AN 18TH CENTURY LITHUANIAN IN 19TH CENTURY LITHUANIAN TEXTS: THE RHETORIC OF PRAISE

Straipsnyje pateikiama retorinė Kristijono Donelaičio apologijos XIX a. literatūroje analizė. Aptariami gyrimo retorikos procesai: pavyzdžio topikos formavimas, to, kas nėra labai svarbu, nutylėjimas, garbingiausių dalykų išplėtimas, prakilnumo (pranc. sublime) retorikos naudojimas. Donelaitis XIX a. lietuvių tekstuose tapo savotiška metonimija, kuria buvo išreiškiamas lietuvių kalbos ir kultūros gyvybingumas. Tačiau negalima teigti, kad jis buvo vertinamas vienareikšmiškai, – požiūrį lemdavo tautinės tapatybės samprata, konfesinis priklausomumas, estetinės nuostatos. This article discusses the ways in which an 18th century poet appeared close to, and the ways in which he appeared distant from, the creators of an engaged 19th century discourse. A rhetorical analysis of the apologia of Kristijonas Donelaitis is provided. Processes of the rhetoric of praise are discussed: the formation of the topic of the example; the intentional omission of what is less significant; the magnification of what is most honorable; and the employment of the rhetoric of sublimity. In 19th century Lithuanian texts, Donelaitis becomes a sort of metonymy for expressing the vitality of the Lithuanian language and culture. Still, it cannot be claimed that he was assessed unequivocally – the attitude toward him was determined by conceptions of national (ethnic) identity, religious affiliation, and aesthetic principles. Regardless of divergent religious and political developments, at the beginning of the century a tendency to emphasize the integrity of Lithuanian territories is evident. Some literary scholars combine Donelaitis’s homeland into a single territorial unit together with Aukštaitija (Highlands) and Žemaitija (Samogitia). Religious affiliation becomes especially important from the middle of the century onwards, when following the insurrections the religious factor becomes dominant in culture and Catholicism comes to be seen as one of the principal supports for upholding ethnic identity. In such a context Protestant Lithuania Minor and its representative Kristijonas Donelaitis are not emphasized: the creators of didactic prose are much more interested in propagating the ideology of Catholicism. Toward the end of the century these differences emerge in the conflict betwe en Bishop Antanas Baranauskas and the young aušrininkai, although the national aspects of Donelaitis’s literary work seem to be considerably more important than any differences in religious affiliation.