Raštai

• Samulionis, Algis, sudarymas [com]
• Markevičienė, Neringa, sudarymas, parengė [com, edt]

LTŠiame tome skelbiami visi išlikę Sruogos, 1915-1918 m. studijavusio Petrograde ir Maskvoje, laiškai (205 vienetai) studijų Rusijoje bičiulei, muziejininkei Valerijai Čiurlionytei. Adresatės laiškai Sruogai neišliko. Ji dalį Sruogos laiškų (123 vienetus) 1982 m. perdavė saugoti Vilniaus universiteto Rankraščių skyriui, kitą dalį (82 vienetus) - Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos instituto (tada - Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros instituto) bibliotekos Rankraštynui. Šį Sruogos epistolikos rinkinį sudaro Čiurlionytei adresuoti laiškai, atvirlaiškiai, atvirukai, laiškai-eilėraščiai, laiškai-prozos tekstai, laiškai-vertimai, kurie šiame leidime išdėstyti chronologiškai. [Iš Pratarmės]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Balys Sruoga; Lietuvių rašytojai; Valerija Čiurlionytė-Karužienė; Kultūros veikėjos; Dailininkės; Laiškai; Epistolika; Balys Sruoga; Lithuanian writers; Valerija Čiurlionytė-Karužienė; Cultural figures; Artists; Letters; Epistolary.

ENAfter a lengthy break of over 10 years, production of the Lithuanian literature classic Writings, by Balys Sruoga, is being renewed. Algis Samulionis, the world's pre-eminent researcher of Sruoga's life and works, first prepared the comprehensive Writings volumes back in January 1991. Based on his publications, a succession of fictional, scientific, and critical works - as well as translations - were produced between 1996 and 2008. Following Samulionis's death, the preparation of Writings was continued by Donata Linčiuvienė: from 1996 to 2008 she prepared and edited every volume of Sruoga's Writings. Only a small number of his letters were not prepared this way. This volume presents all 205 of Sruogas surviving letters, which he wrote while studying in Petrograd and Moscow (in Russia) under artist and composer Mikalojus Konstantinas Čiurlionis and the sister of musicologist Jadvyga Čiurlionytė, museum worker Valerija Čiurlionytė. Letters sent to Sruoga himself never survived the trip, and it is therefore impossible to recreate the dialogue between recipients. In 1982, Čiurlionytė transferred a portion of Sruoga's letters (123 of them) to be preserved in the manuscript section of Vilnius University. The remaining 82 letters were sent to the Manuscript Repository within the Library at the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore. This epistolary collection consists of letters, postcards, poems, prose, and translations, all ordered chronologically. Traditionally, Sruoga's letters were copied verbatim (including mistakes in spelling or punctuation) reflecting latest "upper" layer of writings. A minimal amount of editing has been done to help the letters conform to modern language standards. Sruoga's letters to Čiurlionytė allow us to better understand the writer's life in Russia.The letters and postcards not only detail the different stages of Sruoga's relationship with Čiurlionytė (a formal acquaintance which grew steadily into friendship, then love), but also his personal approach to life, human relationships, and his personal turmoil when facing important existential questions. The letters reveal that Sruoga was not a traditional lover to Čiurlionytė, but rather her teacher and spiritual leader. The letters describe Sruogas thoughts, beliefs, and perspectives during his student years: his conviction was so strong that these believes never changed, right up to his death. Sruoga's views were also mirrored by authority figures in his life, such as Jurgis Baltrušaitis and other Russian symbolists. In his youthful letters, Sruoga is revealed as a headstrong adventure seeker, longing for adrenaline-fueling experiences with no regard for his own safety. He described his adventures - whether alone or in the company of friends - with humor; he knew he was at best an amateur climber. Somewhat provoked by his constant conscription into wars, Sruoga would find humor in his both himself and the absurdity of the world. He had to work hard to overcome the first real challenge he had encountered in life; the need to obey, humiliate himself, and shed his values. Through these letters, it is discovered that Sruoga viewed the world as layered in mystery: he felt himself hovering between worlds, a stance which frightened and even disturbed Čiurlionytė. Letters reveal the dreams, visions, and inexplicable sensations he regularly encountered. His letters are fascinating in how they play with Lithuanian language. Sruoga, who studied in a Russian environment but grew up in his homeland of Baibokai, would communicate using different languages with different recipients. Sruoga's letters contain many peculiarities which ignite the interest of linguists.The letters openly explore those living in Russia who were close to Sruoga (such as Stasys Šilingas, Adomas Varnas, Juozas Tallat-Kelpša, Sofija Čiurlionienė, Danutė Čiurlionytė, Julija Biliūnienė, and brolis Juozapas Sruoga) as well as those he was not close to, such as his brother Adolfas Sruoga and his wife Tatjana. Once again in his younger letters, we find works of fiction - prose, poems, translations - committed to paper as a student. We also get to know the motivations and impulses which prompted their creation. Letters provide insight into Sruoga's creative workshops, which never ran during his later life after many of his original works were destroyed. By reading his letters we not only find an authentic life history told by the true narrator, but we also learn about the historical beginning of, and influences behind, his work. An issue of genre purity and contamination arises for all text and fictional works delivered as letters. Some letters and postcards do exist; "pure" letters - complete with poetic verse and Sruoga's notes, as well as fictional texts - which were sent as the letters. The collection largely consists of regular letters, some with poetic inserts. Most of the letters and postcards by Sruoga were intended for Čiurlionytė and written from Petrograd and Sochi; a minority came from Moscow. The language of Sruoga's letters carries an incredible contrast to that of his published works, since they are riddled with mistakes: long and short vowels are confused; nasal letters are very often omitted from the accusative singular and genitive plural cases, in singular and plural endings of nominative cases of active participles and in the roots of verbs; there are incorrectly-written forms with consonant assimilation. [From the publication]