxonomy he used⁴, his literary translations, and his popular science articles. However, to identify a neologism, it must be demonstrated that it is not a word from popular (spoken) language and that earlier authors did not use it. D. Petkevičiūtė is not precise in this respect. For example, discussing L. Ivinskis’s translation of J. Krasicki’s short story “Koduras” (p. 164), she writes that L. Ivinskis “used his own neologisms in the translation, for example, draugininkai, užmusziejas, klastininkai.” In fact, the word draugininkas is not a neologism coined by L. Ivinskis: K. Sirvydas used it in the sense of “friend, companion”; it was also used in the book “Summa Aba Trumpas iszguldimas Ewangeliv… Kiedaynise… 1653,” while M. Mažvydas and “Margarita Theologica” used it in the sense of “partner, associate.” The same can be said of the word klastininkas. It was used in the sense of “deceiver, fraudster” by L. Ivinskis’s contemporary Antanas Ta- 1 Gaivenis K. Žvaigždynų pavadinimai // Kalbos kultūra. 1990. Sąs. 59. P. 51. 2 Poška D. Raštai. V., 1959. P. 89. 3 Kalonaitis R. Saulė eina žvėrių ratu. V. 1976. P. 21. 4 Jankevičius K., Jankevičienė R. Kai kurie nauji duomenys apie L. Ivinskio darbus lietuviškos botaninės terminijos srityse // Botanikos klausimai. 1962. T. 2. 182 tarė (1805—1889). This fact alone cannot prove that the word klastininkas is a neologism coined by L. Ivinskis. The term striekis (p. 229) is not a neologism either. It is a Germanism. The monograph rightly reproaches L. Ivinskis for having, in translating Robinson Crusoe, “formed some word forms unsuccessfully, e.g.: ispanczikas, brazilczikai” (p. 229). Here the linguist cannot help noticing the concept of “word form,” since it is used to mean not a word form but a lexeme. In presenting the Latin botanical terms used by L. Ivinskis, proofreading errors have occasionally crept in, e.g.: “Wilkuoge juodoje. Actaca (= Actaea — KG) spicata” (p. 221), “Kartinis musmiris. Agraricus (= Agaricus — KG) muscarius” (p. 221); “Skujej, lapaj eglu, puszun ir kadagiun. Folija (= Folia — KG) ociculares (= acicularis — KG)” (p. 221), and so on. If these are L. Ivinskis’s errors, they should have been discussed in footnotes. The author’s own terminology is also not always precise, e.g.: “In the translation L. Ivinskis used the prefix nu incorrectly: in compound words, instead of it he wrote the hyperformalism nuo” (p. 223). Words formed with prefixes cannot be called either compounds or compound words. Elsewhere it is written: “The dialect confirms that the sound n has been preserved in nasal forms […]” (p. 222). There is no concept of a “nasal form” in linguistics. All these are various minor points, small oversights. However, since the monograph contains not just one or two such minor points, but a whole handful, one inevitably begins to doubt the professionalism of the linguistic analysis of L. Ivinskis’s texts. A few minor criticisms can also be made of the monograph’s contents. For example, its first chapter is entitled “Life’s Path.” But surely a teacher’s work, or work in Kaunas, is also part of one’s life path. The monograph includes a bibliographical index of works, articles, and news items published in L. Ivinskis’s calendars, but we miss the index of names and list of illustrations usually included in monographs of this kind. In pointing out the minor shortcomings of the monograph under review, we do not mean to suggest that one cannot see the forest for the trees. The forest is clearly visible here and delights the eye. The work carried out by D. Petkevičiūtė deserves praise. To quote the Roman playwright Publius Terentius, pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli, that is, the fate of books depends on the readers’ understanding. We believe this book will have a favorable fate, because it is a conscientiously written work of a high scholarly standard. Kazimieras Gaivenis LYGUTĖ, NOT LIGUTĖ According to Tadas Ivanauskas, an authority on Lithuanian ornithology, the lark family (Alaudidae) includes, besides the best-known field lark — dirvinio vieversio, or vyturio (Alauda arvensis) LPV 134, LP III 167 — and the urban crested lark, kuoduotojo vieversio, or sašlavukės (Galerida cristata; TLE IV crictata is a typographical error) LPV 135, LP III 173 (also called kuodys), and the very rare in our country (found mostly on the Curonian Spit) raguotojo (Latvian ausainais—ausytasis) vieversio (Eremophila alpestris) LPV 135, LP III 175; there is also a fourth species — one of dry, sandy soils (it does not favor the fertile fields of Suvalkija, Klaipėda 183