M. Akelaitis leksikografas

IŠ LIETUVIŲ LEKSIKOLOGIJOS IR LEKSIKOGRAFIJOS LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA M. AKELAITIS AS A LEXICOGRAPHER J. KRUOPAS M. Akelaitis (1829–1887), a figure in the press, culture, and public life, a man of letters and historian, was deeply interested in the Lithuanian language and intended to write three Lithuanian dictionaries (one comparative and two bilingual) and a grammar. Here we wish to survey his lexicographic activity, insofar as this is possible on the basis of M. Akelaitis’s manuscripts, published writings, and letters held in our republic, A. Janulaitis’s recently published monograph on M. Akelaitis, information about M. Akelaitis’s manuscripts in Poland, and other literature concerning his biography. Most of the material on M. Akelaitis’s linguistic work has been collected in the manuscript repository of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature, where the M. Akelaitis collection (F1) consists of 49 folders and contains about 800 pages of manuscripts of various sizes, written in Polish (predominantly), Lithuanian, Russian (F1—12, 21, 23), and German (F1—24, 37). Examination of these manuscripts established that some manuscripts not written by him have also found their way into the M. Akelaitis collection. First of all, this is the manuscript of a Lithuanian-Polish dictionary (F1—1), written in the eastern dialect and therefore not attributable to M. Akelaitis1. The notebook of religious hymns (F1—36), written in the eastern dialect and in a different hand, is not his either. The translation “Įpėdinis ir Ubagas” (F1—13), which is marked as translated by M. Akelaitis from B., differs from M. Akelaitis’s manuscripts in its spelling (use of š, v, etc.) and style of handwriting. This, too, is not a manuscript by M. Akelaitis. It is doubtful whether the short account of an incident involving storks (F1—4) and three draft lexicographic pages (F1—32) should be attributed to him. The manuscripts also include five typewritten copies of M. Akelaitis’s published letters (F1—5, 6, 7, 8, 9). The remaining manuscripts appear to have been written by M. Akelaitis himself. Their contents are varied. They deal mainly with questions of the Lithuanian language, literature, folklore, mythology, and history. M. Akelaitis touches on the following linguistic matters in passing: the place of the Lithuanian language among the Indo-European languages (F1—10, 22), the relations of Lithuanian to the Slavic (F1—10, 12, 22) and Germanic languages (F1—22), the affinity of Lithuanian to Sanskrit (F1—13, 22), features of Lithuanian phonetics (F1—12, 38), various Lithuanian suffixes (F1—12, 23, 25, 29), the use of tenses (F1—41), examples of the use of cases and prepositions (F1—37), the richness of Lithuanian vocabulary (F1—11, 22), a list of Lithuanian village names (F1—35), Lithuanian surnames 1 See J. Kruopas, “A handwritten Lithuanian-Polish dictionary in the eastern Aukštaitian dialect from the second half of the 19th century,” Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai, series A 2(30), Vilnius, 1969. 155 (F1—22), various etymologizations scattered across a dozen or so manuscripts (F1—1, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 29, 41), excerpts from M. Daukša’s Postilė and other writings (F1—41), lexicographic works (F1—10, 11), researchers of the Lithuanian language (F—42), and so on. Among M. Akelaitis’s literary works, the following are worth mentioning*: Klastorius (F1—47), Skaitymaj Szwentadieniniai (a translation from Polish, F1—28), Moja chata (F1—14), the beginning of a biography of K. Donelaitis (F1—46), Giesme Apej S. Stanislawa Kostka (F1—34), Lithuanian-language books (two lists of Lithuanian books owned by M. Akelaitis, F1—2, 27), and so on. The more important folklore manuscripts are these: two collections of fairy tales (52 tales, F1—43, 44), riddles and other folklore materials (F1—12, 21), the contents of G. Nesselmann’s collection of songs (F1—32), and so on. Several of M. Akelaitis’s manuscripts concern Lithuanian mythology, in which he was greatly interested and whose beings’ names, especially that of Perkūnas, he often liked to etymologize: Ustęp z mitologii litewskiej (F1—15), Nazwiska bogów litewskich (F1—17), etymologies of the names of deities (F1—15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 40, and others), and so on. The more important historical manuscripts are these: Trumpas pasakojimas apie Lietuvos veikalus (F1—30), Z Dziejów Litwy (F1—48), Geschichte Preussens (F1—49), excerpts from various historical sources concerning the history of Prussia (in German, F1—37), materials on the beginnings of Russia (F1—29), and so on. In addition, the M. Akelaitis collection contains manuscripts on various other subjects: Przygląd systematyczny wszystkich nauk (F1—45), Apej garus (F1—31), works on political economy (F1—3), religion (F1—39), and so on. Most of M. Akelaitis’s manuscripts are drafts, short, and some lack a beginning or an ending. They are scattered notes, collections of materials, excerpts, and similar items. Only some have been recopied and apparently prepared for publication: Sunday readings, two small collections of fairy tales, a short account of Lithuania’s deeds (unfinished), the article “Apej garus,” and the prayer “Our Father” (these were printed). If the Lithuanian-Polish dictionary (F1—1) is excluded from M. Akelaitis’s manuscript legacy as not being his manuscript, little material remains concerning M. Akelaitis’s lexicographic work. Nevertheless, this material, together with evidence from the collection as a whole and from other sources, makes it possible to begin examining M. Akelaitis’s lexicographic activity, which was marked by rather ambitious aims. M. Akelaitis was motivated to study the Lithuanian language by scholarly interest, a desire to promote the Lithuanian language, and practical considerations—writing small Lithuanian books for the people. Having taught himself several languages (Polish, Russian, German, French, Latin, and Greek), and having gained some familiarity with the rudiments of comparative-historical linguistics and with certain studies of Lithuanian (by A. Schleicher and S. Mikuckis), M. Akelaitis himself wished to make a contribution to Lithuanian linguistics. He writes about this from Warsaw in a letter to M. Valančius dated 1856.II.25: “Having learned a little of several languages, I want to explain my own language; I intend to write a Dictionary and a Grammar of Samogitian, compared with the Indian and European languages” (TŽ, III, 293). From the works of foreign linguists, M. Akelaitis knew of the scholarly importance of Lithuanian for comparative linguistics, especially Slavic studies, and he often emphasized this in his letters and articles. The desire to learn Lithuanian, describe its grammatical structure, and explain the origins of words and names never left M. Akelaitis throughout his life. He was not content with foreigners’ studies of Lithuanian; he considered himself more proficient in Lithuanian than they were and capable of enriching linguistics with new works. He sought, and thought he had found, new laws for understanding and learning related languages. Thus, his scholarly interests were broad * M. Akelaitis’s and other authors’ language and spelling have not been modernized. 156 was one of the principal incentives that turned M. Akelaitis toward Lithuanian linguistics and encouraged him to undertake the work of compiling a comparative dictionary and grammar. In addition to scholarly interest, M. Akelaitis was also motivated to study the Lithuanian language by his love of his native tongue. He came from and had been raised among the Lithuanian people, who at that time were under severe economic, social, and national oppression. Although M. Akelaitis did not urge the exploited and oppressed people to rise up against their exploiters, and although he supported the old patriarchal relations of manor and village, he was always on the side of the people and constantly concerned himself with their education, culture, and language. M. Akelaitis was convinced that the people are the foundation of society: “As the foundations are laid, so in society it is the people. The building will be poor if its foundations are weak” (Jan MA, p. 32). M. Akelaitis was especially concerned with preserving and developing the Lithuanian language. He saw that his native language was scorned, restricted, and persecuted, and that it had no place in schools, institutions, the press, or public life. This distressed him, and he called on his compatriots to fight for the rights and survival of their native language: “Are we, Lithuanians, to renounce our language and thus willingly destroy our own nation, for which we will have to answer on Judgment Day? Has the Lithuanian heart ceased beating in us, who love so ardently what is our own?... We must raise up the Lithuanian language, rescue from contempt the language that possesses the greatness of Sanskrit’s riches, the power of Latin, the elegance of Greek, and the melodiousness of Italian. Let us proceed gradually: establish schools in the parishes where everything would be taught in Lithuanian; let us write and print Lithuanian books for the people” (JanMA, p. 18). M. Akelaitis remained faithful to these views until the end of his life. From exile in 1871, he wrote to one of his relatives: “I became, in part, a man of letters, and not for any fame, not for the empty incense of this world, but for the good of my brothers, for the benefit of those honest Lithuanian lads among whom I was born and raised” (AkG, p. VIII). [I became, in part, a man of letters not for any honor, not for this world’s empty praise, but for the benefit of the honest Lithuanian peasants among whom I was born and raised.] In writing Lithuanian booklets and appeals to the people, composing poems, and translating from other languages into Lithuanian, M. Akelaitis had to become familiar with the Lithuanian literary language and its grammatical and lexical norms. This was no easy task in his time, since the literary language had not yet become established and varied considerably. It reflected the features of various dialects (Samogitian, Eastern Highlander, and Western Highlander), and lacked unified grammatical and lexical norms. Writers therefore had to study linguistic matters themselves and resolve questions of orthography, grammar, vocabulary, and other issues. It is thus entirely natural that many nineteenth-century cultural figures and writers took a keen interest in linguistic matters, compiled bilingual dictionaries themselves, and wrote grammars. In this respect, M. Akelaitis was no exception. He too sought out Lithuanian grammars and dictionaries so that he could become better acquainted with the literary language and contribute to its study and development. M. Akelaitis’s first Lithuanian manuscripts show that writing in Lithuanian was difficult for him, and that he, a southern Western Highlander, was influenced by the dialect forms found in the texts he read, especially Samogitian ones. Some of them made their way into the language of M. Akelaitis’s writings, although they were foreign to his native dialect, for example: Vokyczus, in, kan, susirinken, užėjen, atsidūren, dideliaj and others (F1—30). While reading the works of earlier writers M. Daukša and K. Širvydas, as well as those of his contemporaries S. Daukantas, M. Valančius, and others, M. Akelaitis studied their language, made extracts, and gathered material for a grammar and dictionaries. Although his chief concern was the comparison of languages, comparative linguistics, he also devoted considerable 157 attention to language standardization. He himself noted: “First I shall write it [the grammar] for practical use, and later work it up more expertly” (F1—11, p. 3). M. Akelaitis also paid attention to the Lithuanian character and purity of the vocabulary, seeking to avoid unnecessary borrowings. In his list of books, beside the primer “Mokslas skaitima raszta lietuwiszka” (1856), he wrote: “nie ma żadnej wartości — pełno makaronizmów” (F1—2). [It has no value whatsoever—it is full of macaronisms.] Loanwords were very widespread, and M. Akelaitis himself found them difficult to avoid. His manuscripts also contain: turmon, neprieteliu, pawietre, nebagele, smerties, zlasties, waina and other borrowed words, for which he could have found Lithuanian equivalents in the writings of M. Daukša and K. Širvydas. Nevertheless, M. Akelaitis’s language is better than that of ecclesiastical writings. He wrote quite simply, in a popular style, using lively and vivid expressions from the folk language, for example: Bajme žmoniu ten susirinko; Batorius buvo in musu karalius pakeltas; nelajke ranku už ancžio; bajsi įsitiko kowa; apkalęs jin geležiniais panczajais instume turmon; sukulti in patraszas and others (F1—30). Thus, practical considerations also impelled M. Akelaitis to study the Lithuanian language and to concern himself with preparing a Lithuanian grammar and dictionaries. When beginning his lexicographical work, M. Akelaitis sought to familiarize himself with the few works of his predecessors, which were among the most important sources for preparing a new Lithuanian dictionary. Which Lithuanian dictionaries were known to M. Akelaitis, and to what extent could he make use of them? The list of books mentioned in M. Akelaitis’s letter to M. Valančius of September 25, 1856, shows that at the time his small library contained only G. Nesselmann’s dictionary “Wörterbuch der litauischen Sprache” (TŽ, III, 293). In this dictionary, Lithuanian words are presented not in the usual alphabetical order but under particular sections for vowels and consonants, while prefixed verbs are listed in the entries for their unprefixed forms. This makes it very difficult to find words in the dictionary, and for this reason M. Akelaitis spoke negatively of G. Nesselmann’s work in the aforementioned letter: “Everyone—I will not even say anyone familiar with the Samogitian language—will admit that Nesselmann could have written a better dictionary, having had great help from everywhere. The Germans are accustomed to doing everything down to the smallest detail; it seems that Nesselmann alone was not born with that habit: his Dictionary is like a truly dark forest: wander endlessly and you will not find what you seek” (TŽ, III, 294). M. Akelaitis žinojo ir apie K. Širvydo žodyno buvimą, nes 1856.X.15/27 d. laiške M. Valančiui prašo jį paskolinti K. Širvydo žodyną ir gramatiką (TŽ, III, 295). Matyti, kad M. Valančius paskolino M. Akelaičiui K. Širvydo žodyną, nes jis minimas vėlesniame M. Akelaičio turimų knygų sąraše (F1—2, p. 1). 1858.V.3 d. laiške A. Kirkorui jis užsimena, kad žodžio kauras jam niekur netekę užtikti, nors jis duodamas Neselmano, Milk aus ir Širvydo žodynuose (TŽ, III, 300). Šiais žodynais M. Akelaitis turėjo naudotis, nes ten iš tikrųjų duodamas žodis kauras. M. Akelaitis was interested not only in printed dictionaries known to him but also in manuscript dictionaries. A Lithuanian-Polish dictionary written in an Eastern Highlander dialect by an unknown author came into his possession; it is now among M. Akelaitis’s archival materials, kept in the manuscript collection of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature (F1—1). The linguistic features of the dictionary show that it is Eastern Lithuanian and therefore was not compiled by M. Akelaitis. He had borrowed it from someone and, while fleeing after the 1863 uprising 158 from Lithuania, left it to Andruškevičius, who passed the dictionary on to J. Basanavičius, and he in turn to the Lithuanian Scientific Society2. In a letter to M. Valančius dated 15/27 October 1856, M. Akelaitis mentions the manuscript dictionaries of S. Daukantas and, presumably, D. Sutkevičius: “How happy I would be if those folios prepared by Mr. Dowkont for a Polish-Samogitian dictionary were to fall into my hands! Or that manuscript of a Samogitian-Polish dictionary, lying somewhere in a monastery and given over to the moths!” (TŽ, III, 296). [How happy I would be if the folios of the Polish-Lithuanian dictionary prepared by S. Daukantas were to fall into my hands, or the manuscript of a Lithuanian-Polish dictionary, lying somewhere in a monastery and left to the moths.] Later (1858), M. Akelaitis lived together with S. Daukantas in Svirlauki, so it is reasonable to suppose that he could have had access to S. Daukantas’s lexicographic works, especially since one correspondence from Vilnius states that L. Andruškevičius’s and, possibly, S. Daukantas’s Lithuanian-Polish dictionaries were among the manuscripts left by M. Akelaitis3. The Lithuanian-Polish dictionary that M. Akelaitis says was in a monastery was presumably D. Sutkevičius’s dictionary, which he recalls on another occasion, at the end of a list of books intended for M. Valančius: “Could the Vilnius Archaeological Society not secure something in this regard? Might it not be a good idea to petition the Minister of Education about the Sutkevičius Dictionary that is to be published?” (F1—2, p. 3). [Could the Vilnius Archaeological Society not do something about this? Perhaps it would be a good idea to propose to the Minister of Education the planned publication of Sutkevičius’s dictionary.] M. Akelaitis also mentions J. Brodovskis’s manuscript dictionary, which supposedly contains the word he etymologizes Percunas (F1—17, p. 2). This dictionary was presumably known to M. Akelaitis through the works of G. Milk, Nesselmann, and others, since he himself could not have accessed J. Brodovskis’s manuscript. Later, while living in Paris and writing a Lithuanian grammar, M. Akelaitis also used F. Kurschat’s dictionary (AkG, 24), which had not yet been published when M. Akelaitis was compiling dictionaries in Lithuania (he could not pursue lexicographic work abroad because he was occupied with grammar and comparative linguistics). Thus, when M. Akelaitis began his lexicographic work and pursued it, he had several printed (Širvydas’s, Milk’s, and Nesselmann’s) and several manuscript bilingual Lithuanian dictionaries. These were his principal sources, in which he could find a substantial number (more than twenty thousand) of Lithuanian words and equivalents in other languages, and which helped him become familiar with dictionary structure, lexicographic technique, and so on. In addition, M. Akelaitis had dictionaries of other languages at hand. In one letter to M. Valančius, he mentions the Grimm brothers’ “Zodina wokiszka, kami ir dėl žemaj-tisz kos kalbos daug naudos randasi” (TŽ, III, 294). A list of books compiled by a representative of the tsarist authorities who persecuted M. Akelaitis shows that, at the estate owner Kudrevičius’s, he had “Словарь российско-польский” and “Dictionaire Français-Polonais” (Jan MA, 85, 87). One of M. Akelaitis’s manuscripts mentions Stender’s Latvian dictionary (F1—21, p. 4). In various etymological and other explanations, M. Akelaitis also draws on or mentions the following dictionaries of other languages: 1) F. Nesselmann, “Die Sprache der alten Preussen” (1845) (F1—17, p. 3); 2) F. Bopp, “Glossarium sanscritum” (1847) (F1—17, p. 3); 3) Chavée, Lexiologie Indo-Eu-ropéenne (F1—22, p. 13, 15, 16); 4) “The Bonaparte polyglott: being the parable of the sower, in 72 languages and dialects” (F1—22, p. 20). 2 J. Kruopas, ibid., p. 184. 3 “Kraj,” 1893, no. 13, p. 12. 159 Probably, M. Akelaitis made the greatest use of the dictionaries of K. Širvydas and G. Neselmanas, while equivalents from other Indo-European languages, especially Sanskrit, were taken from the works mentioned by F. Bopp and Chavė. For his lexicographic work, M. Akelaitis was prepared to use various literary sources, as well as the Lithuanian books he owned and wished to acquire. Initially, in 1856, M. Akelaitis’s library contained only eleven Lithuanian books. They are listed in M. Akelaitis’s letter to M. Valančius dated 25 September 1856, in which he asked him to send as many Lithuanian books as possible (TŽ, III, 293). The printer and bookseller Zavadskis also supplied M. Akelaitis with Lithuanian literature. Thus, within a few years, M. Akelaitis’s library came to contain 42 (not 37, as stated in JanMA, p. 87) Lithuanian books. This is evidenced by two lists of his books held in the manuscript collection of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature (F1—2, p. 1—2; F1—27, p. 1—2). The first, intended for M. Valančius, lists 41 books, while the second lists 42 (with the addition of the booklet „Žine kajp rejk atlikti spawiednę“, 1852). Since these lists have not been published anywhere, and they show which Lithuanian books M. Akelaitis used, the second list of books is reproduced here in full: SPIS KSIĄŻEK LITEWSKICH Dowkont 1) Grammar of the Latvian language. 1837. „ 2) The Customs of the Ancient Lithuanians. 1845. „ 3) Lives of the Great Warriors. 1846. „ 4) Fables of Phaedrus—1846. „ 5) Primer of the Lithuanian and Samogitian languages. 1842. „ 6) Samogitian Songs. — 1846. 7) Little Bee Book — 1848. 8) Booklet of Woody Seeds 1849. 9) Sermon on Gardens. 1849. 10) Forage grasses — 1855. 11) Epitome of Sacred History — 1838. Wółonczewski 12) Samogitian Bishopric. 1848. 13) Instruction on the Sacrament of Confirmation. 1850. 14) Know how one must perform confession. 1852. 15) Thomas of Kempis. 1852. 16) The Life of Jesus Christ. 1853. 17) History of the Old Testament. 1855. Proniewski 18) Explanation of the Gospels. 1855. Szyrwid 19) Points of Sermons — 1845. 20) Booklets of Fire. 1801. 21) Lithuanian Gospels. 1806. Juzumowicz 22) Saint Isidore 1854. „ 23) The Great Primer. 1855. 24) Calvary — 1855. Werejka 25) The sinner is compelled to repent 1854. Zieniewicz 26) Catholic Catechism 1854. Kitkiewicz 27) Lithuanian Hymns. Mieleszka 28) A booklet about knowledge of the association of temperance. 1846. 29) Acts and prayers. 1856. 30) Mokslas skajtima raszta lietuwiszka 1856 (of no value whatsoever). 31) Holy Songs — 1855. 32) Rosary. 1855. 160 Iwiński Giedrojć 33) Golden Altar. 1854. 34) Jezus Maria. 1854. 35) Glory to God — 1855. 36) Kalendarze zr. 1846.47.50.51.55.57. 37) New Law. 1816. 38) Szyrwid’s Dictionary 1713. 39) Wörterbuch der Littauischen Sprache by Nesselmann. 1850. 40) Handbuch der Litauischen Sprache by August Schleicher, Prague. 1856. 41) Lithuanian grammar by Kossakowski. 42) Rhesa – Songs. 1843. The list of books M. Akelaitis left at Kudrevičius’s also mentions: 1) Daynos Zemaycziu, collected and published by Simona Stanewicze, 2) Wajkams Zemaitiu yr Lietuwos (JanMA, p. 85). Since M. Akelaitis translated Donelaitis’s “Metai” into Polish, he must have owned this work. Furthermore, M. Akelaitis’s manuscripts show that he made excerpts from M. Daukša’s Postil (Fl – 41, pp. 1–39), the 1845 Koncyonolas (Fl – 41, pp. 43–48), and the 1844 New Testament (Fl – 41, pp. 49–52). The largest list of books in M. Akelaitis’s library was compiled in 1891 by the Polish journalist L. Uzięmbło and sent to the Polish ethnographer Żegota Paulius. This list was discovered in the library of the University of Kraków by our bibliographer V. Žukas, who published it in the press4. It records 77 printed works (five of them Latvian books) and one manuscript by M. Akelaitis himself. Comparing this list with the list of 42 books compiled by M. Akelaitis himself and published in this article, we see that they differ not only in the number of printed works listed but also in their titles. Only 21 of the same books appear in both lists; the others are different. The list published by V. Žukas includes a considerable number of Protestant religious and other books printed in Königsberg that are not mentioned in M. Akelaitis’s list, for example: Giwasties Medis (1846), Augsburgiszkasis wieros išpažinimas (1855), Rojaus Darželis (1845), Ugnies knigelės (1801), Bybelės (1853), and others. On the other hand, M. Akelaitis’s list mentions two dictionaries, three grammars, and 16 other books that are absent from V. Žukas’s list. Adding together the Lithuanian books in M. Akelaitis’s library mentioned in both lists and elsewhere, the total comes to about a hundred. In the eyes of people of that time, this was a substantial little library. Not included here are the Lithuanian books that were in the library of the Paris Lithuanian Society “Želmuo” and which M. Akelaitis could have used in Paris. They were mentioned in the press5, and their complete list is in the Manuscript Department of the Central Library of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences (F64, unit 110, 1. 4–12). However, this literature could not have been used for the lexicographical work M. Akelaitis pursued until he fled Lithuania at the end of 1861, so we will not list it here. A substantial portion consists of periodicals and pamphlets published mostly after M. Akelaitis’s death, as well as several works of Lithuanian belles-lettres, grammars, and dictionaries. In all, the “Želmuo” library held 74 Lithuanian periodicals, pamphlets, and books6. 4 V. Žukas, “From the History of Libraries and Bibliography,” *Chronicle of the Scientific Library of Vilnius State University Named after V. Kapsukas (1958–1959)*, Vilnius, 1961, pp. 249–253. 5 V. Abramavičius, “The Paris Lithuanian Society ‘Želmuo’ and Its Library,” *Proceedings of the Higher Schools of the Lithuanian SSR. Questions of Library Science and Bibliography*, III, Vilnius, 1964, p. 153. 6 V. Abramavičius, ibid., p. 154. 11. Iš lietuvių leksikologijos ir leksikografijos 161 It is clear that M. Akelaitis devoted considerable attention to reading Lithuanian books, making excerpts, and collecting material for a grammar and dictionary. He himself writes to M. Valančius about how he values the books he received from him and how he is preparing to immerse himself in them in search of valuable material, precious pearls: “These are not rubbish, as Your Eminence puts it—they are a branch of the Bay of Bengal, at whose bottom lie precious pearls. I plunge like a diver into the abyss of deep waters; I gather pearl shells, unmindful that one can easily lose one’s life in this fishing if the companions in this work, swimming freely on the surface of the sea, do not hurry to haul the diver up into the fresh air at the given signal. But how could I not gather these little pearls, so dear to my heart?” (TŽ, III, 295). [These are not trifles, as Your Reverence says; this is the Bay of Bengal, at the bottom of which lie the most precious pearls. I descend like a diver into the abyss of deep waters; I gather pearl shells, forgetting that one can quickly perish while fishing this way if the companions in this work, swimming freely on the surface of the sea, do not hasten to pull the diver out into the fresh air when signaled. But how could I not gather those pearls, so dear to my heart?] The third source of material on which M. Akelaitis could draw in his lexicographical work was the vernacular. It was his native language, learned in his family in a Lithuanian village, of which he always spoke with great love and respect, and whose rights, expanded use, and cultivation he championed throughout his life. Circumstances prevented M. Akelaitis from living among the people continuously and gathering the treasures of their language. As he grew older, he lived on estates and rarely came into contact with the people. Nevertheless, during intervals, while traveling around the country and on other occasions, he wrote down folklore and collected linguistic material. This is evident from the fairly extensive folklore records and various linguistic notes in his manuscript legacy. Here are examples of case and preposition usage recorded for the purposes of syntax (some may also have been taken from written sources): Per. To go through the town. It went through my heart. — I was ill through the winter. — He worked through the night. — To climb over the fence. — To go across the border. — Through one man sin came into the world, and death through sin. — He came through Martynas. — He lives three miles away. — I regard that as the truth. — He was behind the wheel. — What kind of bird is that? (F1 — 37, p. 110). M. Akelaitis often speaks of the richness of the Lithuanian lexicon and illustrates it with examples drawn mostly from the vernacular. He points out that Lithuanians have many words for naming the same thing, quality, action, and so forth, with different shades of meaning, for example: kalba, szneka, tarme, byla, žadas; geltas, geltonas, geltokas, gelsvas, gelsvokas, geltonelis, geltonutelis, geltonužėlis; dajnuoti, giedoti, raudoti, audot, vel aldoti (pr. ȧuda), niuniuoti, ryloti, soukti (F1 — 11, p. 4). Speaking about the use of the suffix -ėnas, he also gives quite a number of examples: Tylzenas, tetenas, brolenas, seserenas, Kuprenas, Wilkenas, Warenas, Waszkenas, Rimkenas, Melenas, Masenas, Krezdenas, Kiszkenas, Bylenas, Tylenas, Prastenas, Druktenas (F1 — 29, p. 12). In his article “Apej garus” (F1—31), while looking for terms to name the parts of a steam boiler and locomotive, M. Akelaitis takes words from the vernacular and applies them in the field of technology, extending their range of use and assigning them a specialized meaning. In this way, the following were introduced into technical usage: stiebas, rankena, muštūvas, žirgis, anga, ugniavietė, žibintuvė, kamštis, stūma, volė, kabė, švilpynė and others. Finally, the language of M. Akelaitis’s own writings has distinct features of the vernacular, showing that he always relied on the native language he had learned in his youth, and that it was a vast source of linguistic riches for him. 162 M. Akelaitis had planned to prepare three dictionaries: 1) a comparative dictionary of the Lithuanian language; 2) a Lithuanian-Polish dictionary; and 3) a Polish-Lithuanian dictionary. This is evident from his letters to M. Valančius, A. Kirkor, and others (TŽ, III, 292—321, IV, 433—443), as well as from other people’s comments on M. Akelaitis’s work. In a letter to J. Zavadzki dated 1856.VI.27 (VII.9), he writes: “I am working on the Lithuanian language, comparing it with the Indo-European languages—I am compiling a dictionary of the Lithuanian language, a dictionary in the full sense of the word. It will be an opus dignum laude et laurea—surpassing all dictionaries known to date, and... I wanted to say something when my pupil, at that very moment repeating his Latin lesson, uttered: ‘Propria laus sordet’—and silenced me; so I must stop talking about my dictionary and work on it in silence until the time comes when it may emerge into the world from Your Honour’s printing house.”? [I am studying the Lithuanian language, comparing it with the Indo-European languages—I am compiling a dictionary of the Lithuanian language in the true sense of the word. It will be a work worthy of praise and a laurel wreath—superior to all dictionaries known so far, and... I wanted to say something when my pupil, at that moment repeating his Latin lesson, said: “A work praised by its own author is distasteful.” This silenced me, so I can say no more about my dictionary and must prepare it quietly until the time comes when, perhaps, it will be printed in the good gentleman’s printing house.] At first, M. Akelaitis had intended to compile a comparative dictionary of the Lithuanian language, in which Lithuanian words would be compared with words from other Indo-European languages (Slavic, Greek, Gothic, Latin, and Sanskrit). In a letter to M. Valančius dated 1856.IX.25, M. Akelaitis illustrates with examples how he intended to write the dictionary, namely⁸: Aszw inis, = sanskr. aszwa, franc. cheval, kon. Nagas, = sanskr. nagah, ross. ноготь (nogieć, dawniej) paznogieć. Juodas; = greck. ioeidēs, czarny. Stogas, = greck. stége, dach; ztąd dachokrywca stegius. Piemuo, = greck. poimēn, pasterz. Sapnas, = greck. u̔́pnos [hýpnos] sen. Sakiti, = niem. sagen, powiedzieć; ztąd pasakos przypomina wyraz normański sagos, legendy, klechdy, tak pod względem brzmienia jako i znaczenia. Szniaketi, = dмиsk. [duńsk] snaken, rozmawiać. Žardis, = franc. jardin, agród, pastewnik, w niektórych okolicach nazywają cielętnikiem, dla tego że tam zwykle paszą się tylko cielęta. Szuo, = franc. chien, pies. Duris, = angiels. doors, drzwi. Szilkas, = angiels. shilk, ross. шелк jedwab’. Gintaras, = ross. янтарь, bursztyn, bernstein, électron; ztąd elektryczność możnaby tłumaczyć przez gint arumas. Wiras, = łacins. Vir, Wiraj traukite jungą—Viri trahite jugum. Jaknos, = jecus, wątroba. Aug sztus [Angsztus], = (nie auk sztus [anksztus] = łacn. augustus [angustus], niemiec. eng., ciasny. Augmuo, = augmentum; augu = augeo = augė ir t. t. (TŽ, III, 293—294). The examples given show that M. Akelaitis’s comparisons of words from various languages rely mostly not on correspondences established by comparative historical phonetics, but rather on accidental similarity of sound, on loanwords resembling words in the source language, on naïve etymologizing, or on lists of words from various dictionaries that have nothing in common in terms of origin. Although M. Akelaitis notes that, in compiling his comparative dictionary, he followed the paths of Grimm, Bopp, and de Chasles, being self-taught, 7 Manuscript Department of the Central Library of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR (F7, — 536a). 8 Examples from the Greek language are transcribed in Latin letters. 11* 163 he was unable to master the scientific method of etymologizing, based on correspondences established by comparative historical grammar, and initially gave in to a tendency toward unfounded etymologies, which was evident in the works of Polish historians (T. Narbutt, J. Lelewel, and others) when they explained the names of Lithuanian mythological beings, gods, and other entities. M. Akelaitis was interested in questions of Lithuanian history, read the works of Polish, German, and other historians concerning the history of Lithuania and Prussia, and repeatedly emphasized that language is an important source for history: “Etymological inquiries sometimes shed great light on History; Philology is its right hand. One cannot write the history of any nation without knowing its language” (TŻ, III, 296). [Etymological inquiries sometimes shed much light on history. Philology is its right hand. One cannot write the history of any nation without knowing that nation’s language.] He was convinced that the Lithuanian language was an important source for learning about the past, and therefore devoted so much attention to etymological speculation. S. Daukantas’s unfounded etymologies, as well as those of the linguist S. Mikuckis and others, also encouraged M. Akelaitis to engage in fanciful etymologizing. He read S. Daukantas’s “Būdas,” where he encountered explanations of place names such as: Liep oja < lipti (to climb out onto land easily from the sea), Klaipėda < klysti+pėda (having wandered at sea, one could set foot on land), and so on. In his manuscripts, M. Akelaitis several times mentions S. Daukantas’s explanation of the mythological name Perūnas (Perkūnas), supposedly derived from the word perėti (Fl—15, p. 5, 17, p. 2); finally, he offers his own equally naïve explanations of Perkūnas: Perkūnas is derived from the root park (Latin parco-peperci ‘to protect, spare, have mercy’) (Fl—21, p. 6); Perkūnas < per+kunas, cf. Old Prussian kunt ‘to protect, guard’, Sanskrit kund (Fl—19, p. 3). M. Akelaitis believed that he knew Lithuanian well and could therefore make better etymological speculations than S. Mikuckis, T. Narbutt, and others (Fl—10, p. 4; Fl—22, p. 9—19). Indeed, he sometimes admits his weakness in explaining questions of word origin, mentioning that he lacked the learning and ability to do so. Informing M. Valančius about his work on Polish-Lithuanian and Lithuanian-Polish dictionaries, M. Akelaitis writes: “I do not intend at all to engage in comparisons with other languages; this exceeds my learning and abilities. I only wish to offer a little work that would benefit my compatriots” (TŻ, III, 298). [I do not intend at all to enter into comparisons with other languages, as that would exceed my learning and abilities; I wish only to offer a small work that would bring benefit to my compatriots.] Yet M. Akelaitis could not resist the temptation to etymologize, since such practices had become widespread in the works of historians and philologists. During the pre-emigration period, M. Akelaitis tried to explain the names of many mythological beings, gods, peoples, persons, places, and other things. These various etymologies are scattered throughout M. Akelaitis’s manuscript legacy (Fl 1—49), and they can be counted in considerable number (about one hundred and fifty). By way of illustration, the following are some proper names and other words whose origins M. Akelaitis attempted to explain (the folder and page are indicated in parentheses by numbers): abyda (10, p. 3), Aitvaras (22, p. 11), Алдань (Aldona) (29, p. 8), argutalius (12, p. 14), aukle (10, p. 4), Austurland (42, p. 4), autas (10, p. 1), awide (22, p. 10), Bejso gala (22, p. 5), Бернов (29, p. 8), Bitautas (22, p. 19), блинна (29, p. 2), blindas (10, p. 3), blusa (10, p. 2), Budė (40, p. 10), czewierkys (10, p. 3), daina (23, p. 7), Deimantas (10, p. 5), Dievas (21, p. 2), Erogala (29, p. 4—5), gajleti (22, p. 17), gailus (22, p. 17), garbintas (22, p. 15), gauras (10, p. 3), Gediminas (22, p. 18), gelbėti (10, p. 3), gelti (22, p. 17), Gesme (23, p. 8), Gyle (29, p. 3), Giltine (17, 5—6 p.), gowada (22, p. 26), gudas (18, p. 2; 29, p. 8), gudumas (gudimas) (22, p. 11), gulbintas (22, 15—16), įgytie (29, p. 10), Igor (Iggiwlod, Igeld) (29, p. 7), indas (10, p. 4), inkaras (29, p. 13), Jogaila (22, 164 p. 17—18), kalwis (22, p. 13), karalus (29, p. 8), kardas (10, p. 3—4), Каршев (29, p. 8), Kaukaras (13, p. 3; 17, p. 7; 22, p. 14), Kaukas (22, p. 14), Kaukuole (22, p. 15), karti (22, p. 13), kiautas (22, p. 15), kiauszas (22, p. 15), kowa (22, p. 13), kriwule (12, p. 6), Kriwaitis (Kriwis) (12, p. 6—7), kudmentas (10, p. 5; 19, p. 3), kujis (22, p. 13), Kurland (42, p. 4), Labegelda (22, p. 15), laikas (1, p. 2), Laima (12, p. 5), lanka (10, p. 3—4), Lauma (laume) (12, p. 5), liežuwis (10, p. 4), Lietuwa (19, p. 4), Mandagus (10, p. 5, 10), manta (22, p. 18), Medininkai (15, p. 1), Mesag etai (42, p. 3), — muntas (22, p. 18), muse (10, p. 2), nuodeme (10, p. 4), Okas (Ockapirmas) (1, p. 2), Oleg (29, p. 7), Oras (1, p. 2), papleikti (22, p.), Papiles (13, p. 2), paszelpa (13, p. 2) Patelo (Potello, Potollo) (17, p. 7; 40, p. 6), Patrimpas (19, p. 3), Perkunas (15, p. 5; 17, p. 1—4; 18, p. 4; 19, p. 3; 21, p. 6), Pikulīs (Pakulīs, Pikole, Pokole...) (17, p. 4; 19, p. 3—4), pirkšnys (21, p. 6), Plateliai (19, p. 2), Pramentalas (10, p. 5), prustas (29, p. 11), Простенъ (Prastenis) (29, p. 7), (Resjkiun) Tyras (18, p. 1), Rjurik (29, p. 12—13), Ritland (42, p. 4), Rusne (15, p. 1), Sambija (42, p. 4), Simenas (12, p. 9), sopagas (10, p. 3), sudas (10, p. 3—4), Szatrija (13, p. 3; 22, p. 25), sziaurys (14, p. 24), Trimpos (Potrimpos) (15, p. 9; 17, p. 4); Turnbern (29, p. 8, 11), Умъни (29, p. 8), Uleb (29, p. 7), wajkas (22, p. 11), Wejdalotas (15, p. 7), Welnias (21, p. 5) wesele (15, p. 2), wersme (41, p. 35), žąsis (10, p. 2), Žemiogala (Semigallja) (29, p. 5), ženklas (22, p. 12), žiniczia (17, p. 6), žmogus (25, p. 10) etc. M. Akelaitis’s etymologies of names and words are exceedingly unfounded and naive. Here, for example, is how he explains the origin of Šatrijos Hill: szata, szeta means “honor, glory” in Lithuanian; it is a Sanskrit word derived from šat “to worship” and atris “mountain” (Fl—13, p. 2); thus Šatrija is the mountain of honor, where the gods have been worshipped since ancient times (Fl—22, p. 25). The name of the Russian prince Olegas was supposedly Lithuanian, composed of al “each” (cf. al wienas) and jėgti “to be able, to be strong” (Fl—29, p. 7). Such and similar explanations were sharply criticized in the press by Letgola (a pseudonym), but M. Akelaitis stubbornly defended himself and, agreeing with the conjectures of the Russian historian Kostomarov about the beginnings of the Russian state (Rus) and the Lithuanian origin of Rurik, argued that Rus, Igor and other Russian names supposedly derived from Lithuanian words (Fl—29, p. 1—14). On the basis of accidental similarities between certain names and words, M. Akelaitis devised fantastic explanations, although he himself noted that the similarity of names does not always indicate a common origin (Fl—10, p. 3). Only rarely, when comparing Lithuanian words related in derivation, are M. Akelaitis’s explanations of word origins sound and correct. For example, he correctly pointed out that liežūvis derives from liežti (Fl—10, p. 4); kalvis and kalvė are derived from kalti (Fl—22, p. 13), and so on. All the etymological explanations of proper names were also to be included in M. Akelaitis’s comparative dictionary: “In the Comparative Dictionary, as much as I can manage, I will include the entire wealth of our language, including proper names, in which a considerable amount of linguistic material has been preserved” (Fl—11, p. 3). [In the comparative dictionary, to the best of my ability, I will include the entire wealth of our language in proper names, which contain a considerable amount of linguistic data.] However, while living in Warsaw, M. Akelaitis was unable to work intensively on the comparative Lithuanian dictionary he had conceived, because at the same time he began collecting material for bilingual dictionaries, to which M. Valančius had directed his attention. This is evident from M. Akelaitis’s letter to M. Valančius dated 1856.X.15/27: “To heed the advice of a Man superior to me in learning and experience is and will be my duty. I shall follow the comments of Your Most Illustrious Grace; first I shall compile a Polish-Samogitian pocket dictionary, as small as possible, and leave the Samogitian-Polish dictionary for later, although I already have the materials for it ready—only to polish them and bring them together into one beautiful whole” (TŽ, III, 295). [To heed the advice of a Man superior to me in learning and experience is and will be my duty. I shall take Your Excellency’s comments into account; first I shall compile a pocket 165 Polish-Lithuanian dictionary, as small as possible, and leave the Lithuanian-Polish dictionary for the future, although I already have the material prepared for it; it only needs to be worked up and combined into one coherent whole.] Nevertheless, M. Akelaitis did not abandon the idea of preparing a comparative dictionary altogether, since from time to time both he himself and others mention that he was compiling a comparative dictionary of the Lithuanian language. For example, in 1858, in his “Notes from a Lithuanian’s Travels” (Notatki z wycieczek Litwina), he writes: “If God permits me, in the comparative dictionary I shall demonstrate the external similarities between Lithuanian and the Indo-European languages, and in the grammar I shall develop these ideas more clearly and at greater length” (Fl–22, p. 25). [If God permits me, in the comparative dictionary I shall demonstrate openly the similarity of Lithuanian to the Indo-European languages, and in the grammar I shall set out those ideas more clearly and at greater length.] On 1860.II.12 (No. 13), the literary review (Przegląd literacki) in “Kuryer Wileński” published fairly accurate information about M. Akelaitis’s work, from which it is clear that he was also concerned with a comparative dictionary: “The primer for village boys, published by the agricultural society in the Kingdom, will soon be published in Lithuanian translation. The translator of this very useful little book is Akielewicz. In general, as we have observed, the translator, while preserving the substance and form of the original, has tried to introduce folk proverbs as well, adapted to the circumstances… Besides the primer mentioned here, Akielewicz is currently printing two little Lithuanian books for the people: one contains an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer, and the other is entitled The Beggar, Traveling through Lithuania, Teaches the People. He has several more booklets in manuscript and is preparing a Lithuanian-Polish dictionary for publication; he is also writing a comparative Lithuanian dictionary, which will be organized as follows: first will come the roots of the Lithuanian language, compared with Slavic dialects and with Gothic, Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit. The parts of speech will follow the roots, each separately in alphabetical order. Nouns and adjectives will be arranged by their endings.” [The primer for rural people, published by the agricultural society in the Kingdom, will soon be issued in a Lithuanian translation. The translator of this very useful little book is Akelaitis. In general, as we observed, while adhering to the content and form of the original, the translator tried to include folk sayings adapted to the locality… Besides the aforementioned primer, Akelaitis is currently printing two little books for the people: one is a translation of the Lord’s Prayer, and the title of the other is The Beggar Traveling around Lithuania Teaches the People. He has several more booklets in manuscript and is preparing a Lithuanian-Polish dictionary for publication; he is also writing a comparative Lithuanian dictionary, whose structure will be as follows: first will come the roots of the Lithuanian language, compared with Slavic dialects and the equivalents in Gothic, Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit. The parts of speech will follow the roots, each separately in alphabetical order. Nouns and adjectives will be arranged by endings.] Approximately the same information was repeated in “Biblioteka Warszawska (1860, 2, 271), which also mentions the comparative dictionary and states that the Lithuanian-Polish dictionary was already ready for publication, although the “Kuryer Wileński” correspondence on which it relies says that such a dictionary was still being compiled. As far as can be inferred from M. Akelaitis’s manuscripts and other sources, especially from A. Janulaitis’s recently published monograph “Mikalojus Akelaitis” (1969), which sheds light on his activities, the gathering of material for a comparative dictionary was accidental and not intensive. He engaged in etymologizing various proper and common nouns rather than compiling a comparative dictionary systematically. M. Akelaitis was also prompted to explain word origins by a desire to trace the meaning and functions in language of the basic elements of language—sounds and syllables. Even in the pre-emigration period, M. Akelaitis conceived the idea of finding a key to all 166 living and dead related languages, in order to know and understand them. He was convinced that every smallest element of language—a sound—has meaning: “My research into Lithuanian convinced me that every root, even a purely consonantal one, every sound as an expression of the voice (not as a sign), has its own meaning. In language it is just as in the body, for example, of a human being: every member, muscle, every most subtle nerve has its own meaning and purpose” (F1–19, 1). [My research into the Lithuanian language convinced me that every root, even a purely consonantal one, and every sound as an expression of the voice (not as a sign) has its own meaning. Language is just like, for example, the human body, in which every member, muscle, and most subtle nerve has its own meaning and purpose.] Guided by this idea, M. Akelaitis paid particular attention to the meaning of sounds: “I shall demonstrate the meaning of letters as expressions of sound. Perhaps I shall succeed in reducing the study of languages to the study of sounds. It will suffice to know the meaning of letters and syllables in order to speak all the languages of one branch. It goes without saying that such work requires time and the investment of profound and conscientious study” (F1–11, p. 3). [I shall demonstrate the meaning of letters as expressions of the voice. Perhaps I shall succeed in reducing the science of languages to the science of sounds. It will suffice to know the meaning of sounds and syllables in order to speak all the languages of one branch. It is understood that such work requires time and the investment of deep and conscientious study.] M. Akelaitis believed this would be accomplished: “The time will come when the mutual relationship of languages, based on their sound organization, will be demonstrated. And then the Spirit of God will descend upon us, and we shall speak all languages” (F1–10, p. 6). [The time will come when the mutual relationship of languages, based on their sound organization, becomes clear. And then the Holy Spirit will descend upon us, and we shall speak all languages.] The idea of discovering the meanings of sounds and the laws that would provide a key to knowing and learning all related languages continued to preoccupy M. Akelaitis in emigration, when, having somewhat recovered after the 1863 uprising and found some kind of work, he once again immersed himself in comparing languages. In an 1871 letter from Paris, he wrote: “Nature is my only and wisest teacher. It led me to truths that I did not find among the greatest scholars. You know that my favorite subject is comparative linguistics! Well, with the help of nature I have made discoveries unknown to linguists until now. If God permits, I shall announce them to the world and provide rules by which, knowing one language, one can know all living or dead languages…” (AkG, p. X). [Nature is my only and wisest teacher. It directed me toward truths that I did not find among the greatest scholars. You know that my favorite subject is comparative linguistics. Thus, with nature’s help, I discovered things unknown to linguists until now. If God grants it, I shall announce them to the world and provide rules by which, knowing one language, one can know all living or dead languages…] M. Akelaitis turned to developing a new linguistic theory, searching for universal sound laws, creating Lithuanian phonetics based on new principles, and further explaining the origins of words and names. A considerable number of etymological explanations from the period of emigration appear in the part of M. Akelaitis’s grammar printed in 1890 (the section on phonetics) and in the booklet “Rzut oka na starożytność narodu Litewskiego” (“A Glance at the Antiquity of the Lithuanian Nation”), published in St. Petersburg in 1885. The grammar presents new sound laws; in explaining and illustrating them, words that have nothing in common in their origins are etymologized and compared in his own way, for example: tėvas < ti+ev+as (54), ilgas < ug+as (59); sūris, siauras, svarnas (48); piauti, peilis, piela, piemuo, pieva… (57); kareivis, karalius… (60); vaga, anga, langas (65) and so on. These and other explanations of word origins are based on M. Akelaitis’s fanciful law that the vowel u is the mother of many sounds; that the sounds a, e, i arose from the original sound u and always occur with vowels or consonants; that all have descended from u 167 syllables (56). The only root of the Lithuanian language is the sound u. Only from it do the vowels a, e, i, o arise in combinations with r, l, m, n, p, v, j (5). The fallacy of this new theory was brought to light by J. Jablonskis when reviewing the phonetics section of M. Akelaitis’s printed grammar: “The whole little book by M. Ak-ius is full of this kind of ‘science hitherto unknown to our linguists.’ Few will understand all those disconnected details, which are entirely unlike the science of phonetics found in the works of specialists. How are we really to understand such a theory: ilgas, iltis, arti, jautis have one root? One can only believe or disbelieve this; but if the question were one of understanding or not understanding, then one would have to say that an ordinary person cannot understand all this science. To tell the truth, there is no science here at all; these are merely deductions dictated not by the brain, but by ‘inspiration,’ and therefore the human brain cannot understand them”⁹. In view of all that has been said about M. Akelaitis’s plan to compile a comparative dictionary and his etymologizing, the question arises whether M. Akelaitis really prepared a comparative dictionary, the manuscript of which is mentioned in the works of S. Baltrամaitis, V. Biržiška, M. Brenšteinas, and other authors. The claim rests on information from M. Akelaitis and others, published in newspapers, about works he was preparing for publication or having printed, among them a comparative dictionary. This, however, does not provide grounds for asserting that M. Akelaitis really wrote a comparative dictionary that ended up abroad, as is sometimes claimed (Jan MA, p. 1). First, M. Akelaitis’s letters and the periodical press of the time (Kuryer Wileński, Bibioteka Warszawska) state that he was compiling a comparative dictionary, but nowhere do they assert that such a dictionary was nearing completion or had been completed. The report that M. Akelaitis was writing a comparative dictionary appears to have given rise to the belief that he had written and left such a dictionary, although no one had seen it. That this may have been the case is also indicated by V. Biržiška’s inaccurate rendering in “Aleksandrynas” (III, 366) of the information in the publication “Biblioteka Warszawska,” where he claims that the publication states that the comparative dictionary is already ready for printing, whereas in fact it says only that such a dictionary is being written. Second, the manuscript of M. Akelaitis’s comparative dictionary has not been found among his papers in Lithuania, Poland, or Paris. It is not mentioned in a newspaper report that lists other lexicographical works by M. Akelaitis, which remained with the Vilnius artist J. Zenkevičius: “They write to us from Vilnius: A Lithuanian society, ‘Żelmna’ [‘Żelmuo’], was established in Paris not long ago; its president was Marjan Akielewicz, a well-known Lithuanian writer who died in October 1887. It was known that some literary legacy had remained after the deceased, but for a time it could not be found. Only after the death of the Vilnius painter Zienkiewicz were Akielewicz’s manuscripts discovered among his collections. Of these, the foremost is an unfinished Lithuanian-Polish dictionary (about 300 sheets of writing), a work that had been mentioned several times, as well as a number of smaller works. Alongside Akielewicz’s works, this collection also contains works by other authors, including Lithuanian-Polish dictionaries by L. Andruszkiewicz and, probably, Dowkonta. The heir of Zienkiewicz now wishes to hand over the manuscripts of the late Akielewicz. Letuwisław”¹⁰. [They write to us from Vilnius: Not long ago a Lithuanian society, ‘Želmuo,’ was established in Paris, whose president was M. Akelaitis, a well-known Lithuanian writer who died in October 1887. It was known that some literary legacy remained after his death, but until then it had not been possible to find it. Only after the death of the Vilnius artist Zenkevičius were Akelaitis’s manuscripts found among his collections. Of these, the foremost is an unfinished Lithuanian-Polish 9 Jablonskio Raštai (redagavo J. Balčikonis), IV, Kaunas, 1935, p. 37–38. 10 “Kraj”, 1893, N 13, p. 12. 168 dictionary (about 300 sheets), a work mentioned several times. In addition, the legacy contains a number of smaller works. Alongside Akelaitis’s works, the collection includes works by other authors, among them Lithuanian-Polish dictionaries by L. Andruškevičius and, possibly, Daukantas. The heirs to Zenkevičius’s estate now wish to sell Akelaitis’s manuscripts. Letuwislaw”.] Third, given M. Akelaitis’s ambitious undertakings, his constant restlessness, and his difficult living conditions, it is hard to believe that during 1856–1861, while supporting himself with lessons and press work and occupied with several other projects (translations, bilingual dictionaries, preparing and printing popular literature, etc.), he could have written a comparative dictionary. Nor could he have written one in exile, because at first he was struggling to earn his daily bread, and later, when he was able to return to comparative linguistics, he devoted himself to developing a new linguistic theory and writing a Lithuanian grammar. He would have had to return to the dictionaries after writing the grammar, but he was unable to finish even that. Fourth, lexicographical work demands great effort, time, patience, and extraordinary dedication. M. Akelaitis was not a settled worker, attached to and devoted to one task, as a lexicographer intent on writing as many as three dictionaries would have had to be; compiling them required a dozen or more years of painstaking, intensive, and continuous work. He was an energetic, expansive public figure, a man of letters, and a preparer and publisher of popular books for the people, but not a lexicographer. A. Janulaitis aptly describes M. Akelaitis’s inconsistency and restlessness: “Akelaitis could not sit still; with so many plans, large and small, he jumped from one thing to another. He felt that he needed movement, living people, and that shut away among books in Svirlauky he was becoming morally impoverished. So he was preparing to leave, though he himself did not know where or why. Sometimes he mentions paid employment, but P. Smuglevičius and Daukantas restrain him, saying: if you go into service, you will accomplish nothing, neither for yourself nor for scholarship” (Jan MA, p. 27). After spending more than a year working on dictionaries in Svyr-laukys, where he had the most peaceful and best working conditions, M. Akelaitis moved to Rietavas. There he concerned himself with publishing a Lithuanian newspaper, organizing a printing house, and publishing little books for the people. In 1860 he moved to Vilnius, where he immersed himself in preparing and publishing a little book for the people. Clearly, at that time he had neither the time nor the inclination to sit down to work on dictionaries. Therefore, M. Akelaitis’s comparative dictionary should be regarded as an unrealized plan, which found expression in etymologies and comparisons of various names and words, rather than in the continuous writing of a dictionary text. M. Akelaitis lacked the linguistic preparation, dedication, and time needed to write a comparative dictionary, and his plan remained unfulfilled. It is therefore hardly worth searching for the manuscript of that dictionary, mentioned in the works of bibliographers and authors who wrote about M. Akelaitis. Most likely, these were separate etymological explanations and fragments of them, some of which were published, while others remained scattered among manuscripts. M. Akelaitis collected material not only for a comparative dictionary but also for bilingual (Polish-Lithuanian and Lithuanian-Polish) dictionaries, which he began compiling on M. Valančius’s advice. He promised first to prepare a small Polish-Lithuanian dictionary and later a Lithuanian-Polish one, for which he already had the material and needed only to select it (“ociosac”) and arrange it systematically (“w jedno piękną całość zestawić”). That prepared material was probably printed works and, especially, manuscript dictionaries by other authors (Andruškevičius, an anonymous easterner, and others), which M. Akelaitis thought he would be able to use easily. 169 In his letters, M. Akelaitis gives conflicting information about the progress of compiling the Polish-Lithuanian dictionary. In a draft of a letter to A. Kirkor dated 1858.V.3, he writes: “I am now finishing the Polish-Lithuanian Dictionary. I have found a man, a true Lithuanian, who will have my work printed at his own expense (F1–10, p. 2). [I am now finishing the Polish-Lithuanian dictionary. I have found a man, a true Lithuanian, who is to send my work to press at his own expense.] Given M. Akelaitis’s easy and hastily made promises to get everything done quickly, this information raises doubts. In fact, somewhat later, in a letter to J. Kraszewski, M. Akelaitis reported: “The dictionaries: Polish-Lithuanian and Lithuanian comparative, are progressing at a tortoise’s pace. In the first, alongside Lithuanian words, I shall include Old Prussian words, as well as Latvian ones that have already disappeared from Lithuanian. It goes without saying that this does not concern German words that have crept into Latvian. Next, I shall explain Polish words whose source is Lithuanian, such as skrzydło, oskard, kord, ogół, szczegół, and so on. Thirdly, I shall briefly set out the names from Lithuanian mythology included in Orgelbrand’s Dictionary, which (may the gentlemen compilers forgive me) are described most absurdly” (F1–11, p. 3). [The dictionaries—the Polish-Lithuanian and the comparative Lithuanian one—are proceeding at a tortoise’s pace. In the first, besides Lithuanian words, I shall include Old Prussian ones, as well as Latvian words that have already disappeared from Lithuanian. It goes without saying that this does not concern German words that have crept into Latvian. Next, I shall explain Polish words whose source is Lithuanian, such as skrzydło, oskard, kord, ogół, szczegół, and so on. Thirdly, I shall briefly set out the Lithuanian mythological names included in Orgelbrand’s dictionary, where they (may the gentlemen compilers forgive me) are badly described.] This passage from the letter shows that the Polish-Lithuanian dictionary was not nearing completion but, one might say, only beginning to be compiled. With its Old Prussian and Latvian equivalents and mythological names, it resembles a comparative dictionary. It seems that M. Akelaitis had no firm idea of what to include where: in one place he says that mythological names would be included in the comparative dictionary, and elsewhere, in the bilingual Polish-Lithuanian dictionary. This shows his vacillation, characteristic of the beginning of the work. As far as the archival and other materials available in our republic allow us to judge, M. Akelaitis says nothing else about work on a Polish-Lithuanian dictionary. Only in a letter to A. Kirkor dated 1859.XI.26 does he mention it again: “Besides booklets for the people, we shall soon publish a Lithuanian-Polish and a Polish-Lithuanian dictionary, as well as a Lithuanian grammar (TŻ, III, 318). [Besides booklets for the people, we shall soon publish Lithuanian-Polish and Polish-Lithuanian dictionaries, as well as a Lithuanian grammar.] The bilingual dictionaries, which had not yet been compiled at that time, were to follow the popular booklets, of which M. Akelaitis published five in 1860. Further publishing activity stopped for lack of funds and because of other work (cf. JanMA, 49). The Polish-Lithuanian dictionary is not mentioned even in the press already cited (Kuryer Wileński, Biblioteka Warszawska, Kraj), where M. Akelaitis’s lexicographical work was discussed. Thus, most likely, no manuscript of such a dictionary was prepared. It was probably an unrealized project of M. Akelaitis, like the comparative dictionary. Having K. Širvydas’s Polish-Latin-Lithuanian dictionary, M. Akelaitis could easily have written a small Polish-Lithuanian dictionary. However, because he was constantly changing direction and taking up new work, he could not devote himself to that little dictionary, which, it may be assumed, remained uncompiled. We have no reliable evidence that a manuscript of such a dictionary existed. Only the third lexicographical work by M. Akelaitis—the Lithuanian-Polish dictionary—is clearly documented as an actual fact. M. Akelaitis himself wrote about it more than once in his letters, which have already been cited above. The dictionary was also mentioned in the press, which noted that the manuscript of M. Akelaitis’s Lithuanian-Polish dictionary had been found among the books and manuscripts left behind at the home of Vilnius artist Zenkevičius, 170 that it was unfinished and that it contained about 300 leaves (not sheets, as stated in JanMA, p. 1, since M. Akelaitis, occupied with other work as well, could not have written such a large dictionary). After Zenkevičius’s death, M. Akelaitis’s Lithuanian-Polish dictionary came into the hands of J. Karlovičius¹¹. Since the dictionary manuscript is unavailable today, it is impossible to describe it. It is difficult even to say what kind of dictionary it was—bilingual or multilingual. In a draft of a letter to A. Kirkor, M. Akelaitis mentions a Lithuanian dictionary and gives an example of it: “The Lithuanian dictionary will be presented in Polish, Russian, and German. Here is a sample. Kalpa, os f. sluga, uczestnik; clyra, участник; Diener und Dienerin, Theilnehmer. Giliminia kalpa, šuga, wspólnik śmierci, zbój. Pórdvnaj: Sanskr. Klpn. 1) causam fieri alcjs, rei, 2) facere, efficere, 3) dare, impertire. Lotyskie Kalps, parobek. Gotškie hilpa, halp, niemiecke helfen, Polskie chłop (F1—10, p. 8).” It appears that the example given here is from a Lithuanian-Polish dictionary, rather than a comparative dictionary, which should also include Latin and Greek equivalents. It is clear that M. Akelaitis inserted words from various languages everywhere, and so he added Russian, German, and Sanskrit equivalents to the sample from the Lithuanian-Polish dictionary as well. Something about M. Akelaitis’s Lithuanian-Polish dictionary can be inferred from three draft lexicographic pages in M. Akelaitis’s papers (F1—32, p. 1—3), one of which we reproduce here in full: Saunóra = egoist. šieks = purpose. sáugulis = caution; drive with a guide wherever it goes, so the wagon will not overturn. saudarbis = whoever works only for himself and not for another is a saudarbis =egoist. savaimei = voluntarily; his door broke open by itself, without a key. savyšta, savyba = 1) property; we manage on our own 2) ownership—such is the nature of the thing. savigyra = braggart. skaistyaris brass skanakyš, ė attractive, alluring; whose eyes are sharp and keen; the heart aches, seeing the beautiful girl; whoever looks handsome is skanakyš skanskonis spoon skarda sheet metal skėtis umbrella sausainis = rusk, baked with water, without milk or butter rakas споръ. When the frost comes, geese hatch from their eggs skiltis, ies 1) lineage, race. He is descended from an exalted lineage = family 2) kind. A potato variety minikas riddle-maker spėjikas guesser skyra choice, difference. There is no distinction; everyone drinks. He will take without distinction. Old and young all lie in one hut without distinction skyras,a exclusive, separate. He was distinct from the whole world skyrybė difference skyris,io division skyrus,i solitary skystalinti to be without land. To sail where there is no skystis liquid (quality), thinness skystutis—one who does not resist or withstand skolinkas heedless of debt without a reminder. I lend it to him = I give skolytis = to borrow, to go into debt skomas = taste. Lean veal without any taste [.] the taste of a tasty dish.” ¹¹ V. Žukas, From the history of libraries and bibliography, “Yearbook of the Scientific Library of Vilnius State University named after V. Kapsukas”, 1858—1959, Vilnius, 1961, p. 249. 171 skometi = to taste; the mouth tastes sweet when you eat something sweet. She wants to taste the honey as she samples it skradžia — to perish — May thunder strike you down into the abyss for that. skradžias, ia adjective = bottomless. May you go into the bottomless depths. uktvere it flies about its farm. skráitas — undressing, removal of clothing. He tucks up the garment and makes a skráitas. skriesti, skriedžiu, skriešiu. To describe a circle. The sorcerer drew a circle around the boil, so it would not spread further. skriest(u)vas — compass. The instrument with which you draw a circle is a skriest(u)vas. skritulis skrybele it is good with earflaps. skritinys: circle. The meadow is sown in circles. a quarter square. a spar = put on, cut through the spar, and bind the ends together with a spar. haste = haste. You will take no pleasure in work done in haste. Work done in haste is careless and worth nothing. hasty = hasty, a hasty task. hurried = a hurried person, hasty. to fool around — to frolic. frolicking — frolic, a frenzy of passion. A frenzy of frolicking came over [him]. That frenzy of frolicking did not pass for her. thrift thriftiness. One needs to be thrifty because of scarcity. poverty poverty. The Marčiai are poor there. a life of poverty To live a life of poverty in Velunai. poor = miserable. It is miserable to hear them fighting. A poor heart. pauper pauper poor poor However, the handwriting on these pages and the illustrative examples provided raise doubts as to whether this is M. Akelaitis’s manuscript. First, the sentences given alongside individual words correspond exactly to the examples in A. Juška’s dictionary manuscript. M. Akelaitis could not have copied them from A. Juška’s dictionary, since it had not yet been compiled. Second, the manuscript’s handwriting differs from M. Akelaitis’s hand. The use of the letter v also distinguishes this manuscript from M. Akelaitis’s manuscripts, in which the Polish w is written. Thus, the conclusion suggests itself that these three lexicographical pages, which became part of M. Akelaitis’s legacy, do not belong to M. Akelaitis. M. Akelaitis’s lexicographical activity was manifested not only in efforts to compile a comparative dictionary and two bilingual dictionaries, but also in the collection of various terminological materials and the creation of new terms, the insertion of Lithuanian terms into a Polish text on Lithuanian grammar, explanations of words, and other brief notes. When publishing Lithuanian booklets and translating from other languages, M. Akelaitis also had to devise Lithuanian terms and compile lists and glossaries of them. At that time, Lithuanian terminology in various fields was very sparse, inconsistent, or entirely lacking. There were not yet even elementary textbooks in mathematics, natural science, history, geography, and other fields, so those writing or translating from other languages had to devise the most necessary terms themselves. M. Akelaitis followed this path as well. The manuscript collection of the library of Vilnius State V. Kapsukas University contains a 20-page manuscript by M. Akelaitis, “Index of the names of plants, as the Samogitians call them” (shelfmark D1020), which lists about 580 plant names with their Latin equivalents. Under the letter A there are 21 plant-name entries, namely: Agūnas poppy Papaver somniferum (1), Agr asai Ribes. Uva crispa (1), Agrastai dᵉ, dᵉ, gooseberries bear fruit, Ribes Grossularia (1), Agrastai gaurutėje. dᵉ reclinatum (1), Ajerai Aeorus, calamus. Calamus (1), Akliai. Galeopsis Tetrahit (1); Amalai. viscum album, mistletoe (1), Anyszys v. Anise. 172 Sison anisum (1), Ápalis, populus nigra (1), Apiniai, Humulus Lupulus. Apwiniai (1), Ápušze, populus tremula (1), Ásiai, epuisetum hiemale (1), Aszōkliai, ribes rubrum. Aszwōkliai (1), Átgires, lycopodium, selago (1), Átkaksznis, evonimus europaeus (1), Atūdōgiai, secale cereale vernum (1), Awētes, sanguisorba officinalis (1), Awētes, rubus, Idaeus, awēczios (1), Áwiżas, avena sativa. awižos tuszczios ave. fatua (flaves ser.), Awižu žole, bromus sterilis (1). The glossary includes Samogitian forms, for example: Dēwamediai (4), Erszketiai (4), Papartiai (11), Žaltia lunks (17), and so on. Sometimes Samogitian and Aukštaitian forms of plant names are given side by side, for example: Klaus, acer platanvides. Klevas (7), Warputiai. Ariticum repens. Warpucziai, warputis (15), and so on. M. Akelaitis copied this plant index from the manuscript “Tayslōs augimiu” (Taislius augymių) by the Samogitian botanist J. Pabrėža. On page 887 begins “Rodiikle Waarduu sawyszkuuju kaap kōres augimes wadyn Žemaytee.” M. Akelaitis adapted the index and plant names to Aukštaitian, retaining Samogitian forms only here and there. On the opening page of the glossary manuscript, in a hand other than M. Akelaitis’s, is the note: “Used Staugaitis’s dictionary and the new botanical dictionary. From Kriaučiūnas’s archive (via Čiutas).” While translating and preparing the short work “Apej garus” (Fl—31) for publication, M. Akelaitis encountered the parts of a locomotive (to use his expression, a steam boiler and an iron carriage), and needed to find Lithuanian names for them. In this way he became the first creator of technical terminology to present in his work more than a hundred names of locomotive parts, with explanations, for example: antvožėlis, aušytojas, katilas, kaitintojas, muštuvė, plaukytojas, pliumpa, provadūrys, stiebas, svirtis, stūma, švilpynė, tarpininkas “connecting rod,” triuba, volė, vežės “rails,” žirgiai, žibintuvė, and so on. These are mostly folk words adapted as technical terms, along with a few unsuccessful coinages (plaukytojas “float,” aušytojas “condenser,” and so on). This first small collection of technical terms is important to the history of terminology (for more, see the journal “Mokslas ir technika,” 1969, No. 11). M. Akelaitis was also one of the creators of grammatical terminology. Although his Lithuanian grammar was written in Polish, a dozen or so Lithuanian equivalents are given in parentheses alongside Polish terms in places (in the introduction and elsewhere). They were taken from predecessors (A. Baranauskas and others; for example: raštelis “letter,” rašyba, tarmė, lankstymas, žodži-ūgis, saudžiai “consonants”) or coined by M. Akelaitis himself (for example: balsyba “the science of sounds,” raštadailė “graphic art,” žodžkilis “etymology,” tartis “syllable,” and so on). In general, M. Akelaitis had a penchant for coining terms, as is also evident from his first letter in Lithuanian to M. Valančius (TŽ, III, 292–294), in which we find these coinages: raštenybė (Polish pismienictwo), mėnskaitlius, or metininkas, “calendar,” kalbamylis “philologist,” tiesiaieškōjas “critic,” and žodynas, to which he added the following note: “I call it ‘Žodinas,’ not Žodinis, as Wallenjawicz and Iwinskis want; for we say — karklis, karklinas, puszis, puszinas: therefore also žodis — žodinas (p. 293).” Besides collections of terms, M. Akelaitis’s manuscripts contain various words, explanations of events, and other similar material. Most of these were added to his translation into Polish of K. Donelaitis’s “Metai,” which is held in the Central State Archive of the Lithuanian SSR (f. 378, PS, 1861, b. 16, d. 1, l. 145–198). The translation’s 173 On pp. 197–198 there are 18 numbered explanations—addenda (“Przypisy”), which we present here, adding translations and indicating which part and line of “Metai” they concern: 1) Lithuanians believe that the stork flies off to distant lands for its winter sleep. [Lithuanians believe that the stork flies off to distant lands to sleep through the winter (I, 43).] 2) It is difficult to render this verse in Polish, because the words: Jurgut! Jurgut! hitch up, hitch up, whip, whip—imitate the song of a nightingale. [This word is difficult to translate into Polish, because the expressions: Jurgut! Jurgut! hitch up, hitch up, whip, whip—imitate the singing of a nightingale (I, 107).] 3) In Lithuanian, “nightingale” is lakštingala, a feminine noun. Lithuanian women usually sing their favorite dainos while traveling, hence the poet compares the nightingale to a peasant woman going to visit friends. [Słowik—lakštingala, feminine gender. On a journey in Lithuania, women usually sing their favorite songs; therefore, the poet compares the nightingale to a peasant woman (būrė) going to visit friends (I, 116).] 4) Szupinis we have translated as pea soup. It is peas cooked thick with flour or groats. Such pea soup cannot be made without bacon, pig’s head meat, feet, and tail, which provide the entire ornament of this favorite Lithuanian dish in the bowl. [We translated šiupinys as pea soup. It is peas cooked thickly with flour or groats. This pea soup must contain bacon, pig’s head meat, and a pig’s tail, which gives the dish, so beloved by Lithuanians, all its charm in the bowl (I, 151).] 5) In 1709 and 1710, plague ravaged Lithuania. Mortality was high, and villages stood empty. The Prussian government brought in settlers from Germany, Switzerland, and France. In time, they assimilated with the Lithuanians and adopted their language and customs. [In 1709–1710, plague raged in Lithuania. Mortality was high, and villages became desolate. The Prussian authorities brought in settlers from Germany, Switzerland, and France. In time they merged with the Lithuanians and adopted their language and customs (I, 563).] 6) Giltinė is żądnica, a goddess of death, so called because with her sting (żądło) she sucks deadly poison from corpses and uses it to kill people. Hence, scissors were placed beside the dead person so that they could cut off Giltinė’s tongue when she came to extract the poison from it. [Giltinė is the goddess of death, for with her sting she sucks deadly poison from corpses and kills people with it. For this reason, scissors were placed beside the dead person, so that they could cut off the reaper’s tongue when she came to suck the poison from it (II, 37, 88).] [The word giltinė is untranslated, retained in the Polish text as well, and written with a capital letter.] 7) In depicting Giltinė with a scythe, the poet departed from the folk beliefs current at the time. (See the preceding note.) [By depicting Giltinė with a scythe, the poet departed from the folk conceptions of that time. (See the preceding note) (II, 90).] 8) In Lithuanian, serfdom is baudžiawa, meaning coercion, violence. [Baudžiava in Lithuanian means coercion, violence (II, 99).] 9) “kaip būrą baudžiąwa baudžia” means “as serfdom oppresses the peasant” (II, 148). 10) Deiwes means specters, bogeymen. [Deivė means sorceress, bogeywoman (II, 212).] [The word deivė is not translated into Polish and is written with a capital letter.] 11) Podkomorzy—Pakamorė, an assistant to the village elder. The assistant’s duty was to announce government orders to the peasants and collect taxes from them. Pakamorė—an assistant to the village elder. His duty was to announce the government’s orders to the peasants and collect taxes from them (II, 437).] 12) Wachmistrz, an official of the rural police. [Wachmistras—a local police official (II, 544).] 13) We have used the word dziewosłęb here incorrectly. Kwieślys means one who calls or invites people to a wedding: kweśće, kwęcciu, “I invite.” In Lithuanian, dziewosłęb is pirszlys: perszu, matchmaker, I arrange a marriage. [We use the word dziewosłęb here in an unusual sense. Kwieślys means one who asks, invites people to a wedding: kviestie, kviečiu—I ask. Dziewosłęb in Lithuanian is piršlys: perszu (III, 83).] 14) A coif, the exclusive headdress of married women, is called rykas in Lithuanian. Related to this word are rykįs, rykūnas, “steward,” and rykūne, “housekeeper, mistress of the household.” A wreath is permitted only to girls; a married woman may adorn herself with flowers and rue until she gives birth to a daughter, that is, until she becomes a grandmother. If a girl happens to become a mother (which very rarely happens in Lithuania), she loses the right to wear the little cap (pałaklė) and the wreath. In that case, the unfortunate woman confesses her fault and tearfully begs the priest to let her at least adorn herself with rue and little flowers, since she may not return to the insignia of maidenhood—the little cap and wreath, which she now mourns in plaintive dainos. [A coif, the exclusive dress of married women, is called rykas in Lithuanian. Related to this word are rykįs, rykūnas, “ruler,” and rykūne—“mistress of the household.” A wreath is permitted only to girls; a married woman may adorn herself with flowers and rue until she gives birth to a daughter or becomes a grandmother. If a girl happens to become a mother (which happens very rarely in Lithuania), she loses the right to a crown and wreath. In such a case, the unfortunate woman confesses her fault and tearfully asks the priest to let her adorn herself at least with rue and little flowers, since she cannot return to the insignia of maidenhood—the crown and wreath, which she now mourns in sorrowful songs (III, 105).] 15) In a Lithuanian cottage there is no paved floor, only an earthen floor, beaten down from clay— 174 a floor beaten from clay. [In a Lithuanian cottage there is no floor, only an earthen floor, a clay surface (III, 183).] 16) Kriwule is a crooked staff used by the village elder. When the elder has something to announce to the peasants, he sends the Kriwulę from cottage to cottage. The Lithuanian who receives this staff sends it onward and hurries to the elder himself. Hence the expressions: eimi in kriwulę, “I am going to the council”; pareimi iż kriwules, “I am returning from the council.” Kriwule, as well as Kriwis i Kriwiu-Kriwaitis (Kriwe-Kriwajto), have a common origin. This also explains that little joke—the Lithuanian skurczypałka. [Kriwulė is a crooked staff used by the village elder. When the village elder wants to convey something to the peasants, he sends the kriwulė from cottage to cottage. The Lithuanian who receives the staff sends it onward and hurries to the village elder. Hence it is said: eimi in kriwulę, pareimi iš kriwulės. Kriwulė, as well as Krivių-Krivaitis (Kriwe-Kriwajto), share a common origin. This is also the source of the saying that mocks Lithuanians: the Lithuanian—a crooked stick (IV, 153).] [The word krivulė is also retained in the Polish text.] 17) The author has in mind two fires that broke out in Königsberg in 1764 and 1769. [The author has in mind two fires that broke out in Königsberg in 1764 and 1769 (IV, 184).] 18) In those days, the government ordered the peasants to destroy sparrows and crows. Each peasant was obliged to deliver twelve sparrow heads and several pairs of crow’s feet annually. [In those days the authorities had ordered the peasants to destroy sparrows and crows. Each peasant had to deliver twelve sparrow heads and several pairs of crow’s feet every year (IV, 293).] The contents of G. Nesselmann’s collection of songs (Fl—26, p. 3) include the following linguistic excerpts, notes, and explanations (Zwroty językowe); Kas gelbės ieškotie?—who will help search (p. 3); he gathered them for three years. Pavytysius lapelius (p. 4); Mamuž, mamuž, garbužėle (p. 6); Pridab otie—dozierać (p. 6); Žemynelė—žiedekele, does this mean “earth, little earth, adorned with flowers”? (p. 7); Žemynos ziedai (p. 9); Kopini kas (p. 8); Nehrunger; Ei mergate pakalnele! girl from the lowlands. Del ko taip dailos į lemenelį (p. 9); Muma moczutes (p. 9); Weluka flaga (p. 12); Kas tawę nuszausai? (17); Palynelis, Schlingennetz (18); Penkes backzeliu (13); Ne kwete peledą vieną. Lckys niedzwiedz (14); O wilkelis linksmas esąs wedis oszka szokti (14); Paganikelis, shepherd. Most of the material here consists of explanations in Polish of less common words. M. Akelaitis’s work written in Polish, “Moja chata” (Fl—14), also contains several brief notes (“Objaśnienia”) on the use of words such as “Poles,” Lauma, Perkūnas, šiaurys, and others. M. Akelaitis’s plans to prepare Lithuanian dictionaries and his small lexicographic works, carried out while he was living in Lithuania, have been discussed. In emigration, he was concerned with developing a new linguistic theory and writing a grammar, and could devote little attention to lexicography. Here he only mentions from time to time that dictionaries are also on his mind. In an 1883 letter from Paris to J. Kraszewski, he wrote: Not long ago I read in the Warsaw newspaper a notice about the announcement of competitions by the Academy of Learning in Kraków. Among them I found a competition in the name of Samuel Bogumił Linde: “a study in the field of the Polish language.” I would like to enter the competition. I intend to write such a study: “A list of Polish words derived from Lithuanian or having a common origin with it.” Dearest, most beloved compatriot! As a member of the Kraków Academy, kindly send me detailed information about the competition mentioned. What is the final deadline, and to whom should the manuscript be submitted? The second work I am constantly dreaming of is an etymological dictionary of the Polish language. Poles do not yet possess such a work. I am also thinking about a Polish–Lithuanian and Lithuanian–Polish dictionary. But who will provide me with the means to carry out this work?…¹² [Recently I read in a Warsaw newspaper a notice about the schedule of competitions announced by the Kraków Academy of Learning. Among them is the Samuel Bogumił Linde competition: “research into the Polish language.” I would like to enter the competition. I intend to write a study entitled: “Polish words derived from Lithuanian or sharing a common origin with it.” Dear and beloved compatriot! As a member of the Kraków Academy, please send me detailed information about the competition mentioned. What is the final deadline (year and day), and to whom should the manuscript be submitted? The second work I am constantly thinking about is an etymological dictionary of the Polish language. Poles do not yet have a similar work. I am also thinking about Polish–Lithuanian and Lithuanian–Polish dictionaries. But who will guarantee me the funds to carry out this work?…] 12 Manuscripts Department of Vilnius State V. Kapsukas University, M. Akelaitis Collection. 175 This letter shows that even in emigration, occupied with other work, M. Akelaitis dreamed of lexicographic work, of Polish–Lithuanian and Lithuanian–Polish dictionaries, which, it seems, had not yet been compiled. This once again reminds us that M. Akelaitis’s lexicographic legacy (a comparative dictionary and two bilingual dictionaries), cited by bibliographers, should be regarded with considerable reserve. A review of M. Akelaitis’s lexicographic activity allows us to draw the following conclusions: An enthusiast and dreamer, M. Akelaitis believed that he would soon be able to write as many as three dictionaries. He began collecting material and announced that one dictionary or another was nearing completion, although in reality he had not yet properly begun the work. M. Akelaitis was somewhat prepared for lexicographic work. He learned several languages, took an interest in and collected Lithuanian dictionaries compiled before his time, both printed and handwritten, several of which (those by Andruškevičius and the anonymous eastern Lithuanian dictionary) were found among his papers. Evidently, he intended to use them. M. Akelaitis had amassed quite a large amount of printed literature for compiling dictionaries. However, his statements and examples show that he had no clear or firmly established lexicographic principles. In particular, M. Akelaitis vacillated over including equivalents from other languages in bilingual dictionaries; in the examples he provided for those dictionaries, he gives equivalents in four or more languages, although such equivalents are unnecessary in bilingual dictionaries. Much can also be faulted in the comparative dictionary M. Akelaitis intended to write: its examples show that he did not adhere to established principles of etymological dictionaries and often arbitrarily juxtaposed words with no common origin. The etymologies of proper names and words intended for inclusion in the comparative dictionary show that M. Akelaitis was unable to assimilate the principles of comparative-historical linguistics; he sought, and believed he had discovered, new phonetic laws, which he used to devise even stranger etymologies. His lack of the necessary linguistic training, his constant vacillation, his inability to concentrate on lexicographic work, his failure to understand the difficulties of compiling dictionaries, and the harsh conditions of his life prevented M. Akelaitis from achieving greater results in lexicography. His lexicographic activity was marked by broad but unrealistic ambitions, most of which remained unrealized. The dictionaries M. Akelaitis planned remained unfinished and unpublished. Only the manuscript of the Lithuanian–Polish dictionary came into the hands of the Polish linguist J. Karlowicz and could be used in research on the Lithuanian language. Nevertheless, M. Akelaitis played a positive role as a lexicographer in the development of Lithuanian lexicography. He continued the work of the writers, cultural figures, and public activists of the first half of the 19th century in developing the Lithuanian literary language, and contributed to collecting the riches of the Lithuanian vocabulary and compiling dictionaries. He popularized and reinforced among the educated the idea that a dictionary was necessary to sustain and develop the Lithuanian language, and that further enrichment and standardization of Lithuanian were impossible without one. M. Akelaitis’s lexicographic works were discussed in the press and were known to his contemporaries. This encouraged other educated people to take an interest in compiling and publishing a Lithuanian dictionary. M. Akelaitis also worked to collect and create Lithuanian terminology. He contributed to the collection and preservation of handwritten Lithuanian dictionaries as well. Thanks to him, an eastern Lithuanian–Polish dictionary from the second half of the 19th century has survived, important for shedding light on the history of lexicography. 176 This article sought to take a closer look at M. Akelaitis’s lexicographic activity, which until now had been touched on only briefly, on the basis of bibliographic and biographical data, with three lexicographic works by M. Akelaitis cited (a comparative dictionary and two bilingual dictionaries). By reviewing the available archival and printed materials concerning M. Akelaitis and examining specifically the lexicographic legacy attributed to him and available to us, an attempt was made to determine what M. Akelaitis actually accomplished in Lithuanian lexicography and which of his plans remained unrealized. Clearly, these efforts are only the beginning—a preliminary inquiry into the search for and study of M. Akelaitis’s lexicographic legacy—which must be supplemented and refined by further searches for his dictionaries (especially the most plausible of them, a Lithuanian–Polish dictionary) and other materials, as well as by broader research. ABBREVIATIONS OF SOURCES 1. AkG = Gramatyka języka litewskiego. Glosownia. Napisał Mikolaj Akielewicz, Poznań. 1890. 2. Fl, 1…49 = The handwritten legacy of M. Akelaitis held at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences of the Lithuanian SSR (F1), consisting of 49 folders (indicated after the dash). 3. Jan MA = A. Janulaitis, Mikalojus Akelaitis, Vilnius, 1969. 4. Tž = “Tauta ir Žodis,” publication of the Faculty of Humanities, vols. I—VII, Kaunas, 1923—1931. M. Akelaitis as a Lexicographer I. Kruopas Summary The article provides an extensive review of the lexicographical works of M. Akelaitis (1829–1887), a prominent figure in the mid-nineteenth century in Lithuanian culture, education, literature, and science. M. Akelaitis was interested in comparative linguistics, in which the Lithuanian language already held an important place at that time, and sought to contribute to the study of Lithuanian and to the creation of its grammar and dictionaries. He intended to compile Lithuanian–Polish and Polish–Lithuanian dictionaries, as well as a comparative dictionary of the Lithuanian language. To this end, for many years he gathered material from various sources, especially Lithuanian belles lettres, and wrote most of the Lithuanian–Polish dictionary. Polish linguists used this dictionary in their research on the Lithuanian language. M. Akelaitis’s active involvement in the public, cultural, and literary life of Lithuania, his participation in the 1863 uprising against tsarism, and his subsequent emigration to Paris after the uprising was suppressed prevented him from completing his lexicographical projects. Nevertheless, he played a positive role in the development of Lithuanian lexicography and the literary language. 12. Iš lietuvių leksikologijos ir leksikografijos