Double Orthography in American Lithuanian Newspapers

Giedrius Subačius

University of Illinois at Chicago; Lietuvių Kalbos
Institutas, Vilnius

1. Letters <č>, <š>
There has been a great deal of research done on the origin of the
Lithuanian standard language. Many linguistic features have been described
as representing the initial stage of the standard.
This article will deal primarily with the letters <č>, <š>, i.e., the letters
that posses diacritical marks in shape of small letter above them (<ˇ>),
which is called a “caron”. Lithuanians had borrowed these two letters <č>,
<š> from the Czech orthography.
There have been numerous attempts to trace the very beginning of the
occurrence of letters <č>, <š> in Lithuanian texts. Petras Jonikas claimed
that they were used in the newspaper of Lithuanian students at Moscow
university Kol saula uztekes, rasa ir akis išes in 1860 (issues have not,
however, survived; Jonikas 1972:151-152, 196). Jonikas also spotted the
letter <š> in Jonas Juška’s article of 1861 “Kałbos lëtuviszko lëżuv’o ir
lëtuviszkas statraszimas arba ortograpija” (1972:194-195) and in Stanislovas
Raila’s letters to Nikodemas Baukus Venckavičius in 1876 (1972:211).
Jonikas and Jonas Palionis noticed that Jonas Basanavičius ordered the
typesetters of the newspaper Aušra to set the letters <č> and <š> instead of
traditional digraphs and in 1883, no. 5. (Jonikas 1972:227;
Palionis 1979:225). There were even attempts to claim that it was probably
Kazimieras Kristupas Daukša who had been the first to introduce and
regularly use the letter <š> (Palionis 1979:209).2
My objective, however, is not to find the initial traces of those letters.
My major concern is their implementation. According to Einar Haugen’s
theory, acceptance by the community is the last of the four aspects that are
critical for a dialect to become a language, i.e., for a vernacular to become a
standard (Haugen 1972:249-254).3 Accordingly my objective is to examine
the particular linguistic situation that led to the radical acceptance of the
letters <č>, <š> in American Lithuanian newspapers and in the community
(first of all in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York) at the very end of the
nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth.
No one has attempted to research the method whereby the letters <č>,
<š> were accepted by American Lithuanian newspapers and community.
The Lithuanian newspaper Varpas (1889-1905), which was printed in East
Prussia and smuggled to Lithuania during the ban of Latin letters (1864-
1904) by Russian government in Lithuania, was influential and prestigious.
Around 1890 Varpas had circulated Vincas Kudirka’s “Statrašos ramsčiai”
(‘Buttresses for Orthography’) to many newspaper editors with
Subačius: 2 of 12
recommendations about Lithuanian orthography. Among these
recommendations were the letters <č>, <š> (Kudirka 1890:1). This paper
investigates some of the methods whereby the use of these letters was
accepted and implemented by the American Lithuanian newspapers.
2. Theoretical Acceptance of <č>, <š> in 1898-1899
In issue no. 1 of 1898, Varpas invited all newspaper editors “to use
invention of the new epoch”—the letters <č> and <š> to denote the sounds
[č] and [š] respectively. Varpas urged the use of more modern orthography
even though it was not as familiar to Lithuanian readers as the older one
with the corresponding digraphs for [č] and for [š]. Varpas had
abandoned the digraphs and in favor of letters with caron <č>
and <š> in 1890. By 1898 (eight years later), although many of Varpas’s
orthographical features were in use by American Lithuanian newspapers,
most of them still did not set type with <č>, <š> (cf. Varpas 1898:1:13-14).
Most Lithuanian language newspapers in America agreed in theory to
follow Varpas’s invitation. Vienybė Lietuvninkų, issued in Plymouth, Penn.,
wrote: “We absolutely agree with Varpas conception [...]. The most
important substitution in the alphabet is to change sz and cz to š and č”
(Mar. 23, 1898:137). Five months later Vienybė Lietuvninkų returned to the
topic: “we had promised to change our orthography from the next New
Year,” i.e., to change the letters to <č> and to <š>, among other
orthographic amendments. But “[...] it is not profitable to start this change
on your own. [...] What do other editors think about this?” (Aug 17,
1898:389). Thus, Vienybė Lietuvninkų, although ready to change
orthography, was unwilling to do this alone. This editorial clearly illustrates
the authority of Varpas.
The main Lithuanian newspaper of Chicago, (Ill.), Lietuva, also spoke
out:
We agree that the alphabet of Varpas is handiest, but how can we force other
newspapers and book editors to accept it? [...] Though our editors can see that the
current alphabet is worthless, they cannot change it without the approval of our
subscribers. (Lietuva, Apr. 1, 1898:2.)
In the same year (1898), the Pennsylvanian newspaper Tėvynė, an organ
of the Lithuanian Alliance of America (in different periods issued in
different cities—Mount Carmel, Plymouth, Philadelphia, Shenandoah),
declared that the next congress of the Lithuanian Alliance of America would
probably decide to print Tėvynė in the orthography that will be used by all
other or at least the majority of Lithuanian newspapers in America
(1898:4:141).
Tėvynė also quoted the newspaper Garsas Amerikos Lietuvių (issued in
Shenandoah, Penn., in 1894-1899; from 1901 Garsas Amerikos Lietuvių
was replaced by Žvaigždė; see further 3.6.):
Subačius: 3 of 12
Let all American Lithuanian newspapers [...] become united in at least this enterprise
[orthography] [...] let’s hope that they all (maybe with an exception of Saule alone)
will undertake modification of their present orthography according to that of Varpas
and Ukinįkas, which is recognized as the most convenient and has the majority of
supporters. [...] We can dream that from the New Year 1899, all American
Lithuanian newspapers will be printed in the unified orthography. (Garsas Amerikos
Lietuvių; cited in Tėvynė, 1898:4:141.)
The next year (1899) a new newspaper, Viltis, was established in
Shenandoah, Penn. In January 21, 1899, in the second issue it proclaimed at
once:
The orthography that is used in Varpas and Ukinįkas is the most widely known. It is
accepted by the most American Lithuanian newspapers (except for Saule, that does
not keep any orthography). Only two letters used in Varpas remain unaccepted: š
and č [...]. From now on we will always use š and č in editorials and other more
important articles. (Viltis, Jan 21, 1899:2.)
Thus, it is apparent that the theoretical stance of most American
newspapers was to switch to Varpas orthography approximately from 1899
on, i.e., to begin set the letters <č> and <š>. All of the newspapers agreed in
theory that Varpas’s orthography was the best. Practically, however,
printing <č>č <š> with carons was neither very simple nor a one-time
action.
3. Practical Efforts to Implement Letters <č> and <š>
3.1. Double Orthography in Vienybė Lietuvninkų
American Lithuanian newspapers of this period frequently had a section
in almost every issue where they set type not in the usual narrow columns
(ca. 5.5 mm width), but in wider columns (ca. 7.5 mm and wider). These
texts of greater width were usually serialized texts that lasted through many
issues of a newspaper. Wider columns probably were composed in that way
to facilitate later printing separate books with the same typeset matter.
The newspaper Vienybė Lietuvninkų was issued in Plymouth (Penn.) at
that time. If we look at the text “Mythai, pasakos ir legendos Żiamaicziu“ in
Vienybė Lietuvninkų of Mar. 29, 1899 (pp. 158–159), where this serialized
text, set in a wide measure, ended, we will see that it contains orthography
with only the digraphs (czebatus 159, greicziaus 159, jauczio 159) and
(iszėjo 159, szyksztus 159, użmuszo 159). The same observation is
valid for all of the text of that issue.
Fourteen days later, in the Apr. 12, 1899 issue (pp. 182–183), a new
serial set in a wide measure was started: “Vilius Tell [...]. Parašė Friedrich
Von Schiller”. This text is probably the first in which Vienybė Lietuvninkų
began composing type with <č> and <š>. Cf. the following letters in the
body of the text: <č>—čia 183, pačią 183, pučia 182; <š>—išpildyt 183,
šaltas 182, švelnus 182.
Subačius: 4 of 12
It is evident that from Apr. 12, 1899, Vienybė Lietuvninkų modernized
its orthography. However, in the remaining text of the same issue the
typesetters used only the traditional digraphs , . Thus we can
speak about the birth of a double spelling, a double orthographical standard
in the same Vienybė Lietuvninkų.
Antanas Mažiulis noted that the editor of Vienybė Lietuvninkų Petras
Mikolainis “eradicated cz and sz from a part of Vienybė Lietuvninkų, though
finally they were rejected only in 1904” (Mažiulis 1965:33:542).
An examination of the use of the letters <č>, <š> in later issues of
Vienybė Lietuvninkų up to the mentioned year 1904 and a little later show
that serialized texts set in the wide measure were printed in the more
modern orthography (with <č>, <š>) than other texts (with , ) up
until the very beginning of 1904.
More than ten serialized wide-measure texts with that more modern
orthography appeared during this period: (1) “Vilius Tell [...] Parašė
Friedrich Von Schiller” (till the second half of 1899); (2) “Latviu Tauta, [...]
Parašė Jonas Šliupas“ (in 1899 and 1900); (3) “Pasikalbejimai apie dangu ir
žeme” (from 1901, no. 1 till 1901, no. 11); (4) “Musu dieles” (from 1901,
no. 15 till 1901, no. 18); (5) “Parsidavimas ir pelnas” (from 1901, no. 20 till
1901, no. 25); (6) “Żemiu Dulkės. [...] parašyta M. Radzevičiutės” (from
1901, no. 28 till 1902); (7) “Kur musu iszganymas?” (in 1902); (8) “Jurgis
Durnelis. [...] parašė Brolis” (in 1902); (9) “Nuskintas ziedas. Parašé
Bijunas” (till 1902, no. 49); (10) “Kainas. Misterija Byron’o parašyta” (in
1903); (11) “Lietuviu tauta senoveje ir sziadien [sic!] Parašė J. Sliupas” (in
1903).
Most of these texts were printed and sold as separate books later.
Evidently the more modern orthography with <č>, <š> was intended to be
used in the texts that were destined to be turned into books afterwards.
These texts were oriented not just to newspaper readers, but also to the
readers of the books.
This double orthography in Vienybė Lietuvninkų lasted until the issue of
Jan 6, 1904, no. 1, approximately three and a half years later. Then a radical
turning-point took place. In texts other than just the wide-measure serialized
stories the letters <č>, <š> emerged, cf. in the body type of that issue:
<č>—laikraščiai 5(9), lapkričio 1(5), mokesčių 5(9); <š>—brošiurą 1(5),
išgamas 1(5), lietuvišką 1(5).
This turning-point was an essential change in Vienybė Lietuvninkų’s
orthography, since from then on letters <č>, <š> dominated. Mažiulis was
right to claim that , were finally rejected only in 1904. After this
turning-point, however, traces of older orthography remained, especially in
smaller types, in advertisements, and in headings. It apparently took much
longer to get rid of the last remains of the older orthography.
3.2. Book and Newspaper Orthography
We can say that the distinction made between the two different
orthographies in the same issue of a newspaper was a deliberate conscious
Subačius: 5 of 12
orientation to the shape of a book, not to that of a newspaper; to the readers
of books, not to those of newspapers (if we can divide readers in such a
manner).
Newspapers expressed their opinion about which orthography is suitable
for books and which for newspapers:
Sz, cz is not needed for our orthography, [...] especially in books. In a
newspaper, however, [...] we think it is important to facilitate reading as much as
possible. [...] There’s no advantage to it in a popular newspaper, but I say, let’s
have the letters š, č in books. (Tėvynės sargas, 1898:5-6.)
Tėvynės sargas, issued in East Prussia primarily for Lithuanian readers
in Lithuania, believed that the orthography had to be settled in books first.
And since readers, according to the investigations of the editors, were
inclined to have newspapers printed with traditional orthography including
, , there apparently was no need to introduce the new orthography.
Tėvynės sargas advises book publishers to be the innovators. A pivotal
difference is being made between which types are to be set in a newspaper
and which in a book.
American Lithuanian newspapers were also reflecting the situation.
Let the intelligentsia in Lithuania take care to diffuse as many useful writings as
possible among people in their own alphabet and spelling; this way people
themselves will force American editors to use Varpas’s alphabet and spelling. Let
them hurry, since the longer they wait, the more Lithuanian books are printed in
America in different spelling; the longer it takes, the more difficult it will be for
European orthography to take over. (Lietuva, Apr 1, 1898:13:2.)
This implementation [of the new orthography] should be made by European
Lithuanian intelligentsia [...]. It is they, who have to print as many little books as
possible in the alphabet that is used in Varpas [...]. This way they would accustom
all Lithuanians to their alphabet and would force American book editors and
printers to use it. (Tėvynė, 1898:4:141.)
American newspaper editors clearly understood that books are very
important to the introduction of the new orthography. They did not speak,
however, about newspapers. The dominant idea is quite clear to them that
the new modern Lithuanian orthography should come through books first.
Priest Motiejus Juodišius wrote:
The articles that I give to newspapers may be set in type as anybody likes. Still
when I prepare for publication a little bigger work, I would like to see it dressed in
a more appropriate and stronger cloth, that wears out slower than the orthography
of present-day newspapers and small books. (Žvaigždė, May 9, 1901:14:2.)
Juodišius wanted another, better orthography for his books that were
intended to endure, but he did not care about newspaper orthography, as that
did not last long. Double standard, double requirements, double orthography
for books and for newspapers were obviously consciously understood.
Subačius: 6 of 12
This is why I suggest that it is possible to speak of two different
orthographies—that of books (with <č>, <š>) and that of newspapers (with
, ). In American Lithuanian newspapers double orthography lasted
for several years (depending on the newspaper). The end of this double
orthography period meant that the book orthography prevailed. It is actually
the standard Lithuanian orthography.
3.3. Double Orthography in Lietuva
The double orthography was quite a popular phenomenon among most
American Lithuanian newspapers. Following is a summary of the use of the
double orthography in the major newspapers of that period.
The Chicago (Ill.) newspaper Lietuva was issued in newspaper
orthography until Jun. 30, 1899, no. 26. In widely set text “Senų Gadynių
Išnykę Gyvi Sutvērimai. Pagal Hutchinsoną” (p. 3) book orthography was
introduced probably for the first time in Lietuva, cf. <č>—aprašančią 3,
suteikiančias 3, tirpstančių 3; <š>—augščiaus 3, iš 3, paviršius 3.
Lietuva’s other texts in the book orthography were: “Musų żemēs
augmenys. Pagal Lunkevyčių ir kitus” (until Jan. 25, 1901, no. 4);
“Biologia. [...] Pagal prof. Nusbaumą” (until May 24, 1901, no. 21); “Iš kur
atsirado musu naminiai gyvuliai ir auginami augmenys? Pagal Lunkevyčių”
(from May 31, 1901, no. 22 to Jul. 26, 1901, no. 30); “Ethnologija. [...]
Pagal Drą M. Haberlandtą” (from Jul. 26, 1901, no. 30 to Jan. 16, 1903, no.
3); “Gamtos Istorija. Prof. Povilo Berto” (from Jan. 16, 1903 to Jun. 26,
1903, no. 26).
The turning-point in the domination of the book orthography was May
8, 1903, no. 19 for Lietuva. After this turning-point, advertisements and
headings still appeared in the old newspaper orthography, as they did in
Vienybė Lietuvninkų. But it is evident that from that date newspaper
orthography with , becomes marginalized and book orthography
prevails.
3.4. Double Orthography in Viltis, Darbininkų viltis
Viltis had been issued since the beginning of 1899 in Shenandoah
(Penn.). Its editors declared almost at once (in issue no. 2), that they
intended to begin using Varpas’s orthography in the main texts of the
newspaper at first.
Book orthography appears first in the article on orthography in Jan. 21,
1899, no. 2 (p. 2): <č>—laikraščiai 2, priderysčių 2, Trečioji 2; <š>—Iš 2,
rašējas 2, viršaus 2. However, in the same article there are many adjacent
newspaper-style digraphs , . Other articles in that issue have no
<č>, <š>.
From that point on, almost all issues have some examples of book
orthography. For instance, the editorial published on Feb. 4, 1899, no. 4, p.
2; “Margi paiszineliai” (subtitled “The most important article in all of the
newspaper”) on Feb. 11, 1899, p. 3; “Svarbiausios knygos” on Mar. 11,
Subačius: 7 of 12
1899, no. 9; editorial on Apr. 1, 1899, no. 12, p. 2; also on Apr. 8, 1899, no.
13, p. 2; on Sep. 10, 1900, no. 37, p. 5; on Dec. 8, 1900, no. 49; etc.
Some issues were published with no book orthography (<č>, <š>) at all
(Mar. 18, 1899, no. 10; Mar. 25, 1899, no. 11).
It is evident that during these two years (1899 and 1900) Viltis was
published in double orthography. Some major texts were set in the
orthography with <č>, <š>, but the preponderance of other texts—in
newspaper orthography with , . “Better” orthography in relation to
books was not emphasized in Viltis; it was attributed to the importance of
particular texts in the newspaper. After all, it was only a small format
newspaper of four pages per issue that probably could not afford to publish
serialized texts and to make up them as books later. At any rate Viltis tried
to keep pace with the other American Lithuanian newspapers and to comply
with the agreement among those papers.
The last known issue of Viltis was Dec. 8, 1900, no. 49, but its publisher
Vincas Šlekys (signed as V. Stagaras) started another newspaper
Darbininkų viltis (Shenandoah, Penn.) later. In the first issue of Jan. 2,
1904, no. 1, the book orthography form already prevails, cf.: <č>—
bażnyčios 1, čia 1, paslapčių 1; <š>—angliškus 1, prieš 1, susimušē 1. In
some texts, mostly in advertisements and headlines, the older newspaper
orthography is still present in both this issue and later ones, but it remains a
defeated one. Darbininkų viltis from 1904 on is published predominantly
with book orthography (with the letters <č>, <š>).
3.5. Double Orthography in Tėvynė
This small format Pennsylvanian newspaper Tėvynė, an organ of the
Lithuanian Alliance of America (issued in Mount Carmel, Plymouth,
Philadelphia, Shenandoah, etc.), also began allocating book orthography for
some serial texts. In 1898, no. 8 (probably August) p. 13-14, the book
orthography was introduced for the first time. Tėvynė began the serialized
publication of Adomas Mickevičius’ poem “Gražina” in book orthography,
cf. <č>—kunįgaikščiui 14, pučia 13, tuščią 14; <š>—augštai 14, šaipos’ 14,
šešēliai 13. Other serialized texts were also often set in the book
orthography, e.g., one more poem of Adomas Mickevičius’ “Konradas
Valenrodas” (started in 1899); also “Iš Kelionės Po Europa. Parašē Kun. J.
Žilinskas” (from Mar. 2, 1901, no. 8). The majority of other texts, however,
were set in newspaper orthography.
In the issue of Mar. 23, 1901, no. 12 an author named Selimas wrote an
article (p. 91) about the Petras Kriaušaitis’ newly published Lithuanian
grammar (the first grammar of standard Lithuanian by Jonas Jablonskis) and
complained about the shortcomings of Tėvynė’s type fonts:
It will take a lot of time before we, especially Americans, introduce the unified
spelling that is presented in the grammar of P. Kriauszaitis, which was published
by the means of Lithuanian Alliance of America. We are short of many types,
and people are not very accustomed to š, č, etc. so far. (Tėvynė, Mar 23,
1901:12:91.)
Subačius: 8 of 12
The same complaint was made by the editor of Tėvynė Antanas Kaupas:
The central committee of Lithuanian Alliance of America decided in the
meantime to publish a reader, prepared according to the spelling of Kriauszaitis.
[...] We do not have the required types in our printing house, so we have sent an
inquiry to the editors of Vienybē and Lietuva, also to Mr. Stagaras [...]. Stagaras
possesses many beautiful type faces and can print not only in “pica” but also in
“small pica”, so we entrusted the work to Stagaras. (Tėvynė, Mar. 23, 1901, no.
12, p. 92.)
It is obvious that Tėvynė did not have the required type to set the reader
they needed (first of all type for <č>, <š>, the representatives of the book
orthography). Kaupas told his readers that the central committee was
informed about the capabilities of the other printers who published the
newspapers Vienybė Lietuvninkų, Lietuva, and Viltis (Mr. Stagaras; real
name Vincas Šlekys). As I have mentioned above, all three newspapers
printed some texts using the book orthography. Kaupas’s article convinces
us that the capability of those three newspapers to publish in the book
orthography (the future standard) were known to him and, by assumption, to
the Lithuanian community as well. Kaupas even knew that the shape of
letters owned by Stagaras were more beautiful than those owned by Vienybė
Lietuvninkų or Lietuva.
3.6. Double Orthography in Žvaigždė
The fifth adherent to the double orthography was the Catholic
newspaper Žvaigždė, published from 1901 in Philadelphia (Penn.), Brooklyn
(N.Y.), and Shenandoah (Penn.) by the priest Antanas Milukas. Žvaigždė
was a successor of Garsas Amerikos Lietuvių (Lietuviški periodiniai
leidiniai 1993:1027). From the very beginning some texts were set in the
book orthography. Cf. serailized text set in a wide measure in 1901, no. 2:
“Ausztant. T. T. Ježo Apysaka”, p. 25–28 (until Aug. 15, 1901, no. 28):
<č>—čigonka 25, grinčią 25, išvaikščiojau 25; <š>—aštuonių 24, sušuko
25, šendien 25. Other book orthography texts were “Pasakojimas Antano
Tretininko. Vyskupo Motiejaus Valancziaus“ (from Feb. 14, 1901, no. 3 to
May 2, 1901, no. 13); “Vyskupas M. Valanczius” (Mar. 7, 1901, no. 5);
“Misionieriai Rosijos ‘Szventosios’. (Isz Lanskajos)” (May 16, 1901, no.
15); etc. Most of the other main texts, however, were set in the newspaper
orthography.
In the above mentioned issue no. 2 of 1901 Žvaigždė writes:
We undertake to publish the fifth book in the form of the newspaper Dirva, and to
use the orthography that we find in no. 2 of Żinyczia, i.e. according to the
grammar of Petras Kriauszaitis. (Žvaigždė, 1901:2:28.)
Using Kriaušaitis’ grammar meant using the book (or standard)
orthography with <č>, <š>. So Žvaigždė clearly understood that it was
Subačius: 9 of 12
expected to publish books in a different orthography than the one prevailing
in their newspaper.
It is worth mentioning the publication of excerpts from the Gospels in
1903-1904. Better, more prestigious book orthography was used to set the
serialized text of the Gospels. In the issue of Feb. 5, 1904, the adjacent text
of “Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII about Savior Jesus Christ” (also serialized)
was still set in the lower prestige newspaper orthography without the letters
<č>, <š>. The turning-point in the usage of the book orthography was Feb.
19, 1904, no. 7, where most of Žvaigždė texts were set with the letters <č>,
<š>. That day the excerpt of the Pope’s Encyclical was switched to the
prestigious book orthography as well.
3.7. Five Newspapers with the Book Orthography
These five newspapers that were described above partially applied the
book orthography (future standard) in their newspapers from 1898 and from
1899 on. Chronologically we can trace the concept of different orthography
for books in Tėvynė (1898, no. 8, probably August), then in Viltis (Jan. 21,
1899), then in Vienybė Lietuvninkų (Apr. 12, 1899), and then in Lietuva
(Jun. 30, 1899), as illustrated in table 1. Consequently we can make the
conclusion that in the middle of 1899s, major American Lithuanian
newspapers formed the idea that Varpas’s orthography is better than theirs,
that they should use it primarily in books (a more stable, longer surviving
media than newspapers), and that at least some texts in their newspapers
should be published in that better, more prestigious orthography. They
implemented the idea of a double orthographical standard, and published
texts set in both orthographies on the same page of the same newspaper.
It can be firmly claimed that the year 1899 was crucial to the deliberate
introduction of Varpas’s (book) orthography (cf. table 1) in American
Lithuanian newspapers. However, it was only the beginning. The period of
double orthography lasted until approximately 1904, for four and a half
years. And only then did the newspapers switch to the book (or Varpas’s, or
standard) orthography in most of the texts (although still not in all of them)
(cf. table 1).
Lietuva, which was a little tardy introducing the book orthography, was
probably the first to make the crucial turning-point switch in May 8, 1903.
Approximately seven months later Vienybė Lietuvninkų (Jan. 6, 1904)
switched, then more than a month later Žvaigždė (Feb. 19, 1904). We don’t
have exact data about the time of turning-point in Darbininkų viltis’s and
Tėvynė’s orthography, but we know that by the beginning of 1904
Darbininkų viltis was also predominantly typeset in book orthography (cf.
table 1).
Thus, book (standard) orthography triumphed in American Lithuanian
newspapers at the beginning of 1904. In essence, Varpas’s orthography,
produced in East Prussia in texts intended primarily for Lithuania, was
accepted by American newspapers in 1904. This date was almost three years
after the codifying grammar by Jablonskis was published in 1901.
Subačius: 10 of 12
The acceptance of standard orthography by the American Lithuanian
newspapers also implies that the Lithuanian community in America became
accustomed to that previously unusual standard in approximately four and a
half years. We can claim that afterwards American Lithuanian community
generally accepted this orthographical standard.
This acceptance occurred in the period when some months still
remained until the end of the ban of Latin letters by the Russian government
in Lithuania (1864-1904). American Lithuanians accepted it before
Lithuanian newspapers and books began being published in Lithuania
legally. The standard was accepted in America before the beginning of
massive free publication in Lithuania.
Table. 1. Usage of graphemes <č> and <š> in American Lithuanian
newspapers at the turn of the twentieth century
1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907
Saulė
Katalikas
Žvaigždė
Tėvynė
Viltis; Darbininkų viltis
Lietuva
Vienybė Lietuvninkų
newspaper not yet established or no data available ,
double orthography: <č>, <š> and , <č>, <š> dominate
4. Deviations of the Double Orthography
It is important to introduce, at least briefly, two more newspapers that
evidently behaved differently than the five newspapers described above.
Subačius: 11 of 12
4.1. Katalikas
The weekly newspaper Katalikas was started in Chicago in 1899.
However, it was not among the early reformers of spelling. We do not really
find book orthography in Katalikas until Jun. 11, 1903, no. 24, when it
began using it in the first piece of serialized wide-measure text “Šiapus Ir
Anapus Grabo. Paraše J. Gerutis”.
Editors of Katalikas waited approximately four years longer than other
newspapers to introduce the book orthography. In the very first issues in
1899, in the serialized text “Matter of Spelling,” Katalikas made a great
effort to convince its readers and competitors that Kazimieras Jaunius’s
orthography, which was not accepted by Varpas and was refused by many
others, among them by most of the American Lithuanian newspapers, was
the best way to write and print! Varpas’s orthography was indirectly called
strange. To prove their knowledge of Lithuanian grammar and orthography,
the editors of Katalikas published long articles containing Jaunius’s,
Kuršaitis’s, and other Lithuanian grammatical theories and rules. Katalikas
was not ignorant in the matter of spelling; it wanted to demonstrate that it
knew a better orthography than that with the letters <č>, <š>.
After printing two serialized texts in book orthography in Katalikas (the
above-mentioned text “Šiapus Ir Anapus Grabo” continued until Sep. 17,
1903, no. 38 and “Kaimynai. Rašo Dēdē Antanazas” from Sep. 17, 1903,
no. 38 to Nov. 5, 1903, no. 45) other wide-measure texts were printed only
in newspaper orthography again! Book orthography disappeared until Jan.
12, 1905, no. 2 (a year and two months!), when it returned only in some
wide-measure texts (p. 3). And the final triumph of book orthography (by
that time definitely the standard) occurred very late in Katalikas, only in
Aug. 17, 1905, no. 33.
Thus, the editors of Katalikas stubbornly avoided book orthography
until Jun. 11, 1903. They made a final decision to comply to the living
standard—both in Lithuania and in the U.S.—only on Aug. 17, 1905 (cf.
table 1). Katalikas was simply forced to comply to the accepted standard.
4.2. Saulė
A biweekly newspaper Saulė, published in Mahanoy City (Penn.) by
Dominikas Tomas Boczkauskas, did not comply with the standard
orthography for a considerably longer period than even Katalikas. It might
be sufficient to say that not only in 1899, but in 1904, and even in 1907 the
digraphs , were used in Saulė (cf. table 1). Apparently, Saulė did
not care about the book or standard Lithuanian orthography. It also used
many other orthographical features that were typical for mid-nineteenth
century Lithuanian texts but not for the standard Lithuanian. Saulė was
exclusively set with Polish orthography letters. Other newspaper editors,
preparing their readers for the changes of orthography in their own
newspapers, mentioned that they had no hope Saulė would ever change its
orthography. Saulė was among those who were the last to accept the
Lithuanian standard.
Subačius: 12 of 12
References:
Haugen, Einar. 1972. “The Ecology of Language”, Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press, 237-254. (First published in 1966.)
Jonikas, Petras. 1972. Lietuvių bendrinės rašomosios kalbos kūrimasis
antrojoje XIX a. pusėje. Čikaga: Pedagoginis lituanistikos institutas.
Kriaušaitis, Petras [Jonas Jablonskis]. 1901. Lietuviškos Kalbos Gramatika.
Rašytojams ir Skaitytojams Vadovėlis. Tilžė: Otto v. Mauderode.
Kudirka, Vincas. 1890. “Statrašos ramsčiai” (Vilnius University Library,
call no. f. - E 333).
Lietuviški Periodiniai Leidiniai 1823-1940. Kontrolinis Sąrašas. Vilnius,
1993.
Mažiulis, Antanas. 1965. “Vienybė Lietuvninkų”. Lietuvių Enciklopedija,
vol. 33, 540-543.
Palionis, Jonas. 1979. Lietuvių literatūrinės kalbos istorija. Vilnius:
Mokslas.
1 Here I want to express my sincere gratitude to Jurgita Venckienė, who
shared some data with me, and to Elizabeth Novickas, who edited the style
of this article.
2 It is impossible to date precisely the introduction of the letter <š> in
Kazimieras Kristupas Daukša’s texts. Very roughly, we can speak of the
middle of the nineteenth century or of the second half of it.
3 In 1966 Einar Haugen introduced his theory which divided the
history of the development of a standard language into four aspects:
(1) selection of norm, (2) codification of form, (3) elaboration of function,
and (4) acceptance by the community (Haugen 1972:249-254

www.uic.edu/classes/lith/lith410/SUB_2004_double_orthography_SCHMA.pdf

How Bronze-Age Riders From the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World.

March 2, 2008

By CHRISTINE KENNEALLY

New York Times

THE HORSE, THE WHEEL, AND LANGUAGE

How Bronze-Age Riders From the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World.

By David W. Anthony.

Illustrated. 553 pp. Princeton University Press. $35.

The first and most intimate affiliations we have are the genetic ties we share with our family and the language we speak. In the first case, the links are pretty straightforward. Without exception, everyone is created by two parents, who each had two parents, who themselves had two parents, and on and on, so that behind every reader of this review, thousands of mothers and fathers fan out and multiply in a completely predictable way.

Linguistic inheritance, by contrast, is a story of irreducible patterns and historical contingencies. In “The Horse, the Wheel, and Language,” David W. Anthony argues that we speak English not just because our parents taught it to us but because wild horses used to roam the steppes of central Eurasia, because steppe-dwellers invented the spoked wheel and because poetry once had real power.

English belongs to the very large Indo-European language family. All of the Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Celtic, Latin, Hellenic, Iranian and Sanskrit languages (among other families) are Indo-European, which means that Lithuanian, Polish, English, Welsh, French, Greek, Kurdish and Punjabi, to name just a few, descend from the same ancient tongue. It is known as Proto-Indo-European, and it was spoken around 3500 B.C. Thanks to a careful comparison of the daughter languages (as linguists call them), thousands of Proto-Indo-European words have been reconstructed, including those for otter, wolf, lynx, bee, honey, cattle, sheep and horse. The way some words group together in Proto-Indo-European shows that its speakers believed in a male sky god, respected chiefs and appointed official warriors. One word for wheel sounded something like “roteh.” The word for axle? “Aks.”

Where Proto-Indo-European came from and who originally spoke it has been a mystery ever since Sir William Jones, a British judge and scholar in India, posited its existence in the late 18th century. As a result, Anthony writes, the question of its origins was “politicized almost from the beginning.” Numerous groups, ranging from the Nazis to adherents of the “goddess movement” (who saw the Indo-Europeans as bellicose invaders who upended a feminine utopia), have made self-interested claims about the Indo-European past. Anthony, an archaeologist at Hartwick College who has extensive field experience, makes the persuasive case that it originated in the steppes of what is now southern Ukraine and Russia, a landscape consisting mainly of endless grasslands and “huge, dramatic” sky. Anthony is not the first scholar to make the case that Proto-Indo-European came from this region, but given the immense array of evidence he presents, he may be the last one who has to.

Anthony lays out crucial events that built up the economic and, later, military power of Proto-Indo-European speakers, increasing the reach and prestige of the language. It’s a linguistic version of the rich getting richer, with the result that more than three billion people around the world today speak a descendant of this mother tongue.

Perhaps the most important moment came with the domestication of horses, first accomplished around 4,800 years ago, at least 2,000 years after cattle, sheep, pigs and goats had been domesticated in other parts of the world. Initially, horses were most likely tamed to serve as an easy source of meat, particularly in winter; it wasn’t until centuries later that they were ridden, and then eventually used to pull carts with solid wheels, turning the Proto-

Indo-European speakers into mobile herders and the steppes into a conduit for themselves and their language. Later, they became skilled warriors whose spoked-wheel chariots sped them to battle and spread their language even farther.

The impact of horses on the reach of language is particularly important to Anthony, and he conveys his excitement at working out whether ancient horses wore bits (and were therefore ridden by Proto-Indo-Europeans) by comparing their teeth to those of modern domesticated and wild horses. He muses on the “deep-rooted, intransigent traditions of opposition” that existed along the Ural River frontier, slowing the spread of herding and the cultural innovations that went with it. He also cites remarkable genetic analyses suggesting that although all the domesticated horses in the world may have come from many different wild mothers, they might all share a single father.

Anthony also describes a world in which spoken poetry was the only medium, one that helped spread Proto-Indo-European through what he calls “elite recruitment.” It wasn’t enough for the newcomers to assume a dominant position: in order for their language to be picked up, they also had to offer the local population attractive opportunities to participate in their language culture — a process that continues today, incidentally, with the spread of English as a prestige language.

“The Horse, the Wheel, and Language” brings together the work of historical linguists and archaeologists, researchers who have traditionally been suspicious of one another’s methods. Though parts of the book will be penetrable only by scholars, it lays out in intricate detail the complicated genealogy of history’s most successful language.

Christine Kenneally is the author of “The First Word: The Search for the Origins of Language.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/books/review/Kenneally-t.html

Gate of Dawn

Religious meaning The painting of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Mercy of Aušros Vartai (the Gate of Dawn) is the only one in Lithuania so widely known for miraculous recoveries and other graces and visited by pilgrims from many surrounding countries. The Blessed Virgin Mary of Aušros Vartai is considered a guardian of Lithuania as well as the symbol of concord. Four peoples and two religious confessions come together to worship her: Lithuanians, Poles, Byelorussians and Russians, Catholics and Orthodox. Place The chapel is arranged over the former Eastern Gates of the ancient defensive City wall of Vilnius. Now, when the city has expanded, the chapel and the gates are in the center. Nearby there is a Catholic church of St. Teresa and an Orthodox monastery of The Holy Spirit. History Terrified by the Tatar invasion in 1503 citizens of Vilnius asked Aleksandras, the Grand Duke of Lithuania for a permission to fence the town. The stonewall had defensive towers and five gates. It was finished in 1522. The Gate of Dawn with the picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary then was in the most dangerous eastern part of the wall. The Carmelite monks who established themselves nearby the Gate began to take care of the picture in 1626. In 1671, seventeen miracles were already confirmed under a vow and documented in the chronicles. In 1702 Vilnius was occupied by the Swedes. They forbade to venerate the picture publicly and to gather in the street in front of the Gate. In the battle trying to regain the Gate, a bullet was put through the picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Since 1671 the picture was placed in a wooden chapel on the Gate. The chapel was destroyed in the Vilnius fire of 1715. The painting however was saved by the Carmelites and returned to a new brick chapel four years later. Under the order of the tsarist government the wall of the town was pulled down in 1799–1802. Still due to the respect to the picture, honored by both Catholics and Orthodox, the Gate of Dawn was left. Before World War II liturgies were celebrated in the Gate of Dawn chapel from sunrise until noon, and in the evening a litany and hymns were sung in praise of Mary. During the services not only the chapel but the entire street used to be filled with worshipers. Pilgrims were especially numerous on the third Sunday after Easter, Whitsuntide, and Nov. 16, the feast of the Mother of Mercy. Men, who passed by the Gate of Dawn removed their hats; this old custom was observed even by non-Catholics. During Soviet times many pilgrims from Byelorussia, who were deprived of all of their sanctuaries, used to come and visit the Gate. On September 4, 1993 the Pope John Paul II prayed the rosary in Aušros Vartai. He told he had this desire since he prayed in front of the Image of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Aušros Vartai in the Lithuanian Chapel in the Basilica of St. Peter in Vatican right after his inauguration. The highest Russian Orthodox and Lithuanian Catholic hierarchs – Alexy II, the Patriarch of Moscow and the whole Russia and Audrys Juozas Bačkis, Archbishop of archdiocese of Vilnius – prayed together in Aušros Vartai on July 28, 1997. They encouraged couple thousand believers who had gathered in front of the Gate to live in the spirit of Christian love, peace and concord. Many visitors as well as residents of Vilnius like to come and pray at Aušros Vartai. The day of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Mercy is celebrated on November 16. Devotions, lasting for a week around this date attract many pilgrims from all over the country. The painting of the Gate of Dawn The picture is one of five crowned pictures of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Lithuania. But it is the only one where Mary is depicted without a Baby Jesus. According to tradition, two paintings were exposed on the Gate of Dawn when it was built. Facing outward was the picture of the Savior, facing in toward the city, a picture of the Blessed Virgin. The grandeur and monumentality of the latter leads to the idea that the picture was destined to be looked at from distance and that it was painted specially for the gate of the town according to the European tradition of the time. A silver garment covers all but the face and hands of the Virgin, who is portrayed with her arms crossed on her chest. The crowned head is inclined toward the right and surrounded by a halo with rays. The public veneration of the picture started in 1655-1661 during the war with the Russians. Citizens of Vilnius asked the Our Lady for intercession. It is believed that at nights they used to see the image of Mary of Aušros Vartai in the sky over the town. In gratitude for guardianship, in 1671, the jewelers of Vilnius made a splendid silver garment for the picture. During the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century everyone, even people of another belief passing the Gates had to take off their hats. Since 1765 the picture has been honored in the songs. The painting of the Virgin of the Gate of Dawn became known for its alleged miraculousness in the 17th century. 17 miracles, sworn to under oath were recorded between 1671-1761. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church refrained from comment on the matter throughout the 17th century. But from the 18th century both bishops of Vilnius and the Popes acknowledged the painting’s miraculous character. In 1773 Pope Clement XIV granted an indulgence to worshipers at the Gate of Dawn. In 1927 Pope Pius XI allowed the painting to be solemnly crowned and granted it the title of Mary, Mother of Mercy. The fame of the miraculous painting spread, largely because of the efforts of the Carmelites and Jesuits. The Vilnius Academy, a Jesuit institution, designated the Virgin of the Gate of Dawn its guardian and patron in 1676. http://www.lcn.lt/en/bl/sventoves/ausrosv/ Catholic Internet Service, kit@lcn.lt

LITHUANIAN PHILOSOPHY-Preface

CULTURAL HERITAGE AND CONTEMPORARY CHANGE

SERIES IVA, EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE, VOLUME 17

LITHUANIAN PHILOSOPHY:

Persons and Ideas

LITHUANIAN PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES, II

edited by

Jurate Baranova

PREFACE: George F. McLean

Volume I of Lithuania Philosophical Studies was entitled Personal Freedom and National Resurgence. The title reflected the strong emphasis upon the distinctive Lithuanian cultural identity needed in order to support the claim to independence from Russia. The title reflected, moreover, concern lest this emphasis become a threat to personal freedom.

The present volume II in this series of Lithuanian Philosophical Studies, does not advance that issue, but focuses rather on providing a longer view of the history of the development of Lithuanian philosophy. In undertaking the work Professor Jurate Baranova was inspired by an earlier volume in this series, Czech Philosophy in the XXth Century done by a team of philosophers at Masaryk University in Brno. In turn, the present work has encouraged similar volumes in other regions.

Chapter I, "Lithuanian Philosophy: the Search for Authenticity" by J. Baranova is the true introduction to this work. It not only identifies the context of the chapters, but goes much further to identify in detail the various historical philosophical schools, their circumstances and bibliography. The parts of the work reflect in general the history of their development.

Part I, "Lithuanians: Their History and Culture", reaches far back into the history and even prehistory of Lithuania and its peoples. Chapter II, "Glimpses of Lithuanian History," by Alfredas Bumblauskas and Chapter III, "A Latecomer to Latin Civilization: The Lithuanian Way to World History", by Edvardas Gudavicius provide preliminary overviews of this early background.

Perhaps nowhere is this continuity more evident than at the Cathedral in Vilnius. Legends identify the area as the location of the oracle where the dream of the Iron Lion was interpreted as foretelling the development of a great people. In time the King’s palace was built on this location, and over that the Cathedral was later built. For years during the Communist regime the Cathedral was reduced to a museum. The real moment of the reinstitution of a free Lithuania was the day when the Cathedral was restored to the people and began to serve once again as a Cathedral. Perhaps no people are so constituted of an interweaving of legend and history, of palace and Cathedral, as are the people of Lithuania,

Chapter IV, "Lithuanian Mythology," by Gintaras Beresnevicius goes in detail into this heritage of myth, its terms and their etymologies, its themes and their goods in this life and the next. He shows how the ancient myths depicted the human as accidental, taking God by surprise and therefore as lacking meaning; this makes manifest the essential significance of the Christian message in adding the sense of meaning and the spiritual dignity of humankind to Lithuanian culture.

Chapter V, "Lithuanian Messianism: Its Beginnings and Origin," by Vytautas Berenis, is a very sophisticated analysis of the way in which this has constituted a special messianic sense for the nation, a sense of mission for the people and of Providence in its realization. In this it reflects the magnificent volume in the series edited by Leon Dyczewski on Values in the Tradition of Polish Culture. By locating human dignity in the people, the issue became not only law but justice. This engages and indeed epitomizes the people. The limitation of messianism is, however, that it is out of history and hence does not engage directly the issue of social progress,

Part II, "Academic Philosophy through the Centuries" provides an overview of the development of professional philosophy in Lithuania. This is provided by Romanas Pleckaitis in Chapter VI, "The Development of Professional Philosophy at The University of Lithuania," providing a detailed account of the development of the faculty of the philosophy department at the University, listing the courses and professors in detail. The last half of the chapter constitutes a veritable tour de force by distinguishing the various fields of philosophy and providing a detailed history of the work done in each in the university. It parallels a similar survey of philosophy in Pakistan by the late Richard DeSmet, published recently as an appendix to Philosophy in Pakistan in this series. Especially notable in this survey is the extent of the work done on the philosophy of culture. This was much advanced beyond the work of philosophers further West.

As will be seen in subsequent chapters, in order to take account of culture, it is necessary to be able to treat especially of values and hence of the teleology of human life and action toward the good. Adequate appreciation of this heritage of the philosophy of culture and the way it relates to the transcendent character of human nature may require more distance from the Marxist materialist period.

This appeared in the first meeting of the Council for Research in Values and Philosophy (RVP) teams from Central and Eastern Europe in the early ‘90s. Everything that was not contained within a materialist horizon was referred to as irrational. Upon discussion it became clear that this was the effect of the previous Marxist ideology and that they had no philosophical terminology to express the new areas of freedom which their people had just acquired. In other words as philosophers they were still prisoners of the old ideology. Their people could not advance in freedom to explore their cultural identity and evolve new dimensions for the future to which they aspired until the philosophers freed themselves from this bondage of the mind. This is an issue which philosophers in Lithuania, with their tradition of attention to the issue of terminology, are especially fitted to address.

Part III, "Philosophy between the Two World Wars" is especially detailed and effective in illustrating the great riches and varied dimensions of the Lithuanian philosophical heritage. Chapter after chapter proceeds to unfold not only the rich systematic Thomistic centuries ago, heritage of Christian philosophy upon which the University was founded over four centuries ago, but a broad range of ingenious individual thinkers and a broad range of interests even to Hindu philosophy.

Chapter VII, "Vydunas: the Essential Features of His Philosophy," by Vaclovas Bagdonavicius manifests the extraordinary reach of this heritage of Lithuanian thought. Vydunas, though not a trained philosopher — or could it also be because of this? — was able to reach across cultures to find in the Hindu philosophical tradition direct statements of the spiritual dimensions for Lithuanian culture which are not available in Western philosophical traditions.

He describes a twin process of involution from the absolute as plenitude into time and space, and evolution as a return ascension of human life to the spiritual, social and cultural. In fact, Ramaniya’s thought will take him only to the sense of plenitude and divine attributes. To complete his cycle and achieve a realism, rather than an idealism, he needs the notion of creation and the thought of Madhva.

Chapter VIII, "Stasys Salkauskis: The Contours of His System," by Arunas Sverdiolas provides an excellent example of the original efforts of Lithuanian thinkers, often without extensive formal training in philosophy, to develop and organize a level of philosophical reflection which reflects their national culture and identity. Stasys Salkaukis was an early example of just such an effort. His work was theoretical especially as regards ontology, but had a practical focus with insights into the philosophy of culture and of religion.

Chapter IX, "The Social Philosophy of Fabijonas Kemesis," by Adolfas Poska, reflects the heritage of the Catholic philosophical tradition in which many of the philosophers were trained and which they reflected while retaining their own critical stance. This tended to develop a social philosophy which set them in a critical relationship to socialism.

Chapter X, "Between Ideology and the Criticism of Culture: the Case of Julijonas Lindë-Dobilas," by Almantas Samalavicius, studies an attempt to develop a philosophy of culture that would value the cultural creativity of the Lithuanian people and attend to their aspirations as a people and as a nation. This attention to culture is again a special mark of Lithuanian philosophy which bridges its own folk heritage of wisdom to the classical content of the ancient Greek and Christian traditions of Homer and Dante.

Chapter XI, "Oscar Milosz — Theoretician of Love," by Andrius Konickis, analyses analogous dimensions in the thought of Oscar Milosz which he traces to a combination of Jewish, Christian and Cabalistic sources. This focus on love brings out the essential character of the teleological element in any philosophy which is based on the life project or culture of a people. Approaches to philosophy which are unable to relate to this may be able to perform some tasks in philosophy, but are incapable of taking account of the reality of the life and culture of a people however much they may claim to be related to concrete facts or individual choices. In this sense these dimensions of the earlier thought of Lithuania are particularly essential for the development of a philosophy related to the aspirations and creative efforts of the Lithuanian people.

Three philosophers treated here have been concerned with developments in existential philosophy. Chapter XII, "Two Existentialists: Antanas Maceina and Juozas Girnius," by Ruta Tumenaite, describes richly the efforts of these two thinkers to develop philosophy on the bases of the life-world of the people, which indeed has as a yet broader context the people’s religious sense of human meaning and commitment. These are precious resources for the development of the sensibilities and aspirations for freedom and authenticity of the new post-Marxist generation. The author draws a rather harsh distinction between the Maceina and Girnius, however, noting that the religious context is noted explicitly by Girnius at the beginning which he considers to be a matter of honesty, whereas it comes only at the end of the method of Maceina. It may be possible to interpret this in an opposite manner, however. From a rationalist perspective the premises need to be made clear, and all is to be deduced therefrom. This would seem to be the expectation of R. Tumenaite. However, in an existential approach one proceeds not from the "top down," but rather from the "bottom up" i.e., from the exercise of life to its premises and conditions. This latter is the method of Maceina who would consider it more authentic (and hence honest) to follow the path of discovery from the practice of life to its religious premises as source and goal. This too is an important building block for the development of a philosophy appropriate for the progress of the Lithuanian people.

Chapter XIII, "The Life of Vosylius Sezemanas and his Critical Realism," by Loreta Anilionyte and Albinas Lozuraitis, is exceptionally well thought through. It shows how this early philosophy developed an original and personal philosophy that is exceptionally relevant today. In it V. Sezezemanas moves from a philosophical position fixed on the object to attention to the subject so that the spirit becomes central and hence also culture and history.

From the detailed analysis of the sequence of authors in this Part III it can be seen that Lithuanian philosophers have had the combination of freedom and genius to do original philosophical work. This has been marked by attention to the spirit as lived in time and in the particular context of Lithuania. Hence, it has not only drawn richly upon culture in general, but has focused upon Lithuanian culture in particular. This set a standard of authenticity and insight which strenuously challenges philosophers of the present time.

Part IV "Contemporary Lithuanian Philosophy" samples the present efforts in philosophy and can be divided between two philosophers working in Lithuania who explain and illustrate the present problem and two philosophers of Lithuanian origin working outside of the country who develop a response.

Chapter XIV, "Lithuanian Philosophical Thought: Between East and West," by Arvydas Sliogeris, suggests a way of dividing the history of philosophical thought in Lithuania, namely, between (a) working from classical texts by Saulkauskas as a Catholic thinker and Vydunas as inspired by Indian thought, (b) Western oriented existential thinkers such as Maceina and Girnius working in the Catholic tradition and in the context of eternal truth; and (c) the present struggle to free philosophy from Marxist ideology. This could be considered a good epilogue to this work.

The author provides a fascinating account of the experience of growing up as a philosopher in Marxist times and under the intense pressure of Marxist ideology. In this situation he found exceptional importance in the lectures of Eujenijus Meskauskas precisely in his conscious use of the Marxist dialectic to negate all meaning and reduce the mind to a skeptical position. This "scorched earth" approach effectively destroyed any growth of ideology, but seems to have left the soil so devastated that it was difficult to grow any new insight.

The response of Slogeris is to take an existential path indicated in this chapter but developed more elaborately in Chapter XV, "Arvydas Sliogeris: The Philosopher as Knight of Being," by Regimantas Tamosaitis. This looks to existential experience as the sole authentic engagement of being which he calls "humanism," and rejects all that is systematized in thought as a depersonalizing distraction from being, which he terms "hominism". This enables him to appreciate the spark of personal insight, and his extensive writings and personal appearances interpreting the long history of philosophy has been a major contribution to the renewal of philosophical interests in post-Soviet times.

He proposes what he terms philotophy or philosophy as a love of nature and of peace. This constitutes an axiological-ethical system of values which gain ontological meaning. The effect is to focus philosophy upon being in its concrete existential meaning as life. But the position seems too iconoclastic, for focusing on existence, it omits or completely subordinates essence on which all formal universalization and systematic work depends. His existential outlook is a characteristically 20th century insight, from which point of view all prior thought is dismissed.

In contrast, the emergence of existence in late ancient times and its evolution through the early and high middle ages was a work of high theory, very much dependent upon systematic theoretical elaboration. Moreover, this was elaborated in a religious context. In fact, this exercised an effect to that feared by Sliogeris: rather than closing the mind in preset and limited categories it constituted a process in which the mind was opened to the transcendence and infinity of being and thereby defies all limitation and categorization. As noted in recent post modern discussions on faith and reason faith is now called upon to liberate reason, which had fallen into low estate on both sides during the Cold War.

This can be seen in Chapter XVI, "Rethinking the Philosophy of Culture: Lithuania and the Western Tradition" by Marius-Povilas Saulauskas, philosopher and leader of the Liberal Party. His response to the ideology of Marxism has been to take on the alternate, liberal ideology and to follow closely the path of Karl Popper. Here the strategy is similar to that of Meskauskas: by elaborating the nominalist position and focusing upon its skeptical character it frees the mind from principles and convictions, except the decision to be "free from". But one must ask whether the resulting anarchistic atomism can enable one to engage one’s freedom ("freedom for") in the building or rebuilding of a nation.

It was one of the major misinterpretations of the end of the Cold War that since one side, Marxism, was wrong, the other (liberalism) must be right. This would be true only if the basic rationalist suggestion from which they both derive was correct. What was at first unsuspected, but has been driven home by the post-modern critique is that the problem is more fundamental and lies in the reductionist rationalism which rejects all that is not clear and distinct to the human mind. This effectively reduces the human mind to only what is common by abstraction and subject to artificial construction by the human mind. The infinite variety, creative freedom and spiritual meaning of life is omitted. It foresees a brave "hominized" world, to use the term of A. Sliogers, but one that is dehumanized and dehumanizing.

In view of the above the work done by the two expatriate Lithuanian philosophers, A. Greimas and V. Kavolis has special significance. They were not forced to begin as it were ex ovo, but were able to elaborate their thinking in a rich and continuous tradition of philosophizing continually subject to critique and enrichment by other currents of thought.

At the same time they did not merely enter into those currents to imitate others, but brought to their work special insights from their Lithuanian background. This can be seen in Chapter XVII, "Algirdas Greimas in Lithuania and in the World," by Zilvinas Beliauskas, who describes the role of A. Greimas in the development of the science of Semiotics. His appreciation of the significance of formal patterns, quite contrary to the existential orientation of many of his countrymen, may well reflect the position of his culture between East and West. His dictionary made a pioneering contribution. His work is typically Lithuanian, in the way in which it carries the Semiotic discussion beyond mere signs to meaning, thereby remaining engaged in life and its achievement.

Perhaps more characteristic, especially in the efforts to redevelop identities for new countries, is the work of V. Kavolis described in Chapter XVIII, "Vytautas Kavolis as Social and Cultural Critic," by Leonidas Donskis. Drawing upon the heritage of his Lithuanian predecessors described in Part III above, he was able to play a leading role in bringing forward the hermeneutic potentialities of existential phenomenology for a restoration and renewal of the sense of cultural tradition, no longer as mere habits from the past, but as a dynamic and transforming dimension of the newly emerging, post-Cold War human sensibilities.

His work unites a number of the elements underlined above: the new appreciation of subjectivity, the importance this gives to teleology and human purpose, the way in which this is shaped in the form of a concrete culture, and the way in which this draws individual persons beyond themselves into society.

In this light Kavolis has been able to draw on the liberal position regarding the dignity and rights of the person, but to carry this beyond defense of minimum standards for isolated individuals into cultural patterns of social cooperation and community which can attract and inspire.

This does not constitutes a conclusion to the story of Lithuanian philosophy, but challenges its young philosophers to continue the process of freeing the country from its post World War II ideology including the fear of reengaging its own cultural and religious traditions. Especially, it points to the work of unfolding new riches from its culture as a basis for the social reconstruction of the new millennium. Lithuania is a country at once old and new; the same must be true of its philosophy.

George F. McLean

http://www.crvp.org/

Council for Research in Values and Philosophy

Chapter 1 THE SEARCH FOR AUTHENTICITY

Chapter 1

LITHUANIAN PHILOSOPHY:

THE SEARCH FOR AUTHENTICITY

JURATE BARANOVA

This book is an attempt to present Lithuanian philosophical thought, its history, main ideas and personalities. The idea was suggested in reading Czech Philosophy in the 20th Century1.

A superficial glance at two philosophical traditions — Czech and Lithuanian — shows two different orientations of the philosophical mind. Reading the volume about Czech philosophy, one can discern rather strong trends of positivism, phenomenology and structuralism, all set within the notable spiritual tradition of Central Europe. In the Lithuanian philosophical tradition these three kinds of philosophy historically had no decisive influence. In the time between the wars only Vosylius Sezemanas was influenced both by neo-Kantians and by phenomenology. Two other eminent Lithuanian philosophers, Stasys Salkauskis and Antanas Maceina, were decisively influenced by the Russian religious thinkers Vladimir Soloviov and Nikolai Berdiaiev. Religious existentialism prevailed over other types of philosophy.

Only very contemporary Lithuanian philosophers have focused on analytic philosophy (Professor Evaldas Nekrasas, Professor Rolandas Povilionis), phenomenology (Tomas Sodeika), structuralism (Vida Gumauskaite, b. 1941). The chapter "Czech Protestantism and Philosophy" could have no parallel in our volume, as Catholicism was the dominant religious tradition.

The Lithuanian philosophical tradition has the same problem as Czech or any other Central or East European philosophy. No one philosophical school or trend takes its origin in Lithuania; ideas were imported from the West or from the East. The reasons for that can be sought in the historical background. Lithuania geographically is a border of the West. The concept of being "between" the West and the East has been used to interpret the peculiarities of our culture by some native and even foreign thinkers. This paradoxical place of Lithuania as being "between" was noticed by British historian Arnold J. Toynbee who found this place for Lithuania in the stage of his dramatic theater of the growth and collapse of civilizations.2

Any serious analyst would consider Lithuanian history in the 13th and 14th centuries to be somewhat paradoxical. One might wonder why our Lithuanian forefathers did not bother to create a Lithuanian alphabet in order to keep their national identity independent from other languages? Instead, they were galloping from one sea (Baltic) to another (Black) like Mongols, Tartars or landbound Vikings.

Toynbee gives an explanation of the source of such aggressiveness in the Lithuanians. As the last pagan country in Europe Lithuania suffered military aggression from the Christian West. In the 13th century, the Teutonic Orders concentrated pressure upon it. The Lithuanians were incited to fight, and marched to the Eastern lands. The pressure was transformed into martial power, which at first was used against neighbors, but later, when the pressure had become persistent, was turned against the Western enemies themselves.

According to Toynbee, such Lithuanian reaction to the pressure by the Teutonic knights is reflected even in the Lithuanian coat-of-arms which depicted a rider with a sword, wearing peasant shoes. This almost barbaric man galloped to Tanenberg and defeated the amazed knights (the battle of Grunwald). However, the Lithuanians were able to do this only after they had accepted the religion, culture and martial techniques of their enemies.

Later on, the energy of history turned in the opposite direction. The Lithuanian pressure on Russian lands induced retaliation. Those lands were united under the Moscovy, and stood against Lithuania. Then Lithuania was to face a new pressure from the East — states Toynbee after the manner of a commentator on a dynamic sports match. It could not withstand the pressure and perished together with Poland. Toynbee’s interpretation of Lithuanian history suggests that while other nations were cherishing their philosophy and arts our ancestors had to waste their energy on battles.

As pointed out by Lithuanian history professor Edvardas Gudavicius, Lithuania is the latecomer to Latin civilization.3 Almost all European nations had joined the Latin cultural domain by the 11th century. Lithuania lagged behind the other Central European countries by some 400 years and found itself within the bounds of Latin civilization only in the 14th century. On the other hand, as Lithuanian philosopher Professor Arvydas Sliogeris noted, we philosophize starting not from "pure experience", but from "pure word" — from somebody else’s text.4 It is very difficult to answer to the question whether there was authentic philosophy in Lithuania or if there is now. According to Sliogeris, philosophizing is not a characteristic feature of Lithuanian mentality. The Lithuanian looks more at the earth than at the sky. And if he looks at the sky, he does not see in it the same things as discerned by Plato — pure ideas. For this reason, according to Sliogeris, the Lithuanian flight of thought lacks metaphysics. Many contemporary researchers who deal with the tradition of Lithuanian philosophy do not share Sliogeris’s point of view. Nevertheless, the question of the authenticity of our philosophical thought remains open. The plausible answer is the one suggested by Professor Romanas Pleckaitis, who used to repeat to the students studying philosophy at Vilnius University : "We are not philosophers, only commentators and investigators of philosophical texts".

Philosophical culture in Lithuania is a culture of academic lectures, notes Alvydas Jokubaitis (philosophy lecturer from the "younger generation") in one of his articles, which provoked vivid disagreement and interesting debate.5 "Our philosophical texts are created only at the cost of good references"; "in Lithuania, it seems, we only duplicate duplicates", continues Jokubaitis. But nevertheless he does not use an argumentum ad hominem. "The reason for the dependency and lack of originality of Lithuanian philosophers lies not in intellectual powerlessness as creators, but in the fact that all our philosophical traditions till now float only behind the huge ice-breaker of Western philosophy". Is the way of the smaller and less visible following ship without meaning? Not at all; every tradition has its value in itself. And the concept of originality has several aspects: some ideas are original because they are expressed for the first time in the history of humankind, some — in the history of the nation, some — in the context of the contemporary generation. In one sense ideas can be called original when they make a deep impression on the philosopher’s mind for the first time, regardless of their origin or context. This is the sense of the title of this volume "Lithuanian Philosophy: Personalities and Ideas".

Part I, "Lithuanians: History and Culture" consists of four essays about some aspects of the historical and cultural tradition of the Lithuanian nation. The Dean of the Faculty of History of Vilnius University, Alfredas Bumblauskas (b. 1956) and the professor of the same faculty, Edvardas Gudavicius (b. 1929), present sketches on Lithuanian history. Two members of the Lithuanian Institute of Culture and Art, Gintaras Beresnevicius (b. 1961) and Vytautas Berenis (b. 1963), discuss the old and new Lithuanian mythology.

Part II, "Academic Philosophy through the Centuries", Professor Romanas Pleckaitis of the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology presents a broad historical review of the lectures in philosophy at Kaunas University and in logic at Vilnius University through the centuries. Professor Pleckaitis states that philosophical studies at Vilnius Jesuit College began in 1571, which date can be considered the beginning of philosophy in Lithuanian academic life. Croate Professor T. Zdelaric (who unfortunately died one year later in a plague) began to teach logic, the first discipline of scholastic philosophy. Scholastic philosophy in the 16th and 17th centuries was studied extensively in other Lithuanian schools as well.

R. Pleckaitis concludes that Lithuania had a rather normal level of late medieval philosophy, that discussion between nominalists and realists retains its significance even until now, and that the level of the study of logic was rather high. Not all historians of Lithuanian culture are committed to the conception of "Lithuania lagging behind the West." Professor Pleckaitis stresses more the achievements of Lithuanian philosophy through the ages.

Part III, "Philosophy between the Two World Wars," is represented by the "golden age" of Lithuanian philosophy: Vydunas (Vilhelmas Storosta, 1868-1953), Stasys Salkauskis (1886-1941), Antanas Maceina (1908-1987), Juozas Girnius (1915-1994) and Vosylius Sezemanas (1884-1963).

Vydunas was not an academic professor, never graduated from the university and created no philosophical system. He philosophized like an ancient sage, caring for moral development. Vydunas was influenced by Indian philosophy, the Bhagavadgita being his main text. He was a unique philosopher in the rather Catholic Lithuanian culture. The chairman of "Vydunas society", the director of the Institute of Philosophy and Culture, Vaclovas Bagdonavicius, presents the main ideas of Vydunas which were closely connected with the magic of his personality.

Stasys Salkauskis was perhaps the first eminent Lithuanian philosopher and pedagogue and the last rector of Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas between the two wars. He was influenced by Russian philosopher Vladimir Soloviov and afterwards by neo-Thomism. Philosophy for him was a means for the upbringing of the nation, for which he created an original philosophy of culture and stated the task for the Lithuanian nation as being the union of two cultural traditions — from the East and from the West. Arunas Sverdiolas (b. 1949),6 in his article "Philosophy of Stasys Salkauskis," identifies different aspects of the influences and aspects of Salkauskis’s philosophy: the discrepancy between his practical and theoretical philosophy, his philosophy of culture and the relation of culture and religion. Sverdiolas concludes that the Promethean tragedy about which Salkauskis writes is not final as in Salkauskis’s understanding, for culture is not the highest sphere of life, but is surpassed by a further step towards religion.

Salkauskis’s ideas influenced his student Antanas Maceina — the other eminent Lithuanian philosopher. Antanas Maceina studied philology, left it for theology, afterwards returned, and finally decided to study philosophy and pedagogy. He was promoted to doctor of philosophy with the thesis "Tautinis auklejimas" (National Education, Kaunas, 1934). The next year he wrote his habilitation thesis, "Ugdomasis Veikimas" (Character Development). Maceina, as well as his teacher Salkauskis, analyzed the philosophy of culture Kulturos filosofijos ivadas (Introduction to the Philosophy of Culture) and a series of articles "Kulturos sinteze ir lietuviskoji kultura" (Synthesis of Culture and Lithuanian Culture). Just before the war he published two widely known books: in one, Socialinis teisingumas (Social Justice) he wrote as a social critic; in the other he reflected the historiosophic vision of Russian philosopher, Nikolai Berdiaiev, Burzuazijos zlugimas (The Fall of the bourgeoisie).

After the war he lived in Germany as private docent, gave courses on Russian philosophy and East European spiritual history at the universities of Frieburg and Munster (Germany), and lectured on the philosophy of religion. In a series of books Antanas Maceina discusses the existential questions of being, and deals with the old theodicy puzzle concerning the genesis and justification of evil: Didysis inkvizitorius (The Grand Inquisitor), Jobo drama (The Drama of Job) and Nieksybes paslaptis (The Secret of Meanness). Maceina also discussed questions very close to theology and dealt with contemporary problems of secularization and the relation of religion and evolutionism. In 1978 The Lithuanian Catholic Academy of Sciences published his opus magnum, Filosofijos kilme ir prasme (The Origin and Meaning of Philosophy).

Maceina’s philosophical conception in this volume is presented by the article of Ruta Tumenaite. In the paper "Two Existentialists: Antanas Maceina and Juozas Girnius" she compares the different influences and types of existential thinking by the two main Lithuanian existentialists. Tumenaite focuses more on the differences between these two philosophers, noting that Maceina, because of his openness to the tradition of Russian philosophy is subject to problems of intellectual integrity, which Juozas Girnius, who is open to Western philosophy, does not encounter. These standards of evaluation, however, come more from ideological than from philosophical discourse.

Juozas Girnius experienced influences very similar to those of Antanas Maceina. Both shared the same fate, leaving in 1944 to spend the rest of their lives far away from their native country: Maceina in Germany, Girnius in the United States. They both had the same teacher Stasys Salkauskis who, from his studies at Moscow University, was deeply influenced by the Russian philosopher, Vladimir Soloviov. During his studies Girnius spent some time at such Western universities as Leuven, Freiburg, Sorbonne, College de France. In Freiburg he attended Martin Heidegger’s lectures and his seminar, and in his works refers more to Western than to Eastern philosophers.

Existential thinking was only one aspect of Girnius’s philosophy. The other was religious faith. His main book, The Man without God, is a polemic mostly on atheistic existentialism. According to Girnius, a man is not only a necessity of nature, but has spirituality as well, which opens the possibility for freedom. Because of freedom a man becomes a moral being, but then faces the possibility of guilt. The longing for moral purity, like that for eternity, is the source of deep anxiety for man. But, asks Girnius rhetorically in a polemic with atheistic existentialism, if there is no God who can forgive man’s guilt? Philosophy has no autonomy in dealing with the questions of human being and hence Girnius did not see a gap between philosophy and literature. He considered Dostojevskij’s, Faulkner’s and other writers’ works to reveal the secluded corners of the human soul more than did the schematic works of some philosophers. But philosophers can take much for their reflection from the works of writers.

The Western philosophical tradition in academic life between the wars was taught by two newcomers to Lithuania — emigrants from Russia — Vosylius Sezemanas (1884-1963) and Levas Karsavinas (1882-1952). Levas Karsavinas was invited to Lithuania in 1928 as professor at Kaunas and Vilnius Universities to deal with the theory of history. He wrote about the methodological premises of historical investigation, stating that no historical theory can escape metaphysics. Discussing the subject of history, Karsavinas stated that it is "socially active humanity", which realizes itself through individual cultures — Indian, Ancient, Russian, European and so on. The culture of humanity is the "multiversal unity" of these cultures. Two of his works Philosophy of History (1923), and About Origins (1926) were published in Russian. His later works Theory of History (1929),7 The History of European Culture (1931-1937, v. 1-5) and Metaphysics of History (typed, 1940-1947) were in Lithuanian.

Vosylius Sezemanas was born in Finland, of Swedish and German descent, and had lived in St. Petersburg. He studied philosophy and psychology at Marburg and Berlin Universities and was a professor at St. Petersburg and Saratov Universities. In 1921 he left Russia and in 1923 was invited to Lithuanian State University in Kaunas. Loreta Anilionyte and Albinas Lozuraitis in their chapter "Vosylius Sezemanas: His Critical Philosophy," discuss the circumstances of his life, personality and spheres of philosophical interests. Sezemanas was influenced by the neo-kantians and phenomenology. The starting point for his original philosophical thinking was epistemology. Recently a collection of Sezemanas’s writings has been published including his studies on the philosophy of history and general questions of the philosophy of culture. Karsavinas and Sezemanas, experienced the same fate: during Soviet times both were exiled to Siberia; Sezemanas returned and lectured until his death; Karsavinas died in Komi.

The six philosophers discussed above compose the kernel of the "golden age" between the wars in Lithuania. The tradition is broader, of course. One should mention Ramunas Bytautas (1886-1915) — the first Lithuanian professional philosopher, psychologist and publicist; Pranas Kuraitis (1883-1964) — professor of Kaunas University and a follower of Thomas Aquinas; Vladimiras Silkarskis (1884-1960) — historian of literature and philosopher, professor of Tartu, Vilnius, Kaunas and Bonn Universities, who wrote about Plato, Socrates, Baruch Spinoza and Vladimir Solovjov; Jonas Sliupas (1861-1944) — the representative of vulgar materialism; Izidorius Tamosaitis (1889-1943) — professor from Kaunas University, who was one of the first in Lithuania to write about anthropology and the theory of values; Adomas Jakstas-Dambrauskas (1860-1938) — philosopher and theologian who discussed religious, aesthetic and world-view questions in the press and also was influenced by Vladimir Solovjov.

Intellectuals who were not professors were engaged in creating a public philosophical culture. One of them, Julijonas Linde-Dobilas (1877-1934), like many Lithuanian thinkers of this epoch, was a universal author writing fiction, aesthetics, literary and cultural criticism. One can read about his ideas and their place in the common culture in Almantas Samalavicius’s article "Beyond the Philosophy of Culture: the Case of Julijonas Linde-Dobilas".

Fabijonas Kemesis (1879-1945) is not well known to contemporary readers in Lithuania. One can find only one fragment of his ideas in the school anthology on Lithuanian philosophy where Adolfas Poska presents an article concerning his social view. Kemesis was a canon, economist, professor and teacher of Christian social thought.

Oskaras Milasius (1877-1939) is a paradoxical and interesting phenomenon in Lithuanian culture. He never lived in Lithuania but was born and spent his childhood in Cereja (near Mogiliov, Byelorussia) and graduated from Janson de Sailly Lycee in Paris. His longing for his fatherland was more metaphysical. Having to choose between two conflicting countries — Lithuania and Poland — he preferred Lithuania which for him was an idea even more than a fatherland. In 1920 when France recognized the independence of Lithuania, he was appointed officially as Charge d’Affairs for Lithuania. He published: 1928, a collection of 26 Lithuanian songs; 1930, "Lithuanian Tales and Stories"; 1933, "Lithuanian Tales"; 1937, "The origin of the Lithuanian Nation", in which he tried to persuade the reader that Lithuanians have the same origin as Jews from the Pyrenees peninsula. Can one consider Oskar Milosz as an investigator of Lithuanian culture; was he only a poet, or a philosopher as well? Andrius Konickis, the author of the book about Oskar Milosz,8 writes that there are many ways of expressing philosophical insights; Oskar Milosz had his own way.

Part IV, "Contemporary Lithuanian Philosophy," presents some texts about contemporary thinkers, but they are only a few of the most visible philosophers; the spectrum is much broader.

The group of professional philosophers (professors, scholars, critics of philosophical texts) in Lithuania can be divided into several groups: those who studied Karl Marx and wrote books or textbooks interpreting first of all Marxist philosophy; other philosophers dealt more with the tradition of contemporary Western philosophy; a very small group dealt with the tradition of Eastern philosophy (e.g. Professor A. Andrijauskas, b. 1948). The group of those who went deeper in the tradition of Lithuanian philosophical thought is also not numerous (e.g. Dr. V. Bagdonavicius, b. 1941, etc.). As usual, interest in the "history of philosophy" was shared between the Western tradition and Lithuanian thought.

In one sense one can discern two different trends in the general Marxist tradition. Eastern Soviet style Marxism was more ideological, more orientated to practical political needs. Western Marxism is more sophisticated, elaborated as a method of social criticism. The dominant Marxist tradition in Lithuania was Western in type. Professor Eugenijus Meskauskas (1909-1997) treated Marxist philosophy as a sophisticated kind of scientific methodology and a critical theory of ideology. Professor Arvydas Sliogeris (b. 1944) in his paper "Lithuanian Philosophical Thought: between East and West" writes that Professor E. Meskauskas’s orientation towards scientific thinking began to destroy Soviet Marxist ideology from within. This idea caused heated arguments. Was not sophisticated Marxism more dangerous, because it was more capable of seducing minds than the more simple version? — on this there were contrusting views. In any case, the Professor’s lectures were popular, and the level of philosophical reasoning attracted listeners from other humanities faculties.

A typical phenomenon in Lithuania was so-called half-Marxism. Under the screen of Marxist philosophy various ideas and conceptions were developed. Students of another Marxist philosopher Juozas Vytautas Vinciunas (1929-1979) remember his Socratic method in discussions with students. Jonas Repsys (1930-1976) — professor from the same department of philosophy at the University in Vilnius — was among the first there to write about existentialism. Krescencijus Stoskus (b. 1938) is a well-known specialist on aesthetics.9 Albinas Lozuraitis (b. 1934) wrote on the problems of epistemology and the theory of values.10 Justinas Karosas (b. 1937) dealt with the materialistic conception of history and ideology and at the same time wrote about hermeneutics and the "Frankfurt School".

The tradition of studies in the history of philosophy was not less influential than the tradition of Marxist philosophy during the 1970s and 80s in Lithuanian philosophical culture. Professor Romanas Pleckaitis (b. 1933) — a doctoral student of Vosilius Sezemanas — represented an "historical approach" towards philosophy. Pleckaitis is well known as a scholar of Lithuanian philosophy in the 16th to 18th centuries and translated the main works of Immanuel Kant into the Lithuanian language.11 Professor Bronius Genzelis (b. 1934) dealt with the history of philosophy in Lithuania as well.12 Professor Kristina Rickeviciute13 (1922-1984) — a doctoral student of Vosilius Sezemanas — was a remarkable lecturer and specialist on ancient philosophy and on the classical German tradition. Professor Bronius Kuzmickas (b. 1935) wrote mostly on the questions of modern Catholicism, national culture, aesthetics, ethics and self-consciousness.14

Some professional philosophers in Lithuania are also well known politicians. The first one was Arvydas Juozaitis (b. 1956). After his doctoral thesis on Wilhelm Dilthey in 1986, two years later he became the main spiritual leader in the fight for Lithuanian independence. Afterwards he did not participate in institutional political life, but regularly took part in ardent public debates, usually expressing oppositional positions. His role is similar to Socrates in not entering state institutions, but always discussing, criticizing and thus influencing political action. Some other philosophers follow the model of Plato’s philosopher-king. The Rector of Vilnius University, Rolandas Pavilionis (b. 1944), introduced to Lithuanian philosophy the Western analytical tradition focused upon language. Recently he ran for President. Bronius Kuzmickas, Bronius Genzelis, Justinas Karosas, Albinas Lozuraitis, Romualdas Ozolas, Gema Jurkunaite, Mecys Laurinkus, Zibartas Jackunas and others for some time have been members of the Lithuanian parliament. Leonarda Jekentaite, the neo-Freudian scholar, is now Director General of UNESCO in Lithuania.

One of the leaders of "Sajudis" — the mass movement which led Lithuania to the independence in the 1990 — was Vytautas Radzvilas (b. 1958) who only two years earlier had completed his thesis on the history of French personalism. He was one of the founders of the Lithuanian liberal union, which for some time was reputed as a party of philosophers. He led this party until the electoral disaster in 1992, after which almost all philosophers left this Party.

During the period of transition Lithuanian society needed new ideas for structuring social life. The most active philosophers in suggesting new approaches in political discourse were libertarians. Some of them — Algirdas Degutis (b. 1951) and Audronis Raguotis (b. 1952) — tried to impose a rather strict type of libertarianism on the Lithuanian mentality. This tradition collapsed as a social movement, and the financial supporters of this "new capitalism" have been imprisoned after financial misfortunes. But academic research is going its own way. Degutis has published a book Valdininku reketo salis (The Country of Criminal Bureaucracy, 1993), and prepared another for publication Individualizmas ir visuomenine tvarka" (Individualism and the Social Order) and translated more than ten books on liberertarianism into Lithuanian. Grazina Miniotaite (b. 1948) has been dealing with contemporary moral philosophy. Recently she published a book about the history of the peaceful liberation of Lithuania, an analytical study of contemporary history. Paradoxically, it is published also in Chinese.

Professional philosophers not only promoted political life in Lithuania, but also contributed greatly to developing new sociological thought. Aleksandras Dobryninas (b. 1955) left the Department of Philosophy at Vilnius University to establish a new Department of Social Theory at the same University, of which he is the head. The members of this department are mostly professional philosophers. For example, Arunas Poviliunas (b. 1958), who wrote his thesis on the philosophy of history, now is engaged in empirical social research on the historical consciousness in Lithuania. Virginijus Valentinavicius (b. 1955) left for journalism and is a commentator for Radio "Free Europe" in Prague.

A small group of professionals is now doing the less visible but necessary everyday academic work in Lithuania. The main core of our professional philosophers of "middle generation" had grown out of the tradition of the "history of philosophy ". Tomas Sodeika (b. 1949) is well known as a specialist on phenomenology and a remarkable lecturer as well. He developed the specialization in philosophy and is its head at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas. Arunas Sverdiolas (b. 1949) is a specialist on hermeneutics and the philosophy of culture, as well as being a translator. Professor Evaldas Nekrasas15 (b. 1945) is the head of the Department of Philosophy at Vilnius University, He wrote extensively on questions of the analytical philosophy of science, especially of probabilistic knowledge, and investigated logical empiricism in Western philosophy.

Recently two serious and interesting academic studies have been published. Besides Arunas Sverdiolas’s book, Steigtis ir sauga, one should mention the monograph Istorika (Vilnius, 1996) written by Zenonas Norkus (b. 1958). He is a specialist on the methodology of historical knowledge, the history of Austrian philosophy, (the Brentano school) and the works of Max Weber. His book, Istorika, with the same title as a book by the German philosopher, J. Droysen, is an investigation of the basic premises of historical research from antiquity till the present. In fifteen chapters he follows how history became independent from rhetoric, its scientific pretensions, the period of historism and attempts to surpass this. The author discerns three philosophical paradigms — ontological, mentalistic and linguistic — which influenced the changes in understanding the premises of historical investigations and resulted in five forms of the theory of history: rhetoric, historicist, critical, analytical and narrativist. This is the first of this type since the work of Karsavin in historical theory in prewar Lithuania.

Alvydas Jokubaitis (b. 1959) translates and discusses postmodern authors and contemporary political philosophy. Two of his articles "Lietuvos filosofine tradicija postmodernizmo akivaizdoje" (The Lithuanian Philosophical Tradition in the Face of Postmodernism) and "Du filosofiniai rezimai" (Two Philosophical Regimes) were the first articles speaking openly and touching on painful points of contemporary Lithuanian philosophy. No article has evoked more vivid discussion about philosophy in Lithuania. Recently he published a book Postmodernizmas ir konservatizmas (Postmodernism and Conservatism, 1997), in which he argues that postmodern discourse is not possible without conservatism.

Leonidas Donskis (b. 1962), the head of the Department of Philosophy at Klaipeda University, writes on topics of philosophy and culture. His books, Moderniosios kulturos filosofijos metmenys (The Outlines of Modern Philosophy of Culture, 1993), Moderniosios samones konfiguracijos (The Configurations of Modern Consciousness, 1994) and Tarp vaizduotes ir realybes (Between Imagination and Reality, 1995), interpret Oswald Spengler’s, Arnold Joseph Toynbee’s and Lewis Mumford’s conceptions of culture. This special interest of this very productive and engaging author is modern myth and its philosophical reflection. He enthusiastically participates in debates about specific characteristics of modern Lithuanian culture: its openness and closedness, its ethnocultural fundamentalism and the dogmatic character of a monological culture.

A new specialization for teaching philosophy in high school has been established at Vilnius Pedagogical University. The Philosophy Department of this university has already published the fourth issue of the philosophical journal Man and Society. The main and perhaps the only other philosophical journal in Lithuania is Problemos (Problems), initiated in 1968 and published semi-annually by philosophers at Vilnius University. The authors of Man and Society include: Jurate Baranova (1955), Rita Serpytyte (1954), Nijole Lomaniene (1953) and Liutauras Degesys (1953)16 and some from Vilnius University: Marius Povilas Saulauskas (1961),17 Zenonas Norkus and Arvydas Sliogeris.

Does this journal and specialization, indeed does philosophy itself, have enough energy and potential sources to survive?

Philosophical culture is created not only by lectures and an academic public; it needs public discourse. To live it needs influence, not only on politics, but perhaps even more in the other spheres of culture? Cultural critics and publishers can do much in encouraging one or another tradition. The editor of the well known cultural journal Kulturos barai, Branys Savukynas, always encourages articles on philosophy and translations, as do the editors of the journal Baltos lankos, Saulius Zukas, and Proskynos, Antanas Gailius. A promising group of young philosophy scholars gathers around the Catholic culture magazine Naujasis zidinys ("The New Hearth"). The director of the publishing house "Aidai", Vytautas Alisauskas, encourages the young generation of intellectuals to write reviews and articles about philosophical books.

Arvydas Juozaitis is a chief editor of Naujoji Romuva, a journal which publishes texts mostly on cultural life; almost every issue includes philosophical essays or translations.

Writer Vytautas Rubavicius (b. 1952) did much to bring philosophers and writers closer together in Lithuania. For years he wrote essays and reviews on philosophical books for the literary newspaper Literatura ir menas ("Literature and Art"). His special interests were M. Heidegger and postmodern authors and culture. His reviews were recently published as Neivardijamos laisves zenklas ("The Sign of Unnamed Freedom") (Vilnius, 1997).

Perhaps no one in Lithuania has been as able and productive in sharing his energy between participation in public discourse and academic writing as Professor Arvydas Sliogeris (b. 1944).18 He writes huge books on philosophy (e.g. Transcendencijos tyla ["The Silence of Transcendence"] has 800 pages) and step by step has become a TV personality, participating in public debates and presenting ardent challenging reflections. Sliogeris is not simply an historian of philosophy or interpreter of texts, but speaks a lot about other philosophers (e.g. S. Kierkegaard, A. Camus, F. Nietzsche etc.); his interpretation is very personal so that his writings reveal much of his own insights. He has his own intonations in philosophical discourse and has created his own philosophical vocabulary. Besides the chapter "Lithuanian Philosophical Thought: Between East and West" by A. Sliogeris himself, this volume includes the study by Regimantas Tamosaitis "Arvydas Sliogeris: the Knight of Being".

Contemporary Lithuanian philosophy is not a geographically restricted phenomenon; emigrants too are considered Lithuanian philosophers. The present volume presents two articles about contemporary Lithuanian thinkers abroad. Zilvinas Beliauskas presents a paper "Algirdas Greimas in Lithuania and Abroad" about Algirdas Julius Greimas (1917-1992). Greimas was one of the creators of semiotics. He considered semiotics as a method for the humanities and applied it to the analysis of language, history and literature. Greimas was born in 1917 in Tula (Russia) and the following year his parents returned to Lithuania, where Greimas graduated from the gymnasium in Marijampole and entered the faculty of Law in Vytautas Magnus University. In 1939 on a grant from the Lithuanian Ministry of Education he went for France for studies in languages and dialects, returned to Lithuania to fulfill his military service in 1944 and left for France to get his doctor’s degree in Sorbonne. For nine years he taught the history of the French language at Alexandria University in Egypt. Beliauskas in his article presents the broad theoretical and historical context which influenced Greimas’s approach to semiotics. Greimas had a rather vivid and ironical mind. He was interested in what was going on Lithuania and wrote about it critically, searching for paradoxes and encouraging critical thinking.

Vytautas Kavolis (1930-1996), a sociologist living in the United States, kept intense and deep relations with Lithuanian matters as well. He was an editor of the journal Metmenys and wrote books on the sociology and psychology of culture in English and Lithuanian. Leonidas Donskis, who considers himself a student of Kavolis with whom he collaborated in giving lectures at Dickinson College in the US, presents a rather broad and rich postmortem review about the works and ideas of his teacher. Presenting Kavolis as a theoretician of civilization and a sociologist of culture, Donskis pays more attention to Kavolis’s social and cultural criticism and the peculiarities of his liberalism (versus nationalism), where he finds some parallels to Martin Buber. Both were thinkers of withdrawal and return (using Arnold J. Toynbee’s term); both severely and consistently criticized what they perceived as their imagined communities which eventually come into being as nation states; and both had particular intellectual sensibility which Donskis calls theoretical and moral empathy.

The full range of the distinguished Lithuanian philosophers living and working abroad is not covered by this volume. Algis Mickunas (b. 1933), professor in Ohio University (USA), keeps in touch with the philosophical culture in Lithuania; his work Phenomenological Philosophy is translated into Lithuanian. Professor Antanas Paskus (b. 1924), clergyman and psychologist, is author of some books in Lithuanian, Christian and today, Evolution and Christianity, Consciousness, etc., and lectures for students in Lithuania. Kestutis Girnius (b. 1945), son of Juozas Girnius, is more of a political analyst, but also a philosopher who permanently participates in Lithuanian cultural life. Vincas Vycinas (b. 1919) is a scholar of Martin Heidegger who lives in the United States; Juozas Leonas Navickas (b. 1928) treats problems of ethics and has written Consciousness and Reality: Hegel’s Subjective Idealism (1976).

Kestutis Skrupskelis (b. 1938 in Kaunas) works in the history of philosophy, focusing on American pragmatism. He was one of the editors of a critical edition of the writings of William James (in 17 volumes), and now has edited James’s letters (published in 3 volumes) and published a bibliography of books about William James.

There is special interest in philosophers who can be considered "Lithuanian" only by the ending of their names, e.g., Emmanuel Levinas (born in Kaunas, Lithuania) or Alphonso Lingis.

This volume is a first attempt to present the tradition of Lithuanian philosophy to the English speaking reader. We ask to be excused by the many deserving philosophers we have not mentioned or for whom broader articles are lacking here because of limited possibilities. This volume has been prepared with the collaboration of the Institute of Sociology and Philosophy. It is a beginning.

Vilnius Pedagogical University

Department of Philosophy

NOTES

1. Edited by Lubomir Novy, Jiri Gabriel, Jaroslav Hroch and published by general editor, George F. McLean, in the broad publishing project of The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy "Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change" in the series devoted to Eastern and Central Europe.

2. A. Toynbee, Postizenije istorii (Moskva, 1991), pp. 142-146.

3. E. Gudavicius, Latecomer to Latin Civilization, Lithuania in the World.

4. A. Sliogeris, "Lietuvos filosofine mintis: tarp Rytu ir Vakaru" in the work Konservatoriaus ispazintys, 1988-1994 metu tekstai (Vilnius, 1995), pp. 95-109.

5. A. Jokubaitis "Lietuvos filosofine tradicija postmodernizmo akivaizdoje", Naujasis zidinys, 1994, No. 11; A. Jokubaitis "Du filosofiniai rezimai", ibid., 1995, No.3.

6. The author of the books Kulturos filosofija Lietuvoje (Philosophy of Culture in Lithuania) (Vilnius, 1983) and Steigtis ir sauga (Sketches of Philosophy of Culture, 1996).

7. Translation from Russian into Lithuanian of his book Philosophy of History.

8. A. Konickis, Vienintelej is begalybes vietu nuskirtoj (Vilnius, 1996).

9. Published a book Meno filosofija (Philosophy of Art) (Vilnius, 1990).

10. Published books Tiesa ir vertybe (Truth and Value) (Vilnius, 1980); Metodologiniai marksistines filosofijos bruozai (Methodological features of Marxist philosophy) (Vilnius, 1986).

11. Professor Romanas Pleckaitis described the reasons and conditions for the emergence of philosophy in Lithuania, analyzed the role of Vilnius University in the advancement of philosophy and identified the systems of philosophy in various schools in Lithuania. For his work Feudalizmo laikotarpio filosofija Lietuvoje (Lithuanian Philosophy in the Feudal Epoch. Philosophy in the Schools of Lithuania in the 16th-18th Centuries) (Vilnius, 1975). R. Pleckaitis was awarded the National Prize of Lithuania.

12. Published books: Svietejai ir ju idejos Lietuvoje (Enlighteners and Their Ideas in Lithuania) (Vilnius, 1972); Ese apie mastytojus (Essay about Thinkers); Renesanso filosofijos metmenys (The Sketches of Renaissance Philosophy, 1988); Pasakojimai apie Lietuvos mastytojus (Stories about Lithuanian Thinkers, 1994); Senoves filosofija (Ancient Philosophy, 1995); and Lietuvos filosofijos istorijos bruozai (The Sketches of the History of Philosophy in Lithuania, 1997). For some time B. Genzelis was the Chairman of the Education, Science and Culture of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania. He was also among those who signed the Statement of the Restoration of Lithuanian Independence.

13. Antikines filosofijos istorijos bruozai (The Features of the History of Antique philosophy" (Vilnius, 1976).

14. Author of several books: Zmogus ir jo idealai (A Man and His Ideals) (Vilnius, 1975); Siuolaikine katalikiskoji filosofija (Contemporary Catholic Philosophy, 1976); Modernizmas siuolaikineje katalikybeje (Modernism in Contemporary Catholicism, 1976); Laime (Happiness, 1983); Tautos kulturos savimone (The Self-consciousness of National Culture, 1989); editor of selected readings Grozio konturai (The Contours of Beauty, 1980) and Gerio konturai (The Contours of Goodness, 1989). Professor B.J. Kuzmickas is a signer of the Statement of the Restoration of Lithuanian Independence.

15. Published books: Loginis empirizmas ir mokslo metodologija (Logical empiricism and the Methodology of Science, 1979); Tikimybinis zinojimas (Probabilistic knowledge — in Russian 1987 and Polish 1992); Filosofijos ivadas (Introduction to Philosophy, 1993).

16. Jurate Baranova: doctoral thesis "Conception of Truth in the Pragmatism of William James" (1986); three texbooks: Political Philosophy (1995), Philosophy of History (1996), Philosophical Ethics (1997). Liutauras Degesys: doctoral thesis on the philosophy of George Santayana (1985); working on the philosophy of education. Nijole Lomaniene: doctoral thesis on "Ernest Nagel’s Philosophy of Science"; now lecturing on logic, philosophy of science and language. Rita Serpytyte: doctoral thesis "The Role of Legal Consciousness in the Development of Society" (1988); now working on problems of religion, and translating from Italian.

17. Marius-Povilas Saulauskas is the head of Department of Logic and History of Philosophy of Vilnius University. He was one of the founders of the Lithuanian Liberal Union and is its vice-chairman. He is writing on political and social philosophy, social theory, ex-communist societies, and analytic and hermeneutic philosophy. His 1987 doctoral thesis "The Analytic/Hermeneutic Controversy: the Problem of Verstehen — an Historical-methodological Analysis."

18. Main books: Zmogaus pasaulis ir egzistencinis mastymas (Human World and Existentialist Thinking, 1985); Daiktai ir menas (The Things and Art, 1988); Butis ir pasaulis (Being and the World, 1990); Sietuvos (1992); Post scriptum (1992); and Transcendencijos tyla (The Silence of Transcendence, 1996).

http://www.crvp.org/

Council for Research in Values and Philosophy