Augustas Šleicheris

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS GRAMATIKOS TYRINĖJIMAI LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA AUGUSTAS ŠLEICHERIS A. SABALIAUSKAS “The memory of Schleicher as a scholar will not disappear as long as there are people engaged in science.” J. Boduenas de Kurtenė If we look back at the history of any science, we will almost always find several names standing there like distinctive signposts, pointing the way to new, unknown paths, bringing an old stage of that science to a close or beginning a new one. In the history of linguistics, August Schleicher is such a signpost. Whatever author writes a history of Indo-European linguistics, and from whatever standpoint, they will always have to pause for a long time at this scholar and will probably not be able to do without chapters in their book devoted to his name. True, today in the history of Indo-European studies Schleicher’s name more often marks the end of a past stage than the beginning of a new one; his achievements are usually discussed less than his errors. For Baltic studies, however, and to a large extent for Slavic studies as well, Schleicher’s name symbolizes a new era—their formation, one might say, as international scholarly disciplines. And Schleicher occupies an entirely distinctive place in the history of Lithuanian culture. In this respect, probably no nation whose language this German scholar studied feels as grateful to him as the Lithuanians do. August Schleicher was born on February 19, 1821, in Meiningen, in the very center of Germany, which was still divided at the time. His father, Johann Gottlieb Schleicher (1793—1864), was a district physician and a progressive man for his time1. In 1822 the Schleicher family moved to the town of Sonneberg, not far from Meiningen. The future scholar spent his childhood in this town, and Schleicher regarded Sonneberg as his birthplace, later even dedicating one of his scholarly works to it. From 1835 to 1840, Schleicher attended the Coburg Gymnasium. At the Gymnasium he was most interested in the Greek and Latin taught there; he studied Arabic privately (his teacher was the Gymnasium director) and became acquainted with Chinese and Sanskrit. Naturally, this “dispersion” of interests must have seriously affected his performance in the other subjects in the Gymnasium curriculum, and Schleicher was far from being one of the top pupils. His inclination to take an interest in various botanical subjects also became apparent at the Gymnasium, as did his musical talents. Without completing the Gymnasium course, Schleicher prepared for his school-leaving 1 The biographical facts about A. Schleicher are drawn mainly from S. Lefmann, August Schleicher, Leipzig, 1870 and J. Dietze, August Schleicher als Slawist, Berlin, 1966. 17. Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos tyrinėjimai 257 examinations at home and, after passing them, enrolled at the University of Leipzig at the end of 1840 to study theology and Oriental studies. Besides Protestant theology and philosophy, Schleicher continued studying Arabic and probably Sanskrit and Chinese there. However, he evidently did not like the atmosphere at the University of Leipzig; the punishment of confinement in the university jail for a student duel undoubtedly contributed to this. After studying for one semester, Schleicher transferred in 1841 to the University of Tübingen, then Germany’s citadel of theology. There he seems to have encountered Hegel’s ideas more extensively for the first time; these later played such a major role in Schleicher’s scholarly work. His interests gradually shifted from theology toward philosophy, and he immersed himself increasingly in linguistic problems, diligently studying Sanskrit, Persian, and Semitic languages. In early 1843, Schleicher the theologian delivered his first sermon. This sermon, however, was almost his final farewell to theology. In the spring of that same year, he moved to the University of Bonn and devoted himself to the study of philology. Schleicher’s father—a practical man—was initially dissatisfied with his son’s future profession and wrote to him plainly in one letter: “A philologist is a poor ragamuffin...and it is not worth spending money on these studies”². At Bonn, Schleicher studied classical philology, Sanskrit, and Arabic. He had excellent teachers there. The classical philology seminars were led by Friedrich Welcker, a former tutor in the Humboldt household, who may also have introduced Schleicher to the linguistic theories of his former pupil Wilhelm Humboldt. Friedrich Diez, the founder of Romance philology, taught him Gothic and Old High German. Christian Lassen, his professor of Sanskrit, had a very positive influence on Schleicher in our regard: he was the first to encourage his interest in the Baltic and Slavic languages. On Lassen’s advice, Schleicher learned some Polish from fellow students. In 1846 Schleicher successfully completed his university studies, receiving venia legendi “for the Indian language and literature and comparative grammar.” Since the regulations of the University of Bonn did not require a separate habilitation thesis for the doctorate, but only a trial lecture, he prepared one on the topic “De graecae linguae spirantibus, in primis de ϑ litterae vi et origine,” and on June 27, 1846, delivered his inaugural lecture, “Über den Wert der Sprachvergleichung,” in the hall of the University of Bonn (published in 1850). In that same year, 1846, Schleicher was granted three years’ leave for scholarly trips to Paris and London. However, he spent part of this time recuperating in Belgium. Later he worked at the National Library of Paris. He arrived in Paris just after the February Revolution of 1848. Schleicher also earned a living as a correspondent for German newspapers. He visited Brussels and Vienna. At the beginning of 1849, Schleicher arrived in Prague, wishing to improve his Czech. There he became friends with Alois Vaniček, the future professor of Sanskrit at the University of Prague, who, having already abandoned a career in law, had begun to take an interest in linguistics. Vaniček taught Schleicher Czech. Schleicher did not stay long in Prague, however—the police of Austria-Hungary began to take an interest in him as a politically suspect person. The police seized the money sent to him by post. In May 1849, with borrowed funds, Schleicher left Prague and returned to Bonn via Dresden and Berlin. By that time Schleicher had already attracted public attention with his scholarly works. They had also aroused the interest of the then- 2 J. Dietze, August Schleicher as a Slavist, p. 18. 258 On March 8, 1850, Leo Tun-Hohenstein, Minister of Education of Austria-Hungary, invited Schleicher to the University of Prague as an extraordinary professor of “classical philology and literature.” Upon arriving in Prague, Schleicher found Georg Curtius teaching there, who would become one of the most renowned specialists in Greek and Indo-European languages of the nineteenth century. A sincere friendship developed between Curtius and Schleicher, who were nearly the same age and deeply devoted to their beloved science. Their friendship was not hindered either by their completely opposite characters—Curtius was reserved and cautious, while Schleicher was often blunt, even rough—or by their differing views on the study of language: the former always emphasized the historical character of linguistics, while the latter sought to equate it with the natural sciences. Their friendship lasted until Schleicher’s death, although later the two scholars worked in different places and studied different problems. Curtius also tried to help Schleicher’s students3. As mentioned, Schleicher was initially a professor of classical philology in Prague. However, in May 1851 he received a professorship in “comparative linguistics and Sanskrit,” which better suited his inclinations and training. Schleicher could now teach Slavic studies, Baltic studies, Germanic studies, Sanskrit, and questions of linguistic theory at the University of Prague. Two years later, in recognition of his contributions to the study of language, which he had earned through his famous journey to Lithuania, Schleicher was appointed ordinary professor of “German and comparative linguistics, and Sanskrit.” Schleicher’s later life in Prague unfolded unsuccessfully, and the environment for scholarly work itself became completely unbearable. The reason for these difficulties lay in the complex political and social conditions of the time. In any case, Schleicher was German. He worked at a German-language university in Prague. Although Schleicher held democratic views and was a highly tolerant person, spoke Czech well, even wrote scholarly works in that language and translated works of Sanskrit and Persian literature into it, he nevertheless could not avoid various conflicts with figures in the Czech national movement. At times he offended them, perhaps by commenting too harshly in his reviews on new works by Czech linguists or writers (for example, translations of classical Greek and Roman works into Czech). The Czechs also resented him as a very strict examiner at gymnasium graduation examinations, where Schleicher served as a special “examination commissioner” for the German-language exam4. In both cases, Schleicher may formally have been justified in his criticisms and demands, but as a foreigner—and, moreover, a representative of a large nation—he often found it difficult to understand the feelings of a small nation suffering national oppression. Thus, on the one hand, Schleicher came into conflict with representatives of the Czech national movement, and on the other, he could not avoid conflict with the Austria-Hungarian authorities who oppressed them. The despotic Austria-Hungarian regime could not tolerate Schleicher, whose religious and political views, according to A. Vaniček, were excessively liberal and radical5. As early as 1851, he was suspected of a “republican conspiracy” and kept under police surveillance. As a precaution, Schleicher even handed over his correspondence, in which events of the revolutionary movement might have been reflected, to Vani- 3 J. Dietze, Das Bild Leskiens in den Briefen August Schleicher, — „Beiträge zur Geschichte der Slawistik“, Berlin, 1964, p. 355; J. Dietze, August Schleicher als Slawist, p. 28. 4 J. Dietze, August Schleicher als Slawist, p. 37—8. 5 J. Dietze, August Schleicher als Slawist, p. 39; S. Lefmann, August Schleicher, p. 37 17* 259 to the Czech, and later burned it. In October 1851, Schleicher’s apartment was searched; he himself was taken to Vienna and kept under police supervision. Only after great efforts by his friend Curtius was Schleicher able to return to Prague. Schleicher was, of course, also disliked by the university’s Catholic administration. In 1854, Schleicher married Fanny Strasburger, who came from his native Sondershausen. In 1855, their son died shortly after birth in Prague. Schleicher’s own health deteriorated considerably. During the autumn semester of 1856–57, he was granted leave and went to Sondershausen to recover and study the dialect of his native region. When his leave ended, Schleicher did not return to Prague, which was associated for him with so many sad memories, but instead went to teach at the University of Jena, near his home region, for half the salary. At first, in Jena, Schleicher felt “like a bird released from a cage or a stuffy room into freedom and a green forest”6. Soon, however, Jena, too, disappointed him. The social and political situation and the difficult material conditions so unnerved Schleicher that, speaking of the same Jena which a few years earlier he had compared to freedom and a green forest, he remarked with bitter irony: “Jena is a great puddle, and I am a frog in it”; in a letter, he compared Germany at the time to a flock of spineless sheep going wherever the dogs drove them7. Despite unfavorable living conditions, Schleicher worked tremendously hard in Jena. His extraordinarily varied and rich teaching drew listeners not only from Germany but also from abroad. One major work after another appeared, along with a wealth of articles addressing nearly all the pressing problems of Indo-European studies at the time. Schleicher gradually became a central figure in European linguistics. His scholarly merits were recognized particularly quickly abroad. As early as 1857, the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences elected Schleicher a corresponding member. In 1862, he was invited to work at the University of Warsaw (Szkola Główna) on excellent terms. That same year, Schleicher was invited to move to St. Petersburg. In 1863, he declined an invitation to go to the University of Dorpat. In 1867, the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb elected Schleicher an honorary member. These honors, however, did not improve Schleicher’s life. The poor University of Jena did not raise his salary. To support his family decently (Schleicher had two sons and a daughter), he had to work hard. In one letter to his friend from his Prague days, G. Curtius, Schleicher complained: “... I am 46 years old and still have to write every year for my daily bread, because we cannot live on 900 thalers...”8. Schleicher hoped that a professorship in Slavic studies would be established at the University of Leipzig and that he, as the person in Germany best suited to the post, would finally be able to move away from that “misery of Jena.” However, after three years, the planned Slavic studies department at the University of Leipzig went to August Leskien, Schleicher’s favorite student, while Schleicher himself never moved away from the city of Jena, which he disliked so much: there, on December 6, 1868, he died suddenly, probably of a disease then still unknown—pulmonary tuberculosis. According to the testimony of another of his students, Johann Schmidt, Schleicher’s last words were: “All my life I have longed for truth, but everything ought to be much, much better”9. 6 J. Dietze, ZfSl, 1960, II, p. 269. 7 J. Dietze, August Schleicher als Slawist, p. 43, 45. 8 J. Dietze, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Slawistik, p. 368. 9 J. Schmidt, KZ, 18, 1869, p. 319–20. 260 * * * As we mentioned at the outset, Schleicher’s name today more often marks the end of a past stage in Indo-European linguistics than the beginning of a new one. In fact, Schleicher brought to a close the stage of comparative-historical linguistics begun by Franz Bopp and Rasmus Rask. Works by Schleicher such as “Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen” (Weimar, 1861–2; four editions appeared in German over fifteen years, as well as translations into English and Italian), “Die deutsche Sprache” (Stuttgart, 1860; published five times), “Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Übersicht” (Bonn, 1850; also published in French), “Die Formenlehre der kirchenslawischen Sprache” (Bonn, Wien, Prag, 1852; part of it was also published in Russian), “Handbuch der litauischen Sprache,” 1–2 (Prag, 1856–7), and “Laut- und Formenlehre der polabischen Sprache” (St. Petersburg und Riga, 1871; published after Schleicher’s death) represent the pinnacle of mid-nineteenth-century Indo-European studies. The popularity in his time of Schleicher’s ideas on theoretical questions in the study of language is clearly demonstrated by the fact that his short study “Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft” was published over the course of a dozen or so years in German (three times), French, English, Russian, and Hungarian. Today, when examining Schleicher’s scholarly legacy, one can speak at length about this scholar as a theorist of language, an Indo-Europeanist, Germanist, Slavist, and Balticist, and discuss his views on the Proto-Indo-European language, genealogical classification, and many other questions. This shows what a scholar of vast erudition, broad interests, and truly immense creative potential August Schleicher was. Nevertheless, the greater part of his scholarly legacy belongs to a stage in the study of language that has already passed. Many of Schleicher’s contemporaries disagreed with a considerable number of his claims, especially his view of language as a living organism and his attempt to transfer such Darwinian concepts as “struggle for existence” and “natural selection” into the study of language. Among the very first to criticize Schleicher’s scholarship on the development of Indo-European languages and the Proto-Indo-European language were his most talented students themselves. The studies of individual Indo-European languages or language groups by this scholar have far outlived his research into general problems of Indo-European studies and his rather short-lived theoretical views, which today usually figure in linguistics textbooks only as curiosities. This is especially true of the Slavic and Baltic languages. Without dwelling at length on Schleicher’s works in Slavic studies, we will quote only the assessment of his principal work in this field, offered by the well-known Soviet Slavist S. Bernstein exactly a century after its publication: “The most important date in the history of the comparative grammar of the Slavic languages was 1852. It was in that year that two works were published which marked an epoch in the history of our science. I have in mind the first volume, on phonetics, of Miklošič’s “Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen,” outstanding for its time, and Schleicher’s fundamental work “Formenlehre der kirchenslawischen Sprache erklärend und vergleichend dargestellt”... In the precision of its method and its interpretation of facts, Schleicher’s work undoubtedly surpassed Miklošič’s grammar. It can be said that in the mid-nineteenth century Schleicher’s “Formenlehre” was the greatest achievement of our science... Schleicher’s great merit 261 was that he began to use Lithuanian-language material in comparative research on the Slavic languages. Later, this material helped resolve many important questions in historical phonetics”10. Schleicher’s “Laut- und Formenlehre der polabischen Sprache” remained, one might say, the principal book for studying the structure of the Polabian language until as late as 1929, that is, until the publication of T. Lehr-Splawiński’s grammar of Polabian. Likewise, in 1910 V. Jagić wrote of the “Die Formenlehre der kirchenslawischen Sprache” mentioned above: “Even now Schleicher’s grammar has lost none of its appeal; distinguished by its coherence and clarity of exposition, it is particularly suitable as an introduction to comparative grammar for beginning Slavists”11. These are, in fact, rather rare examples of longevity in the history of comparative linguistics. However, when discussing the formation of comparative Slavic linguistics and the introduction of Slavic-language data into comparative Indo-European studies, we may still mention other linguists alongside Schleicher, though as having made much smaller contributions. But when speaking of the emergence of Baltic studies as a branch of Indo-European studies, we must assign Schleicher a wholly unique place, and we must still cite the first scholarly grammar of Lithuanian, written by this German linguist, as a true scientific feat. We have mentioned that Schleicher became interested in Baltic studies while still studying at the University of Bonn, encouraged by his Sanskrit professor, Christian Lassen. At first, the Baltic languages were for Schleicher merely an auxiliary tool in studying problems of the Slavic languages and determining their place among the other Indo-European languages. He seems to have become more deeply interested in this subject in 1849. In a letter to A. Vaniček dated October 12 of that year, Schleicher wrote: “In the future, I intend especially to study the relationship between the Slavic and Baltic languages. I began preliminary studies this summer, seriously studied Russian, and read Karamzin and Lomonosov. The splendid Serbian folk songs were still too difficult for me, so for the time being I read the Bible, this convenient means of learning a language”12. At the end of 1849, Schleicher wrote in Czech his first work directly related to problems in Baltic studies, “Z čeho povstaly polohlásky ъ, ь a co jim odpovídá v litevském jazyku” (Bonn, 31. Oktober 1849; the manuscript is kept in the library of the University of Leipzig). A German version of this article, “Was entspricht im Litauischen dem kirchenslawischen ъ und ь?”, was published in 1850. In Schleicher’s book “Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Übersicht” (Bonn, 1850), which also published the article just mentioned, we find a footnote in which Schleicher speaks of his future plans: “The author has long been resolved to learn Lithuanian in the country itself and to devote the coming years, and perhaps even his entire future, to its grammar and to the Baltic-Slavic languages more generally”13. In a letter dated February 14, 1852, A. Schleicher complained to Franz Miklošič that his trip to study Lithuanian was “up in the air.” Schleicher’s own financial situation was difficult—he had no funds at all and could not expect an inheritance from his parents, 10 C. Б. Бернштейн, Очерк сравнительной грамматики славянских языков, Москва, 1961, p. 112–3 (šio veikalo tekstą sudaro 1952/3 ir 1953/4 mokslo metais skaitytos paskaitos). 11 И. В. Ягич, История славянской филологии, СПб., 1910, p. 716. 12 J. Dietze, August Schleicher as a Slavist, p. 27. 13 Cited from J. Dietze, August Schleicher als Slawist, p. 29. 262 but that he is still indebted to his brothers and sisters, and therefore asks F. Miklošič for his support in obtaining funds for the journey. Schleicher’s spirits are low (his apartment had been searched a few months earlier...), and he therefore also “morally needs to breathe fresh air for a longer period.” “Thus, in any case, I long for a journey to Lithuania and await the decision of the esteemed Academy with the greatest anticipation,” Schleicher concludes14. After “Formenlehre der kirchenslawischen Sprache” appeared in April 1852, Schleicher devoted all his free time to learning Lithuanian. Indeed, he knew that two good specialists in the Lithuanian language—Fridrichas Kuršaitis and Ferdinandas Neselmanas—lived in Königsberg. However, Schleicher did not expect them to provide a good Lithuanian grammar, because, as he wrote to Miklošič in a letter dated August 15, 1851: “Kuršaitis knows Lithuanian, but lacks a broader education; Neselmanas does not want to write any grammar, and worst of all, the two have long been at odds...”15 Having received no reply from the Vienna Academy of Sciences concerning permission and funds for a journey to East Prussia, Schleicher resolved the matter in a rather original way. In May 1852, the Austrian-Hungarian Minister of Education, Count Leo Tun-Hohenstein, was due to visit Prague. Having learned from the sister of his friend A. Vaníček where and when the minister would dine, Schleicher intercepted him in the corridor on his way into the hall and obtained a brief audience and verbal consent for the journey. After the Vienna Academy of Sciences finally allocated 600 gulden for travel expenses, Schleicher arrived in Königsberg on May 31, 1852. His first visit there was to F. Kuršaitis, whom he hoped would give him practical lessons in Lithuanian. Kuršaitis, however, showed little enthusiasm: he briefly tested Schleicher on Lithuanian declensions, but gave no definite answer to his request for language lessons. Schleicher asked Kuršaitis to let him know in writing later, if he changed his mind, whether he agreed or not, so that Schleicher would know whether to remain in Königsberg for a longer time. F. Neselmanas received Schleicher very warmly. However, being German himself and having learned Lithuanian from books, he could not teach Schleicher the living language. Neselmanas allowed Schleicher to use his collections of Lithuanian materials, introduced him to the Lithuanian-language literature available in Königsberg, and also recommended several provincial pastors who would be useful to him during his travels through the Lithuanian-inhabited areas of East Prussia16. With F. Neselmanas’s recommendations, Schleicher immediately left Königsberg for the Lithuanian communities of East Prussia. Over the course of five months, he visited many places (Ragainė, Tilžė, Priekulė, Smalininkai, Pikalnis, Kaukėnai, Būdviečiai, Kraupiškės). Through conversations with people, he learned Lithuanian fairly quickly. Schleicher was very gifted at learning a living language; as he himself said, he had “a parrot’s talent.” In the letter to F. Miklošič mentioned above, Schleicher boasts that today (i.e., June 11) he spoke to someone in Lithuanian in the fields for the first time. And in a letter of July 6 to A. Vaníček, he writes that he can already converse with Lithuanians and understands everything. Every day he learns many new Lithuanian words, 14 J. Dietze, ZfSl, IV, 1965, p. 540. 15 Ibid., p. 538. 16 Cf. A. Schleicher’s letter to F. Miklošič of June 11, 1852—J. Dietze, ZfSl, IV, 1965, p. 542. 263 He wrote and read a great deal in Lithuanian, and spoke with his teacher only in Lithuanian. At first, it is said, instead of speaking Lithuanian he would always start speaking Czech; even now, when speaking Lithuanian, an occasional Czech word would slip out. In this letter A. Schleicher also notes that his knowledge of Slavic languages helped him learn Lithuanian17. Schleicher interacted with Lithuanians on all kinds of occasions. He attended their weddings, christenings, funerals, and harvest celebrations. He took an interest in their national dishes, household utensils, and everything connected with Lithuanian spiritual culture and everyday life18. Of course, Schleicher also had to endure considerable hardship in such a backward region as East Prussia was in the mid-nineteenth century, especially in the areas inhabited by Lithuanians—for Lithuanian had been best preserved there among the poorest and least educated classes. In his letters, Schleicher writes that in his room (even though it was the best house in the whole village!) damp earth showed through the rotted floorboards; flies gave him no peace indoors, while outside he was attacked by swarms of marsh mosquitoes. Schleicher complained especially about the poor food; moreover, plates were quite unknown to his landlady—they all ate from a communal bowl19. Yet the archaic forms of the Lithuanian language made it easier for him to endure all these hardships, and among the Lithuanians of East Prussia, as he later wrote in the preface to his grammar, Schleicher felt “like some diligent plant collector or hunter who, upon sighting a rare herb or bringing down an animal, forgets the journey that had wearied him through thickets and marshes”20. He even titled his report to the Vienna Academy of Sciences on the journey “Briefe... über die Erfolge einer nach Litauen unternommenen wissenschaftlichen Reise”. In fact, the journey was a success for Schleicher. In mid-October he returned to Prague with a rich collection of Lithuanian materials and, most importantly, having gained a good command of Lithuanian. There, after systematizing the material, he wrote his famous Lithuanian grammar over the next few years. Before publishing the grammar, Schleicher published two more, shorter studies on Lithuanian. In 1853 his paper “O jazyku litevském, zvláště ohledem na slovanský” appeared in the Czech journal “Časopis Českého Museum” (27, 1853, p. 320—34). This was A. Schleicher’s report, which he delivered in June 1853 at a meeting of the philology section of the Czech Society of Sciences. In this paper Schleicher compares the Slavic and Baltic languages and concludes that the Slavic languages have preserved an older morphological structure than the Baltic languages, whereas the phonetic structure of the Baltic languages surpasses that of the Slavic languages in its archaism. In the same year, in the proceedings of the Vienna Academy of Sciences21, he published an article under the general title “Lituanica”, in which he examines questions of Lithuanian spelling, discusses J. Brodovski’s manuscript dictionary and M. Mažvydas’s 1547 catechism, and classifies Lithuanian verbs. In writing his Lithuanian grammar, Schleicher drew not only on the material he had collected himself, earlier grammars (by D. Klein, K. G. Milkus, and G. Ostermeyer), and F. Kurschat’s works already published by that time, but also invited Kumutat, a teacher of the Lithuanians of East Prussia, to Prague as a consultant; he had stayed with him for a longer period 17 S. Lefmann, August Schleicher. p. 24; J. Dietze, August Schleicher als Slawist, p. 32. 18 B. Beneš, Wilhelm von Humbolt, Jacob Grimm, August Schleicher, Winterthur, 1958, p. 89. 19 J. Dietze, ZŠSL IV, 1965, p. 543; J. Dietze, August Schleicher als Slawist, p. 32; B. Beneš, ten pat, p. 89. 20 A. Schleicher, Litauische Grammatik, Prag, 1856, p. V. 21 Proceedings of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in Vienna. Philosophical-Historical Class 11, 1853, pp. 76—156. 264 during his stay in East Prussia, and from whom he learned most of his spoken Lithuanian (Kumutaitis lived near Ragainė, in Kakšiai, German Gross-Kakschen). Schleicher wrote his Lithuanian grammar, with longer and shorter interruptions, over seven years—he began well before his journey to East Prussia in 1848 and finished in mid-1855; naturally, he worked most intensively during the final three years. In April 1856, Schleicher’s book “Litauische Grammatik” was published in Prague22. “Litauisches Lesebuch und Glossar” was published in 1857. These two substantial books (the first 342 pages, the second 352) together form Schleicher’s Lithuanian-language handbook, bearing the collective title “Handbuch der Litauischen Sprache”. In the book’s preface, Schleicher observed that, at the very least, his work would “provide scholars with reliable material”. In fact, the work went far beyond that aim. In his grammar, for the first time in the history of Lithuanian-language research, Schleicher described the structure of Lithuanian so broadly and systematically, with the extraordinary methodical rigor characteristic of his works. It was the first Lithuanian grammar written by a professional linguist. After briefly discussing the place of Lithuanian among the other Indo-European languages, its significance for linguistics, and providing some information about Lithuanian dialects, in the first section of the grammar (pp. 7—85) Schleicher describes the phonetic system of Lithuanian—specifically, its East Prussian Highland dialect. In this section he gives particular attention to questions of vowel alternation in roots. This question was being examined for the first time in the history of Baltic-language grammars. In discussing root-vowel alternation, Schleicher seems to have benefited greatly from F. Nesselmann’s dictionary, in which words are often grouped according to etymological principles. Schleicher explicitly marks as entries taken from Nesselmann’s dictionary those words that were unfamiliar to him and his assistant Kumutaitis. It must be said that Schleicher made very few mistakes in grouping Lithuanian words sharing a root (for example, with the word mirti he needlessly associates the Slavism morai ‘a bier used in funerals’; with dievas, the Slavism dyvas; he considers the verbs arti and irti to be words with the same root; and he connects the word gardus with the verb gerti). The second section of the grammar (pp. 86—169) is devoted to word formation. This broad and complex problem, as Schleicher himself admits, is treated in his grammar only in general terms. Thirty-five years later, his most beloved student, August Leskien, partly filled this particular gap in Schleicher’s grammar by writing the truly monumental work for its time “Die Bildung der Nomina im Litauischen” (Leipzig, 1891). The final paragraph of the word-formation section, “Einiges über entlehnte worte”, is highly significant: Schleicher attempts there—perhaps for the first time in the history of Lithuanian-language research—to formulate criteria for identifying loanwords, astutely observing, for example, that Lithuanian dūšià is a Slavism because alongside the Lithuanian root dus- (cf. dausà, dūsauti) one would expect the Lithuanian form *dusė, and alongside the Lithuanian root gyv- the word žyvýti cannot be of Lithuanian origin, and so forth.23 In the section on morphology (pp. 170—254), Schleicher discusses Lithuanian noun and verb inflection. In his effort to show as precisely as possible the variety of Lithuanian declension and conjugation, he is not content with his own 22 A. Schleicher’s book was published by J. G. Calve’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung; several decades later, J. Basanavičius also negotiated with this publishing house about printing “Aušra”. 23 Pr. Skardžius, Die slavischen Lehnwörter im Altlitauischen, Kaunas, 1931, p. 14. 265 using forms encountered in texts, but quite often making excursions into other earlier Lithuanian grammars and old writings. Schleicher devotes particular attention to archaic features of Lithuanian that were already disappearing—the consonant-stem nouns and athematic verbs. In writing the syntax section (pp. 255–339), Schleicher relied mainly on G. Ostermejer’s “Neue Littauische Grammatik” (Königsberg, 1791), F. Kuršaitis’s “Beiträge zur Kunde der litauischen Sprache” (Königsberg, 1843), and G. Curtius’s school grammar of Greek (this grammar also served as the model for the syntax section of A. Bielenstein’s first scholarly Latvian grammar!). However, comparing Schleicher’s syntax with earlier works, it is easy to see that Schleicher greatly surpassed his predecessors. Schleicher also prepared the second part of his textbook—the reader “Litauisches Lesebuch und Glossar”—with great care. It provides, with precise source information, examples of Lithuanian folklore—songs, riddles, proverbs, and tales—from collections by L. Rėza, F. Nesselmann, S. Stanevičius, S. Daukantas, and others, as well as from the manuscript of J. Brodovskis’s dictionary. Schleicher himself, together with his assistant Kumutaitis, recorded a considerable amount of folklore. To provide as complete a picture as possible of living Lithuanian, Schleicher concludes his reader with “Gromata muszkėterio iš Puskėpalių sávo tėvams”. Kumutaitis was, of course, of great help to Schleicher in preparing the reader, while even Schleicher’s wife assisted in compiling the dictionary. Naturally, Schleicher’s work also had shortcomings. However brilliant a foreign linguist may be, he will never learn Lithuanian quite as well or sense all its subtlest nuances as a linguist who has spoken the language since childhood. Perhaps the greatest shortcoming of Schleicher’s grammar is its failure to distinguish Lithuanian pitch accents. In his “Beiträge zur Kunde der litauischen Sprache” II (Königsberg, 1849), F. Kuršaitis had already described Lithuanian pitch accents in considerable detail. Schleicher spoke very highly of this work by Kuršaitis, stating outright that it had been “invaluable” to him in studying Lithuanian accentuation, and that he had memorized it24. Yet the distinction between the acute and circumflex pitch accents, although they greatly resembled those of Serbian, seemed to Schleicher too subtle a matter25, and in his work he wrote: rágas — horns, dégù — I burn, žálias — grass, and so on. Many of the other shortcomings of Schleicher’s grammar were directly connected with the general state of linguistic scholarship at the time, and it would of course be naïve to reproach him for them today. Schleicher’s grammar was of immense importance for Lithuanian linguistics and culture in general. It was the first scholarly grammar of Lithuanian and laid a firm foundation for further research into the language. Later authors of Lithuanian grammars could no longer do without Schleicher’s work. His grammar had a particularly great influence on another major work on Lithuanian—F. Kuršaitis’s grammar. It is no coincidence that Kuršaitis wrote in the preface to his grammar: “Schleicher was a hero in linguistics, whom I greatly respect as my teacher and as a master of grammatical representation of language”26. In 1870, A. Baranauskas translated Schleicher’s grammar 24 A. Schleicher, Litauische Grammatik, p. IX. 25 A. Schleicher, ibid., p. 11. 26 F. Kurschat, Grammatik der littauischen Sprache, Halle, 1876, p. XI. 266 He used Lithuanian and taught it at the Kaunas Priests’ Seminary. In one letter to H. Weber he wrote: “From my books you have already seen that my orthography follows the rules of the late Schleicher, whose death I cannot mourn enough”27. A. Baranauskas himself had visited Schleicher in Jena. After Schleicher’s death, several Lithuanian texts written by A. Baranauskas were found in his archive; they had been sent to Schleicher by the academician A. Schiefner28. Schleicher’s work had been thoroughly studied by A. Juška, J. Spudulis, K. Jaunius, J. Jablonskis, K. Būga, and other researchers of the Lithuanian language. Alongside K. Donelaitis’s „Metai“ and F. Kuršaitis’s linguistic works, Schleicher’s grammar was one of the most popular books among participants in the Lithuanian national movement. There were even instances of assimilated Lithuanians learning their parents’ language from this grammar. Schleicher’s grammar undoubtedly also played a role in the selection of the Western Aukštaitian dialect as the basis for the Lithuanian literary language. Interestingly, Schleicher’s grammar left its mark even on the history of Latvian grammars. Indeed, without Schleicher’s Lithuanian grammar, it would be impossible to imagine the first scholarly Latvian grammar, by A. Bielenstein29—„Die lettische Sprache nach ihren Lauten und Formen“ I – II (Berlin, 1863 – 1864). As the Latvian philologist K. Ancytis aptly observed, Bielenstein wrote his grammar with Schleicher’s work laid out on his desk30. Following Schleicher, he described Latvian morphology, and, as we have seen, probably not without Schleicher’s influence, he chose G. Curtius’s Greek syntax as a model for the syntax. The publication of Schleicher’s Lithuanian grammar was a major event in Indo-European studies of the time. Through his example, Schleicher demonstrated that a grammar should be written not on the basis of texts eroded by time and often unreliable, but on the basis of the speech of living people. Schleicher’s journey to Lithuania was truly infectious: for Indo-Europeanists, studying Lithuanian in Lithuania itself became almost a fashionable pursuit31. One of the first to „catch“ this fashion was Schleicher’s student A. Leskien. After publishing his grammar, Schleicher published several more short articles on Baltic languages, mainly on the grammar of Lithuanian: „Zur litauischen Grammatik“ (Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der arischen, keltischen und slavischen Sprachen, 1, Berlin, 1858, p. 499 – 500), „Das Pronomen lit. szi, slaw. si = got. hi, Grundf. ki“ (ibid., p. 48 – 49), „-tē < d. i. – tai > als Endung des Infinitivs im Litauischen“ (ibid., p. 27 – 29), „Žmū“ (ibid., p. 396 – 398), „Giltinė“ (ibid., 2, 1861, p. 129), „Das Litauische in Curtius Griech. Etymologie“ (ibid., p. 124 – 126), „Lit. -ai = griech. -ī, umbr. -ei (-ī, -ē)“ (ibid., 5, 1868, p. 113 – 114), „Oskisch deivaum, lettisch deevatees“ (KZ, 12, 1863, p. 399 – 400). Schleicher’s interest in Baltic studies was also greatly encouraged by the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. At a meeting of the Academy’s Historical-Philological Section on December 10, 1862, Schleicher’s academician friends O. Boehtlingk, A. Schiefner, and A. Kunik proposed intensifying Baltic-Slavic linguistic research, designating Schleicher for this work. In 1863, the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, for five years 27 Archivum Philologicum, II, Kaunas, 1931, p. 102. 28 Archivum Philologicum, I, Kaunas, 1930, p. 101. 29 A. Ozols, Veclatviešu rakstu valoda, Rīga, 1965, p. 564. 30 K. Ancītis, Rakstu krājums, veltījums… Jānim Endzelīnam, Rīgā, 1959, p. 303. 31 J. Handel, Dzieje językoznawstwa, Lwów, 1935, p. 86–7; B. Beneš, Vilhelm von Humboldt, Jacob Grimm, August Schleicher, p. 91. 267 awarded Schleicher an annual honorarium of 400 silver rubles. Schleicher agreed to write for the Academy a comparative grammar of the Slavic languages, a comparative grammar of the Baltic languages, and a grammar of the Balto-Slavic proto-language32. Already at the end of 1862, in a letter to a friend, Schleicher wrote that he had once again returned fully to Slavic-Baltic studies and that his ultimate aim was to write “a grammar of the Slavic, Baltic, and Germanic proto-languages, furnished with the greatest possible number of examples”33. However, before undertaking this grand project, Schleicher did another task for the St. Petersburg Academy—one of more modest scope, but of immense significance for the history of Lithuanian culture: he prepared the first scholarly edition of K. Donelaitis’s writings. Schleicher had been interested in Donelaitis’s work for quite some time. In the preface to his Lithuanian reader, he had already written that a new edition of K. Donelaitis’s „Metai“ was needed and that, had space not been limited, he would gladly have included in the reader this “sole classical work by a Lithuanian.” “As I read this masterful work, I sincerely regretted,” Schleicher wrote, “that, lacking a literature, a language of such perfection of form should be perishing—a language capable of competing with the works of the Greeks, Romans, and ancient Indians”34. Schleicher’s edition of K. Donelaitis’s writings was published in St. Petersburg in 186535. In preparing this work for publication, Schleicher used primary textual sources and consulted F. Kuršaitis. The teacher Kumutaitis, who had assisted him while he was writing his grammar, and another teacher from Ragainė, Meškaitis, helped Schleicher read Donelaitis’s works; A. Baranauskas, then a professor at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, was also involved in revising the dictionary. In editing Donelaitis’s writings, authenticity was Schleicher’s chief criterion: he avoided any cuts, embellishments, or softening, striving to show the scholarly world the peasant poet as he truly was. In this way, Schleicher initiated a new editorial tradition for Donelaitis’s writings, one that has endured to this day36. Nevertheless, Schleicher’s edition of Donelaitis’s writings also had shortcomings, which F. Nesselmann pointed out very sharply as soon as the book appeared37 (it is thought that a certain degree of personal animosity may also have been involved)38. Schleicher later noted that many errors in his edition of Donelaitis’s writings resulted from unfavorable printing conditions: he 32 „1. A comparative grammar of the principal Slavic dialects, which would include a purely scientific exposition of everything they have in common and would therefore provide the elements of the primitive language of the Slavic race. 2. A comparative grammar of Lithuanian, Prussian, and Latvian, likewise to reconstruct, through the indications of science, the primitive language of the Lithuanian race. Finally, 3. A Lithuanian-Slavic grammar, that is, an attempt aimed at reconstructing, by means of the results obtained in the two preceding grammars and with the help of other comparative studies, the primitive language of the Lithuanian-Slavic family, before the period when the dialects separated.“ (Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. – Pétersbourg, 5, 1863, cols. 526–7), cf. J. Dietze, August Schleicher als Slawist, p. 57. 33 J. Dietze, ZfSl, II, 1960, p. 275. 34 A. Schleicher, Litauisches Lesebuch und Glossar, p. VIII. 35 A. Schleicher, Christian Donaleitis. Litauische Dichtungen, St. Petersburg, 1865. 36 A. Šešelgis, Literatūra ir kalba, VII, Vilnius, 1965, p. 309–12, 317–8. 37 G. H. F. Nesselmann, Altpreussische Monatsschrift, Königsberg, 1866, III, p. 454–8; 1867, IV, p. 65–79. 38 J. Dietze, August Schleicher as a Slavist, p. 58. 268 living far from the place of printing and having been able to read only one proof. Schleicher corrected most of the errors and published them in the bulletin of the Peterburg Academy of Sciences39. Having prepared the edition of Donaleitis’s writings, Schleicher devoted himself to the works requested by the Peterburg Academy of Sciences, which we mentioned earlier. However, he managed to publish only a few articles in this field40. His sudden death prevented him from carrying out these monumental works, important not only for Slavic studies but also for the study of the Baltic languages. Augustas Schleicher was not only a brilliant scholar—the most distinguished Indo-Europeanist of his time—and a talented teacher, but also a very engaging personality. He was a man of broad education. Besides linguistics, Schleicher, one might say, had another specialty: he was a passionate botanist. Even as a professor, he attended natural science lectures at the university, studied the literature in this field, and investigated various phenomena of plant physiology. A microscope stood on his desk, while his windowsills and bookshelves were lined with specimens of the rarest plants. Schleicher had cultivated a magnificent garden and at one time even headed a gardeners’ association. He was a good athlete. Sport, physical work, and constant contact with nature enabled him to work with extraordinary intensity at intellectual pursuits. “I cannot boast of my abilities: I have none, but I do have an iron will, with whose help I achieve everything I deem necessary,” Schleicher once told Academician Ivan Sreznevsky. This iron will really did help Schleicher achieve a great deal, but it was probably also one of the causes of the great scholar’s premature death: Schleicher’s ambitions and pace of work probably did not suit his naturally rather frail health. 39 A. Schleicher, Zu meiner Ausgabe des Donaleitis, — Bulletin de l’Academie Imperiale des Sciences de St. Petersbourg, 8, 1867, skilt. 293–99; plg. t. p. A. Šešelgis, ten pat, p. 312. 40 A Brief Outline of the Prehistoric Life of the Northeastern Branch of the Indo-European Languages, — Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 8, Supplement 2, St. Petersburg, 1865; Themes of Cardinal and Ordinal Numerals in Lithuanian-Slavic and German, — ibid., 10, Supplement 2, St. Petersburg, 1866; Declension of Stems in -у- in the Slavic Languages, — ibid., 11, Supplement 3, St. Petersburg, 1867. 18. Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos tyrinėjimai 269