Lituanistinių darbų vertinimo istorijos puslapis: termino ir metodo akcentai Antano Mažiulio recenzijose
| Autor: | IRMA Šidiškienė |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2022 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | Lietuvos etnologija 2022, 22 (31), p. 32-56. |
| ISSN: | 2538-6522 1392-4028 |
| DOI: | 10.33918/25386522-2231004 |
| Popis: | Lietuvoje dar nėra dažni etnologijos mokslo istorijos tyrimai, analizuojantys, kaip tyrėjai vertino etnologinius darbus. Etnologinių darbų vertinimo istorijos tyrimų viena iš perspektyvų – analizuoti etnologinių, etnografinių darbų recenzijas. Šiam darbui pasirinkome gausias Antano Mažiulio (1914–2007) rašytas lituanistinių darbų recenzijas. Straipsnyje siekiama atskleisti, kaip Mažiulis suprato, vertino ir kritikos dėka kreipė tautotyros (etnologijos) mokslą. Kadangi jo recenzijos apėmė platų temų ir problemų spektrą, susitelksime tik į terminų ir metodų klausimų analizę jose. Pagal tai suformulavome uždavinius: atskleisti Mažiulio recenzijose aptartus terminus; nustatyti, kokius metodus Mažiulis vertino to meto lituanistiniuose darbuose. Raktiniai žodžiai: Antanas Mažiulis, recenzijos, lituanistiniai darbai, terminai, metodai. Studies on how scholars have evaluated ethnological research are not yet common in Lithuania. One method for studying the history of the evaluation of ethnological texts is to analyse reviews on ethnological and ethnographic works. For this article, I have chosen Antanas Mažiulis (1914–2007), a researcher who wrote a large number of reviews, covering a wide range of Lithuanian studies. An overview of the publications in question and the criticism presented in Mažiulis’ reviews shows the ideas of Lithuanian researchers from the 1930s to the 1970s, the direction they took, and the opinions they generated. The aim of the article is to examine how Mažiulis understood, evaluated, and, thanks to his criticism, steered Lithuanian studies (mainly in the field of studies of a nation). To achieve this, I reviewed his articles and reviews published in over 20 periodicals. I analysed the reviews highlighting and grouping individual thematic and problematic points. The article looks into some of the issues that he touched on in his reviews, which were important for the development of science, such as issues of terms and methods. I formulated the following two objectives: to explore all the terms discussed in Mažiulis’ reviews, and to determine which methods and tools he valued in Lithuanian studies at the time. Mažiulis was a scholar of Lithuanian studies in the broadest sense (even though he had a diploma in Lithuanian philology). He was an ethnologist and a bibliophile, interested in bibliography, local history, anthropology, and Lithuanian prehistory and history. He was also a public figure and a journalist. From 1938 to 1943, he studied the Lithuanian language and literature in the Department of Philosophy of the Faculty of Theology-Philosophy at Vytautas Magnus University. In 1946, he entered the University of Tübingen (Germany) to study Baltic studies and religious studies. He graduated in 1949 with a diploma in Lithuanian philology. From 1939 he worked in the Department of Folklore at the Antanas Smetona Institute of Lithuanian Studies, and from 1941 to 1943 at the VMU Library. In 1951, he moved to the United States of America, and worked for the Lithuanian Encyclopaedia, Boston College SOM Library, and elsewhere. Mažiulis wrote more than 70 reviews (and ten abstracts), on folklore, mythology, studies of a nation (ethnology), local history, archaeology (prehistory), anthropology, and historical and cultural issues. The articles written between 1942 and 1986 stand out by the author’s attention to the work reviewed. He usually began his reviews by providing a historiographical overview of the work or topic under discussion; he welcomed the authors’ detailed historiographies and bibliographies, and made sure to note and add any missing bibliographical references in the work he reviewed. Most of the time, Mažiulis praised good publications, new discoveries and the raising of important issues. Another important feature of his reviews was that he very often presented his own insights on the issues discussed in the work he reviewed, shared his memories, or corrected what he thought were misapprehensions, often suggesting other interpretations of the issue raised. In his first reviews, Mažiulis often noted the absence of summaries of the work reviewed in other languages, which he considered very important. Since he was interested in the history of the book, the quality of publishing and printing and the appearance of the publication were also important to him. Therefore, he discussed these aspects in his reviews too. These were common features of all his reviews. The analysis of terminology, methodology and methods mentioned in Mažiulis’ reviews highlighted issues raised in Lithuanian studies from the 1930s to the 1970s. The issue of terms in Lithuanian studies at that time was topical. However, unanimity was difficult to achieve, especially due to the fact that Lithuanian studies developed in the shadow of Soviet research separately from Lithuanian studies which started between the two world wars and continued in the West. Mažiulis demonstrated this clearly by pointing out the differences between the use of scientific terms in Soviet Lithuania and in the West. In one of the reviews, Mažiulis explained the meanings of the terms tautotyra (studies of a nation) and etnografija (ethnography) used in the interwar period, which according to him were clearly distinct. He noted that ‘from 1934 onwards, the term tautotyra was used in the sense of etnologija, while the term etnografija or gyvena [living] was sometimes replaced by būtovė [the mode of life; the past or old times]. Studies of a nation had nothing to do with narodovedienija, ludoznawstwo or Volkskunde […] Studies of a nation or ethnology are concerned with research, not description. Nowadays, even the term tautinis is being replaced by nacionalinis’ (Mažiulis 1966b (see Footnote 22)). With the last sentence, Mažiulis seemed to predict that the term tautotyra might change, but he continued to use it in his writing. Mažiulis preferred to use the term anthropology the way it was used in Western Europe, not in the USA or the Soviet Union. The term tautosaka (folklore) was also not clearly defined and likely to change. In his view, tautosaka included all the spiritual manifestations of a nation’s creativity, with the exception of folk art and material culture. The distinction between tautotyra and tautosaka, according to Mažiulis, is simple: the former is a science, the latter is sources (like ethnology/gyvena or ethnography). [...] Keywords: Antanas Mažiulis, reviews, lituanistic studies, terms, methods. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|