Jonas Jablonskis apie Jono Šliūpo knygą „Lietuviszkiejie rasztai ir rasztininkai“

Ms. Chesapeake. Jonas Jablonskis about Jono Šliūpo book Lietuviszkiejie Rasztai and Rasztininkai 37 GIEDRĖ ČEPAITIENĖ Šiaulių universitetas JONAS JABLONSKIS about JONAS ŠLIŪpas' BOOK LITHUANIAN RASZTAI AND WRITERS KEY WORDS: review, Jonas Jablonskis, Jonas Šliūpas, literature, period, periodical. The works of Jan Jablonski are usually viewed from the point of view of the formation of common language and its standardization. His other activities have been little studied, usually only mentioned: J. Jablonskis was a social activist, translator and educator. The reviews published by the linguist are usually also mentioned only as works reflecting certain criteria of language norming1. This article examines two works by J. Jablonski, which deal with the book by Jonas Šliūpas Lietuviszkiejie Rasztai and Rasztininkai2. The book, published in Tilžė in 1890, was financed by the Baltimor Lithuanian Lovers' Society. This is the first history of Lithuanian writing, which reviews Lithuanian writings from 1547 to the end of the 19th century; the title indicates that the book was prepared by a Lithuanian lover. J. Jablonskis examined this book in two publications: in a review of the book3 (V 1894 1: 10–11) published in the section “Critics and Bibliography” of the first issue of Varpas in 1894 and in an article published in the eleventh issue of Varpas in 1893 entitled “S. The Life and Writings of Daukanto“ (1893, pp. 165–168). The remarks of Jan Jablonski about the book of Jan Šliūpas Lietuviszkiejie Rasztai and Rasztininkai are important in several aspects. These essays are the first reviews by J. Jablonski, he had not written any reviews of this genre before. 1 Another commentary on J. Jablonski publicistics can be found in Arnoldas Piročkinas’s book Prie bendrinės kalbos ištakų (At the Origins of the Common Language) (1977: 80–85). 2 is the title of the book. 3 In J. Jablonski's review this book is named as follows: Lietuviškieji Raštai ir Raštininkai. A literary review prepared by Lithuanian Lover. Tilžėje, 1890, 234. 38 Language Culture | 85 J. Jablonski, who was a teacher at the Mintauja Gymnasium at the time, as a maturing linguist. It is also important that these are the first reviews of a work on the history of Lithuanian literature, they show how the publication was evaluated by contemporaries. Therefore, it is worthwhile to find out what criteria the reviewer uses, what he considers positive and what he criticizes. In addition, the reviews reveal certain personality traits of the reviewer himself. The aim of this article is to show what criteria J. Jablonskis used when reviewing the book Lietuviszkiejie Rasztai and Rasztininkai by Jonas Šliūpas, and what requirements he placed on the authors of Lithuanian books. A review is an analytical essay that expresses the author’s relationship with the work being reviewed and his evaluation of it. The most characteristic features of a review are generally considered to be its criticality, which encourages the reader to think (Bitinienė 2007: 95; Marcinkevičienė 2008: 152). Although there is a distinction between scientific and journalistic reviews, this difference is probably reflected in the language, because it is good to have only a review that reveals such aspects of the work under evaluation that can only be recognized by a competent specialist in a certain field (Bitinienė 2007: 95). It has already been mentioned that the book Lietuviszkiejie Rasztai and Rasztininkai was published under the pseudonym of a lover of Lithuania, but J. Jablonski knew the author’s identity. In most of the text the author’s name is not mentioned, only it is said that he “is a well-known of our emigrants, settled in America” (V 1894 1: 10). In the review, J. Jablonskis introduces the reader to the structure of the book, highlights its positives and shortcomings. The reviewer points out that the 15th–18th century writings are discussed briefly in the book (pp. 1–23), while the 19th century publications are given almost 10 times more space (pp. 23–222). He points out that in the chapter of the book on the writings of the 15th–18th centuries, “the author, as could be expected, did not collect all the material about our writings”4 (V 1894 1: 10). At the same time, this disproportion is justified by J. Jablonski, "because such a work would hardly be accomplished by one person, especially one who has settled far from his homeland" (V 1894 1: 10). Nevertheless, this chapter is seriously reproached: its knowledge "is not at all connected with the history of our nation" (V 1894 1: 10). The 19th-century writing is discussed in more detail in the review. According to J. Jablonskis, here the author “talks about 35 writers of different value, starting with D. Poška and priest A. Strazdelis and ending with the lives of M. 4 Everywhere quoted from the original. Ms. Chesapeake. "John B. Jones: The Life and Times of John B. Jones (1894-1969)". in general, this part of the review is positive. J. Jablonskis writes: “Whoever wants to get to know our 19th century literature more closely will need the knowledge collected in the book described.” (1894, 1:10). This section also receives criticism. The linguist considered the following characteristics of the publication to be critical: 1) in many places the author only recounts what one or another person deserving of Lithuanian literature said, but presents it without any evaluation, so the reader remains unclear about the true value of the descriptive works; 2) partial or biased information is provided about some authors; 3) there are important things in Lithuanian writing that were known to the author of the book, but he has kept silent about them. Jankauskas and kng. The publication reviewed by a. Burnor is an overview of Lithuanian literature, but J. Jablonskis considers him not as a writer, but as a linguist. He points out that it is not clear to the reader how to evaluate the works of Mikalojus Akelaitis or priest Mykolas Miežinis. in fact, J. Šliūpas’s book presents naive etymologies of M. Akelaitis’s words without any commentary, so the reader can consider them scientific facts. For example, J. Šliūpas writes that, based on linguistic science, M. Akelaitis in his book Rzut oka na starożytnośći narodu litewskiego (Petersburg, 1885) showed that the name of the mountain Šatrija is related to the Sanskrit words s’ath and adri, which means “honourable mountain”; The name of the Carpathian Mountains is associated with the unknown Carpians, whose name means "sheep shearers"; The name of the Thracian tribe is compared with the Lithuanian draikus, which according to J. Šliūpas means “people who have gone astray, living without a common language” (LRR 1890: 93–94); M. akelaitis derived the name of the Russian people from the name of Rusnė island, which J. Šliūpas also presented as an undeniable fact (LRR 1890: 94). The examples given by J. Šliūpas are also from another book by M. Akelaitis – List otwarty do pana Leonarda Niedzwiedzkiego (Paris, 1887), in which the author claims to have discovered the law of root change, showing how words can change both in one language and when travelling from one language to another. M. akelaitis believes that this proves that the words „skargas, skundas, klage, lugeo“ are related in different languages. This chapter J. Šliūpas ends with a quote from M. Akelaitis, that his followers “push the language science into the past, rising higher than the German science” (LRR 1890: 96). It is understood that such provisions could not be acceptable to J. Jablonski, who finished his studies in classical philology. 40 Language Culture | 85 In his review, J. Jablonskis points out that the book devotes a lot of space to Andrius Vištelis-Višteliauskas, but there is no criticism of his works. In fact, in the publication this person seems to be the most important in the history of Lithuanian literature in the 19th century, with over 30 pages devoted to him (LRR 1890: 136–168), only the section about Jonas Basanavičius is a couple of pages longer. J. Šliūpas’s book emphasizes that A. Vištelis-Višteliauskas is a little-known personality, although she had a great influence on Jurgis Mikšas5, Martynas Jankus6, Jonas Basanavičius and other Lithuanian enlightened people. Most of this section consists of excerpts from letters of A. Vištelis-Višteliauskas (who was their addressee is not specified in the book), the ideas therein are as if reinforced by excerpts from poems printed in Aušra. This fragmentary overview of this author’s life, his conception of Lithuanianness, Lithuanian and Polish relations, it is indicated that a. Vištelis-Višteliauskas spoke about the situation of the Lithuanian language, emphasizing the necessity of Lithuanian grammar. J. Jablonskis is extremely strict about this section. You could say that he leaves no stone unturned here. Even the poems of A. Vištelis-Višteliauskas and their commentaries, quoted by J. Šliūpas, hinder him: “here we find instructions, completely without criticism, about V-ko songs, in truth, not at all appropriate” (V 1894 1: 10). The various thoughts of A. Višteliauskas quoted in the book are met with extremely emotional criticism by J. Jablonskis: “V-o [Višteliauskas]’s nonsense may turn into real reasoning and scientific instructions in the eyes of the ordinary reader.” (1894, 1:10). The reviewer focuses his criticism on two main areas of a. Višteliauskas’s statements: 1) unfounded etymologies; 2) understanding the interrelationships between different languages. As completely unsuccessful etymologies, J. Jablonskis refers to the examples given in J. Šliūpas' book that relatives are supposed to lie. "Mother's Day, Mother's Day, Mother's Day, Mother's Day". mowa “tongue” (by the way, A. Višteliauskas has given more “relatives” of this word: mutter, mater, madre, even the “Lithuanian” word muterkė). J. Jablonskis also quotes the thoughts of A. Višteliauskas, showing how he understood the interrelationships of different languages. Today they would make us smile, but a late 19th-century reader, particularly one without a basic knowledge of linguistics, could have accepted them as real. J. Jablonskis ironically quotes these thoughts of A. Višteliauskas: “The Poles have a processed Lithuanian. tongue, non-tonic. The Germans have half of the Lithuanian words in their language, only terribly processed; The Lithuanian language, like its Polish mother, cannot reject and despise its 5 Jurgis Mikšas (1862–1903) – an active member of the Lesser Lithuania press, a translator. 6 Martynas Jankus (1858–1956) – a member of the Lesser Lithuania press, a newspaper editor, a printer. Ms. Chesapeake. Jonas Jablonskis about the book of Jon Šliūpas Lietuviszkiejie Rasztai and Rasztininkai 41 all languages, for the language dukters“ (V 1894 1: 10). Recenzento daroma tokia išvada: „V-s [Višteliauskas] priguli prie tų mūsų kalbininkų, kurie lietuvišką kalbą turi už motiną of Adam and Eve.” (1894, 1:10). In addition, J. Jablonskis criticizes J. Šliūpas. In his opinion, “[t]he darkness and weakness of our domestic linguists the author of „Lietuv. R. and R." had to clarify and not to investigate all such gossip" (V 1894 1: 10). therefore, J. Jablonski sets the criterion of scientificity for the publication. However, Mr. Jablonski is somewhat biased here. One can agree with his reproaches about naive etymologies or interrelationships between languages. but the linguist does not say anything about other facts mentioned in J. Šliūpas’ book: A. Višteliauskas’ attitude to the Lithuanian language’s situation at the time, the necessity of Lithuanian grammar, etc. A considerable part of the review is devoted to showing how the book Lietuviszkieji Rasztai and Rasztininkai discusses the personality and works of antanas Baranauskas. In this part of the review, J. Jablonskis does not see any positive things. The reviewer writes that the author of the book in question had promised not to mention the names of writers living in Russia (V 1894 1: 11), and that he supports this position. This is understandable: both the book and its review appeared during the period of the press ban, when both the authors of Lithuanian writings and their distributors were persecuted. therefore, the book discusses those authors who were already dead at the time of its publication. an exception – antanas Baranauskas. Jablonskis considers the mention of this author’s name as a mistake of the author of the book, because such behaviour poses a danger to the author in question. J. Šliūpas is also reproached for paying attention not so much to Baranauskas-poet as to Baranauskas-priest, based on his own impressions as a child. J. Jablonskis points out that “in the article about this man the reader would be free to seek criticism of his “Shileli” and the decision of the writer himself” (V 1894: 11). in fact in the book Lietuviszkieji Rasztai and Rasztininkai there is no more detailed evaluation of the poem Anykščių šilelis. The author of the book only says that “the most famous of his songs is, according to his own saying, ‘anykszciu Szilėlys’ (LRR 1890: 83). Here J. Šliūpas quotes Baranauskas’s own explanation of when and where “Šilelis” was written, and lists the well-known editions of the poem: in 1861 – in the calendar of Laurynas Ivinskis, in 1875 – by Leopold Geitleris, and in 1892 – by Hugo Weber (LRR 1890: 83). In the review it is said that the author of the book reproached Baranauskas for his excessive piety (“kelas adynas kasdien ažůt on moksło, perleidžiant on viduramžiniu poteriu atkalbėjimą” (LRR 1890: 82), as if he did not understand Baranauskas’ position. J. Yeah. 42 TALBOS KultŪRa | 85 kupo elgesio), only says: „How much of truth and lies there is, whether the man is really so ‘horrible’, it is difficult for us to know; blonskis recenzijoje nemini kitų J. Šliūpo apie a. Baranauską paskelbtų faktų (dėl lietuvių ir lenkų santykio, dėl „bajoriško“ ir „mužikiško“ vys- <...> the author had to do without these biasurations of individual people, because the usefulness and value of the ‘Writing’ itself demanded it.” (1894, 1:11). The author of the book, J. Jablonskis, accuses the author of bias: "It is clear that L. M-jas, while living in Kng. a. in B’s house (p. 82), acquired a special hatred against him and, wanting to ‘revenge’ him, used his ‘Writers and Scribes’.” (1894, 1:11). therefore, another requirement of J. Jablonski as a reviewer for the author – to remain objective – becomes apparent here. the last paragraph of the review is dedicated to Lithuanian newspapers. According to J. Jablonskis, the book devotes little attention to the Lithuanian press (pp. 223–229). As a positive thing, he points out that the book mentions both Prussian Lithuanian and American newspapers (Keleivis, Tilžės Keleivis, Garsas, Nemuno Sargas, Aušra, Šviesa, Lietuvių Balsas). but at the same time J. Jablonskis notices a certain bias. It is said with irony: “Most good things have been said about Lithuania. The Voice and its former editor Mr. J. Šliupa; author “R. and R.“ spared no words, so that only Mr. Šliupas would come out exalted, acquitted and defended from all sides....“ (1894, 1:11). Knowing that J. Šliūpas is the author of the book, the irony becomes understandable. The reviewer finds it painful that nothing is said in the book about Varpas and Ūkininkas (as is known, these newspapers were national consciousness awakeners, published in large circulation at that time – from 1000 to 2000 copies). The following remark by J. Jablonski shows his resentment: “It is clear that in L. M-jus’s eyes black stands lower than all sorts of “Laiškai”, “Keleiviai” and “Ceitungas.” (1894, 1:11). The reviewer sums up: “With these words I end my reference to a book that has been published for a long time, and whose content, whether it be so or not, is very interesting” (V 1894 1: 11). This brief note first shows two things: 1) the reviewer considers a book published four years ago to be old, thus indirectly telling the reader that there are many newer books; 2) although the review contains a lot of criticism, J. Jablonskis ends his text positively, urging Varpas readers to take an interest in the reviewed book. J. Jablonski's article "S. The text of Daukanto gyvenimas ir raštai shows that its origin is also related to the book Lietuviškieji Raštai ir Raštininkai. In it, the linguist writes: "How little we know about Simonas D., can be understood already from the fact that the courageous author "Lietuv. and scribes" (tilžė- Ms. Chesapeake. Jonas Jablonskis about the book of Jon Šliūpas Lietuviszkiejie Rasztai and Rasztininkai 43 je, 1890) could only allocate to him and to the review of his works a fifth part of the space given by a. J. Višteliauckas, a little known to us, recently deceased writer of ours” (V 1893 11: 165). so J. Jablonski’s article is like a supplement to the knowledge about the life and works of Simon Daukantas. J. Šliūpas only briefly discussed the most important stages of S. Daukanto life (studies at Vilnius University7, work in Riga and St. Petersburg) and listed the publications prepared by S. Daukanto according to the year of publication. In addition, he made the general conclusion that history stimulates interest in one’s own nation (LRR 1890: 37). J. Jablonskis says he is based on an article by Edward Voltaire, material obtained from an unnamed person, and the will of S. Daukantas himself. thus he adds some facts to S. Daukanto biography. J. Jablonskis writes that father Jurgis D., a royal countryman, was a forester; the truiks altarist, Fr. Sim, who had inspired S. Daukantas for science. Lopacinskis; In 1814 S. Daukantas finished four-class school in Žemaičių Kalvarija; it is not known whether he communicated with the „famous ad. Mickevičium and a few sympathetic student bands“; Master of Philosophy in Dorpat (Tartu); all his life unmarried. J. Jablonskis points out that S. Daukantas “was an extremely well-enlightened man, a great connoisseur of history, he got acquainted with and corresponded with the most famous friends and researchers of his time, with Kazim. Maigiu9, Karaliaučiaus prof. Voigt10 and many others”; S. Daukantas himself refused to write a biography and bibliography (V 1893 11: 165–167). In J. Jablonski’s article, for the first time in Lithuanian bibliography, a classified description of S. Daukanto works is presented (publications are divided into historical, philological, booklets with useful readings for people, books of spiritual content). The language of S. Daukanto writings is discussed very briefly. It is said to be from Žemaitija, with a considerable mixture of Latvian words and constructions; sometimes 7 By the way, the legend that S. Daukantas came to Vilnius University on foot (LRR 1890: 34) was probably spread from J. Šliupas’ book. 8 refers to the priest Jurgis Ambraziejus pabrėža (1771–1849), creator of Lithuanian religious literature, creator of botanical terms, poet. 9 Bajoras Kazimieras Maigys (1800–about 1858) not only corresponded with S. Daukantas, but also sent him folk songs recorded by him in Eastern Highlands. As a manager of several manors, he complained in letters that the peasants were unable to work. This encouraged S. Daukanta to prepare farm advice books (see Merkys 1991: 135, 146). 10 Professor Johann Voigt (1786–1863) – a well-known historian who published nine volumes of the History of Prussia (Geschichte preussens von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum untergang der Herschaft des Deutschen Ordens 1525), the History of the Order of the Cross (Geschichte des deutschen Rittersordens). S. Daukantas relied on these works when writing his works on history (see Kaunas 1996: 326, 438; Merkys 1991: 167). 44 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 85 non-free compounds are visible. J. Jablonski himself understands that these are only insignificant remarks, so he writes: “I leave for later the examination of his speech and the determination of his true merits in our literature. In the meantime, we should collect all kinds of material and publish it in Varpe – about his life, about his writings, manuscripts....“ (1893, 11: 168). Therefore, in this article J. Jablonskis not so much examines what is said about S. Daukanta in J. Šliūpas’ book, as he tries to supplement its material with new facts and his own comments. CONCLUSIONS 1. John Jablonski cared about all Lithuanian publications; While still working as a teacher at Mintauja Gymnasium, i.e. at the beginning of his work and activities, he tried to review them or supplement them with new facts. The reviews show that J. Jablonskis looked at the book from a broader perspective: he sought to make the history of the book inseparable from the history of the common nation. 3. The reviewer looks at the peer-reviewed publication of Lithuanian literature history through the eyes of a linguist. In the reviews, linguistic insights emerge, which are revealed in J. Jablonski’s subsequent work. His important observations on etymology, the interrelationships of languages, etc. 4. J. Jablonski values objectivity and scientificity, which is what he lacks in the book he is reviewing (cf. comments on the space reserved for individual authors, the chapter on A. Baranauskas, periodical press, etc.). 5.Reviews are concluded with positive statements – both authors of books and other cultural actors are encouraged to prepare important works for the Lithuanian nation. Sources iR LiteRatÚRa LRR – Lietuviszkiejie Rasztai ir Rasztininkai: Raszliszka peržvalga parengta Lietuvos Mylėtojo, tilžė, 1890. V – Varpas – a monthly newspaper of literature, politics and science (run from January 1889 to 1906 in Tilžė and Ragainė). Bitinienė a. 2007: Publicistic style, Vilnius: Vilnius Pedagogical Institute publishing house. Kaunas D. 1996: The Book of Lesser Lithuania: The Development of Lithuanian Book, Vilnius: White circles. Ms. Chesapeake. Jonas Jablonskis about Jono Šliūpo book Lietuviszkiejie Rasztai and Rasztininkai 45 Marcinkevičienė R. 2008: Limits and Boundaries of Genre: Press Experiences, Vilnius: Versus aureus. 1991: Simonas Daukantas, Vilnius: Vyturys. piročkinas a. 1977: At the origins of common language, Vilnius: Mokslas. Received 02/12/2012 JOnaS JaBLOnSKiS aBOut tHe BOOK LIETUVISZKIEJIE RASZTAI IR RASZTININKAI (LiThuANiAN WRiTiNGS ANd WRiTeRS) BY JONAS SLIUPAS Summary Works by Jonas Jablonskis are usually viewed from the positions of the formation of the standard language and its standardization. His other activities have been poorly researched. Jablonskis' comments about the book prepared by Jonas Šliūpas – the first history of Lithuanian writings – reviewing Lithuanian writings from the year 1547 until the end of the 19th century were published in the newspaper Varpas in 1893–1894. Jablonskis’ comments are an important historical fact showing how the publication was evaluated by the contemporaries. these essays are also the first reviews by Jonas Jablonskis. at the time of writing reviews, Jonas Jablonskis was working as a teacher at Mintauja gymnasium. Moreover, they reveal particular attitudes of Jablonskis as an improving linguist. Comments expressed by Jablonskis allow drawing the following conclusions: 1) Jablonskis cared about all Lithuanian publications; working in Mintauja he tried to review them or supplement them with new facts; 2) as a reviewer, Ja blonskis tries to be objective: he talks about the book disregarding his relations with its author; 3) Reviews show that Jablonskis viewed the book in the broader context: his aim was that the history of the book would be related with the common history of the nation; 4) Reviews end in the positive attitudes, in such a way encouraging both the author and other people in the cultural world to prepare the works which would be important for the Lithuanian nation; 5) Linguistic providences which will be important in the further activities of Jablonskis show up in the reviews. KEYWORDS: review, Jonas Jablonskis, Jonas Šliūpas, literature, periods, periodicals. GieDRė Čepaitienė Šiaulių universitetas p. Višinskio g. 38, Lt-76352 Šiauliai [email protected]