Back to background page

Back to Index page

INTRODUCTION

          The primary purpose of this study is to examine the Russian poems of the bilingual -usslan-Lithuanian poetsymbolist Jurgis Kazimirovic Baltrusajtis in order (1) to determine the nature of his religious-mystical orientation and (2) to characterize its salient features through an analysis of recurrent symbols and myths. Baltrusajtis assigned rather precise function to art and defined the role of the artist in various critical reviews and essays. Among these we find three major essays which shed considerable light on his esthetic principles and help explain the religious worldview embodied in his verse. For the reason that these writings serve as a commentary on his poetic works, we thought it fitting to incorporate them into our dissertation.

          A secondary objective of this study is to help resolve a dispute recently raised by a contemporary Soviet Lithuanian scholar, V. Daujotyte, who maintains that Baltrusajtis is not a religious poet but a mystic. V. Daujotyte argues in direct contradiction to the opinions held by such literary critics as S.S. Rozanov, A. Belyj, V. Ivanov, and others.

          How does Baltrusajtis fit into the scheme of Russian Symbolism? He stands alongside the younger or the second generation of Symbolists in his attitude towards art and the religious - mystical tone of his poetry. Like his famous contemporaries Aleksandr Blok, Andrej Belyj, and Vjaceslav I vanov, Baltrusajtis viewed art as an instrument of revelation, liturgical and theurgical in essence and thus closely linked with religion. In spirit and temper, his poetry is idealistic, Neoplatonic, and visionary. Similarly in the application and use of myth and symbol, he resembles the younger group of Symbolists. They operate as basic devices in bringing about spiritual revelation and transcendence into a higher sphere of human experience.

          Baltrusajtis differs from his famous colleagues in that he is a poet of hope and optisism, maintaining such a viewpoint to the end of his life. He is a philosophical poet in the tradition of Evgenij Baratinskij. He is also a poet of nature, both in awe of and in love with it. In this attitude, he somewhat resembles Tjutcev. Most importantly, he never renounced nor became dissilusioned with his religious-mystical beliefs, as did Blok and Belyj. In that sense, he stands very close to Vjaceslav I vanov.

          Critical works on Baltrusajtis' poetry are found, with one or two exceptions, within the confines of literary reviews and analytical essays. The more significant ones were written by Russian critics: Ju. Aixenval'd's "Baltrusajtis"; A. Belyj's "Ex Deo Nascimur" (a recently discovered unfinished study); V. Ivanov's "Ju. Baltrusajtis, kak liriceskij poet", G. Polonskij's "Na molitvu: poezija Jurgisa Baltrusajtisa"; and S.S. Rozanov's "Ju. Baltrusajtis: Siluet".

          They all attempt to define and categorize the uniqueness of Baltrusajtis as a poet within a general scope. The exclusion in this case is S.S. Rozanov; his sixteen-page essay is an impressive analysis of Baltrusajtis' philosophical ideas. Although historically important, less significant in substance are the reviews written by V. Brjusov, I. Erenburg, A. Bartenev, Ivanov-Razumnik, and others.

          Among the Lithuanian analysts, the most important are B. Sruoga, J. Aistis, B. Vaskelis, and V. Daujotyte. The essays of Sruoga and Aistis provide a serious scholarly explanation of Baltrusajtis' Lithuanian verse. B. Vaskelis, in his doctoral dissertation entitled "The Language of Jurgis Baltrusajtis' Lithuanian Poetry", deals exclusively with linguistical aspects such as the use of grammar, syntax, and semantic characteristics.

          Viktorija Daujotyte is the only scholar, to date, who has written an entire book (three hundred pages in length) on Baltrusajtis. Its title is Jurgis Baltrusaitis: MonografiiZa. It deals with the life and works of the poet on a broad scale (including his fiction, works of translation, etc.). It is a monograph, intended to give an overview. In the introduction, V. Daujotyte points out that her research on Baltrusajtis is grounded in the "methodology peculiar to Soviet literary scholarship ...", i.e. based on Marxist-Leninist materialistic interpretation of literature. In her own words, the aim is to "present a general view /of Baltrusajti2s; as a result, specialized questions and specific problems are not analyzed in depth but only broached." 1 She accentuates Baltrusajtis as a Lithuanian poet and points out his contributions to Lithuanian culture.

          Although there is a chapter dedicated to the analysis of his Russian poetry, Daujotyte concludes that in outlook Baltrusajtis is simply a mystical, at best, a theosophical, poet. She completely ignores the religious-philosophical, religious-mystical orientation of his art. 2 Daujotyte omits a number of very significant sources which tend to strengthen the contention that Baltrusajtis is a religious poet. Among the omissions are: "0 sucnosti iskusstva i tvorceskom dolge xudoznika" (Baltrusajtis' credo on art); G. Polonskij's "Na molitvu: poezija Jurgis a Baltrusajtisa"; A. Belyj's "Ex Deo Nascimur"; J. Aistis' "Jurgis Baltrusajtis"; and others. The actuality of these omissions and the constraint imposed by the Soviety system on scholarship, especially where it concerns spiritual themes (i.e. religious antagonism of the Marxist dialectic), indicates that Daujotyte had no choice in this matter and simply had to maintain silence or ignore any religious considerations regarding Baltrusajtis' works.

          My dissertational study is predicated upon the foregone considerations, that is, on the lack of an in-depth study of Baltrusajtis' religious attitudes found in his poetry. As a result, this helps to explain the preferential theme of religion in this work.

          Jurgis K. Baltrusajtis lived and dveloped in two cultures: his native Lithuanian and the intellectual esthetic one of pre-revolutionary Russia. He wrote verse both in Russian and in Lithuanian. However, most of his poetry was composed in Russian. Baltrusajtis preferred Russian to Lithuanian because he had a more refined and sublte command of the former than of the latter which was inherited from his lowly peasant background. More than any other explanation may be the fact that Baltrusajtis was educated in Russia and culturally identified with it, especially during the period of his most productive years as a poet. Due to the above considerations, we have chosen his Russian verse for our study at the exclusion of the poetry written in Lithuanian.

          Endowed with a gift for linguistic fluency, Baltrusajtis learned foreign languages with remarkable ease and sensitivity. That is why he was able to become well attuned to the spiritual psychological nuances of Russian. As works of both prose and poetry attest, his command of the adopted language was extremely facile.

          Baltrusajtis' poetic output, both in Russian and in Lithuanian, consists of a total of 538 poems. Of these, 411 are in Russian and 127 are in Lithuanian, i.e. three-quarters of them were written in Russian. A schematic breakdown of his verse output would be something like this:

In Russian:

In Lithuanian:

It is significant to note that of the Russian poems, 287 were written between the years 1897 and 1918; 46 were written between 1920 and 1943 74 are not dated and therefore it is difficult to determine when they were actually composed. Three-quarters of all the dated Russian poems were completed prior to 1915, including the collection Lilija i serp. Approximately 76% of Baltrusajtis' Russian poetry was written during the time of the poet's most active participation in the Russian Symbolist Movement, chronologically corresponding with its heyday.

          The poetry composed in his native Lithuanian points up Baltrusajtis' limitations in its usage. Although the Lithuanian poems are philosophically profound, they are encumbered by archaic and prosaic linguistic features, not to mention parochial figures of speech. All this makes the Lithuanian verse unwieldly and dated. On the other hand, the store of his ideas and imagery come from his ethnic background and the physical surroundings of his native land, through which he rambled as a small shepherd boy and later as a youth. It would be correct to designate Baltrusajtis as a Lithuanian poet of the Russian language.

           Further argument for the exclusion of the Lithuanian poems from the dissertation pertains to the period in time in which they were written. Of the 127 Lithuanian poems, the majority were composed between 1940 and 1942, that is, during a very short time and toward the end of the poet's life. The choice in selecting only his Russian poems as the focus of this study is predicated on the following reasons: (1) 3altrusajtis' best symbolistic poetry was written in Russian; (2) the greater portion of his verse was written in Russian; (3) the Russian poems were composed during the most popular and vigorous period of Symbolism as a literary movement in Russia; (4) as it pertains to poetic diction, Baltrusajtis' language is in the tradition of Russian Symbolism; (5) he never participated in the Lithuanian Symbolist Movement; (6) his Lithuanian poems are too few in number and too far removed in time from his most active and prolific period as a poet, translator, and critic of the Russian Symbolist Movement.

          In researching this thesis, we remain indebted to a number of institutions and individuals. I would like to thank the Harvard University Library (Widener), the University Library at Cambridge, England, and the British Museum in allowing me to make use of their facilities and research services. I especially owe a great deal to the deceased Lithuanian poet Jonas Aistis who supplied me with two unpublished documents and much background material on Baltrusajtis. In addition, I wish to thank Dr. B. Va9kelis, and Academician Dr. Juozas Tumel,is for providing us with copies of Baltrusajtis' letters and other revelant materials. Also, I want to express my appreciation to Dr. Xavier Ryan of Marist College for reading the manuscript and making some helpful suggestions. Lastly, I wish to mention the librarians at the Cardinal Spellman Library of Marist College, especially Mrs. Marion Nichols, Mrs. Barbara Brenner, and Mr. Adrian Perreault for procuring important research materials through inter-library loan and other special services.

          In quoting original texts in Russian, it was necessary to make,use of two different typewriters. One of them possessed a type that seems indicative of italics. I would like to point out that despite its appearance, original Russian quotations were not intended to be italicized. All quotations that are intentionally italicized are underscored.

Back to background page

Back to Index page