Nicolaas van Wijk (1880-1941): Slavist, linguist, philanthropist (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 31)

Nicolaas van Wijk (1880-1941)

Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics Series Editors:

Peter Houtzagers · Janneke Kalsbeek · Jos Schaeken Editorial Advisory Board:

R. Alexander (Berkeley) · A.A. Barentsen (Amsterdam) · B. Comrie (Leipzig) B.M. Groen (Baarn) · F.H.H. Kortlandt (Leiden) · W. Lehfeldt (Göttingen) G. Spieß (Cottbus) · R. Sprenger (Amsterdam) · W.R. Vermeer (Leiden)

Amsterdam - New York, NY 2006

Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, vol. 31

Nicolaas van Wijk (1880-1941) Slavist, linguist, philanthropist

Jan Paul Hinrichs

The publication of this book was made possible by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).

Translated from the Dutch by Murray Pearson.

Edited by Peter Houtzagers and Janneke Kalsbeek.

The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706: 1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents Requirements for permanence”. ISBN-10: 90-420-2023-7 ISBN-13: 978-90-420-2023-8 ©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2006 Printed in The Netherlands

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

7

CHAPTER I – YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS 1. Childhood in Delden 2. School years in Zwolle 3. Years of study in Amsterdam 4. Training in Leipzig 5. Training in Moscow

11 11 13 20 31 36

CHAPTER II – TEACHER 1. Secondary School Teacher in Arnhem and Goes 2. De Nederlandsche taal 3. Fascination with Russia 4. Isolated

41 41 46 51 56

CHAPTER III – DEPUTY LIBRARIAN 1. At the Koninklijke Bibliotheek 2. Etymology 3. Slavic studies as relaxation

61 61 71 76

CHAPTER IV – PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS 1. Appointment 2. The inaugural lecture 3. Travelling through the Slavic world 4. War and philanthropy

83 83 94 103 117

CHAPTER V – LINGUIST 1. Balto-Slavic languages 2. Dutch 3. Body postures

123 123 133 136

CHAPTER VI – PUBLICIST 1. Russia 2. Poland 3. Czechoslovakia

145 145 156 158

CONTENTS

CHAPTER VII – STUDENTS 1. Lecture courses 2. Examinations and promoties 3. Student organizations

177 177 182 191

CHAPTER VIII – COLLEAGUES 1. In Leiden and Amsterdam 2. Rector Magnificus 3. The Academician 4. Abroad

197 197 205 208 213

CHAPTER IX – FRIENDS 1. Polish Jews and Russians 2. The household 3. Beyond Leiden

221 221 231 235

CHAPTER X – THE LAST YEARS 1. Phonologie 2. War and occupation 3. Death and funeral 4. Commemoration

239 239 248 264 270

EPILOGUE

279

Acknowledgements Archives and correspondence consulted Bibliography of Nicolaas van Wijk: corrections and additions References Index of personal names

297 299 303 305 331

ILLUSTRATIONS

143, 161-176, 195

FOREWORD

‘Russians and Polish Jews – that brings a little diversity into our lives.’

Nicolaas van Wijk in a letter to Th.J.G. Locher

Nicolaas van Wijk (1880-1941) was a neerlandicus – a scholar of the Dutch language and literature, a practitioner of comparative Indo-European linguistics and a publicist for Russian literature. After a long and hotly disputed procedure that attracted attention from as far afield as Vienna and St Petersburg, he was appointed in 1913 professor in Balto-Slavic languages at the University of Leiden. He was not only the first individual to occupy such a position in any Dutch university, he also became the founder of Dutch Slavic studies and established his reputation as one of the greatest scholars in the subject. The Slavist Karel van het Reve said in 1983 that Van Wijk was ‘a name as famous in our discipline as the names of Lorentz and Huizinga in other fields’.1 A recent book about the Dutch branch of Unesco – Van Wijk was chairman of a Dutch fore-runner of this organization – referred to Van Wijk as ‘the greatest linguist that our country has ever produced.’2 Yet in spite of this there are several aspects of his life and work that make it undeniably difficult to write a thorough or extensive study of Van Wijk. In the first place, he left a remarkably small personal archive, so that there is little direct, first-hand information available. Nor was anything about him preserved by an immediate family, for he had no wife or children, no brother or sister. As far as anyone knows, he had no open relationship with anyone. Nobody has written anything in any detail about the intimate side of his life. Moreover, Van Wijk himself left no account of his origins or his childhood, and little more about his professional life as a teacher, librarian and professor. And although historicalcomparative linguistics was what most engaged him intellectually and what formed the basis of his fame within Slavic studies, it is actually quite difficult to make out what the subject meant for him: he wrote nothing at all about the significance or the use of this study. Another problem is created by the nature and vast extent of his work, which includes some six hundred published titles: he moved over such a broad field of linguistic and literary studies that one risks getting bogged down in specialisms that are difficult for any single person to harness together intelligibly under a single heading for any single reader: Indo-European, Baltic languages, Old Church Slavonic, Slavic dialectology, the Slavic Paterikon tradition, Slavic accentology, Russian literature, Dutch dialectology, Dutch etymology, Middle Dutch manuscripts and phonology – these are just some of the subjects on which Van Wijk wrote. His 1 2

Van het Reve 1983. Van Helden 2001, p. 108.

8

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

rate of production was such that his books and articles on any of the subjects cited above would have been enough for a lifetime’s work for many academics. Van Wijk’s involvement with any of these subjects, even in sub-areas of them, could justify a detailed separate consideration. The current relevance of Van Wijk’s work does not rest in any one subject, in any single book or article but in his massive presence over a broad domain of literary and linguistic studies. His incredible productivity and energy play a major part when it comes to weighing his significance. In the final analysis, rather than as an innovator or promoter of specific, new ideas, we know him as someone who fundamentally clarified various issues with great expertise, shrewdness and integrity. On the other hand, he was always quick to respond to new developments: one thinks of his long-lasting and controversial flirtation with the body posture theories of the Leipzig professor Eduard Sievers and of his acceptance of the phonology coming out of Prague, even if he did initially have problems with this new direction in linguistics. Van Wijk’s work, whose formal aspects never bothered him much, still has something fresh and engaging about it, with its candour and lack of inhibition, even decades after the author’s death. He admitted his own inadequacies without hesitation and himself publicized errors that had crept into his work. And although his work is sometimes considered obsolete, Van Wijk is so deeply entrenched in various literary and linguistic fields that even today there are many subjects whose study entails the necessity of confronting him. As far as Slavic studies are concerned, he was also one of the last scholars who could still encompass the subject literature in its full breadth and from its origins in the nineteenth century. His approach to various matters remains as inspirational as ever. One can still feel the passion he brought to his work. Van Wijk’s writings in the field of Slavic studies are mostly in German, but he also wrote regularly in French, Czech, Polish or Russian. This work appeared in foreign scholarly journals such as Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, Byzantinoslavica and Slavia. His specialist work in the area of Dutch linguistics appeared mainly in the Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde. These are works of scholarship, as were such books as Altpreussische Studien, Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache and Les langues slaves: de l’unité à la pluralité, the books that are most cited today. And beyond Slavic studies, Van Wijk remains a great name; he will always be a prominent scholar of the Dutch language, if only on the basis of his edition of Franck’s Etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal – a book of inviolable status. Equally, his place in the history of Dutch linguistics is for all time assured by his book Phonologie: een hoofdstuk uit de structurele taalwetenschap. These two books – both of which appeared outside the pale of Slavic studies – can be considered as Van Wijk’s most famous and influential publications in book form. Van Wijk is also the author of an extensive oeuvre, virtually no longer read, that was written for a general Dutch readership. Over a period of decades, he wrote about Russian literature for the authoritative literary journal De Gids and on matters linguistic in the widely read linguistic journal De Nieuwe Taalgids [The New Language Guide], while for almost forty years he reviewed linguistic literature for

FOREWORD

9

the review journal Museum. For the general public he also wrote three books on Russian literature and two about Czechoslovakia. For the purposes of this biography, one can make better use of this latter work than of his purely academic publications, not because it is more important but because the connection between life and times is more clearly visible. For this reason, the extent to which different component parts of Van Wijk’s work are discussed in this book in no way reflects their order of scholarly significance. For example, if more attention is paid to Van Wijk’s remarks regarding the theory of body posture – widely regarded as naive and foolhardy – than to his work on the sound laws of Old Church Slavonic, which is highly regarded by fellow Slavists, this is simply because the first topic offers more material of interest for a biographical approach than the second. Van Wijk was not only a scholar and publicist, he was also a highly socially engaged individual, who, as early as in his 1913 inaugural address, stressed in no uncertain terms stressed in no uncertain terms the relativity of scholarly activities as opposed to a number of vital questions. His contemporaries seem often to have appreciated him more for his personality than for his work. It is also true that his linguistic work, aimed at the international market, would only have been intelligible to a few specialists in The Netherlands, quite apart from the question of who at the time would have known what Van Wijk was publishing in Russian, in Polish or Czech journals, unless he had been sent offprints by the author. The image of Van Wijk that emerges from other people’s recollections is of a totally unconventional but definitely positive figure. He seems never to have had anything worth calling a conflict with anyone, even though it is clear that for several years he was thought to be a thoroughly suspect figure by the Leiden Police on account of his supposed communist sympathies and his hospitality toward various destitute East Europeans. We simply have to do without the gloss of those disputes and open conflicts that provided obvious material for recent biographers of other Dutch scholars and contemporaries to enlarge upon – figures such as the philosopher G.J.P.J. Bolland, the mathematician L.E.J. Brouwer or the classicist David Cohen. Nor did Van Wijk’s life, seen from the outside, turn on any great events. The most radically influential experiences were his post-graduate ‘apprenticeship’ in Leipzig and Moscow in the years 1902-1903 and his journey through Eastern Europe in quest of books in 1914 – both to do with his studies and his career, which were always successful. He never experienced material difficulties. Despite all the unequivocal expressions of other people’s warm regard for Van Wijk, the impression that remains of his personal life is one of impenetrability: who actually was this man? My basic aim has been to describe Van Wijk’s life and work from the available sources in their internal coherence. In the final analysis, this is a matter of exposing, as far as is possible, his motivation, the inner drive behind the bare facts of his life and his bibliography and to chart the world he moved in, the influences that affected him, and the reactions to his work and person among his contemporaries. As far as possible, I have kept to a chronological order.

10

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

The two articles by A.H. van den Baar from 19883 – the most detailed biographical writings on Van Wijk so far – are mainly based on the rather meagre Van Wijk archive in Leiden University Library plus a few published sources. Not only has my book been based on far more Dutch archival material than Van den Baar used,4 but also previously untraced, additional material has been drawn from a great many foreign institutions. Generous use has been made of numerous old articles and reviews of Van Wijk’s work that were no longer cited after his death. The same holds for Van Wijk’s own various peripherally published Dutch writings in which he often sounded a far more personal note than in his articles written for an international academic readership. Nonetheless, the lack of a substantial Van Wijk archive means that the material we have to work with remains relatively limited. Those who knew Van Wijk at close hand have long since died and interviews were unable to bring much new material to light. We know virtually nothing about whole periods of Van Wijk’s life. For the sake of clarity it is worth pointing out that, as far as is known, nothing has been preserved of any exchange of letters with his parents – that might, for example, have been able to provide interesting material on his postgraduate time in Leipzig and Moscow; nor any correspondence with other key figures in his life, such as his teachers C.C. Uhlenbeck and August Leskien, his colleague Roman Jakobson, working from Czechoslovakia, his friends Leonard Polak and Derk Jan Kruijtbosch, his foster son Leonid Zatskoy and his heir Vladimir Zatskoy. As far as other significant figures in Van Wijk’s life are concerned, his Ph.D. supervisor R.C. Boer, his chief at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek W.G.C. Bijvanck, his friend J.H. Kern, his Viennese colleague Nikolaj Trubeckoj and his Leipzig idol Eduard Sievers, the available material is limited to two or three letters each. Nor, it seems, has anything been preserved of his correspondence with his most important publisher, Martinus Nijhoff. I mention this lack of potentially relevant archive material several times in the text so that the value of the information given can, to some extent, be weighed by the reader. And however much one might regret the loss of such material, the absence of a personal archive or other significant writings is perhaps no more than appropriate for a man who so carefully shielded his own inner life.

3

See Van den Baar 1988 and 1988a. I have been unable to use the personal dossier on Van Wijk that must once have existed in the collection of Personal dossiers on State employees, c. 1870-c. 1970 (date of birth up to 1909) of the Ministry of Education, Arts and Sciences, such as are now kept in the Nationaal Archief in The Hague. The disappearance of such a dossier is highly unusual. 4

CHAPTER I

YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS

1. Childhood in Delden Nicolaas van Wijk was the scion of a clerical family. Not only had his father and both his father’s brothers been ministers in the Reformed Church, but so too had his grandfather and namesake Nicolaas van Wijk. His father, Aart Willem van Wijk was born in Weesp on the 14th April, 1852, the youngest of five children with two elder brothers and two sisters. At school he showed interest in mathematics but eventually chose to study theology in Leiden. The following character sketch, which we owe to W.H. Stenfert Kroese, reveals the minister as a brilliant student but at the same time a young man plagued by the fear of failure and labouring under the handicap of serious unworldliness: When I think back to our student time, I am not overstating the case when I refer to him as the primus inter pares among our year-class of theologians. He combined a clear head with an unusual capacity for work and a deep sense of duty. But what was remarkable was that someone who could assimilate so much and who always prepared himself thoroughly, so many times lacked the necessary self-confidence. Before every exam that he sat he was absolutely convinced that he would fail, and yet more than once he passed ‘magna cum laude’. Even after his student period, that feeling of inadequacy remained with him – in fact, throughout his entire ministry. ‘I’m a poor preacher, I’m a bad religious instructor, I am just no good at getting on with people’, he would say of himself, and he actually meant it. [...] A consequence of this character trait was that Van Wijk always badly needed encouragement, support and recognition of his work. When he didn’t get these – and it must be said that he did get them in abundance, and deservedly so – he very rapidly sunk into depression. Then afterwards he had to be revived, brought out of himself. Yet once he had taken a stand, he seemed to be an unusually forceful individual and would exert himself to the point of exhaustion. And if one wanted to restrain him out of concern for his none too robust constitution, it was always ‘I cannot do otherwise’. Van Wijk had the nature of a prophet. Once he had begun speaking, as though inspired by some Higher power, he would pour out what was on his mind, often with extreme vehemence, for his beliefs were passionately felt and profoundly lived. Frequently, it went over the heads of the normal public. […] Van Wijk was an idealist through and through, and when faced with the naked reality, he went under.1

In 1876, Aart Willem van Wijk began his career in the ministry in Krimpen aan den IJssel where, with his liberal ideas, he soon fell foul of the majority of his right-thinking flock. In the same period, his personal life changed when, on the 4th December, 1878, he married Bregitta Bruijn in Weesp, their shared birthplace. Bregitta, born on the 28th October, 1849, was the daughter of the burgemeester – the mayor – of Weesp. On June 11th, 1880, Van Wijk and his now pregnant wife moved together with a housemaid from Krimpen aan den IJssel to Delden,2 in the province of Over1 2

Stenfert Kroese 1918, p. 47. See further Hijma 1993 and H. Noordegraaf 1998. Delden, Bevolkingsregister P-Z, ± 1869- ± 1882, page 893.

12

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

ijssel, the second step in his career as a church minister. The call was preceded by a certain commotion to do with the law of patronage: the fact that the owner of the Delden Twickel Castle had the right to appoint a minister to the community, whether or not his appointee was recommended by the church council. Following the death of the previous, progressive patron, J.D.C. Baron van Heeckeren van Wassenaer, W.G. Baron Brantsen van de Zijp, who was the guardian of Van Heeckeren’s children during their minority, wanted to appoint strictly orthodox ministers in Delden. One such was duly appointed, but a second post still remained open at the time that the eldest son achieved his majority. The latter agreed to the appointment of Aart Willem van Wijk. In his autobiography, Pieter Cornelis van Wijk, who had himself been a minister in Delden several years earlier, and who was able to establish his youngest brother in his new community, gives us an account of the conflicts of views played out in the 1870’s in the community of Delden. When he was to be installed in the church council on the evening after his inauguration, and his colleague Barbas, instead of discharging his duty by presenting himself before the gathering convened for the purpose, sent a note in which he explained that he did not wish to appear at the meeting because he found that he did not feel free to work with a colleague whom he considered an unbeliever, the senior church elder had to carry out the ceremony. And this elder, a simple farmer from Delden, opened the meeting with a prayer roughly as follows: ‘Lord, though we lack a suitable chairman, yet wilt Thou be our Chairman, all shall be well, Amen’. Whereupon this upright man, with an address as simple as it was heartfelt, handed over the chairmanship to the new teacher and promised him the full support of all the church council members, whose support indeed he would never lack.3

Just how acute the conflict between the orthodox and the progressives was in those days can be judged from the fact that the Delden situation inspired a minister in Santpoort to write a novel4 wherein the feudal atmosphere of Delden, which derived from the seignorial rights enjoyed by the great landowners of Twickel, were plainly described. In Delden, where the population of roughly a thousand inhabitants was evenly split between the Reformed and Roman Catholic faiths, Aart Willem van Wijk and his wife took up residence in the spacious parsonage on the Kerkplein, the Church Square. This house had been built in 1854 next to the old, gothic St Blasius Church built of Bentheimer stone, which contained a prominent private pew for the inhabitants of Twickel. Pieter Cornelis van Wijk referred to Delden as ‘a preeminently healthy, wooded place, altogether charming in its natural beauty’.5 In the Middle Ages, Delden was still a real Hanseatic town, become prosperous through trade, with a canal, ships, guilds and market rights, through which ran the main route from Deventer to Hamburg. A name like Zuidwalstraat (South Wall Street) betrays earlier fortifications, demolished as early as the sixteenth century. At the end of the nineteenth century, despite its small station with first and second class waiting rooms on the Hengelo-Zutphen railway line, Delden must have had a 3

P.C. van Wijk 1907, p. 34-35. See further Bitter 1998. Hugenholtz 1879. 5 P.C. van Wijk 1907, p. 23. 4

YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS

13

distinctly village character. Calicot factories absorbed a certain amount of industrial labour, but most Deldeners earned their living from the land. Almost every inhabitant of Delden had one or more cows that were herded together each morning on the market square and subsequently driven to the stadsmors, an area of lowlying meadow land. Since time immemorial, on week days the clock had chimed for nine o’clock. In winter, the mid-winter horn was blown. A high point of the year was the fair that was always held on the last Thursday in October.6 It was into this well-organized, rural setting, with ample space both indoors and out, that Nicolaas van Wijk entered the world. He was born at half-past ten on the morning of the 4th October 1880, at home – ‘des voormiddags te half elf ure, ten zynen huize’ – according to the declaration given by his 28-year old father in the presence of the mayor the following day.7 The local notary and an eighty-year old council messenger witnessed this statement.8 On the 30th October, Nicolaas was baptized in his father’s church next door.9 Further than this, we know nothing of his childhood except that a Delden physician declared on September 26th, 1881, that he had vaccinated the not yet one-year old Nicolaas against cow-pox, and was personally convinced that having developed thirteen pocks he had been given an adequate injection to guarantee protection as far as was possible against smallpox.10 Nicolaas’ childhood time in Delden came to an end when after a ministry of six years his father was called to Zwolle in the province of Overijssel. The family left Delden on the 1st October, 1886.11 2. School years in Zwolle The Van Wijk family’s first address in Zwolle was Ter Pelkwijkpark 195.12 In 1886, the year the elder Van Wijk took up his position as minister, the conservative movement, the so-called Doleantie (from the Latin ‘dolere’, to complain or deplore), made its appearance in The Netherlands. Deploring the degenerate state of the Reformed Church, orthodox ministers resigned and set up their own, separate Church. A year later, in 1890, when the Salvation Army began its work in the town, Church ministers were forced to involve themselves more actively in social work.13 The elder Van Wijk must have become a very well known Zwolle personage, not least because of his dedication to his ministerial flock, to whom he seems to have paid roughly a thousand individual visits each year. He was no churchman in 6

Data on Delden taken from Van der Aa 1841, p. 208-209, Buter 1972, p. 8, and Van Ommen 1983, p. 6. 7 See Van Ommen 1983, fig. 13 for an old photograph of the Church Square with the rectory. 8 Delden, Burgerlijke Stand, 1880-1884, Geboorten, no. 34. 9 Delden, Archief Hervormde Gemeente, Doopboek der Hervormde Gemeente te Delden beginnende met 3 Mei 1874 en losse vellen vanaf Mei 1871, page 39. 10 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. 11 Delden, Bevolkingsregister ± 1872-± 1893, page 386. 12 Zwolle, Historisch Centrum Overijssel, Bevolkingsregister Zwolle 1860-1940, page W 185a. 13 See Thom. J. de Vries 1961, p. 291.

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

14

the narrow sense, gaining the reputation of a socially concerned minister who was one of the first Christian-Socialists in The Netherlands. He applied himself to such practical matters as universal suffrage, including the vote for women, district nursing and the temperance struggle against alcohol. As a teetotaller, he was chairman of the Zwolle branch of the Nederlandsche Vereeniging tot Afschaffing van Alcoholhoudende Dranken [the Netherlands Association for the Abolition of Alcoholic Drinks]. The minister could not have been entirely satisfied in his work. It is only too evident from the forthright statement of his farewell speeches of 1916 that he felt the parochialism of the religious world was against him: What should it matter to me whether God has used or has not used an orthodox or a liberal – or even a Roman Catholic or a Protestant – way to open your heart to His spirit, if I discover a great excess of that inner treasure, whose presence is the one sufficient proof of the wonderfully enriching work of that spirit: the treasure of a reverential and joyful trust that knows it is in good hands14 […]. The relation between orthodox and liberal colleagues in the same community is most peculiar. It is not a relation of collaboration, but more like working against each other.15

The minister Van Wijk sent his son Nicolaas to the Nutsschool in the Bitterstraat, a school that educated the elite. Nicolaas’ classmate C.M. van Hille-Gaerthé writes about this school in her memoirs of Zwolle: A dark building, the corridor lay on the sunny side. The Nutsschool had six sunless classes in three classrooms, the first and second classes together, third and fourth classes together. It was properly an old-fashioned school that went its own way and probably did not bother itself much with new-fangled methods of education. De heer Muyderman was the headmaster and de heer Postel his senior master. When my mother, who was thirty years older than myself, went to the Nutsschool, the headmaster was ... de heer Muyderman, and his senior master de heer Postel. In the morning they would stand in front of the open school door, de heer Muyderman with a long, white pipe with a black M stamped on the bowl. He lived in the school; his daughter ‘Miss Gerritje’ kept house. If you had a nosebleed in the class, or were really thirsty, you were allowed to go to the kitchen where Miss Gerritje pumped a beaker of water for you and gave you a biscuit or a peeled carrot. We were often thirsty in the Nutsschool.16

Hille-Gaerthé’s book also contains the earliest memories of Nicolaas known to us. He must have been a brilliant individual from a very young age: The day before the long vacation was a very special day at school. In the morning there was a public lesson, half an hour for each class: it was known as the ‘Exam’. In the middle classroom the benches were set at an angle. The class to be examined sat there and the teacher looked very dignified. In both classrooms on either side the mothers and fathers sat in rows. I have no recollection of my own turn at being examined. But I was a classmate of Nico van Wijk, the only son of Minister Van Wijk. He became professor of Slavic languages in Leiden at a very young age and he was already an extremely clever child in primary school, he never missed a thing, one of those pupils the teacher knew he could successfully let get ahead. 14

A.W. Van Wijk 1916, p. 11. Ibid., p. 28. 16 Van Hille-Gaerthé 196X3, p. 25. 15

YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS

15

At an exam like that – I think we were eight years old – the teacher dictated this puzzling sentence that Nicolaas had to write on the blackboard, with the two rooms of attentive parents looking on: ‘De meid mijdt de mijt, als de meid de kaas snijdt’ [The maid avoids the mite when the maid slices the cheese]. He did it without making a mistake.17

On the 11th and 12th July, 1892, Nicolaas successfully sat the entrance exam for the first class of the Zwolle Gymnasium.18 Throughout his time at the gymnasium his family lived at Thorbeckegracht 63, which looked out on to the city wall. It was a short walk to school. One took the bridge over to Vispoortenplas and via Roggenstraat to the Grote Markt, behind which the school had been established since 1878 at Goudsteeg 19,19 a house that had originally been the winter residence of nobility.20 If one compares the prospectus of Nicolaas’ first school year (1892-1893) with that of 1897-1898,21 his last, one finds oneself in a thoroughly stable world. The list of governors published in the prospectus of the Zwolle Gymnasium for the school year 1892-1893 contains four names of lawyers, including A.G.A. Baron Sloet tot Oldhuis as president, plus a series of dots representing a vacancy; while in the prospectus for the school year 1897-1898 one finds exactly the same four names, plus the fifth position now filled – also by a lawyer. In 1892 the school had thirteen teachers, in 1897 fourteen. The headmaster, the rector, Dr. E. Mehler, well-known for his dictionary of Homeric poetry, which ran to several reprints, and for his musical criticism in the Provinciale Overijsselsche en Zwolsche Courant,22 has been succeeded by the deputy head, Dr. J.H. Gunning. There is a new conrector [deputy head] and a new teacher of Hebrew; and there is a new master appointed to the newly created position for ‘High German’. In Van Wijk’s time at the gymnasium there were so few pupils – eight in the first class, six or seven in the higher classes – that they practically enjoyed a private education. In any case, a teacher could be a figure of enormous significance in such an intimate context. The dominant and ambitious classics master Gunning would rather have been a rector elsewhere. He must have found Zwolle – which had only thirty thousand inhabitants at the end of the nineteenth century – a fairly dreary provincial city, certainly not a place he felt at home in. The decisions, including the recommendation and even the appointment of ministers, were in those days taken by several ‘gentlemen’ in the rooms of the Groote Sociëteit [the Great Club] and the freemason’s lodge Mutua Fides.23 Nevertheless, like the minister Van Wijk, Gunning was socially highly active in Zwolle, which was undergoing various changes, much as elsewhere in The Netherlands, with the introduction of horse-drawn 17

Ibid., p. 26. Zwolle, Historisch Centrum Overijssel, Archief van het Gymnasium Celeanum te Zwolle, 18781977, SA 12, inv. no. 1. 19 See for this school Coster et al. 1996, p. 12. 20 See Elte 1954, p. 85-86. 21 Zwolle, Historisch Centrum Overijssel, Archief van het Gymnasium Celeanum te Zwolle, 18781977, SA 12, inv. no. 16. 22 See Thom. J. de Vries 1961, p. 266. 23 Ibid., p. 291. 18

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

16

trams, piped drinking water and the telephone. At the same time poverty was rife. In his autobiography, Gunning writes of his years in Zwolle: I wanted to be rector in due course […]. So in February, 1889, I accepted the deputy headship at Zwolle, where E. Mehler, a well-known and first-rate Greek scholar was rector. After Utrecht, the social life there was a huge disappointment to us […]. Classes and religious denominations were sharply and mean-spiritedly opposed to each other […]. But there was ample opportunity for social work and in my ten years in Zwolle I assumed a full, personal share in this. When, precisely because of what I observed in Zwolle, I realized the necessity for total personal abstention as a means of combating the evil of alcoholism, out of complete conviction I joined the Chr. Geheel-Onthoudersvereeniging [Christian Temperance Movement]. [...] I also became a member of the Church Council, this time as a church warden […].24

In his fight against alcohol, Gunning took the drastic step of buying the public house De Ster [The Star] in the Vechtstraat in the Dieze district of Zwolle and having it rebuilt as a coffeehouse and evangelical meeting house.25 Among the teachers at the Gymnasium we find the history master N.A. Cramer, known as the editor of Vondel and John Mandeville, and the Germanist J.G. Talen. But by far the most striking figure, apart from rector Gunning, was the teacher of Dutch and geography, Dr. F. Buitenrust Hettema. Appointed to the Gymnasium in 1885, he also held a position as privaat-docent [an unsalaried post of university lecturer] in Frisian at the University of Utrecht. Buitenrust Hettema, a native of Harlingen in Friesland, was known as an individual of unbridled energy and pigheadedness. Following complaints from parents, in 1894 (and on several occasions subsequently) he came into conflict with the Board of Governors of the Gymnasium over his ideas on Dutch grammar that he was propounding to his pupils. He was told that he had to refrain from teaching a grammatical system that ignored the learning of cases and genders, and that there must be no more utterances of a derogatory kind against the value of teaching classical languages. Equally categorically, he was forbidden to treat the teaching of languages in his classes as a science: it was merely a means of imparting an overall education.26 That such frictions should have arisen is hardly surprising when one considers that Buitenrust Hettema was the pivotal figure in an enthusiastic movement among scholars of the Dutch language and literature who wanted to rid language education of various old fashioned encumbrances; and Zwolle was unmistakably the centre of this movement. It all began in 1890 with the initiation of a new series of published editions (with introduction, annotations and glossaries) of Dutch classics, the Zwolsche herdrukken [Zwolle reprints]. The first in this series was a republication of Jacob Cats’ Spaens Heydinnetje [The Spanish heathen girl], edited by Buitenrust Hettema, who had a strong preference for artless, jocular folk literature. The series was co-edited by J.H. van den Bosch, an old pupil of the Zwolle Gymnasium and later a teacher in Zierikzee, and was published by the Zwolle publishing house W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink. 24

Gunning 1934, p. 24-25. Erdtsieck and Faber 1989, p. 51. 26 See Miedema 1961, p. 131. 25

YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS

17

In early 1891, the journal Taal en Letteren [Language and Letters] first appeared, again published by Tjeenk Willink. As well as Buitenrust Hettema and Van den Bosch, the Amsterdam teacher Dr. R.A. Kollewijn, the lecturer at a teacher training school in Amsterdam T. Terwey and Professor J. Vercouillie from Ghent were also in the editorial team. Kollewijn was the driving force behind a movement for spelling reform, the Vereniging tot Vereenvoudiging van onze Spelling en Verbuiging [the Association for the Simplification of our Spelling and Declension] founded in 1893, in which Buitenrust Hettema was also active. Taal en Letteren became even more closely tied to the Zwolle Gymnasium when the German teacher J.G. Talen also joined the editorial team in 1897. Taal en Letteren dealt above all with pedagogical matters; it foregrounded the idea of the living spoken language of the day and decried the allegedly narrowminded tradition of written language, with its emphasis on spelling, gender distinction and cases that no longer corresponded to spoken Dutch. Language, the message ran, was not a mixture of (dead) poets’ languages and was not to be judged by language censors. Language was something that could change, and change was not the same as corruption or impoverishment. In this journal, dialects counted for no less than so-called educated speech. The editors had an enormous respect for modern linguistics, and particularly for the so-called Junggrammatiker [the neogrammarians] working from Leipzig. Hermann Paul’s book Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte (1880) provided the ideological basis for much of what Buitenrust Hettema and his collaborators maintained over linguistic matters. In the article of 1895, ‘Uit de spraakleer’ [From grammar], Buitenrust Hettema summarized his standpoints: The new linguistics has first of all a different method: the same, in fact, that is currently followed in the natural sciences: First to ascertain as many facts as possible, before one begins to reason about them. And naturally one begins with what can be ascertained, what one can observe: with the here and now. It is only possible to clarify the past by starting from the present; and therefore one performs what Brugmann so singularly called ‘die Projektion der Gegenwart auf die Vergangenheit’. The Present, not the Past, as norm. Where, after all, in what science does one find an older state of affairs taken as normative for the present? To do this makes a science of the study of language, beside the other sciences; and puts its results on an equal footing with those of the natural sciences. One thus began by studying the present, living languages and dialects, as many as one could; and by comparing them with each other and with those of earlier times. And this over a wider canvas than ever before: the Indo-Germanic language area over its entire range. And this was the result one obtained: All language is individual: everyone speaks his own language; and this differs from his neighbours to a greater or lesser extent, according to the influence people have on each other. Paul has developed this principle with a logical consistency, exploring almost all avenues and explained it in his Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte.27

27

Buitenrust Hettema 1895, p. 53-54.

18

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

The principle that all language is individual was also maintained in Buitenrust Hettema’s education. This much is evident from the series of anthologies drawn from the Dutch literature, the Analecta: Nederlandsch leesboek voor Gymnasia, Hoogere Burgerscholen en Normaalscholen [Analects: a reader of Dutch for Gymnasia, High Schools and Normal Schools], which he edited under the name of Dr. B. These anthologies, bearing the dedication ‘For my Boys’, were issued by the Utrecht publishing house H. Honig. In the preamble to the first volume that appeared in1892, he laid strong emphasis on the pupil’s individual language development. Language was not the property of a people but the sound utterance of an individual. Of course the teacher could give examples by reading aloud texts but, according to Buitenrust Hettema: The teacher’s ‘tone’ should not be forced on children as the true ‘reading voice’. Developing voice inflections is of the utmost importance. – A few lack the aptitude, but many have it in abundance, only this is mostly ruined. With most children, it becomes a reading sing-song, or a reading drone, many make it a church tone, a theatrical tone. For this reason, a general class drone must be avoided. Each pupil should develop himself as far as possible independently. […] We should not be turning out yes-men, but rather arguers, protesters! The teacher is in fact merely an advisor in the highest sense of the word; not a tyrant enforcing what is good and what is bad!28

Of the seven boys who sat in the first class with Nicolaas – girls did not go to the gymnasium, and women teachers there were unheard of – only one accompanied him in the same class throughout his whole school career: Anton ten Doesschate, born in Zwolle on the 20th October, 1879. In that first class, it is evident from the register containing the pupils marks that Nicolaas was the outstanding scholar, gaining only 8’s and 9’s and even a 10 for Dutch history. He had another 10 in the second class, after which this subject disappeared from his schedule. Over his school career he consistently scored his highest marks for Latin and Greek. In the fourth class, beside a 10 for Greek, we find a 6 for progress in High German and a 7 for mathematics: the first time he had been given less than an 8. These remained his weakest subjects in the fifth class, but he scored a 9 for Hebrew.29 From the third class on, Nicolaas had to learn to live with another brilliant student, Leo Polak, born in Steenwijk on the 6th January, 1880, whose marks were as good as his own. A degree of competition must have been good for both of them – the only two from the class who followed the optional course in Hebrew. This is evident from a biographical sketch of Polak’s school time: For the first time, he found at the gymnasium what he had not previously known: someone who could measure up to him. Nico van Wijk […] was his classmate, friend and rival. This rivalry was used to best advantage by the rector, the future Professor J.H. Gunning Wzn., whose appointment as rector the young Polak had saluted with a Latin distich. Much later, too, on suitable occasions he was in the habit of acknowledging in Latin verse his abiding gratitude to ‘the old Gunning’, for Gunning made enormous demands of his gifted pupils, and they in turn learned an enormous amount from him. […] 28

Buitenrust Hettema 1892, p. viiff. Zwolle, Historisch Centrum Overijssel, Archief van het Gymnasium Celeanum te Zwolle, 18781977, SA 12, inv. no. 21.

29

YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS

19

In 1898 the two ‘geniuses’ – as they were still referred to years later at the Zwolle Gymnasium – passed their final examination […].30

Nicolaas must also have sent the rector verses in Latin, because we have Gunning’s replies on New Year’s Day of 1896 and 1898: two of the few remaining documents that we have from Van Wijk’s youth.31 In the sixth class, the rector invited Nicolaas, Anton ten Doesschate and Leo Polak to dine each week with his wife and many children. He appears to have used these occasions to teach the boys manners.32 Nicolaas himself left no report of his time at school apart from a single remark in connection with the problems of transcribing Russian names into Dutch: ‘I still remember from my school days that our history teacher [N.A. Cramer] was always uncertain as to whether one should say Potemkien of Potemkine; the first form, written with -in, was found in German books, the second, with -ine, in French books, while the Dutch write both.’33 Final school examinations were held from Monday the 27th to Wednesday the 29th June, 1898. Three Groningen professors were present as examiners, including the neerlandicus – a scholar of Dutch history, language and literature – W.L. van Helten who, like Buitenrust Hettema, had published extensively on Frisian and whose articles appeared in Taal en Letteren. Of the eight candidates, one of whom was external, only Ten Doesschate qualified for science studies, the rest for studies in the arts and humanities. Van Wijk’s and Polak’s marks were equally brilliant. Nicolaas’ mark for mathematics was a 4 ½ on a scale of 5, the best of all the candidates: he had thus taken his revenge on this subject. He gained a 4½ for Greek, a 4¾ for Latin, a 4 for Dutch and for history and almost a 4 for ‘New Languages’.34 The Provinciale Overijsselsche en Zwolsche Courant for Thursday, June 30th, 1898, ran a report of the examination with a list of successful candidates. According to this report, W. Kamp spoke on behalf of the successful candidates and offered the rector on their behalf a landscape etching by Maris. After which, the rector expressed the hope that they would all do honour to the Gymnasium in society in the future; and that ‘He is an ex-pupil of the Zwolle Gymnasium’ would become as much a recommendation as ‘He was born in Zion’. This brief occasion then ended, according to the paper, with a cheer for the rector and a handshake all round. The following day, Gunning’s term of office came to an end. He had resigned as rector on being appointed privaat-docent in practical and theoretical pedagogy in Utrecht. First, after handing over his coffee house to the city’s evangelist organization, he travelled to Jena in Germany in order to get himself up to date on the most recent developments in pedagogy and psychology.

30

Van der Wal 1947, p. viii-ix. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. 32 Telephone communication on 8 October 2003 from Mrs. A.J. ten Doesschate-Ente of Zwolle, who had heard tell from her husband J. ten Doesschate, the son of Anton ten Doesschate. 33 Van Wijk 1913a, p. 33. 34 Zwolle, Historisch Centrum Overijssel, Archief van het Gymnasium Celeanum te Zwolle, 18781977, SA 12, inv. no. 27. 31

20

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

3. Years of study in Amsterdam Of the seven pupils who graduated from the Zwolle Gymnasium in 1898, five went on to study law, according to the school’s Album discipulorum.35 Leo Polak was one of them, while Anton ten Doesschate chose medicine. Nicolaas van Wijk’s choice to study Dutch language and literature was therefore exceptional, and just as striking when one considers that he came from a line of religious ministers: he broke with the career choice of his father, his grandfather and both paternal uncles. On the basis of his exam marks one might have thought that he would have chosen classical languages; but to the best of my knowledge Van Wijk never commented on his choice of study. Given that Buitenrust Hettema taught Dutch, one may assume that he was an influence. Gunning’s views may also have played a part; we simply do not know. Nor do we know why he chose to study in Amsterdam, for Groningen would have been closer. At that time, studying – certainly the study of language and literature – was for the very few. The Higher Education Act of 1876 had divided studies of language and literature into four blocks: classical, Dutch and Semitic languages and literature, and the language and literature of the East Indies. The Amsterdamsche Studenten-Almanak voor het jaar 1899 shows that, in this faculty, fifteen students signed on for the course of 1898-1899 for the first time, while another thirty renewed their subscription, so-called recensie. In Amsterdam, students of language and literature could only study Dutch and classical languages. Those registering for the first time had to do so on Monday, the 26th, or Friday, the 30th September, 1898. Tuition fees amounted to 200 guilders. Van Wijk signed on, adding his signature to the thick Album studiosorum, on the 26th September. In essence, this was a register of payment that was kept by the registrar and in which every student’s name appears just once, while recensie is initialled or stamped after the name, so that one could immediately see how many consecutive years a student had subscribed. The names are registered in the order of payment. Since the name Leo Polak stands immediately before that of Nicolaas van Wijk, one can assume that the two youths registered together.36 Perhaps the choice of Amsterdam had something to do with a desire on the part of the ‘two geniuses’ to study together. Van Wijk signed the Amsterdam Population Register on the 10th October 1898, giving the date that he took up residence in Amsterdam, at Kloveniersburgwal 83 with the widow J.J. Jacobs, as October 3rd.37 In a rare autobiographical passage written in 1939, he recollected his first impressions as a student as follows: I remember very well, when we were students in 1898, how inadequate and in many respects incorrect were the ideas that I and my fellows held of the academic world, and even of the small circle of our own faculty; and in those days the organization of university life

35

Ibid., inv. no. 14. Amsterdam, Bureau van de Universiteit van Amsterdam, Album studiosorum 1891-1903, page 131. 37 Amsterdam, Gemeentearchief, Bevolkingsregister, Klapper 1893-1939, vol. 135. 36

YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS

21

was much simpler than it is now! […] When I search my memory, I think that we as students of roughly forty years ago, regarded two things especially as very peculiar: the professors and the academic world as a whole, in which we had been assigned a modest place, but one that was not entirely clear.38

Here Van Wijk also gives a summary of the programme of study that he followed and which, in his view, had little connection with the social reality: It occurs to me that the current design of studies takes far more account of the need for a balanced development and also the later social obligations of the student than in the time when I was a student. As students of Dutch language and literature we studied Dutch language history for the candidates’ exam, general and national history, and we read and interpreted mediaeval and 17th century texts; the degree subjects were Dutch literary history, Sanskrit, Anglo-Saxon or Middle High German, and linguistics. The methods by which we studied for the two exams were essentially the same. In Dutch literature, in several universities, the least and sometimes absolutely no attention was paid to the 19th century (the 20th century had just begun), which most students would later have most need of as teachers; and the all-important school subject of Dutch grammar was scarcely – if at all – practised in the university.39

The Jaarboekje voor de Literarische Faculteit te Amsterdam compiled by students for the 1898-99 course contains anonymous reports of lectures that give detailed information on the lectures that Nicolaas van Wijk and his fellow students attended: for example, one reads the comments on the history lectures given by H.C. Rogge, which that year dealt with the Crusades, France under Henry IV and The Netherlands in the seventeenth century, that ‘these concentrated far too much on a summary of the facts, and indeed facts that one can only too easily look up for oneself in the textbooks […]’.40 The geography lectures of C.M. Kan, a classics scholar who was for a long time the only professor of geography in The Netherlands, dealt with climatology and the statistics of The Netherlands. Series of figures concerning agriculture, pasture, trade, industry, traffic and fisheries did not at first sight strike the writer of this report as very interesting. But this was the time of the blossoming of student socialism, and he thought that he ought to find this information socially relevant. On the 19th June, 1899 Van Wijk got a reference from Kan, in which instead of ‘a year’ there is an erroneous mention of ‘several years’: ‘The undersigned willingly declares that de Heer N. van Wijk, student in Dutch language and literature, has for several years attended his lectures in geography and in examinations to date given ample proof of serious study, insight and the gift of expressing himself clearly and succinctly’.41 The neerlandicus Jan te Winkel gave many lectures: Middle Dutch, 17th century Dutch, the history of the Dutch language, Middle High German and Dutch literature. From the relevant report, Te Winkel emerges as a thoroughly decent man who could be very long-winded and academic: ‘It appears to us that giving 38

Van Wijk 1939a, p. 81-82. Ibid., p. 88-89. 40 Jaarboekje voor de Literarische Faculteit te Amsterdam samengesteld door de Vereenigingen Klassiek-Literatorenclub en Jacob van Maerlant, cursus 1898-99, p. 28. 41 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. 39

22

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

lectures ought to be something other than reading out a scholarly paper with the main aim of completeness. Prof. Te Winkel has intended well, but we may well doubt whether he has achieved his goal’.42 In his lecture on seventeenth century Dutch, Te Winkel read Huygens’ Zedeprinten [On Manners], much to the students’ irritation: Yet the harvest is rather thin. The ‘Mediator’, the homily on the idle reader and 4 of the less significant of the 19 Zedeprinten were discussed. Naturally, everything once more with the same deliberation and ponderous accuracy. And yet here too the stream of references in this lecture became all too swollen. It happened once that Prof. Te Winkel was discussing Huygens’ curious habit of deliberately seeking alliteration and in the process he adduced such an overwhelming number of examples that summarizing them took up an important part of the hour’s lecture. Is this actually necessary? It only needs to be pointed out with a few strong examples and one will be convinced of this peculiarity, even if one has never read a single poem.43

These glimpses of the perfunctory, evidently soporific lectures of Te Winkel, or of the even more boring lectures delivered by Rogge, who was famous with the students for his ultra-conservatism, are especially telling when one compares them with the appreciative reviews accorded to the Gothic and Sanskrit lectures given by C.C. Uhlenbeck. Uhlenbeck was young and erudite, gave animated lectures and constantly sought an exchange of ideas with his audience who, as a result, were prompted to think seriously for themselves. He was more concerned with understanding particular phenomena than with serving up the kind of factual material in which Te Winkel seemed to excel: In his Gothic lectures Prof. Uhlenbeck did not specifically deal with the Gothic grammar; one or other student reads a piece aloud as an introduction to a discussion of various different matters. Mainly, however, these are questions of comparative linguistics, showing the connection between a Gothic form and forms in other Germanic or Indo-European languages, especially Greek and Latin, of course, and sometimes Sanskrit too. But more important than when a Gothic word form can be compared with forms in another language is when Prof. Uhlenbeck discusses some question of language in its totality or at least gives a concise overview of it. In this way, for example, the difference between circumflex and acute accents, moraic theory, the vowel shift, de Saussure’s thinking on the ‘système primitif des voyelles’ in Indo-European, the so-called prothetic vowels in Greek, the adoption of words in Gothic from other languages, especially Celtic and Armenian, the different ‘Aktionsarten’, the three guttural series, and much more. Prof. Uhlenbeck manages to treat these subjects in such a way that he gets the students to resolve the questions as far as possible for themselves; frequently he puts very difficult questions, but this is a better way of finding out whether someone has a good insight into the matter and can quickly find the way to determine a question than by putting easy questions.44

It is clear that Uhlenbeck – who in his earlier years had published a volume of romantic poetry and subsequently made his name with studies of Indian phonology, Basque and the etymology of Gothic – made a very special impression on the stu42

Jaarboekje voor de Literarische Faculteit te Amsterdam samengesteld door de Vereenigingen Klassiek-Literatorenclub en Jacob van Maerlant, cursus 1898-99, p. 34. 43 Ibid., p. 35-36. 44 Ibid., p. 40-41.

YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS

23

dents: his bearded portrait is printed next to the title page of the cited Yearbook, the Jaarboekje voor de Literarische Faculteit te Amsterdam. In any case, the young Van Wijk was enormously impressed by his lectures and years later he acknowledged to Uhlenbeck: ‘From the first day that I heard a Wulfila lecture I have worked under your influence’.45 Uhlenbeck was not a full professor, he was a merely a buitengewoon hoogleraar [professor extraordinary], but nonetheless he lectured over an extremely wide range of subjects: Sanskrit, comparative linguistics, Gothic and Anglo-Saxon. At the end of 1899, when Van Wijk had been following his lectures for a year, Uhlenbeck was appointed to a full professorship in Leiden. The Amsterdam student paper Propria Cures reacted with a mixture of surprise and understanding, saying it could imagine that Uhlenbeck had not felt entirely at home in Amsterdam: That it should come to this, we did not foresee: we expected another successor to Prof. Cosijn, and certainly a man who specialized in the subject in which this professor had so excelled. Contrary to our expectation, however, our professor of Sanskrit has been appointed and it can hardly be wondered at that he has accepted the post. Germanic studies are far from unknown to him (what language is unknown to him? one might hasten to ask) and the worse than meagre salary of an associate professor, coupled with the many subjects that he has had to teach here, do not add up to a reason that should make him decline a post of full professor, in Leiden moreover. For Prof. Uhlenbeck is not keen on the pressured life of Amsterdam, he who would prefer to cloister himself in his study with his bodyguard of trusted friends, his rows of books surrounding him, far from the bustle of the filthy streets. First in Soest, later in Hilversum, time and again as far as possible from the village, he withdrew in order to work, to research and to discover those subtle points of his scholarship whose communication would sometimes make his students’ heads spin, even though they were presented in a usually singular, sometimes bizarre way as simple, self-evident conclusions.46

Propria Cures speaks ironically here of a ‘bodyguard of trusted friends’, whom Uhlenbeck gathered round him. Van Wijk must have been one of them, for the departure of Uhlenbeck in 1899 did not end contacts between them. In 1942, Uhlenbeck recalled that ‘For a long time he would come over every Saturday afternoon to work with me. I read Sanskrit with him. He did not follow Slavic or Lithuanian with me, but I have always talked a lot with him about these languages’.47 Uhlenbeck, the young Leiden professor, is amusingly recalled by his student Knuttel, who attributed his tendency to always change the subject in his lectures simply to boredom. One can well believe that Van Wijk was capable of keeping pace with Uhlenbeck’s speed of argument where others failed: And then Uhlenbeck! His lecture course on comparative linguistics was fascinating, though though much of it was over the head of his audience because no account was taken of the lack of a proper grounding. Only a speed stenographer could have kept full notes, there was no time to think through what one heard. When Jacobsen and I took tea with him we were introduced to his wife as ‘the only two gentlemen who understand anything of my lectures 45

Van Wijk 1913, p. 29. Loosjes 1899-1900, p. 63. 47 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3100, letter dated 08.07.1942 from C.C. Uhlenbeck to F.B.J. Kuiper. 46

24

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK on comparative linguistics’. What was it like for the others, then! But he didn’t hold it against one. His lectures on Anglo-Saxon lacked the methodical approach of Fruin; I picked up very little from them. In fact, I hadn’t even mastered the pronunciation. After a year, Anglo-Saxon began (as usual) to bore him and so he started giving Middle High German.48

In Amsterdam, a full professor in Sanskrit and Germanic studies was appointed to succeed Uhlenbeck: R.C. Boer.49 Uhlenbeck knew Boer from Leeuwarden, where they had both taught at the Gymnasium before either of them were married. Previous to his Amsterdam appointment, Boer had held an unsalaried post teaching Old Norse at Groningen. While a student there, the Dutch historian Johan Huizinga attended his lectures – lectures ‘that went deeper into the subtleties of the sound system than my interest could stand’.50 Boer gave his inaugural lecture in Amsterdam on the 26th March, 1900, on Vergelijking en karakteriseering [Comparison and characterization], in which he discussed what he saw as the difference in courage between the Germans and the Romans. It was a lecture that was exceptionally badly reviewed in the student paper, Propria Cures: Prof. Boer’s lecture was, in all honesty, a great disappointment to me. Not because the speaker courted popularity, as was clear from the numerous, highly detailed examples [...] but because many will perhaps find in it the evidence of the worthlessness and perversity of arguing from studies that can lead anyone to conclusions so absolutely in conflict with reality. Just to give one example: Prof. Boer assumes that one of the psychological elements of Old German courage, connected with their powerful imaginations, is an irresistible desire to travel and to migrate, in which the appeal of the unknown plays a great part; but in most of the examples adduced to support this idea, the urge to travel was primarily the consequence of social conditions that were driving the people out of their land. And the assertion finally that the Germans’ desire for travel can be recognized in the urge to colonization that characterizes modern nations, not the least the Germans, is certainly very risky. If the desire for travel plays a role here it can only be a very minor one. The listener, it seems to me, cannot but lose all respect for a study that leads to such results. And that would be a great pity.51

Unlike his classmate Leo Polak, Van Wijk did not join the student corps in Amsterdam. A few decades earlier this would have been unthinkable: in practice, it simply never happened that a student did not join the corps or could thereby avoid the ontgroening – the rituals of the ‘green’ freshman period. But after 1877, when the Amsterdam Athenaeum was upgraded to university status and the possibility of admission was expanded, there soon arose a fairly large group of non-corps members. Among these ‘nihilists’ who often objected to the high cost of corps membership and the obligatory freshman period, a need was felt to organize themselves in some other way, and so a gymnastics club fencing club and a debating society for non-corps members were formed. When Van Wijk began his studies, the old corps had decayed to such an extent that only a quarter of the students were members, a development that was correlated with the rise of student socialism. Propria Cures, founded in 1890, wanted to play a leading role in breaking through the conserva48

Knuttel 1989, p. 128. See Van Hamel 1930, and De Vries 1930. 50 Huizinga 1948, p. 20. 51 Pouw 1899-1900, p. 224. 49

YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS

25

tive, time-honoured routine of the corps, whose only purpose was the cultivation of fraternity. Propria Cures was the driving force behind the Amsterdamsche Studenten Vereeniging [Amsterdam Student Union], which was set up when the unions of the faculties of medicine, physics and literary studies joined together. We know virtually nothing of Van Wijk’s social life in Amsterdam; we have to make do with a brief recollection from 1920 of his chess playing: As a student I often played chess with a Hungarian who was much better than I was; on a particular day he was in a position to take my queen, and yet he didn’t, because, as he said, he wanted by not doing so to show me the noble nature of his people. Later, whenever I came across Hungarians in person or heard anecdotes about them in Slovakia and elsewhere, I often remembered this young man.52

Again unlike Polak, who almost immediately on arrival in Amsterdam had letters published in Propria Cures, Van Wijk kept a low profile as a student. He must surely have attended meetings of Jacob van Maerlant, the association founded for students of Dutch language and literature on February 24th, 1897, which existed beside the Klassiek-Literatorenclub - the Classics-Literary Studies Club for students of classical languages and literature. Students of Dutch language and literature and of the Classics lived in different worlds; sometimes their only contact was at the Sanskrit course of lectures. On May 15th, 1899, Propria Cures reported that the two associations had decided to hold two joint meetings a year and that members of the two associations should have automatic access to each other’s meetings. Besides, there were only about fifty students of language and literature registered at the university, compared with some five hundred medical students. Propria Cures of March 3rd, 1900, announced a meeting of Jacob van Maerlant for the 7th March to be held at eight o’clock in the evening in the university building, with a brief contribution from Barend Faddegon on the Indo-European diphthongs in German and an ‘Essay by Van Wijk on the Voluspa, an Edda-lied (Critique by Wijnkoop)’. David Wijnkoop, who was highly prominent as a socialist in the Amsterdam student world of the day, himself published the report of this meeting in Propria Cures. First a point of routine business was raised: Thereupon Faddegon was given the floor to provide some explanation with his formulation of the rules concerning the Indo-European long diphthong in German. After a break, Van Wijk read his essay on the Voluspa, a lied from the Edda. Having stated that he not only wished to speak about the content of this one poem, but also wanted to tie in to this a consideration of various mythological questions, the speaker began with an introduction, briefly summarizing the views of various scholars dealing with the old Norse sagas in general, pausing especially at the conflict that has been going on since 1889 between Bugge,53 who assumes a major influence of Christianity on the Edda, and his opponents, of whom the foremost is Finnur Jónsson, who completely deny this. Speaker gave as his own opinion that, although this influence is discernible, particular in the Voluspa, it is certainly not as pervasive as asserted by Bugge and more especially in the exaggerations of his disciples. There then followed a discussion of the poem itself; some parts of which were fully translated. The proposition was that a volva, a prophetess tells an assembled humanity 52

Van Wijk 1922, p. 45. Perhaps alluding to a book of Sophus Bugge, Studien über die Entstehung der nordischen Götterund Heldensagen (München: Kaiser, 1889).

53

26

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK the entire history of the world, first the past, with the creation of the world and the origin of gods and men, then the present and finally the future, when this world will perish together with Odin and his gods in order to make room for a new, eternal divine order. The discussion was broadened by several questions, for example, on the relation between the principal gods, Odin, Thor and Freyr, who do not all three belong originally in Norway and Iceland, and lastly on the arrival of the great godhead from above, who will come at the Last Judgement, a keystone in the construction of Bugge’s theory. Finally, speaker pointed out that, just as old Norse lieder, the Voluspa does not represent either popular belief or the ideas of the poet, which can be seen by comparing the lieder with the sagas. The critic Wijnkoop, in a brief and not very appreciative critique, primarily pointed out that the method of Max Müller, of comparative linguistics, is ignored too much, to the disadvantage of any understanding of myths and gods. According to him, language is the most ancient basis of religion. This critique provoked some debate, while the Chairman thought that what had been said by W. about the essay was rather too harsh. With a word of thanks for all the hard work of Van Wijk for Maerlant, the Chairman closed the meeting.54

In his reading for Jacob van Maerlant, Van Wijk showed himself to be a man of letters. On the same evening, Faddegon came forward as a linguist, as did Wijnkoop, who criticized Van Wijk for his inadequate treatment of the linguistic aspects of his subject. Faddegon and Wijnkoop, who had met each other at Uhlenbeck’s lectures, were close friends at that time, ‘though the tall, absent-minded Faddegon and the small, always fiercely attentive Wijnkoop formed a curious team’.55 It is possible that the reading he gave on the evening of Jacob van Maerlant was the essay that Van Wijk wrote for the candidate’s examination on the 14th May, which he passed cum laude.56 In fact, it is Van Wijk’s only public performance that I have been able to establish during his student period. In the meantime, we see Leo Polak, beside Wijnkoop, constantly in the public eye: as president of the Amsterdam Student Temperance League, as debater in the Amsterdam Student Debating Club for which, according to Propria Cures of February 10th, 1900, he would defend the thesis three days later, in the Palais Royal, that ‘Total abstinence from alcoholic drinks is an urgent need at this time’. Several months later he became a member of the committee of this debating club. As a publicist in Propria Cures too, Polak was constantly heard, and also in the context of the temperance movement. Within the corps, moreover, he was on the committee of the J.Pz. Sweelinck Music Society. There is nothing to indicate that Van Wijk undertook any executive role either in Jacob van Maerlant or in the Literarische Studenten-Vereeniging (LSV) – the Literary Students Union, the umbrella organization for classicists and neerlandici. Perhaps he was responsible for inviting guest speakers: according to Propria 54

Wijnkoop 1899-1900, p. 186-187. Koejemans 1967, p. 42. 56 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163, degree certificate signed by the faculty secretary and professor of Greek language and literature K. Kuiper and by the dean C.M. Kan. See further Amsterdam, Bureau van de Universiteit van Amsterdam, Registers van kandidaatsexamens afgenomen door de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte 1878-1926, I, page 50; Propria Cures 11 (18991900), no. 27, 19.05.1900, p. 296; ibid., no. 30, 14.06.1900, p. 336 (name spelt both times ‘N. v.d. Wijk’); Amsterdamsche Studenten-Almanak voor 1901, p. 71. 55

YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS

27

Cures, his old rector Dr. J.H. Gunning, by now a privaat-docent in Utrecht, gave a lecture to the LSV on the 14th November, 1900, on ‘The subject training of teachers in gymnasia and secondary schools’, while Buitenrust Hettema was also announced in Propria Cures of March 2nd, 1901, as giving a lecture in April. Barend Faddegon also stirred himself. On the 5th May, 1900, he published a piece in Propria Cures in which he called for the formation of a general student union to stand beside the corps. Faddegon paints a remarkably candid picture of the general apathy and isolation of literary students at that time: When a few years ago I became a student, I met eight people on the same lecture course; and from them and only them could I choose my friends. I only saw other students in passing. It’s true, there was a Corps, but that was so expensive that I didn’t give a moment’s thought to joining such a union. ‘Scruples’ about wasting money or objectionable behaviour in the freshman period did not occur to me for a minute. The general spirit of isolation was pervasive among students; so much so that even among fellow-students of Dutch language and literature older and younger students ignored each other. Finally, an association was formed in an attempt to improve this situation, an attempt that was only partly successful. Perhaps that has been the fault of the committee, perhaps of the younger members who are too timid to put themselves forward. Before I was a student, I entertained high ideas of what it was to be a student. […] But what do you find? Indolence, indolence in study, indolence as a philosophy, indolence in politics, indolence – you find examination dressage, attending lectures out of courtesy just to keep in the professor’s good books, memorizing dictations. I have done it all myself. They say that lepers feel a loathing for themselves; in the same way I too hate my hypocrisy. Isolated, always looking for a single aim without encountering any conflict with other spirits with a different mentality – conflicts that would have been beneficial for me – I often feel now that I am a machine that can only operate in one way; I very often feel already broken and despairing. That is what decent, unimaginative students have done; I find myself alone. But for this reason I want to do something, to the best of my ability, to change things; even though I myself will probably not witness the best period of growth of any such solidarity.57

We also owe to Faddegon a vivid description of Dutch studies around 1900. He depicts the discipline as a complete shambles: At eleven o’clock, the climate of the Dutch East Indies, at one o’clock the Gothic of Ulfilas, then the death of William the Silent; then once more an Indian ascetic who stands on one leg to perform tapas so that the earth shakes, graves open and the gods are terrified; and then a bibliography of Vondel’s works, followed perhaps by the Nibelungenlied, finishing up in blood and fire. It is no wonder you are completely disoriented and your head is in turmoil. Nor is it serious: after all, what else are you young for?58

Faddegon, who had already sat his doctoraal exam (an M.A. equivalent) in Dutch language and literature when he wrote this impassioned indictment of Dutch studies in the university, apparently stayed on. Van Wijk, having passed his own doctoraal exam on the 6th of May, 1901,59 returned to Zwolle, signing off in Amster-

57

Faddegon 1899-1900, p. 263-264. Faddegon 1899-1900a, p. 298. 59 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163, degree certificate signed by faculty secretary R.C. Boer and by the dean C.M. Kan. See further Amsterdam, Bureau van de Universiteit van Amsterdam, Registers van doctoraalexamens afgenomen door de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte 58

28

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

dam on October 7th, 1901. He gave his new address in Zwolle as ‘Luttekesteeg, at Schutte’s’.60 It is not entirely clear why he did not give his parents’ address, but possibly because they had moved house: in 1901 they moved from Thorbeckegracht 63, in the heart of the city, to Deventerstraat 1, a house near the station, on the corner with the Molenweg.61 Van Wijk, still only twenty one and already a graduate, was back in Zwolle. His most important task now must have been to write his dissertation. Apparently he preferred to do this in Zwolle, his parents’ home city, rather than in rooms in Amsterdam. It was certainly cheaper. Gunning had left Zwolle, but his association with his Dutch teacher, Buitenrust Hettema, continued. The latter evidently made inquiries for him in the academic world, for we read on an undated postcard from Uhlenbeck to Buitenrust Hettema, stamped in Zwolle, 12th November, 1901: Amice, with reference to our mutual friend, I can think of nothing I’d rather see than that he should be won for the Higher Education and for pure scholarship. He is certainly someone of rare gifts, who has some very nice comparative ideas in his head. If I can do anything for him, I shall certainly seize the opportunity. But my influence is zero. People in general have very little feeling for scholarship that cannot be counted in shillings. And gramm. comparata is without question not a ‘practical’ subject. But who knows? N.v.W. can always count on my support, certainly, but what is that support worth?62

It is clear from this card in any case that there was no doubt about Van Wijk’s interests at that time: comparative linguistics had become his chosen subject. On the 24th November, 1901, he took a first step toward international scholarship by sending an article ‘über die ursprüngliche Stammgestalt der idg. sogenannten iund u-Stämme’, as he outlines it in his accompanying letter, to Professor Wilhelm Streitberg, the editor of Indogermanische Forschungen. In this letter, he says that Uhlenbeck had seen the article and recommended him to send it to this German journal.63 We do not know Streitberg’s reply, but in any case the article was not published. At that point, he had had nothing else published, either in Germany or The Netherlands. Several months later, Van Wijk’s dissertation was virtually finished. In a letter of March 3rd, 1902, Professor R.C. Boer sets out for the Board of the Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging [the Amsterdam University Association] the relevant information on Van Wijk’s study, progress and qualities. In the same letter, Boer also gives an explanation of why the designation cum laude was withheld at Van Wijk’s doctoraal examination: I feel called upon to seek your attention and to enlist your support on behalf of a student of our university who, in my view, deserves such attention and support in the highest degree.

1881-1924, I, page 55; Jaarboekje der Amsterdamsche Studenten Vereeniging, cursus 1901-1902, [p. 278]. 60 Amsterdam, Gemeentearchief, Bevolkingsregister, Klapper 1893-1939, vol. 135. 61 For a photograph of this house see Berkenvelder 1970, p. 87. 62 Leeuwarden, Tresoar, correspondence of F. Buitenrust Hettema, no. 6914. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 125. 63 Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, Nachlass 245.

YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS

29

De heer N. van Wijk became a student in the year 1898. Two years later in the Spring of 1890 [sic!] he passed his kandidaats examination in de Dutch language and literature cum laude. It was at that time that I, recently appointed, became acquainted with him. During the academic year 1890-1891 [sic!] he attended my lectures. Under my supervision then he studied Sanskrit, Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse and made great progress in these subjects. His own special study was Old German Comparative Grammar, and with an eye to this study he also pursued other languages, including Slavic. I have to acknowledge that I have rarely seen such a fleetness of intellect, such independence of judgement and such a facility of memory united in a person so young. After a year, de heer Van Wijk completed his doctoraal examination. For the linguistic part he had in every way deserved cum laude; however, the preparation time given to the literary part was rather short, so that the distinction was withheld. De heer Van Wijk’s dissertation on the genitive in Indo-Germanic is now more or less ready in manuscript form. I have read the greater part of this dissertation, and I have to acknowledge that it testifies to great learning and independence, and that Indo-Germanic linguistics can anticipate much from this young scholar. I think it desirable therefore that de heer Van Wijk should be given the opportunity to pursue his studies in these disciplines, to which he has devoted himself, and of which either nothing at all or only the principles are taught here, at a foreign university. I believe that one can confidently leave it to him to choose the German university where he hopes to find that which he seeks. I hereby add a recommendation from my predecessor at this university, Professor Uhlenbeck, de heer Van Wijk’s previous tutor.64

On the 15th March, 1902, the Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging decided to award Van Wijk a grant.65 We know nothing more about the contacts between Van Wijk and Boer concerning the dissertation than what is written in Boer’s letter quoted above. We do, however, have a letter from van Van Wijk to Te Winkel (May 14th, 1902) in which he writes about his work on this dissertation and his theses: I would just like to say that I have added to my theses another one, the one I spoke to you about, on the Wilhelmus-melody. On further reflection, I decided it would be better to omit the one on the dative and accusative since, as formulated now, it is more of a statement of an existing fact than a thesis and I see no chance of making a positive thesis out of it in any other way […].66

Van Wijk’s doctoral degree ceremony took place on Wednesday, June 11th, 1902, at three in the afternoon, just over a year after his doctoraal examination (May 6th, 1901) and slightly more than two years after his kandidaats (May 14th, 1900). He showed great constancy in the planning of his studies, as though he always worked steadily toward the summer vacation. The title of his dissertation, with which he gained his doctorate cum laude, is Der nominale Genetiv singular im Indogermanischen in seinem Verhältnis zum Nominativ.67 It was published as a small book 64

Amsterdam, Bureau van de Universiteit, Archivalia van de Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging, M1801. 65 Ibid. 66 Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 77 E 14. 67 See Propria Cures 13 (1901-1902), no. 29, 17.06.1902, p. 350. In this report the title word Genetiv is spelt Genitiv. In Dutch libraries too it is often assumed that Van Wijk’s spelling Genetiv is a printing error: the title was then recorded as Genitiv.

30

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

of some hundred pages by the Zwolle publisher, J.J. Tijl, a firm on the Melkmarkt that also published the Provinciale Overijsselsche en Zwolsche Courant. Jan Jacob Tijl was a local captain of industry who, like the elder Van Wijk, was socially very active in Zwolle.68 There were two editions: an academic dissertation edition with thirty eight theses and the usual information concerning the promotie [doctoral degree ceremony] and the promovendus [doctoral candidate] on the title page, together with a dedication ‘To my parents’, and another commercial edition omitting this information. In the commercial edition the author’s name is given as ‘N. van Wijk’, while in the dissertation it is ‘Nikolaas van Wijk’. The spelling of Van Wijk’s christian name with a k differs from the spelling in official documents – his birth certificate, the population registers in Delden, Zwolle and Amsterdam – where the name is spelt with a c. A k was also used in the Album discipulorum of the Zwolle Gymnasium: Van Wijk himself probably preferred this spelling. In the foreword to his dissertation, Van Wijk thanks his supervisor Boer, who had not only read through the manuscript but also the proofs, Uhlenbeck, ‘der auch nach seiner Berufung an die Leidener Universität aufs liebenswürdigste fortfuhr, meinen Studien jede gewünschte Förderung zu gewähren’,69 and his old German teacher at the Zwolle Gymnasium, J.G. Talen, who had corrected his German and helped with the proof corrections. The dissertation demonstrates that Van Wijk had not been idle in his student years. In a relatively short time – he was a mere twenty one when he gained his doctorate – he had not only acquired a thorough knowledge of many IndoEuropean languages, but had also studied the linguistic literature on them so widely that he dared to present his own theses in this field. In the dissertation, Van Wijk attempted to show that, in the past, the endings of the nominative and genitive cases singular were identical in all Indo-European nouns.70 That Van Wijk’s work came across as rather daring in the linguistic literature of the time is evident from the following reminiscence of Father Van Ginneken, one of Uhlenbeck’s doctoral students, concerning Uhlenbeck’s reaction to Van Wijk’s dissertation: Shortly after my arrival in Leiden in 1902 I heard Uhlenbeck say about Van Wijk: ‘now, that really was an Indo-Germanist. […] Just imagine, this Mr. Van Wijk dared to prove, just like that, that the Indo-Germanic nominative and genitive cases originally differed in nothing more than accent. Karl Brugmann in Leipzig may well be horrified, but he made a very good case and he may well be right.71

Indo-European is a reconstructed language about which it is difficult to assert anything that is incontestably true. Van Wijk’s work was in fact, therefore, of an expressly hypothetical character so that, in the end, everything depended on the consistency of his argument. And in this connection, in a succinct review of the dissertation, beside praise for the independence of thought evident in Van Wijk’s work, Uhlenbeck also raised one point of criticism: 68

See Seekles 1993. Van Wijk 1902, p. iv. 70 Van Wijk was the first who wanted to demonstrate such a link, albeit in an unsatisfactory manner according to Kuryáowicz 1935, p. 164-165. 71 Van Ginneken 1941, p. 193. 69

YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS

31

Only in one respect has he not seen his task through to its completion, for he should not have disposed, with a few words in footnote (p. 96), of the phenomenon that all root classes apart from the thematic possess only one form for the genitive and ablative singular; all the more so since one could perhaps derive from this fact an argument against his thesis. He should have foreseen the possibility of such an argument and, if possible, he should have refuted it.72

It is only too evident from his admission ten years later, when reviewing someone else’s dissertation, that Van Wijk came to distance himself from his own dissertation: ‘I asserted a great deal in my own dissertation which, on further reflection, appears to me all too fantastical and which I have increasingly come to regret; and for this reason, I am especially able to appreciate a careful self-restraint in the dissertation of a colleague’.73 Meanwhile the dissertation had led to Van Wijk’s second publication, an elaboration on his thesis XXXVII: ‘The Nabalia, which is mentioned by Tacitus, Hist. 5, 26, is the river known in the Middle Ages as Nakala or Nagele and whose name still survives in the Nagel near Urk’. The brief article ‘De Nabalia’, dated ‘Zwolle, 11th August, 1902’, illustrates the way that data from historical linguistics, and the study of modern dialects and old documents could be used to explain the name of a river that appears in Tacitus. But Van Wijk did not rely on books alone, as witness his remark: ‘These days, at least, only the g-form is used by the Urk fishermen, as I am kindly informed by de heer R. Jansma of Urk’.74 4. Training in Leipzig On September 24th, 1902, Van Wijk was informed by the Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging that they were prepared to grant him the sum of sixty guilders a month for up to ten months to support his studies abroad. The treasurer, C.H. van Tienhoven, was authorized to pay the sums ‘and is ready and willing to discuss the matter further with you’.75 There was still one formality to deal with: exemption from military service. But a solution did not have to wait long: by a decision taken on the 9th October, 1902, the Queen’s Commissioner of the province of Overijssel declared that Nicolaas van Wijk ‘is irrevocably exempted from service by declaration of the Deferment and Exemption Board on the grounds of being an only legal son’,76 upon which Van Wijk could begin his training abroad. The Zwolle population register records his departure from the city on the 15th October, 1902, and gives Leipzig as his destination.77 Van Wijk registered at the University of Leipzig on the 25th October, 1902, giving his address as Reudnitzer Strasse 9 II, not far from the enormous railway

72

Uhlenbeck 1903, col. 82-83. Van Wijk 1912c, col. 121-122. 74 Van Wijk 1902a, p. 201. 75 Amsterdam, Bureau van de Universiteit, Archivalia van de Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging, M1801. 76 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. 77 Zwolle, Overijssels Historisch Centrum, Bevolkingsregister Zwolle 1860-1940, page 185a. 73

32

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

station.78 The registration certificate, witnessed by Rector Eduard Sievers bears the same date and is stamped ‘Zeugnisse deponirt’.79 In the back of a notebook, Van Wijk wrote a list of books he had brought with him to Leipzig. Under the heading ‘Duitsche kist bevat’ [German case contains], besides dozens of textbooks of the time indicated by abbreviations, such as Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte by Hermann Paul and the Urgermanische Grammatik by Wilhelm Streitberg, we also find, without further details, Shakespeare, Virgil and the New Testament. Other things were also recorded: ‘3 note books’, ‘paper’, ‘string’, ‘Pile of Music’, ‘small case of papers’, ‘envelopes’ and a ‘letter-weighing machine’. He also noted ‘9 dissertations’, presumably copies of his own dissertation.80 Van Wijk’s choice of Leipzig was a logical consequence of the subject of his dissertation. At that time, it was the Mecca of modern, historical-comparative linguistics. We saw earlier that he must have heard something of the wind blowing out of Leipzig via his Dutch and German teachers in Zwolle, Buitenrust Hettema and Talen, the editors of Taal en Letteren.81 A kind of declaration of linguistic principles by Buitenrust Hettema from 1895 was quoted earlier, which openly referred to the work of Hermann Paul and the Leipzig professor, Karl Brugmann. Many of Buitenrust Hettema’s insights are in fact taken from the preface by Hermann Osthoff and Brugmann in the first volume of their Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen (1878) and Hermann Paul’s Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte (1880).82 Leipzig was the centre of these Junggrammatiker who held that linguistic changes could be explained by laws: ‘Nur wer sich an die lautgesetze, diesen grundpfeiler unserer ganzen wissenschaft, streng hält, hat bei seiner forschung überhaupt einen festen boden unter den füssen’.83 Van Wijk’s choice of Leipzig was, in any case, not an unusual one at that time: many Dutch students of language and literature had preceded him. Barend Sijmons, a Groningen professor of comparative linguistics and mentor of Van Wijk’s teacher Talen, had earned his doctorate in Leipzig in 1876. Kollewijn, the reformer of Dutch spelling of those days, had also taken a doctorate on a literary topic in Leipzig in 1880, while in 1895, Sijmons’ student Huizinga had also set off for Leipzig. The latter, however, did not become the linguist that he had intended. By his own admission, he had drawn up a plan of study that was far too broad and he allowed himself, in the company of another Dutch student, to be distracted by the Gewandhaus concerts conducted in Leipzig by Arthur Nikisch. He found that

78

Leipzig, Universitätsarchiv, GA X M 3, Verzeichnis der nicht immatrikulierten Zuhörer an der Universität Leipzig, 1898-28.02.1903, no. 588. 79 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. 80 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3170. 81 All the volumes of this journal were preserved in Van Wijk’s legacy. They are now held in the Leiden Universiteitsbibliotheek under shelf mark 1826 E 10-25. 82 See Noordegraaf 1985, p. 443-444. 83 Osthoff and Brugmann 1878, p. xiv.

YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS

33

‘formal grammatical scholarship, which was then the order of the day’ did not excite him, and that in those days, furthermore, he was ‘a poor student’.84 In the report of his studies that he sent back to the Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging in February, 1904, Van Wijk explains the reasons for his choice of Leipzig and gives a detailed account of his activities. Unlike Huizinga, who admits that he did not realize that ‘as an advanced student one must in Germany pursue one’s studies through seminar work rather than normal lecture courses’,85 Van Wijk seems to have got everything he could out of his stay there. The broad range of activity, the formal approach of language development and the hard work which Huizinga could not manage in Leipzig were entrusted to Van Wijk: When I was given the opportunity by the Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging to study abroad for ten months, I did not have to think long about where I should go. Essentially, I had intended to apply myself abroad to the study of comparative linguistics, the discipline that had already absorbed a great deal of my time and my interest while I was at Amsterdam University, and after my doctoraal examination had given me a topic for my dissertation. Leipzig was the obvious choice for the study of this discipline. In the first place, I would have to get to know the different methods and different directions followed by the most preeminent scholars. And now I had the opportunity in L. to actually come into contact with two professors who could be considered as typical representatives of the two main streams of thought among specialists, viz. K. Brugmann and H. Hirt. Although Hirt is a pupil of Brugmann, his ideas regarding the aims of linguistics and research methods are very different from those of his mentor. So far, Hirt’s direction has held for me the greater attraction, being concerned with wider problems, problems that were largely to do with very ancient periods in the development of the Indo-Germanic stem language and which did not attach so much value to the treatment of questions which, while possibly less fantastic, were also of less general significance, such as the history of each word in one or other language. Of course, the results that Hirt and company obtain are less secure than those of the other school, but it is evident that results are obtained, and that our knowledge of the IndoGermanic stem language at a time long before it split into different dialects has been extended as a consequence of Hirt’s research. And furthermore, it is evident that Brugmann, one of Hirt’s most stubborn opponents, acknowledges in his most recent work the probability of a great deal of the results obtained by Hirt. Brugmann himself is more concerned with the investigation of individual words and forms; but even those who do not recognize the utility or significance of this work nevertheless respect in B. the rare shrewdness and mathematical accuracy with which he works and which makes reading what he writes and attending his lectures such an instructive experience, especially for the method of working. Apart from these two professors there was a third who determined my choice of Leipzig as a place of residence. That third person is A. Leskien. Even before I began my journey I thought about making Slavic my main study, and in that subject Leskien is the leading authority. I will give a brief account of what my work in Leipzig consisted in. I followed the lectures and ‘Übungen’ of the three professors who teach the three main branches of Indo-Germanic linguistics, viz. Brugmann (Greek, Latin and other Italic dialects), Windisch (Sanskrit) and Leskien (Slavic). All three – Brugmann above all – followed this method: that they took one language as the midpoint of their discussions, proceeding from there and treating that language in relation to cognate language groups.

84 85

Huizinga 1948, p. 22. Ibid., p. 21.

34

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK The lectures, which took as their respective topics ‘Griechische Syntax’, ‘Klassisches Sanskrit’ and ‘Vergleichende Grammatik der Slavischen Sprachen’, were given in the University Building, the ‘Übungen’ were held in a room in the ‘Indogermanisches Institut’, and one can become a member of a ‘Seminar’ for the sum of 3 Marks: for this one has the right to use the space and the fairly complete subject library of the Institute and to participate in the different ‘Übungen’. The most interesting of the lecture courses was that of Leskien, who in the short time of one winter semester covered entirely the grammars of the Proto-Slavic, Bulgarian, Serbian, Russian and Ukrainian languages and Polish in part. But what were more useful to me than the lectures were the ‘Übungen’, where one was always with a small group of more advanced students. Everyone took turns in giving a talk on a given subject; while other ‘Übungen’ were used for reading and interpreting texts. Everyone had the opportunity to make remarks, put questions to the professor, whatever one wished, and finally the professor himself gave an assessment of the work produced. In Windisch’s ‘Übungen’ hymns from the Rig-Veda were read and discussed. These were rather differently organized from the other ‘Übungen’, in that one student did not speak on a single topic for an entire hour. We read a verse in turn, translated and explained it, after which the professor generally put a few questions for anyone to answer who wanted to. Unfortunately the Indian lectures and the Indian ‘Übungen’ only lasted until shortly after the Christmas vacation because Prof. Windisch became ill. Leskien’s lectures and ‘Übungen’ were especially interesting, in fact more interesting than anything else I heard in Leipzig, not only for their content but, but also for the clear manner in which everything was set out, for the vigour of the presentation, which made one listen to everything with interest and ensured that once heard it was not quickly forgotten. The lecture course, already fascinating in itself because of the generality and the significance of the subject, was all the more attractive because with every language discussed, it was always found that L had complete mastery. It was all the same for him whether he was speaking about German, Bulgarian, Serbian and so forth. I attribute to these lectures above all the fact that my studies tended more and more in the direction of the Slavic languages. I have to thank Leskien for the insight into the great value of this subject for the Indo-Germanist; for whatever school of thought he belongs to, he investigates the mutually related IndoGermanic languages and looks for the way they have each arisen out of a single basic language. This basic language has to be reconstructed; and now it is precisely Slavic that can prove to be of great service in that reconstruction, since we observe here a parallel phenomenon: a single language – ‘Proto-Slavic’ – that has split into several different dialects; and one can observe clearly, much more clearly than in the case of Indo-Germanic, the way this splitting has taken place, because this ‘Proto-Slavic’ that is assumed is easier to reconstruct, without risky hypotheses, for the oldest Slavic language, Old Bulgarian, remains almost at the same level as the ‘Proto-Slavic’ language itself. Moreover, in different Slavic languages, Serbian best of all, one can follow accurately the whole course of development of that language by studying the writings of different periods. It is self-evident that these facts have significance for the study of other languages where the circumstances are less favourable, especially methodological significance. In Leskien’s ‘Übungen’, the Old Russian Chronicle of Nestor was interpreted, raising highly interesting questions, e.g. the influence of Bulgarian Church language, the so-called Church Slavonic, on Russian. Matters of a purely philological nature were also discussed, such as the sources from which Nestor had drawn his material. – ‘Vorträge’ were held at a different time. Because of the many excursions that L. allowed himself beyond the boundaries of the subject itself, whenever there was something of interest to communicate, most of these talks lasted well beyond the hour. I myself gave one such talk on ‘die germanischen Lehnwörter im Slavischen’, which lasted in this fashion for three hours. In Brugmann’s ‘Übungen’ we interpreted Oscan and Umbrian inscriptions during the first half of the semester. The way this happened ensured that by interpreting once for oneself – 2 hours consecutively – one already acquired for oneself a fairly good insight and a

YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS

35

fairly large knowledge of these languages. One only has to prepare several lines for each of these gatherings, but in doing so one has to read up on every word that had not previously been discussed, everything that could be found, and to write up systematically everything of significance; and to this one then has to add an account of the grammatical problems of a more general nature that could be dealt with in this context. Naturally, such an interpretation demands an entire week of hard work, but one could certainly not acquire so much new knowledge, so rapidly in any other way. These ‘Übungen’ are also useful in that one becomes acquainted close up with the meticulous, purely scientific method of working that Brugmann, perhaps to a greater extent than any of his colleagues, has made his own. – ‘Vorträge’ were held in the second half of the semester. Everyone was given for a subject, ‘die Personalendungen’ in one of the Indo-Germanic language groups. The work that I had to do for ‘die Personalendungen im Lateinischen’ later led me to write a paper ‘Zur Konjugation des Verbum substantivum’,86 which at the moment is in the hands of Prof. Brugmann, and which he has promised he will accept for publication in the journal he edits, at the same time as another article I have written. In Leipzig I wrote a small treatise, the main point of which was a discussion of several general linguistic laws as applied to Germanic; and it was through writing this essay that I made the personal acquaintance of the foremost authority on Germanic languages, Prof. Sievers, the editor of the journal that had accepted my article.87 As far as Prof. Hirt is concerned, I have profited from him enormously in Leipzig, even though I did not attend his lectures. He himself advised against it, because as a young ‘ausserordentlicher’ professor his lectures were intended exclusively for beginners. But on countless occasions I visited him at home to talk over a range of scholarly topics of different nature; and these conversations have most certainly had an important influence on the direction taken by my studies in Leipzig and the direction they are now moving.88

Van Wijk’s linguistic interest was thus partly shifted from Indo-European to Slavic. An invoice, preserved by chance, from the bookseller Otto Harrassowitz and signed by Harrassowitz himself, shows that he procured a copy of Erich Berneker’s Slavische Chrestomatie mit Glossaren (1902).89 In a later review, Van Wijk had this to say about Leskien, his teacher in the field of Slavic studies: Everyone who attended Leskien’s lectures on the Serbo-Croatian language, whether – as the present writer heard them – as part of a course on comparative Slavic grammar, or as a separate course specially devoted to Serbo-Croatian, must have long hoped that this great slavist would produce a grammar of this language. […] Before anything else, Leskien is a descriptive grammarian; he gathers his material with extraordinary patience and great sedulity; in addition, his immense knowledge of the philology – in the narrower sense – of old texts etc. means that he has a magisterial command over a vast body of material; while his penetrating shrewdness enables him to elucidate this with original observations. But above all he remains descriptive. He knows all the theories and hypotheses to explain phenomena, but if they are not well established he hesitates to attribute too much significance to them.90

In another subsequent review, Van Wijk included this personal note on Hirt, who according to the report must have had the greatest influence on him in Leipzig:

86

Van Wijk 1905-1906. Van Wijk 1903. 88 Amsterdam, Bureau van de Universiteit, Archivalia van de Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging, M1801, N. van Wijk, ‘Verslag van mijn buitenlandsche studiereis 17 Oct. 1902 – 15 Aug. 1903’, f. 1-5. 89 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. 90 Van Wijk 1916c, col. 82-83. 87

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

36

In the first years of the twentieth century I was one of those who considered Hirt’s ‘Ablaut’, despite some carelessness and dubious etymologies, as the highest achievement of modern Indo-Germanic studies, and my dissertation of 1902 bore the clear traces of that regard. Although nowadays my interest is mainly devoted to other questions than Ablaut, my interest in this has never ceased, and I still regard Hirt’s system as correct in the main essentials. […] Did Hirt want to know more than is knowable? We find this tendency more often in Hirt’s work. It goes with his whole personality and is inseparably linked to those fine qualities that make so much of what he writes so interesting, and that includes this book too.91

Concerning Van Wijk’s time in Leipzig, Van Ginneken recalls something else that had a great influence on his subsequent method of working: ‘in the same way he used to relate afterwards that he learned to keep filing cards, something he continued to do for the rest of his life’.92 While in Leipzig, Van Wijk did not restrict himself to studying. In his report he refers to articles that he had written in German and there was also a Dutchlanguage article on vowels in Dutch, in which he took issue with his mentor Te Winkel. The latter, which was also written in Leipzig, was published in Taal en Letteren, the journal of his old teachers, Buitenrust Hettema and Talen.93 The link with the Zwolle Gymnasium thus continued unimpaired. 5. Training in Moscow During the course of 1903, Van Wijk left Leipzig for Moscow for practical language studies. He later attributed this choice to the influence of Uhlenbeck: ‘And when I ask myself why exactly I chose to go to Moscow for practical language studies, and not to Budapest or Helsingfors or Lithuania, I can only attribute it to the suggestive enthusiasm with which you used to talk about Russia’.94 In the report of his study trip, however, Van Wijk makes no mention of Uhlenbeck. Here he states that it was primarily Hirt who led him to the decision to travel to Russia: In the first place it is also Hirt who helped me realize a plan that I had already had in mind, yet without being able to decide anything, viz. the plan to spend the second half of the available time after the winter semester, in Russia. The conviction that, apart from theoretical studies, it is essential for a ‘Sprachvergleicher’ to become acquainted at first hand with one or more living languages that are quite far removed from one’s own language, and that differ from it in many significant points concerning accentuation as well as morphology and, above all, syntax – this conviction that had already been sown, grew in me and became stronger and more decisive mainly through association with Hirt, who could never resist pointing out – unnecessarily, in fact, for one would certainly have reached the same view from the content of what he said – that his insight into his discipline had been enhanced by learning two living languages at first hand, Serbian and Lithuanian. The fact that I chose Russian had several reasons: 1. this is the most difficult Slavic language so that, once one knows Russian, it is easier to learn the related languages; 2. it has kept the Old-Slavic accentuation and in other respects too has hardly been susceptible to the influences of other lan91

Van Wijk 1922b, col. 97ff. Van Ginneken 1941, p. 193. 93 Van Wijk 1903a. 94 Van Wijk 1913, p. 29. Van Wijk wrote a similar report in a review article on Dutch Slavic studies, see Van Wijk 1938, p. 387. 92

YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS guages – an exception being Tartar, but this influence is only noticeable in the number of loan words, not in the more essential characteristics of Russian; 3. there were more favourable opportunities to make contacts in Russia, and certainly in Moscow, with e.g. the scholarly world than elsewhere. And if one wants to learn Russian, Moscow is the recommended place because the dialect of this city counts as the purest Greater Russian: it is the dialect from which the educated spoken language derives. Through Prof. Leskien, who very kindly received me into his domestic circle and always put at my disposal his extensive library, I had the opportunity to make the acquaintance of Prof. Berneker from Prague, who had himself lived in Russia and was a very good friend of the Moscow professors Poržezinskij and Pokrovskij, who teach respectively comparative linguistics and Latin. Before I left for Russia, I had already made the language my own, in as far as that is possible in another country; I could already read a book quite fluently and, at least to a certain level, make myself understood. But once I was there, I found that one cannot really learn Russian in Western Europe in such a way that one can actually converse with the inhabitants in Moscow. It took a great deal of effort to get that far. I did not follow lectures, for the most difficult thing, certainly more difficult than speaking, is to understand, and since the summer vacation begins very early, and since there are no more lectures given during the latter part of the course because it is almost exclusively taken up by examinations, the lectures would have finished about the same time that I would have begun to understand them. – The only way to learn Russian in a reasonably short time is to go and live in a Russian family and to talk as much as possible with those people, so that they correct your faults and that one reads aloud a good deal. I lived in this way with two families successively, first in the city itself and later, in the summer months, in the country in the immediate vicinity of Moscow. Each day I would read the paper and novels and talk as much as possible and with as many different people as possible. I made rapid progress especially in reading aloud, so that by the end of my stay I was making almost no mistakes with accent, so important and so difficult a point in Russian particularly, because one has to know not only the accent of each word but also of each inflection of a word, if one is to pronounce the word properly; rules for stresses, which would be useful in practice, scarcely exist. With speech, the greatest care was paid to pronunciation and as a result I gradually succeeded in learning to pronounce correctly almost all the sounds – which a non-Russian mouth finds so peculiarly difficult – and, more importantly, the peculiar intonation of Russian. I gained much benefit from my association with the professors mentioned above 1. because they were young people who accepted me in their circle, 2. because I could now sometimes discuss questions of Russian language and grammar with professionals. And moreover, they introduced me to several older, famous scholars, including the well-known polyglot Korš. If I ask myself now, at the end of my Russian trip, whether my stay in Moscow has had the desired result, the result that I hoped to achieve before my departure, then the answer is most certainly yes. I succeeded in learning the language to such a degree that, speaking or reading Russian, I feel the spoken or read to a certain degree as a Russian feels it. This is clearest in cases where the Russian language possesses distinctions that are foreign to our own language. For example, the entire syntax of verbs is different, because the Slavs have verbs in two forms, which they use according to whether or not the action is presented as completed. If one learns what so many linguists have written on this phenomenon, whether they simply restrict themselves to Slavic languages, or whether they want to demonstrate that the same distinction once existed in our language, or that traces can still be discovered even in our language today – if one learns all this, one can still have only a very vague idea of what kind of phenomenon one is dealing with, of what kind of verb classes these are. Only when I became familiar with Russian in practice did I begin to understand this phenomenon that is so significant for all languages. And if one compares what the greatest Russian linguistic scholar Fortunatov has written on this subject with what many of the abovementioned West-European writers have had to say, one sometimes gets the impression that

37

38

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK the latter have not fully understood the phenomenon they are describing, because they have never studied it in practice. In general, it is difficult to get a pure idea of a grammatical category in a language in which it exists if one has not learned it in practice. This I consider the most important result of my whole stay in Russia, that through this acquaintance with the language I was able to learn and to feel so many grammatical distinctions that we do not have. Naturally, this is of the greatest significance in the study of all possible other languages, from our own mother language to those languages that are furthest removed in their historical and prehistorical periods of development. Another result of my stay in Moscow is that, beside my main subject, comparative linguistics, I acquired a subsidiary subject, the history of Russian literature, a subject I practise not solely through reading the literary products, but also through the study of scholarly works on the subject, written in Russia by scholars from the country itself.95

Van Wijk’s Moscow landlady, the widow ýiþagova, declared that he had practised Russian with her with a flawless pronunciation.96 We know almost nothing of his experience during this time apart from what he wrote in his report. Only once, in a 1911 review of a book on Slavic phonetics, did he return to this Moscow period: ‘When I lived in Moscow in the Leóntjevskij pereúlok, in the first stage of my practical acquaintance with Russian, it struck me that the name of this street was pronounced, especially by the ordinary people, with lewon-; this was the more striking because, as a Dutchman, I tended to pronounce it leyon-’.97 Van Wijk came back from Russia enriched: as an authority on both the Russian language and literature. The devotee of formal linguistics had thus found something that appealed to his heart. But for all his knowledge and his contacts with numerous heavyweights in the field of international linguistics, none of this led to a suitable job in The Netherlands. When he returned to The Netherlands in August, 1903 all he could hope for in practice was a teaching position, though he can hardly have had much enthusiasm for the ‘stupid school’, as his teacher Uhlenbeck, whose career as a teacher had not been a success, was in the habit of referring to the world of education, 98. In any case, Van Wijk decided to look into the possibilities of a privaat-docentschap, either in Russian or in Sanskrit, and to this purpose he looked up his supervisor, Boer, in Amsterdam. In a letter that Van Wijk wrote on October 15th, 1903, from the Amsterdam address Leidse Gracht 53, he informed Buitenrust Hettema of how matters stood: I succeeded this afternoon in getting to talk with Prof B. As you predicted, he advised me to become a teacher, because it is good to have experienced a bit of everything; if there is a decent post available, he would advise me accept it, naturally – courteous as he is – without wanting to force his advice on me. As far as a privaat-docentschap is concerned, we got no further. I said that I had thought of talking with him about it sometime, but that I must now decide rather quickly, whichever direction I should take I would rather do it at once. He asked me what that would be, and at first I only mentioned Russian. He thought that was fine, but as for coming up with any pro95

Amsterdam, Bureau van de Universiteit, Archivalia van de Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging, M1801, N. van Wijk, ‘Verslag van mijn buitenlandsche studiereis 17 Oct. 1902 – 15 Aug. 1903’, f. 5-8. 96 See Van Ginneken 1941, p. 193. 97 Van Wijk 1911d, col. 431. 98 De Josselin de Jong 1952, p. 283.

YOUTH AND STUDENT YEARS

39

posal – absolutely nothing. He thought it best, however, once you are a teacher, to give yourself completely to that for the first year at least, after which he thought you would then be able to find more time for other work. That’s what he had done in Leeuwarden. I said to him that now that there is no Sanskrit specialist in Groningen, it would be a good idea to keep thinking about that and about comparative work, since in the event that no-one should be appointed there soon one might always think of a privaat-docentschap there.99 Prof. B. said that they would appoint a lector [lecturer]. The new professor has only been appointed for Latin, so that one cannot actually do a doctoraal study in the Literary in Groningen. Just to see what answer it would elicit, I put to him the possibility of Dr. Huizinga’s appointment in Gr… But the only answer I got was that the professor knew nothing about these Groningen questions. So what it comes down to is that I am no further forward. Later that afternoon I spoke to Zeldenrust, the first interrogator at my promotie, who began to talk about Groningen without my saying anything at all about it, and – like a decent Israelite – he advised me to play cleverly, and to see whether there isn’t something that can be done there. Now I replied that if a lecturer were to be appointed, Dr. Huizinga would be the first and only candidate. And I firmly believe that to be so, and yet it would give me great pleasure if you were able to hear 100 anything at any time from Prof. S. concerning any plans. For the main thing is to know what line to take if a decision has to be taken regarding a post. I spent from 10-12 very pleasantly sitting talking with the old folk. My father did not really urge me to take the Zutphen post. At the moment there is a post vacant in Zaltbommel for German and a single Dutch class, for which anyone half qualified can be considered. It does not really attract me, although it is a small school and a rather easy job, fewer hours than in Zutphen. But I have still 14 days in which to send in documents. I think I would rather go to Zutphen, since it is a good school and a nice salary. Meanwhile, I must end this and go and write the three letters that I still have to write. Thank you for taking the trouble with the letter to Groningen. I shall be very pleased to hear 101 from you anything of the reply.

So, for the time being, Boer did not want to do anything for Van Wijk. But Van Wijk had not yet abandoned all hope of a university post and was encouraging Buitenrust Hettema to find out any information relating to his chances in Groningen. His academic interest is also evident in the letter written in immaculate Russian that he sent to the Russian linguist, Fortunatov, from his address on the Leidse Gracht on the 8th October, 1903, in which he asked him to send one of his papers on the Balto-Slavic verb.102 Yet for the while there was little other than to follow the advice Boer had given him, and first to look to a teaching position. That autumn, he was only just twenty three, with a great deal of study and an interesting time abroad behind him and with nothing known of any amorous attachment so far in his life.

99 In 1903 J.S. Speijer, who taught Latin and Sanskrit in Groningen, left for Leiden to succeed J.H. Kern als professor of Sanskrit there. As a result there arose the possibility of a lectureship in Sanskrit, for which J. Huizinga was a major candidate. See Huizinga 1989, p. 60. 100 Perhaps J.S. Speijer is meant here. 101 Leeuwarden, Tresoar, correspondence of F. Buitenrust Hettema, no. 7434. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134. 102 St Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburgskij filial Archiva RAN.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER II

TEACHER

1. Secondary School Teacher in Arnhem and Goes Nicolaas van Wijk’s first, temporary post was in Arnhem. In 1903 he took up duties as a secondary school teacher of Dutch at the city’s HBS [Hogere Burgerschool] – one of whose ex-pupils, H.A. Lorentz, had the previous year been awarded the Nobel Prize for physics. The rector of this school, established on the Willemsplein,1 was Dr. Hendrik van de Stadt, author of the Beknopt leerboek der natuurkunde (1879) [A Concise Textbook of Physics] that had gone through reprint after reprint from the Zwolle publishers, Tjeenk Willink. The rubric ‘Arrivals and Departures’ in the Arnhemsche Courant reported on the 13th of November, 1903, that Dr. N. van Wijk had settled in Arnhem, having newly arrived from Russia.2 The Nieuw Arnhemsch Adresboek met de gemeenten Velp, Rosendaal, Oosterbeek en Westervoort voor 1904 also gave his address as Ketelstraat 38. The noting of his address, however, proved rather a superfluous gesture, since Van Wijk’s residency lasted no longer than two months: he was appointed for the period November 1st, 1903 – January 1st, 1904.3 The only thing I have been able to discover from his stay in Arnhem is a letter of thanks of November 19th, 1903, to Fortunatov, the Russian scholar to whom he had written from Amsterdam and who had responded by sending his study of the Balto-Slavic verb as requested. He had not been able to read, wrote Van Wijk, because of the pressure of work in his job as teacher.4 The Arnhemsche Courant of January 11th, 1904, duly reports Van Wijk’s departure for Goes. Goes, which lies on the Roosendaal to Vlissingen railway line, was then a small town of some seven thousand inhabitants and boasting a number of civic institutions: a district court, a prison and a national agricultural winter college. Van Wijk’s appointment was as a temporary teacher of Dutch at the Rijks-HBS [a state HBS], a school which at the beginning of 1904 had 103 pupils including eight girls.5 Van Wijk took lodgings in the centre of the town at Wijngaardestraat 11,6 a 1

See Van Franse school tot Athenaeum: gedenkboek uitgegeven ter gelegenheid van het honderd jarig bestaan van de gemeentelijke H.B.S., thans Lorentz-H.B.S. te Arnhem, 1866-1966 (Arnhem: Drukkerij Roos & Roos, 1966), p. 2. 2 The Arnhem population register was lost during the Second World War. One has to turn to newspapers and address books to find details of Arnhem addresses. 3 Arnhem, Gelders Archief, Archief Lorentz-HBS te Arnhem, inv. no. 58, Register, houdende diverse gegevens (vanaf de stichting van de school) inzake: leerlingen, leraren, examens, de Commissie van toezicht en de geschiedenis van de school, page 20. 4 St Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburgskij filial Archiva RAN. 5 Den Haag, Nationaal Archief, Archief Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken, Afdeling Onderwijs, Middelbaar en Voorbereidend Hoger Onderwijs, 1877-1918, archiefnummer B24044, no. 78, Ver-

42

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

few minutes’ walk from the school on the Joachimkade. On the 25th January, 1904, he wrote to Te Winkel, his old teacher of Dutch in Amsterdam: ‘I have been appointed here at the HBS in remote Zeeland until the long vacation. It suits me quite well, the job is pleasant and easy. It is a pity that it is so far away’.7 The school was also far away for the ‘outside pupils’: children who had to take the train home were assigned to a train leaving at six o’clock, so that after school they had to wander about in Goes unsupervised for two hours.8 The director of the HBS, who had an official residence attached to the school, was also the teacher of chemistry and physics, Dr. Guillaume Leignes Bakhoven. Van Wijk and the rector were the only teachers at the school who had doctorates. Although there were no national figures among his teaching colleagues here comparable to Gunning and Buitenrust Hettema at the Zwolle Gymnasium, Van Wijk found a good friend in the person of the mathematics teacher Derk Jan Kruijtbosch, who had graduated from the Polytechnic School in Delft in mechanical engineering. His mother had been born in St Petersburg, and no doubt partly because of this, Kruijtbosch was interested in Russian literature. His interest in both alpha and beta is evident in the fact that together with Van Wijk, with whom he played chess and went on walks round Goes,9 he founded a literary society for the school’s pupils.10 We don’t know what this society actually did; we have only a request from the education inspector for the school to clarify a ‘receipt for payment to the Lit. Soc. N.V.W. to the sum of ƒ 2,50’.11 Another incidental glimpse of Van Wijk’s social life is afforded by the programme of a special occasion at the school on the evening of April 14th, 1905. The programme booklet Feestgids voor de feesten ter viering van het 40-jarig bestaan van de Hoogere Burgerschool te Goes, 14 april 1905 lists choral singing, an operetta and solo song for baritone performed by a mathematics teacher accompanied at the piano by Van Wijk. Included in this performance were the folk songs ‘Ik zing er al van een Ruyter koen’12 and ‘Ik heb mijn wagen volgeladen’, although how well this duo performed we have no idea. The press was not invited, as the Goessche Courant reported the day after the festivities.

slag van den toestand van het middelbaar onderwijs in de gemeente Goes over het jaar 1904, 03.05.1905. 6 Goes, Gemeentearchief, Bevolkingsregisters, no. 1271, 1895-1909, wijk A. See Barth 1989, p. 31. 7 Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 77 E 14. 8 Den Haag, Nationaal Archief, Archief Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken, Afdeling Onderwijs, Middelbaar en Voorbereidend Hoger Onderwijs, 1877-1918, archiefnummer B24044, no. 78, Verslag van den toestand van het middelbaar onderwijs in de gemeente Goes over het jaar 1904, 03.05.1905. 9 See the recollections of his daughter, M.C. Visser-Kruijtbosch, quoted in Hinrichs 1988, p. 32. 10 See Bolkestein 1956, p. 104. 11 Middelburg, Zeeuws Archief, Archief 251.1, Rijksscholengemeenschap Goes, Register in- en uitgaande stukken, no. 77 (31.10.1906), no. 85 (17.11.1906). 12 Van Wijk must have remembered this song when in 1905 he wrote about the difference between an adjective and an adverb and cites this line as evidence that an adjective can equally stand after a noun. See Van Wijk 1905a, p. 438.

TEACHER

43

The atmosphere in the class would have been a relief for Van Wijk after his baptism of fire in Arnhem. Having himself experienced a gymnasium where one was virtually given a private education, one would expect that he felt more at home in a small school, and we can tell that this was the case from a letter he wrote to Buitenrust Hettema on the 5th February, 1904: It suits me very well here. I have to teach them spelling, but after that I shall take it easy (it is necessary for their final exams). The second class […] write very nice essays, much better than the 4th and 5th in Arnhem, who were totally messed up by the conventional method. Keeping order is something that doesn’t even arise here, the feeling among the children is so exemplary […]. You sit here in the class as though you were in your own living room, completely different from Arnhem.13

It is evident from this letter that, when talking to Buitenrust Hettema, Van Wijk draws a distinction between ‘old’ and ‘new’ language education, apparently associating himself with the programme of Taal en Letteren as expressed in 1895 by Buitenrust Hettema’s colleague J.H. van den Bosch: All objections to the Old language education can be summarized thus: In this Education Language is: signs, pen-pushing, chalk-scratching. In this Education Language is something external to the Person. In this Education Language and Thought are two things. In this Education language is a product of the School. The New Education is encapsulated in these principles: Language is Sound – what is not Sound is not Language. Language is something in the person. Language and Thought are One – Individual for Individual, a person’s Language and a person’s Thought are one-and-the-same. Language is a product of Life – in everyone, of his own life. From these two principles, if they are in someone, the whole New Method arises by itself. I have defined the task of the teacher of the Mother language, have I not, thus: to bring the youth to the awareness that he has his own language […] It all depends on keeping our youths simple (simple they were born) and making them strong.14

It is an interesting question as to how far Van Wijk, as a young, temporarily appointed teacher, had the chance actually to teach Dutch according to these modern ideas; but as well as his school work, he also gave private lessons. The young Marie Ramondt must have learned a great deal from him. First alone, subsequently in collaboration with Dr. J. Heinsius, Van Wijk coached the girl for her secondary schooling final examination.15 The only, extremely brief recollection of the Goes teacher Van Wijk that I know of comes from J. van Bruggen. As an ex-pupil and later ex-teacher of the school, he contributed a piece to a Jubilee number of the school newspaper in which he recalled Van Wijk in his role of private teacher:

13

Leeuwarden, Tresoar, correspondence of F. Buitenrust Hettema, no. 7435. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134. 14 Van den Bosch 1895, p. 210-211. 15 See Kamerbeek Jr. 1965, p. 111-112.

44

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK I have a very clear memory of my HBS time, for the older you get the more vividly the highpoints of the past come back to you. Dr. Leignes Bakhoven was then director. […] The HBS at Goes always had a good name and it was well deserved. Pupils worked hard, the spirit was good and with the odd witticism you could grab the attention of youngsters who, often from a simple background, realized they had to seize their chance and take whatever they could from their lessons. […] And although it was not the HBS here, but the late Dr. N. van Wijk, subsequently a professor, at that time teacher of Dutch at our school, who was my mentor on this path […].16

The fact that the university world was so far removed from Goes did not mean that Van Wijk had lost his connection with it. Quite the contrary, as can be seen from one of his first actions on his arrival: he wrote a detailed report of his study journey to Leipzig and Moscow for the board of the Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging. He sent the report – quoted in full in the previous chapter – as an attachment to a letter of February 27th, 1904, in which he thanked the Board for the support they had given. On March 19th, 1904, the evening edition of the national paper Algemeen Handelsblad published under City News a report of the annual general meeting of the Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging held that afternoon under its chairman, Prof. J.C. Matthes. In this meeting, we read, it was argued that a professorial Chair should be created for Russian: On the recommendation of Prof. Boer, a student of this university, de heer N. van Wijk, who after he had he obtained his doctorate was enabled to undertake a scholarly journey to complete his studies in comparative linguistics. This journey lasted ten months. The young scholar studied during this period in Leipzig and in Moscow and provided the Association with a report of the greatest significance concerning his studies. Above all, he became expert in the Russian language and its literature and his studies in this area were so significant that Prof. Matthes thinks it not too much to say that he hoped a Chair for the study of Russian might be instituted in our university. The journey referred to cost the Association f 600.

One gathers from this speech of Matthes that it was not exactly usual for the recipients of an Amsterdam grant to provide such a report of their study travel: ‘We are pleased that Dr. Van Wijk has taken the trouble to send us a report of his activities in this manner. There are so many whom one helps in the world and from whom one never hears again. Here, everything is acknowledged’.17 This tone of high satisfaction with which the Board of the Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging reacted to Van Wijks travel report was also reflected in the speech given by Prof. H.W. Bakhuis Roozeboom on the 19th September, 1904, in the Assembly Hall of the University when he handed over the rectorship. He referred to Van Wijk as a ‘very promising young man’.18 We don’t know what Van Wijk made of the attentions from Amsterdam. In retrospect, his idea in the autumn of 1903 of getting Professor Boer to propose him for a privaat-docentschap in Russian in Amsterdam was not so strange after all; there was certainly a fertile ground for such an idea. But Amsterdam was so far from Goes that the practical obstacles alone made a privaat-docentschap for the 16

Van Bruggen 1950, p. 10-11. Matthes 1905, p. 23. 18 See Bakhuis Roozeboom 1905, p. 14. 17

TEACHER

45

time being unthinkable. Travelling at weekends would not be simple, for there were lessons to give on Saturday. Nonetheless, Van Wijk was on several occasions given time off for a particular reason, e.g. on February 10th, 1904, shortly after taking up his teaching post in Goes, on account of a ‘visit of a Russian authority to schools in The Hague’, at which he was apparently needed as a translator or guide. (Later, he was also allowed free time for lectures in Arnhem, for family reasons, a trip to Leiden and for other reasons not specified,19 but over the whole year these would have been exceptional cases.) For his life beyond the school, Van Wijk the bachelor must have had to rely on his rented room(s) and the company of friends of his own age, such as the mathematics teacher Kruijtbosch and the chemical engineer, Jan Hendrik Maschhaupt, an assistant at the national agricultural experimental station in Goes. In Goes, Van Wijk resumed his old study that he had left aside in Leipzig: comparative Indo-European linguistics. He published articles in Indogermanische Forschungen on such subjects as the place of Greek nouns in Indo-European, the conjugation of the verbum substantivum and the Indo-European Ablaut. We find these articles by the young Goes teacher side by side with works by the editors, Brugmann and Streitberg, and of other German acquaintances like Hirt and Leskien. But he also appeared in the company of the Dutch professors Uhlenbeck, whom he also visited in Leiden from time to time,20 and Van Helten, who had been on the committee for his gymnasium final examination a few years earlier. In his article ‘Die altitalischen Futura’, Van Wijk took advantage of his experience in Moscow by providing numerous examples from spoken Russian and from Russian literature, demonstrating that he knew how to speak Russian and had read works by such authors as Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Gorky and Leonid Andreyev in Russian.21 Dutch philology also appears to have been a prominent sideline for Van Wijk. Starting in 1904, he took over from Buitenrust Hettema – who as far as we know was his most important contact outside Goes – the compilation of the bibliography covering Dutch language and literature that was published in the Jahresbericht der germanischen philologie, a yearbook then edited by Dr. Johannes Luther in Berlin. This bibliography listed the most important contributions in the field of Germanic philology, sometimes with a brief summary of their contents, with an emphasis on literature of the period up to 1600. We also find Van Wijk’s articles appearing in the Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde [Journal of Dutch Linguistics and Literature] as well as in Taal en Letteren. There was a distinction here: in the Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde he wrote on historical-comparative questions, in the same domain in which he worked for the Indogermanische Forschungen. In the first in19

Middelburg, Zeeuws Archief, Archief 251.1, Rijksscholengemeenschap Goes, Register: Rijks Hoogere Burgerschool te Goes, Vervanging van Lesuren. 20 On the 20th January [1905] Van Wijk wrote to Buitenrust Hettema: ‘Yesterday and today I was Leiden, for a change it’s very good now and; I had a very exciting talk with U. […]’. Leeuwarden, Tresoar, correspondence of F. Buitenrust Hettema, no. 7437. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134. 21 See Van Wijk 1904-1905, p. 468-471.

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

46

stance, he restricted himself to Dutch material. For example, of the articles he wrote for this journal one dealt with the original meaning of the word ‘hamer’ [hammer]; another the so-called d-epenthesis (words that trace back to basic forms without a d, but which in our own time are written with a d, such as wijden, kelder); or on vowel lengthening before r + dental, and yet another article on the first person plural in Old High German. In his article on the word ‘morgen’ [morning, morrow] Van Wijk compares phenomena in Dutch dialects with similar phenomena in Norwegian, Polish and Kashubian.22 His articles in Taal en Letteren, on the other hand, were more programmatic, dealing with considerations of language in general. One such article, ‘Over eenige grammatische categorieën van het Nederlandsch’ [On some grammatical categories in Dutch], is dated ‘Goes, February, 1904’, which means that it must have been completed almost immediately after his arrival in Zeeland. In this piece, Van Wijk defended the proposition that grammatical categories rest solely on formal distinctions, taking issue with grammarians who were inclined to distinguish categories that exist in German or in Latin but are in fact foreign to Dutch: According to the spelling of De Vries and Te Winkel one writes in the 3rd case plural [dative] of the personal pronoun hun, in the 4th [accusative] hen but this is a distinction that in actual language does not exist and never did exist. The way the grammarians have introduced this distinction […] is typical of the method by which our linguistic scholars have been in the habit of dealing with language, considering themselves to be not so much practitioners of language as language judges.23

Meanwhile, his ambition to gain a privaat-docentschap prevented Van Wijk from adopting too critical a stance toward the university world. When asked to write a review of Jan te Winkel’s Inleiding tot de geschiedenis der Nederlandsche taal (1905) [An introduction to the history of the Dutch language], he replied in a letter of November 11th, 1905, to Buitenrust Hettema: ‘I am not too keen on writing a critique of that book by J. te Winkel. It would be an act of demolition, and to begin stripping my old professor while only just out of university does not appeal to me. [...] at present I can satisfy myself by just looking into it and thinking, “nothing much there”’.24 2. De Nederlandsche taal Van Wijk had been working as an HBS teacher in Goes for about six months when he received a letter from Johan Tjeenk Willink of the Zwolle firm of the same name. In this letter of June 4th, 1905, he was asked, ‘on conditions to be discussed’, if he would write a Dutch grammar for the lower classes of HBS and Gymnasium.25 This Tjeenk Willink, who ran the business together with his

22

See Van Wijk 1905, p. 14-15. Van Wijk 1904, p. 309. 24 Leeuwarden, Tresoar, correspondence of F. Buitenrust Hettema, no. 7440. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134. 25 Zwolle, Historisch Centrum Overijssel, Gemeentearchief Zwolle, Archief van de NV Uitgeversmaatschappij W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink 1838-1968, BA 001, inv. no. 52, page 440. This letter and the 23

TEACHER

47

brother, addressed Van Wijk using the familiar ‘je’ rather than the formal ‘U’, for they knew each other from the Zwolle Gymnasium, where Tjeenk Willink had graduated in 1894, four years before Van Wijk. In his reply from Goes, Van Wijk wrote, on June 13th, that he could only give a definite answer once he knew more about the projected size and scope of the book, the financial conditions, the planning and especially about what spelling was to be used in the book. As far as the latter point was concerned, he immediately declared his allegiance to Buitenrust Hettema’s language modernizing project: The last point in particular, it seems to me, is of great importance. I myself still write De Vries and Te Winkel [old orthographic system], but I am an advocate of Kollewijn and co., firstly because I am convinced that De Vr. and Te W. are mistaken from a scholarly point of view, particularly where the use of de and den and suchlike are concerned.26

Tjeenk Willink answered by return, proposing around 10 to 12 quires of 16 pages, a payment of f 35 per quire, and for each subsequent printing f 17,50. As far as the spelling was concerned, he preferred to use De Vries and Te Winkel, ‘until a change has been sanctioned by higher authorities’. In short, a change of spelling would first have to be approved by the Minister of the Interior, who was at that time responsible for education. As a deadline for delivery of copy, Tjeenk Willink suggested January, 1906, so that it could be printed during March and April, ‘in time for the new school year of 1906/1907’.27 What Van Wijk was actually being asked here was to sacrifice his coming summer vacation to the writing of a book, but this was apparently not an insuperable objection, for on the 18th June, Van Wijk wrote back: I think I can comply with your conditions, and I shall see if I can make a good job of it. I think that I should be able to. Usually, once I get stuck into it, my work goes better than I had at first thought it would. Whether that will turn out to be the case here, I don’t know, because here in Goes I am so far away from all academic people, individuals you need to discuss various questions with. But we shall see! I hope to be able to talk over several points in the vacation.28

It seems the book was finished by the end of the summer vacation.29 In any case, Van Wijk had to set to work at once. In a letter to Tjeenk Willink of July10th, he remarks that he has already written parts of it and shown them to Buitenrust Hettema.30 From the start of the project, Van Wijk assumed that he could depend on his old mentor as an encyclopaedic authority, and in a letter to Buitenrust Hettema of November 13, 1905, it seems that the manuscript had already been completed: As far as my book is concerned, we agreed that I should send you the proofs. But what I myself would prefer – especially because there may well be detailed comments – is to go other letters mentioned in the following from J.C. Tjeenk Willink to Van Wijk are quoted from copies in the publishers’ Secret Copybook. We have no access to the originals. 26 Ibid., inv. no. 208. 27 Ibid., inv. no. 52, page 442. 28 Ibid., inv. no. 208. 29 See Kuiper 1944, p. 158. 30 Zwolle, Historisch Centrum Overijssel, Gemeentearchief Zwolle, Archief van de NV Uitgeversmaatschappij W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink 1838-1968, BA 001, inv. no. 208.

48

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK through it with you beforehand. I could come home for a Saturday and Sunday, perhaps travel with you on Saturday and the rest of Saturday and Sunday morning? discuss business together. I could also send you the copy – which I have not yet read through myself – in advance. Could you let me know what you think of this? And when? Saturday or S. in a week’s time? My copy is ready.31

‘Travel with you on Saturday’ probably refers to the train journey to Zwolle from Utrecht, where Buitenrust Hettema was privaat-docent. Two days later, on November 15th, Van Wijk again urged a meeting: Will you perhaps be taking the fast train to Zwolle on Saturday evening? If so we could travel together, unless you travel first class, because that is too expensive for me. In that case, I would take the earlier slow train home and first spend an hour with the old folk. Will you be free the rest of Saturday evening? Do you eat in a restaurant in Utrecht? If so, perhaps we could eat together?32

Van Wijk must have handed in his copy much earlier than agreed. In any case, the book was already out by the 9th March, 1906,33 because on that day Tjeenk Willink sent complimentary copies to Goes and on the same day transferred the sum of f 437,50 (12 ½ quires at f 35 per quire).34 In a letter the following day, Van Wijk thanked Tjeenk Willink and asked that complimentary copies be sent ‘from the author’ to his old Zwolle teachers, Buitenrust Hettema, Cramer and Talen. He himself wanted another five extra copies for ‘a few family relatives and professors’.35 When in 1924 he reviewed the Grammaire de la langue serbo-croate by A. Meillet and A. Vaillant, Van Wijk looked back on his work for this school grammar: And undoubtedly such purely descriptive grammars have their use. I felt this strongly when in 1906 I wrote my book De Nederlandsche taal, in which I always attempted to apply as a norm the feeling for language of the current, living generation, free of the authority of the doctrinaire grammarians. It was a manual of the mother language, and in my view this is where this method is especially useful, because the linguistic feeling of young students for their own language is a reliable instrument that can be fruitfully employed for monitoring other authorities.36

Freeing oneself from doctrinaire grammarians – that was Van Wijk’s point of departure in writing his book, and in this he was following the line of the Taal en Letteren movement of Buitenrust Hettema and Talen. He was not totally unprepared for the task when Tjeenk Willink approached him, for in 1905, in Taal en Letteren, he had already discussed in detail Dr. K. Holtvast’s Beknopte Nederlandsche spraakkunst [Concise Dutch Grammar], published that same year by Noordhoff, Tjeenk Willink’s competitor in Groningen. Whether or not he knew that 31

Leeuwarden, Tresoar, correspondence of F. Buitenrust Hettema, no. 7441. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134. 32 Ibid., no. 7442. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134. 33 Van Wijk 1906. 34 Zwolle, Historisch Centrum Overijssel, Gemeentearchief Zwolle, Archief van de NV Uitgeversmaatschappij W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink 1838-1968, BA 001, inv. no. 53, page 51. 35 Ibid., inv. no. 209. 36 Van Wijk 1924d, p. 309.

TEACHER

49

Holtvast was a pseudonym adopted by the spelling reformer Kollewijn remains unknown. ‘Writing a grammar is a difficult and rather dangerous work: however one does it, one will always stand exposed to the criticism of many’,37 so begins Van Wijk’s review. There was an objection to writing a grammar at all, he thought, in that the boundaries between word categories were so difficult to draw. Whatever definition one gives, one is time and again confronted with cases that belong in a particular category without satisfying the definition given, hence the dilemma for an author grounded in scholarship: With a school grammar especially, there is always this objection, and here one is all the more exposed to criticism because one cannot adequately account for one’s definitions and divisions. Added to which, in many cases the definitions given to us by scholarship are too philosophical, are too abstractly formulated for children to grasp […]; and yet there is not always a simpler formulation possible that is at the same time correct. How should one set about writing a school grammar? Of course, the material has to be divided into categories, not so much because without classification all education would be confused and therefore more damaging than useful, but more especially because such categories do exist […]. The author of a Dutch school grammar is now obliged, before anything else, to account for the phenomena of his own language; he must describe these and where necessary explain them; while at the same time he must make it clear that every division and every classification is to some extent arbitrary. But various authors have simply not met these principal demands that should always be made of a grammar. All too often one finds rules and divisions that may well be valid for Latin or for German or for the Dutch language of a previous era, but not for Dutch as currently spoken; and all too often it is the unjustifiably selfassured voice of the lecturing author that speaks out of various school grammars, concerned above all to convince his pupils that this and only this is the absolute truth.38

The ideological underpinning for a different, new approach should come, according to Van Wijk, from Hermann Paul’s Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, a book that he already carried with him on his journey to Leipzig in 1902: How many people in The Netherlands have read this! Well now, if one has read it properly, one will be entirely convinced of the inadequacy of grammatical definitions, of the constant changing of the boundaries between categories, and one will understand how analogy is a force that is constantly active in every language, constantly modifying every language. But how few there are who are properly convinced that that which holds for language in general, also holds for Dutch, and must guide us in our study of this language: many a man of letters has read Paul as a student, perhaps Wundt too, but then he is not much concerned, if at all, with the Dutch grammar. Later, when he is forced to give it some attention, he no longer thinks of ‘Sprachprinzipien’ and simply teaches what he finds in the schoolbooks. This is certainly one of the reasons why, for us, the teaching of grammar is so totally at variance with the results of scholarship of the last umpteen years.39

Van Wijk criticises Holtvast because the latter takes no clear position: Both as regards spelling and other questions, he asserts and discusses two kinds of conception side by side, that of the older and that of the younger generation, to which he himself 37

Van Wijk 1905a, p. 437. Ibid., p. 439-441. 39 Ibid., p. 443. 38

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

50

belongs. Well and good, but if one does this one runs the danger of occasionally losing clarity and of being unable to maintain the distinction between the two conceptions; and this danger is all the greater if, like Holtvast, one does not stick to one side or the other consistently throughout. In fact, it is a danger that Holtvast does not manage to avoid.40

Because of this ambivalence, Van Wijk found Holtvast’s book a ‘characteristic book for the time it was written’.41 Van Wijk wrote his own book in the modern spirit of the Taal en Letteren movement, albeit, as we have seen from his correspondence with the publisher, not in the modern spelling. In his preface to De Nederlandsche taal, Van Wijk asserts the same viewpoint, drawing on passages from his criticism of Holtvast: It seems to me that, in the teaching of the Dutch language and grammar in schools we must endeavour above all to see that pupils gain a good insight into the living language, that language which they speak every day; the definitions and the distinctions of the textbook must as far as possible correspond with our ‘language sense’, so that everyone who uses the book will understand and feel, when reading it, that indeed that’s how it is and no other way. – And I believe that the present language teaching all too often falls absolutely short of this demand and is, as a result, of more harm than use.42

Yet Van Wijk had to admit that there were two obstacles he had not been able to surmount. He had to accept the conventional spelling, which according to him did not always correspond to the actual language of the time; and in addition he found that it was difficult ‘to monitor language consciousness in order to discern what grammatical categories exist to this sense’.43 Here, he says, he has been assisted by others: in the first place by Hermann Paul’s Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, of course, but also by the Dutch literature on grammar, such as the grammars of W.L. van Helten and Holtvast, and of course by the many articles in Taal en Letteren. His conversations with colleagues had also been invaluable and, in this connection, he predictably credits Buitenrust Hettema. In its first edition of 1906, De Nederlandsche taal comprised five chapters: I and II on syntax and parts of speech, III on modality, IV on accent and V on phonology. There was no chapter on derivation. The introduction, intended for pupils of the third year, according to Van Wijk, explained such concepts as language and dialect, language development, the sound laws and analogy. Here Van Wijk shows himself to be a true disciple of the Junggrammatiker: There are no exceptions to a sound law. For example, if in the Dutch language there has been a sound law according to which ft became cht, then this applies to all words in which f t occurred in the period during which the law operated. And if we still find f t in a purely Dutch word that should have obeyed this law, then we cannot say that in this case the law did not operate, we have to accept that that there are certain circumstances that have counteracted this law; in the case of vijftien, for example, the circumstance is that it stands next to: vijf. It is, after all, no different with laws of nature; if I let fall an object at a certain height from the ground, this falls to the ground, but if it is impeded on the way – someone puts out his hand, for example – this circumstance prevents that object from falling further; just so 40

Ibid., p. 445. Ibid., p. 448. 42 Van Wijk 19092, p. iii. 43 Ibid., p. v. 41

TEACHER

51

with the law f t : cht in this special case is countermanded by the existence of the form vijf; but although there are sometimes circumstances that counteract a law, the law is without exception no less valid.44

Van Wijk’s book was discussed by W.F. Gombault in the Weekblad voor Gymnasiaal en Middelbaar Onderwijs [Gymnasium and Secondary School Education Weekly], where we find Van Wijk’s old rector, Dr. J.H. Gunning – now privaatdocent in Amsterdam – on the editorial staff. Although Gombault did recommend the book to students and teachers, he found it unsuitable for the lowest three classes of the Gymnasium and HBS, for whom it was in fact intended. It was too broad in scope and too long-winded.45 We should not be surprised by this reaction: Van Wijk was trying to cultivate an understanding of linguistic phenomena, not to provide material to be learned by rote. But it became apparent that a considerable body of opinion agreed with Gombault, viz. that Van Wijk’s book took too little account of the conceptual abilities of the lower classes, and that for this reason it was far more suitable for aspiring teachers.46 In the context of the time, Van Wijk’s book stood as ‘a singular instance of scholarly accuracy and clarity of ideas in many linguistic areas’.47 A journal for teachers was highly enthusiastic over his treatment of modality.48 The book must also have been used in universities.49 Van Wijk’s basic assumption certainly contributed to the book’s readability, with its linguistic examples taken from speech so that word accent was not neglected.50 He had not drawn on the language of nineteenth century writers, as had Tijs Terwey in his Nederlandsche spraakkunst (first edition, 1878), the dominant textbook used in school education at the time which, as a result, had been enshrined as the accepted norm for general written language use. The principles of the Taal en Letteren movement were also in operation here.51 3. Fascination with Russia Van Wijk had quite emphatically given Slavic material a place in the articles on Dutch and Indo-European linguistics that he had written in Goes. But his interest in the Slavic world went much further than his writing desk: the stay in Moscow in 1903 had clearly whetted his appetite. He wanted to travel east again in his school vacation of 1906, not certain whether he would go to Russia or to Bosnia. On the 12th June, 1906, he wrote to Buitenrust Hettema: ‘You must surely have spoken with my father, that you know so much about my plans for Serbia. But I haven’t

44

Ibid., p. 16. See Gombault 1906, p. 1380. 46 See Schönfeld 1922, p. 125. 47 De Vos 1939, p. 277. 48 See Van Dalen 1907, p. 123-124. 49 See Van Haeringen 1960, p. 56. 50 For Van Wijk’s indications of accent variants in the pronunciation of words like ‘vierkant’ and ‘noordenwind’, see Van der Horst and Van der Horst 1999, p. 404-405. 51 See De Vooys 1929, p. 44. 45

52

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

yet entirely ruled out Russia. Because in Bosnia, especially along the coast, the summers must be “unerträglich heiss”; at least, that’s what Hirt tells me’.52 Van Wijk’s doubts about going to Russia apparently had to do with the political unrest following the major insurrection of 1905. Van Wijk had kept himself informed of the situation through the Dutch consulate in Moscow, as his June 15th letter to Buitenrust Hettema shows.53 By the time of his letter of July 1st, he had decided that this time he would go to Bosnia: ‘I leave Goes Thursday week. First I shall pay a visit to say goodbye to my parents – who will then be in Weesp, and then Friday I shall depart from Amsterdam for Fiume, via Dresden-Vienna, then on to Bosnia’.54 We know very little about this journey. The only references bequeathed by Van Wijk are about linguistic matters: During a stay in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where German has increasingly been spoken since the occupation of 1878, it struck me repeatedly how significantly this Bosnian German differed not only from that of all regions of Germany, but also from the German of Austria: all the Bosnians I heard speak showed the same characteristics and these are easily explained by the phonetics and the accent system of the national language, Croatian. If I heard a conversation at a distance, it happened more than once that I could clearly distinguish that the speakers were Croats and not Italians, Hungarians or anything else; but whether the language they were speaking was German or Croat I was unable to tell. But in fact one need not travel far from home to make similar observations: In Flanders one can often not hear the difference between Flemish and French provided one is not close enough to catch individual words.55

A second reference to the trip to Bosnia concerns a matter of spelling: in the following, we see an adept of the Taal en Letteren movement, with its rejection of strict rule-giving, when he reacts to the way school students are marked down for the incorrect use of capital letters and punctuation: ‘When I was talking recently about educational matters with a teacher at an elementary school in Bosnia, I was astonished to hear that the schoolboys were often given an unsatisfactory mark for the Croatian language (more than for other subjects) because they made so many “mistakes” in their written work’.56 Van Wijk in fact had high praise for Croatian spelling, although it was more with an eye to the then current contest over the spelling of Dutch that he referred to the spelling conventions of the Croat language ‘which implemented with the greatest consistency the principle of “Write as you speak”’:57 ‘The six letters a, e, i, o, u, r are sufficient to indicate all monophthongs without ever having to resort to the doubling or combining of two letters, as so often happens in our own written language, in order to indicate one, simple sound’.58 52

Leeuwarden, Tresoar, correspondence of F. Buitenrust Hettema, no. 7430. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134. 53 Ibid., no. 7444. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134. 54 Ibid., no. 7432. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134. 55 Van Wijk 1908, p. 74. 56 Van Wijk 1906a, p. 442. 57 Ibid., p. 440. 58 Ibid., p. 444.

TEACHER

53

As I have said, although Van Wijk wrote incidentally on Slavic grammar in the course of articles on Dutch and comparative Indo-European linguistics, it was never the subject of an independent article. It seems that he never got round to writing an article, for example, for the Archiv für slavische Philologie, though his reviews of Dutch, German and French textbooks on Russian appeared in Museum, the monthly journal for philology and history issued by Wolters, the Groningen publishing house, since 1893. These reviews clearly demonstrated that he not only knew Russian, he had a very thorough mastery of the language: ‘I am so often reminded of mistakes that I myself repeatedly used to make, and that I cured myself of once my attention had been drawn to them during the period I spent in Russia.’59 From his rented rooms in Goes, Van Wijk also gives us a glimpse of his sentimental attachment to Russian life, the real Russian life, as it existed in his eyes: Many a time, when reading the short sketches of Tolstoy it was as if you heard a Russian, a real muzhik speaking to you; as though you were hearing him speak the words and seeing him make the gestures that are inseparable from the words. And if now, knowing Russia, when I read this book, both the text and the many annotations, I feel at every turn how absolutely Russian the whole work is, surely this demonstrates that such a book is also an excellent textbook for anyone wanting to get to know the real Russian life.60

Van Wijk’s reviews once more show him assuming the stance of the Taal en Letteren man who considers the spoken language more important than the written word. He was especially interested in phonetics, and more particularly in word accents. When he discusses J.W. Rutten’s Leerboek der Russische taal [Textbook of the Russian language], he remarks: ‘Various peculiarities, concerning declension and conjugation, are reported in thorough detail; why then is the most important of all, the question of accent, so summarily dealt with?’61 In this critique, he pays particular attention to mistakes that concern the treatment of pronunciation, once again appealing to the practical knowledge he gained in Moscow: ‘Anyone who has ever heard a Russian speak the simplest word must know that […]’.62 As far as Russian was concerned, Van Wijk presented himself more as an authority on literature than on linguistics. His final words in the report of his Russian journey to the board of the Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging, where he refers to his continuing interest in Russian literature, had not been without significance. This becomes very apparent in his long article ‘De Hamlets van de Russische letterkunde’ [The Hamlets of Russian literature], his first publication in 1904 in De Gids. The article, primarily intended merely to inform the Dutch reader, is an introduction to Russian literature of the nineteenth century. Its central theme is the alleged Hamletian character of several heroes in Russian novels of the period. Van Wijk takes as his starting point Turgenev’s St Petersburg lecture, ‘Hamlet and Don Quichote’ (1860), in which he compares the characters of the heroes of Shakespeare and Cervantes and relates them to the Russian situation. Van Wijk 59

Van Wijk 1907a, col. 16. Ibid. 61 Van Wijk 1905b, col. 262. 62 Ibid., col. 263. 60

54

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

concentrates on the Hamlet type in Russian literature: ‘Hamlet, the unfortunate one doomed to seek and to drift throughout his life, he lives in Russia and everyone knows him, as they see him all around, and everyone also knows him from the image projected by a long series of artists, beginning with Pushkin and ending with Gorky’.63 Van Wijk portrayed this type on the basis of such heroes as Rudin in Rudin and Bazarov in Fathers and Sons from Turgenev’s novels, Aleko from Pushkin’s poem ‘The gypsies’, Onegin from Pushkin’s verse novel Evgeny Onegin, Pechorin from Lermontov’s novel A hero of our time, the eponymous hero of Goncharov’s novel Oblomov, and Foma Gordeyev from Gorky’s novel of the same name. The article included long passages in translation, including the first pages of Oblomov that were appearing there in Dutch for the first time. Van Wijk also translated passages from Turgenev’s Sketches from a hunter’s album and the opening strophe from Pushkin’s Evgeny Onegin. Van Wijk also puts the question in his article of how things should now proceed in Russia, a land that, in his view, for the sake of its development simply could not afford Hamlets: ‘Russia is the land of extraordinary things! Who could possibly have imagined earlier the phenomenon of Peter the Great? And isn’t it possible that a similar marvel could be repeated in the future? Could not Leo Tolstoy be the forerunner of a still greater reformer who will lead Russia and the entire world closer to unity and peace?’.64 Van Wijk left the question unanswered here, but he returned to it again in a long article, ‘Over het Russische volkskarakter’ [On the character of the Russian people], that he published in 1907 in De Tijdspiegel [The Time Mirror]. In the meantime there had been the 1905 uprising. The Russian theme even disturbed Dutch society: ‘In these times, when every one is following the course of events in Russia with the greatest interest, is there anyone who does not occasionally ask himself: “Where is Russia heading? What will the immediate future bring?”’.65 Van Wijk introduces here the notion of the Russians’ ‘broad nature’: ‘Why is it so difficult to judge Russian conditions? In the first place, one should certainly look for the cause of this in the singularity of the Russian character, which Russians themselves refer to as their “broad nature”, and which makes their actions more unpredictable than those of others’.66 Van Wijk gives no definition of this concept: he prefers to describe the Russian individuals as they occur in Russian literature and demonstrate these characteristics. For him, Russian literature is a mirror of reality: ‘when we want to study real Russian characters, we need not in the first place be led by our own experience but can go to the great Russian writers, who know their own people through and through and have described them so admirably and so accurately’.67

63

Van Wijk 1904a, p. 144. Ibid., p. 487. 65 Van Wijk 1907, p. 155. 66 Ibid., p. 155-156. 67 Ibid., p. 156. 64

TEACHER

55

As the best guide to the Russian character, Van Wijk recommends Dostoevsky, who according to his account was very little known in The Netherlands at that time: ‘For a good understanding of the Russian people, and thus also of what is happening in Russia at the moment, I believe there is nothing better than a thorough acquaintance with The Brothers Karamazov, in particular because in this novel the most typical expressions of the Russian “broad nature” are portrayed’.68 Van Wijk draws a connection between a character sketch of Dimitry Karamazov and his own experience in Russia: If we knew Dimitry Karamazov, not from a book but from real life, he would give the impression of an unscrupulous and immoral rake. Imagine someone who must post the sum of 3000 roubles on behalf of his girl and instead squanders it on a dissolute woman like Grushenka! This fact alone would be enough for many to despise such a man for ever. And Russia produces a great many such people who in their outward lives resemble this Karamazov quite closely. It is true, almost nobody goes as far as him, but the behaviour of wealthy Muscovite sons of businessmen puts one strongly in mind of him: drunken all-male parties and immorality are the order of the day, and the licentiousness one sees in Russia exceeds that of any other country.69

It is immediately apparent that Van Wijk also has a certain sympathy for the dissipated Russian. He shows himself to be a capable translator of various fragments from Dostoevsky’s work and a good raconteur when he recalls the memory of a Russian who, as expression of his ‘broad nature’, like a real Dostoevskian hero, fought out a struggle between God and the devil who both dwelt inside him: This struggle between God and the devil can sometimes take peculiar forms. When I was living with a Russian family in Moscow, I was surprised by a fellow-lodger who arrived after I had already been there some time. The first day he told us, with tears in his eyes, that his wife had left him shortly before, he had no idea where she had gone, he was weighed down with his distress but he understood that he deserved it, because he himself bore most of the guilt: he had never been at home in the evenings, but had stayed in the club till late into the night and had gambled away almost all the money of both himself and his wife. For the time that he was our fellow lodger he remained sombre and sorrowful; but his sorrow had no expression in action. He continued visiting different clubs, and on five successive evenings he won six thousand roubles and on the sixth lost seven thousand; and he spoke about it perfectly calmly, as though it were self-evident that he, a gambler, lived like this, he was incapable of staying away from such wickedness. And yet several times a day he would seclude himself, either in the church or in his own room, to be alone with his God and pour out his heart to Him in inner devotion. This expression of the ‘broad nature’ seemed to me more like Dimitry than Ivan Karamazov.

Van Wijk can also present for the reader another character from The Brothers Karamazov, but not debauched this time, in fact totally different, one with an unlimited trust in humanity and leanings toward the monastic life: the youngest brother, Aleksei or Alyosha. Van Wijk, the bachelor from Goes, the teacher with his literary club, paints a highly sympathetic picture of Alyosha’s association with a club of schoolboys: 68 69

Ibid., p. 158. Ibid., p. 166.

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

56

Anyone who knows how to get on with children, anyone who knows how to elicit good and beautiful ideas from them, and who has the human understanding to be able to draw out their young character, must surely exert a beneficial influence on adults too. – It appears to me that the writer has handled this theme, the friendship of Alyosha for these boys, with great feeling for it. When I read this, when I see Alyosha Karamazov in front of me, surrounded by these good, enthusiastic children, an image of Dostoevsky himself comes to mind, who was also a friend of children and who knew how to captivate boys through his person and his words.70

Aleksei embodies the idea of a pure, unadulterated Christianity that could bring salvation to the world and to Russia: Would this be possible? Who will answer this? The more we go into the conditions and ideas of the Russian people, the more we see that everything over there is completely different than it is with us, and how little we understand what the future may bring. Russia is and remains an enigma for us – and for itself too. When we see what wholly unexpected and unpredictable actions a Russian is sometimes capable of, blindly obeying the promptings of his ‘broad nature’, we are astonished, but we should not think that the unfortunate understands better than we do where he is being driven by the fatal force that urges him on. And what holds for the individual applies also to the nation as a whole; what the future has in store for this people is an enigma that neither they nor we can solve; it is as though they are being driven forward by an unfathomable, god-like force to an unknown destiny.71

Van Wijk, coming from a carefully ordered, compartmentalized society where very little of surprise ever happened, was unmistakably fascinated by the mystique of the unknown and the indeterminate that he thought he had discerned in the sultry Russia of the beginning of the twentieth century. It strikes one that he did not look at either literary or anthropological matters through the formal lenses he habitually wore when practising his own discipline of historical-comparative linguistics. In fact, his two long articles on the Hamlets of Russian literature and the character of the Russian people seem to betray something of Van Wijk’s personal interests and of the private side of his life: a weakness for Russians and for Russian life. 4. Isolated During his time in Goes, Van Wijk moved house twice: the first time, on the 4th July, 1905, he moved from Wijngaardestraat to Bierkade 3,72 with a fine view of the town’s harbour, and the second time on the 27th August, 1906, St. Adriaanstraat 8.73 With its walls, canals and the tall church, the town was not unlike Zwolle in appearance. The gothic Great Church or Maria Magdalenakerk, was counted the most beautiful church of Zeeland, but the surroundings must have seemed much smaller and more cramped than Zwolle, and he must have felt far removed from the rest of the world, or more specifically from the university world. 70

Ibid., p. 299. Ibid., p. 309. 72 Goes, Gemeentearchief, Bevolkingsregisters, no. 1278, 1895-1909, wijk D. See Barth 1989, p. 31. 73 Goes, Gemeentearchief, Bevolkingsregisters, no. 1269, 1895-1909, wijk A. See Barth 1989, p. 31. 71

TEACHER

57

Only a successful job application was likely to change the situation, and in all matters of this kind, Buitenrust Hettema remained his main agent. We see this in a letter written by Van Wijk to Buitenrust Hettema on January 18th, 1905, when he had been in Goes for a year: Perhaps you read that the post of librarian at the Groningen University Library is vacant. […] I would like to know two things: Is there any chance that anyone as young as myself (25 years old) would be appointed? Is the job one to be recommended? i.e. is there not too much administrative and other tedious work attached to it? What actually are the main responsibilities of such a librarianship? And if one did apply for this post in Groningen, would one have to go and visit the university governors there? You know so much more about such events than I do. I would like to hear from you sometime what you do know. I’m afraid I don’t know any Groningen professors, otherwise I would write to them. […] NB. Please don’t reply to these questions about the librarianship on a postcard.74

Van Wijk pushed his age forward a little, for at that time he was only a few months beyond his twenty fourth birthday, but in any case his interest in the Groningen job came to nothing. Roughly a year later, on May 7th, 1906, it seems that a feeling of hopelessness overwhelmed him: he must find something, for Goes really was now becoming too small. In an unusually unrestrained letter to Buitenrust Hettema, he analysed his situation in some detail: Dear Mijnheer Hettema, You can perhaps for the moment do little else than take this letter as notification, but given that I am thinking of the possibility that you can perhaps sometime put me on to some wonderful idea or other, I shall not leave it unwritten. The main thought that leads me to write to you is that I would so much like to leave Zeeland, but that I dare not give up my job without having anything else to replace it. The next school year, the third as well as the two lower classes will be split here, which will have the consequence for me that instead of 13 teaching hours I shall have 18 and – do not be shocked – 9 of them for history. I know in advance that I shall have to devote far more time to this History teaching than I would wish; when you think that in addition I have another 6 hours of private lessons, 2 for the Secondary level Dutch exams and 4 for Latin and Greek lessons that I once took upon myself and now find difficult to give up, then you can understand that it is not an agreeable prospect for me to remain here in September. There are other motives as well: for instance, my only intimate friend here is about to marry; another whom I think I could call a friend, even though he is 35 years older than me, died this last winter, viz. our director, an exceptionally nice [illegible] man. What this means for me is that the atmosphere in the school is even stuffier than before, and that you sometimes begin to think that you are actually working in an elementary school. So that however much Goes provides good and pleasant things for me, I would rather leave now, and above all I wish I had a job that allowed me time for my studies. Even if for the first year the salary was no more than, at a pinch, f 1200, I believe that this would be better than the alternative extreme of more work and better pay. Why do I write all this to you? Well, simply because at the time when I had just returned from Russia, I talked with you on several occasions about such things. And moreover, be74

Leeuwarden, Tresoar, correspondence of F. Buitenrust Hettema, no. 7435. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134.

58

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK cause I sit here so far away from any centre; you, who live in that world city, Zwolle, and visit every week that even greater world city of Utrecht, are more likely to hear rather sooner than I should there be an opening that is suitable for me. In any case, should you ever come across anything, or if you ever have a good idea, I would be grateful if you would let me know. The thought recently occurred to me that it might be a sensible idea to give up my job, not to undertake any major travel this summer, and with the ± f 1000 that I have saved, [illegible] perhaps to go and live in a large city and see if I can find lessons. Yet it seems to me that this is not such a good idea. I tried it once some time ago, in Amsterdam, and I found that such a plan did not so readily succeed however hard you tried. I could not hold out for long, and suppose you then had to start all over again applying for jobs in education, you would have given the inspectors [illegible] the idea that you would rather not be a teacher at all. So, I shall not persecute you any further with this question. I am sorry I didn’t meet you in Zwolle during the vacation. I don’t know when I shall next be there. Perhaps Ascension Day. Next Sunday I think I am going to have coffee with Uhlenbeck and later on the same day I am going to a wedding reception in Haarlem. With best wishes, to your wife too. Yours, N. van Wijk. I hope you will treat this letter as confidential, particularly my remarks about the HBS.75

For the time being, teaching positions offered Van Wijk the only real option of applying for a new job, and his correspondence with Buitenrust Hettema very soon came to concentrate mainly on this possibility.76 On June 12th, 1906, Van Wijk mentioned vacancies in Amersfoort and Schiedam. Schiedam ‘seems rather remote, but still, perhaps one could become a privaat-docent in Amsterdam’, he thought. ‘Anyway, Amersfoort would suit me better’.77 A few days later, in a letter of June 15th, there was mention of a job in Hilversum, with Van Wijk talking up the idea of a privaat-docentschap in Utrecht: Thank you for your postcard. I am pleased that you had the same thoughts about the Amsterdam job as myself. After I had sent you the letter, I found the longer it went on the less enthusiastic I was. What kind of job is it in Hilversum? At the HBS, surely? You seem to know more about it than I do. Could you let me know one of these days? Because I am still thinking about applying for that Schiedam job. And I must get down to it one of these days before the 24th. Is Hilversum Dutch and History? Or just Dutch? Do you think there might be a chance of reshaping the job more to suit oneself? (a nice question?) Have you perhaps spoken to Prof. Gallée over the possibility of a priv.-doc.-schap with travel expenses paid? We spoke about it in Zwolle.78

75

Ibid., no. 7443. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134. Buitenrust Hettema willingly took trouble over the careers of his protegees. This is evident from his correspondence with J.H. van den Bosch, his co-editor of Taal en Letteren, who had ended up in Zierikzee and wanted to leave. Buitenrust Hettema ordered him in telegraphic style from Zwolle: ‘Fine, apply to Amsterdam. But Utrecht is better. Amsterdam is a pot of gold! But look mainly to Utrecht, even if there is less money. If it comes to it, apply to Amsterdam. Let no chance slip. Better than in Boetia’. Quoted from De Vos 1942, p. 55. 77 Leeuwarden, Tresoar, correspondence of F. Buitenrust Hettema, no. 7430. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134. 78 Ibid., no. 7444. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134. 76

TEACHER

59

Meanwhile a conversation between Van Wijk and an inspector of education had turned out positively, so that on July 1, with the prospect of his trip to Bosnia before him, he was able to strike a much more optimistic note: ‘I actually did something about the job in Wageningen. If nothing comes of it there my job here will not be as disagreeable as I had thought. On his last visit, the inspector reorganized my teaching hours more or less as I had wanted. If I do get to Wageningen, I hope to be able to become a privaat-docent in Utrecht before too long’.79 The director of the HBS in Wageningen did make inquiries about him in Goes,80 but on his return from Bosnia there was little option awaiting Van Wijk apart from a return to the familiar Goes school routine. On the other hand, the need to escape from Goes seems to have become less urgent: at any rate, he no longer grasped at every opportunity to leave. J.A.N. Knuttel, the communist and co-editor in Leiden of the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal [Dictionary of the Dutch Language], remembered that shortly after his promotie in Leiden in July, 1906, he got a job there as an assistant after Van Wijk had let it be known that he was not interested in it. Van Wijk’s dealings with the Leiden professor of Dutch linguistics, Verdam, had fallen through ‘because the pay was so poor and the future of the Wdb. [the dictionary project] highly uncertain. There was also no pension’.81 The letters to Buitenrust Hettema – in so far as they have survived complete – are silent on the matter.

79

Ibid., no. 7432. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134. Middelburg, Zeeuws Archief, Archief 251.1, Rijksscholengemeenschap Goes, Register in- en uitgaande stukken, no. 40, 23.06.1906. 81 Knuttel 1989, p. 170. 80

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER III

DEPUTY LIBRARIAN

1. At the Koninklijke Bibliotheek It is clear from his articles and correspondence that Nicolaas van Wijk wanted to pursue a career in scholarship, whatever the cost. But in those days there were scarcely any vacancies in Dutch universities for which he could apply. One certainly did not apply for a professorial position: one was asked. And before one could inquire after a privaat-docentschap, a candidate had to have the right contacts; but at the same time, the university city where this function was to be held also had to be within reach – which for Van Wijk, in the remote Zeeland backwater of Goes, effectively excluded Utrecht or Leiden, let alone Amsterdam or Groningen. Of the rare job opportunities that did arise – apart from the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, a job that Van Wijk had not wanted – there were several scholarly libraries and archival institutions with posts for curators and academic assistants. This was a possibility that Van Wijk also bore in mind (one recalls his interest in the position of librarian in Groningen). When in 1906 Dr. T.J. de Boer, the deputy librarian and curator of manuscripts at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek [the Royal Library] in The Hague, was appointed to a professorship in Amsterdam, the chance of succeeding him fell to Van Wijk. His appointment, by a Royal Decree of November 26th, 1906, took effect from the 1st February 1907, ‘at an annual salary of two thousand guilders, which sum is the basis for his pension contributions to whomsoever’.1 On the 26th January, 1907, Van Wijk moved to The Hague, at that time a city of almost a quarter of a million inhabitants, taking up residence at Prinses Mariestraat 33.2 Van Wijk’s superior at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek was the librarian W.G.C. Bijvanck, whose name also appears on the list of proposers for Van Wijk’s membership of the Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde [the Society of Dutch Literature], which was also granted in 1907.3 In any case, Bijvanck must have already known Van Wijk by name for some time, since he had been an editor of De Gids who had published Van Wijk’s first article on ‘The Hamlets of Russian literature’ in 1904. It could be argued that, after Buitenrust Hettema, who surely influenced him as a student and later became his confidant, and Uhlenbeck, who took him under his wing during his Sanskrit studies and pointed him towards Rus1

Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Briefwisseling KB 1906-1907, no. 13388. See further Verslag over den toestand der Koninklijke Bibliotheek in het jaar 1906 (1907), p. v; Verslag over den toestand der Koninklijke Bibliotheek in het jaar 1907 (1908), p. iv. 2 Den Haag, Bevolkingsregister 1895-1913, Boekdeel 250, page 89. 3 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde te Leiden, inv. no. 310, Lijst der Candidaten voorgedragen voor het lidmaatschap van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde, vastgesteld in de Maandelijkse Vergadering van den 10den Mei 1907. A. Kluyver, J.S. Speijer and C.C. Uhlenbeck are found among the proposers.

62

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

sia, Bijvanck was the third person in Van Wijk’s life whom we might consider a father figure. This is apparent in the very warm tribute to Bijvanck that Van Wijk published in De Gids in 1926: I have only once in my life had the privilege of intimate acquaintance with such a scholar of the humanities who was so learned in so many ways [...]. He had a rare talent for reading; […] and how often did it happen that one of the many articles, which he was in the habit of reading from the daily delivery of new journals, would lead to a kind of impromptu tutorial, whenever one of his underlings chanced to come across him while he was still under the influence of this reading. And when out of politeness one would finally have to get up and leave, these conversations, that were at first conducted seated and then usually standing, would leave one’s mind full of suggestive ideas to be followed up with further reading and thinking. To this day I bless the fate that led me under the influence of Bijvanck’s multifaceted erudition, before I was asked to accept a professorial position that inevitably led to specialization, with all its attendant danger of one-sidedness.4

Bijvanck was a rather controversial figure, even during his time as a student at Leiden where the professors found him too pig-headed. As a teacher of geography, history and Dutch at the Leiden HBS and at the Leiden Gymnasium, he was well known for his total lack of pedantry or pedagogic concern: he let it be known quite openly that he was not bothered whether his pupils learned anything from him or not. He gave no homework or tests.5 After teaching for nineteen years, Bijvanck, with the assistance of an independent source of income, set off on a journey through France and Switzerland with his family and subsequently published a book about his meetings with French writers, Parijs 1891 (1892), which also appeared in French in the same year under the title Un Hollandais à Paris en 1891. In 1893, he became an editor of De Gids. To general surprise, if not astonishment, Bijvanck, who was now settled in The Hague, was in 1895 appointed ‘out of nowhere’ to the position of director of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, where he revealed himself to be a man of various initiatives. The reading room was kept open in the evenings and radically re-organized. During his time as librarian, Bijvanck missed no chance to raise his budget and managed to increase his staff from about ten to forty persons, while at the same time gaining for his assistants a rise in salary. Bijvanck was also an avid collector, adding many illuminated codices to the library’s collection during his administration. Nor was that all. He wanted to make the Koninklijke Bibliotheek no less than ‘a national temple of art, culture and the pursuit of scholarship, the focal point where tradition and the present could combine in a perfect radiant unity’.6 To this end he also took it upon himself to set up a museum within the library where its treasures could be exhibited. Another of his later initiatives was the production of various catalogues and indices by his scholarly staff – which he constantly expanded – and the documentation department, including the Repertorium op de Nederlandsche tijdschriften [Index of Dutch

4

Van Wijk 1926a, p. 250-251. See Drion 1927, p. 67. 6 Klein and Klein-Meijer 1998, p. 138. 5

DEPUTY LIBRARIAN

63

journals], a catalogue of the Goethe collection, and a catalogue of French linguistics and literature in the library’s possession.7 As a deputy librarian, Van Wijk was put in charge of the manuscript department, where his main responsibility was to describe Middle Dutch Books of Hours and establish their provenance.8 But he evidently also handled more recent material, as one sees from the library report for 1910 in which Bijvanck expresses the hope that, the following year, ‘through the good attentions of the deputy librarian and curator of manuscripts, Dr. N. van Wijk’,9 he would be able to provide a description of a collection of documents from the Boer War donated to the library. The description of this material, which the Koninklijke Bibliotheek used in order to portray itself as an archival store of documents relating to contemporary history, duly appeared under the umbrella title ‘Stukken – meerendeels brieven – betreffende den Zuid-Afrikaanschen oorlog (1899-1902), speciaal betrekking hebbende op de ondersteuning, aan de krijgsgevangen Boeren en hun betrekkingen verleend door toedoen van het Middelburgsch Dames-Comité voor de Boerenkrijgsgevangenen en de vrouwen en kinderen in de concentratiekampen’ [Documents – mostly letters – concerning the South African war (1899-1902), with special reference to the support given by the Middelburg Ladies’ Committee for the Boer Prisoners of War and the women and children in concentration camps]’.10 This description appears in the library report beside that of more classical material, such as a Book of Hours and a collection of students’ alba amicorum. But in any case, one assumes that the decisions regarding acquisition and purchases of manuscript material were almost entirely the responsibility of Bijvanck.11 It must also have been Bijvanck who encouraged Van Wijk to go beyond the mere description of the Books of Hours that landed on his table and to investigate them further. In 1940 Van Wijk wrote: When I was curator of manuscripts at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (now the Nationale Bibliotheek) in the years 1907-1913, my attention was drawn to a Book of Hours, numbered 133 E 21, which first of all caught my eye with a characteristic script and, on closer study, turned out to be written in a Saxon Middle Dutch and also to contain, apart from the liturgical text, the prologues of the offices of the Holy Virgin and of the Vigil as well as a number of glosses. Linguistically, this manuscript seemed to me to be very close to the original text of Geert Grote. […] During the period of 1909-1913 when I was engaged in this study of the Hours, it was my intention to bring out a critical edition of Geert Grote’s translations and I flattered myself that it might be possible to establish the original text with a rather high degree of accuracy; the then director of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Dr. W.G.C. Bijvanck, proposed that this should be the first number of a series of scholarly library publications.12 7

See De Mare 1926. Van Wijk’s manuscript writings are included in the Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae (Hagae Comitum 1922), in which, on p. iv his work on Books of Hours is specifically referred to. In the archives of the manuscript department of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek there are still two files of Van Wijk with his descriptions of Dutch manuscripts. 9 Verslag der Koninklijke Bibliotheek over 1910 (1911), p. vii. 10 Verslag der Koninklijke Bibliotheek over 1911 (1912), p. xxiii. 11 See Bijvanck’s remark: ‘Their purchase, like the purchase of books, was under my direction’, in Verslag der Koninklijke Bibliotheek over 1914 (1915), p. vii. 12 Van Wijk 1940, p. 5-7. 8

64

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

The exchange of letters with Professor Willem de Vreese in Ghent gives us a little more insight into Van Wijk’s activities in this area of Books of Hours. On the 18th June, 1910, he sent De Vreese a letter written on the notepaper of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek: ‘When I receive your list of Books of Hours with prologues, could you let me know whether by any chance you know the Latin texts from which the offices of the Holy Virgin were translated by G. Grote? I have been unable to find the corresponding text in either the Latin horarium according to the Utrecht usage or in any other Latin horarium’.13 Eighteen months later, on the 4th December, 1911, Van Wijk asked De Vreese whether he could visit him at home in Ghent to see his documentation on Middle Dutch manuscripts, adding, ‘I shall make no further demands on your time’.14 This visit evidently took place: in a letter of January 7th, 1912, Van Wijk wrote: To anyone who cares to listen, I wish to praise your kindness and no less the wealth and organization of your material. […] But to come to my request: I would very much appreciate it if you could return our ms. 133 E 21 (Book of Hours), which I hope shortly to compare with the Leipzig ms., a description of which I found among your material, and with a Hamburg ms. with which I became acquainted from your systematically arranged files on the last morning.15

The exchange of letters with De Vreese makes it very clear that Van Wijk found no difficulty in temporarily deserting his post in The Hague for research purposes. It was not for nothing that Bijvanck, his chief, saw the Koninklijke Bibliotheek as an independent centre of research, certainly in the field of books. This is also evident from the Koninklijke Bibliotheek’s involvement with De Boekzaal [The Bookroom], a monthly periodical for the world of books and libraries and, at the same time, the official voice of the Centrale Vereeniging voor Openbare Leeszalen en Bibliotheken [the Central Society for Public Reading Rooms and Libraries], edited by Dr. H.E. Greve, another assistant at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek. In 1912, a separate series of monographs was linked to this periodical. We learn more about this series from a letter written on the periodical’s notepaper by Van Wijk to De Vreese on the 1st March, 1912: In consultation with the publisher of De Boekzaal, Dr. Roos, dir. of the University Library in Groningen, Dr. Greve, curator at the Kon. Bibl. and I took upon ourselves the editorial responsibility for a series of monographs, related to the world of books and libraries (broadly conceived). A few days later, Dr. Bijvanck and Prof. Dr. S.G. de Vries of Leiden also joined this editorial board. The plan is to accept for this series monographs of 2 to 7 quires, and we hope that you will be one of the first contributors. […] Speaking for myself, I would prefer to see an article from you on the library of Frenswegen.16

Only one volume in this series, Monografieën voor boek- en bibliotheekwezen [Monographs for the world of books and libraries] ever appeared, issued by the Zwolle publisher J. Ploegsma in the form of appendices to De Boekzaal: the bibliography Nederlandsche musicalia 1911 by J.W. Enschedé. In fact, the series col13

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 2998. Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 14

DEPUTY LIBRARIAN

65

lapsed along with the disappearance in 1912 of the De Boekzaal. De Vreese had agreed to write an article on the Marienwald monastery in Frenswegen, which was associated with Geert Grote’s movement of modern devotion,17 but there was now no chance for it to appear in the projected series. However briefly, Van Wijk had been for the first time in his life part of an editorial team, and he had co-signed an open letter from the editors.18 Bijvanck’s influence cannot have been wholly absent from the scene. We know virtually nothing of Van Wijk’s life in The Hague. He moved again in 1907 to Fluwelen Burgwal 8, and again several years later to Pieter Bothstraat 19.19 Financially, his affairs had gone well: he enjoyed a regular rise in salary and by 1911 was earning f 2350.20 The only personal information we can glean from this period comes from an article on loan-words: that he had himself shaved each morning: ‘When, in the circle of the assistant barber who usually gives me my morning shave, the word dineren [to dine] has for a while now replaced eten [to eat], is this a case of word-borrowing from another sociolect’.21 There is not a single document for the period 1907-1913 in his Leiden archive and no more than three letters addressed to him, one of which is interesting because it has, rather exceptionally, a personal touch. This letter was written by Hermann Freise on January 8th, 1911, in Parchim, a small town near Schwerin in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, in Germany. Freise was a printer and publisher who had also published his own poems.22 In his letter he thanks Van Wijk for two letters, one of which had been written in Paris. It would seem that they knew each other from The Hague and that Van Wijk had looked up Freise in Parchim – which must have been the previous year, for there is a surviving portrait of a moustachioed Van Wijk drawn by Freise, signed in pencil and dated ‘Parchim 16.4.10’.23 Freise, in his letter, having declared that of all the new year’s letters he had received there was none that ‘sich so ausführlich und liebenswürdig mit mir beschäftigt’ as that from Van Wijk, then continues: ‘Indem ich diese Zeilen schreibe steigen mir die Tage unseres Bekanntwerdens im Haag in der Erinnerung auf, das Plauderstündchen bei meinem Scheiden, wo Sie mir eine Tasse so köstlichen Kafe spendierten; dann hier in Parchim Ihr lieber Besuch mit seinen herzlichen Momenten. Und die Holländer mögen dabei die Deutschen nicht einmal gern. – Aber es weht doch wohl so etwas von Seelenverwandtschaft zwischen uns, und das beglückt mich ungemein, weil ich Sie wirklich – ebenso wie Kurt – schätzen u. lieben gelernt habe’.24 17

Ibid., see a letter dated 13.04.1912 from Van Wijk to De Vreese. See Bijvanck, Greve, Roos, De Vries, and Van Wijk 1912. 19 Den Haag, Bevolkingsregister 1895-1913, Boekdeel 250, page 89. 20 Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Briefwisseling KB 1910-1911, no. 14142. 21 Van Wijk 1910, p. 285. 22 Van Wijk’s Bequest in de Leiden Universiteitsbibliotheek includes a volume of Hermann Freise: Unkraut. Ein Lieder-Büchlein (Stuttgart und Leipzig: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 2. vermehrte Auflage 1900; sign.: 2544 H 5). 23 Leiden, Academisch Historisch Museum, inv. no. 36275. 24 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 18

66

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Kurt Freise, a son of Hermann Freise, is known as a writer on Dutch painting. Van Wijk could well have got to know the young Freise at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek in 1908-1909, when the latter was in The Hague researching for his monograph on Pieter Lastman, which appeared in 1911.25 The bachelor Van Wijk in Parchim and Paris, his ‘kinship of spirit’ (Seelenverwandtschaft) with an older German man of letters and his son – these are the fragments from his time in The Hague that mainly serve to emphasize our lack of a broader view. Paris, Parchim, Ghent: he certainly had some freedom of movement. And at the same time, The Hague was considerably closer to Zwolle, where his parents lived, than was Goes. Not that his contacts in Zwolle were restricted to his parents: as far as his old teachers were concerned, as well as Buitenrust Hettema he maintained contact with the history teacher Cramer. In a letter of February 27th, 1907, to Willem de Vreese, he wrote: ‘De heer Cramer is doing well, I believe. When I stay with my parents in Zwolle I usually pay him a visit; so I spoke to him around Christmas’.26 Van Wijk was evidently also in contact with his old classmate Anton ten Doesschate, appearing on a photograph of the latter’s promotie dinner in 1907.27 But now that Van Wijk was no longer in Goes, his contacts with Buitenrust Hettema seem to have become less intense. In any case, there was no further need for correspondence concerning posts in secondary schools. Buitenrust Hettema did try to involve Van Wijk in a project to set up a new Germanists’ journal – Taal en Letteren was defunct since 1906 –, but on the 9th August, 1907, Van Wijk wrote that he had ‘absolutely no desire’ to participate in this project since, he felt, he was not suited for it: ‘I do not have the dexterity and speed for the practical editorial work, nor the appetite – and furthermore there are better Germanists to be found in our country’; in addition to which, he thought such a journal would be ‘an unnecessary luxury, and difficult to keep alive’.28 Around the same time, nothing came of a request by the publisher J.C. Tjeenk Willink for Van Wijk to write a history of Dutch literature.29 Buitenrust Hettema was still important for Van Wijk because of his contacts with Utrecht University, to which he was attached as a privaat-docent. The remark in a letter from Van Wijk of March 4th, 1908 – ‘If you hear of any-

25

Van Wijk’s Bequest in the Leiden Universiteitsbibliotheek includes a copy of Kurt Freise’s Pieter Lastman: sein Leben und seine Kunst (Leipzig: Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1911; sign. 1836 A 2), with a dedication from the author, dated Parchim, 15.08.1911, in which he calls Van Wijk a friend. In the foreword, Freise writes that he spent two and a half years in the Netherlands. That must have been from 1907-1909, for in a letter from Parchim dated 30.07.1909 to Carl Georg Frentzen he says that he had left The Hague on the 1st July 1909 (UB Leiden, SYT A 1909). 26 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 2998. 27 Leiden, Academisch Historisch Museum, inv. no. 41142. 28 Leeuwarden, Tresoar, correspondence of F. Buitenrust Hettema, no. 7446. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134. 29 See the letter from J.C. Tjeenk Willink dated 16.10.1906 to Van Wijk, in Zwolle, Historisch Centrum Overijssel, Gemeentearchief Zwolle, Archief van de NV Uitgeversmaatschappij W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink 1838-1968, BA 001, inv. no. 53, page 322.

DEPUTY LIBRARIAN

67

thing from U., I am always available’30 – could very well be a reference to the privaat-docentschap that he so desired. We learn of most of Van Wijk’s activities from his bibliography, from which it is clear that, whilst in The Hague, he continued to publish indefatigably in the main areas of his interest: Dutch language, Indo-European linguistics and Russian literature. Where Dutch was concerned, his papers relating to historicalcomparative linguistics continued to appear in the Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde. After 1907, he published his more ‘programmatically’ oriented pieces on general linguistic subjects, now that Buitenrust Hettema’s Taal en Letteren was out of circulation, in the new bimonthly journal De Nieuwe Taalgids, edited by J. Koopmans and Dr. C.G.N. de Vooys. Indogermanische Forschungen remained Van Wijk’s outlet for articles on comparative linguistics – and his link with the international world of scholarship. His reviews of linguistic works in various areas, but more especially on Slavic linguistics, continued to appear, as in his Goes period, in Museum. And meanwhile he carried on unstintingly with the compilation of his bibliography of Dutch language and literature for the Jahresbericht der germanischen philologie. Van Wijk’s work as a teacher also had its sequel when, in 1909, a second improved edition of his text book De Nederlandsche taal appeared under the imprint of Tjeenk Willink. He used the opportunity to add a chapter on derivation and to radically rewrite the chapter on phonetics, at least in part influenced by a review by Dr. E. Kruisinga.31 There were acknowledgements to Buitenrust Hettema with reference to the derivation chapter and to De Vooys, ‘from whose annotations to the original edition I have gratefully benefited’.32 Nor was this the end of the end of it: in 1913 there appeared yet a third edition incorporating further revisions and this time with personal thanks solely to ‘my friend Z. Stokvis, director of the HBS at Semarang, who sent me a long letter with critical notes that have stood me in very good stead’.33 Like Van Wijk, Stokvis had also been a pupil of Uhlenbeck who had undertaken a study trip to Russia. Meanwhile, the extent to which Van Wijk’s old school, the Zwolle Gymnasium, remained the centre of the language renewal movement, even after the demise of Taal en Letteren, is evident from the journal Vereenvoudiging [Simplification]. This was the organ of Kollewijn’s Vereniging tot vereenvoudiging van onze schrijftaal [Society for the simplification of our written language], and when in 1907, in an open letter, Van Wijk pledged his support for the journal while at the same time vaguely distancing himself from certain proposals of the society,34 beside the Chairman Kollewijn, Van Wijk’s old German teacher J.G. Talen was secretary of the management board and Buitenrust Hettema was a member of the editorial team. 30

Leeuwarden, Tresoar, correspondence of F. Buitenrust Hettema, no. 7448. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 134. 31 See Kruisinga 1908. 32 Van Wijk 19092, p. viii. 33 Van Wijk 19133. 34 See Van Wijk 1907b.

68

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

In an article in De Nieuwe Taalgids Van Wijk explains how much the ‘old’ spelling can obstruct a proper understanding of the parsing of sentences. Here, the former teacher of Dutch re-emerges, asserting once again that the language of the pupil is more important than the petty rules of the textbook: Just how much the predicative nouns with different verbs are felt to be a single class is evident from the so-called errors so often made in schools. When pupils are taught to distinguish between [the articles] de en den, one will often see that they not only write: Hij ziet den man, but also: Hij is den man. When the teacher has made them memorize the rules, they learn that this is incorrect and then of course he is justified in considering such den’s as errors, but on the other hand it cannot be denied that the pupil who commits such an error shows he has more feeling for the extent of the category ‘predicative nouns’ than the teacher himself, at least, if indeed he is really convinced of the correctness of the rule he has taught, according to which, on the one side, hij ziet den man, and on the other: Hij is de man is good Dutch.35

Van Wijk’s linguistic work during the years at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek is characterized by a fascination with sound laws, although in contradistinction to the period of his dissertation, he did emphasize the relative value of knowledge in this area: Even if we are able to explain a sound law, even though we have understood that one peculiarity of stress evokes another and how the sound laws are dependent of stress, this still does not give us an understanding of the deepest essence of the laws of accents and sounds. For this reason, we need a proper insight into the psychological relation of the individual toward his fellows and toward the society of his fellows, and as far as I know, we do not yet possess that insight.36

Van Wijk’s articles demonstrate a link between his earlier interest in sound laws and his more recent work as curator of manuscripts. In this latter function, as we have seen, he had to describe manuscripts and, in particular, Middle Dutch Books of Hours, which led him to compare manuscripts with an eye to dialect-specific characteristics that, beside paleographic data, could be important for establishing their provenance: ‘For some time I have been occupied with Middle Dutch Books of Hours, and time and again I am convinced that almost every copyist puts something of his own dialect into the text he is copying’.37 His activity was gradually shifting from the reconstruction of Indo-European toward Dutch historical dialectology and linguistic geography – at that time an uncharted territory. Having attempted in several articles in the Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde to look into the development of sounds and groups of sounds in the Dutch language area on the basis of dialect grammars published by other authors, in 1911 Van Wijk wrote in a programmatic article in De Nieuwe Taalgids: Is it then not shameful that we still know so little of the history and mutual relations of our dialects? I felt this sense of shame quite acutely when I studied Buck’s magisterial handbook of Greek dialectology.38 Buck’s method is the same as that which I myself and others apply

35

Van Wijk 1909a, p. 27-28. Van Wijk 1910, p. 286. 37 Van Wijk 1913b, p. 137. 38 Reference to Darling Buck, Introduction to the study of the Greek dialects (Boston: Ginn, 1910). 36

DEPUTY LIBRARIAN

69

in the study of the Dutch language: on the one hand he looks at the different linguistic phenomena, to what extent they occur in the different Greek dialects, while on the other hand he uses the data thus obtained to arrive at a characteristic of the different dialects.39

Van Wijk found that the lacunae he had observed in our knowledge of our dialects clearly showed that Dutch language studies needed first of all three things: monographs on as yet insufficiently known dialects; language maps that included the whole Dutch language area and studies of Middle Dutch dialects. His own contribution, as we saw earlier from the exchange of letters with Willem de Vreese, lay in the last of these domains: the study of the language of Books of Hours. However much Van Wijk was preoccupied with dialects, what he actually wrote on them was based on the existing dialect grammars, not on his own field work. This dependence on printed material certainly limited his possibilities for research. When he devotes an article to the lengthening of ǂ and ǎ in Eastern Dutch dialects, he also has to admit that: I have not investigated the dialect of Drente given that Bergsma’s small book, so important for word usage, is of no use for familiarizing oneself with the subtleties of the phonology, especially where one has to take into account different sounds that are acoustically very close and yet do not entirely coincide. But we do consider the Groningen dialect, especially the one spoken in Noordhorn, to whose vowels W. de Vries has devoted his dissertation.40

Van Wijk’s article ‘Over dialektgrenzen’ [On the boundaries between dialects] from 1912 includes a warning against excessive optimism over the possibility of scholars being able to delimit dialects with precision. On the basis of O. Behaghel’s maps of the German language area and of the Dutch language area by his old professor, Te Winkel, on which dialect boundaries are indicated by stippled lines or by the use of different colours, he asked himself whether, in fact, these indicated boundaries really existed: Indeed, we would go too far if we said there were no dialect boundaries, but if we stop to properly consider what a dialect boundary actually is, we come to the conclusion that in a coherent language area such as Dutch or German it is impossible to separate dialects from one another by drawing lines, and that at the very most that would only be possible with broad zones. […] However, when we now look at the geographical distribution of different linguistic phenomena […] over the Dutch language area, with many a new phenomenon that we investigate, we discover that it has other boundaries than those we were familiar with from other phenomena previously looked at. Time and again I had this experience when in recent years I looked into geo-linguistic problems on the basis of our monographs on dialect.41

Van Wijk was concerned to make it clear that each linguistic phenomenon – whether it be pronunciation, inflection, syntax or word use – has its own boundaries and that these boundaries do not coincide. One therefore has to be very careful whenever tempted to divide up a language area into smaller units: one can indicate the boundaries of linguistic singularities, but drawing the boundaries of a dialect is much less easy. Van Wijk, who had drawn inspiration for his article from Jacob 39

Van Wijk 1911, p. 83. Van Wijk 1912a, p. 305. 41 Van Wijk 1912b, p. 113-114. 40

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

70

Ramisch’s Studien zur niederrheinischen Dialektgeographie (1908) and from Mowa ludu polskiego (1911) by Kazimierz Nitsch, illustrates the difficulties of fixing the boundaries of dialects using an example from practice, as he imagined it, without having done any fieldwork himself: If we travel, starting for instance from Maastricht, via Belgian Limburg and the Kempen to a place in North Brabant, e.g. Breda, perhaps in every new village that we encounter we shall observe that we have crossed one or more linguistic frontiers: somewhere we shall come across a new word for the same concept, we shall enter the area of a new sound law, or hear an aberrant past tense: we can note all these things and in doing so we amass a vast body of notes, all relating to linguistic boundaries, but very rarely will the number of boundaries between two villages be sufficient, or any one of these boundaries be of sufficient importance to be able to assert: here is the dividing line between two dialects. This, however, is not to deny that we are clearly aware that, after a considerable distance, the language has deviated significantly from what we heard in Maastricht, and when we arrive in Breda we shall say, without hesitation: Noord-Brabants is very different from Zuid-Limburgs. But if asked how many dialect groups lie in between and where are the boundaries between them, we shall perhaps in a single case be able to give an answer to the second question, but with most boundaries we shall find it extremely difficult, and as to the first question we shall probably have no answer at all.42

In this article, Van Wijk points out the complexity of research on dialects whenever one also wishes to find a place in this research for frontiers of communications and for political boundaries. Active communications can lead to an equalizing of language differences: But communications are not solely or exclusively tied to politically affiliated regions; and in fact we see that the evenness of language development, dependent on communication, is not restricted to such regions. To remain for the while with our Dutch language area: how many sound laws have not operated in large, coherent areas of the Southern and Northern Netherlands, between which any political ties had for centuries been undone? […] In fact, the problems are even more complex when we consider that the various important linguistic changes have occurred in very different periods; and when we investigate, one by one, the linguistic phenomena that we have observed in the Dutch-Belgian area, we should not forget that there were completely different relations and areas of communication existing in those different periods. And, obviously, the boundary of a linguistic phenomenon need not necessarily coincide with a contemporary communications boundary, but may also find its explanation in earlier dialect differences.43

Van Wijk’s message was clear: whoever peruses a dialect map must be aware of what linguistic phenomena the map’s compiler has taken as the criteria of a particular dialect. And one should also be aware that different phenomena can maintain different boundaries even within a single area. Stippled lines and coloured thus can only approximately indicate the boundaries of linguistic phenomena. Van Wijk’s dialect studies were so extensive that anyone else could easily have regarded this as his main task. But in his case, this was merely a subsidiary activity beside the main work that was to dominate his entire period at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek and must have kept him almost constantly tied to his desk in his private time too – although the boundary between ‘work’ and ‘private’ under the lib42 43

Ibid., p. 119. Ibid., p. 122-124.

DEPUTY LIBRARIAN

71

erally-minded Bijvanck should not be too sharply drawn. This task was the writing of an etymological dictionary of Dutch. It must also have been this work that started him on his study of the sound system of Dutch dialects. 2. Etymology In 1907 – the year of his appointment to the Koninklijke Bibliotheek – Van Wijk received a request from Nijhoff, the publishing house in The Hague, to undertake a new edition of the Etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal originally published in 1892 by the German scholar Johannes Franck. Van Wijk was approached on the recommendation of the Leiden professor J. Verdam, whose Middelnederlandsch handwoordenboek [Middle Dutch dictionary] was also on Nijhoff’s list.44 The choice of Van Wijk for this task was rather surprising; for although his knowledge of Dutch historical linguistics and Indo-European was of course known from his publications, he had seldom concerned himself with matters of etymology as such. In a paper from February, 1941, Van Wijk commented on the principles he had followed in this etymological work: When 32 or 33 years ago I was asked by the publishers Nijhoff to produce a new edition of J. Franck’s etymological dictionary of our mother language, a request I accepted with little hesitation, I set myself the task of providing the Dutch public with a book that would also, as far as in my capacity lay, meet the standards of linguistic scholarship of that time. This aim already implied that I was thinking of a public which, to a certain extent, already had some expertise in the field of language: teachers, students, educational professionals and so on. I thought I could assume on the part of my readers some knowledge of the subject’s terminology and of the grouping of languages and dialects. However, that is not to say that I wanted to exclude a wider circle of interested minds. […] When I wrote the new edition of Franck, I was not under the influence of one or other semantic theory. Like any other writer on etymology, when judging the development of meaning I mainly consulted that healthy understanding which all homines sapientes have in common, scientists, scholars or laymen, just as etymologists generally proceed today. […] In my revision of Franck, I tried to indicate the degrees of probability of etymologies using such words as ‘probable’, ‘possible’, ‘unsure’ etc. Of course, there is a subjective element in all such assessments […].45

It is not for nothing that Van Wijk added the remark: ‘Etymology is a very nice branch of linguistics, particularly for the professional linguist’.46 This is a warning: only a linguist is really capable of estimating etymological data and analyses, but for him too etymology is always a tricky business because ultimately, in trying to reconstruct original forms that have not survived in any document, one cannot escape from the realm of the hypothetical. The ‘subjective element’ is rarely far away, a point which Van Wijk emphasized from the outset: It is very difficult to indicate accurately what an etymological relation actually is: even with words that no etymologist will hesitate to call related, it is very possible that the relationship is less simple than at first sight it may appear […]. The matter can be much more complicated than we can hope to demonstrate in any individual case since, from the very nature of 44

See Van Wijk 1912, p. xiv. Van Wijk 1941, p. 9-10. 46 Ibid., p. 10. 45

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

72

things, processes of hybridization and analogy from such an early period of Indo-Germanic can rarely be established by evidence.47

Any layman who wishes to advise on matters etymological must command a great deal of knowledge because, according to Van Wijk, otherwise one has to anticipate questions that are very difficult to answer: […] tell a schoolboy that Sanskrit, Greek, Dutch and so forth are mutually related: it is good that he should know this, but almost every example one looks for to illustrate this relationship requires so much explanation of ‘einzelsprachliche’ sound change that it is unlikely to make any impression. If the teacher has authority in the eyes of his pupils, they will accept his wisdom and possibly find it very pleasing, perhaps even passing it on to someone else, albeit it a modified and partially distorted version; but if the teacher’s authority fails to satisfy his pupils’ critical scepticism, either they will come with difficult questions that will embarrass even the smartest teacher, or they will regard all this explanation of words as mere hocus-pocus – like the schoolboys who claimed to be able to combine the Latin paucus and English few by a much shorter route than the teacher had taught them: paucus : pokus, hokus : pokus : few.48

The revision of Franck’s dictionary, which Van Wijk began in 1907, soon led to a spin-off in a series of short articles on individual word etymologies in the Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde, Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung, Indogermanische Forschungen and Vragen en mededeelingen op het gebied der geschiedenis, taal- en letterkunde [Questions and reports in the field of linguistics and literature], a weekly journal that in 1910 had only existed a few months. One can divine what literature Van Wijk found useful for his own activities from his reviews of etymological dictionaries by others that by tradition appeared in Museum. He must have felt inspired by Erich Berneker’s Slavisches etymologisches Wörterbuch that began appearing in instalments in 1908, when he himself was just beginning his task. Van Wijk did not conceal the impatience with which he awaited each new instalment: One wishes that the issue of further instalments could be hurried up; for the entire work is estimated at 25 instalments, and if publication proceeds at its current steady but slow rate, we shall have to wait five years for the final instalment. And Berneker’s work is too good and fills too essential a need to put the patience of the linguistic world to such a test. […] Every day I learn to appreciate Berneker’s work more. […] etymological scholarship is incapable in so many cases of going beyond vague hypotheses that make totally different impressions on the linguistic sensibilities of different individuals. It is a sign of audacity and pedantry when someone is immediately prepared to condemn a proposed etymology simply because it does not please him, and for this reason – more importantly – we should be grateful to the lexicographer who scrupulously reports the opinions that differ from his own. And that is what Berneker does, in such a way as to make one jealous, time and again referring to the relevant literature. No-one could ask for more than he gives us.49

The Slavic material must have sometimes provided Van Wijk with clues in this etymological work. As far as the other Germanic languages are concerned, he preferred to use the Norwegian and Danish etymological dictionaries of Hjalmar Falk 47

Van Wijk 1920c, col. 80-81. Van Wijk 1911a, p. 259-260. 49 Van Wijk 1910a, col. 427. 48

DEPUTY LIBRARIAN

73

and Alf Torp from the years 1903-1906: ‘Of all the etymological dictionaries of living languages that I am familiar with, I find that of Falk-Torp the best. No-one engaged with Germanic lexicography can afford not to use this book. […] What immediately strikes a Dutch reader is the rich and correct use made of our own vocabulary’.50 So according to Van Wijk, there was no etymological dictionary of this level for German. One gets the same message from his review of several instalments of the fifth edition of the Deutsches Wörterbuch of Fr.L.K. Weigand, edited by his old Leipzig acquaintance Hermann Hirt. This book is not in the first place an etymologicon, but it does contain a good deal of etymological material. Van Wijk credited this to Hirt, who, he regretted, ‘possessed no German etymological dictionary that can compare with the Danish-Norwegian of Falk-Torp when it comes to research on the prehistory of words’.51 This can only be taken to mean that Van Wijk was not too enchanted by Friedrich Kluge’s Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, which first appeared in 1883 and had since been several times reprinted. Van Wijk’s dictionary appeared in instalments between 1910 and 1912. In the foreword dated ‘August 1912’ that is included in the complete book published in 1912, Van Wijk thanks two persons by name: Prof. Franck, who with the greatest kindness put at my disposal his notebook, which was of immense help to me, and Prof. Verdam, who not only sent me the notes he had made whilst reading a number of articles, but who also, when I asked him, declared himself immediately ready to read through the proofs of the t, u, v, w, for which letters I was unable to consult his great Middelnederlandsch Handwoordenboek […].52

On completing the project, Van Wijk received a letter from Franck. In his reply of May 5th, 1912, in German, he discusses the differences between his edition and Franck’s original: Es kommt mir aber vor, dass der ganze Unterschied zwischen den beiden Auflagen für einen grossen Teil nicht aus den abweichenden Auffassungen der beiden Bearbeiter, sondern aus dem reichen Material, das einerseits die seit 1892 erschienene Fachliteratur (hauptsächlich die etymologischen Wörterbücher), anderseits die zahlreichen niederländischen Dialektwörterbücher und Dialektgrammatiker enthalten, zu erklären ist. Allerdings gestehe ich gerne, auch dort, wo mir kein neues Material zur Verfügung stand, ziemlich oft von Ihrer Ansicht abzuweichen. Leider aber ist die Etymologie ein Forschungsgebiet, wo verhältnismässig wenig feststehende Tatsachen zu konstatieren sind und im jeden Augenblick mehreren individuellen Auffassungen Raum gelassen wird. Ich habe mir viel Mühe gegeben, unparteiisch zu sein und auch solche Deutungen zu erwähnen, womit ich nicht einverstanden bin, aber selbstverständlich musste ich selber in jedem Einzelfall entscheiden, welcher Auffassung ich den Vorzug geben sollte. Natürlich werde ich in einem Vorwort ausdrücklich betonen, dass ich gerne die Verantwortlichkeit des ganzen Inhalts des Buches übernehme, anderseits aber werde ich mitteilen, dass der von Ihnen verfasste erste Druck meine Arbeit mehr gefördert hat als die sonstige von mir benutzte Literatur, und das wird die richtige Wahrheit sein.

50

Van Wijk, 1909b, col. 331-332. Van Wijk 1911c, col. 175. 52 Van Wijk 1912, p. xiv. 51

74

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK Dass ich den aussergermanischen Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen ein so grosses Interesse gewidmet habe, findet seinen Grund darin, dass Kluge diesen Unterteil der etymologischen Forschung kaum beachtet, während auch Hirt in Weigand5 in den einzelnen Artikeln auf diesen Gegenstand sehr kurz eingeht: es sind also die gotischen Etymologica, die bloss einen Teil des germ. Sprachschatzes behandeln, und Falk-Torp (und Torp’s Wortschatz der Germanischen Spracheinheit) die einzigen germ. Wörterbücher, wo die Resultate der Indogermanistik ausführlich mitgeteilt werden und es schien mir daher nicht überflüssig, den hierher gehörigen Problemen von teilweise anderen Gesichtspunkten aus noch einmal näher zu treten. Dass ich selber ziemlich skeptisch bin, dürfte das Publikum aus dem Umstand, dass ich so oft zwischen konkurrierenden Ansichten nicht entscheide oder sogar alle von mir erwähnte Meinungen für unwahrscheinlich erkläre, ersehen.53

Van Wijk, who had increased the size of the dictionary from Franck’s original 617 pages to 848 pages (not counting the indices), also mentioned how much he had earned from the work and how much time he had devoted to it: ‘Ich bekomme alles zusammen 750 Gulden, die erste Hälfte habe ich schon erhalten, die zweite folgt, wenn das ganze Buch erschienen ist. Die Arbeitsstunden sind mehr als 6000’.54 The facts speak for themselves: the honorarium paid by the publishers Nijhoff for the entire work was roughly one third of his annual salary as an deputy librarian at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, whilst for five years he must have devoted on average three hours a day to it. Eventually, Van Wijk received another 245 guilders at the end of 1912, a sum that Nijhoff had intended to pay into Franck’s account, but the latter, as he informed Van Wijk in a letter of December 2nd, 1912, had refused the offer: ‘Was mich angeht, ich nehme gerne das Geld an: die kolossale Arbeit, die in dem Buche steckt, könnte von keinem Verleger richtig bezahlt werden’.55 Although Van Wijk had praised Erich Berneker highly for the wide and thorough references to the literature in his Slavic etymological dictionary, he himself did not identify his sources. In this he followed Franck, but an important difference between the two books lay in the fact, as Van Wijk declared both in his foreword and in his letter to Franck, that the Indo-European part of the lemmas was enormously expanded in his edition. Here Van Wijk’s training betrays itself: in the end, his primary field of research was Indo-European. He was not so much concerned with an account of the genesis of individual Dutch words as with the reconstruction of their origin in connection with Germanic basic forms and IndoEuropean roots. Apart from going into greater depth in the Indo-European aspect, there are further differences with Franck’s book: the incorporation of Middle Dutch material, the inclusion of far more derivations and compounds, and much wider use of Old Frisian, Old Saxon and North Germanic material plus the addition of an index of German and Dutch words that are not treated as a main form. In his introduction, Van Wijk explains that he had compiled this second index, which made it possible ‘to trace almost instantaneously any Dutch word that might be sailing under another flag’, on the advice of Dr. F.A. Stoett.56 The many dialect 53

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, LTK 1890. Ibid. 55 Ibid. 56 Van Wijk 1912, p. x. 54

DEPUTY LIBRARIAN

75

forms one encounters in this index also show the abundant use that Van Wijk made of material from Dutch dialect dictionaries and grammars, such as the dictionary of Aalst, Tongeren and Leuven dialects published in the Leuvense Bijdragen. Van Wijk succeeds more than once in identifying, within dialects, words which were used in Middle Dutch but are no longer considered to belong to present-day general Dutch. Sometimes, Van Wijk also turns to dialect words to clarify a development of the meaning of a word that he has accepted, or for the etymology of the word itself.57 The end result is a virtually entirely new book that Van Wijk nonetheless allowed to continue under Franck’s name. The indices enhance the usefulness of the book enormously, as M. Schönfeld also stated in his review in the Indogermanische Forschungen. His assessment was highly positive, though he did express his regret that no sources were given.58 Another reviewer, R. Gauthiot in the Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, also discussed the book in distinctly positive terms, this time regretting less the absence of sources: ‘un livre clair et accessible pourvu d’un minimum d’appareil savant, un guide sûr et maniable’.59 In De Nieuwe Taalgids, Kluyver recommended the book for students, but feared that ‘out of the abundance of his knowledge’ Van Wijk ‘has given us much that could only be appreciated by an expert Indo-Germanist such as himself’.60 Uhlenbeck ventured a review in Museum. After mentioning Van Wijk’s Amsterdam study, and omitting any reference to his own role, he asserted that Van Wijk ‘had mainly taught himself to find his way in the barren wastelands of formal comparative linguistics’. Uhlenbeck awarded Van Wijk a place in the world of scholarship as ‘a gifted “Sprachvergleicher der Leipziger Schule”’ and judged that: He was not carried away by the Wörter und Sachen movement and he is a stranger to ethnological studies. Nor has the rising enthusiasm for linguistic psychology made much impression on him, and so far has certainly not trapped him within that charmed circle. An etymological dictionary from de heer Van Wijk will therefore, in the nature of things, or should one rather say, from the nature of his person, be a formal-linguistic comparative work.61

Uhlenbeck, who had been able to follow Van Wijk’s development from the beginning of his student years, referred here to a new trend in linguistics that had in 1909 founded the Heidelberg journal Wörter und Sachen as its mouthpiece, in which lexical material was treated in its cultural-historical context. Characterising Van Wijk as a ‘Sprachvergleicher der Leipziger Schule’ has an ironic edge; as if Uhlenbeck wanted to chaff Van Wijk for remaining locked into the habit of oldfashioned linguistics, with its sound laws, and had no wish to look further. The review is positive but it does contain an appeal to Van Wijk not to remain preoccupied solely with formal linguistics and not to leave his sources unreported: For the moment we are satisfied with the outstanding way in which he has sifted and ordered the vast amount of material, even though we expect more of the future. To that ‘more’ 57

See Van Haeringen 1962, p. 92-93. See Schönfeld 1913. 59 Gauthiot 1911, p. cix. 60 Kluyver 1913, p. 38. 61 Uhlenbeck 1911, col. 334. 58

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

76

belongs a deeper penetration into the older stages of mentality, an expanded vision that can take in ethnology and folklore. In that ‘more’ I also include reference to scholars who were the first to establish etymologies now generally recognized as certain. The only references we are now afforded are of no value at all.62

Uhlenbeck, who at the time had been one of the translators assisting Franck in the compilation of his original etymological dictionary, reviewed Van Wijk’s work on the basis of the instalments that appeared in 1910 and 1911. By then it was too late to introduce changes. 3. Slavic studies as relaxation Van Wijk had been at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek only six months when he was given a month’s leave by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.63 ‘Leave for Van Wijk, for the month of September,’ read the request from Librarian Bijvanck that preceded it.64 Consent to demands for leave was necessary from the highest level of the bureaucracy, but apparently the reasons for the request were not. In any case, Van Wijk could put into effect a plan that had come to nothing the previous year, in the Goes summer vacation of 1906: to undertake a second trip to Russia. This time too he mainly stayed in Moscow, but did make a journey of several days to the capital, St Petersburg. In a letter to Bijvanck he reports on his findings, especially the visits he made to libraries, apparently in his functional capacity: Moscow 28 Aug/10 Sept 1907 (Korowiy Wal, Maison Manayeff, chez Madame A.J. Tchitchagoff). Dear Heer Bijvanck, It may sound strange, but it is nonetheless true: I hardly have time here to write letters. This is due, firstly, to the fact that the distances are great and transport poor; I live far from the centre and if I go out it is always for several hours at a time; and secondly, because I am lodging with a family with many acquaintances and in these strange times that Russia is living through it is interesting to talk with as many people as possible. The changes that Russia has undergone in four years are immense. The external appearance of the city Moscow is much as it was, as is family life, but the ideas and opinions of the people are far more alarming than they were before. It does not seem as though serious troubles are immediately about to break out. The government is too powerful and the revolutionary party too little organized for that. But there would perhaps be less reason for concern if just once there was a strong uprising, and if there were sound, reliable people with a thorough knowledge and a great love of the Fatherland who put themselves at the head. But what is the situation now? The younger generation of ‘intellectuals’ is for the most part revolutionary, but – so to say – in an infantile manner. The young people acquire a certain precocity that has a very unfortunate effect. They hear all kinds of things at school – and in the family – much earlier than with us. You have to imagine that at a gymnasium in Moscow, 12 to 13 year-old children are required to read Tolstoy’s Childhood, Boyhood and Youth and then write an essay on the character of the main protagonist, the domestic environment he lives in, his life at university as described by T., etc. The result is that, when they 62

Ibid., col. 335. Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Briefwisseling KB 1906-1907, no. 13539. 64 Ibid., no. 13534. 63

DEPUTY LIBRARIAN

77

finish school, both boys and girls have the idea that they are capable of anything and have fathomed all the world’s wisdom; they discuss Schopenhauer with great seriousness, and worse, Marx and co. and are passionately revolutionary. The revolutionary party is for a large part constituted by them. The one thing of which these people have no knowledge is their own land, the spirit of their own people and those people’s needs. Many of them believe what they assert in all seriousness, but they view these matters more from a ‘generalhuman’ standpoint and are less inclined to ask themselves what is the way forward for Russia to achieve better conditions. When you stay here for a while, you almost forget the unsympathetic government, you are much more disturbed by the boorish and stupid quibbling of the opposition party. As a travelling companion said to me, a highly intelligent and interesting Petersburger: ‘The most important thing to say about Russia at the moment, is that il y a chez nous une espèce de chats qu’on appelle malþiški (= brats). When you arrive back home, that is what you should tell them in Holland.’ As for myself, I have done a great deal in the week that I have been in Russia, especially in St Petersburg, where I was for only four days. P. especially, with its palaces, museums and also its libraries, recalls the time of Catherine II, more even that that of Peter. Under the friendly guidance of a certain heer Byþkov I have had a good look at the ‘public library’, a vast institution that has an annual budget of 200,000 roubles. There is also a beautiful collection of West-European manuscripts, mostly from a bequest from the estate of Dubrovskij, a Russian envoy in France during the revolution. De heer Byþkov was affability itself, but he knew absolutely nothing about it and if I asked him anything he replied that he had never had anything to do with such mss. Otherwise, he gave the impression of doing very little, or nothing at all, apart from speaking with visitors in this friendly fashion. And I got exactly the same impression for other similar civil servants. My friend Prof. Poržezinskij tells me that this is the standard type. I still have much to do in Moscow, and hope at the end of the week to be able to go to a gymnasium to listen to lessons on Russian literature, history and other subjects. I have an introduction to the school head and my acquaintances tell me I shall certainly be given permission. But I shall have to wait till two days after tomorrow, since tomorrow and the next day are holidays when everything stops. I am also still hoping to go to a couple of libraries and to a few museums. I have already been to the gigantic museum of Russian paintings, by chance together with Golovin; I shall go again one of these days. There are some fine things to see, a great deal by Verešþagin, also by Repin, Makovskij etc.: this Tretyakov-gallery is much more interesting than a comparable museum of Russian art in Petersburg. There is nothing to see there better than the Rembrandts in the Hermitage, not even the Isaäcs Cathedral, even though it cost a million roubles. Before I forget, the director of the University Library in Petersburg, Kreisberg, I think, asked me whether could have the catalogues (printed) that exist from our library, and he would send those from his own library to The Hague. I promised him that I would pass his request on to you, adding that I thought you would find this an excellent idea and that you would be pleased to make the connection with him; I could of course not promise him more without exceeding my brief. On my return I shall tell you more when we meet than would be possible here in a letter of 50 pages. So I shall end now. With a courteous greeting to Madame Bijvanck, and with my best regards, I remain your obedient N. van Wijk.65

From a letter of March 4th, 1910, to De Vreese, who also entertained plans to visit Russia and had asked Van Wijk for advice, we know where Van Wijk was staying in St Petersburg: ‘Unfortunately, I am not well known in Petersburg. I stayed there 65

Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 133 M 105.

78

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

4 days in the Hotel de France, Bolšaja Morskaja, for 3.50 roubles a night (just for the room). But Dr. v.d. Meulen in Schiedam, who I believe got a much cheaper deal in P. than I did, can probably advise you of cheaper places’.66 As his letter to Bijvanck shows, while in Moscow Van Wijk lodged with a family. He warns De Vreese against cheap Moscow hotels like the Anglija and Gorodskaja, because these are ‘dismal, terribly gloomy [places], and the unkempt youths who serve there only understand Russian’.67 If help is needed, he refers De Vreese to his acquaintances, the linguist Poržezinskij, whom he had already mentioned in 1904 in his report to the Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging, and the historian R.P. Vipper.68 In 1908 Van Wijk published an extensive report, ‘Russische indrukken’ [Russian Impressions], in De Gids, revealing himself for the first time as a travel writer. His underlying theme is that Russia is a strange and singular country where one never ceases to be surprised: Everywhere in the world one meets strange, unpredictable characters, but if you compare the number of irrational actions and expressions from us ins Western Europe with those in Russia, the number is insignificantly small. […] One can confidently say – I have often heard it remarked – that Russian society can easily give the impression of being a “madhouse on a large scale”, more than is the case anywhere in Western Europe.69

Since his first visit in 1903, Van Wijk says, he sees that a great deal has changed in Russia: affection for the Emperor has disappeared, while censorship is much less strict than it was before the 1905 ‘revolution’. No other language, he says, has such a rich socialist literature as exists in Russian: ‘Marx is now extraordinarily popular. I would venture to say that in no other land is he read as widely as he is in Russia’.70 He also estimates the literacy of many Russians rather highly: It happened recently that I was in the company of a young woman of 20, who after half an hour casually dropped a remark about Schopenhauer into the conversation, and followed this up by telling me that she was busy reading through the whole of Dostoevsky – for the second time. Now such a meeting is possible among us, but such persons are so more numerous and so much more normal over there that involuntarily my first thought was: ‘real Russian’.71

Russia’s main problem, according to Van Wijk, is the enormous gulf that exists between the ‘intelligentsia’ and the great mass of the Russian people, the farmers. The intelligentsia deserve our sympathy, he says: ‘When one hears an intelligent Russian passionately defend his ideals for the future, one can sometimes be aroused to profound sympathy, both for the Russian people and for the man him66

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 2998. Ibid. 68 Van Wijk and Vipper met each other in The Hague, as witnessed by a copy of Vipper’s Lekcii po istorii Grecii (Moskva: Tipo-litografija T-va I.N. Kušnerev i Ko., 1909) with an undated dedication to Van Wijk, ‘na pamjat’ o Gaage’ [in memory of The Hague], to be found in the Leiden Universiteitsbibliotheek (sign. 339 C 36). 69 Van Wijk 1908a, p. 464. 70 Ibid., p. 482. 71 Ibid. 67

DEPUTY LIBRARIAN

79

self’.72 He portrays the farmer too with sympathy: ‘He is ignorant but shrewd, superstitious and at the same time deeply pious; today he will perhaps dismiss you or even rob you, and tomorrow, out of pure good-heartedness, he will risk everything he possesses for you’.73 Farmers and intelligentsia meanwhile simply do not know each other and live at cross-purposes: ‘And that is the single most serious fault in Russian society’.74 Tolstoy understood the farmers, Van Wijk says. The adept of the Taal en Letteren movement that emphasized the development of linguistic abilities already latent in pupils, and the ex-teacher, are fascinated by Tolstoy’s pedagogical activities: Several pedagogical essays, in which he gives an account of his own experience of rural education, are surely some of the best pieces he ever wrote. The talent that he found in village children is of such a nature that he can ask, in all seriousness: ‘Who should learn to write from whom, the country children from us or we from them?’ and that he could publish essays from 10 year-old pupils, unsurpassable for their correctness in construction and for fineness of feeling.75

Van Wijk adds a tragic note to his account of Tolstoy: he has frequently heard it said that he was not appreciated by his family. He believes he had proof of this during a meeting with Tolstoy’s wife, Sofia, although he does not tell us where and under what circumstances he met her: A brief meeting with the Countess Tolstoy immediately convinced me that the allegation is true. If I had not known who this woman was, I would certainly have been struck by her refinement, her knowledge, by that simplicity of natural distinction in which the Russian aristocracy are inferior to no-one in the world. But now that I had to try to imagine this woman of the world at the side of Leo Tolstoy, my first and only thought was: Unhappy land, where the greatest men they have are understood and valued thus.76

And what is Van Wijk’s final impression now that he has returned safely from Russia to the tame order of The Netherlands? Just as in his earlier article on the Russian national character, he believes there are direct comparisons to be drawn between the reality of Russian life and its literature. What Van Wijk observed in Russian society was much the same state of affairs as one finds in a Dostoevsky novel: anything could happen, with all the dangers that implies. It was hardly a reassuring picture of Russia that the twenty seven year-old deputy librarian from The Hague had to offer the Dutch public: In Dostoevsky’s novels we are repeatedly struck by a singular expression that the author introduces in various dénouements. He has been describing in thorough detail what is in the mind of the different characters, he follows their train of thought from minute to minute until finally these people, psychologically prepared for a terrible dénouement, are brought together, and then come these words: ‘And then there occurred something totally unexpected’. And that is how it is in the great Russian society. There are forces at work of the most di-

72

Ibid., p. 489. Ibid., p. 490. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid., p. 500. 76 Ibid., p. 500-501. 73

80

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK verse kinds: it is impossible to know how these forces interact with each other, either complementing or conflicting with each other; but they are there and working towards an unknown goal.77

In 1912, Bijvanck once again asked the Minister of Internal Affairs for four weeks’ leave for Van Wijk from the 2nd to 28th September,78 a request that was again granted,79 enabling him to make his third trip to Russia. In contrast to the journeys of 1903 and 1907, he wrote no report this time, nor do we know of any letters sent from Russia in 1912. In view of the fact that Van Wijk had asked for no further leave until 1912, at least as far as one can tell from the archives of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, one might well infer that he had not wanted to leave his desk for long on account of his etymological labours: first get the work out of the way. Now that the titanic work on the dictionary was over, this Russian journey proved to be a great release for Van Wijk, as a letter written to Franck on October 11th, 1912, shows: Ich bin mit dem 6. [Oktober] wieder hier, der Aufenthalt in Russland war in allen Hinsichten befriedigend, und ich habe eine grosse Menge Bücher mitgebracht, die es mir vorläufig unmöglich machen werden, aus der ‘russischen Stimmung’ herauszukommen. Sie werden begreifen, dass ich vorläufig wenig Lust habe, mich mit etymologischen Untersuchungen zu beschäftigen (die Lust dafür wird aber nach einiger Zeit gewiss zurückkehren), und das Studium der russischen Literatur, die ich persönlich höher schätze als alle übrigen Literaturen des 19. Jahrhunderts, ist nach meiner Ansicht ein vorzügliches Reagens der anstrengenden Arbeit der letzten Jahre.80

Two months later, the Russian mood had still not worn off, as witness another letter to Franck of December 2nd, 1912. Van Wijk, so long hyperactively engaged in other matters, seems now to have given himself over to his main interest: ‘Noch immer habe ich wenig Lust den etymologischen Problemen, die mich fünf Jahren lang beschäftigt haben, wieder näher zu treten; ich arbeite sehr wenig und hauptsächlich auf dem Gebiete der Slavistik und der russischen Literatur’.81 In a review from 1910 of the first number of the Polish Slavistic journal Rocznik sáawistyczny, Van Wijk declares that no Slavist can afford not to read it, but that the journal is also useful ‘for the kind of person, among whom I count myself who, although not a specialist, is both interested and fairly well informed in this especially interesting Slavic language family, both for pleasure and as a way of clarifying ideas on other languages […]’.82 Van Wijk casts himself here as the interested layman, although with Reinder van der Meulen and J.H. Kern he had meanwhile joined a committee that since 1910 had administered secondary level state-exams in Russian.83 The work on the etymological dictionary must have absorbed practically all his time – apart from 77

Ibid., p. 501. Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Briefwisseling KB 1912-1913, no. 14396. 79 Ibid., no. 14398. 80 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, LTK 1890. 81 Ibid. 82 Van Wijk 1910b, col. 338. 83 See Van den Baar 1985, p. 335. 78

DEPUTY LIBRARIAN

81

his normal work as the second in command at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek – and yet the Dutch public were also kept informed of various rather specialized Slavistic publications by his reviews in Museum, in which Van Wijk made it abundantly clear that he commanded more than a passing knowledge of the current literature on Slavic linguistics. The Czech Professor of Slavic studies, Wenzel Vondrák, got a merciless lambasting in a review of the second volume of his comparative Slavic grammar, Vergleichende slavische Grammatik: But we hear nothing of the fact that Uljanov has written a book on the ‘Aktionsarten’, or that in response to this Fortunatov published an extensive article; nor is there any evidence that V. has used these texts. At the time, I learned a great deal from these writings, and arrived at much clearer ideas than I had previously had, both as regards the Slavic ‘Aktionsarten’ in themselves and their relation to Baltic, but I am sorry to have to admit that V.’s Chapter gave me the impression of a complete and utter muddle.84

In his time in The Hague, Russian literature must have served Van Wijk as his relaxation reading, as it were. In his ‘etymological years’, he took the opportunity to write long articles in De Gids and Onze Eeuw on the Russian folk epic, on Gogol and Chekhov, as well as a single review and a commemorative article on the death of Tolstoy. But Van Wijk’s aims were never essayistic. He saw it as his primary task to give a report on Russian affairs, which virtually nobody else in The Netherlands at that time was capable of doing. In the end, what he sought to do was to awaken interest and, in the process, he never let go of his old conviction that Russian literature is a mirror of the actuality: What I had in mind in this essay will be achieved if it excites in the Dutch reader the desire to get to grips with the writer himself. Then, perhaps, it might contribute to a better understanding and appreciation of Gogol! And might not the Dutch reader then go on to feel that the wonderful world of Pavel Ivanovich Chichikov and his strange assortment of friends is none other than the Russia of Gogol’s time – and even of our own time […].85

Van Wijk loves to remind the reader repeatedly that he knows Russia from his own, first-hand experience: When I lived in Moscow, in the spring and summer of 1903, the most popular contemporary writer in educated circles was Maxim Gorky; and beside him a few others such as Leonid Andreyev were beginning to gain a certain renown, but Anton Chekhov was less the ‘man of the moment’. […] In the autumn of 1912 I was again in Moscow, and this time everyone was talking about Gorky, and yet with a certain coolness, a certain detachment, which is understandable as a reaction against an earlier, exaggerated enthusiasm but at the same time does not do justice to the excellent qualities of Gorky’s art. Chekhov – who died in 1904 – was spoken of as a figure from the past, with a piety and a respect that did me good; because I too admire Chekhov as an artist and I love him as an individual.86

When he writes about Russia, Russians and Russian literature, the pastor’s son Van Wijk barely can suppress a tendency toward sentimentality and woolly language laden with an excess of adjectives. Here he is writing about Chekhov:

84

Van Wijk 1908c, col. 423-424. Van Wijk 1911b, p. 443. 86 Van Wijk 1913c, p. 461-462. 85

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

82

And now that we can look back over his whole life, we are amazed that this man, who himself perhaps lived by a purely Christian morality but who also expected to see more benefit from culture and progress than from the religion of his people, could so profoundly and passionately empathize with a naive-pious simplicity of heart and extol this in such a sensitive and faithful-to-life novella as ‘On Christmas night’.87

The linguist Van Wijk, who expresses himself considerably more succinctly than this, and Van Wijk the man of letters – the professional and the amateur – seemed to maintain their separate existence.

87

Ibid., p. 482-483.

CHAPTER IV

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

1. Appointment The history of Slavic studies in The Netherlands begins in 1865 with the appointment of J.H.C. Kern as Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Leiden.1 Kern gave lecture courses in Russian over several years,2 inspiring his student C.C. Uhlenbeck to write the first Dutch dissertation on a Slavic topic: De verwantschapsbetrekkingen tusschen de Germaansche en Baltoslavische talen (1888) [The family relationship between Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages]. J.H. Kern, son of ‘the old Kern’ and himself known as ‘the young Kern’, went a step further. Initially, he spent two semesters studying in Tübingen, where he fell under the influence of the Germanic scholar, Eduard Sievers, the same whom Nicolaas van Wijk was later to meet in Leipzig.3 After his Leiden doctoraal examination in 1889, Kern trained in Leipzig with August Leskien and with Brugmann, just as Van Wijk would later. In 1899, Kern – one suspects not without the help of his father – was accepted in Leiden as a privaat-docent in Slavic languages. Much later, in 1934, Van Wijk commented on his public address De studie van de Slavische talen (1899) that: ‘reading this address, one gets the impression that it is the programme for a long period of academic and pedagogical work […]’.4 Kern’s appointment in Leiden had little consequence, however, because in 1901, having earned his living first by a brief teaching career in Bergen op Zoom and subsequently as the editor of Eastern and Central European affairs with the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant,5 he accepted a chair in English at the University of Groningen. Without doubt, the real inspiration of twentieth century Slavic studies in The Netherlands was C.C. Uhlenbeck. After his dissertation – which he himself later referred to as ‘extremely mediocre’6 – he published a report in 1891 of an archival investigation in Russia, in the course of which he summarized the state of knowledge of Russian in The Netherlands as follows: Up till now, in our country there has not been the least notice taken of the numerous works that have appeared in Russia and are of considerable consequence for the history of relations between Muscovy and the Republic. The reason for this astonishing fact is the circumstance that Russian is scarcely better known in The Netherlands than Tungusic or Jakut; it is simply

1

See Van den Baar 1985 for a general outline of the history of Dutch Slavic studies. See Caland 1918, p. 21. 3 See Kluyver 1934, p. 80. 4 Van Wijk 1934, p. 148. 5 See Kluyver 1934, p. 82. 6 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3505, letter from C.C. Uhlenbeck dated 01.10.1948 (stamped) to R. van der Meulen. 2

84

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK unknown in these parts that there exists an extensive literature in Russia in all branches of scholarship.7

We have already seen that in 1899 – when Van Wijk had only been studying in Amsterdam for a year – Uhlenbeck was appointed to a professorial Chair in Germanic languages in Leiden. In the tradition of J.H.C. Kern, he ventured into areas beyond his teaching responsibilities, such as the study of Basque and American Indian languages. Once J.H. Kern had left Leiden for Groningen in 1901, Uhlenbeck had free rein to give lecture courses on Russian himself and among his students we find Anna Croiset van der Kop, Reinder van der Meulen and Zadok Stokvis. Croiset van der Kop can rightly be called the first Slavist in The Netherlands. Having followed Uhlenbeck’s lectures in Russian in 1901 and 1902 she went on to specialize further in Berlin where, in 1907, after a period of study in Russia, she took her doctorate cum laude under Alexander Brückner with the dissertation Altrussische Übersetzungen aus dem Polnischen, I: De morte prologus. Van der Meulen reviewed this book positively in Museum.8 Subsequently, Croiset van der Kop spent many periods in Russia, where she gained access to the highest scholarly and academic circles.9 Van der Meulen had graduated in Dutch language and literature at Leiden in 1904. A grant from the Vollenhoven fund enabled him to study for two semesters in 1905 and 1906 at the University of Leipzig, where he had the good fortune to find Leskien, whose teaching was as crucial for the development of Dutch Slavic studies as the inspirational role of Uhlenbeck. He also attended the lectures of Brugmann and Sievers. Van der Meulen took his doctorate in 1907 in Leiden cum laude under Uhlenbeck with the dissertation Die Naturvergleiche in den Liedern und Totenklagen der Litauer, a topic suggested to him by Leskien. Van Wijk reviewed this book in Museum with reservations – the author could ‘certainly have been briefer’10 – but Van der Meulen’s subsequent book De Hollandsche Zee- en Scheepstermen in het Russisch (1909) [Dutch Marine and Seafaring Terms in Russian] drew a highly detailed and damning review from Croiset van der Kop that was published in Russia.11 In 1907, Van der Meulen had accepted a teaching post in Schiedam, having been told by Leskien that he had little chance of securing a library position in either Germany or Austria.12 ‘Schiedam is a backwater, but it could have been worse’, Uhlenbeck advised him in a letter of September 5th, 1907, since ‘if you found yourself, for instance, in Roermond or in Warffum, that would be no joke at all’.13 After a failed attempt to get a post as academic assistant at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek where he would have been a colleague of Van Wijk, in 1912 Van der 7

Uhlenbeck 1891, p. 2. See Van der Meulen 1908. 9 See Fajnsjtejn 2004. 10 Van Wijk 1908b, col. 62. 11 See Croiset van der Kop 1910. 12 See Schaeken and Mikhailov 1998, p. 224. 13 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3505. 8

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

85

Meulen was appointed to succeed A. Kluyver in Leiden as the editor of the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal: a position that Uhlenbeck had also once held (though with little satisfaction) but which Van Wijk himself had not wanted (perhaps even on Uhlenbeck’s advice) while he was teaching in Goes. In a letter of January 30th, 1912, Van Wijk congratulated Van der Meulen on his appointment, whilst at the same time expressing criticism of the Dictionary: ‘I have for some time been curious to see who would be appointed, because there were so few in contention. I hope and am confident that your work will be of a much higher standard than that of your predecessor! And that you will do all in your power to rehabilitate the Dictionary in the estimation of professional colleagues. Are you coming over sometime?’14 An academic career was not to Stokvis’ taste, but he too deserves credit for publishing the first Dutch language history of Russian literature, which was appreciatively reviewed by Van Wijk in De Gids.15 When one adds Van Wijk’s essays on Russian literature to the work of Croiset van der Kop, Van der Meulen and Stokvis, one can surely speak of the establishment of Slavic studies in The Netherlands, which has be attributed to the influence of Uhlenbeck. As long as Uhlenbeck thought he had something to give to Slavic studies there was little chance of an appointment in Leiden of a new privaat-docent or of establishing a chair in this field. Given the range of competence that only Uhlenbeck possessed, it was self-evident that his would be the deciding voice in the faculty if it came to filling any vacancy for Slavic languages that might arise. As far as Dutch candidates were concerned, the first names to come to mind would be Croiset van der Kop and Van der Meulen, since they had written their doctoral dissertations on Slavic and Baltic topics. Van Wijk’s knowledge of the Slavic field was known, but this had so far been expressed mainly in popularizing articles on Russian literature. Van Wijk had only incidentally written on Slavic linguistics in the course of published articles on Dutch or Indo-European linguistics. Ever since his appointment at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek and his work on Franck’s etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal he seemed to have been moving more in the direction of Dutch studies. In 1912, although we know nothing more about it, he must have almost been appointed to a chair in Dutch linguistics.16 Perhaps it was the Groningen chair, which in fact went to Kluyver in 1912, and it was the latter’s place as editor of the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal that was taken over by Van der Meulen in Leiden. The first time the question of a professorship in Slavic languages at Leiden was raised was at a meeting of the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy on the 16th February, 1910. The minutes read: ‘Under “Any other business” de heer Speijer raised

14

Ibid. See Van Wijk 1910c. 16 This would appear to be the case from a letter dated 02.05.1941 from F.B.J. Kuiper to B.D.H. von Arnim: ‘Van Wijk was also almost appointed as a professor in Dutch Linguistics around 1912’ (Graz, Institut für Slawistik, Nachlass B.D.H. von Arnim, inv. no. 115). 15

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

86

the matter of a professorship in Slavic languages’.17 After preliminary discussion, in which Uhlenbeck, among others, participated, it was decided to discuss the matter again at the following meeting. The following week, on Wednesday, the 23rd February, the Faculty duly met once more and we read in the minutes of this meeting: The Chairman raises the question of the professorship in Slavic languages and gives the floor to de heer Uhlenbeck, who argues cogently that founding such a Chair in our university is in the highest degree to be desired. This proposal meets with general assent, but there follows a discussion of details in which Messrs. Speijer, Verdam, Holwerda, Blok, Hartman, De Vries and Uhlenbeck take part. The result of this discussion is that the Faculty should urge the Governors to found a new Chair for ‘the Balto-Slavic languages in general, and Russian in particular’.18

Two days later, a letter with this proposal for the founding of a Chair was sent to the Governors. The complete text of this letter, addressed to ‘Groot Edelachtbare Heeren’ [Most Honourable Sirs] and signed by their ‘obliging servants’, the Faculty Chairman and classicist J.J. Hartman and Secretary and theologian G. Wildeboer, reads as follows: May we draw the attention of your College to the great desirability of establishing at the Leiden Hoogeschool a Chair for the study of ‘the Balto-Slavic languages in general and for Russian in particular’. The following observations (among others) argue for this desirability: 1.

2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

Knowledge and the historical study of the Balto-Slavic languages is wholly necessary for the judgement of a number of important questions in comparative and general linguistics. A knowledge of the Balto-Slavic languages is essential for those who want to study the history of the extension of the Teutonic realm to the east, both in antiquity and in more recent times. A knowledge of the Balto-Slavic languages is necessary for those who want to trace, step by step, the transfer of Asiatic stories to Western Europe during the Middle Ages. In view of the significant influence over the last hundred years that Russian writers have had on Western European literature, a knowledge of Russian is of great importance for the history of European literature of the nineteenth century. More generally, it could be said that in various fields our conceptual imagination has been changed by the influence of Russian ideas, representations and tendencies. A knowledge of Russian is essential for anyone who wishes to form an independent judgement of the political and economic problems relating to Eastern Europe and Asia. A knowledge of Russian is an excellent resource for anyone practising the history of our trade in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Yet we should hesitate to request the founding of such a Chair if this Chair could not be worthily occupied by a scholar of these parts and of excellent academic reputation. Since this is in fact the case, we believe it is in the interests of our University to act, by calling on your powerful support, knowing how seriously Your College seeks to take all steps possible that would advance the growth and fame of our Hoogeschool.19 17 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1856-1952, inv. no. 2, Notulen van faculteitsvergaderingen 1903-1920. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., Archief van het College van Curatoren van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden (1830) 1878-1953, inv. no. 2033, Stukken betreffende de totstandkoming van de begrotingen (1913).

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

87

It would appear from this last paragraph that the Faculty already had a candidate in mind for the Chair they sought. It seems unlikely that they could write in this fashion if – even though the minutes are silent on this point – one or more names had not already been mentioned within the Faculty. The Governors of Leiden University sent the letter on to the Ministry of Internal Affairs on 7th March, 1910.20 They also included a ‘Chair in Russian’ in the draft budget for the year 1911.21 As long as the Minister made no money available for the Chair, nothing was officially said about nominations, and at a certain point other faculty interests came to assume more immediate importance than the question of this Chair. That, at least, would seem the inference to be drawn from a letter from Secretary Wildeboer to the Governors on the 22nd May, 1911, concerning some development or other that is simply not mentioned in the minutes of faculty meetings: ‘In answer to your letter dated 20th May last I have the honour of informing you that, in the judgement of the Faculty, now that other matters of much greater urgency have arisen, a professorial Chair in Russian is not so urgently needed at the moment that she feels able to press for this again at present’.22 On October 10th, 1911, the politician Abraham Kuyper published an article in the daily paper De Standaard in which he proposed that Croiset van der Kop was the only logical candidate for the Leiden Chair, ‘emphatically recommended, as she was, by Russian scholars’.23 In this article, he also referred to ‘Dr. Marquart’s placement in Berlin’: perhaps it was the Faculty’s wish to appoint Joseph Marquart as professor in Middle-Asiatic languages that had held up the financing of a Chair in Slavic languages. Now that Marquart had been appointed to a Chair in Berlin, this new professorship would incur no extra financial burden on the national budget. On December 13th, 1911, Kuyper spoke on this issue in the Second Chamber of Parliament, urging the creation of the Chair. In reply, the Minister Th. Heemskerk said he wished to postpone the decision, since he was not convinced that a competent candidate was to be found. But were he to be found, he said, he would willingly move to establish the Chair.24 The question was again raised at the Leiden Faculty meeting of Tuesday, 23rd January, 1912. The record reads: De heer Uhlenbeck reports that he has it from good sources that the government would not be disinclined to create a Chair here in Balto-Slavic languages (see minutes of the meeting of 23rd February, 1910), should it be evident from the recommendation of the Governors and the Faculty that one or more suitable candidates to occupy this Chair are to be found here in this country. Further to which, the following were recommended by de heer Uhlenbeck: 1. Dr. N. van Wijk 2. Dr. R. van der Meulen Rz.

20

Ibid. Ibid., inv. no. 2031, Stukken betreffende de totstandkoming van de begrotingen (1911). 22 Ibid., inv. no. 2033, Stukken betreffende de totstandkoming van de begrotingen (1913). 23 Kuyper 1911. 24 See Van den Baar 1984, p. 20-22. 21

88

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK De heer Verdam having also subscribed to this recommendation, it was decided that the names of these gentlemen should be submitted by the faculty, in the same order, and that a letter dealing with the matter should be sent to the Governors.25

It is clear from this report that the decision more or less lay with Uhlenbeck, who although he had meanwhile immersed himself in the study of the language of the Blackfoot Indians of Montana, was also still the only one who could judge Slavic affairs from the inside. The support from Verdam should also not surprise us: after all, Van Wijk was then still busy compiling the second edition of Franck’s etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal, a gigantic task that he had begun on Verdam’s recommendation. The Faculty’s letter to the Governors, dated the 29th January, 1912, set out its recommendation as follows: In first place should be nominated Dr. N. van Wijk. He is a valuable person who indeed deserves the creation of a Chair. In his different writings he has given proof of a thoroughgoing knowledge of Slavic languages in general and of Russian in particular. He has repeatedly spent time in Russia, so that he is thoroughly familiar with the language of that country. He knows Russian literature through and through, as can be seen from a series of articles. He has also undertaken a journey to Bosnia in order to acquire a practical proficiency in Serbian. What particularly marks de heer Van Wijk as suitable for a Slavic Chair in our University, however, is that he is able to pursue a comparative study of Slavic in relation to other Indo-Germanic languages. Already in his dissertation, Van Wijk showed himself to be a qualified and original Indo-Germanist. He has since then also been active in the field of Germanic – particularly Dutch – studies, and has successfully applied his considerable and multifaceted knowledge to the subject with which he is presently engaged. In second place, Dr. R. van der Meulen Rzn. also deserves our recommendation. He does not possess the wide Indo-Germanist knowledge of Dr. van Wijk, and is therefore not so qualified to give a general lecture course in comparative Slavic linguistics. Nonetheless, we are convinced that, should he be nominated, he would soon work up this side of Slavic studies, given that he is lacking in neither method nor acumen. Dr. van der Meulen’s strength, however, lies in his extensive philological knowledge of Russian. He also has a practical command of the language and has also spent several periods in Russia. His main work is a historical and critical treatment of the influence of the Dutch on Russian marine terminology, a work published by the Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen [Royal Academy of Sciences]. Dr. van der Meulen has also a thorough knowledge of Lithuanian, which although it does not belong to the Slavic group of languages, is nevertheless closely connected. His philological and practical familiarity with Lithuanian is especially evident in his dissertation. He has since transcribed Lithuanian funeral songs from performances by native folksingers. Most certainly, Dr. van der Meulen would in every sense also be worthy of a Slavic Chair, but his studies do not have the universal character that so favourably distinguishes the work of Dr. van Wijk. For this reason, as far as the nomination of a Professor of Slavic studies is concerned, Dr. van der Meulen must in our view take second place to Dr. van Wijk.26

There is a crucial sentence in this piece, where it is said of Van Wijk that: ‘He is a valuable person who deserves the creation of a Chair’. It is a qualification that 25

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1856-1952, inv. no. 2, Notulen van faculteitsvergaderingen 1903-1920. 26 Ibid., inv. no. 5, Ingekomen stukken en concepten en minuten van uitgaande stukken 1912-1917.

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

89

immediately set any other candidate at an insurmountable disadvantage, and yet such an acknowledgement was necessary since the recommendation referred to no specific books or articles written by Van Wijk in his intended subject area. The articles on Russian literature were mentioned, but where the putative field of his teaching was concerned – the field of comparative Slavic linguistics – he had nothing special to show. Indeed, Van der Meulen’s competence was much more thoroughly discussed. However, this recommendation effectively decided the matter. For some years, there had also been in the background the candidature of Dr. Anna Croiset van der Kop. It is quite likely that her contacts with Dutch political circles, especially with Abraham Kuyper, had some influence on the establishment of the Chair, even though the Leiden Faculty itself may never have intended anyone other than Van Wijk to occupy it. Father Van Ginneken, a doctoral student of Uhlenbeck, who in 1913 was a teacher of Dutch at the Canisius College in Nijmegen, also speaks in this connection of ‘a professorial Chair newly established for him’.27 It is understandable that Croiset van der Kop should have seen herself as the only suitable candidate, given her Berlin doctorate in Slavic studies and her excellent contacts with Slavists abroad, especially in Russia. During that period she had published anonymously – without the year or place of its appearance – a brochure, Een leerstoel voor Slavische philologie [A Chair for Slavic Philology], that she circulated, advocating the establishment of such a Chair. The references that Croiset van der Kop brought with her did not exaggerate her claim. Although it was not allowed directly to apply for a function, getting third parties to write letters was of course entirely permissible. When the recommendation was made, a pro-Croiset van der Kop offensive got under way, but too late. The most thoroughly detailed letter received by the Leiden Faculty of Letters and Philosophy came from the Berlin Professor A. Brückner, Croiset van der Kop’s supervisor. In his letter of February 23rd, 1912, he extols her academic credentials, her attitude of mind and her dedication to her work, as demonstrated by her untiring search for material in remote regions of Russia: ‘solchem Fleisse, solcher Lust und Liebe zum Gegenstande bin ich während meiner 30jährigen Dozentur nicht wieder begegnet’.28 Perhaps because he suspected that Reinder van der Meulen was also a candidate for the Chair, he did not omit to mention how seriously Croiset van der Kop’s critical review had discredited Van der Meulen’s work on Dutch marine and seafaring terminology in Russian. In fact, Brückner had already published an article on Croiset van der Kop in Museum,29 and it may well be that he had done so in support of her claim to the Leiden Chair. An undated letter of support for Croiset van der Kop, composed in French, was also received by the Leiden Faculty from St Petersburg together with a bibliography of her publications to date. The letter was signed by the Petersburg Slavists, professors and academicians J. Baudouin de Courtenay, I.A. Byþkov, F.F. 27

Van Ginneken 1941, p. 195. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1856-1952, inv. no. 5, Ingekomen stukken en concepten en minuten van uitgaande stukken 1912-1917. 29 See Brückner 1911. 28

90

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Fortunatov, K.Ja. Grot, V.M. Istrin, P.A. Lavrov, V.M. Miller, S. Ptaszycki, A.A. Šachmatov and A.I. Sobolevskij. A more impressive list could scarcely be drawn up within Russia at the time. The Russians praise her knowledge of the Russian and Polish languages and assert that: ‘Pendant des séjours prolongés en Russie le Dr. A. Croiset van der Kop [a] eu l’occasion d’acquérir une connaissance minutieuse de notre peuple et de notre pays, qu’elle a traversé à plusieurs reprises dans l’interêt de la science’.30 In a separate letter to Uhlenbeck from Moscow, on 8/21 March, 1912, F.E. Korš – the same whom Van Wijk had met in 1902, according to his report to the Amsterdamse Universiteitsvereniging – added his weight to the Russian support for Croiset van der Kop; while in Königsberg A. Bezzenberger also took up her cause. On the basis of a meeting he had had with her at an archaeological conference in Novgorod in 1911 he felt it his duty, he wrote in his letter of 27th February, 1912, to inform Uhlenbeck that: ‘dass Fräulein Croiset van der Kop nach meinen persönlichen Wahrnehmungen das Russische praktisch und wissenschaftlich in aussergewöhnlich hohem Grade beherrscht, in den übrigen Slavischen Sprachen vorzüglich bewandert ist und sowohl in wissenschaftlicher, wie in persönlicher Hinsicht eine angesehene Stellung in Russland einnimmt’.31 Further written support for Croiset van der Kop came from the hand of Willem de Vreese in Ghent, who had had contact with Van Wijk in connection with the latter’s study of Middle Dutch Books of Hours. On the 7th February, 1912, he wrote to Uhlenbeck: I have heard that the prospect of obtaining a Chair for Slavic philology in Leiden is at the present time more favourable than several months ago, in view of the fact that Minister Heemskerk has asked the Faculty for a recommendation. This is the reason that I am now writing to remind you of my letter of Oct. 1910 and of your promise to put that letter before the Faculty ‘should it ever get that far’.32 Since my trip to Russia I have remained in contact with Mej. [Miss] Dr. Croiset v.d. Kop and I believe there is no-one in a better position than myself to form an idea of what trouble she has taken and still takes in pursuit of her work. She deserves that her candidature for the new Chair be considered very seriously by the Leiden Faculty. While others sit quietly in their rooms in the beloved Fatherland, Mej. Croiset treks here, there and everywhere, through distant parts of Russia, collecting material for her work. You should also know what that means over there to travel from one estate to another, a distance of several days’ journey from St Petersburg. Mej. Croiset must have a great love for her work, since the prospects have for years been nil.33

There is nothing to indicate that these letters played any role in the Leiden Faculty. Indeed, they only arrived when the decision had already been taken. Nor do any of 30

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1856-1952, inv. no. 5, Ingekomen stukken en concepten en minuten van uitgaande stukken 1912-1917. 31 Ibid. 32 Uhlenbeck writes in a letter dated 13.10.1910 to De Vreese: ‘many thanks for your letter, which – if the matter is raised for discussion – I shall put forward’. See in Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 2998. 33 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1856-1952, inv. no. 5, Ingekomen stukken en concepten en minuten van uitgaande stukken 1912-1917.

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

91

the minutes of faculty meetings show that they were ever raised for discussion. However, the Chair was once more called into question at the meeting of the 16th April, 1913, when it was reported that a letter had been received from the Governors asking the Faculty, in connection with the Chair ‘in Russian’, whether there was any reason to change their previously submitted recommendation. The minutes record that ‘there is no reason at all for the Faculty to make any change to its earlier recommendation’.34 The question could well have been the result of all the pleas entered for the candidature of Croiset van der Kop. The Leiden Governors referred the recommendation to the Minister of Internal Affairs, who did not immediately commit himself to a decision but instead sent a letter to the Governors on June 12th, 1913, seeking clarification over the candidature of Croiset van der Kop: With reference to the recommendation submitted in the aforementioned letter concerning the nomination of a professor in Balto-Slavic languages, the question occurred to me of why, in connection with the filling of this professorial Chair, has nothing been discussed of the valid claims that Mej. Dr. A. Croiset van der Kop can present. Her name was, after all, mentioned much earlier in relation to the occupation of this Chair in question. I should be grateful therefore if your College could enlighten on her claims to a possible nomination.35

On the 24th June, 1913, the Governors asked the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy for advice on this question, to which J. Verdam and J.C.G. Jonker replied the next day, on behalf of the Faculty, as follows: Although Mej. Dr. A. Croiset v.d. Kop has demonstrated through her publications that she has conducted a sound study of Russian and Polish philology, we nevertheless are of the opinion that for the Professorship in Balto-Slavic languages she cannot be considered eligible beside Dr. N. v. Wijk and Dr. R. v.d. Meulen. That professorship is after all not so much a professorship in Russian philology as in Balto-Slavic linguistics, even though the nominee must be thoroughly and practically familiar with Russian.36

Verdam and Jonker then briefly set out the reasons why Van Wijk and Van der Meulen fulfil these demands and then arrive at this judgement regarding Croiset van der Kop: As far as Mej. C. v.d. Kop is concerned, we have no guarantee at all that she is capable of giving lecture courses on the relation between Slavic and Baltic languages, or on those between Balto-Slavic as a whole and other groups of Indo-Germanic languages. And it is precisely such a teaching programme that we so especially need for our future Germanists. We therefore remain completely confident of our submitted recommendation, for we believe that in so doing we shall best promote the interests of our Faculty, which is and must remain the bearer of the torch of comparative linguistics, in order to shed light on the different languages.37

Just how strong a hand Uhlenbeck had in writing this letter is apparent from the minutes of the faculty meeting held on the 8th July, 1913. We read that because 34

Ibid., inv. no. 2, Notulen van faculteitsvergaderingen 1903-1920. Ibid., Archief van het College van Curatoren van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden (1830) 1878-1953, inv. no. 1859, Stukken betreffende de instelling van leerstoelen 1910-1928. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 35

92

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

‘time did not favour a summoning of a Faculty meeting’, Verdam ‘in consultation with de Heer Uhlenbeck’ gave the reply.38 Minister Heemskerk, informed of the point of view of the Faculty by the Leiden Governors, now had no other choice than to accept the Leiden nomination. The appointment awaited only the Royal Decree. One would like to know, of course, what Van Wijk’s involvement in this affair was, when and by whom he was informed of the course of events; but once again, the papers that Van Wijk bequeathed give no clue at all. We can assume that he was informed by the Leiden Faculty of the recommendation of the beginning of 1912, which would perhaps also explain why, in September, 1912, after finishing his monumental work on the etymological dictionary, he went to Russia. He wrote to Franck, as we saw, on the 2nd December, 1912, that he was mainly preoccupied with Slavic studies, which might also indicate that he was preparing himself for future professorial responsibilities. His bibliography of 1913 is the leanest from any year of his entire career. It would appear that he was allowing himself a pause after all the work on the dictionary, but perhaps he was also preparing himself for his new work. Van Wijk must have been aware of the actions taken by and on behalf of Croiset van der Kop. He possessed a copy of her anonymously published brochure, Een leerstoel voor de Slavische philologie, annotated ‘received 27th Oct. 1912 Weert’, the town of residence of his maternal grandparents.39 It is inconceivable that he would have been unaware of the connection between this brochure and the question of the nomination dragging on in Leiden at the time. And yet, at the same time, he could not have been entirely sure of his cause until the very end of the affair. One sees this in a letter he wrote to a Polish friend, Stanisáaw Kot, whom he had apparently taken into his confidence. On June 21st, 1913 – when the Leiden Faculty still had to respond to Heemskerk’s inquiry after Croiset van der Kop’s claims – he wrote to Kot on the headed notepaper of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek: Ich hätte mir vorgestellt wenn ich die Slavische Professur bekommen hätte nächsten Montag ins Polenland zu reisen, im umgekehrten Fall erst in September Urlaub zu nehmen und dann in Moskau zu verbringen. Nun dauert es leider schon mehr als einen Monat länger als zu erwarten war, und auch hat der Minister keinen Professor ernannt. Meine Chancen stehen, wie ich glaube, ziemlich gut, aber trotzdem ist die Sache noch ganz unsicher. Weil ich keine Lust habe den ganzen Sommer hier warten zu bleiben, habe ich mir vorgenommen, wenn der Status quo noch fortdauert oder wenn ich ernannt werde, nach einer Woche Den Haag zu verlassen, einige Tage bei meinen Eltern und bei Leipziger Freunden mich aufzuhalten und dann auf drei Wochen nach Krakau (auch den Tatra) zu gehen.40

On the 26th June, 1913, the librarian W.G.C. Bijvanck sent a one-line missive to the Ministry of Internal Affairs: ‘Leave of absence requested for Dr. N. van Wijk

38

Ibid., Archief van de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1856-1952, inv. no. 2, Notulen van faculteitsvergaderingen 1903-1920. 39 Ibid., sign. SL. 1356. 40 Kraków, Biblioteka JagielloĔska, Przyb 172/83.

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

93

for a period of four weeks, beginning 1st July’.41 The acting Secretary General Belinfante granted permission two days later, but in a note that also conveyed a certain officious irritation: ‘I should appreciate in the event of future such requests that they reach me somewhat earlier. I would also request that you inform me how much leave, as a rule, you grant to the various categories of civil servant and functionary’.42 On July 2nd, Bijvanck thanked his excellency ‘for the speed with which He has given His approval to the leave of absence for Dr. N. van Wijk, a leave of absence that I was unfortunately unable to request earlier on account of special circumstances. I am sure Your Excellency will pardon me if I do not enlarge upon these circumstances further’. It appears from this reply that the library functionaries were normally entitled to no more than one week’s leave annually, but that the librarian, ‘with an eye to good general relations’, found it desirable to grant ten days’ leave. The subordinate administrative staff got fourteen days, while: ‘For the higher administrative and academic civil servants, an annual leave of two to four weeks seems to me desirable, divided into instalments as necessary’.43 Van Wijk was thus granted – as in 1907 and 1912 when he was given leave to travel to Russia – a maximum number of days’ leave. It must have been well known at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which after all had the final say over the appointment of the state’s educational employees, that Van Wijk stood at the head of the list of recommendations for the new Chair in Balto-Slavic linguistic studies to be established at Leiden University. His actual appointment was confirmed by Royal Decree nr. 58 on July 25th, 1913.44 Van Wijk wrote a brief retrospective account of his trip to Cracow and the Tatra – the Austro-Hungarian region – in 1916, but these memories are inevitably coloured by the subsequent events of what was later referred to as the First World War: When in the summer of 1913 I first spent several weeks in Poland, I came to understand there the place taken by patriotic feelings in the heart of a people that lives in such difficult conditions. The basically patriotic tone of all thought and feeling is more overtly noticeable in daily life than in literature and art. Then, in 1913, it was clearly evident that a Polish socialist felt himself less international than would a Western European; among my acquaintances it took little effort to get them to speak of the great and the good from the past; indeed Cracow, where I was, lent itself perfectly to this, Cracow, where every street and every square speaks to us of the ancient civilization of a great people. I have seldom if ever heard chauvinistic rant from the mouth of a Pole. While nationalists elsewhere will sometimes try to convince you of the superiority of their nation above others, a Pole is satisfied if you merely acknowledge that his nation has no less right than others to pursue its own existence. […] What I found strange at the time was the way a future war was spoken of. The Balkan question, more real than ever at that time, caused many to regard a European war as highly probable. I was astonished to find sober, level-headed men actually greet this prospect with a certain delight. ‘Our country will be the first to be destroyed,’ one said to me in an intimate

41

Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Briefwisseling KB 1912-1913, no. 14580. Ibid., no. 14583. 43 Ibid., no. 14585. 44 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van het College van Curatoren van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden (1830) 1878-1953, inv. no. 1641, Stukken betreffende individuele hoogleraren 1910-1928. 42

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

94

conversation, ‘but perhaps as a result our national future will be better than it has been up till now’.45

Van Wijk may have heard the news of his appointment while in Poland. In any case, his parents would have known on the 2nd August, 1913, when the Provinciale Overijsselsche en Zwolsche Courant printed the news on its front page under the headline: ‘Prof. dr. Nico van Wijk’. The source of the information was no doubt the Nederlandsche Staatscourant which published the Royal Decrees. The Leiden Governors only informed Van Wijk by letter on August 9th.46 After his return from Poland and the confirmation of his appointment, Van Wijk immediately got down to work at his new job. In a letter written from The Hague on the 22nd August, 1913, to the Czech scholar Josef Zubatý, he confesses that he is someone for whom procuring books in his subject area is a priority of such importance that he is unwilling to pass it on to Leiden University Library: Ein Seminar oder Institut werde ich vorläufig nicht haben. Ein Holländer, der wie ich auch im Ausland studiert hat, findet oft seine eigenen holländischen Universitäten insofern rückständig, dass es hier überhaupt keine Seminare giebt. Bloss dem Germanisten Boer, der jetzt 13 Jahre in Amsterdam Professor ist und dort einen gewissen Einfluss hat, ist es in diesem Jahre gelungen ein altnord. Seminar zu gründen, aber in Leiden gibt es kein einziges, sogar nicht für niederländische Philologie. Weil auch die Bibliotheken für so specielle Fächer wie Slavistik über sehr wenig Geld verfügen, ist der Professor gewissermassen verpflichtet, den Studenten die Seminarbibliothek zu ersetzen. Das ist der Grund weshalb ich mich, sobald ich die Professur bekommen habe, an Sie gerichtet habe mit der Frage, wie man die þechischen Bücher am billigsten bekommen kann.47

As to Van Wijk’s personal reaction to his appointment, our only evidence in print is a comment from Van Ginneken, based on his own findings, that among friends Van Wijk admitted that he felt ‘over-estimated’ and thought he ‘still needed years of study before he could properly fulfil his new obligations’.48 2. The inaugural lecture Together with the announcement of his appointment as professor, Van Wijk received from the Governors a request to consult with the Rector Magnificus over the date for his inaugural lecture. He replied on August 15th, 1913, that he had duly consulted and proposed that his lecture be given on Wednesday the 8th October, adding: ‘I shall willingly observe the usual hour (2 o’clock in the afternoon) for inaugural lectures’.49 Exceptionally, the lecture was not given in the Grand Auditorium in the Academy Building on the Rapenburg. In a letter to his old teacher Te Winkel written on October 4th, 1913, his thirty third birthday, Van Wijk explains: ‘Since you are one of those whose presence at my inaugural lecture 45

Van Wijk 1916, p. 84-85. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van het College van Curatoren van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden (1830) 1878-1953, inv. no. 1641, Stukken betreffende individuele hoogleraren 1910-1928. 47 Praha, Archiv Akademie VČd þeské republiky, coll. Josef Zubatý, box 7, no. 603. 48 Van Ginneken 1941, p. 196. 49 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van het College van Curatoren van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden (1830) 1878-1953, inv. no. 1641, Stukken betreffende individuele hoogleraren 1910-1928. 46

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

95

I should most value, I want to inform you that this has been fixed for Wednesday 8 October 2 o’clock (not 2¼), and because of renovation of the Grand Auditorium, not there but instead in the Stadsgehoorzaal [Concert Hall] on Breestraat’.50 On the said Wednesday afternoon, at half past one, the ‘Vereenigde Vergadering van Curatoren en der Senaat’ [Joint Meeting of the Governors and Senate] was held at which Van Wijk took the oath of office. The record further reports that: ‘The Governors and Senate then proceeded to the great hall of the Stadsgehoorzaal where de heer van Wijk assumed his office with a lecture on “BaltoSlavic problems”’.51 Van Wijk’s title for this inaugural lecture, Balties-Slaviese problemen, refers emphatically to his teaching commitments. The lecture reads first and foremost as the credo of a comparative linguist in the Indo-European field who has been pitchforked into Balto-Slavic studies: ‘In-depth study of a language is impossible without a knowledge of other languages, of the methods of linguistic comparison and of the principles of general linguistics’.52 A knowledge of Baltic and Slavic, he argued, is essential for an understanding of the languages from other branches of Indo-European: ‘Because of their relatively young differentiation, and because it is moreover possible to get a reliable, approximate impression of the language in each unitary period, these two language groups provide extremely favourable conditions for studying similar problems of a general nature’.53 Van Wijk points his audience to the possibilities of drawing parallels between various phenomena in the Balto-Slavic languages and other Indo-European languages. As an example, he produces the sound laws of the North Veluwe and West Flemish dialects that should have parallels in Polish. Without wanting to go too deeply into the matter, he came to the conclusion that Polish data permit us to draw conclusions concerning an older stage of the Dutch language that would have been impossible to reach without the parallel. Van Wijk gives yet another example to demonstrate the significance of his new field for the study of the Dutch language, this time by drawing parallels between sound laws in South Limburg dialects and in Old Polish. It is not so strange that Van Wijk should have done this, since his field at the time carried with it no separate main subject in the university, but stood rather at the service of students of, mainly, Dutch language and literature. An important element of his lecture concerned an academic problem on which, around that time, a number of linguists had published articles, including the Paris linguist Antoine Meillet, the Polish scholar Jan Rozwadowski and the Latvian specialist in Baltic linguistics JƗnis EndzelƯns. The problem was the family relationship between Baltic and Slavic language families in the earliest period of their existence, long before the first writings in these languages. Van Wijk first reviewed the arguments on this question and then turned on Meillet, who had opposed the 50

Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 77 E 14. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Rector Magnificus en de Senaat 1875-1972, inv. no. 2, Notulen van vergaderingen van de Senaat. 52 Van Wijk 1913, p. 6. 53 Ibid., p. 8. 51

96

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

concept, mooted at the time, of a unified Balto-Slavic language after the break-up of the Indo-European ‘Spracheinheit’.54 Van Wijk was back here on his old stamping ground of the Indo-European question and above all of hypothetical engagement with it, though he does not fail to mention the fundamental uncertainty that besets this kind of hypothesizing: It is not feasible to determine with any accuracy how long the Balto-Slavic unitary period lasted, and it is just as difficult to delimit the boundaries within which this still homogeneous language was spoken. We possess too few data; in fact, we actually know very little even of where the Balts and the Slavs lived at the beginning of our own era – as Rozwadowski has rightly observed. Yes, it’s true we know that the Balts were then living at the south east corner of the Baltic Sea, and equally that the Slavs were located between the Carpathians, the Vistula and the Dnieper; but we can go no further than vague indications of their frontiers. And how much less do we know of the preceding era!55

The second problem Van Wijk touched on in this inaugural address was a chapter from the theory of the ‘Ausnahmslosigkeit der Lautgesetze’, i.e. the idea that sound changes take place according to fixed laws that leave no room for exceptions. We are once more in the intellectual world of the Junggrammatiker in which he was nurtured in Leipzig by Leskien and Brugmann. Van Wijk here looks into a phenomenon that he took to be self-evident for the Proto-Slavic language – that reconstructed original language from which the various different Slavic languages evolved – namely, the tendency to drop all closed syllables. He linked this with another phenomenon in Proto-Slavic: the development of all diphthongs to monophthongs. His conclusion is then that ‘in a Proto-Slavic syllable, a sound could only be followed by such a sound as is produced with a wider oral cavity or had greater sonority: that is, in linguistic terminology, the Proto-Slavic language only permitted syllables with a “steigende Sonoritätswelle”’.56 Van Wijk goes on to draw a comparison with French, in which there also exists a tendency to make all syllables open. He refers to a publication by Otto Jespersen, the Danish linguist, in which he linked this French phenomenon with the pronunciation of vowels. In French, a consonant follows only some time after the strongest pronunciation of the vowel and as a result the latter has an already weakened sound when the consonant begins. Van Wijk cannot really explain his observations, however, though he speaks of ‘striking parallelism’ between Proto-Slavic and Old French, ‘but in both languages the causal origins are shrouded in darkness’.57 In neither case will he entertain the idea of ‘language mixing’, certainly not for French: ‘Even if we thought it possible that the Celtic substratum of the population of central France could make its influence felt on the language a thousand years after its romanization, we should still reject this hypothesis because we are dealing with a Romance developmental tendency that is wholly foreign to the Celtic’.58 54

See Schenker 1995, p. 70 for a brief account of this discussion. Van Wijk 1913, p. 19. 56 Ibid., p. 23. 57 Ibid., p. 28. 58 Ibid., p. 27-28. 55

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

97

In passing, Van Wijk again pointed out to his audience the importance of Slavic languages for linguistic comparison. But actually, he went a bit further with his comparisons by raising a very general theoretical question, a question that can play a role in the consideration of various languages, viz. the question of what causes those forces to operate that can fundamentally change the sound system of a language in a particular time and in a particular language area where no language mixing could have taken place. Van Wijk closed his address with the usual expressions of gratitude, mentioning first of all Uhlenbeck, to whose presence in the Faculty he owed his professorship. He made it quite clear how much he felt himself to be Uhlenbeck’s pupil: From the very first day that I heard a Wulfila-lecture, I have worked under your influence. Not only that you took far more time and trouble over me than a pupil has the right to expect, I have felt your influence uninterruptedly throughout my career so far, even when I was studying in Leipzig under Brugmann, Leskien and Windisch, whose teaching I remember with gratitude next to yours.59

In the second place he thanked Verdam, whom he had mentioned rather ostentatiously at the beginning of his lecture as the author of a Middle Dutch dictionary ‘that perhaps has no equal anywhere’.60 Indeed, within the Faculty it had been this neerlandicus who had immediately backed Uhlenbeck’s choice of Van Wijk and whom Van Wijk had got to know years before through his work on Franck’s etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal and an interview for an editorial job with the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. Then came his Amsterdam teachers, Te Winkel, whose dialect studies he noted as a field that was also important to him, and Boer, his supervisor. Here he referred to the fact that when Boer arrived as professor in Amsterdam, in 1899, after Uhlenbeck’s departure, although a student he had already developed his intellectual orientation: ‘When you came to Amsterdam, you had to take me on me as I was, with a different line of study from your own, from which I could not be deflected. Nor did you ever wish to […]’.61 A special word was reserved for the Groningen Professor J.H. Kern, who, as we saw, had been for a brief spell a privaat-docent in Slavic languages in Leiden: None of my many friends from elsewhere who have come to Leiden for this occasion gratify me by their presence here quite so much as you do, Professor Kern, my predecessor as the teacher of Slavic studies in this University! You belong among those Dutch philologists with whom I share most common ground and therefore the most fruitful interaction. Your presence here gives me confidence that I shall have a great deal to gain from you and that we shall not lose touch with each other as Balto-Slavists.62

In his address to the male and female students Van Wijk lent a strong ethical tone to his readiness to support them. He also indicated that he planned to practise literary as well as linguistic studies:

59

Ibid., p. 29. Ibid., p. 6. 61 Ibid., p. 30. 62 Ibid. 60

98

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK The nature of the academic studies that I shall teach means that I shall only see a small fraction of you as pupils; but I shall be able to do all the more for you, which suits me very well: because I put the obligations that one owes to one’s fellows above one’s commitments even to scholarship. Of course, I shall have to be content for the time being to teach you the rudiments of several languages, but I have hopes that before not too long we can move up to more elevated topics. I very much hope to be able, sometime, to initiate some of you into the poetry of Mickiewicz, whose beauty is more every day a revelation to me, and through Pushkin and Gogol, Nekrasov and Dostoevsky to be able to suggest a love for the people that produced such writers.63

Van Wijk closed his address with very warm words for the Koninklijke Bibliotheek and for the Librarian Bijvanck in particular: I have been a witness of the way this institution has grown in size and stature, of how it has become steadily more useful in wider circles and of how it has already acquired a character entirely of its own. Your energy and your spirit of initiative, my most esteemed heer Bijvanck, are what have achieved this. But as well as that, you always found time to give whoever you associated with the benefit of your personality and of your enviable knowledge and insight. Now that I am about to leave the Library, I feel it a great loss that I shall meet you less often. Should I succeed, however, in remaining an enemy of narrow-mindedness, and especially in matters of scholarship, be assured that the credit rests largely with you!64

Bijvanck was not present at this inaugural address, but he wrote to him the following day, October 9th, one of the few letters to Van Wijk that have been preserved. Bijvanck thanks him for ‘the generous, not entirely deserved words of farewell at the end’ and regrets that he had not been able to enjoy to the full that advantage from his association with Van Wijk ‘that would not have eluded me had we had more frequent contact’.65 For the occasion of his inauguration, Van Wijk arranged a dinner at the restaurant Royal on the Kneuterdijk in The Hague. The only invited guest that I have been able to identify was his old teacher of Dutch, Buitenrust Hettema.66 The controversy surrounding Van Wijk’s appointment was not entirely dispelled by his address. In the October number of the journal Stemmen des Tijds [Voices of the Time], Dr. A. Brummelkamp published an article defending the candidacy of Croiset van der Kop, under the title ‘De Balto-Slavische leerstoel te Leiden’ [The Balto-Slavic Chair at Leiden]. In this article he also quotes a letter written to him by the disappointed Slavist, in which she claims that she was not considered for the Leiden Chair because of a conspiracy against her: ‘In Slavic studies’ writes Mej. Croiset van der Kop, ‘the Leiden faculty could produce no competition against me; that was why this Balto-Slavic title was thought up, something that is nowhere treated separately but is everywhere – in Berlin, Königsberg, Moscow and St Petersburg – handled by the teacher of comparative language studies. This was carefully kept a secret so that nobody could testify to how much Lithuanian I knew’.67 63

Ibid., p. 31. Ibid. 65 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 66 Leeuwarden, Tresoar, correspondence of F. Buitenrust Hettema, no. 7453. See Engels and Bijlstra 2000, p. 135. 67 Brummelkamp 1913, p. 1302. 64

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

99

In the student paper Minerva of October 17th, 1913, Brummelkamp was rebuked by the editor, Gerrit Kalff jr., who thought his piece less than honest, since on further consideration he thought he detected ‘the growl of jealousy – not that of Dr. B. himself, but of a woman who, after a busy, active life, preferred the easier life of the dais in Leiden, for whom Dr. B. whether deceiving or himself deceived, was merely a straw man’.68 Kalff called Brummelkamp unqualified to judge, also since he had not mentioned a word of Van Wijk’s literary essays in De Gids. All the same, the message to Van Wijk from the students was clear: he should interpret his task broadly: ‘We hope and trust that Prof. Van Wijk will not limit himself to the teaching of Balto-Slavic comparative linguists, which of course very few can make their subsidiary – let alone their main – study, but will rather be active for a larger audience and from a wider viewpoint. The subject would gain in popularity (in all senses). A good public address is better than a poor University lecture’.69 But the matter was not yet over. On November 9th, the weekly De Amsterdammer published a letter from Dr. K.E.W. Strootman of Utrecht, who referred to the ‘dubious honour’ for The Netherlands of continuing to attract international attention by the appointment of a professor of the Balto-Slavic languages: On inquiry, it turned out that among Slavist circles in Russia, Germany and Austria, the person preferred for the new Leiden Professorship was a compatriot, Mej. Dr. phil. Croiset van der Kop, currently resident in St Petersburg. She is highly regarded as the true interpreter of the Slavic spirit and through the work of many years in Russian libraries and archives has assembled an enormously rich body of material, but now sees the Chair, whose institution she sedulously and indefatigably urged upon our Government, taken by another. […] Involuntarily, the question that arises for the outsider is: ‘has there been some anti-feminist influence at work in this appointment’?70

Croiset van der Kop had herself organized all the support for her candidacy, both in The Netherlands and abroad. On the other hand, it is not plausible that so many big names from the world of Slavic philology would have openly supported her had she not made a good impression academically as well as personally. The attention that the appointment attracted also had a thoroughly professional aspect: some foreign scholars feared that with a Chair in ‘Balto-Slavic languages’, teaching at Leiden would become one-sidedly linguistic and comparative-linguistically biased whereas they would have preferred to see someone who would devote themselves to philology and literature. These objections were expressed by the grand old man of Slavic philology, the Croatian and Viennese Professor Vatroslav Jagiü, in a letter to Van Wijk of November 2nd, 1913. One can judge just how much he had supported the candidacy of Croiset van der Kop from a letter he wrote to her, quoted by Brummelkamp (in Dutch translation): ‘That you, with your ardent devotion to our cause, as Slavists, should have to be the victim of such errors and abuses, hurts us more than you can imagine. Whether this mistake can be redeemed in the short term, I cannot say. Certainly, it is possible. Because anyone who does comparative linguistic studies is no philologist, and the living discourse that Slavic studies 68

Kalff 1913-1914, p. 97. Ibid., p. 98. 70 Strootman 1913, p. 2. 69

100

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

include stands incomparably higher than a preoccupation with the dead carcass of the BaltoSlavic language family’.71

Evidently, Van Wijk had sent a contribution to the Archiv für Slavische Philologie shortly after his inaugural lecture, a journal edited by Jagiü, who informed Van Wijk that he would gladly accept it, and continued in all seriousness: Die Errichtung eines baltisch-slavischen Lehrstuhls bei Ihnen hat in unseren slavistischen Kreisen Widerspruch hervorgerufen, der selbstverständlich Ihre Person nicht tangiert. Sie werden diese Enttäuschung auch in dem nächsten Hefte des Archivs auf die Spur kommen. […] Vielleicht hat dieser Verstimmung einerseits der Titel des Lehrstuhls, anderseits der Inhalt Ihrer Antrittsvorlesung Nahrung gegeben. Man sagt, das sei Uhlenbeck No. 2, ein Sprachvergleicher und kein Slavischer Philolog, an dem es in Holland vor allem Not tut. Vielleicht ist diese Auffassung einseitig, das würde sich aber daraus erklären, dass man Ihre literaturgesch. Studien im Ausland nicht kennt. Zuletzt, um ganz offen und aufrichtig zu sein, hatte man namentlich in Russland für den Slavischen Lehrstuhl Hollands einen Kandidaten im Ansicht, der sich durch sehr intensives Studium Russlands und seiner Kulturgeschichte grosse Sympathien in den dortigen Fachkreisen erworben hat.72

Van Wijk replied to this letter on the 20th November, 1913. He defended that his Chair had been established for linguistics by referring to the nature of Slavic studies in The Netherlands. In 1913, Slavic languages were not yet a proper degree subject in The Netherlands. Van Wijk’s teaching was above all intended for students of Dutch language and literature who wanted to specialize in comparative linguistics: Dass die Richtung, die man hier eingeschlagen hat, vielen Slavisten missfällt, begreife ich sehr gut; auch bei uns wird sehr viel über die Sache geredet, sogar geschrieben, leider bisher bloss von wenig zu Urteilen befähigten Leuten. Ich glaube, dass auch im Auslande viele etwas anders urteilen würden, wenn Sie ebenso viel von der Vorgeschichte dieser Professur, von der Einrichtung unserer Universitäten und von der Studienrichtung, die unseren philologischen Studenten gewissermassen vorgeschrieben ist, wüssten wie wir in Holland. Ich selber kann Ihnen aber über diese Sachen keine Auskunft geben, denn obgleich ich eine bloss passive Rolle gespielt habe, fühle ich mich nicht im Stande über gewisse Personen, die aktiver aufgetreten sind, ein unparteiisches Urteil zu haben; deshalb schweige ich lieber über die Sache. Eins möchte ich aber konstatieren: man hat hier tatsächlich auf die sprachwissenschaftliche Seite Nachdruck gelegt; man hat das wohl getan, weil unsere Studenten durch Gesetz verpflichtet sind in dieser Richtung intensiv zu arbeiten, man erwartet aber, soviel ich weiss, von mir, dass ich nicht einseitig arbeiten und dozieren werde. Auch von der Seite von Studenten ist der Wunsch ausgesprochen worden, dass ich meine Kenntnisse der russischen Literatur und Kultur meinen Schülern zum Guten kommen lassen werde, und ich beabsichtige nach den Weihnachtsferien diesem Wunsche entgegenzukommen und auch ein Literatur-Kollege zu geben, wenn ich im engeren Kreise der Philologen Zuhörer dafür finde.73

Jagiü stressed that with all the fuss over the Leiden appointment, nothing had been said about Van Wijk’s academic abilities. He also gave notice in the letter that an article dealing with the whole question of the Leiden appointment, written by Alexander Brückner, would shortly appear in his journal. The Dutch reader was 71

Brummelkamp 1913, p. 1302. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 73 Zagreb, Nacionalna i Sveuþilišna knjižnica. See further Hamm 1960. 72

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

101

already familiar with the article since Brummelkamp had included an integral translation in his own article in Stemmen des Tijds. There, Brückner expresses such a reverential attitude toward Lithuanian culture that one can only be surprised that Jagiü had wanted to publish the article in this way. On the other hand, Brückner’s tone says everything about the vehemence of the emotions that the Leiden question had released: ‘Balto-Slavische Sprachen’: das weitere Publikum wird erstaunt fragen, was das ‘Balto’ zu bedeuten hat; es weiss ja von deutschen ‘Balten’, von Finnen und Schweden am baltischen Meere, aber es ahnt nicht, dass deutsche Wissenschaft ein ganzes Volk gerade nach dem benannte, womit dieses Volk nie etwas zu tun hatte. Gemeint sind nämlich darunter vor allem die Litauer, die – Holländer werden dies gar nicht verstehen – eine halbe Meile vor dem Meere angelangt, ihm für ewig den Rücken gekehrt haben; ein armes, kleines Volk, ohne Kultur, Literatur, ja ohne eigene Geschichte, dessen einziger Verdienst darin besteht, sich in seiner ärmlichen Isolierung eine altertümliche, dem Slavischen am nächsten stehende Sprache konserviert zu haben […]. Wir hofften, dass ein berufener erster Vertreter der Slavistik in Holland in erster Reihe Hollands Jugend mit slavischer Art und slavischem Geiste bekannt machen wird, dass es vor allem Russlands Kultur, Literatur, Geschichte, Landeskunde sein werden, die der wohl ausgerüstete Fachmann mit Liebe und Wärme den Zuhörern vorführen wird, als das wichtigste und interessanteste Problem des neuen Wissenszweiges. Paradigmen und Vokabeln einzuüben, lautregeln abzuklappern, dazu reicht auch schliesslich ein Lektor aus.74

Brückner writes that there was a candidate for the Chair: ‘dass es gerade eine Dame ist, macht Holland nur mehr Ehre’.75 Now that the University of Leiden had made its choice, Brückner called on other Dutch universities to establish a Chair in Slavic studies, so that Croiset van der Kop – who is nowhere actually mentioned by name – could have her turn: ‘Möge etwa Amsterdam die unverdiente Schmälerung, die der Slavistik durch den “Balto-Slavischen” Lehrstuhl widerfuhr, wett machen – die geeignete Persönlichkeit, die Slavische Philologie d.i. Geisteskunde, nicht Linguistik – blosse Sprachkunde – vertreten wird, ist vorhanden; mögen ihre Kräfte nicht ungenützt, möge ihre rückhaltlose Hingabe an diesem Studium nicht unbelohnt bleiben’.76 The Paris linguist Antoine Meillet reacted to Van Wijk’s appointment in a much more generous spirit than Brückner, in a piece in the Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, which was at the time an organ that devoted considerable attention to the Dutch language literature on linguistics. Although in his inaugural address Van Wijk had expressly taken issue with his views on the prehistory of the Baltic and Slavic languages, Meillet remarked on ‘une remarquable leçon d’ouverture’77 and praised Van Wijk for his ‘hautes qualités de linguiste’, for his breadth: ‘La largeur de sa curiosité et l’ampleur de ses connaissances donnent à sa leçon inaugurale un caractère tout particulier: il n’est pas banal de voir éclarer la phonétique du polonais par des faits parallèles qu’offrent les dialectes néerlandais, 74

Brückner 1914, p. 613. Ibid., p. 614. 76 Ibid. 77 Meillet 1914-1915, p. 112. 75

102

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

ou de voir ramener à un principe unique quelques grands groupes de faits de la phonétique slave […]’.78 All this commotion surrounding Van Wijk’s appointment also says something about the exceptional character of this Chair in the context of the Dutch nationaland the Leiden attitudes of the day. Just how unusual, how far from self-evident the establishment of the Chair was, also becomes apparent from an address given by Rector Magnificus Jelgersma on the occasion of his handing over the rector’s title to J.M. Janse on the 21st September, 1914, when he briefly paused to comment on Van Wijk’s inaugural address, one of only four such addresses that had taken place during his period as rector: Dr. N. van Wijk, who was appointed Professor of Balto-Slavic languages during the last rectoral term of office, held his inaugural address on the 10th [in fact, it was the 8th] of October, 1913. With it, a new research subject was introduced into our university. It occasionally surprises the layman in literary scholarship, such as I am myself, that many languages, languages spoken in our vicinity, languages in general of civilized Europe, are not represented by a professor in our university, whereas languages that are rarely spoken are represented. In a certain sense, academic scholarship is identical with rarity, but in the sense that I speak of scholarship here, one cannot claim that the pursuit of rarely spoken languages is much more scholarly than that of languages that are widely spoken. However, none of this alters the fact that we are sincerely pleased that we have been given the opportunity to pursue the BaltoSlavic languages here and we extend to our learned practitioner of these subjects a hearty welcome to our circle.79

Van Wijk had thus in a very short time attracted enormous attention to himself. The relative calm of his work circle at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek was, per October 1st, 1913, well and truly over. The annual report of the Koninklijke Bibliotheek for 1913 speaks of the departure of its curator and deputy librarian in terms that are exceptionally warm and expansive for such an august institution: As the curator of manuscripts at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek since the 1st February, 1907, he has earned for himself during this time great credit, not only by the way he has led the department entrusted to him but also through the searching study of the rich collection of liturgical books and devotional texts that have built up in our library over the last few years. His departure, and with him the loss of his sound, extensive knowledge and his engaging personality, leaves a void in the Library.80

The report goes on to say that so far, i.e. by the end of 1913, his successor had not yet been decided, but the Librarian, Bijvanck, the author of this report, must have had his ideas about how he could fill the void: he had succeeded in getting his son, Dr. A.W. Bijvanck, appointed as academic assistant first class from the 1st July, 1913,81 and in the following year he promoted his son to succeed Van Wijk as curator of manuscripts.82

78

Ibid. Jelgersma 1914, p. 46. 80 Verslag der Koninklijke Bibliotheek over 1913 (1914), p. v. 81 Ibid., p. iv-v. 82 Verslag der Koninklijke Bibliotheek over 1914 (1915), p. iv. 79

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

103

3. Travelling through the Slavic world Van Wijk moved out of P. Bothstraat, in The Hague on the 23rd December, 1913, to Leiden, at that time a city of nearly 60,000 inhabitants. His new residence, at Nieuwstraat 36, was a large house in the central area of the city, more or less in the shadow of the Hooglandse Kerk.83 Here he rented rooms from C.M. Steffelaar, a partner in the distillery, liqueur distillery and wine business Steffelaar, who himself lived in the adjoining house, ‘Onder de boompjes’ [Under the Trees].84 Van Wijk also acquired a private telephone, with the local number 1037.85 Another tenant at this address was the furniture manufacturer J.F. Raar.86 In fact, the street, which ran between the Burgsteeg and the Hooigracht, had more the air of a commercial trading quarter than a suitable address for a professorial academic, whom one might have expected rather to find on the Witte Singel, the Rijnsburgerweg, the Plantsoen or the Zoeterwoudse Singel. In the Nieuwstraat, beside Steffelaar’s liqueur trade, there were various warehouses and storage facilities, a pastry bakery, an agency of the Tramway Company and a printing works.87 Some time before the end of his first academic year as professor, a year in which he had given courses in Russian, Polish, Lithuanian and Russian history and literature,88 Van Wijk prepared himself for a major undertaking: a journey through the entire Slavic world. His aim was to get to know his colleagues abroad and to acquire books for Leiden University Library. Uhlenbeck had already written in 1891 that there was such a serious lack of important books in our libraries that the study of Russian and of Russian history in The Netherlands was, ‘without exaggeration, impossible’.89 Van Wijk’s letter to Jagiü of November 20th, 1913, strikes a scarcely more positive note: Nachdem ich in der vorigen Woche auf der Leidener Bibliothek die Katalogzettel der Abteilung ‘Slawistik’ durchgesehen habe, begreife ich erst recht, wie arm wir auf diesem Gebiete sind. Das einzige grosse (allerdings sehr wichtige), was da ist, ist ein vollständiges Exemplar Ihres Archivs. Vorläufig hat die Bibliothek kein oder jedenfalls sehr wenig Geld für diese Abteilung, eine Seminarbibliothek haben wir nicht, sodass ich hauptsächlich auf mich selber angewiesen bin.90

A few months later, Van Wijk was again complaining about the lack of literature in a letter of January 21st, 1914, to the Czech Professor J. Zubatý: ‘Jeden Tag fühle ich mehr, wie schwierig es ist hier in Holland die slavist. Literatur unter die Augen zu bekommen’.91 In short, he was driven abroad by a sense of necessity. Subsequently, in 1915, Van Wijk published a detailed report of his journey, acknowledging the financial assistance of the Minister of Internal Affairs and the 83

Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden, Bevolkingsregister 1890-1923, Boek 22, page 8151. Ibid., p. 497-497. 85 IJdo’s adresboek voor Leiden 11 (1914-1915), p. 557. 86 Ibid., p. 445. 87 Ibid., p. 640-641. 88 See Jaarboek der Rijks-Universiteit te Leiden 1913-1914 (1914), p. 33. 89 Uhlenbeck 1891, p. 2. 90 Zagreb, Nacionalna i Sveuþilišna knjižnica. 91 Praha, Archiv Akademie VČd þeské republiky, coll. Josef Zubatý, box 7, no. 603. 84

104

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Committee for the Administration of the Leiden University Fund.92 As well as this report, we have another source of information regarding Van Wijk’s trip: the letters he wrote back to the Leiden University Librarian, Prof. S.G. de Vries. Before he set out, Van Wijk acquired a passport (a large dossier, with no photograph) issued by the Queens’ Commissioner in the province of Zuid-Holland. This French-language document, dated the 3rd of April, 1914, tells us the colour of Van Wijk’s hair and eyebrows – ‘blond foncé’– that his eyes were grey, his nose ‘oridinair’, that he was clean-shaven and stood 5 feet 10½ inches in height.93 Leipzig was his first stop. During his stay there from the 26th to the 28th April, he looked up his old teachers K. Brugmann, A. Leskien and E. Windisch. He also saw Professor E. Sievers, ‘with whom’, as Van Wijk informs us in his report, ‘I have had lively contact over recent years, since I began to get involved with rhythmic-melodic research, a field that he was the first among philologists to open up’.94 On the 29th April, Van Wijk wrote from Prague to De Vries: ‘In Leipzig I had three hours of body postural training with Sievers’.95 But in the context of the main purpose of his journey the visit to Leskien was the most important. Van Wijk in fact reports that he has Leskien to thank for several of the contacts that he subsequently established; we recall that in 1903 in Moscow he was also enormously helped by the references that Leskien had given him. In Leipzig Van Wijk also visited the Bulgarian and Romanian ‘seminars’ founded by Gustav Weigand and located at his home in Querstrasse 5: in practice these were private institutions, financed by the Bulgarian and Romanian governments, ‘evidently convinced of the usefulness to a small nation of establishing outposts in one of the academic and cultural centres of Europe’.96 The real work, the search for books, began in Prague – ‘for a philologist [....] a great pleasure’ – where Van Wijk enjoyed his stay from April 29th until May 2nd: not least, he said, because his colleagues at the Czech University in this city had made Prague ‘one of the foremost centres of philology in the world’.97 Nor was his time with these colleagues of merely scholarly interest, it was also in every way highly sociable: ‘The communal mealtime with several of these great men was one of the best moments of my entire journey’.98 He mentions the name of Zubatý, with whom, as we have seen, he had already corresponded before his inaugural lecture about the purchase of Czech books. Zubatý gave him introductions to further individuals and institutions. He was taken in hand by Dr. O. Hujer, one of Zubatý’s pupils and one of the editors of the journal Listy filologické. Hujer, who together with Zubatý gave him advice on subject literature and booksellers, be-

92

Van Wijk 1915, p. vii. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. 94 Van Wijk 1915, p. 1. 95 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Bibliotheekarchief, H.12-II, no. 1307. 96 Van Wijk 1915, p. 2. 97 Ibid. 98 Ibid. 93

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

105

came Van Wijk’s ‘faithful companion at mealtimes, on walks and on museum visits’.99 Van Wijk visited the Museum Regni Bohemiae, the Ethnographic Museum, Professor Josef Janko of the journal ýasopis pro moderní filologii a literaturu, as well as Dr. Jos. Vajs, an authority on glagolitic texts. He also met the Slavist Reinhold Trautmann at the German University of Prague: ‘the most enjoyable and instructive conversation with this young man, already known to me through earlier correspondence, remains one of my most pleasant memories’.100 The extent to which the Czech- and German-language academic worlds existed side by side in Prague under the Habsburgs is very clear from Van Wijk’s letter, written to De Vries, the Leiden librarian, on April 29th, ‘in haste’ – apparently an excuse for his rather untidy handwriting – on the notepaper of the Hôtel du Cheval Noir: ‘The people here are so gracious on my behalf, if one can say so. Dr. Trautmann, professor at the German University, is envious that I’m going to eat tomorrow evening with several really great men at the Czech Academy, whereas in 2½ years here he hasn’t yet managed to speak to them’.101 But Van Wijk’s thoughts were also in Leiden, whenever he pictures the deployment of all the books he has amassed and, with all the diplomacy he can muster, hopes to amass: ‘I would like to see – if there is no objection –that the various newly acquired Slavica are shelved together. We have already spoken about this. Not only because it will be easier for me in the future, but also because I can say to people now that we are forming a Slavic Library as a sub-section of our University Library. It makes the acquisition of books as gifts much easier’.102 Warsaw was the next stop on Van Wijk’s train ride through the Slavic world. A Polish city with a large Jewish minority population, Warsaw was then under Russian administration. The University was Russian too, whereas Polish scholarship was organized under private sponsorship. Van Wijk stayed in Warsaw from the 3rd to the 6th May, once again enjoying the benefit of a regular companion, this time W. DĊbski, ‘a friend of a Cracow acquaintance of mine, who, although himself a mathematician and therefore from a totally different field of study from my own, has been my guide from morning till evening, four days in a row’.103 The Prague pattern was repeated: Van Wijk proceeded to visit institutions, antiquarian booksellers and to look up colleagues at the university, only one of whom he found at home, the philologist Professor Karskij. Once again he gave the librarian De Vries a detailed account of his search for books, commenting: ‘You see, I dispose of my time usefully and so far I have succeeded beyond anything I had hoped for’. 104 While for the Poles he had high praise: ‘I have been very fortunate, the people are overwhelmingly friendly, so that I have got to know this strange city well and in the most agreeable manner, and I have every reason to admire what 99

Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 4. 101 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Bibliotheekarchief, H.12-II, no. 1307. 102 Ibid. 103 Van Wijk 1915, p. 5. 104 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Bibliotheekarchief, H.12-II, no. 1458. 100

106

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

private initiative has been able to do here, where not a single Polish enterprise is supported by the government’.105 From the 7th to the 15th May Van Wijk stayed in the Russian capital, St Petersburg, where he took a room at the Grand Hotel. According to his report, he was received by the Dutch envoy, A.M.D. Baron Sweerts de Landas Wyborgh, who offered him advice, though what exactly about we don’t know. In a letter to Johan Huizinga Van Wijk refers rather euphemistically to the ambassador as a ‘rather inactive’ person.106 Certainly, in St Petersburg Van Wijk found himself in a very different situation from Prague and Warsaw. That he had been so warmly received by Czechs and Poles, living under foreign rule, is not so surprising; the arrival of a foreigner seriously interested in Czech and Polish culture, and who also mastered their language, was no everyday event. In St Petersburg, on the other hand, there was already somebody from The Netherlands who was very well known: Anna Croiset van der Kop, who, following the whole issue of the professorial appointment with its – for her – so unfortunate dénouement at the end of 1913, had returned to The Netherlands to change her will, in which she had originally bequeathed her books and part of her estate to Leiden University, in favour of Russian institutions.107 A few months later, on the 18th April, 1914, she died in Frankfurt am Main. Van Wijk makes no mention in his report of the actions undertaken from St Petersburg on van Croiset van der Kop’s behalf, although he does refer to her in a statement about the handwritten Dutch-Russian dictionary compiled by the deceased V.M. Nadutkin, presented to him at the Dutch embassy by a relative of the author: At that time, the late Mej. Dr. A.C. Croiset van der Kop, who lived in St Petersburg for many years, was very interested in this dictionary, and it was through her agency that the matter was brought to the attention of the Dutch government. His Excellency the Minister of Internal Affairs then sent Nadutkin’s text to the Koninklijke Akademie [Royal Academy], the Department of Literature and Messrs A. Kluyver and C.C. Uhlenbeck issued a report in which the desirability, or more forcefully, the need, was expressed that a young scholar should be found to spend a year working on revisions before it is handed on for publication. Once I had been able to study the manuscript in my hotel room in St Petersburg for several days, I came to a similar judgement.108

Van Wijk also came into contact with other material that had been in the hands of Croiset van der Kop. Thus he visited the University-affiliated Institute for Experimental Phonetics, directed by L.V. Šþerba. The latter showed him phonograph rolls with recordings of Slavic songs that had been the property of Croiset van der Kop: ‘She had intended them for Leiden University, and if in the last months of her life she did not reconsider this decision (de heer Š. subsequently promised to

105

Ibid. Ibid., HUI 48, letter dated 29.09.1914 from Van Wijk to Huizinga. 107 This comes from reports from Van Wijk in a letter written to A.A. Šachmatov dated 10.02.1915 in St Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburgskij filial Archiva RAN. 108 Van Wijk 1915, p. 8-9. 106

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

107

inquire about this from her closest acquaintances in Russia), these rolls will be sent to us to be used in the teaching of Slavic languages.’109 Van Wijk met three individuals in St Petersburg who had supported the petition for Croiset van der Kop’s appointment to the Leiden Chair: the linguists Fortunatov (with whom he had already corresponded in 1903), Baudouin de Courtenay and Šachmatov. There is nothing to indicate that these visits incurred any unpleasantness or tension; on the contrary, one gets the impression that Van Wijk, who would have spoken good Russian, could universally count on courtesy and consideration: I feel very fortunate to have met in person the engaging Fortunatov shortly before death put an end to such a useful life. He was already known to me, not only from his writings but also through the reverence with which his Muscovite pupils have always spoken of him. Now I can carry with me in my own life, as a precious memory, the image of that good and noble scholar. I still have relations with de heer Šachmatov, ‘the genius of the young generation of philologists, I once heard him referred to – and rightly! And I know that his promise to do anything within his powers to be of service to me will be extremely useful for Leiden’s Slavic studies. […] De heer Šachmatov said he was sure that we shall get everything we want, and if says so, it will be so. […] Although in general I have encountered nothing but friendliness and willingness to help, so much so that I should become tedious and my words would become meaningless if I tried to do justice to every occasion, I nevertheless cannot refrain here from a special word of thanks to the academician Šachmatov. Seldom have I encountered such a powerful instinct and so great a talent for placing himself in the position, the interests and the thoughts of the person with whom he is speaking, and such a natural, unaffected need to serve the interests of a fellowman with such diligence.110

To the Librarian, his co-professor, De Vries, who more than once had been given the assignment to write to particular persons or institutions Van Wijk had established contact with, he does refer to the appeal for Croiset van der Kop. On the 12th May, 1914, he writes: ‘I note that the professors–academics here, however much they have had to do with Ms. Croiset, have understood that their agitation in Holland was a rather unseemly misjudgement of the University’s autonomy’.111 We see Van Wijk with the editors of scholarly journals, with secretaries of academic associations and societies and in the Imperial Public Library where he met the curator of manuscripts, Byþkov, whose alleged lack of expertise he had castigated in that letter to Bijvanck in 1907, but whom he now characterized merely as ‘an extremely affable civil servant’.112 He also presented himself at the Academy of Theology and in the Slavic Department of the Library of the Imperial Academy. Everywhere he showed up he was given gifts of books and initiated exchange contacts. His ‘highly congenial’ visit to È.L. Radlov, editor of a journal of the Ministry of Education, also shows that sociability was just as important for Van Wijk in St Petersburg as it had been in Prague: ‘for after all, what conversation is more enjoyable than that with a Russian “interesnyj þelovek”’.113 An ‘interesting fellow’ 109

Ibid., p. 14. Ibid., p. 9-10. 111 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Bibliotheekarchief, H.12-II, no. 1459. 112 Van Wijk 1915, p. 11. 113 Ibid., p. 10. 110

108

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

was for him the ‘standard term for anyone whose conversation gave sign of great erudition, of wide and at the same time sound knowledge, and who had the gift of clear and witty speech’.114 Van Wijk spent a fortnight in Moscow, from the 16th May until the 1st June, ‘much longer than was necessary for the main aim of my journey’.115 It was a kind of homecoming for him: just as before, he stayed with the widow ýiþagova at Valovaja 519, apartment 4, as he relayed to De Vries on the 18th.116 Van Wijk must have enjoyed himself in every way in Moscow: ‘Here one hears a more Russian Russian than in St Petersburg or Kiev, here the Russophile finds himself really in his element’.117 And again one sees just how important the human contacts were for Van Wijk: My old friends and acquaintances, plus many new ones that I have made this time round, have all cooperated to make this stay of mine as fruitful as possible. […] As always in Moscow, I had great pleasure and great profit from the time spent with my esteemed friend, Professor V.K. Poržezinskij, the professor of comparative linguistics.118

Van Wijk also spoke very highly of his contact with the academician Korš, who two years earlier had written Uhlenbeck a letter in support of Anna Croiset van der Kop and with whom he had also once had contact during his trainee period in 1903. As usual, Van Wijk visited museums, libraries, societies and scholarly associations. As a consequence of a visit to privaat-docent D.N. Ušakov, member of the Commission for Dialectology, he could not help referring in his report to his own work from his recent past as neerlandicus: ‘For anyone such as myself, who has applied himself to the study of dialects in The Netherlands, it is often disconcerting to note how seriously in other countries the pursuit of this branch of national philology is taken, which at home is only too neglected’.119 Van Wijk’s next stop on June 2nd was Charkov, a visit of only one day that was not particularly important for the acquisition of books. Here, he wanted to make the acquaintance of two scholars connected with the university: the Slavist Kul’bakin and the Baltologist EndzelƯns: ‘the charming reception accorded me by these two colleagues was truly memorable’.120 In an article written in 1914, on parallels in Polish and Latvian phonology,121 the latter mentions remarks that Van Wijk had made on Polish-Dutch parallels in his inaugural lecture. Van Wijk writes that EndzelƯns, as a native Latvian, read to him several Latvian texts, ‘during which I particularly paid attention to the three kinds of intonation that characterize the Latvian that he spoke. Latvians from other regions distinguish only two’.122

114

Ibid., p. 10-11. Ibid., p. 14. 116 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Bibliotheekarchief, H.12-II, no. 1541. 117 Van Wijk 1915, p. 14. 118 Ibid., p. 14-15. 119 Ibid., p. 18. 120 Ibid., p. 19. 121 EndzelƯns 1914, p. 563. 122 Van Wijk 1915, p. 19. 115

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

109

From Moscow, Charkov was in fact a considerable detour out of the way to Van Wijk’s next destination, Kiev, where he stayed four days from the 3rd to the 7th June. Going by the notepaper he used to correspond with De Vries, he appears to have stayed at the Hotel François, a hotel provided with ‘Chauffage Central’, ‘Vis-à-vis de l’Opéra’.123 V.A. Kordt, the librarian at the University Library was, according to Van Wijk, one of the ‘attractions of Kiev’124 and a hospitable and entertaining friend as well as a ‘useful and sympathetic adviser’.125 Kordt was a Dutch-speaking Russian who had several times been to The Netherlands and was familiar with publications on Russian-Dutch relations in the seventeenth century. He had also contributed to Uhlenbeck’s book on archival research in Russia.126 In Kiev, Van Wijk sought out the big names of Slavic philology such as G.A. Il’inskij, V.N. Peretc and T.D. Florinskij, again and again returning to his hotel ‘heavily laden with gifts’.127 In his report, Van Wijk also gives a nice example of his inquiring nature when he writes that a visit to a bookseller was ‘a good lesson in the Ukrainian language, as whenever I asked a question in Russian I regularly got an answer in Ukrainian’.128 Van Wijk had been away for six weeks when on June 8th he arrived in Lemberg and, according to his letters to De Vries, took up residence at the Hotel Impérial,129 where he stayed until June 11th. Friends from Cracow had arranged for a guide, a Dr. K. Hartleb, to accompany him on his visits in Lemberg, ‘at any rate, as far as they concerned Poles’.130 This latter seemingly strange qualification is understandable, however: Van Wijk depicts Lemberg, which fell within the borders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, as a city where Ukrainian and Polish scholars did not recognize each other and as far as possible ignored each other’s existence. It was mainly a Polish city, but the surrounding Galician country was Ukrainian. The Ukrainian intellectual life in Lemberg was especially interesting because there were numerous Ukrainian texts printed and published that were banned in Russia itself. The focus of Ukrainian life in the city was the Ševþenkosociety, named after the national poet, where Van Wijk found ‘a terrific atmosphere of activity’131 that had made it a kind of unofficial Ukrainian academy, an institution which for political reasons did not in fact exist in Kiev. Van Wijk met the ex-chairman of the society, Professsor Hruševs’kyj, in his imposing villa: I am very pleased that I found time twice to take the road to his outlying residence, not only because he received me so hospitably but also because I found with him a very interesting company, in part constituted by Ukrainians, while others were West Europeans who were interested in this nation. Prof. Hruševs’kyj is at the same time an entertaining host and the major historiographer of his country, so it is not surprising that he should be the centre 123

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Bibliotheekarchief, H.12-II, no. 1772. Van Wijk 1915, p. 19. 125 Ibid., p. 20. 126 See Uhlenbeck 1891. 127 Van Wijk 1915, p. 20. 128 Ibid., p. 21. 129 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Bibliotheekarchief, H.12-II, no. 1772. 130 Van Wijk 1915, p. 22. 131 Ibid., p. 24. 124

110

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

around which an important part of the Ruthenian intellectual life gathers. Among others, I met there de heer R.W. Seton-Watson, who – under the pseudonym Scotus Viator – has gained a big name for himself as an authority on the internal politics of the Danube monarchy.132

Just as famous as the Ukrainian Ševþenko-society, the Poles had their own establishment in Lemberg: the OssoliĔski Institute. Here, Van Wijk was again offered everything free by the director, KĊtrzyĔski, so that he was now obliged to deliver his trawl – added to what he had acquired elsewhere – to a bookseller who, at the expense of Leiden University Library, would see to their transport to The Netherlands: ‘The transport costs should not be too much for the library to bear. In any case, they will bear no relation to the value of what is being sent!’133 Van Wijk was on even less familiar territory when on June 13th he arrived in the Romanian capital, Bucharest: his knowledge of the Balkans had hitherto been limited to Bosnia, which he had visited on that all but undocumented vacation trip when he was an HBS schoolteacher. He explains in his report that he stopped off for a day in Bucharest ‘because I did not want to pass through such a major city without having a look at it. One day sufficed for this’.134 He took advantage of the opportunity to visit an academic colleague, the Slavist I. Bogdan. Once more Van Wijk struck lucky, for Bogdan found it only too ‘easy to meet the obligation resting on every traveller to get to know the national dishes of every country, and in the most agreeable fashion, in the warm company of his domestic circle […]’.135 It would seem to be a valid question whether Van Wijk could possibly have enjoyed all this East European hospitality on his journey so far had he himself practised the total abstinence preached by his father, the minister Van Wijk. Van Wijk arrived in the Bulgarian capital Sofia on the 15th June, putting up at the Hotel Splendide – or was it the Splendide Palace? The notepaper he wrote on was used in both hotels.136 He was several times received by the Dutch chargé d’affaires, the embassy counsellor W.A. Royaards, ‘who furthermore introduced me at a highly animated dinner party to the representatives of two Slavic States, the ambassadors of Russia and Serbia, with which two gentlemen I discussed many matters of great interest to a Slavist’.137 In Sofia, Van Wijk apparently took advantage of his acquaintance with Gustav Weigand in Leipzig, for A. Doriþ and St. Romanski, ex-graduate students of the latter’s private Institute for the Bulgarian language, took good care of him on his tour of the professors, museums, the Academy of Sciences and indeed ‘everything of interest to be seen in Sofia, from the Parliamentary Building – where we attended part of a sitting of the Chamber – and the new Alexander Nevsky Cathedral to the weekly market’.138 At the University of Sofia he met the most significant 132

Ibid., p. 24-25. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Bibliotheekarchief, H.12-II, no. 1940. 134 Van Wijk 1915, p. 25. 135 Ibid. 136 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Bibliotheekarchief, H.12-II, no. 1939-I. 137 Van Wijk 1915, p. 26. 138 Ibid. 133

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

111

Bulgarian Slavists and Bulgarists of the day: L. Miletiþ, B. Conev and St. Mladenov. His visit to the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences was a great success, as he wrote in a letter to De Vries on the 17th June: ‘We get all the editions as gifts and, moreover, I get a second copy of some of them for myself’.139 Of all his hosts in different countries, the Bulgarians are given the highest praise: ‘As far as the Bulgarians are concerned, I can say that I have seldom had to deal with a friendlier or more sympathetic people, and that possibly nowhere in the world are acts of such cordial helpfulness accompanied by so few unnecessarily wasted words’.140 It is not surprising, then, that of all the countries he visited on his 1914 journey, the only separate account that Van Wijk chose to publish was of his impressions of Bulgaria. In his contribution to the journal Onze Eeuw [Our Age]141 he adds yet another characteristic of the Bulgarian people: he considers the typical Bulgarian as ‘industrious, free of the vicious passions of drink and gambling, methodical and orderly’.142 A foreigner can feel safe in Bulgaria, because ‘a Bulgarian coachman or servant will seldom abuse one’s lack of knowledge of the language or local circumstances for his own advantage’.143 Whereas he saw a Russian man of the people as ‘a superstitious idolater’ he claimed that the Bulgarian was ‘not so superstitious’.144 Sofia’s Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, built after Russian examples, did not appeal to him: ‘in Sofia it seems to have gone astray: it is as ill-suited to its surroundings as they are to it’.145 From his report of a visit to the Ethnographic Museum, which he compares in his article to a visit to the Archaeological Museum, it is again evident how important was the human contact for Van Wijk’s feeling of well-being: ‘it was the actual person of the director that led me to enjoy this collection more than the other, which I had to view without the benefit of his excellent guidance. […] When he showed my Bulgarian friend and myself the industrial products of Gabrovo, he managed to paint the industrially gifted Bulgarians of this region as heroes […]’.146 Nor does Van Wijk fail to comment on this conviviality in his article in Onze Eeuw. He describes an evening he spent in the company of a Macedonian among others: I spent an evening with such a man, a teacher of Russian by profession, and two young scholars, in front of the hotel at Knjaževo, a nine kilometer walk from Sofia. We enjoyed the wonderfully invigorating air – which (together with the healthy spring water) makes the capital and its surrounding area a much sought-after health resort, the national dishes, care-

139

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Bibliotheekarchief, H.12-II, no. 1939-I. Van Wijk 1915, p. 28. 141 Several letters that Van Wijk wrote to Erven F. Bohn, the publisher of Onze Eeuw, in connection with this article, are preserved in Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BOH C 213. 142 Van Wijk 1915a, p. 126. 143 Ibid., p. 122-123. 144 Ibid., p. 234. 145 Ibid., p. 235. 146 Ibid., p. 125. 140

112

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

fully chosen by my companions and folksongs from Prilep, recited to us by the Macedonian.147

Van Wijk continued his journey through the Slavic world with a trip to Belgrade, where he stayed from the 20th to the 22nd of June. News of his arrival had already been conveyed from The Hague to the Dutch Consul, the Austrian national B. Rapoport. After a visit to the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Van Wijk was able to pay his respects to ‘perhaps the most respected and influential man of Belgrade, even in the circles of scholarship, the celebrated diplomat-scholar Stojan Novakoviü’.148 He was advised by this august person, who was not only President of the Serbian Academy of Sciences but also, according to Van Wijk, ‘possibly the greatest politician of the Balkans’,149 to write to all the various institutions and ask for free copies of various publications for the Leiden Library: ‘Most assuredly, said de heer Novakoviü, such requests will not be rejected, and if he says so, it is so’.150 Van Wijk was not dissatisfied with the various visits he paid, and yet there is a note of disappointment that he did not manage to suppress in his account of his time in Belgrade: several scholars that he had wanted to talk with were absent on scientific expeditions that the Serbian government had sent to Macedonia. In addition to which, the University was closed for renovation. He thus missed Professor A. Beliü, ‘the great linguistic scholar, especially renowned as one of the best Slavists and Serbo-Croatists; I had already corresponded with him earlier, and at the time he promised that he would be my faithful guide if I ever came to Belgrade […]’.151 On June 23rd Van Wijk crossed the Austro-Hungarian frontier and arrived in Agram – the name given on the map for Zagreb, the capital city of the Croats. Just as in Belgrade, he found a number of the professors he had on his list not at home. But he had every opportunity to visit worthy institutions such as the popular scientific society, Matica Hrvatska, whose 13,000 members received seven or eight books a year for an annual subscription of six crowns. According to Van Wijk, these were often indispensable for a scholar of the relevant discipline: I have therefore become a member, on the basis of the same principle as with my other book acquisitions, that it is desirable, in the long term, that there should be a copy of every Slavic scholarly text in Leiden: if the Library has it, then the professor no longer needs it; if the latter has it, then let the Library, for the time being, use its money for other things.152

Van Wijk was highly impressed in Agram by the new University Library, ‘a luxurious concrete edifice, […] of a kind of which there are very few in Europe’.153 Here he had a long conversation with the deputy librarian, F. Fancev, already known to him through articles in the Archiv für slavische Philologie and in whose 147

Ibid., p. 241. Van Wijk 1915, p. 28. 149 Ibid. 150 Ibid., p. 29. 151 Ibid., p. 29-30. 152 Ibid., p. 31-32. 153 Ibid., p. 32. 148

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

113

company Van Wijk could once more indulge in his old hobby of dialectology: ‘He told me a great deal of interest about Kajkavian, the Serbo-Slovenian transitional dialect of the region in which Agram lay, and of the role this dialect still played in the cities of the region’.154 On June 26th Van Wijk spent a day in Laibach (Ljubljana), the capital of Slovenia, where he sought out the Matica Slovenska, a society in every way comparable to the Matica Hrvatska in Agram. The chairman of this society, Dr. F. Ilešiþ, took him under his wing, showing him the city and surrounding region, discussing various matters with him and introducing him to other philologists and artists. Nor does Van Wijk, who at home was no doubt more used to eating alone, omit to mention these introductions ‘on the occasion of a communal evening meal’.155 In this way he met the archivist and poet Oton Županþiþ. What his report does not say is that on that same day the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, the Archduke Franz-Ferdinand, was murdered in Sarajevo. There is still a total absence of any comment on these events in Van Wijk’s report on his adventures in Graz, where he stayed from the 27th to the 29th of June. It was not the interests of Leiden University Library, he informs us, that demanded his presence in Graz but his own desire to meet Graz professors, such as Hugo Schuchardt, the Romanist and authority on Basque and Creole: ‘a person of deeper insight into the life and evolution of language in general and into the mutual relations between different languages would be impossible to find’.156 Van Wijk’s respect was only the greater through having actually having got to know another side of Schuchardt: ‘apart from the scholar, the witty and entertaining conversationalist’.157 Van Wijk also presented himself to Rudolf Meringer, another big name in Graz philology. He writes with remarkable sympathy of the school of linguistics to which Meringer belonged, although he, as an adept of Leipzig school with its focus on sound laws, had actually distanced himself from this trend: ‘Sachen und Wörter’ is one of this scholar’s [Schuchardt’s] maxims: one cannot study linguistics without giving proper attention to the realia in the widest sense of that term, to the whole world of everything that is named and denoted by words. The same principle, embodied in the motto ‘Wörter und Sachen’, is the foundation for the journal of the same name, whose chief editor is another Graz scholar, the Indo-Germanist R. Meringer. I am very pleased to have made his personal acquaintance as well. Conversations with him […] made me realize once more the value that a knowledge and feeling for realia have for the comparative linguist, and how significant Meringer is in this regard.158

Another individual from this ‘Wörter und Sachen’-movement was the Graz Slavist Matija Murko, a native Slovene whose practical knowledge of different Slavic languages was praised by Van Wijk. Apparently oblivious to the political events unfolding from Sarajevo, Van Wijk and Murko enjoyed an evening out: 154

Ibid. Ibid., p. 33. 156 Ibid., p. 34. 157 Ibid. 158 Ibid., p. 34-35. 155

114

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

I count it a great privilege that my colleague Murko took me on a Saturday evening to a ‘Stammtisch’ of Slovenes: it was a company consisting of several old generals and further for the most part youthful lawyers. After first conversing and eating, the rest of the evening was devoted to song: one of the lawyers began a Slovenian song, and another joined in – and most creditably. In a Dutch company of this kind one would rarely if ever devote an hour of fellowship to song: and yet it is such a sympathetic way of using the time.159

After predictably spending ‘a few congenial hours in a restaurant and coffee house’160 with J. Peisker, the librarian of the Slavic Seminar, he felt ready to draw up a balance sheet of his peregrinations over the past months. In a letter to De Vries of June 28th he writes: I send you greetings: I am highly satisfied, 1. with what I have achieved for the library, 2. with my improved perception of the Slavic peoples and the problems connected with their existence, 3. over the many interesting and open-hearted people that I met everywhere. A meal with Hugo Schuchardt is a real event, an afternoon with Minister Novakoviü in Belgrade is an intense pleasure, a further acquaintance with the honest folk of Bulgaria is a revelation.161

As one reads on, it appears that the strain of the journey was beginning to take its toll on Van Wijk’s stamina: ‘And so I could go on, but I need sleep. The whole day I have been talking and eating and drinking a great deal’162 – although this did not prevent him from dreaming about Zakopane, where he hoped to take a holiday after he had finished: ‘once again among the gallant Polish people I hope to take my fill of the pleasure that a Polish-reading person can draw from that great genius of the Polish nation, Adam Mickiewicz. Prof. Murko and I agree on this, that no other Slavic people has produced a poet of comparable stature’.163 But not yet. From Graz, Van Wijk continued his journey to Vienna, where he stayed from the 30th June to July 2nd – as he had informed De Vries from Belgrade – in the ‘Hotel Müller, Graben’.164 For him, as a tyro Slavist, the centre of Vienna meant the address of Professor V. Jagiü, ‘the now 76-year old professor, who proud of his age, still practises the discipline of Slavic studies with an undiminished dedication and success. No other Slavist scholar knows the terrain, in all its scope, better than he […]’.165 We have already seen that Jagiü, described by Van Wijk as an ‘amiable, sturdy greybeard’,166 had originally objected to Van Wijk’s appointment in Leiden on the basis that he was not a philologist but a comparative linguist out of the Uhlenbeck stable. It does appear that the question of the Chair and the appointment was raised during their conversation, and that Van Wijk must have satisfied the old master as to his outlook and intentions. This, at least, is the inference to be drawn from Van Wijk’s report where we read that the establishment of the new Chair was indeed discussed, a matter that he had never before 159

Ibid., p. 35. Ibid. 161 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Bibliotheekarchief, H.12-II, no. 2017. 162 Ibid. 163 Ibid. 164 Ibid., no. 1941, letter dated 09/22.06.1914. 165 Van Wijk 1915, p. 35. 166 Ibid., p. 36. 160

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

115

mentioned in reports: ‘De heer Jagiü showed a lively interest in our new Chair in Slavic studies at our university, and in the way the professor who occupied this Chair conceived of his task […]’.167 A proof of this interest, according to Van Wijk, was the gifts that he afterwards received via Jagiü. We see Van Wijk again tirelessly in pursuit of other scholars, including the famous classicist Kretschmer and the equally famed Romanist Meyer-Lübke. He also acquainted himself with the Slavic Seminar and the Hofbibliothek. For the first time in his reports, he now mentions the political situation: the Viennese, especially the Croats and Slovenians, were talking a great deal about politics after the death of Franz-Ferdinand: ‘a good lesson for a guest from other countries’.168 The official part of his journey ended in Cracow, in Galicia, where he stayed from the 3rd to the 5th of July. He did not, of course, come as a stranger: ‘And Cracow received me as an old acquaintance, with Polish hospitality; the illustrious trio of philologists, Professors Jan Rozwadowski, Kaz. Nitsch and Jan àoĞ, and the younger forces that gather round them, plus so many young non-philologists, all vying with each other to ingratiate themselves and to help me’.169 Despite the hospitality, however, Van Wijk was given fewer presents than elsewhere. In an undated letter to De Vries sent from Zakopane, he asserts that the Academy of Sciences in Cracow is the most miserly of all Slavic academies, ‘although, from our Dutch standpoint, it is still quite generous. They give everything for half-price […]’.170 He also found time in Cracow to pursue his old interest, visiting the Czartoryski Museum to examine the Dutch Books of Hours kept there. He was, he remarked, very struck by the highly idiosyncratic decoration of some of these, which according to a more recent annotation originally came from Haarlem’.171 Van Wijk spent the last weeks of his journey far away from all his libraries and academies in the Villa Nosal in Zakopane, in the Polish Tatra Mountains, although it could hardly be said that he had distanced himself from the academic scholars, for Zakopane served as a summer capital for thousands of Poles from the Russian, Austrian and Prussian provinces: ‘So each day I had the pleasant and instructive company of my friend W. PorzeziĔski from Moscow […]’.172 The two of them, Van Wijk and the Pole who taught at the University of Moscow, sent a picture postcard on July 7th from Zakopane to their colleague Murko in Graz.173 It is clear from his own words that, for Van Wijk, there was a close connection between his experience of life and his university preoccupations: When I give lectures this year on the Polish language, and at the same time I am working for another, more historical lecture course on the historical, social and economic problems of the Polish world, what enables me to do this, more than my reading, is my stay in Zakopane; 167

Ibid. Ibid., p. 37. 169 Ibid., p. 37-38. 170 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Bibliotheekarchief, H.12-II, no. 2098. 171 Van Wijk 1915f, col. 247. 172 Van Wijk 1915, p. 39. 173 Ljubljana, Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica. 168

116

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

and when in the future I pursue further work in this direction, I shall in part have Zakopane to thank for the desire and the ability to tackle it.174

His plan was to spend another day in Cracow on August 5th in connection with book acquisitions for Leiden University Library and then to return via Posnan (PoznaĔ) and Berlin to The Netherlands: ‘However, nothing came of this plan, because the European War forced me to return home as quickly as possible by the shortest possible route’.175 He left Zakopane in a hurry on the 1st August and arrived at the Dutch frontier on August 3rd. Zwolle, where his parents lived, may well have been his first stopping place. Here, following the announcement a few days earlier, on the 31st July, 1914, of mobilization in The Netherlands, the annual fair was cancelled post-haste, horses were requisitioned and the first military draft came into force. A territorial commander was installed in the city and suddenly the prominent figures of civil society and the freemasons lodge found themselves with much less to say. It was not long before the correspondence of outspoken proGerman or pro-French citizens was being opened and read by the Police Commissioner.176 At the end of his report on his journey, reading which was in his opinion ‘not a very interesting occupation’,177 Van Wijk draws his own conclusions. It had succeeded ‘beyond his expectations’178 in its yield of a relatively complete subject library in Slavic studies for Leiden University: ‘And if I succeed in getting people to understand that; in other words, if I can make the reader see how a journey of few months, staying in many cities only a few days, is nevertheless sufficient to produce such fantastic results for our national scholarship, then I have achieved all that I could wish’.179 Van Wijk had absolutely no reason to be especially modest. The network of contacts that he had established at such short order, and the collection he had assembled, had in a very short time put his Leiden Chair in Slavic studies, for which there had previously been no provision at all, firmly on the map; and the criticism caused by his appointment had been silenced. He had achieved all this with the same incredible drive with which, during the previous years, he had singlehandedly managed to compile an etymological dictionary. He also turned out to be someone very different from the scholarly recluse that he had seemed to be whilst working on the dictionary: a man of action, in fact, and a gregarious, convivial person. Going by his report and his letters, he obviously knew how to enjoy life. Anyway, his journey had been simultaneously both an introduction to Eastern Europe and a farewell. Shortly after his return to The Netherlands the First World War began. In fact, Van Wijk must have been the last scholar from Western Europe to have seen the old Central and Eastern Europe in peacetime, in all its breadth, divided as it was between Austro-Hungary, Russia and Prussia. 174

Van Wijk 1915, p. 39-40. Ibid., p. 40. 176 See Thom. J. de Vries 1961, p. 327-328. 177 Van Wijk 1915, p. 40. 178 Ibid. 179 Ibid., p. 40-41. 175

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

117

4. War and philanthropy Van Wijk, who on the 1st October 1917 was rejected for service in the territorial home guard ‘because of physical unsuitability’,180 did not want to sit by despondently watching the way that the war was developing from the safety of the neutral Netherlands. While his old Zwolle classmate Leo Polak, who in the meantime had been granted a privaat-docentschap in epistemology at the University of Amsterdam, took ‘The philosophy of war’ as the title of the lecture with which he opened his teaching courses on October 13th, 1914,181 Van Wijk turned to action. He became a member of the Nederlandsch Comité voor Philantropischen Steun aan Polen [Dutch Committee for the Philanthropic Support of Poland]. In this capacity he wanted to acquaint himself personally with what was needed in Poland and to get involved in sending aid. On the 10th August, 1915, at the Austro-Hungarian Embassy in The Hague Den Haag, he was handed a ‘Passier-Schein’ provided with a passport photo which stated that this was for Van Wijk, ‘welcher sich zur Förderung der Aktion des niederländischen Comités zur Unterstützung notleidender Polen nach Krakau begibt’.182 Van Wijk wanted to call in at Posnan on the way. This is evident from a letter of recommendation dated 14th August, 1915 from Baron Gevers, the Dutch Ambassador in Berlin which stated that as vice-chairman of the Nederlandsch Comité voor Philantropischen Steun aan Polen, Van Wijk wanted ‘sich zwecks Besprechung mit Mitgliedern des polnischen Wohlfahrts-Ausschusses in Posen, nach Posen zu begeben’.183 The Ambassador thus recommended Van Wijk to the Prussian authorities. Van Wijk wrote an account of this trip that was published in the evening edition of the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant on 15th September, 1915. This was, to my knowledge, the first time that Van Wijk had written anything for a newspaper, nor had he ever before produced such a precise description of any situation as he now presented from Poland: I saw only a small part of the Polish war region: several villages along the Dunajec. I visited them in the company of two friendly priests from Tarnów, to whom I had been introduced by the Episcopal Committee of Cracow. I shall say little of all that I saw; I only want to speak of a visit to the village of Glów. One arrives here by a road through fields extending to the horizon, farmland, now overgrown with tall thistles. The ground is sliced with the trenches of Russians, Austrians and Germans and to the casual eye these, and some barbed wire are the only sign of war. Because the recently still bare earth is now covered with grass, weeds and thistles that have grown up over the foundations of burned and destroyed houses, and if one takes a train ride through here, instead of a carriage, one might never suspect that a village had ever existed here. A year ago, Glów was a prosperous village with fine farmhouses built in stone below and wooden upper floor of the type that is typical of this region, but today Glów stands no higher than 10 centimetres above the ground: the foundations of houses, nothing more. And yet there are people who still live here. The adult males, up to fifty years of age, are in mili180

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. Zie Polak 1915. 182 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. 183 Ibid. 181

118

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

tary service; some of the inhabitants were killed by shells or bullets, others died of various diseases, while others disappeared, no-one knows where. But there are always people who survive: they plant potatoes, stare at the place that was once their village, sleep on the damp earth under an improvised thatched roof no more than a meter high, or in deserted trenches or holes underground; the ‘wealthier’ among them build a wooden house the height of a man and a few metres long and there they live with their family. Ten or twelve of these people gathered to surround our carriage and especially one man spoke for them. An intelligent, shrewd man! He didn’t beg for alms; what, after all, could you do with a few crowns? The government must rather grant a sum of money, as an interest-free loan that could be paid back after a few years. If something like that doesn’t happen we shall have to face the winter without a roof over our heads and the spring will bring worse diseases than there are already. The man told us of the long nights when bullets and shrapnel and shells flew over the village; and when this hell had passed by, Glów no longer existed. And now? The horses are gone, the meadows are gone, the houses are gone, there is no corn, what there was had been rotted by hailstorm because there were no more barns to store it in. ‘We have nothing’, that was in short the message, and these eloquent words formed the refrain of what other groups of farmers told us as we travelled further. Nothing made a more sinister impression on me than the deadly silence in this village that had been wiped from the face of the earth, where a few hungry souls clad in rags remained to kiss our hand meekly (as is the habit in these parts) and tell us that they had nothing anymore. In the face of such suffering philanthropy is powerless! If their potatoes are insufficient, these villagers from Glów will be able to get bread to prevent them starving from the Tarnów delegation of the Cracow committee; a good priest has been standing for days on the Dunajec to receive rafts of timber and to distribute the beams among nearby villages (the money was provided by the Cracow committee), but is the timber sufficient to build several villages? And will the bread reach all those hungry people throughout the region with its poor transport facilities? It is the vast size of this terrain that makes it so difficult to give adequate assistance. Many a villages has been luckier than Glów, but others are even worse affected thanks to smallpox, typhus and cholera. And such suffering is not confined to the banks of the Dunajec, it extends throughout the whole area between Kalisz and Brest, from the Carpathians to Riga! Conditions in the cities are totally different from those in the countryside: factories stand idle and thousands of workers have no work. The small craftsman cannot earn a kopek. The women in Russian Poland whose husbands are serving in the Russian army are directed to the welfare support committees, as are those civil servants who have not fled to Russia; they now constitute an intelligentsia without bread. The only advantage that the cities have is this: that philanthropy is easier to organize, and this is in fact usually exemplary. Poles and Jews suffer alike. Should the Jews here and there be in a more favourable position, it is merely because their knowledge of German makes their contact with the Germans that much easier.184

The Dutch committee, of which Van Wijk was vice-chairman and ‘the old’ J.H.C. Kern chairman, worked together with the Polish committee, whose chairman was the writer Henryk Sienkiewicz and which brought aid to the destitute peoples in the German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian areas alike. Another reason for his journey was to oversee the distribution of the money raised in The Netherlands, over which, going by his report, the donors seem to have had several questions: In view of the way the members of the Dutch committee had been pestered with so many questions about the way the money was being used, questions that one could not always answer without making inquiries on the spot, in the second half of August I visited those 184

Van Wijk 1915c.

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

119

committees that could be reached without too much difficulty, namely the Posnan and Cracow committees. A journey to Russia would have been too dangerous and too long […].185

Van Wijk’s impressions were in every sense reassuring: It is a pleasure to see the devotion with which the people of Posnan, among whom I was able to spend several days, apply themselves to the charitable work; and this ‘polnische Wirtschaft’ is a thrifty, well-organized ‘Wirtschaft’: not a single groschen that is not put to good use in the form of a bowl of soup, a piece of soap or a muff or whatever – something to help keep someone in dire poverty alive for another day or two.186

In Cracow, organization of aid was in the hands of an episcopal committee, the KBK. Van Wijk stressed the impartiality that he thought he observed there, making sure Dutch donors would not get the impression that any particular population group was being excluded from receiving aid: The KBK helps whoever needs help, regardless of whether they are Catholic, Uniate or Jewish. In Russian Poland Jews serve on the local committees, in Galicia the entire board is in the hands of Catholics, mainly the clergy, but a week that I spent in the home of the kannunnik Slepicki, i.e. at the centre of the work of the KBK, convinced me of the impartiality, of the universality rather, being practised. It was said to me that the Jews mainly seek and get help from their co-religionists elsewhere, with the result that one gets relatively few requests from them, but their requests are dealt with just as seriously as those of others.187

In an article he wrote for the journal Onze Eeuw, Van Wijk observed that the fate of the Poles was particularly tragic because Poles were fighting in three different armies, not in the interest of their own nation at all, but for those States between which the Poles were divided. He compared the fate of the Poles with that of the Belgians who had fled across the border into The Netherlands because of the war: Our country has seen what it means when one gets a visit from an entire city such as Antwerp. But those people were at least entering a densely populated country with a dense rail network and a population living in freedom and therefore able to devote all their powers to lending help. How much more terrible is the fate of those millions who have had to flee across the vast plains of Russia with all their remaining possessions.188

In this article, Van Wijk looks back on his journey to Poland in the summer of 1915. On his own testimony, he had absolutely no complaint over lack of cooperation: This summer on a journey to Poland I experienced an accommodation that I cannot praise too highly on the part of everyone who could be of the least service to me; occasionally I even had the feeling that the officials of war-mongering states had the need to behave as helpfully and benevolently as possible, as opposed to the many terrible things they were forced to accede to, if only through the law of inertia that makes it impossible to stop them.189

During the period just after the outbreak of war, the international postal system was far from its functional best. In a letter of the 27th September, 1914, to his 185

Ibid. Ibid. 187 Ibid. 188 Van Wijk 1916, p. 91. 189 Ibid., p. 93. 186

120

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Danish colleague H. Møller, Van Wijk laments the fact that post from Zakopane had reached him bearing the stamp of the English censor. He dared not even send an article to Jagiü in Vienna: ‘das ist jetzt etwas gefährlich’.190 But the postal situation did improve. Among other things, the Slavic and Slavists’ world that he had got to know on his great familiarizing tour of 1914 had also changed, so much so that now, from his position in the neutral Netherlands, he was able to play a mediating role between colleagues who until very recently had had frequent contact with each other but now found themselves belonging to enemy camps. And so, on the 7th October, 1914, at the beginning of the war, he informed Jagiü in Vienna: ‘Heute schrieb ich für Sie an Schachmatow. Ich bat ihn, etwaige Nachrichte für Sie mir mitteilen zu wollen. Einige Male habe ich Personen Briefe mitgegeben, einmal einem Petersburger Arabisten, der mit seiner Frau und Schwiegermutter hier “gestrandet” war, das zweite Mal dem neu ernannten Pastor191 der holländischen Kirche in Petersburg’.192 We know very little about Van Wijk’s political persuasion during the First World War. In a letter to Jagiü written on the 8th November, 1917, he wrote that many in The Netherlands held the view that ‘dass England doch endlich einmal aufhören sollte mit dem “zur Verteidigung der kleinen Nationen” unternommenen Krieg’.193 He himself, he said, did not have it so bad, except that everything had become much more expensive and that he could only get coal for one small room. After his trip to Poland, as far as we know, Van Wijk did not visit the Slavic world again for the duration of the war. He was, however, in Berlin in 1917, as recalled by Dr. Marcus van Blankenstein, the correspondent of the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, who had gained his doctorate under Uhlenbeck in 1911 and via whom he had probably managed to place his story of Polish destitution a few years earlier: ‘In the late summer of 1917, Prof. N. van Wijk, the Slavist, stayed with me in Berlin. On a walk he asked me whether the faculty at Leiden could count on me [probably a professorship is meant here]. To my own initial surprise I replied without hesitation, “No” […]’.194 Van Wijk’s philanthropic work in the cause of war victims evokes memories of his father, minister emeritus since 1916, who, as we have seen, had been very active in his Zwolle pastoral community, but who died entirely unexpectedly on March 13th, 1918, before the First World War ended.195 This was roughly two months after the death of his unmarried sister Cornelia Petronella van Wijk and about two months before the death of his other unmarried sister Catharina van Wijk.

190

København, Det Kongelige Bibliotek. Probably H.P. Schim van der Loeff. 192 Zagreb, Nacionalna i Sveuþilišna knjižnica. 193 Ibid. 194 Van Blankenstein 1969, p. 163. For more on this journalist, see Elisabeth van Blankenstein 1999. 195 The death notice appeared on the second page of the Provinciale Overijsselsche and Zwolsche Courant dated 14.03.1918. 191

PROFESSOR: THE FIRST YEARS

121

The minister Aart Willem van Wijk was buried on March 16th, 1918, in the Bergklooster cemetery in Zwolle. According to the news item that reported his funeral the same day on the second page of the Provinciale Overijsselsche en Zwolsche Courant, the mourners following the coffin, after the family, included various representatives of the Church and delegates from the afd. Zwolle der Nedl. Ver. tot afsch. van alcoh. dranken [the Zwolle Section of the Dutch Society for the abstinence from Alcoholic Drink], of which the minister Van Wijk had been an honorary member, from the Zwolsch Drankweer-Comité [the Zwolle Temperance Committee], the Consultatiebureau voor drankzuchtigen [the Alcoholics’ Advice Bureau] and the Derk Buisman foundation’. The only address at the graveside was given by Dr. K.F. Proost, minister of the Nederlandse Hervormde Gemeente [Dutch Reformed Community] of Zwolle. The news report ended: ‘After all present had sung Hymn. 180, verse 5, at Dr. Proost’s request, the son of the deceased, Prof.dr. N. van Wijk, thanked them with a few feeling words for the concern they had shown, thus closing this brief and impressive ceremony’. By the end of the First World War, thus, it was not only the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the areas of his academic discipline, whose shape had been fundamentally altered, but also his personal world that had changed, although what the death of his father actually meant to him we cannot tell. Of his relationship with his parents we only know that right up to their deaths he continued to visit them faithfully.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER V

LINGUIST

1. Balto-Slavic languages Before his appointment to the Chair in Balto-Slavic languages in 1913, Nicolaas van Wijk’s contribution to his new field of study had been very limited: literary essays written for a wide Dutch public and marginal comments in linguistic articles on other main subjects. He had no track record at all in Slavic studies: unlike Anna Croiset van der Kop, who had hoped to be appointed to his Chair, he had had nothing published in the Archiv für slavische Philologie or any other periodical for Slavic studies. In fact, beyond The Netherlands, no-one knew Van Wijk as a Slavist; he only began to behave like a Slavist on his appointment. We have seen in the exchange of letters with Jagiü that he sent his first contribution to the Archiv für slavische Philologie immediately after his inaugural address. His great journey of the spring and summer of 1914 was therefore immensely important in selling himself and sealing his appointment in the professorial eyes of the Slavic world: from an unknown figure, viewed with scepticism, he became in a very short time an evidently valued colleague. Nonetheless, in a memorial article devoted to Croiset van der Kop in the Archiv für slavische Philologie, signed by ‘Die Freunde der Verewigten’, Van Wijk could still be instructed that he ought to be grateful to the deceased: Sie wandte alle Ihre Beziehungen zu Ministern und Gesandten, Volksvertretern und Professoren auf, um die Errichtung eines solchen Lehrstuhles zu erreichen, doch alle Mühe, die sie aufgeboten hatte, kam schliesslich nicht ihr, wie billig zu erwarten war, sondern einem anderen Gelehrten zugute. […] Der Prophet gilt nichts in seiner Heimat, dies traf bei Dr. Anna Croiset ganz besonders zu, sie war in Petersburger gelehrten Kreisen ungleich bekannter als in Leiden oder Haag.1

But it was not only personal considerations connected with Croiset van der Kop’s candidature, the fuss that Van Wijk’s appointment had generated in other countries also had to do with the unique nature of the Chair itself. In the era we are talking about, there were so few Chairs in the field of Slavic studies that the establishment of a new professorship was enough in itself to cause a stir and to arouse certain expectations. At the time, Chairs for Slavic studies existed in the Russian Empire – apart from Moscow and St Petersburg one can think of Warsaw, Helsinki, Kiev and Odessa – and in those Slavic states freed from Ottoman rule in the nineteenth century, Serbia and Bulgaria. In Germany, a large country bordering on the Slavic part of Europe, there were four: in Breslau (Wrocáaw), Leipzig, Berlin and Munich. Other universities in Paris, Oxford, Prague, Vienna, Graz, Cracow, Copenhagen, Uppsala and Bucharest offered provision for Slavic studies. With his jour1

[(Obituary:) Dr. phil. Anna Catharina Croiset van der Kop, geb. 3. November 1859 im Haag in Holland, gest. 18. April 1914 in Frankfurt a.M.], Archiv für slavische Philologie 36 (1916), p. 597.

124

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

ney of 1914, Van Wijk had actually made personal contact with most of his professorial colleagues.2 Slavic studies in those years embraced a wide range of topics: the history of the Slavic peoples, folklore, literature, linguistics and archaeology. Indeed, one can discover no strict separation between these disciplines in the work of many Slavists of the time. Whoever wanted to follow this field of study was referred to the proceedings of various academies of sciences and a handful of journals, such as the already mentioned Archiv für slavische Philologie, the Czech language journal Listy filologické published in Prague, the Polish journals Prace filologiczne and Rocznik slawistyczny, and Russkij filologiþeskij vestnik, a journal published by the Russian university in Warsaw. Altogether, this adds up to a rather small specialist production, which enabled scholars of the time to keep up with the field reasonably well. As we have seen, in 1913 Van Wijk entered the world of Slavic studies as a neerlandicus and practitioner of comparative Indo-European linguistics, his inaugural lecture clearly giving evidence of the Indo-European studies that had engaged him ever since the days of his dissertation. At the time, this approach to Slavic studies from an Indo-European perspective was not unique to Van Wijk: Antoine Meillet in Paris, Jan Rozwadowski in Cracow, Fortunatov and Poržezinskij in Moscow, all frequently adopted the same line of approach. And certainly Van Wijk had an ally in the young Latvian linguist, EndzelƯns, whom he had met in Charkov. Van Wijk’s expanding activities as a Slavist soon testified to his astonishing productivity. His own scholarly work published in international journals remained linguistic in nature. In general, one can say that, as a linguist, he opted for a historical-comparative approach, with a preference for phonology rather than either lexicology, derivation and syntax. In accordance with his viewpoint, he did not treat phenomena in one language as isolated data, but in relation to data from related languages, dialects, and old texts. His point of departure was thus steadfastly bibliographic, and he never began anything unless he was convinced that he had sifted through all the literature relevant to his subject. It should also be said that he made it a point of honour always to give proper due to other people’s standpoints, with the result that his own work acquired an aura of fairness and balance. As a Dutchman he was the citizen of a neutral country. It was a neutrality, one can say, that he also observed as a scholar, as is to be seen in the fact that he published his work in many different countries. He remained active in the Germanspeaking world, where the editors of the Archiv für slavische Philologie, the Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, founded in 1924, and the Indogermanische Forschungen accepted his papers. Immediately after the war he spoke critically of the ‘linguistic nationalism’ of The Netherlands ‘where, during the latter years of the war there was a strongly increased tendency to write scholarly texts no longer in German and to sanitize our own language of germanisms and unaltered borrow2

See UrbaĔczyk 1990 for an outline of Slavic studies at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century.

LINGUIST

125

ings from German’.3 He himself, in part out of practical considerations, even preferred to write in German: Before the war, it seems to me, the situation was this: a French philologist wrote French, a German wrote German, an Englishman or American English, individuals of other nationalities wrote either in their mother language or in German; the latter language was so handy for this purpose because a certain scholarly jargon had been developed in it that one could easily master without making gross mistakes. Beautiful, gracious language – that was something that many Germans themselves never bothered about, and least of all was it expected from a foreigner. Whereas, on the other hand, both those unfortunates who want to write French, but cannot do so adequately, and a reading public used to French stylists get worked up about bad French. And the English, apart from a few special branches of the science, have contributed very little to the development of international philology.4

French linguistic nationalism, ultimately directed against Germany, could always be counted on to annoy Van Wijk.5 Despite these sentiments, when the Revue des études slaves appeared in Paris in 1921, he contributed a stream of French language articles to this paper. For Polish and Czech journals such as the Prace filologiczne, already mentioned, and Slavia, which first appeared in Prague in 1922, he wrote either in German, Russian, Polish or in Czech – and, more rarely, his contributions appeared in Lithuanian, Latvian and Italian journals too. There were also numerous contributions to festschriften and memorial volumes and no small number of contributions to the publications of the Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen [Royal Academy of Sciences]. Certainly, his productivity is not wholly unconnected to the liberal range of his publications: he wrote so much that, from a practical point of view, he could not restrict himself to just or two periodicals as outlets but had to spread himself. The only article Van Wijk published in Tsarist Russia appeared in 1915 in a journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Another contribution appeared there in 1921, an article he had sent in before the Bolshevik coup d’état of 1917. There appeared only two further contributions from him throughout the period of Soviet rule, both to festschriften in 1928. An important part of Van Wijk’s scholarly work was devoted to Slavic accentology: there were many articles and the book Die baltischen und slavischen Akzent- und Intonationssysteme. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der baltischslavischen Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse, which appeared in 1923 in a series published by the Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen.6 It was provisionally the culmination of a series of articles on accentology and intonation that he had begun in 1914. A postscript to a letter to Johan Huizinga on the 18th September, 1914, indicates his preoccupation with this topic at the time: ‘I note that I am writing very badly at the moment. I am so over my head in Slavic accents that I only have a small corner of my writing table free for correspondence’.7

3

Van Wijk 1919a, p. 20. Ibid., p. 20-21. 5 See Van Wijk 1920b. 6 Van Wijk 1923. 7 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, HUI 48. 4

126

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

The article ‘Zur sekundären steigenden Intonation im Slavischen, vornehmlich in ursprünglich kurzen Silben’ that Van Wijk published in 1916 in Archiv für slavische Philologie, was the first evidence of his enthusiasm for this branch of Slavic studies.8 In this article, he proposed that in the Proto-Slavic language there were rising and falling intonations that either attracted or repelled the stress according to various rules. Van Wijk constructed an entire system of falling and rising tones, of short and long syllables and of stressed and unstressed syllables that were connected to each other. There were also rising tones that became falling or vice versa, which is called ‘metatony’. His views of these matters were contested, certainly, but it is clear that they were taken seriously from the detailed reviews occasioned by the appearance of his book in 1923.9 Within the academic community of Slavic studies, these discussions were conducted by a small minority of scholars. Essentially, in this field one was writing for a few colleagues. If one looks at the 1923 book in the context of Van Wijk’s development, one sees that he leans very heavily on his first publications on Indo-European. The central question with which he is concerned here is exactly the same question he had posed in his 1913 inaugural lecture: does the cause of the close affinity between the Baltic and Slavic languages lie in these language groups having shared a common unity during an early period after the splintering of the Indo-European proto-language into different language families? Van Wijk uses data on accents and intonation to give an affirmative answer to this question: there was a common period, he believed, although it must have been a relatively brief one. The evidence, according to him, lies in data relating to the supinum in both language groups.10 In his response to this book, Van Ginneken suggested that this result could scarcely compensate for all the effort of a such complex research: ‘But what a colossal work Van Wijk has put into this, to be able to shine a pin-prick of light into the prehistoric darkness! Indeed, he was never known to shrink from work, even when he was not always in a position immediately to reap its rich rewards’.11 This question of a putative pre-historical period of a single Balto-Slavic language was Van Wijk’s hobbyhorse. Even in a lemma on ‘Slavs’, in a Dutch encyclopaedia intended for a general reading public, he returns to this same question. True, he makes it clear just how hypothetical and how uncertain his ideas in this area are when he proposes a time and the area where these linguistic developments are alleged to have taken place: However this may be, in any case after the Balto-Slavic period there followed a long period during which Slavic developed independently of Baltic and was apparently geographically separated from it. It is difficult to say when this period began – 1500 B.C.? 2000? 1000? Where the Slavs, viz. the people, that spoke a proto-Slavic language lived subsequently is more difficult to establish than where the original Baltic tribal lands lay: certainly some-

8

See Van Wijk 1916a. See Lehr-SpáawiĔski 1921-1922, Meillet 1923, Weingart 1923, Bnjga 1924, Bulachovskij 1925 and 1947, Koschmieder 1956, Kuryáowicz 1959, and Vermeer 1988 and 1988a. 10 See Van Wijk 1923, p. 107. 11 Van Ginneken 1941, p. 197. 9

LINGUIST

127

where in Europe, not so far north, east of the Carpathians and the Vistula (Wolhynia? The Dnieper area? The region of the Don? Different in different periods?).12

Van Wijk’s contribution to the core Slavic studies lay in the area of the sound system of Old Church Slavonic or Old Bulgarian, the oldest Slavic language for which there is still surviving manuscript material. In 1920 he began a series of articles in Archiv für slavische Philologie on the fate of the reduced vowels in diverse manuscripts. There followed articles on other topics, such as the verba iterativa and the nasal vowels, as parts of the larger synthesis in his book Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache, I, Laut- und Formenlehre that appeared in Berlin in 1931.13 This book, for which Van Wijk had signed a contract with the publishers Walter de Gruyter & Co. on January 3rd, 1925, on the condition that he would supply the finished manuscript by the 1st July, 1927,14 was once again widely reviewed.15 For this book, Van Wijk had built up an extensive system of filing cards with data on word use in the Old Church Slavonic manuscripts. As a scholar, he was most interested in those differences in word use between the various manuscripts that might trace back to peculiarities of the region and time in which the different copyists had lived. The linguist Van Wijk was here also conducting himself in the manner of a philologist. F.B.J. Kuiper suggests, however, that Van Wijk’s driving motive was not philological but rather ‘the desire to locate a reliable basis for the reconstruction of the oldest Church Slavonic with the purpose of being able to distinguish older from later linguistic phenomena’, and with the ultimate aim of ‘grasping the linguistic reality of a distant past behind the curtain of more recent manuscripts: the typical preoccupation of the historian of language!’16 This was also evident from the major role he attributed in his book to the sound system of the oldest Slavic and to a phenomenon, that can only be described in historical terms: the tendency to make all syllables open, of which the nasalization of vowels and the dropping of final consonants are symptomatic. He had already drawn attention, in his inaugural lecture of 1913, to the phenomenon whereby, in a ProtoSlavic syllable, a sound can only be followed by another sound that is spoken with a wider oral cavity or, in his terminology, that had a greater sonority. Ever since, this ‘steigende Sonoritätswelle’, which takes us back into the realm of the Leipzig ‘ausnahmslose Lautgesetze’, had been one of Van Wijk’s favourite themes.17 Starting in 1931, and following on from his book – which, incidentally, he had delivered punctually in 1927 but then had to wait another four years before seeing the first volume published – Van Wijk began a series of articles on the composition of Old Church Slavonic and Old Slavic manuscripts, in which he was concerned to discover the prototype of texts and establishing links with Greek origi12

Van Wijk 1938d, p. 33. See Van Wijk 1931. 14 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 15 See Meyer 1931, Meillet 1931a and 1931b, Brückner 1931, Kul’bakin 1932, Jakobson 1932, and Kurz 1935. 16 Kuiper 1944, p. 164. 17 See Van Wijk 1913, p. 23. 13

128

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

nals.18 As far as is known, Van Wijk had not himself gone back to original Slavic manuscript material – his book on Old Church Slavonic relied on existing text editions – just as in his publications he did not base his arguments on his own linguistic observations. Fieldwork, such as his teacher Uhlenbeck had carried out among the Indians of Montana, clearly did not interest him. But in the winter of 19301931, he became acquainted with two parchment sheets that led to a new phase in his work. It was a Leiden antiquarian who played the main role in this: In dem vergangenen Winter zeigte Herr E. von Scherling in Leiden mir zwei in seinem Besitze befindliche Pergamentblätter. Bei einer oberflächlichen Durchmusterung sah ich, dass dieselben in serbisch-kirchenslavischer Sprache geschrieben sind; einige sehr altertümliche Formen schienen aber auf altbulgarischen Ursprung des Textes hinzuweisen. Deshalb bat ich den Herrn Besitzer, die zwei Blätter für eine genauere Untersuchung auf einige Zeit zu meiner Verfügung zu stellen; das wurde mir freundlichst bewilligt; bald gelang es mir, dem griechischen Grundtext, welcher dem offenbar bisher nicht erforschten slavischen Text zugrunde liegt, auf die Spur zu kommen, von einem Probleme kam ich zum andern, und so entstand diese Arbeit, welche die vorläufigen Resultate der von den zwei altserbischen Blättern angeregten Untersuchungen enthält.19

With his articles on Slavic paterika that deal with the life and the instructive words of the desert fathers of early Christendom, Van Wijk was venturing into territory that had up till then been very little covered by Slavists, as a result of which he became much more oriented toward textual analysis and lexicology than we were used to seeing him earlier. For the purposes of this research, he also took the new step of entering a Dalmatian monastery for two weeks in August, 1934, in order to study a manuscript there. His findings were published in the only article he ever wrote in Serbo-Croatian.20 His motive for this philological research, which led him into the domain of Byzantinology and which appropriately led to contributions in the Prague journal Byzantinoslavica, must have been historical-linguistic. Searching for the text that, according to legend, the ninth-century Slav apostle Methodius himself had translated from the Greek, he was also in the process looking for data on the Slavic dialect on which the oldest Slavic writings were based. Classifying the Slavic language family and establishing the boundaries between the different languages were other favourite subjects of Van Wijk.21 In 1928, he had no objection from the linguistic point of view against the use of the term ‘Czechoslovak language’, either ‘for the whole complex of Czech and Slovak dialects or for the two written language-varieties’.22 In 1931 he queried the right to separate existence of Belorussian as a separate Slavic language: Even though Geert Grote write in a Saxonian-Overijssel dialect, and even though stories still appear in the Overijssel dialect, do we therefore have to assume a separate Overijssel written language instead of the general Dutch? There was just as little need for a Belorussian written language for general and official use. And because the orthography – especially because of the spelling of a instead of o in weakly accented syllables – is always trying as far as possi18

See Kul’bakin 1925-1926 and 1926-1927, Vaillant 1932, and Pastrnek 1933-1934. Van Wijk 1931c, p. 1. 20 See Van Wijk 1935. 21 See Kul’bakin 1924, Romanski 1924-1925, and Meillet 1931. 22 Van Wijk 1928, p. 264. 19

LINGUIST

129

ble to differentiate itself from the Russian writing practice, the artificial wall of separation between the two only becomes higher.23

Lectures given by Van Wijk at the Sorbonne, in Paris, in December, 1936, on the origin and development of the Slavic languages, published in several issues of the semi-scholarly journal Le monde slave, appeared in book form under the title Les langues slaves: de l’unité à la pluralité in 1937.24 This must be Van Wijk’s least weighty international publication as a linguist, an impression one gets not only from the absence of footnotes but also because the language is French, in which Van Wijk had to make more of a stylistic effort than in the academic German that he had habitually used ever since his dissertation. The first chapter dealt with the origin of Proto-Slavic and the place of this reconstructed proto-language among other Indo-European languages before it split into separate, different Slavic languages. He is certainly more circumspect on the question of Indo-European than he was as a rash promovendus, declaring at the outset: ‘Qui pourrait prétendre le connaître? Les lignes de son système grammatical sont bien vagues pour nous’.25 Van Wijk attempts to set periods for the developments within the Proto-Slavic language, suggesting, though without referring to any archaeological data that might support his hypothesis, periods of more than two thousand years. The second chapter deals with general questions of Slavic language development, after which the next three chapters look at the origin of three language groups within the Slavic family, East Slavic, West Slavic and South Slavic, which eventually led to the formation of the existing national languages. He was able to make good use here of his own knowledge of transitional dialects between Czech and Polish and between Bulgarian and Serbian, on which he had earlier written detailed, separate publications. Now, in contrast to his previous position, he considers Belorussian after all to be ‘une langue littéraire propre’,26 mainly on the basis of the argument that a Belorussian dialect was used in the Old Lithuanian chancellery language. Meanwhile, he paid rather little attention to etymological problems within the Slavic language area. One suspects that, even with his etymological work in Dutch which he had felt it an honour to undertake when requested, without previously having given it much attention, he had never seen this work as his own special field. Even the Slavic languages in the current condition failed to engage him. So he apparently never found it necessary to write a grammar or textbook of modernday Russian, although one would imagine there must have been a need for one, even if only for a Dutch public. In his relative lack of interest for strictly synchronic issues he showed himself to be a man of the Leipzig school which held that historical-comparative linguistics was the only true path for linguists. One sees this in his 1924 review of Meillet and Vaillant’s Grammaire de la langue serbo-croate: 23

Van Wijk 1931d, p. 147. Van Wijk 1937. See Unbegaun 1938 for a review of this work. 25 Ibid., p. 2. 26 Ibid., p. 59. 24

130

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Certainly, it is of interest to anyone academically educated that the structure of different, living languages should be established in books with a certain degree of thoroughness, both for mutual comparisons today and for the training of future generations. Further, anyone who learns a foreign language, whether for practical purposes or as an interested layman, has need of a descriptive grammar; but he would, I think, be better served by a popular book with practical hints, themes, selected reading passages etc. […].27

An important part of Van Wijk’s work was reviewing books in the field of Slavic studies, not so much in the international journals (although many of his articles contained disguised reviews because of the fact that he was constantly engaged in discussions with fellow linguists); in fact his reviews were almost exclusively in Dutch, mainly for Museum, the monthly journal he had worked on whilst still a young teacher at Goes, and for Neophilologus, a quarterly that first appeared in 1916. A leitmotif in Van Wijk’s reviews is his assessment of an author’s ability to represent other people’s opinions in his own account and to draw the distinction clearly between his own and other views. A publication ought always to be based on a thorough knowledge of the subject area: otherwise one could count on Van Wijk’s indignation. A good example of this is his review in 1914 of the first volume of the Urslavische Grammatik by the Finnish linguist Mikkola: ‘this grammar is highly subjective, and where questions are uncertain the writer does not always set out the different relevant opinions, nor does he always indicate the most generally accepted opinion but often simply puts forward his own view as a fact. This all the more dangerous since he does not mention the necessary literature […]’.28 When Van Wijk reviewed the second edition of Vondrák’s Vergleichende slavische Grammatik in 1926 he found fundamental inadequacies: In the discussion of difficult problems that give rise to differences of opinion, the writer finds it difficult to give a critical overview of the issue in such a way that the most important views are presented and discussed in a way that would give the writer a basis from which to formulate his own position. The literature cited is not always sufficient, and the distinction between the opinions of others and his own is often so blurred that many a passage will be beyond the comprehension of the uninitiated reader who is not already familiar with these questions through his own independent study.29

To read Van Wijk’s reviews is to get the impression that the few scholars who at that time were engaged in the study of Slavic linguistics mainly wrote at cross purposes or else ignored each other. For instance, in a review of Agrell’s book Intonation und Auslaut im Slavischen, written in 1915, where the Swede has something to say about the Latvian linguist EndzelƯns, Van Wijk writes the following: ‘A. must certainly be censured both for presenting his own fanciful opinions on matters of which he has insufficient command, and for daring to challenge the sound scholarship of the foremost authority on the Latvian language with these views’.30 Nevertheless, he argued, it is precisely fantasy that takes a scholar forward in his discipline, which makes it very difficult at times to see where critical 27

Van Wijk 1924d, p. 310. Van Wijk 1914b, col. 424. 29 Van Wijk 1926e, col. 209. 30 Van Wijk 1915e, col. 209. 28

LINGUIST

131

thinking stops and fantasy begins. For this reason too, it is of great importance for an author to give some indication of the degree of probability of the particular claims he asserts. Van Wijk touches on this point in 1924 in his review of H. Peterssons Vergleichende slavische Wortstudien: Restricted as we are to the linguistic material available to us, we can have only an inadequate knowledge of the complex relations of form and meaning between the words from languages that lie in the distant past. Imagination must do the rest of the work. But by the nature of the matter, the imagined solutions of even the most learned, the best trained researchers do not always convince us. What is put to us as possible we often cannot accept as the only possibility, and repeatedly the question arises: but what if it were quite different? This is my experience time and again when I read Petersson: on the one hand I note great learning, shrewdness and a critical mind, and on the other hand I am simply not convinced by most of his proposals, even though they cannot definitely be set aside. The same goes for this new book.31

How should one sift one’s material? Van Wijk gives some indication in a 1923 review of the first volume of Manuel de l’antiquité slave, the French edition of a book by L. Niederle that originally appeared in Czech: A great virtue of this outstanding work is that the writer, a scholar who not only commands a gigantic knowledge of his subject but also has a critical eye, knows how to distinguish with accuracy between established facts and hypotheses. […] It is just this kind of material that calls for a strict separation of the certain from the uncertain, and it is Niederle’s great merit that he does this so clearly.32

As an author himself, Van Wijk set a very good example – for instance, by reporting the literature that he did not have at hand. Thus, in the article already mentioned, published in 1916, ‘Zur sekundären steigenden Intonation im Slavischen, vornehmlich in ursprünglich kurzen Silben’ in response to the book by the Serbian author A. Beliü, Akcenatske studije, published in 1914, he admits: ‘Ich weiss, dass dieses Buch erschienen ist, wegen des Kriegs kann ich es aber unmöglich nach Holland bekommen’.33 In the same article he also admits that he had not been able to deal with material from all the relevant languages, also because of the war: ‘Was das Bulgarische betrifft, ist der Krieg daran Schuld; ohne ihn hätte ich jetzt die nötige Literatur hier gehabt, jetzt habe ich sie leider nicht’.34 In his Academy book, Die baltischen und slavischen Akzent- und Intonationssysteme, published in 1923, Van Wijk even devotes the first three pages to a list of books and articles that had appeared since his manuscript went to press: ‘Glücklicherweise war nichts dabei, was mich zu einer Revision der in diesem Buche ausgesprochenen Gedanken oder zu einer eingehenden Bekämpfung veranlassen könnte’.35 It was not that their publication could in any way have affected his own designs, but rather that he could, in this way, cover himself against possible criticism that he had overlooked something. Van Wijk 31

Van Wijk 1924e, col. 161. Van Wijk 1923c, p. 382. 33 Van Wijk 1916a, p. 322. 34 Ibid., p. 377. 35 Van Wijk 1923, p. [v]. 32

132

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

seldom had any difficulty in publicizing changes of his opinion, or in correcting errors that he had discovered in his work. For example, he does this in an article, published in Lithuania in 1926, on Slavic and Baltic verb stems, in which he finally, with all his scholarly enthusiasm, reaches the conclusion: ‘So muss der Forscher fortwährend frühere Meinungen revidieren. Aber dadurch soll man sich nicht von einem weitern Suchen nach der Wahrheit abhalten lassen’.36 While he used material from the Baltic languages – Latvian, Lithuanian and Old Prussian – for comparisons in many of his articles on Slavic linguistics, another part of his work was more exclusively devoted to Baltic linguistics.37 One of the first works that comes to mind in this context is the book he dedicated to the memory of August Leskien, who died in 1916: his Altpreussische Studien. Beiträge zur baltischen und zur vergleichenden indogermanischen Grammatik, published in The Hague in 1918 by Martinus Nijhoff, the publisher of his revised edition of Franck’s etymologische woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. The contract for this book, signed in The Hague on the 21st March, 1918 by Van Wijk and Wouter Nijhoff, states that the book would be published at Martinus Nijhoff’s expense and risk,38 so that Van Wijk does not exaggerate when he thanks the publishers in his foreword that they ‘trotz der schweren Zeitverhältnisse die Herausgabe dieser für einen kleinen Kreis von Lesern bestimmten Schrift auf die uneigennützigste Weise übernehmen wollte’.39 The state of war to which Van Wijk here alludes was again the reason, as he explains in his foreword, that he was unable to consult a book of EndzelƯns, because of a Russian ban on the export of books. He also informs his reader – with his usual openness when it came to the state of his own knowledge – that at that moment he had ‘nur sehr oberflächliche Kenntnisse’40 of Latvian. With this book, Van Wijk allied himself with a small group of scholars who were cudgelling their brains with the extinct language of the Prussians, which had died out some three hundred years ago and is now known only from a very limited number of sources. In ten chapters, Altpreussische Studien offers several studies of grammatical forms, mainly in the dialect of Samland. Beside ‘the young’ J.H. Kern – who limited himself in Museum to providing a summary of the book for ‘linguistic connoisseurs’41 – the book was also reviewed by two scholars whose work was much discussed in its pages. In a very brief review, Trautmann, whom he had met in Prague on his ‘book tour’ of 1914, sees Van Wijk more as a critical summarizer of the existing literature than as a linguist with original ideas: ‘Der Wert dieser Studien liegt im ganzen mehr in ihrem kritischen, als in ihrem aufbauenden Teil’.42 On the other hand, EndzelƯns, who had meanwhile moved from 36

Van Wijk 1926b, p. 84. See Meillet 1918 for a review of Van Wijk’s early work in this area. 38 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. 39 Van Wijk 1918, p. 4. See Schaeken 1998 for a bibliography of Van Wijk’s publications on the Baltic languages. 40 Van Wijk 1918, p. 4. 41 Kern 1919, col. 251. 42 Trautmann 1918, col. 627. 37

LINGUIST

133

Charkov to Riga in the independent Latvia, subjects the book to a detailed discussion and arrives at a characteristically cautious conclusion that could easily have come from Van Wijk himself: Wenn ich auch nicht in allen Einzelheiten dem Autor folgen kann, so muss ich doch anerkennen, dass in seinem Buch einige Ansichten anderer Forscher durch neue Argumente gestützt werden und auch mehrere Ansichten, die von ihm selbst stammen, aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach richtig sind, sodass durch seine Arbeit die baltische Philologie wesentlich gefördert wird.43

Old Prussian was also the subject of several articles by Van Wijk. Apart from that, where Baltic linguistics are concerned, he operated primarily in his familiar field of accentology and historical morphology. There are over sixty publications in this Baltic field under his name, almost half of which are reviews. Just once he seems to have felt the need to retaliate against Trautmann in a review of his book Die altpreussischen Personennamen: ‘To my mind, none of the writer’s patience and acuity is rewarded by any great result’.44 In the Baltic field too, Van Wijk wrote his reviews exclusively in Dutch, with the consequence that the readers of Museum and the journals for folklore Eigen volk and Ons eigen volk would have found themselves informed about rather specialized books, whose only copy in The Netherlands must already have been in Van Wijk’s possession. 2. Dutch In the inaugural lecture that Van Wijk delivered in the Stadsgehoorzaal in Leiden, on Balties-Slaviese problemen, he appealed to the students of language and literature in the audience: And to the students of Dutch language and literature among you who are turning to the linguistic side, I would say: before anything else, be neerlandici! My own experience has taught me that, from the scholarly point of view, Dutch linguistics is exceptionally interesting and deserves the full attention of everyone in a position to study it, which in the first place means Dutch philologists, who can sense the subtleties of the Dutch language much better than a foreigner.45

In one sense, Van Wijk seems here to have been addressing himself, for with his appointement he had not repudiated his origin as a neerlandicus and ‘Sprachvergleicher’ in the field of Indo-European studies. There are many who would have been only too proud to acknowledge as the result of their life’s main work the oeuvre that he assembled in this area after his appointment as professor in Slavic studies – while for him it was merely a sideline that he was under no obligation to continue. For example, in 1914, Van Wijk’s major article ‘De umlaut van a in Ripuariesen Salies-frankiese dialekten van België en Nederland’ appeared in Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde. It was the result of a proven procedure: excerpting the material relating to a particular phenomenon on the basis of various 43

EndzelƯns 1922-1923, p. 617. Van Wijk 1927a, col. 101. 45 Van Wijk 1913, p. 6. 44

134

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

different dialect grammars. Van Wijk emphasizes the ease with which results can be achieved in this way: ‘What I have written above is only a small part of what every linguist can easily dig up from our dialect grammars. I deal with the “younger” umlaut of a in its relation to the older one and the reflex of both of them in our Frankish dialects. [...] The little that I presented was sufficient to show how mistaken are certain ideas now in circulation about various Dutch language phenomena’.46 Van Wijk went on to make an appeal to his colleagues, an appeal that looks more like a working programme for the immediate future. He is so critical of authors who had written about dialects of the Bommelerwaard, Maastricht, Tongeren, Leuven, Aalst and Antwerp, one gets the impression that he wanted to say that from now on neerlandici would have to organize their own dialectological affairs without him: What a rich harvest could be garnered if someone could make a comparison of all the different dialect grammars of the Ripuarian and Salies area in all their peculiarities and from this put together a comparative phonology (preferably a morphology as well), with the categoryclassification of our Dutch grammars but without the errors of detail that debilitate Van de Water’s and especially Houben’s book no less than the Flemish writings of Grootaers, Goemans, Colinet and Smout. It would be desirable to add to this a review of the isoglosses of some individual words […].47

He was resolved from now on to set aside his own investigation of the Dutch sound system – as he makes abundantly clear in a review of 1916: ‘Some of the major issues of the Dutch sound system are a true labyrinth in which any nonspecialist finds himself hopelessly astray. Now that I have been obliged, these last years, to consider Slavic languages rather than Dutch as my main concern, I would prefer to call a halt before the entrance to these mazes’.48 He also took a step backwards for his textbook De Nederlandsche taal whose third edition appeared in 1913. After this, when Tjeenk Willink, the publisher, still wanted to keep the book in the shops, Van Wijk opted to bring in a collaborator: the HBS teacher Dr. W. van Schothorst from The Hague, whose Utrecht dissertation, Het dialect van Noord-West-Veluwe (1904), he had commented on with approval.49 In the 1919 edition Van Schothorst mainly restricted himself to editorial changes.50 A fifth edition of De Nederlandsche taal appeared in 1924, a sixth and last in 1931. Neither of these editions, both overseen by Van Schothorst, differs greatly from the fourth edition of 1919.51 But that edition did bring Van Wijk in for criticism, precisely where his hobbyhorse was involved, of his knowledge of dialect. P.C. Schoonees wrote from South Africa in response to Van Wijk’s claim that the Dutch dialect in the Transvaal and adjoining regions has changed under the influence of Malay-Portuguese: ‘Apparently the learned gentleman does not 46

Van Wijk 1914, p. 246. Ibid., p. 247. 48 Van Wijk 1916d, p. 210. 49 See Van Wijk 1911, p. 80. 50 See Van Schothorst 1919, p. vii. 51 See Van Schothorst 1924 and 1931. 47

LINGUIST

135

know that Transvaal is only one of four provinces of South Africa, and that Afrikaans is one of the official languages through the whole length and breadth of the land, even in the former German South-West Africa, recognized as fully equal to English by a national law. Nor is the Malay-Portuguese theory any longer considered by anyone to be correct’.52 Van Wijk saw no reason for further work on his edition of Franck’s etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. In 1929, with Van Wijk’s agreement, Nijhoff reprinted the 1912 edition unchanged, commissioning C.B. van Haeringen – who in his time had attended lecture courses from both Uhlenbeck and Van Wijk – to compile a supplement with addenda and corrigenda. In their preface to his edition in 1936, Van Haeringen says that Van Wijk had supported him throughout ‘both in word and deed’.53 He also mentioned the Leiden professor J.H. Kern, since deceased, who had made available to him ‘a long list of annotations he had made during the course of using Franck-Van Wijk’.54 Van Haeringen’s Supplement, in which several hundred words are included for the first time, differs from Van Wijk’s work mainly as a result of his concentrating more on Dutch and German material at the expense of Indo-European. Moreover, unlike Van Wijk, he provided full references to the literature.55 There was another etymological project that had Van Wijk’s support: the Etymologisches Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache by the Berliner Sigmund Feist. Both in the second edition of 192356 and the third edition of 1939,57 Feist thanks Van Wijk for his assistance in the BaltoSlavic domain. As far as his old studies of Dutch and Indo-European were concerned, the professor of Balto-Slavic languages remained in service mainly as a reviewer. As a comparative linguist, the study of Indo-European still held for him the greater prestige: ‘Indo-Germanic studies did the pioneering work for all comparative linguists, having created the methods of historical and comparative research, and to this day, of all investigators of language, the Indo-Germanists […] are the best trained and the most used to systematic study […]’.58 What is attractive about Van Wijk’s reviews, and also of a number of general articles in De Nieuwe Taalgids, is that he is able to distance himself from his subjects and from the university world, and is sometimes unable to suppress a certain tone of irony, as when he talks about festschriften: All too often, a festschrift for a professor comes with what one might call a ‘heavily academic character’: the individual contributors try to ‘advance their scholarship’ by publishing their most recent élucubrations. But such collections rarely have a homogeneous character. While some contributors strive to pay worthy tribute to their professorial teacher or friend by means of a sound study of an important subject, others submit an insignificant trifle that

52

Schoonees 1921, p. 215. Van Haeringen 1936, p. xi. 54 Ibid. 55 See Schultink 1990, p. 120-121. 56 See Feist 1923, p. iv. 57 See Feist 19393, p. ix. 58 Van Wijk 1918b, p. 99. 53

136

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

they take to be sufficiently unimportant to ‘bury’ in a book that will never attract the gaze of every professional colleague.59

At the end of the thirties, however, Van Wijk did return to the Dutch sound system when, in a number of articles, he discussed the parallel phenomena regarding vowel lengthening and Stosstöne [‘bumping’ or high tones] in Limburg dialects, West Slavic languages and Baltic.60 He was not concerned here with exclusively Dutch matters but with the comparison of Dutch with Balto-Slavic material and the parallel explanations of identical phenomena that occurred in different language groups. One of the reasons for this return was the stimulus provided by articles written by the young Sittard linguist Willy Dols, one of Van Ginneken’s pupil’s at Nijmegen. This was also the reason for Van Wijk to publish in the journal Onze Taaltuin, the journal in which Dols’ papers also appeared,61 and is a good example of Van Wijk’s tendency to let the direction of his activities be largely influenced by discussions with others. At the same time, his observations on Limburg dialects also say something about the unity of Van Wijk’s work: he had already turned his attention to this in his inaugural lecture in 1913.62 3. Body postures We have not yet discussed one difference between the second, third and fourth editions of Van Wijk’s school grammar, De Nederlandsche taal, because the matter needs special treatment. It concerns Van Wijk’s attempt to win over the Dutch educational world to the (originally German) theory of Rumpfmuskeleinstellungen – rompstanden in Van Wijk’s Dutch translation – a theory of upper body posture and sound developed by Ottmar Rutz and Eduard Sievers. In his preface to the third edition of 1913, Van Wijk informs his reader that in this new edition he ‘thought he could not remain silent over the “neue Entdeckungen von der menschlichen Stimme”, to which Dr. O. Rutz had already devoted three interesting books and which opens up whole new perspectives for future linguistics’.63 Van Wijk is actually referring here to Van Ginneken who, in 1913, had introduced to the Dutch public the ideas of Ottmar Rutz in an article in De Nieuwe Taalgids64 and in his text book he devotes two and a half pages to this. In the 1919 fourth edition of De Nederlandsche taal, overseen by Van Schothorst, these pages were again removed because, according to Van Schothorst, ‘recent research in this area by Prof. E. Sievers in Leipzig clearly demonstrates that the science of body postures is still far too undeveloped to be discussed in a textbook such as this’.65 Van Wijk’s enthusiasm for the theory of body postures must have been considerable for him to start discussing it in a book aimed at school pupils, even though he himself hastens to add that the study had not yet progressed so far ‘that we can 59

Van Wijk 1925d., p. 257. See Van Wijk 1935a, 1936a and 1939b. 61 See Goossens 1988, p. 54. 62 See Van Wijk 1913, p. 9-10. 63 Van Wijk 19133, p. vii. 64 See Van Ginneken 1913. 65 Van Schothorst 1919, p. vii. 60

LINGUIST

137

report the details of it as established fact in the same way that accent and sound are discussed in the following two chapters’.66 Van Wijk’s preface for the third edition is dated ‘Spring 1913’,67 when Van Ginneken’s article in the first number of De Nieuwe Taalgids for the year 1913 had already appeared. Like Van Wijk, Father Van Ginneken was an old pupil of Uhlenbeck. He was known as someone overflowing with new ideas but who could be highly uncritical. In a discussion of the first volume of Van Ginneken’s Handboek der Nederlandsche taal issued in 1913, Van Wijk refers to ‘Van Ginneken’s strongly synthetic nature, which immediately sees different, loose facts as a coherent whole but then has a less acute analytical view of the facts in themselves’,68 and then goes on to add, not without irony: ‘Van Ginneken will never explain someone else’s theory without grouping the component ideas differently, so that the synthesis is always his own’.69 Van Ginneken was in a certain sense the antithesis of Van Wijk, whose tendency as a linguistic scholar was always, precisely, to investigate the detail. In terms of their feverish activity, neither outdid the other. In 1915 Van Wijk saw Van Ginneken as a possible successor to Verdam as the Leiden professor of Dutch, but the father stood no chance with the older generation in the Faculty, as Van Wijk informed him on July 3rd, 1915: there was ‘apparently a half-conscious fear of a temperament that they cannot sympathize with and of methods that are foreign to them’.70 But there was also a religious aspect involved: ‘You know of course as well as I do that in all such cases being a Jesuit is for many a latent source of antipathy! For me personally it does not count in the least’.71 In the same review, which appeared in early 1914, Van Wijk reports that he had also got to know Van Ginneken personally.72 This could well explain the influence of Van Ginneken, but the latter was emphatic that they had initially operated quite independently of each other: That two such different types as Van Wijk and myself should find each other so early in this slippery area was itself a strange enough circumstance, one which through our later increasingly close rapprochement perhaps became less remarkable but at the same time more persuasive. Wholly independently of each other, we both came to understand early on the oracular appeal of Eduard Sievers’ prophetic voice, although we did not think that this ought to discredit our critical standpoint in various other areas […].73

Whatever the case, in 1914 Van Wijk with several students began doing rompstandoefeningen [body postural exercises], as he writes in his long article ‘De rompstand en zijn betekenis voor taal en muziek’ [Body posture and its significance for language and music] that appeared in 1915 in De Gids.74 One recalls an 66

Van Wijk 19133, p. 166. Ibid., p. viii. 68 Van Wijk 1914a, p. 549. 69 Ibid. 70 Nijmegen, Archief van de Nederlandse Provincie der Jezuïeten. 71 Ibid. See further Noordegraaf 1992, p. 288. 72 Van Wijk 1914a, p. 551. 73 Van Ginneken 1941, p. 200-201. 74 See Van Wijk 1915d, p. 490 67

138

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

episode in the record of his 1914 journey: that he had engaged in similar exercises with Sievers in Leipzig.75 According to a letter that Van Wijk wrote on the 16th (29th) May, 1914, from Moscow to the St Petersburg linguist Šachmatov,76 he had tried there to interest the polyglot Korš in the theory of body postures: Van Wijk was thus no stranger to the missionary urge. On the 2nd October, 1914, at the monthly meeting of the Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde he gave a talk on ‘The relation of music and language to body posture’, at which, ‘at the request of de heer Van Wijk’, two un-named non-members were also present.77 What is it all about? one asks. The theory of Rumpfmuskeleinstellungen was developed by a certain Joseph Rutz, a Bavarian customs official who was an amateur singer. Repeated exercise taught him that a composition which normally he found difficult to bring off was much more successful when he changed his body posture, that is, if he changed the state or direction of the tension in particular trunk muscles. Which muscles these were, precisely, he did not know, but he discovered four kinds of body postural bearing. He himself wrote nothing, but thanks to his son Ottmar Rutz, a lawyer, his ideas were widely disseminated in the early part of the twentieth century. It was subsequently an initiative of Sievers to introduce the legacy of Rutz father and son into academic and scholarly circles. Van Wijk introduces the main categories of body posture in De Gids as follows: Thus Haydn, Schubert and Händel should be sung with the abdominal bearing: the abdominal muscles push out in the horizontal direction, – Beethoven, Brahms, Schumann demand a thoracic bearing: the abdominal muscles are pulled, – for Wagner, Liszt, Massenet a descent bearing is needed: the muscles are tensed obliquely, either from above-dorsally to lower-ventrally to from above-ventrally to below-dorsally. Theoretically, there is a fourth posture that can be identified as well as these three, the ascent bearing: oblique muscle movement, from below to above, but Rutz had never observed this bearing in anyone.78

Van Wijk points out that the theory of body postures did not only hold for vocal music but for other types of musical composition and for the recital of poems and prose without music. The heart of the matter is to be found in the following: […] that the bearing to be adopted and the associated qualities of the voice and modulation depend on the music or the text that one is reciting, and therefore indirectly on the person that has created it: this person invests what he produces with a certain something and perhaps cannot be further defined, something dependant on the psycho-physical characteristics of his personality. When I now assume my bearing- many do without knowing it, unconsciously adapting themselves to the recited text – I adopt the trunk muscular attitude that the composer/poet/writer had and this gives my voice certain characteristic qualities, corresponding to that voice, that are necessary if one is to reproduce it well. In other words, when Haydn and Mozart, Goethe and Hooft demand to be performed with body posture I (abdominal bearing), Beethoven and R. Strauss, Schiller and Vondel with II (thoracic bearing),

75

Letters from Van Wijk to Sievers are lacking from the Sievers archive in the Leipzig University Library. See further Einhauser 1989, p. 323. 76 St Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburgskij filial Archiva RAN. 77 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde, inv. no. 53, Notulen van maandelijkse ledenvergaderingen, oktober 1884-december 1914. 78 Van Wijk 1915d, p. 462.

LINGUIST

139

R. Wagner and Saint-Saëns, Racine and Kloos with III (descent bearing), they themselves must have had these attitudes, and if they are still living they must still have them. These facts, already established by Joseph Rutz, show us that the body posture is an expression of a central characteristic of humanity. Everyone has his characteristic body posture, and they occur in a great number of different variations.79

Van Wijk goes even further when he explains that the psycho-physical structure adopted by someone and which is expressed in his body posture, sets its stamp on everything that person does, even though we may not always notice it. Often, Van Wijk did just that, venturing observations in fields where we had not previously heard him: ‘with many that I encounter on the street, I see that he is I-warm, another II-cold or III-warm and I can infer from this that the first person is best suited to recite Multatuli, the second would be better suited to Jacques Perk, the third to Van Eeden’.80 ‘Cold’ and ‘warm’, as in the above quotation, as with ‘large’ and ‘small’ and other binary pairs of qualification belong to the subcategories of attitudes associated with each of the four types so that theoretically there ought to be 1728 different postural attitudes. In the following, Van Wijk offers an example from his own practice of body posture investigations from which it is again evident that he fully believed in this theory: If someone composes or writes poetry or prose then, as we have already seen, his body posture is evident in the process. But it is no less the case when he furnishes a room, or when he draws or paints; and persons who react strongly and have become used to noting their muscular reactions, as soon as they look at a painting, will feel in their bodily posture or in their muscular tension what body posture the painter had. Anyone who doubts this should put it to the test, as I have done together with several students. I had in my room a drawing of a young friend of mine who has a warm attitude-I: I knew this from his general demeanour and from his poetry; I had never previously investigated his drawing with an eye to this aspect. Also hanging on the wall was a French etching after Corot, whom I took to be III and in fact III-cold. Now Constantijn Huygens is also III-cold, and Multatuli is I-warm: from which one can infer that a person could recite Multatuli better whilst looking at the drawing than whilst regarding the etching. If he fixes his attention on the etching, he will experience its influence on his whole person, he will tend to assume the body posture of the etcher and then his voice will become unsuitable to recite Multatuli. Conversely, Huygens should flow more freely if one stands in front of the etching, whereas in front of the drawing neither reciter nor hearer will be satisfied. The result of this little experiment brilliantly confirmed my expectations. The judgement was unanimous, even though I had refrained from any predictions and at the end of the test I let the others give their opinion before I spoke my own.81

Van Wijk’s belief in the theory of body postures also led to generalizations at the level of entire peoples. He held that almost all the French belonged to the denominated type III, whereas Poles belonged in the main to type I. He draws on a recollection of a stay in Cracow, when it struck him that most of his acquaintances had something in common in their way of walking and gesturing: ‘they all demon79

Ibid., p. 462-463. Ibid., p. 463. 81 Ibid., p. 463-464. 80

140

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

strated the external characteristics of class I’.82 Van Wijk also spelled out the implications of his generalizations, acknowledging that ‘the body posture, if not a primary, can certainly be a secondary racial characteristic: how else does one explain the fact that almost all Jews have body posture-III?’.83 In this context one also recalls Van Ginneken claiming in 1914 that he had discovered a type of Jewish accent in Dutch and other languages that he linked to the stiff lips and the ‘horn-like nasal sound’ of Jews.84 In his article, Van Wijk also mentions Sievers’ discovery that one can make use of copper wire figures [German: Stimmeinstellungszeichen] to ‘tune into’ our bearing voluntarily. He had sixteen figures, each given a shape corresponding with the direction of a particular muscular tension: […] fixing such a figure is sufficient for us to be able to assume the corresponding muscular stance. When we also want to recite a text or sing a song, we can lay the figure – or figures (sometimes we need more than one at the same time) on the page from which we can read it – or if that proves to be an obstruction, we can place the book or sheet of paper on a reading standard and lay the copper figures on a horizontal – preferably covered with a matt black material – that should be secured immediately under the text. Before beginning, we concentrate our gaze on the wire figures to get ourselves properly attuned before reciting the text. A few of the figures, those for body postures III and IV and for the oblique contractions, we have to see obliquely, on the slant before us, so these will have to be held in the hand when we want to feel their influence.85

Van Wijk agrees that there may be readers who find some of this incredible. So, he says, did he for ‘the first minutes, when Sievers showed me his findings – and it is the same for most people that I wanted to initiate in these methods of jiggerypokery’.86 But anyone who has tried the method, according to him, is quickly convinced, ‘if he is not completely devoid of all rhythmic sense’.87 This last qualification, in fact, could be applied to the entire theory of body postures: there is nothing in it for anyone who has no feeling for it. This is also the import of the conclusion to the article where he explains that, in this matter of philology, one can only achieve something if one has a feeling for sound and rhythm and if one is something of an artist as well as a scholar. These were qualities, in any case, that he imputed to Sievers: ‘As well as in philology, in other branches of scholarship too, the greatest among the great distinguish themselves not only through sharpness of mind and training but also through their imagination and intuition’.88 Van Wijk was never again quite so keen to embrace Sievers and Joseph and Ottmar Rutz’ theory of body posture, to which Sievers had given respectability, as he had been in 1915 in De Gids, but he never entirely gave it up. The origins of the movement alone – arising from the observations of a layman, adopted by his son who was equally a layman when it came to phonetics – were rather alien to the 82

Ibid., p. 477. Ibid., p. 478. 84 See Kooij and Van Oostendorp 2003, p. 33. See further Daan 2000, p. 24. 85 Van Wijk 1915d, p. 483. 86 Ibid., p. 485. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid., p. 494. 83

LINGUIST

141

strictly academic context in which Van Wijk operated as a linguist. It is also striking that he did not choose a linguistic journal, but rather the literary De Gids through which to disseminate his message. He was also coquettish in his article in the way he alluded to his personal familiarity with Sievers and with the latter’s initial doubts: ‘I seem to remember Sievers once telling me how highly sceptical of the new theory he had been for a while after reading Rutz’ first book […]’.89 Van Wijk suggested that the theory of body posture could be useful when one wanted to ascertain whether a manuscript derived from different translators or authors. Thus, in 1915 he claimed that the Middle Dutch romance of Ferguut had been translated from the French by one or two persons. A simple reading experiment whereby the different postural bearings of the translators would be revealed had shown him, he said, that the boundary lay between verses 2558 and 2559.90 Subsequently, however, in 1926 he declared that he had insufficiently mastered the method,91 but this did not prevent him publishing again in 1928, in the Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde, the results of the weekly gatherings he had held with his group of Leiden students in the winter of 1914 to 1915. He confesses, it is true, that he is ‘no longer up-to-date’92 as far as sound analysis is concerned, but then adds: ‘And the aim of this essay is not to help advance the method of sound analysis but simply to show how one of our major poets has employed differences in rhythm and melody to differentiate the subsidiary parts of a work of art, unconsciously of course’.93 In a review of a German book on the ‘schallanalytische Methode’ Van Wijk admits that this can count on ‘very little sympathy’94 among philologists. It would in fact seem that Van Wijk writes from the position of underdog, when in 1932 he comes to review, highly unusually, a non-scholarly book on rhetoric by Albert Vogel in Museum. Possibly he did this because, in it, the author sympathetically discussed Sievers’ elaboration of the theories of Rutz père et fils.95 Van Wijk returned several more times to the body posture theory, while at the same time claiming no longer to be fully qualified. Otherwise, he always took pride in the topicality of his knowledge. In the context of his oeuvre, there is another sense in which the body posture investigations were peculiar: beyond them, he hardly ever conducted any experimental or field work. The stubbornness with which he maintained his allegiance to the theory of body posture – despite all the scepticism of his colleagues, which he himself reported – can perhaps be explained by his feelings of loyalty to his great exemplar from Leipzig. It is certainly clear from his own comments that he admired the latter enormously. It is conceivable that it was solely because of the intensive personal contacts he had enjoyed with Sievers that he was never able to reject the theory entirely. And this affair went 89

Ibid., p. 472. Ibid., p. 491. 91 See Van Wijk 1926c, p. 277-278. 92 Van Wijk 1928a, p. 81. 93 Ibid., p. 82. 94 See Van Wijk 1929a, col. 171. 95 See Van Wijk 1932c. 90

142

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

further than his relations with Sievers. We have seen that he had gone into those investigations with students. It appears from his article in De Gids that he had also been engaged with an authority on the Flemish author Hendrik Conscience, trying, with the help of the body posture theory, to throw light on texts from Conscience’s time whose authorship was not securely established.96 He also reports having done experiments with ‘perhaps the very best authority’ on Polish poetry of the seventeenth century ‘this summer’ (i.e. the summer of 1915, when he was in Poland on his mission of philanthropy), especially in relation to the work of Jan Kochanowski.97 The convivial aspect of all this may have played a major role in Van Wijk’s passion for this subject: it brought the bachelor into more personal, more intensive contacts with others than did pure scholarship. Curiously, Van Wijk’s old classmate Leo Polak also got involved in body posture theory and in 1916 published a long article in the first number of that year’s issue of the new journal Neophilologus, introducing and defending the theory which was, he observed, ‘more ridiculed than seriously studied in academic circles’.98 Referring to Van Wijk’s article in De Gids – as well as his address to the Maatschappij der Nederlandse letterkunde99 – he remarked that he found the latter ‘a convinced supporter of the “new theory”, as its supporters are rather too pleased to call it […]’.100 Polak lived in Haarlem at that period, so that contact with Van Wijk would not have been at all difficult. However, we have no information on that; the only evidence available to us of contact between Polak and Van Wijk after their student years is a copy of Polak’s Oorlogsfilosofie inscribed ‘v.d.S’. [van den schrijver – ‘from the author’] found among Van Wijk’s books.101 Van Wijk’s own copper wire figures,102 probably purchased from the Leipzig firm Franz Rettelbusch,103 have been preserved.104 They are silent witnesses to his fascination with body posture theory and to the various sessions that his articles clearly suggest had so excited him. His commitment to this theory was a one-off example in all his work, the occasion when he thought he could combine insights from linguistics, literature, music and behavioural studies by intuitive means. The outcome was a movement of vague withdrawal over more than fifteen years, all the while engaged in publicity, yet without admitting to having lost his belief in the rightness of a theory which, in the eyes of many of his contemporaries, was more than a little esoteric.

96

See Van Wijk 1915d, p. 492. Ibid., p. 471. 98 Polak 1916, p. 161. 99 Ibid. Polak’s article mistakenly reports 2nd October 1913 [=1914] as the date of the address. 100 Ibid. 101 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, sign. 1462 D 16. 102 With his letter dated 28.01.1914 to Van Wijk, Sievers had sent ‘endlich die Drähte’, but asked for it to be returned. They were not yet in the shops, for Sievers writes: ‘Vielleicht gelingt es mir die Figuren in den Handel zu bringen […]’. See in Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 103 See Polak 1916, p. 176. 104 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3172. 97

Postcard from Van Wijk to Stefan Mladenov dated 5th December 1939. Sofia, Archiv na Bǎlgarskata Akademija na Naukite.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER VI

PUBLICIST

1. Russia Once a professor, Nicolaas van Wijk again took up the publicizing work that he had begun in 1904 in De Gids, with his article on the Hamlets of Russian literature. Only the perspective had changed: whereas, prior to 1913, he had been an interested layman making claims on Slavic matters over which nobody was in a position of professional authority to adjudicate, at a stroke he was now the one real expert The Netherlands possessed. Moreover, he immediately found himself in the position of having to decide his standpoint vis-à-vis the enormous changes that had overtaken Russia as a result of the First World War and the 1917 revolution. These events also had personal consequences: He could never have suspected, when he left Kiev for Lemberg on his quest for books, that he was taking his leave of the Russian State for ever. He never visited Soviet Russia. On the 16th January, 1916, Van Wijk published an article in De Amsterdammer titled ‘Rusland en Europa’ which, against the background of the war, could be read as an expression of his sympathy for Russian mysticism. Russia, he maintained, had changed radically since the beginning of the century, and was in fact no longer a backward country: For example, when we see what Moscow achieved in the field of transport between 1904 and 1914 (an excellent electrical tram network, a ring-road) and sewage system, with typically modern, solidly built and comfortably furnished housing arising where previously stood small, old-fashioned buildings – and not only in the main streets but also across the river in the ‘dark empire’ of the old merchants – then we cannot but wonder whether Russia is busy at last becoming a country like our own western European states.1

But Van Wijk does not seem to have been altogether happy with the modernization of Russia, for ‘one sees all too often how an individual or a society, developing powerfully in one direction, can in other aspects loose vital qualities’.2 Van Wijk is referring here to literature, to the ideas of such writers as Tolstoy and Dostoevsky: ‘How many have felt that these men possessed something which we lack, or at any rate have to a much lesser degree, and that this something in fact helps make human life fuller and better!’.3 Van Wijk then turns to the world of his own experience, betraying a certain infatuation with Russian life, and evidently also his attachment to individuals whom he had met in Russia but about whom we know nothing further: These conversations – and who has ever lived in Russia and not devoted long evenings to them? – usually produce little result; the issues discussed are too vague, often too broad in 1

Van Wijk 1916b, p. 3. Ibid. 3 Ibid. 2

146

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

scope to be able to get anywhere; but at the same time the depths of a man’s soul are revealed, and it is a soul alive to the divine element it contains, thirsting to realize his ethical ideals – often more felt than rationally articulated – to the benefit of himself and his fellowman. And when one refers to Russians as being impractical, fretting inconsequentially over unreal concerns and accomplishing very little in real life, one judges unfairly if one does not at he same time grant that they are more deeply aware than most of us that the fundamental, constitutive rule of a society should be an ethical rule and that their disillusions and their fiascos are all the more tragic, given that they set their ideals higher than we usually do, and also given that they wanted to achieve more than is achievable by normal people (who also have their bad and weak sides), more in fact than the social order (which is not based on purely ethical principles) can bear.4

Van Wijk even sees possibilities for introducing a Russian social model into the rest of Europe. The thirty five-year old minister’s son reveals himself here as a man with a rather pious cast to his way of thinking: Well now, is it impossible that after this war the cultural nations of Europe […], disappointed at the results of their civilization, should feel the need of more mysticism beside the modern-day, strongly developed sense of the so-called real and concrete? If that should come to pass, the influence of Russian thought and feeling could be much greater than is now the case, and particularly Dostoevsky ought to give us far more than he already has – although it would be a vain hope if we thought the golden age, as he saw before him in his most ecstatic moments, is at hand; for we humans are not gods, and nothing human is strange to us; as well as a love of the ethical ideal we also have and persist in a love of the lower, a love of the earthy. The relation between these two tendencies can change, but neither is going to disappear.5

In 1917, the Russian Tsarist state came to an end. Van Wijk responded to the February revolution that removed the Tsar with an article in a woman’s monthly magazine, Leven en Werken. In it, he asked from his female readers an understanding of Russia which he still viewed, just as he had years earlier, through the lenses of a reader of Russian literature. He seems to have been still committed to a concept of the Russian as a person whose ‘broad nature’ was capable of comprehending various apparently absurd, or at least incongruous behaviours. And on this same basis he was also capable of a certain sympathy for the cause of the left: So in the present time that we are living through, the rapid conversion of Russia into a republic based on freedom and equality may seem an all too dangerous experiment: our careful concern, however, should not lead us to exclude the belief that the extreme leftist parties which want that are inspired by a just desire for a better world and to make people happier, and that this desire, expressing itself the more violently to the degree that it was previously suppressed, is a symptom of the same broad Russian nature that led Tolstoy to hope for a world of wise, intelligent people harmoniously living out the beatific teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, the broad nature that possessed Dimitry Karamazov with the desire for punishment […].6

Van Wijk saw the socialists, ‘who will have nothing to do with compromises and do not allow themselves to be deflected by any consequences’,7 more as the heirs 4

Ibid. Ibid., p. 4. 6 Van Wijk 1917b, p. 465-466. 7 Ibid., p. 466. 5

PUBLICIST

147

of the true Russia and the Russian nature than Miljukov’s liberals, who ‘are more European-feeling, rational people’.8 To his way of thinking, it was also the unpredictability of this Russian nature that offered a chance of Russia’s salvation. He saw Dostoevsky as a kind of prophet who could point the way toward a society established on ethical principles. But very quickly, especially after the communist coup d’état at the end of 1917, the situation in Russia became so violent that for the time being there was clearly no question of this. Subsequently, to the best of my knowledge, Van Wijk never again risked predicting the future course of events. In the protestant weekly De Hervorming of April 20th, 1918, there appeared an article by Van Wijk on the Russian mentality in which he now stressed his lack of qualification to judge these matters: Many a time have I wondered, when I saw a Muscovite peasant kneeling or bowing before a church or chapel, or when during a church service I observe his face radiant with happiness, what must be going on in these people, what is the essential element in their religious consciousness. Conversations, such as I have many times had with our servants or with peasants and their wives that I met in third class railway carriages or in villages along the way, brought me no further forward. But that is not so strange, after all; intellectual Russians openly admit that they have little idea of the spiritual life of their own people […].9

For Van Wijk, the Russian was someone who had a right to his sympathy, even when he was in the wrong: And whoever speaks with a certain pharisaism about the Russian civil servant, who can be bought or robs the state’s coffers, before casting further stones at this sinner should ask himself whether the fatalistic feeling – the consequence of bitter disillusion – that everything in the human world is doomed to imperfection does not account for many a bad action, giving more reason for sympathy rather than judgement.10

For the time being, Van Wijk also wants to appeal to an understanding of the ‘doctrinaire Bolshevik’, since the latter is convinced above everything else ‘that the old world rested on lies and deception, and that there must now come a new world based on truth and honesty’.11 It is clear that Van Wijk is also concerned that things could go badly wrong in Russia and yet he seems always to have a higher opinion of Russia than of his own country: ‘Let the Russian people take care that they do not loose their “general-human” feeling and that they do not take that route which leads to misfortune and destruction, the way of a rotten Western Europe’.12 Nonetheless, Van Wijk has to admit reluctantly that the Western European man has succeeded to an important degree in creating a compromise between the demands of the earthy world and moral ideals, between God and Caesar. For the Russian, the gulf remains unbridgeable: ‘living in the world of Caesars, he recognizes only the world of God as real, and his life is a protest – usually, unfortunately, an impotent protest – against the enforced compromise with reality of a

8

Ibid. Van Wijk 1918a, p. 61. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid., p. 62. 12 Ibid. 9

148

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

lower order’.13 Van Wijk never arrived at a more politically oriented commentary on what was happening in Russia at that time. He was unable to desert the country that he had learned to love. He tried as far as possible to accept it as it had turned out, but he was still looking at Russia from a decidedly abstract, spiritual standpoint. In any case, one has to say that the Leiden professor does not come across as particularly ‘scholarly’, compared, say, with a semi-expert such as the minister and Dostoevsky disciple, J.J. Thomson, author of the pietistic De Russische ziel en de Westersche cultuur [The Russian soul and Western culture] (1917). The publisher of this book was J. Ploegsma of Zeist. Some of his other publications, plus advertisements in De Hervorming, the weekly journal of the Nederlandsche Protestantenbond [the Dutch Protestant Union], seem to indicate that Ploegsma had contacts with the reformed protestant world. In any case, he also appears as the publisher of Van Wijk’s first book on Russian literature, Hoofdmomenten der Russiese letterkunde [Principal moments in Russian literature] which appeared in 1919. This book, for which (according to the contract signed in January, 1919) Van Wijk received an honorarium of three hundred guilders,14 contains essays on Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and a final chapter on ‘Russian literature as a mirror of the Russian mind’. In his preface, Van Wijk explains that the book arose from a course of five evening lectures on Russian literature that he gave in 1918 for the Volksuniversiteit [the People’s University – an extra-mural educational authority for adults] in The Hague. He considered his chosen authors to be the most classical and the ‘most typical representatives of Russian spiritual culture’,15 who were best able ‘to give a foreigner an idea of the Russian national character. And my intention has been to take literature as a mirror of the people’.16 Apart from its list of literature for further reading, perhaps the book’s most distinctive feature lies in the many accurate translations by Van Wijk to be found in the different essays, including several poems by Pushkin. Van Wijk translates literally, without any attempt to render the meter or rhyme of the original. Van Wijk defines Russian literature as ‘the highest and clearest expression of the Russian mind’,17 as a phenomenon with – to a great extent – an organizing function: ‘Were it not there, the history of Russia would appear to us to be merely chaotic, with no idea capable of giving order to it’.18 His basic premise – that we should view literature as a mirror of reality – leads him time and again to present us with correspondences between literary personages and people from Russian life that he has known personally. Thus, of Onegin and Tatiana from Pushkin’s verse novel Evgeny Onegin, perhaps the most famous figures from Russian literature, we read: ‘Both of them are figures of huge significance in the history of Russian literature, and both of them are types from Russian society, recurring under a slightly different guise in each new generation; both were first clearly seen and portrayed 13

Ibid. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. 15 Van Wijk 1919, p. ii. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid., p. 166. 18 Ibid. 14

PUBLICIST

149

by Pushkin’.19 In short, Pushkin did not invent something, he is rather the medium through whom we learn to recognize certain phenomena in the real world. And Van Wijk did just that: ‘If you had lived in Russia yourself, you would personally know more than one of these noble Tatianas, not very remarkable but ready for any sacrifice, more constant in suffering, more enduring in heavy work and more energetic than the Russian male’.20 In fact, the weakness of the Russian male is a favourite theme in Van Wijk’s work on Russian literature. In Russia, ideals too soon give way to fatalism: ‘the Russian does not possess the gift of persistency – he submits to the inevitable, and without entirely abandoning his high ideals he vegetates as a “superfluous person”, or he drinks and gambles, and if needs be he steals from the state’s cash-box’.21 Van Wijk’s Hoofdmomenten der Russiese letterkunde is the first Dutch book to be written with any authority on Russian literature. The book also apparently fulfilled a need, and with one striking exception it was quite favourably reviewed in the Dutch press of the day. The Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant printed a fairly detailed summary by a staff writer without expressing a judgement.22 The critic Herman Robbers had no reservations and called the book ‘clear and well thoughtout’ and a ‘real contribution’ to the knowledge of Russian literature.23 More interestingly, Van Wijk was reviewed in De Nieuwe Tijd by the Leiden student and his later research student, Jan Romein, who found the book ‘intelligently and entertainingly written, the selections and quotations without exception aptly chosen and the translations unrivalled, so good in fact as to make it worth the trouble to read the book for these alone’.24 But he does also make this very reasonable criticism: the fact that Van Wijk wants to take literature to be the mirror of the people gives his book ‘something rather impersonal. One occasionally forgets that one is dealing with creative artists’.25 However, the most extensive discussion of Van Wijk’s book comes from A.M. de Jong writing in De Nieuwe Stem, and his judgement is devastating: ‘With all his pretension to expertise he nowhere penetrates to any depth, nowhere any fineness of discrimination worth mentioning. It is a clever book, a book by a knower, but not by a seer’.26 His criticism is in the first place of a stylistic nature: ‘Prof. Van Wijk does not therefore write very well’.27 He punctures platitudes that in the end reflect inadequate thinking. When he cites Van Wijk’s thesis that ‘the century that preceded him [Pushkin] had prepared his arrival, cleared the path along which he would stride forth’, this reviewer comments laconically: ‘How the century had done this and why Pushkin should so obediently have stridden forth along this 19

Ibid., p. 28. Ibid., p. 29. 21 Ibid., p. 105. 22 ‘Russische letterkunde’, Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 26.07.1919 (Avondblad D). 23 Robbers 1919, p. 280. 24 Romein 1919, p. 678. 25 Ibid. 26 De Jong 1918-1919, p. 335. 27 Ibid., p. 336. 20

150

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

prepared path is never explained to us’.28 He continues in this vein, vainly looking for an idea behind the various rhetorical flights, sighing that: ‘if the professor had spoken in old Basque I would have understood just as much of it!’.29 De Jong finds Van Wijk unqualified to judge literature, but not ‘its external history, of course, which he knows better than anybody’.30 De Jong concludes: ‘In writing this book, Professor Van Wijk, the highly astute, very sympathetic linguistic scholar has done an injustice to himself and to literature’.31 The only passages he finds worth reading in the essay on Pushkin are the translations from Pushkin’s letters. But such judgements are never final. What J.C. van Dijk, author of Christian literary studies, finds in his highly appreciative discussion of Van Wijk’s book, is precisely that he has ‘remained so concise’.32 A more balanced assessment, perhaps, is due to Marcus van Blankenstein, the linguist who had opted for a career in journalism. In his discussion in De Gids, he suggests that Van Wijk had not taken sufficient distance from his subject: ‘It appears to me that he has not sufficiently freed himself from Russian reflections that see these figures less distantly and less as a whole than is necessary if we are to be enlightened. There is more apotheosis here than characterization’.33 In Van Blankenstein’s view, what the author sets before his reader are sketches from his drawing board rather than properly thoughtout essays. The reason for this, according to him, is clear: it is more a series of five public lectures which that in fact bear all the characteristics of the spoken word: The diction is thus imprecise, rambling, feeble even. The writer becomes too general, and goes beyond the proper bounds of scholarly or aesthetic literary criticism; he all too easily strays into moralizing. His explanations tend to explain less than they explain away, as though no salient contradiction or discrepancy should be allowed to exist in our conception of the Russian character.34

On the other hand, his book is praised by Herman Middendorp in De Nieuwe Gids: ‘For me personally, Prof. Van Wijk’s book provides in no small measure an organization and a sense of priorities in what had become my own intellectual property through reading Russian books. I believe it will be so for many others’.35 He was probably right in this, for in his essays Van Wijk mainly addresses himself to an interested lay readership such as he had had at the Volksuniversiteit in The Hague, not to professional literary scholars or writers. With his Hoofdmomenten der Russiese letterkunde, Van Wijk had evidently acquired a certain taste, because a year later in February, 1920, he signed a contract with the publisher J. Ploegsma on the same financial conditions for a new book that appeared the same year under the title Geestelik leven en letterkunde in 28

Ibid., p. 337. Ibid., p. 338. 30 Ibid., p. 343. 31 Ibid., p. 344. 32 Van Dijk 1920, p. 188. 33 Van Blankenstein 1920, p. 160. 34 Ibid., p. 161. 35 Middendorp 1921, p. 658. 29

PUBLICIST

151

Rusland gedurende de negentiende eeuw [Intellectual life and literature in Russia during the nineteenth century].36 This time, there was no mention in the preface of any series of lectures for a volksuniversiteit as the occasion for the publication, but Van Wijk nonetheless continued along the path he had earlier taken, this time offering six chapters on new subjects: on Russian intellectual currents generally and the writers Turgenev, Pomyalovsky, Goncharov, Saltykov-Shchedrin and Chekhov. The thrust of his book was the same: ‘to bring the Dutch reader closer to the Russian mentality on the basis of masterworks of Russian literature’.37 Once again, there is no question of a closer analysis of the literary artistry of the authors he deals with: he views them merely as exponents of currents within Russian society. And once again Van Wijk returns to his old hobby-horse of the Hamletcharacters in Russian literature, to which he had devoted his first major article on matters Russian in 1904 when still a teacher in Goes. Referring to an address by Turgenev in which the latter applied the name of Hamlet to individuals with a rich inner life that they were unable to bring to any effect, he sees this alleged Hamletian character of the Russian as a significant theme running through numerous masterworks of Russian literature: such ‘Hamlets’ include Pushkin’s Evgeny Onegin, Turgenev’s Rudin and Goncharov’s Oblomov, eponymous heroes of the respective works. Chekhov’s entire world, according to Van Wijk, was ‘one great hospital full of Hamlets’.38 Van Wijk’s new book was less widely reviewed than the first. The translator Siegfried van Praag praised Van Wijk in De Amsterdammer for treating less wellknown authors, but regretted that Lermontov had not been given the place he deserved.39 Van Wijk was also given an appreciative reception in a Czech review,40 which earned the reviewer, the neerlandicus Kalda, a ‘most sincere expression of gratitude’.41 The priest Cannegieter, who discussed the book in a thoroughly uncritical fashion in the ‘weekly magazine for the family’ Eigen Haard [Home Hearth] does Van Wijk the honour of reporting the opinion of an unnamed Russian: ‘A highly educated Russian, whose acquaintance I recently made by chance, and who was not only steeped in Russian literature but also appeared to know his way around Dutch libraries, told me that, in his view, Professor Van Wijk is one of the foreigners who best understand the Russian mind’.42 Van Wijk’s series of introductory books on Russian literature ended in 1926 with his Geïllustreerde geschiedenis der Russische letterkunde [Illustrated history of Russian literature], published by J.M. Meulenhoff in Amsterdam. In a letter to Van Wijk written on February 3rd, 1926, the publisher regretted the timing of its appearance:

36

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. Van Wijk 1920, p. [v]. 38 Ibid., p. 46. 39 See Van Praag 1921. 40 See Kalda 1923-1924. 41 Kalda 1967, p. 99. 42 Cannegieter 1920, p. 746. 37

152

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

It is a pity that we were unable to issue the book earlier. If we had had the manuscript a few years ago, we could certainly have sold more [copies], for Russian literature was much more in vogue and people had more money to buy books. Today, of course, this excellent book will sell, but much more slowly. It is a book for serious people and these days serious people do not have money. In the long run, however, it will surely be a standard work in my list and I greatly appreciate the fact that I have been able to issue this book from your hand.43

In contrast to the two earlier books, this one, containing around a hundred reproductions of portraits and manuscripts, encompasses the whole of Russian literary history. The last chapter, titled ‘After Chekhov’, makes it clear that Van Wijk had been keeping up with the most recent literature of the time. The book appeared in the ‘old spelling’ at the request of the publisher, who thought the new spelling illadvised on commercial grounds. In his foreword, Van Wijk – who preferred to publish in the Kollewijn-spelling, although his personal letters were always written in the old manner – says that he had only consented to this, ‘with sorrow and disappointment’,44 after much hesitation. The book, written ‘at the end of the year 1924’45 according to this foreword, apparently thus in a few weeks or months, includes a dedication to Uhlenbeck, which Van Wijk explains in a very candid fashion: When I think back to the time that I began to study the Russian language and its literature and began to be interested in the Russian people and society, already a quarter of a century ago, I feel that, just as with my main line of study, linguistics, the original stimulus came from my old teacher, now my colleague, Professor C.C. Uhlenbeck. I wish to dedicate this book to him on his retiring from the university, as a modest but heartfelt witness to my gratitude and my respect.46

Although Meulenhoff had written to Van Wijk that the book, for which the latter received an honorarium of five hundred guilders,47 would remain a ‘standard work’ in his list, he seems to have remaindered part of the print run at a certain point. One infers this from the fact that, beside the original edition bearing the Meulenhoff imprint, there exists another edition whose cover gives the publisher as N.V. Gebr. Graauw’s Uitg.-My. The reviewer of Dietsche Warande en Belfort complained that the only Russians in Van Wijk’s new book that people were familiar with were too summarily dealt with and too superficially evaluated. But he did suitably situate the book in a broad context: ‘the primary and very great significance of this literary history is that it is unique in this country and will long remain unique, i.e. the best there is’.48 The books by Van Wijk – a solid name in the Reformed Netherlands – had long attracted attention in the clerical world; now, in addition to a single – but indicative – review from the catholic paper Boekzaal der geheele wereld,49 Father Van Heugten also responded to Van Wijk’s informative work. His review is more of a 43

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. Van Wijk 1926, p. 5. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid., p. 6. 47 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. 48 D.W. 1927. 49 See M.M. 1927. 44

PUBLICIST

153

selective reader’s report than a piece of criticism, although his characterization of the attitude of the West toward old Russia is nicely judged – an attitude from which Van Wijk too never entirely freed himself – the idea of an ‘amiable old giant, awkward and clumsy, but with a naive child-like view of life’ and a people that lived under a veil of ‘the joy of suffering and vague religious longings’.50 The reviewer of the catholic daily De Maasbode is rather more critical. True, he found the newly published literary history ‘a useful and practical book’, but ‘to our taste it sometimes suggests too much the ex-cathedra tone of the professor. This is of course most striking in the treatment of those writers who are least capable of being caught by academic elucidation’.51 The reviewer does not take issue with Van Wijk for his observation that there exists among Western European intellectuals a one-sided cult of Dostoevsky, but does reprove him for giving so little account of why this should be so. In the rector’s address, Optimisme en pessimisme in de Russiese letterkunde [Optimism and pessimism in Russian literature], delivered by Van Wijk on the 8th February, 1930, on the occasion of the 355th anniversary of the founding of Leiden University, he acknowledges that in this topic he has gone far beyond ‘the normal field of my scholarly activities. In my teaching, however, literature assumes a far more important role than in my work in my own study […]’.52 Despite this disclaimer, he appears to have followed Soviet literature rather well. Among other matters, he examines the suicide of the poet Esenin and the work of such authors as Fedor Gladkov and Leonid Leonov. But he went no further: the essays that he subsequently published on Russian literature mainly dealt with the classical writers of the nineteenth century, especially Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. Van Wijk’s approach to the Russian writers was consistently to correlate their work with the course of their lives and the development of their worldview. He was no theoretician and never resorted to jargon where it was unnecessary. He had little to do with the ‘formalists’ who dominated the study of literature in Russia in the twenties. When Van Wijk writes that this school has produced, in addition to some good things, ‘much that is mediocre and relatively worthless’,53 these are terms of disapprobation that he rarely used; one suspects that he was severely antipathetic to all kind of theoretical work. On the contrary, he saw the personality as the most essential aspect of the artist, even when the latter was influenced by others: ‘The artist after all does not straightforwardly take over, he reacts to the forces working upon him, and the more significant an artist he is, the more individual are his reactions’.54 This getting into the skin of writers through their works was thus his way of approaching literature. He saw no merit in considering writers as merely ‘passive links in the chain of development of literary genres’,55 a tendency that he identified with the formalists. 50

Van Heugten 1926-1927, p. 439. De Maasbode, 02.02.1927 (Derde blad), p. 1. 52 Van Wijk 1930, p. 6. 53 Van Wijk 1936, p. 193. 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid. 51

154

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Although in 1924 Van Wijk referred, in passing, to the Bolshevik state that arose after 1917 as a ‘terrorist dictatorship’,56 he did not see it as his job to fight it in print; nor was he of the opinion that the Bolsheviks alone bore the responsibility for all the evils that had befallen Russia: One still finds all too often, especially among emigrants, the simplistic idea that all the evils to which Russia seems to have succumbed derive from the Bolsheviks. This is not so: the obscene class politics of aristocracy and government, the weakness of character of the great majority who are resigned to these evils, these two factors have together left the great problems of Russian life, in the first place the agrarian problem, unresolved and as a result have made the revolution, with all its excesses, inevitable.57

In his view, it is in the end the whole Russian nation that bears the responsibility for the suffering it has brought on itself and to make his point he refers to Goncharov’s novel Oblomov: ‘When we analyse the causes of the demise of the old Russia, on whose ruins Bolshevism has constructed a new state, one of the most important to consider is “Oblomovism”, with which not all educated Russians were afflicted but which in different degrees and forms of expression was all too prevalent – not only among the “intelligentsia”, but also among the lower classes’.58 Van Wijk always wrote with a certain ambivalence about Russians, precisely because of their assumed ‘Oblomovism’. It is touching to read of his exasperation with their ‘laxness – in fulfilling obligations, whether minor or major, in their failure to keep promises, in their answers to questions, etc’.59 He was speaking here from practical experience, from his many and various dealings with Russian emigrants: I was recently talking with Russians about the stronger rationalism of the westerner compared with the more intimate intuitive feeling for the human world of the Russian. I then recalled an irritating rudeness an otherwise highly sympathetic Russian acquaintance had been guilty of, and I immediately got the response: ‘yes, certainly, unmotivated unpleasantness, you often get that with us’. It is life just as in the novels of Dostoevsky: grave sins and intense purity of feeling in one and the same person, whereas with the smoother westerner good and evil take on much less pronounced forms. Should we then want to be Russians? Even less, I think, than the Russian in general would want to be European.60

On the one hand Van Wijk always shakes his head like a sorrowful father: for outside Russia there is no other country where ‘the chaos of social and individual life is so confused and dark’.61 On the other hand he is so enthralled by the Russians, whom he calls with fellow-feeling ‘the most tragic victims of history’,62 and with the Russian sphere, that he cannot help coming to this conclusion: ‘here a rela-

56

Van Wijk 1924a, p. 281. Van Wijk 1923b, p. 291-292. 58 Van Wijk 1938a, p. 6. 59 Van Wijk 1927, p. 246. 60 Van Wijk 1924b. 61 Van Wijk 1920, p. 148. 62 Van Wijk 1926d, p. 9. 57

PUBLICIST

155

tively harmonious life, over there chaos. But also: here a cheaper ideal of life, over there visions of a complete happiness’.63 Van Wijk’s work as a promoter of Russian literature, which must have been ground-breaking stuff for many who were interested, nevertheless played no significant role that one can detect in Dutch literary life of the inter-war period. Van Wijk was too straightforwardly informative, there was far too little belle-lettrism in his approach. His name never appears in the collected works of such authors as Du Perron and Ter Braak – both thoroughly interested in Russian literature. The editors of De Gids – the journal in which most of Van Wijk’s articles on Russian literature appeared – were not overly enchanted with his contributions: there were several objections to his style. When Van Wijk sent in a piece on Tolstoy, on March 11th, 1917, the editor Colenbrander noted in the margin of his letter: ‘I am not keen on Van Wijk’s writing style, but he is on his special patch and I have the impression that whenever he writes about Russia he is in fact widely read’.64 Fellow-editor Huizinga notes in the margin: ‘On the whole, neither well written nor arresting, but the end fascinates everyone, the writer knows what he writes about and what he says is not stupid, at least. Weakly in favour’.65 It was not much better eleven years later. To Van Wijk’s letter of January 5th,. 1928, offering another piece to De Gids, Colenbrander adds: ‘Not thrilled, since nothing new here, but nothing against it’.66 ‘Van Wijk is never striking or enthralling, his writing is pedestrian […] and never penetrates deeply’, notes Huizinga in the margin of the same letter. ‘But he is one of the few qualified on Slavic affairs, he judges candidly and the public wants to know something about it and knows nothing. So we should take it, I think, though it could certainly be better’.67 Van Wijk himself did not hold his work in this literary-historical area in particularly high esteem. In a letter to the Russian emigrant A.L. Bem in Prague, written on the 20th May, 1937, he remarks that he engages with literature in a ‘diletantish fashion’, but that nowadays his students are ‘more interested in literature than in languages’. 68 And yet one cannot dismiss his invariably hastily written literary work as a merely ceremonial obligation, a concession to the world: he had invested too much in the study of Russian literature ever since his first publication on Russian literature of 1904, when there was no question of any student demands. Working with Russian literature was for Van Wijk more than a hobby, it was his private domain where he gave more rein to his feelings, where he let himself be carried along by the idea and atmosphere of Russia, the memories of travelling to Russia and getting to know various people there. From the time of this first publication, Van Wijk had included translated fragments in his articles, and yet he never really came out as a translator, apart from a

63

Van Wijk 1920, p. 148. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, LTK 1888. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 Praha, Památník národního písemnictví. 64

156

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

single case.69 In 1932, he published as an independent booklet a translation of a story by Turgenev, dated 1877: Het verhaal van vader Aleksej [The story of Father Aleksey].70 The booklet appeared without any foreword or introduction as a supplement to the journal Kerk en wereld [Church and world] in a series edited – among others – by Dr. K.F. Proost, the Russophile minister who had spoken at his father’s funeral. This personal connection would explain the exceptional appearance of this publication in Van Wijk’s oeuvre. In any case, one can take it that the story was of particular significance to him. In his Geestelik leven en letterkunde in Rusland gedurende de negentiende eeuw (1920) he had already given a detailed summary of the content of this not particularly well known story, in which an orthodox priest tells the life history of his son menaced by the devil. The reason for his own admiration of this story is kept rather general: ‘This novella is above all so attractive because Turgenev lets Father Aleksey speak as an intelligent, honest village priest would do; the simple, even style bring to life the image of the narrator himself’.71 In the Geïllustreerde geschiedenis der Russische letterkunde (1926) Van Wijk hardly goes beyond this when he counts the story among Turgenev’s ‘masterpieces of psychology and artistic portrayals’.72 Yet one can also see the reason for Van Wijk’s special interest in this story in its content, in which Jakob, Father Aleksey’s son, wanted to give up attending the seminary and had decided to dedicate himself to a scientific career: ‘“I am going to the university, where I shall become a doctor, for I feel myself attracted to science”’.73 Like Van Wijk, apparently, he had no interest in women: ‘he did not look at women and in general he tended to avoid people’.74 A woman neighbour whom his father had eventually sent to him failed to cure him of the devil who appeared to him increasingly often: ‘“I can no longer separate myself from him’”,75 says the son, who in the end dies. As the scion of a family of protestant ministers who had broken with the world of his father, uncles and grandfather and opted instead to study Dutch, Van Wijk may well have recognized something in the doubts of the fictional Jakob, however different the subsequent course of their two lives. 2. Poland Russia appears in Van Wijk’s work as a problem: not only for Europe and for Dutch society but for himself too. It is as though his conscience had become involved. The question of Poland, on the other hand, was a simpler affair. When he arrived for the first time in Cracow in 1912, the Polish nation was divided between Prussia, Russia and Austro-Hungary. The creation of a new Polish state, which had come closer through the outbreak of the First World War, was a cause with which one could identify unproblematically. Van Wijk’s personal contacts largely deter69

See Hinrichs 1990. Van Wijk 1932. 71 Van Wijk 1920, p. 35. 72 Van Wijk 1926, p. 157. 73 Van Wijk 1932, p. 8. 74 Ibid., p. 10. 75 Ibid., p. 14. 70

PUBLICIST

157

mined his concern for the Polish issue. In March, 1915, when the war was well under way, he wrote in De Amsterdammer: ‘Anyone who has had dealings with Poles from the different parts of the Polish area cannot but believe in the resurrection of the Polish realm […]’.76 We have seen that he was involved during 1915 with the organization of philanthropic aid to Poland and even travelled into Polish areas of Austro-Hungary to observe the distribution of Dutch money. This further engagement also found its expression in several articles on Polish matters, of which the most remarkable was a long introductory piece in 1917 on Adam Mickiewicz, the Poles’ national poet, in De Gids. This is perhaps his best piece of writing on a literary subject. It is nothing less than a declaration of love for his subject: Some years ago now I learned to read and speak Polish, and since then Polish literature has also been a revelation to me. Should anyone doubt the individuality of the Polish people, let him just read Mickiewicz, Sáowacki and KrasiĔski and he will realize that such beauty of expression of the deep, essential nature of a people is already sufficient to give that people a place of honour among European nations. The greatest, the most massive figure of these three is undoubtedly Adam Mickiewicz, and even he is unknown to us.77

In this article, in which Van Wijk deals with the life and work of Mickiewicz, he also demonstrates his capacity as a translator. As so often with Van Wijk, it seems here too that it was personal contact that lent him wings. In translating one of Mickiewicz’s ‘Crimean sonnets’, he gives the reader the following explanation: I read these sonnets with a Polish friend; he was someone of taste and sensitivity to poetry and he gave me to feel something of what this word music says to Polish ears. Such verses defy translation. But I nevertheless hope that even an inadequate reproduction may be able to make someone aware of the beauty of the original. That is why I have attempted to translate the first Crimean sonnet, employing only normal, prosaic Dutch […]’.78

When in 1924 Van Wijk reviewed Trautmann’s Polnisches Lesebuch, he charged it an omission that the book contained no patriotic pieces by Mickiewicz and KrasiĔski, since these were necessary for ‘an understanding of the Polish mentality’.79 His conclusion is then that he considers Trautmann, despite his being an outstanding scholar, ‘less of a judge of the Polish mentality as expressed in literature’.80 Van Wijk thus takes exactly the same position as when judging Russian literary works: these should not be regarded as independent, self-sufficient works of art but as sources of a knowledge of the history of mentalities. Although Van Wijk on one further occasion reviewed a publication in the Polish field, and continued to publish indefatigably in Polish on linguistic topics, after the First World War he wrote virtually nothing more in his earlier publicist’s vein. The reason for this probably lay in a new preference that he had developed: Czechoslovakia.

76

Van Wijk 1915b, p. 1. Van Wijk 1917a, p. 84-85. 78 Ibid., p. 89-90. 79 Van Wijk 1924f. 80 Ibid. 77

158

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

3. Czechoslovakia It was in the spring of 1914, at the beginning of his grand tour through the Slavic world, that Van Wijk first found himself on Czech soil. Czechia then was a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In the summer of 1920 he returned for a round trip of seven weeks, on which he wrote a contribution for De Gids.81 The article was also published two years later as a separate booklet richly enhanced by illustrations and statistical material.82 There were two English language editions printed in Prague, probably put on the market with Czechoslovak financial support.83 This was not really a travel book with many personal impressions such as he had once published in his earlier years in De Gids about his stay in Russia. It is rather a historical reflection, interspersed with a few actual impressions, on the origin of the state and of its different constituent regions: Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia and Subcarpathian Russia. He depicted Bohemia and Moravia as a ‘compact and, despite notable points of difference, homogeneous Czech entity’.84 Nevertheless, the presence of a large German minority caused tensions. Before the fall of the Danube monarchy, the Germans were the dominant element while the Czechs constituted the opposition. But now the roles were reversed, with all the consequences that that implied: ‘In daily life, the German problem reveals itself as a great many questions and niggles, fairly insignificant in themselves, but taken altogether they constitute a veritable wasp’s nest’.85 He observes with contempt that these hostile differences had become much more insistent: ‘In your hotel room you find notices detailing prices and suchlike only in Czech, French and English, while the German text is pasted over with white paper; and otherwise level-headed individuals among your friends openly approve of such despicable methods’.86 And yet Van Wijk was confident that these problems could be resolved, and says so in connection with a visit he paid to President Masaryk: In this context, I would like to mention that a few hours before my audience with President Masaryk I remarked to a Czech friend that I was optimistic about the way the German question would turn out: ‘Tell the President that, it will please him’ my friend urged; but in the event, the conversation with the President took a different turn from the outset and I did not attempt to introduce the German question, doubting whether Masaryk would in any case give much value to the political judgement of a layman.87

According to a notebook he kept during the journey, that audience occurred on Thursday, the 15th July, 1920. On the following day he was also received by Edvard Beneš, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but as to the what was said during these conversations, the notebook is as little informative as the book itself.88 81

See Van Wijk 1920a. See Van Wijk 1922. 83 See Van Wijk 1923a and 19242. 84 Van Wijk 1922, p. 39, p. 42. 85 Ibid., p. 36. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid., p. 37. 88 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. 82

PUBLICIST

159

Van Wijk sensed a great deal of dissatisfaction in Slovakia, a country that for centuries had been under Hungarian rule before the creation of Czechoslovakia: A bad or tactless Czech official can do more harm than ten good ones are capable of repairing. And even admirable regulations can have undesirable consequences. Thus, Šrobár, as Minister for Slovakia, has issued a prohibition against drink, and as a result this once popular person – a martyr to the social cause – has forfeited the greater part of his prestige. […] I think one can sum up the opposition between past and present in this way: the old Hungarian government denied the Slovaks their national school and gave them alcohol, whereas the Czech regime forbids alcohol and gives them the school.89

Van Wijk’s impressions of Subcarpathian Russia, an autonomous region with half a million inhabitants added to Czechoslovakia by the Treaty of Saint-Germain, were not encouraging: ‘Seldom have I seen such poverty as exhibited by the peasants in the Carpathians. They eat little more than potatoes and beans. It was remarkable those those I spoke to, though they certainly lamented their lack, never blame anyone. They had virtually no intellectual understanding, and the few intellectuals among them could be lined up on a single bench’.90 In 1931, a new, reworked edition of Van Wijk’s 1922 book was published91 and at the same time an English translation came out.92 In the foreword he reports that he has been spending some time every summer, with one exception, since 1920 in Bohemia. Not until 1929 did he pay another visit to Moravia, Slovakia and Subcarpathian Russia; but in any case, it is clear that Czechoslovakia had become a new home for him and it is no surprise to find his name on the honorary committee of an exhibition of Czech books in Amsterdam.93 Czech travellers must also have sought him out in Leiden. In his small book containing Dutch impressions, Miloš Seifert, the Frederik van Eeden-adept, mentions a visit to Van Wijk, the ‘friend of the Czechs’, in Leiden.94 Over the course of time, Van Wijk’s admiration for Masaryk only became greater. In 1924, in an article on the President that he published in the Haagsch Maandblad [The Hague Monthly], he declares: ‘the better I came to know his life and works, the more he impressed me: each new detail, far from denting my admiration, only succeeded in adding to his stature’.95 Van Wijk’s capacity for admiration in the case of Masaryk reaches its acme when he describes, in almost fairytale fashion, the latter’s influence on the students of pre-First World War Bohemia: The best part of the intellectual youth gathered round him, forming a group of loyalists which ramified throughout the land; they were realists in their critical regard and their love of work, idealists in their humanitarian ideals and their belief in progress. On repeated visits to Czechoslovakia I was specially put into frequent touch with such ‘realists’ and I was continually struck by their unprejudiced, humane regard for the phenomena of life, and not least 89

Van Wijk 1922, p. 50. Ibid., p. 53-54. 91 See Van Wijk 1931a. 92 See Van Wijk 1931b. 93 See the catalogue L’exposition des beaux livres tchécoslovaques (Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum, 1933), p. [3]. 94 See Seifert 1922, p. 117. 95 Van Wijk 1924c, p. 570. 90

160

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

by their boundless worship of Masaryk – whether as scholar or as teacher or as paternalistic friend, they set him above other people, meanwhile feeling themselves more intimate with him than with any other teacher. It is difficult to suppress a certain envy when your friends relate their visits to Masaryk’s house, when the professor in that simple way of his answered anything people put to him, while Madam Masaryk understood that art – rare among Czech women – of being at the same time an engaging host and taking part in scholarly conversation. And the professor’s influence extended well beyond the borders of Bohemia and Moravia; his lecture courses drew Russians, southern Slavs and other foreigners to Prague who subsequently returned to their fatherland as better men, sturdier workers, their respect for the teacher suggesting to whomsoever had not had the same good fortune that they were his direct pupils.96

Van Wijk seems here to be outlining an ideal view of professorship that, as we shall see in the next chapter, he himself also wanted, more or less, to fulfil.

96

Ibid., p. 574.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Childhood portrait of Nicolaas van Wijk Universiteitsbibliotheek, Leiden

J.H. Gunning

161

162

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

F. Buitenrust Hettema

C.C. Uhlenbeck

ILLUSTRATIONS

Van Wijk as a young man

A. Leskien

163

164

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Portrait of Van Wijk by Hermann Freise Academisch Historisch Museum, Leiden

W.G.C. Bijvanck

ILLUSTRATIONS

165

‘Passier-Schein’ issued on the 10th August, 1915, by the Austro-Hungarian envoy in The Hague, which enabled Van Wijk to travel in 1915 to Poland as a member of the Nederlandsche Comité van Philantropischen Steun aan Polen Universiteitsbibliotheek, Leiden

166

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

J.J.A. van Ginneken

E. Sievers

ILLUSTRATIONS

Van Wijk. Signed portrait, 16th May, 1922

167

168

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Van Wijk with his students in the garden of his house in Leiden. Sitting left to right: Van Wijk, F.B.J. Kuiper, Johanna Oudendijk, Wilhelmina Russer. Standing left to right: Th.J.G. Locher, Koolhaas, W.B.F. Schaper, Francisca de Graaff.

ILLUSTRATIONS

169

Van Wijk among his students. To the right, kneeling, C.H. van Schooneveld; at the back, two from the right, P.C. Paardekoper; K.H. Heeroma extreme right; standing two from the left, Wils Huisman

170

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Van Wijk (left) in his function as Rector Magnificus and his colleagues on the day of the honorary doctorate awarded to Princess Juliana, 31st January, 1930 Right, Johan Huizinga Academisch Historisch Museum, Leiden

Van Wijk greeting Queen Wilhelmina Academisch Historisch Museum, Leiden

ILLUSTRATIONS

Nicolaas van Wijk in his function as Rector Magnificus on the day of the honorary doctorate awarded to Princess Juliana (left), 31st January, 1930 Academisch Historisch Museum, Leiden

171

172

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Bruno Becker (seated two from the left) at his inauguration as extraordinary professor in Amsterdam, 1930. Van Wijk at extreme right Croiset van der Kop-fonds, Leiden

ILLUSTRATIONS

Van Wijk with foreign colleagues, place unknown Academisch Historisch Museum, Leiden

Van Wijk with Johan Huizinga in Paris Academisch Historisch Museum, Leiden

173

174

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

From left to right: Th.J.G. Locher, F.H. Locher-Hibma and Leonid Zatskoy in the vicinity of Prague, November, 1927

ILLUSTRATIONS

175

From left to right: Vladimir Zatskoy, Margo Kruijtbosch, Van Wijk, San Bijleveld-Kruijtbosch and Bob Bijleveld in Van Wijk’s garden on the Nieuwstraat, 1932

Van Wijk with the Maxa family: right, Prokop Maxa, left Alena Maxová, 1931

176

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Portrait of Van Wijk at a later age Academisch Historisch Museum, Leiden

Van Wijk’s grave in 1989 Photograph by Caroline Weber

CHAPTER VII

STUDENTS

1. Lecture courses Splendid city residence with large fenced garden in the old centre of Leiden. National monument. Built in 1648. Various orig. details. Suit many purposes, including combined representative office and splendid residence. Content c. 1500 m3. Own grounds 486 m2. Accommodation: hall with authentic marble floor, 2 spacious rooms at front with fireplace, one of which has splendid painted original ceiling. Room with outlook on garden, with fireplace, from which a long corridor with 19th century tiled floor leads to a music room needing restoration. New kitchen […]. Separate toilet. 1st floor: 2 bedrooms and bathroom. Living rooms en suite with dining room. New kitchen […]. 2nd floor: bedroom, study and possibility of further rooms. Attic.1

This estate agent’s description of the patrician residence at number 36, Nieuwstraat, was written in 1998, but the house can have been very little different when Nicolaas Van Wijk moved there in early 1914, a few months after his university appointment. The resemblance to the house of his birth in Delden is uncanny. This house is inseparable from Van Wijk’s activities. ‘He had his study there in the former music room of the Steffelaar family looking out on to the garden, almost underneath the choir of the Hooglandse Kerk, connected to the rest of the house by a long corridor lined with bookcases’, relates A.W. Bijvanck.2 And he should know: when he became professor of ancient history in Leiden in 1922, this son of W.G.C. Bijvanck – and Van Wijk’s successor as manuscript curator at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek – had settled in as a lodger or sub-tenant at the same address,3 where he shared with Van Wijk the same telephone number 1776.4 Two other occupants are also recorded in the bevolkingsregister, the city’s register of its population, during the first years after Van Wijk’s arrival: Petronella van der Nagel and Wilhelmina Berkel, who could well have been the housekeepers.5 1

Taken from an advertisement of the Estate Agents HRS of Leiderdorp in the Leidsch Dagblad 10.01.1998, p. 40. The property at Nieuwstraat 36 is offered for sale at an asking price of f. 1.350.000,–. 2 Bijvanck 1942, p. 43. 3 Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden, Bevolkingsregister 1890-1923, Boek 22, page 8151. 4 See Jaarboek der Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden 1922, p. 13-14. 5 Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden, Bevolkingsregister 1890-1923, Boek 22, page 8151. The information of the bevolkingsregister, which is incomplete for the decade of the 1920’s as the result of a fire in the Leiden Town Hall in 1929, does not correspond well with the information in the Leiden Book of Addresses issued by the publishing house IJdo. With regard to foreigners, the information also does not always correspond with the files of the Immigration Police, nowadays in the Regionaal Archief in Leiden.

178

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

When the owner of the house, C.M. Steffelaar, died early in 1928, Van Wijk purchased the property from Steffelaar’s legatees for the sum of 13,700 guilders, the contract being signed at the offices of a notary in The Hague on April 3rd, 1928.6 Among the few letters to Van Wijk that have survived, there is one written on March 26th, 1928, by L.J. Hulstkamp, Steffelaar’s brother-in-law, in which he makes it clear that Van Wijk’s interests had been a major consideration in the minds of the legatees when the question of selling the house had arisen: My deceased brother-in-law always spoke so sympathetically and appreciatively about you when he visited us that my wife and I were convinced, after his death, that the last thing he would have wished was for you to be confronted by any unpleasant surprises as a consequence of the division of the estate. [...] We are pleased that the arrangement reached meets with your satisfaction and we hope that you can continue to enjoy living, with pleasant memories of C.M. Steffelaar, in the house that was also our fondly remembered parental home.7

Van Wijk thus became the owner of the residence that Bijvanck had left a few years earlier. The legal change would have made little difference to Van Wijk’s students. He was already teaching at home: either in his study in the former music room or, weather permitting, on the lawn of the enclosed garden that ran back roughly thirty metres back from the house. The Series lectionum, as published in the Jaarboek der Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden [Leiden University Yearbook], shows the impressive range of subjects he taught over the years 1913-1941 – the period of Van Wijk’s tenure as professor at Leiden. He taught Russian grammar and/or Russian literature almost every year although, to the best of my knowledge, he only once commented on his Russian courses in his writings: Whenever I begin a new course of lectures on the Russian language, it is my habit to write the letters of the alphabet, one by one, giving each as many variant forms as possible such as students will come across in the handwriting of different persons. And to the more advanced I occasionally give an original handwritten text – usually a letter written to myself – to read through in order to develop familiarity with different hands and writing habits.8

Besides practical courses in Russian, Van Wijk also taught special Russian subjects such as Russian cultural history [1917-1918], Pushkin [1918-1919], Gogol [1919-1920], Tolstoy [1920-1921], texts in dialect [1922-1923] and Dostoevsky [1924-1925]. Van Wijk also gave a course of lectures on Russian literary history for a wider interested public, lectures which did not demand a knowledge of the Russian language. In the beginning, this course was given only occasionally but from 1933-34 onward it became a permanent fixture. At the start of a new academic year, he often organized a separate lecture to ‘discuss the topics to be dealt with and arrange times’.9 Van Wijk taught Old Church Slavonic almost every year, and from the academic year 1928-1929 onward this course was a constant fixture on the lecture programme. As far as other Slavic languages were concerned, Van Wijk regularly 6

Zoetermeer, Kadaster, Dagregister, vol. 123, no. 1287. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 8 Van Wijk 1918c, col. 251. 9 Leidsch Universiteitsblad 3 (1933-1934), no. 1, p. 11. 7

STUDENTS

179

included Czech, Polish and Lithuanian (‘treated comparatively’, as he informed his students in advance)10 in the classes he offered. Students’ requests were also taken into account, as the Sanskrit scholar F.B.J. Kuiper recalls of his studies in the twenties: ‘I had asked him […] to lecture on Lithuanian […] and the audience consisted of two students, the other one being the Indo-Europeanist A.W.M. Odé, who had two years earlier taken his doctor’s degree’.11 It is probably to these classes that the following note refers, written by Van Wijk to Kuiper on the 4th October 1929: ‘I shall give the Lithuanian classes, beginning with 6, Thursdays at a quarter to two. Should you at any time be unable to attend, please let me know’.12 Van Wijk only taught Serbo-Croatian during one year, the academic year 19191920; he never gave courses on Bulgarian or Latvian or Slovenian, and only once courses on Old Lithuanian and Old Prussian [1916-1917]. The latter, however, as he said himself,13 influenced the writing of his book Altpreussische Studien published in 1918. At the end of the thirties, Van Wijk extended the range of his courses to include phonology and general linguistics: intended for a general educated public, these were courses which, under his original teaching responsibilities, he was under no obligation to give. He let it be known in advance that F. de Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale would be taught.14 Other works that he repeatedly set as study texts included, for Lithuanian, Leskien’s Litauisches Lesebuch mit Grammatik und Wörterbuch (1919); for Russian Max Vasmer’s edition of Berneker’s Russische grammatik (1927) or Boyer & Spéranski’s Manuel pour l’étude de la langue russe (19212); and for Old Church Slavonic Leskien’s Handbuch der altbulgarischen Sprache (19226): all classics in their respective subjects.15 For a course on Czech in 1932, Van Wijk set Karel ýapek’s Hovory s T.G. Masarykem [Conversations with T.G. Masaryk] as a reading text: hardly a surprising choice given his outspoken admiration for the Czech leader.16 When one surveys his teaching career over the years, one sees that Van Wijk, who early on preferred to teach only in the afternoon, gradually increased the range of his courses in offer. Until 1931-1932 (with the exception of the years 1920-1921 and 1921-1922), he offered the students four different courses. From then on, there were five, from the academic year 1932-1933 onward there were six and from 1937-1938 seven, the latter increase representing the courses on general linguistics. Apart from his course on Russian literary history intended for students of all faculties, for which he used a lecture room at Kloksteeg 25,17 Van Wijk otherwise

10

Gids van de Rijks-Universiteit te Leiden. Academiejaar 1931/1932, p. 140. Kuiper 1988, p. 3. 12 ’t Harde, collection Huib Kuiper. 13 See Van Wijk 1938, p. 389. 14 Gids der Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden voor 1940/’41, p. 206. 15 Ibid., p. 206-207. 16 See Leidsch Universiteitsblad 1 (1931-1932), no. 5, p. 7. 17 See Gids voor studeerenden aan de Rijks-Universiteit te Leiden. Academiejaar 1926/1927, p. 21. 11

180

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

liked to teach ‘at home’.18 Later on he taught in the Marine School on the Noordeinde,19 in lecture rooms on the Boerhaavestraat20 and the Eerste Binnenvestgracht.21 He also sometimes let students know in advance that the number of students for courses of Russian grammar and literature would determine where the lectures would take place – ‘Kloksteeg or at home’.22 Most times, as announced in the Series lectionum, would seem to have been of a rather provisional nature, as one sees from Van Wijk’s own statement accompanying his programme for the academic year 1930-1931: ‘All these times, although set for the series, are open to change by mutual agreement. For Russian readings, there will probably be two groups. With sufficient participation one or two hours will be given for beginners’.23 These notices also suggest that Van Wijk may not have been too keen on spending much time with the principles of Russian grammar. He expected his students to reach a sufficient level of proficiency by themselves in order to be able to participate in joint readings: ‘For beginners in Russian: a rapid treatment of grammar possibly with written exercises; following which the reading will begin as soon as possible. For the more advanced, the subject matter to be dealt with is, or will be arranged in classes’.24 A faculty report written by students in 1919 makes it clear what one of Van Wijk’s courses was like: ‘The professor dealt with Russian grammar with the beginners and then read excerpts from Pushkin’s Onegin. With the more advanced students, the professor read a piece from Pushkin’s The Captain’s Daughter, Gogol’s The Inspector General, a critical piece by Belinsky, and poetry by Pushkin, Lermontov and Krylov’.25 As far as its clarity and helpfulness to students were concerned, Van Wijk’s initial performance as a teacher seems to have left nothing to be desired. A faculty report drawn up by students for the academic year 1914-1915 referred to his courses in Lithuanian and Old Church Slavonic ‘given with the greatest dedication’, which ‘were no mere luxuries for future Indo-Germanists, but genuinely useful because of their clear comparative method of treatment’.26 The report adds a particular detail in which Van Wijk apparently differed from his colleagues: ‘It should be expressly mentioned that the professor offered the chance, to whomsoever wished to avail themselves of it, to practise by writing essays on their own initiative, an opportunity that up till now has been too little provided in our faculty’.27 In the recollections of F.B.J. Kuiper, Van Wijk came across as an engaging teacher, but one who was sometimes rather difficult to follow: 18

Litteraire Faculteit van Leidsche studenten. Jaarboekje voor het studiejaar 1930-1931, p. 49. Gids der Rijks-Universiteit te Leiden voor 1932/33, p. 167. 20 Gids der Rijks-Universiteit te Leiden voor 1935/36, p. 174. 21 Gids der Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden voor 1937/’38, p. 198. 22 Gids voor studeerenden aan de Rijks-Universiteit te Leiden. Academiejaar 1928/29, p. 33. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Almanak van het Leidsch Studentencorps 105 (1919), p. 118. 26 Almanak van het Leidsch Studentencorps 102 (1916), p. 125. 27 Ibid., p. 125-126. 19

STUDENTS

181

The lectures intended for the Slavists were sometimes highly technical. They were often about subjects on which he happened to work at that time. Van Wijk was an excellent teacher and he loved teaching but he did not always seem aware of the limits that Nature set to the receptive faculty of his students. Quite different were the hours in which he read ýechov and Puškin with non-Slavists. As the French windows of his study gave on the garden, the scene was on warm summer afternoons shifted to the garden and the Russian authors were read there, sometimes around the legendary samovar. In those pre-war years such informality was rare.28

Wils Huisman, who followed Van Wijk’s courses from 1934, recalled that during breaks, in which coffee would be served in the mornings and tea in the afternoons, Van Wijk talked about current affairs, about foreign scholars he had known, his trips to Slavic countries or about letters he had just received from abroad. Van Wijk had photographs of many his colleagues in his study; whenever he wanted to show a book by someone he was teaching in his classes, he would always take down the photograph of the author with it. She found him solitary and reserved: he told his students a great deal during his classes but never about himself.29 One gets a sense of the way in which, when one was in his presence, he would turn one’s attention to others from the following recollection of Father G. Metzemaekers, who refers to a quite different category of photographs that hung in the garden room: ‘his study was decorated with a large number of photographs of betrothed or young married couples who came to pay him a friendly visit’.30 C.H. van Schooneveld, who went to study Slavic languages in Leiden in 1938, remembered Van Wijk’s use of language: Van Wijk was, or at least seemed, a most engaging and amiable person, who gave the impression – as one of my contemporary fellow students […] put it in the student idiom of the time – of being a ‘softie’. Beneath the surface there was probably a harder layer, although I have heard from secondary education circles that when he taught in Goes he did not manage to keep order. […] Apart from the language classes in which he discussed grammar and read a text, he improvised on the basis of lecture notes. His lectures were systematically constructed. His style of delivery was rather formal; one could always detect the presence of the minister’s son. One might have characterized his use of language as eloquent were it not that this careful Dutch was regularly laced with homely, colloquial expressions – ‘uit de doeken doen’ (to unfold, explain) was one such – expressions that one also finds in his writing, lending his use of language in general a certain playfulness. ‘Van huis uit’ for the adverbial ‘by origin’ was another of his expressions that he regularly applied to the Indo-European derivation of a sound in a modern-day language. A certain playfulness was also his style of personal interaction. According to a story that comes from a member of the committee of the Leiden literary student faculty, having invited this student committee to dine with him at home in the springtime, he accompanied the serving of the soup with a cry of ‘Een lentesoepje, mijne heren!’ [A spring soup, gentlemen!]31

28

Kuiper 1988, p. 3. Leiden, Croiset van der Kop-fonds archive. Information taken from a report of a conversation between Wils Huisman and an unidentified person on 30th December 1976. 30 Metzemaekers 1941. 31 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3506, C.H. van Schooneveld in an autobiographical text probably attached to a letter dated 04.01.1979 to A.H. van den Baar. 29

182

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

For Leiden students, even those who had had nothing to do with him, Van Wijk must have been a recognizable and familiar character, a ‘striking figure with his lorgnette and his limping gait’,32 for he was lame after an accident in 1921. It is not clear exactly what happened – a fall down stairs33 and a bicycle accident have both been mentioned. In this connection, C.H. van Schooneveld writes: ‘his right leg was shorter than the left, giving him a limp; as it was told to me by my old friend the book-dealer and orientalist J. Ginsberg […], his leg was badly set after a break he had suffered in a bicycle accident […]’.34 Whatever the case, he kept his colleagues abroad informed as to the consequences of this accident. On May 3rd, 1922 he wrote to the Finnish Slavist Mikkola: ‘Mit meinem Fuss geht es besser, obgleich wir noch nicht am Ende sind. Mit einem Stock kann ich 40 Minuten gehen’.35 And he writes in a letter to Aleksandar Beliü, on March 14th, 1923, that his handicap is permanent: ‘Mir geht es wohl, obgleich ich im J. 1921 meinen Oberschenkel gebrochen habe und niemals wieder so gut gehen werde wie früher’.36 But then he adds: ‘Psychisch habe ich glücklich nie davon gelitten, ich bin immer heiteren Mutes geblieben’.37 2. Examinations and promoties According to the Academic Statute that came into effect by a Royal Decree of June 15th, 1921, the kandidaatsexamen, the equivalent of a B.A. degree, in Slavic languages and literature included the following: 1. The Russian language (thorough knowledge of the present-day language and of its grammar; proficiency in both written and oral use of the language); 2. Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) and, in connection with same, the basic principles of general linguistics; 3. the principles of Slavic ethnography or the principles of either a Slavic or a Baltic language of the candidate’s choice; 4. a survey of Russian literature in connection with the history and development of the intellectual life. Instead of Russian, another Slavic language can be chosen with the approval of the faculty; coupled with which there will be corresponding change in the examination programme under 1 and 4.38

As for the doctoraal examen, roughly the equivalent of a Master’s degree, which embraced one main subject and two subsidiaries, the Academic Statute proposed for the study of Slavic languages: ‘the main subject shall be Russian linguistics

32

Ibid. Telephone conversation with M.C. Kruijtbosch-Visser on 16.06.1987. 34 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3506, C.H. van Schooneveld in an autobiographical text probably attached to a letter dated 04.01.1979 to A.H. van den Baar. 35 Helsinki, Kansallisarkisto. 36 Beograd, Arhiv SANU. 37 Ibid. 38 Jaarboekje voor 1929 van de Litteraire Faculteit van Leidsche studenten, p. 12-13; Smidt 1922, p. 9. 33

STUDENTS

183

and literature, or the language and its literature chosen for the kandidaatsexamen, in the broadest sense’.39 The number of students who actually sat the examinations in Slavic languages and literature was in any case tiny, and much smaller than the number of those who attended Van Wijk’s lectures. For the entire period of 1913-1941 we see seven kandidaatsexamens, six doctoraal examens and seven promoties, for the Ph.D. degree, in which, in all, fourteen different students were involved.40 The one candidate who sat all three exams under Van Wijk and the first to sit any kind of examination with him was Bernd von Arnim, born in Rostock in 1899, and the son of the Viennese professor of classical languages, Hans von Arnim, with whom Van Wijk corresponded in 1924 in connection with a Leiden campaign in support of the insolvent Austrian library system.41 In 1922 he sat his kandidaatsexamen with Van Wijk and in 1924 his doctoraal examen, on both occasions cum laude. He subsequently took work as a teacher of German, first at the HBS in Zierikzee,42 where Van Wijk’s friend Kruijtbosch was director until 1924, later at the Gymnasium in Leiden.43 Despite the fact that he had in the meantime married a Dutch girl and was now the father of two children, he also found time to write a dissertation, Die Schreiber des Psalterium Sinaiticum und ihre Vorlage, and in 1930 was awarded his doctorate with Van Wijk.44 This dissertation was also published in book form under a modified title, in Germany,45 where Von Arnim was pursuing his scholarly career.46 The subject of his dissertation – Old Church Slavonic manuscripts and their relation to Greek originals – strongly suggests the interests of his supervisor. However, Von Arnim was sufficiently independent to challenge Eduard Sievers’ ‘Schallanalyse’ – canvassed by Van Wijk – in the very first postulate: ‘Because of its complexity, the sound-borrowing method, as applied by its inventor Sievers and his associates to the fragments of Kiev and Freising (Die Verstexte von K. und Fr.), merely serves to reinforce an undesirable belief in authority. 39

Ibid., p. 15; Smidt 1922, p. 10. These were, in chronological order: U. Huber Noodt [promotie: 04.05.1922], B.D.H. von Arnim [kandidaatsexamen: 23.06.1922; doctoraal examen: 24.06.1924; promotie: 10.07.1930], A.E. Boutelje [doctoraal examen: 30.06.1922; promotie: 11.07.1929], B.N. Raptschinsky [doctoraal examen: 24.06.1924], J.M. Romein [promotie: 20.10.1924], A.J. Buning [promotie: 25.03.1927], I. de Gunzburg [kandidaatsexamen: 10.12.1930; doctoraal examen: 06.11.1933], L. Peltenburg [kandidaatsexamen: 09.07.1931; doctoraal examen: 19.12.1935], J. Suys [promotie: 06.03.1931], V.R. Spatkowa [kandidaatsexamen: 15.10.1931; doctoraal examen: 19.03.1934], F. de Graaff [promotie: 05.07.1933], J.H. van Heuven [kandidaatsexamen: 07.10.1935], W. Huisman [kandidaatsexamen: 30.09.1938], and E.H. Vermey [kandidaatsexamen: 10.07.1940]. 41 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 42 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1856-1952, inv. no. 14, Ingekomen stukken en concepten en minuten van uitgaande stukken 1940-1942. Information taken from a biography of B.D.H. von Arnim by the Leiden professor of Japanese, J. Rahder, in 1941. 43 IJdo’s adresboek van Leiden 15 (1926-1928), p. 7 registers Von Arnim as ‘Leeraar a/h Gymnasium, Mariënpoelstraat 33’. 44 Von Arnim 1930. 45 Von Arnim 1930a. 46 See Sadnik-Aitzetmüller 1952 en Zlatanova 1985. 40

184

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Moreover, it ignores the fact that many manuscripts have been transcribed at least once’.47 Van Wijk’s register of ‘Books on Loan’ shows that Von Arnim was a regular presence at his supervisor’s home in the Nieuwstraat: this notebook records all the books Van Wijk lent out and to whom from September 12th, 1917 to July 5th, 1934, after which he used a second notebook.48 On each page, all the relevant information concerning the books lent was set out under four columns, from left to right: the date; the name of the borrower and sometimes his address; the title of the book, often abbreviated, and the date of return. What one can see from this record – which reads like a professional logbook is that Von Arnim first borrowed a book from Van Wijk on the 15th January, 1922, and for the last time on the 24th March, 1933. Indeed, Von Arnim was one of the most frequent users of Van Wijk’s lending library during this period. In a foreword to his dissertation he writes that Van Wijk ‘Leiden für mich zu einer “Schlüsselstadt” im tieferen Sinne werden liess’:49 an acknowledgement that also indicates a warm personal relationship between the two. Von Arnim was the first to sit a kandidaatsexamen with Van Wijk. A week later, on the 30th June, 1922, Abraham Boutelje was the first to take his doctoraal examination, with the added distinction of becoming the first Slavist produced by the Dutch educational system. Thanks to a Czech stipend he was able to study in Prague in 1923 and immediately afterwards conduct dialectological fieldwork in Slovakia. His studies resulted in a dissertation, Zwei Gemermundarten,50 with which he took his doctorate in 1929 with Van Wijk, although not before it had already been published in Prague.51 The subject of Boutelje’s dissertation also betrays the guiding hand of Van Wijk. Meanwhile, Boutelje had already begun his career as a translator of novels from Polish, Czech, Russian, Hungarian and Finnish. He had set up a translation office in his mother’s house in Naarden, with whom he also lived. The postulates of his dissertation betray something of his Jewish background. Postulate IX reads: ‘The unrounding of the front vowels by Jews that Van Ginneken has remarked (Handboek der Nederlandsche taal II, p. 12 ff.) does not depend on a specifically Jewish formation of the lips or a specifically Jewish manner of articulation’.52 In this connection, one recalls the collaboration between Van Ginneken and Van Wijk in the matter of body posture theory, when Van Wijk went so far as more or less to assert that all Jews had the same body posture. But Boutelje and Von Arnim were not Van Wijk’s first promovendi. As early as 1922, Ulrich Huber Noodt from Zierikzee, who in the words of Annie RomeinVerschoor was ‘a thin, slightly hunch-backed figure with a gentle, benign but

47

Von Arnim 1930 (Stellingen, p. 3). Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. See Hinrichs 1988, p. 21, p. 39, p. 44. 49 Von Arnim 1930, p. [iii]. 50 Boutelje 1929. 51 See Boutelje 1928. 52 Boutelje 1929 (Stellingen). 48

STUDENTS

185

highly intelligent face’,53 gained his doctorate with a dissertation on L’occidentalisme d’Ivan Tourguénev.54 A Russian reviewer commented that the book provided a great deal of factual material but few corrections of the accounts given by Turgenev’s contemporaries or new historical syntheses.55 Before his promotie, Huber Noodt had taken his doctoraal degree in Dutch language and literature in 1920, but afterwards had studied with the French Slavist André Mazon, who was at the time connected with the University of Strasbourg. Like Boutelje, he subsequently worked as a translator from Russian, French, German and other languages. In the same year as his promotie, he published his translation of Aleksei Tolstoy’s novel, The Road to Calvary, for which Van Wijk wrote a foreword in which he mentions that the book had been published by H.D. Tjeenk Willink of Haarlem on his recommendation.56 Huber Noodt was also a voluntary official at a organization of the League of Nations, the Institut de Coopération Intellectuelle in Paris. As Van Wijk wrote in a letter to Jan Romein on the 10th August, 1927, ‘after several years without a regular position […] on a salary that a single person in Paris can scarcely survive on; these are posts that are suited to people of private means’.57 Jan Romein was another of Van Wijk’s promovendi and one who achieved greater renown, at least in the Dutch context. Romein, a literary scholar, gained his doctorate in 1924 with a dissertation on Dostojewskij in de Westersche kritiek.58 Together with Annie Verschoor, whom he later married, he studied Russian as a subsidiary subject under Van Wijk,59 and first appears in Van Wijk’s ‘Books on Loan’ register on June 21st, 1918, borrowing textbooks on the Russian language. Several years later, when he was ready to choose a topic for his dissertation, Van Wijk seems to have been prepared to help him in any way with his ideas for a possible choice of subject. In a letter of April 22nd, 1922, Van Wijk writes to Romein: I have always considered you one of those people whom one must allow to go their own way in the choice of direction of their study, both the specific area of study and the way of approaching it, and notwithstanding the difficulty of the subject, I had thought that in getting to know ɓɟɞɪɢɧɴ [Shchedrin] more closely, a good starting point might be to study a part of ɓ’s oeuvre in your own personal way, probably totally differently from the way I would myself, not by reading the whole of ɓɟɞɪɢɧɴ, but rather omitting most of it from your actual theme. I think the reason this didn’t work out was t largely because of an inadequate knowledge of the language […]. I won’t encourage you to proceed with ɓ. at present. […] In the meantime, the question that needs to be answered, for which you seem to have found no solution, is what to do in the immediate future? You would very much regret it if you did not, in the foreseeable future, write a dissertation worthy of yourself. I would like to put to you: what do you feel about a critical-comparative look at some of the Russian literary histories of the 19th century? […] Naturally, I don’t want to force anything on you. Should you decide on any other subject in an area of scholarship that concerns either myself or one of 53

Romein-Verschoor 1970, p. 128. Huber Noodt 1922. 55 See Ljackij 1923-1924, p. 153. 56 See Van Wijk 1922a, p. [v]. 57 Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. 58 Romein 1924. 59 See Brandenburg 1988, p. 146. 54

186

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

my colleagues I will also be pleased. In any case, it is time for you to find a topic that is not hyper-extensive, something that will satisfy you as well as a supervisor.60

Romein also wrote to Huizinga about Saltykov-Shchedrin.61 In a letter of February 20th, 1923, written to his friend H.A. Kramers, Romein appears to be still without a subject and by now he seems to have definitively given up hope of studying with Huizinga: ‘On the other hand, as far as the dissertation goes, I am still messing around. With Huizinga I was constantly stymied by such a lack of any cooperation that in the end I thought, oh, go to hell, and so I went to Van Wijk, who was still pleased to have me. I shall see that I find the time to deal with a minor Russian topic.’62 Eventually Romein and Van Wijk together settled on the research topic of the western reception of a single writer – Dostoevsky. On the 27th March, 1923, Romein informed Huizinga that he was no longer going to attempt – as he had really wanted – to write a dissertation on a general historical subject. He had found something else, ‘for which I have found that Prof. v. Wijk is in principle prepared to supervise me […]’.63 In the event, Romein was awarded a grant by the Vollenhoven Fund to conduct library research in the British Museum in London. Van Wijk’s letters at this time show that on several occasions he drew Romein’s attention to new literature, though it is not evident that he concerned himself in any depth with the content of his thesis. In a letter from Poland, written on August 11th, 1924, Van Wijk clearly objects to the use of the term ‘imperialism’ in the introduction: ‘I do not wish to urge on you any term or expression of my own: it is much better that you should find something suitable yourself; but I think it is absolutely impermissible to use here a single word that bears so many connotations, that admits to so many different meanings in relation to readers’ different worldviews’.64 In this same letter, Van Wijk gives Romein permission to have the manuscript printed: Concerning the question of publishing, it is obvious that this book is your doctoral dissertation, and the character of both subject and treatment mean that the conditions of the publisher must be much more lenient than with most dissertations. Tjeenk Willink is a thoroughly decent man and it would be no bad thing to talk with him about it. If nothing comes of it, I can recommend Meulenhoff. I shall write today to Tj. W. (H.D. Tj.W. in Haarlem).65

Two months later, Romein’s book, giving a fairly complete survey of western reception of Dostoevsky up to 1924, was already out, published by Tjeenk Willink. The promotie took place on October 20th, 1924, followed by a reception to which Van Wijk was also invited. On the 14th October, 1924, he wrote to Romein: ‘You

60

Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. See Huizinga 1989, p. 416. 62 Hanssen 1987, p. 100. 63 Huizinga 1989, p. 455. 64 Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. 65 Ibid. 61

STUDENTS

187

will understand that it would give me great pleasure to celebrate this special occasion with a dinner together with you and your wife and a few friends’.66 In an autobiographical text, Romein expressed his feelings for Van Wijk in highly complimentary terms. He found something in Van Wijk that the unapproachable Huizinga was apparently unable to offer: ‘In those sessions, when the professor poured tea from the samovar and erudition from the fullness of his knowledge, I felt close to the land of the future, for the first time drawn by the magic of scholarship, because now, at last, I was coming to know things that not “everyone” knew. How grateful I was – and still am – to this outstanding individual and scholar’.67 Annie Romein-Verschoor’s paints a classic picture of Van Wijk in her memoirs, where he is portrayed as a rare example of a Leiden professor who was accessible to all his students: But for us, Van Wijk’s great merit was that he was the only one of our professors who related to us as fellow humans. [...] And it was soon clear that not only we, but also the bachelor professor, who lived alone with a man and a wife caretaker-couple, found it a real pleasure if we sometimes called on him of an evening. Later in the evening he would dive into a huge cupboard where he kept his stock of alcohol and where there were always ‘ends’ to be found that needed to be finished off. For Van Wijk it was normal to enter ‘The Turk’ where Jan sat eating alone at a small table and to draw up a chair, something quite unheard of then for a professor. He was seriously taken by the Russian timeless way of living, he liked to keep guests till late at night, talking and talking, and never gave classes before eleven o’clock, when he usually appeared with dripping hair. 68

Adri Buning was the first of Van Wijk’s promovendi to gain their doctorate with a linguistics dissertation, before Von Arnim and Boutelje, who had both taken their doctoraal exams with Van Wijk. Her dissertation, submitted in1927, was on De Indogermaansche athematische conjugatie in het Slavisch [The Indo-Germanic athematic conjugation in Slavic].69 With a view to getting her a grant, Van Wijk had written a letter to the dean of the Faculty on September 7th, 1919, in which he says that she studied very widely and, after Russian and Lithuanian, wanted to do Old Church Slavonic and Serbo-Croatian. This would seem to suggest that the course on Serbo-Croatian given by Van Wijk during that academic year of 19191920 was intended especially for Buning. In his letter, he added: ‘Her responses were good, and although she is not exceptionally talented, her industry, interest and an appetite for study ensure that her performance nevertheless makes a good impression’.70 The subject of her research – the relation between Indo-European and Slavic – was right up Van Wijk’s street. It is striking that in four out of fifteen postulates in her dissertation she takes on Van Ginneken, who was also the target of Boutelje’s attack. And whether or not by coincidence, like Boutelje, Buning had 66

Ibid. Wiezer 1995, p. 208. 68 Romein-Verschoor 1970, p. 145. 69 See Buning 1927. 70 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1856-1952, inv. no. 6, Ingekomen stukken en concepten en minuten van uitgaande stukken 1918-1922. 67

188

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

also spent a preliminary study period in Prague before embarking on her dissertation. The last two promovendi to take their doctorates under Van Wijk were once again oriented towards literature. Joseph Suys, in 1931, wrote his dissertation on Leo Sjestow’s protest tegen de rede [Leo Shestov’s attack on reason], an intellectual biography of Lev Shestov, the Russian philosopher of irrationalism and individualism.71 As a student at Leiden, Suys was a friend of Romein who had made him a member of the literary debating society Sodalicium Literis Sacrum.72 Indeed, Suys has Romein to thank for the subject of his dissertation: In the summer of 1923, on a walking tour through Belgium, we arrived in Antwerp, and because I was busy with my dissertation on Dostoevsky at the time I was alert to anything with his name on it; so I noticed, standing in a bookshop, Shestov’s recently published treatise on his great fellow-countryman, titled Les révélations de la mort. But whereas I limited myself to what this book had to offer for my own topic, Suys was then getting involved with Shestov in a fundamental way, a study that was crowned nine years later with his dissertation, mentioned earlier. He also became an expert on the irrationalist philosophy – particularly Bergson’s.73

In preparation for his dissertation and with the help of a grant from the Robert Fruin Fund, Suys went to Paris in May of 1925 to attend Shestov’s lecture course and to get to know the man himself.74 The need for this trip can be judged from a letter Van Wijk wrote to Romein on the 23rd February, 1925: ‘I don’t hear any more from Suys. Now, I don’t expect anything very useful from a dissertation on ɒɟɫɬɨɜɴ [Shestov]. The subject demands too much preliminary study of matters that are simply not accessible from here’.75 The subsidy for the trip to Paris was certainly needed, as can be seen from the fact that Suys, isolated since 1924 working as a teacher in Den Helder, had together with Romein set up an Instituut voor Historische Leergangen [Institute for History Courses of Instruction] as a supplementary source of income.76 Subsequently, Romein censured Van Wijk for not properly recognizing Suys’ worth: On his promotie to a doctorate in Dutch language and literature in Leiden, on the 6th March, 1931, it was revealed for all concerned who had not previously realized it, what would turn out to be characteristic of this life, yes, in a certain sense his fate: the well-earned cum laude escaped him, despite, or rather, precisely because of the exceptional quality of his work. Because of its singular quality the value of this work specifically escaped his supervisor, Van Wijk, an uncommonly fine philologist and linguist, but as a philosopher and cultural historian no more that a worthy dilettante. It did not escape Huizinga, who at the time, however, was travelling in East Asia.77

Huizinga indeed thought extremely highly of the dissertation, as is evident from the long letter he sent to Suys on March 28th, 1931, whilst en voyage from 71

See Suys 1931. See Hanssen 1989, p. 575. 73 Romein 1956-1957, p. 95. 74 See Hanssen 1987, p. 101. 75 Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. 76 See Hanssen 1990, p. 114. 77 Romein 1957, p. 89. 72

STUDENTS

189

Hongkong to Batavia.78 In his reply to Huizinga, Suys also expressed his disappointment at Van Wijk’s attitude: May I say that your assessment of [my] style and form especially gave me great pleasure? Nothing nicer than to see one’s ‘problem child’ praised. Prof. Van Wijk – of whose supervision I have the most pleasant memories – expressed himself rather tactfully when, in an otherwise warmly appreciative judgement, he disposed of the long, heavy sentences, the twisted constructions, Germanisms etc. with a brief comment on ‘wrestling with the form’. With all due assent to such criticism I cannot dispel the ‘quand même’ from the back of my mind. On your authority, I shall now refrain from any further attempts in that direction, no matter what less tactful criticism I can still expect.79

Whereas Suys – unlike Romein – had freed himself from communist sympathies well before his promotie, Van Wijk found himself with a hardened marxist as a promovenda in the person of Francisca de Graaff, the daughter of a wealthy Leiden bulb-grower. De Graaff had graduated in Leiden in 1930 as a student of Romance languages; Russian and art history were her subsidiary subjects. She took a doctorate in 1933 with a dissertation on Serge Ésénine (1895-1925), sa vie et son oeuvre,80 for which she had done research not only in Paris but also in Moscow. This was a rare example of a Leiden student at that time travelling to the Soviet Union, a country that Van Wijk himself never visited and, one suspects, never advised his students to visit. He sent them to Prague and Czechoslovakia, as he explained in an English-language article that was translated for him: ‘Some of them have studied in France, under Prof. Mazon and others, and others again in Czechoslovakia, where they can take advantage of the rich collections of the Slavonic library and of the assistance of various scholars. Specialists in Russian literature are greatly helped by the eminent specialist in that field, A.L. Bem’.81 A Slovenian reviewer was surprised that De Graaff’s book could even appear, given the sharp differences he saw between the traditional Netherlands and the Russia of the time.82 In her preface, Francisca de Graaff – who was known as ‘Frenny’ and in the thirties was in charge of Dutch language radio broadcasts from Moscow83 – makes it very clear that she and Van Wijk operated on different wavelengths: ‘While I was able to approach you with the least difficulty, you allowed me great freedom, in the broad outline of my dissertation and in the development of my ideas, which often were very different from yours’.84 And these ideas are nowhere so clear as in the sixth postulate of her dissertation: ‘The more it is established by the facts that Marxism is the only objectively correct social theory, the more it will become apparent that it is impossible to have the least correct insight in the humanities, particularly in literary history, unless it is based on the teachings of Karl Marx’.85 78

See Huizinga 1990, p. 326-328. Ibid., p. 330. 80 De Graaff 1933. 81 Van Wijk 1938c, p. 87. 82 Borko 1933, p. 557. 83 See Cornelissen 1989, p. 108, p. 110. 84 De Graaff 1933, p. [ix]. 85 Ibid. (Stellingen, p. 4). 79

190

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

It is not so surprising then that in 1936 De Graaff signed a contract for the Dutch translation of a Russian novel with an explicitly communist complexion: Nikolai Ostrovsky’s Hoe het staal gehard werd [How the steel was tempered]. We also come across her name in the editorial team of the pro-communist journal Rusland van heden [Russia Today].86 Among the few other students who took their doctoraal examinations with Van Wijk we find three of Slavic origin: the Jewish Russian Boris Raptschinsky87 [1924] who took his doctorate in Amsterdam in 1925 with a dissertation on Peter the Great; the Petersburg Baroness Irène de Gunzburg [1933] and Vivienne Spatkowa [1934], born in Antwerp. Leonora Peltenburg [1935] was born in Riga, which also indicates links with the Baltic and Slavic world.88 C.I. Spruit, the Voorburg secondary school teacher of Russian, who published a textbook on Russian in 1936 with a dedication to Van Wijk, is not however one of that small group of students who sat exams under him. In her introduction she refers to Van Wijk as her teacher: ‘Not only do I owe my theoretical knowledge of Russian to his unforgettable lectures, but, moreover, without his active interest and help this work would never have come to fruition’.89 One cannot say whether Van Wijk also actually approved this work. Traces of Van Wijk’s influence or help are evident in many other students’ work that fell outside the sphere of Slavic linguistics and literature. Van Wijk’s role was particularly significant among students with a general linguistic interest.90 This is very clear in the case of Coenraad van Haeringen, who studied Dutch language and literature in Leiden from 1910 and took his doctorate in 1918. His memories include a splendid characterization of the teaching of both Uhlenbeck and his pupil, and subsequently colleague, Van Wijk, in which he briefly touches on the differences between these two professors from different generations: If one takes the criterion of a good teacher to be someone who systematically and methodically initiates his pupils into their subject and leads them forward along fixed guidelines, Uhlenbeck can unreservedly be called a poor teacher. But he was an exceptional teacher in this sense: that he astonished or overwhelmed a large part of his audience, but he also had an 86

See Verrips 2004, p. 75. See Van Eeten-Koopmans 1996, p. 283. 88 Information on dates and places of birth of examinees are taken from the examination register of the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy which, for the period in question, is kept in the Academiegebouw in the registrar’s office of the University of Leiden. One can also infer from this register that Czech was a common subsidiary subject in the doctoraal examination in Slavic linguistics and literature under Van Wijk. Irène de Gunzburg, Vivienne Spatkowa and Leonora Peltenburg all chose this subject. 89 Spruit 1936, p. 7. 90 One could mention, for example, N.J.H. Royen (see Royen 1926, p. x) and W.S. Russer (see Russer 1930, p. vii), who both gained their doctorates with an Indo-European subject and mention Van Wijk’s influence; the musicologist E.W. Schallenberg, who wrote his dissertation on Chopin and called on Van Wijk for assistance with his study of Polish (see Schallenberg 1929, p. xv); the historian Th.J.G. Locher who followed a course in Czech with Van Wijk whilst studying for his dissertation under Huizinga (see Locher 1931, p. [v]); and a neerlandicus, Cornelis Crena de Iongh, who broadened his intellectual horizons by following Van Wijks lectures on Old Church Slavonic (see Heestermans 1996, p. 67). 87

STUDENTS

191

uncommonly inspiring effect on another – the smaller – part. For a few years I belonged to that smaller group. And yet, if I look back on it, a more radical, in fact a decisive influence on the course of my life as a scholar, was the fact that I had the good fortune to be one of the first, few pupils of N. van Wijk, who was appointed to the new chair in Baltic and Slavic studies shortly before my kandidaatsexamen. Precisely because we were so few, the lecture courses had the character of private classes. The most exceptional instance of this was a course on Old Bulgarian, that I was allowed to follow for almost two years as the sole auditor in the professor’s study. Van Wijk, a stranger to all subject-chauvinism and more practically-minded than Uhlenbeck, wanted above all to find a Germanist in his pupil, and it was also he who set up the organization of the study-period, after the doctoraal examination, of first two, then later four semesters at the Universities of Copenhagen and Uppsala, financed with a decent stipend. 91

K.H. Heeroma is another neerlandicus whose intellectual development benefited hugely from Van Wijk’s guidance. Under the ‘young’ J.H. Kern, who had returned to Leiden from Groningen in 1924, Heeroma began work on a dissertation on Hollandse dialektstudies, but he was put on to the subject by Van Wijk, who together with Albert Verwey, the professor of Dutch literature, had the greatest influence on him. He took his doctorate in 1935, by then supervised by G.G. Kloeke, who succeeded Kern as professor of Dutch linguistics after the latter’s death.92 Heeroma recalls in this connection that Van Wijk was an ‘old-Zwollenaar as I was myself’.93 He had also attended the Zwolle Gymnasium, although at the time he was a pupil, there must have been very few of the teachers left who had taught Van Wijk. 3. Student organizations Van Wijk’s involvement with students did not end with his lectures, supervision of essays and research studies, nor even with making his library available for study purposes. He sat with students in cafés and canteens and drank the odd beer with them, or in his own house, as we saw in the case of Romein; but he also made a habit of inviting senior students to dinner.94 He also gladly accepted invitations from students to give talks, as would have been expected. For example, one evening around 1930 Van Wijk gave a talk to the Leiden literary society Sodalicium Literis Sacrum on ‘Comparative linguistics and linguistic geography’,95 in which, according to a report of the meeting, he ‘demonstrated that a linguistic lecture, delivered in an agreeable manner, could also arouse the interests of historians’.96 He also devoted his energies to student life in a wider sense with his efforts on behalf of the International Student Service (ISS), for the Dutch branch of which he became chairman of the executive committee in 1931. In 1932, in addition to this national committee, a local Leiden committee was established, consisting of a dozen members from the different student organizations under the chairmanship of 91

Van Haeringen 1962, p. 6. See Meertens 1974, p. 137. 93 Heeroma 1953, p. 22. 94 See Kuiper 1988, p. 4. 95 See Tweede gedenkboek van het Sodalicium Literis Sacrum 1922-1947 (ca. 1947), p. 34-35. 96 Litteraire Faculteit der Leidsche Studenten. Jaarboekje voor het Studiejaar 1931-1932, p. vii. 92

192

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

the Sinologist J.J.L. Duyvendak.97 ISS considered itself ‘an international association of academics, viz. professors, students and young graduates […] whose aim, adopting the standpoint of positive neutrality, is to promote the links and cooperation between academic groups from different countries’.98 The activities of the ISS were threefold: student self-help and social work; research in the area of the university, and cultural cooperation and international relations. With regard to the latter, the ISS organized international conferences in which both students and professors participated.99 We see Van Wijk internationally active in this world, for instance, as a delegate to the European Student Relief (a predecessor of the ISS) conference in Elmau (Germany) in 1925.100 In his address on the universities in the Slavic countries he went into the situation of the Russian universities, expressing his concern over the developments as he, an intellectual of the old school, saw them. In the process he managed to bring out and exercise his old hobbyhorse of the Russian national character: ‘Sie büssen alle schwer für die Sünden älterer Generationen. Die russische Intelligenz hatte tatsächlich ihre schwachen Eigenschaften. Ihr Wissensdurst ging oft mehr in die Breite als in die Tiefe, Ideen und Ideale waren zu unbestimmt und über deren Inhalt war man sich nicht immer genügend klar […]’.101 But it seems that he did not think the Russian intelligentsia were about to disappear, even though he had to acknowledge that the universities in Soviet Russia had lost the relative autonomy they had previously enjoyed under the tsarist regime: ‘Der Russe hat eine grosse Kraft: das Vermögen zu leiden, lange und geduldig. Je schwerer der Druck, um so unerschöpflicher seine passive Kraft. Die Russische Revolution entwickelt sich weiter in raschem Tempo; der Intelligente verträgt alles, was das Schicksal ihm auferlegt, aber er stirbt nicht und wird sich wieder erheben’.102 At the same time, Van Wijk did look into the fate of Russian emigrants who were sometimes able to study in Czechoslovakia in a way that approached the old ideal of a free university but who otherwise had a far from easy time: ‘Das Leben dieser jungen Leute ist eine Tragödie’.103 We can see the informal Van Wijk behind these words, offering a helping hand to bridge the gulf between East and West, and in the end, once more, admitting to his admiration for the Russian style of life: Der Emigrant-Student hat eine viel grössere Lebenserfahrung als sein westeuropäischer Kollege, den er oft naiv und wenig interessant finden wird. Andererseits hat er oft eine gewisse Schüchternheit, welche es ihm schwer macht, mit fremden Leuten zu verkehren. Das

97

See Vinculum Studiosorum 5 (1931-1932), no. 10, p. 146. Fockema Andreae 1933-1934, p. 1. 99 See Otterspeer 1984, p. 10. 100 See Van Wijk 1925c. 101 Ibid., p. 72-73. 102 Ibid., p. 73. 103 Ibid., p. 68. 98

STUDENTS

193

russische gesellschaftliche Leben ist einfacher, ungezwungener als das unsrige, wir sind formalistischer.104

In 1930 Van Wijk was involved in a Dutch effort to raise money for a student house in Sofia. At one evening meeting of the Leiden Student Corps, according to report, Van Wijk appealed to the students’ responsibility: ‘We must give the Bulgarians (whom he called the most energetic people of the Balkans), adequate help, and quickly!’105 Thanks to his contacts, a Bulgarian student delegation was able to visit Leiden, and in 1931 he went to Sofia to see for himself the ‘utterly destitute’106 Bulgarians: I was able this summer to see for myself in Sofia what exactly was being achieved with Dutch money. The Bulgarian students received me in their more than primitive surroundings; a Czech who accompanied me, told me that the Prague student organizations, today well funded, had begun with equally simple equipment; and indeed it was evident from the foundations and walls of a new student building, already rising from the ground, that Bulgaria too would soon get over the present stage […].107

During the summer of 1932 Van Wijk was particularly busy with student activities: first attending an ISS-conference in Brno in Moravia, from the 27th July to the 3rd August, as a member of a Dutch delegation consisting of ten students and one professor.108 As far as one can judge from his report in the Leidsch Universiteitsblad, the speeches there must have irritated him exceedingly: The theme of the conference was the problem of ‘The University in the Social Order’, and the first days were given over to papers of a general nature and the discussions following from them. The result of such random exchanges of thought is hardly ever positive, and the conference in Brno certainly suffered from this evil; even the discussion day on the cooperation of students with industrial and farm workers was characterized more than anything by vagueness.109

Nonetheless, he was full of praise for the German delegation and their seriousness that he had witnessed in Brno: It is of course most important that the young men and women who participate in ISS discussions or attend them should belong to that ‘elite’ which, because of its intellectual and moral qualities, will later be called on to play a significant part in the national life of their respective nations. The German delegation best met this requirement, with representatives of groups from both left and right (the National Socialists unfortunately declined to participate in the conference), and yet it was a harmonious delegation that knew what they wanted […].110

104

Ibid., p. 69. Virtus Concordia Fides 18, no. 518 (14.03.1930), p. 5. 106 Van Wijk 1930b, p. 237. 107 Van Wijk 1931-1932, p. 1. 108 Van Wijk sent a postcard from Brno on August 1st, 1932 to A. Beliü in Belgrade, showing a group photograph of the participants at the conference, with Van Wijk sitting in the front row, second from left. See Beograd, Arhiv SANU. 109 Van Wijk 1932-1933, p. 3. 110 Ibid., p. 4. 105

194

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Later that summer, Van Wijk also visited a student work camp in Bakkeveen.111 In Leiden too he was busy in the interests of the students, making a case for establishing a mensa academica.112 He further used his position to get the annual meetings of the ISS under his chairmanship held in the Senate Chamber of Leiden University.113 Reports of these meetings appeared regularly in the Leidsch Universiteitsblad; indeed, given his influence, it is perhaps not so strange that, during the thirties, this periodical contained disproportionately many articles on ISS. Through all this work, in which it is clear that he was certainly no enemy of meetings, Van Wijk became nationally quite well known as a university figure. And here too it is apparent just how much he enjoyed contacts with students: the teaching courses and tutorials at home were not enough for him. Yet an article he wrote for literary students in 1939 shows that these contacts with students could cause him concern as well as enthusiasm. In this piece he comments critically on the language use among students – and he himself was not always noted for his impeccable phrasing: The statuut-commissie [Examination Board] of our faculty, for whose approval the combinations of doctoraal-subjects requested by candidates are submitted, has to read, as well as perfectly composed letters, so many others that are characterized by inept style, clumsy articulation of ideas, incorrect use of words or syntax, spelling that follows no system and absurd punctuation, even from candidates in Dutch linguistics and literature; and in reading and speaking with some of our students we are confronted with poor diction, poor articulation of sounds, poor pronunciation, unworthy of a Dutch intellectual. All this is partly explained by the minor significance accorded to teaching the mother tongue in our gymnasium and secondary school education114

In these remarks we seem to recognize once again the man of Buitenrust Hettema’s journal Taal en Letteren, which constantly hammered at the need in education for an adequate development of the individual’s capacity for self-expression.

111

See Van Wijk 1932a. See Van Wijk 1934-1935. 113 See Leidsch Universiteitsblad 3 (1933-1934), no. 10, p. 3; Vinculum Studiosorum 7 (19331934), no. 6, p. 82-83. 114 Van Wijk 1939a, p. 94-95. 112

Letter from Van Wijk to Jan Romein dated 29th March 1925 (continued on next page). Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis.

CHAPTER VIII

COLLEAGUES

1. In Leiden and Amsterdam When Nicolaas van Wijk arrived at the University of Leiden in 1913 he was just thirty three years old and probably had no real friends among his few colleagues in the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy. He had Uhlenbeck to thank for his appointment, of course, but in the years that they were colleagues there seems to have been no really intimate contact between them. In fact, Uhlenbeck must have behaved rather coolly toward Van Wijk,1 whereas he did maintain friendly relations with Reinder van der Meulen, whom he had put in second place on the list of recommendations.2 Around this time, Uhlenbeck had become prey to chronic depressions and seems to have found giving lecture courses increasingly irksome. He remained available for seriously interested students, but for any one who did not belong to this very small group he was a strange, unapproachable, even neurotic figure.3 There have been speculations over a possible deeper connection between Uhlenbeck’s depressions and suppressed homosexuality.4 It is rather curious that the childless Uhlenbeck was fanatically interested in the genealogy of his family, which was of German origin. Over a period of more than two decades, the great language scholar devoted several articles to the question, typified by ‘Die Uhlenbecks, eine alte Velberter Familie’, which appeared in 1925 in the Festbuch zur Jahrtausendfeier der Stadt Velbert, a publication far removed from the academic world.5 Meanwhile, he tried to get himself declared unfit for work, at least temporarily. Van Wijk was prepared to stand in for Uhlenbeck when the latter was ill, although it certainly was not convenient for him. We infer this from a letter to Jagiü of May 24th, 1920: ‘Bis 9 Juli muss ich noch in Leiden bleiben. Weil Prof. Uhlenbeck krank ist, doziere und examiniere ich auch Altgermanisch. Das kostet leider sehr viel Zeit und beraubt mich gewissermassen der Bewegungsfreiheit’.6

1

See Kuiper 1988, p. 2. That Uhlenbeck’s relationship with Van der Meulen was one of friends is evident from the forty letters written to Van der Meulen that are kept in the Leiden Universiteitsbibliotheek (BPL 3505). These letters, from the years 1907-1951 always addressing Van der Meulen as ‘Beste Rein’, are written in a lively, pithy style of self-irony. It is clear from a remark in a letter dated 18.11.26 that Uhlenbeck and Van der Meulen saw each other frequently. In this letter, after Uhlenbeck had moved to Nijmegen, he writes: ‘I would like you to come and see us sometime! I miss our morning conversations’. Van Wijk’s name never occurs in any of these forty letters. 3 See Van Berkel and Eggermont-Molenaar 2005, p. 11. 4 Ibid., p. 15. 5 See the anonymous report ‘Prof.Dr. C.C. Uhlenbeck: een zeldzaam taalgeleerde: 1866 – 18 oktober – 1936’, Het Vaderland, 17.10.1936, p. 3 (Avondblad B). 6 Zagreb, Nacionalna i sveuþilišna knjižnica. 2

198

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

In 1926 he dedicated his Geïllustreerde geschiedenis der Russische letterkunde to Uhlenbeck. This was the year that his mentor, finally, having been declared medically unfit, took his leave of Leiden University at the age of sixty: ‘Fleeing from Leiden then? In a certain sense, yes!’ wrote the Leiden anthropologist De Josselin de Jong of Uhlenbeck’s move to Nijmegen. ‘Without any rancour though, however much the university harness had often constricted him. But he cared little for the surroundings of Leiden, and the university, indeed any university, was essentially a “school” and he just didn’t like “schools”’.7 Robert van Gulik, who was still a school pupil when he began attending Sanskrit lessons with Uhlenbeck, described him as someone whose appearance exactly matched his idea of a scholar: ‘a thin man, slightly stooped, with a thin beard and a domed, bald head’.8 According to Van Wijk’s register of ‘Books on loan’, Uhlenbeck borrowed books from him on several occasions, always Russian literary works. Van Wijk seems always still to look up to his old professor, for the relevant entry in his notebook is always ‘Prof. Uhlenbeck’,9 as though he had forgotten that they were now colleagues. Even though his own achievements were comparable, an admiring deference toward particular persons seems to have been an abiding factor in Van Wijk’s life that was not changed by his appointment in Leiden. It is not always easy to see where mutual contacts and relationships in Leiden flourished. Colleagues would undoubtedly have seen each other regularly, at Faculty meetings and meetings of the Senate, so that apart from brief notes that are in any case rarely kept, there is not much that one is likely to find in the way of any exchange of letters. Van Wijk was himself dean of the faculty from July, 1935, to July, 1939: a long term for that time, which suggests that quite apart from his scholarly labours he seems to have derived satisfaction from administrative work and meetings. In any case, Van Wijk must have had a good relationship with Johan Huizinga, the great cultural historian. This contact dates from before Huizinga’s Leiden appointment. On the 18th September, 1914, Van Wijk provided his Groningen colleague (who had recently lost his wife) with bibliographic information needed for his forthcoming course of lectures on ‘Russia in the nineteenth century’ for the academic year 1914-1915.10 On this occasion, Van Wijk recommended Masaryk’s Zur russischen Geschichts- und Religionsphilosophie (1913), the first volume of Russland und Europa, as ‘the book on Russia’ of the time.11 Frequently Van Wijk writes Russian names and words in Russian throughout the Dutch text. No doubt to keep the contents from the eyes of the postman, a card sent by Van Wijk on September 23rd, 1914, is written entirely in Russian to say that he and his faculty colleagues are extremely pleased Huizinga was prepared to exchange his Chair in Groningen for one in Leiden.12 In a letter written on the notepaper of the Nieuwe 7

De Josselin de Jong 1952, p. 292. Barkman and De Vries-van der Hoeven 1993, p. 25. 9 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. Entry on 11.11.1918. 10 See Van der Lem 1998, p. 84-85. 11 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, HUI 48. 12 Ibid. 8

COLLEAGUES

199

of Litteraire Sociëteit he informs Huizinga from The Hague, on September 29th: ‘Your letter confirms me in my firm conviction that it will be a great pleasure to collaborate with you’.13 According to the same letter, Van Wijk had himself also developed plans for a course on history: The plan to give a non-linguistic course of lectures occurred to me, in the 1st place, because I also wanted to be useful to others, apart from the very few who are linguistically inclined and who have time for Slavic and Baltic beyond their other activities; and in the 2nd place, because I experienced so much this summer while travelling through Slavic countries, and so learned rather to sympathize with the national aspirations of Poles, Bulgarians and others, that I thought I had a good foundation here which ought to be built on by further reading.14

On October 4th – his birthday – there followed from Zwolle a postcard written entirely in Russian in which Van Wijk declares that sufficient students had subscribed to his course on the Slavic world. On October 9th, once more from the Nieuwstraat, he informs Huizinga what kind of students these were: ‘1 Indologist, 2 political scientists, 2 lawyers, 2 young people who will soon sit their kandidaats examination in Dutch language and literature […]’.15 Van Wijk concluded that ‘we shall not queer each other’s pitch […]’.16 In the same academic year, he writes, he was also giving classes in ‘Old Bulgarian, Lithuanian and Polish. It will be nice to alternate the Russian of last year with this’. As far as one can tell from the letters that have been preserved, the correspondence breaks off here, with nothing more than subsequent incidental notes from Van Wijk containing information over a Russian and a Hungarian word that Huizinga wanted to know more about.17 But they would have seen each other all the more frequently: on October 28th, 1914, Huizinga was appointed Professor of General History at Leiden, giving his inaugural address on January 27th, 1915, and established himself a few months later on the Witte Singel.18 They also evidently had no problem when, as we saw, Huizinga’s students Romein and Suys turned to Van Wijk to supervise their dissertations in the twenties. Nor do the rather unflattering digs at Van Wijk’s stylistic habits, of the kind one finds in Van Wijk’s letters in the archives of De Gids, seem to indicate any lessening of understanding between them. Both professors were involved in a controversial episode at the University: the so-called Von Leers-incident, in which Van Wijk featured as chairman of the Dutch delegation that participated in a German-French-English ISS conference held in April, 1933, in Leiden’s Academiegebouw. Huizinga was then Rector Magnificus and as such functioned as the official host of the conference. He was, in addition, the honorary chairman of the conference and spoke, as did also Van Wijk, at the conference opening in the Senate Chamber, after which the gathering moved to the Small Auditorium. During the conference, Van Wijk gave a talk on 13

Ibid. Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid., HUI 71 3 (06.02.1926), HUI 21 (06.09.1931). 18 See Van der Lem 1998, p. 377-378. 14

200

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Dutch university life.19 This was very shortly after Hitler and the National Socialists had come to power in Germany. The German delegation was totally imbued with the new German ideology and ambitions, especially the delegation’s leader, Dr. Johann von Leers, who in 1928 had published a booklet titled Forderung der Stunde: Juden raus! This booklet had been reprinted in March, 1933. On the 11th April, it was brought to the attention of the Senate Governing Body that this booklet contained a passage on the alleged ‘ritual murder’ of Christian children by Jews, and, as Huizinga informed the Minister of Foreign Affairs in a report on the conference, ‘a conclusion that contains an unequivocal exhortation to take this ancient superstition seriously as a dangerous threat even today, and to watch out for it’.20 The Governing Body of the Senate met the same day to discuss the affair and decided to have Van Wijk invite Von Leers for a talk with Huizinga in the Senate Chamber to see whether the report was indeed accurate. The conversation took place in the presence of Van Wijk, who took notes in pencil on what was said.21 Earlier, Van Wijk had got a member of the Dutch delegation to sound out Von Leers to see what truth there was in this rumour.22 Von Leers did not deny to Huizinga that he was indeed the author of the passages in question; whereupon Huizinga told the German to his face that such utterances disgusted him, and informed him that the University’s hospitality was being withdrawn from him. According to the report of this interview, there followed a brief exchange that was ended by Huizinga with the words: ‘I deeply regret, but I cannot give you my hand in farewell. You may go’. And with that Von Leers left.23 The draft that Huizinga prepared of this report of events was put to Van Wijk. In a letter of April 27th, 1933, Van Wijk advised his colleague to change the formulation that the conference had engaged in a ‘discussion of questions touching on the relation of the student to society’ to a ‘discussion of the attitude of young intellectuals to the problems of state and nation and to international issues’. And, in the event, this Van Wijkian formulation was incorporated by Huizinga in his report.24 Leonhard Huizinga may perhaps have been thinking of Van Wijk when, in his reminiscences of his father, he wrote: ‘More cautious colleagues had advised restraint, but father did not recognize restraint – apart from observing the form – when the sanctity of scholarship was menaced by corrupt propaganda’.25 The deputy assessor of the Senate, D. van Blom sent a letter to Huizinga on April 15th concerning the reactions that his stance had evoked among the participant delegations: You will have heard from Van Wijk that, unlike the French, the English and Dutch delegations were rather critical of the rector’s attitude. Rumours in student circles have it that this 19

See Vinculum studiosorum 6 (1933), no. 8, p. 124-125. Huizinga 1990, p. 432. 21 See Otterspeer 1984, p. 14-15. 22 Ibid., p. 22. 23 See Huizinga 1990, p. 433. 24 Leiden, Academisch Historisch Museum, dossier Huizinga-von Leers, 79 AD 4769. 25 Leonhard Huizinga 1963, p. 56. 20

COLLEAGUES

201

critical attitude will find expression in newspaper articles. So far, there has been nothing, which is in accordance with what (according to Van Wijk) the conference leaders expressly desired.26

Two student papers, the Amsterdam Propria Cures and the Leiden Vinculum Studiosorum, did in fact keep quiet about the scandal, as did the Leidsch Universiteitsblad, which had given extensive prior publicity to the conference. The closing of the conference report, as it appeared in Vinculum Studiosorum, is absolutely typical of the political aloofness – the ignorance even – among the students involved: ‘We parted, understanding more of the world’s peoples and the problems, having concluded friendship with other young people in the conviction that we had indeed “had a good time together”’.27 And, in the end, Huizinga received a rap over the knuckles from the Leiden Governors for the way he had sent Von Leers packing.28 It is evident from numerous reports in the Leidsch Universiteitsblad that the Dutch ISS-branch did not openly come out against the Nazis in part because of its effort to maintain neutrality. The ISS wanted to keep lines with Germany open until late into the thirties. One sees this, for example, in an appeal for participation in a conference on ‘Arbeitsdienst’, held in Rendsburg in Germany, to discuss ‘the problems connected with the foundation and practical implementation of work camps for workers and/or intellectuals’.29 The Leidsch Universiteitsblad was still publishing in 1936, in German, articles by ‘Oberfeldmeister Dr. Seipp’ (without giving his initials) with such titles as ‘Geistige Grundlagen des Reichsarbeitsdienstes’30 and ‘Reichsarbeitsdienst und Deutsche Hochschule’.31 Despite editorial disclaimers of any sympathy with the import of these articles, their publication was giving space to pure, unadulterated nazi propaganda. Otherwise, toward the end of the thirties, and partly thanks to a personal appeal from Chairman Van Wijk, the ISS was positively and urgently active in its help of refugee German, Czech and Chinese students.32 In 1938, the Czech translation (V stínech zítĜka) of Huizinga’s book In de schaduwen van morgen [In the Shadow of Tomorrow] (1935) appeared in Prague. The copy he sent to Van Wijk, dated 27th March, 1938, bears the inscription, ‘In friendship’33 – a spare dedication, but it suggests enough about their relationship. It is doubtful whether there was a particularly deep friendship between them: in Huizinga’s correspondence, as far as it has been published, Van Wijk appears in a merely official capacity; and Leonhard Huizinga does not mention him in his recollections of his famous father. They must in any case have led very different 26

Huizinga 1990, p. 437. Vinculum Studiosorum 6 (1932-1933), no. 8, p. 125. 28 See Otterspeer 1984, p. 19. 29 Leidsch Universiteitsblad 3 (1933-1934), no. 12, p. 4. 30 Leidsch Universiteitsblad 6 (1936-1937), no. 5, p. 1-4 31 Leidsch Universiteitsblad 6 (1936-1937), no. 6, p. 1-6 32 See Vinculum Studiosorum 12 (1938-1939), no. 6, p. 50-51. 33 This copy is to be found in the Van Wijk Bequest in the Leiden Universiteitsbibliotheek, sign. SL. 370. 27

202

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

lives: the lively bachelor Van Wijk, who was ready and pleased to be disturbed by visitors at any time of day or night, and the rigidly disciplined widower, Huizinga, with his brood of children, strictly keeping to his working timetable each day. There is something of a paradox here: although Van Wijk is nowadays known for his pre-eminently ‘scholarly’ writings – articles that were in fact written for a small circle of fellow-linguists, and which almost no-body else understood –, because of his informal life-style he was in fact much less the type of a bookish scholar than Huizinga, who nevertheless preferred to write accessibly for a wider public. We saw earlier that Van Wijk must have known the professor of ancient history, A.W. Bijvanck, personally and very well, since the latter lived with him for some while in the Nieuwstraat household. Bijvanck had the reputation of being a proud, haughty but at the same time witty and amusing individual, who, like his father the librarian, commanded an astonishingly wide range of cultural interests and knowledge. Just as his father when he was a teacher had scarcely bothered about the use of his lessons, so he too, as a professor, made a shambles of his university teaching courses to suit himself. Nonetheless, he established for himself a great reputation as a classical archaeologist with his three-volume Excerpta Romana (1931-1947), an edition of sources for the Roman history of The Netherlands.34 Another colleague with whom Van Wijk was certainly close was J.H. Kern. We have already seen that, after serving a brief period as a privaat-docent in Slavic languages in Leiden, he had left for Groningen where he was appointed Professor of English in 1901. In 1915, Van Wijk had seen the ‘young’ Kern as Verdam’s successor as Professor of Dutch. On the 3rd July, 1915, he wrote to Van Ginneken, whom he also found eligible for the post but who was also not appointed, that he considered Kern to be ‘our foremost historian of language’: ‘This counts so heavily for me that that I would have put him number one’.35 In 1924, Kern returned to Leiden, where he was offered a Chair in Dutch. In his inaugural speech, Kern addressed two of his new colleagues as friends: Uhlenbeck, with whom he had sat in lectures, and Van Wijk, ‘with whom I have maintained friendship over many years. A conversation with either of you has always left me the richer […]’.36 The biographies and the interests of Kern and Van Wijk overlapped somewhat: the apprenticeship with Leskien and Brugmann in Leipzig, the study of Dutch dialectology, and their fascination with the person and work of the Germanist Sievers. Both of them knew Sievers personally. During his postgraduate period in Leipzig in 1902-1903, Van Wijk had got to know Sievers and had visited him as a youthful colleague at the beginning of his great journey through the Slavic world in 1914, while Kern had studied with Sievers when the latter was still teaching in Tübingen. After the latter’s appointment to a Chair, first in Halle and then in Leipzig, Kern visited him in both these cities,37 and when Sievers died in 1932, Kern pub34

See Bastet 2005, p. 25. Nijmegen, Archief van de Nederlandse Provincie der Jezuïeten. 36 Kern 1924, p. 30. 37 Ibid., p. 80. 35

COLLEAGUES

203

lished a memorial article in the Leidsch Universiteitsblad. After all those years he was still fascinated by the man: ‘It is not easy to do justice in brief to the greatness of his multifaceted personality’.38 He outlined Sievers’ path to ‘Schallanalyse’ and the refinement that he introduced to the Rutz’s (father and son’s) theory of body postures: once again an area that provoked Van Wijk’s enthusiastic interest. There are several other interesting points that Kern emphasized: Sievers’ habit of hanging out with students in bars and cafes in Tübingen and, later in Halle and Leipzig, also holding forth in his own study ‘with a never-ending stream of interesting commentary and acute observation’.39 Van Wijk, who was himself so keen on fellow-company and lively conversation, must surely have felt very much at home with such a man. In his own inaugural address, Van Wijk had said that of all the Dutch philologists he had had the most fruitful dealings with Kern. How deep the friendship was between Van Wijk and Kern is evident from the fact that at Kern’s funeral, of the many who were there to pay their respects, only Van Wijk spoke: ‘It is how Kern himself would have wished’.40 The only surviving letter from Kern to Van Wijk is dated December 12th, 1933, just seven days before his death. In very shaky handwriting he passes on some information about a student for whom Van Wijk was prepared to be the substitute examiner.41 Van Wijk paid tribute to Kern several times in writing. In an article in the Leidsch Universiteitsblad he stressed above all the human side of this scholar: ‘He had no time for excesses of feeling and recoiled from expressions of the soul, he had a sharp eye for the comic side of much human pathos and in his lecture courses as in his personal dealings with others he was perfectly simple’.42 Van Wijk praised Kern’s ‘capacity for distinguishing between appearance and essence’,43 and in a memorial article for the yearbook of the Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, his total lack of vanity which gave little occasion among those around him for effusions of admiration or esteem.44 Clearly, Van Wijk found it very easy to speak in public: a few weeks after this funeral oration, we read a report in Het Vaderland of the ceremony in celebration of Dr. M. van Blankenstein’s 25 years of service with the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, where, during the reception in the hotel De Witte Brug, in The Hague, Van Wijk addressed the guest of honour. As we saw earlier, Van Wijk had once, in 1917, sounded him out for a Leiden professorial Chair: Prof. Van Wijk recalled his student time, 30 years ago, when prof. Uhlenbeck – who as emeritus professor took a seat on the honorary committee – put forward Van Blankenstein as a linguist. I got to know Van Blankenstein personally in 1907, when he had been studying the dialects of the Eskimos: a few years later Van B. changed course and went into journalism and although this was much regretted at the time in linguistic circles, they later came to see that they had every reason to rejoice. During the war years, I needed to get access for 38

Kern 1931-1932, p. 6. Ibid., p. 7. 40 Kluyver 1934, p. 89. 41 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 42 Van Wijk 1933-1934, p. 1. 43 Ibid. 44 Van Wijk 1934, p. 151. 39

204

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

study purposes to a fortress in Germany: at first I saw absolutely no chance of getting it, yet… Van Blankenstein turned out to have the key and in two minutes I had my access. Van Blankenstein did a great deal for the Polish people, and I had the privilege of working with him in this. I hope that Dr. Van B. will enjoy many more years to carry on his splendid work.45

Van Blankenstein’s name also appears in Van Wijk’s register of ‘Books on loan’. Another name one finds repeatedly there is that of Bruno Becker, a Russian who was appointed in 1930 as extraordinary professor in Russian cultural history in Amsterdam. Becker was the first and only colleague in The Netherlands in Van Wijk’s discipline, although strictly he was a historian rather than a Slavist. As Van het Reve remembered him: He was a Russian who spoke French, German and Dutch very well, knew sufficient English, read Greek and Latin fluently and, moreover, read sixteenth century Dutch fluently because he was originally a Coornhert specialist. But apart from Russian he knew no other Slavic language and knew nothing of Old Church Slavonic or Old Russian. Nor had he any knowledge of linguistics. I learned a great deal from him.46

Becker sent students to Van Wijk to follow Old Church Slavonic. They also worked together as administrators of the Croiset van der Kop Fund, the legacy that Anna Croiset van der Kop had bequeathed to promote Slavic studies in The Netherlands. Their correspondence, of which only the letters from Van Wijk to Becker have survived, written in a very sloppy Russian hand,47 indicates regular contact over various practical matters. Van Wijk acquired another Amsterdam colleague in 1939 when his promovendus, Jan Romein, was appointed professor extraordinary in national history there. This was a painful appointment affair in which Van Wijk also played a role. On June 11th, 1939, he wrote a letter from Groesbeek to the Minister of Education, Arts and Sciences, Slotemaker de Bruïne, taking up Romein’s cause, as his supervisor, against certain opponents who had cast aspersions on his patriotism: I personally have always held R. in high regard for his integrity and for his decency. Although for several years he held extremist convictions, he always respected the opinions of others. Although my own involvement with Russian affairs since 1917 has been limited to philanthropic and cultural assistance to the victims of Bolshevism, this involvement was also rooted in a conception of Russia’s development that was in many points opposed to that of Romein, yet he has always maintained towards me an attitude of discreet confidentiality, which a professor always notes in an ex-pupil with satisfaction. When disappointment set in for R. over developments in the USSR, I wrote to him that, in my view, it can only be good for the scholarly development of a historian when, in maturity, he finds himself forced by disillusion with historical events to undertake a partial revision of his perspectives.48

Van Wijk was probably referring to what he had written to Romein on the 3rd March, 1938: 45

‘Huldiging van Dr. M. van Blankenstein’, Het Vaderland, 28.01.1934 (Ochtendblad A). Van het Reve 1986, p. 16. 47 Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis in Amsterdam, collection B.B. Becker, and Den Haag, Letterkundig Museum, collection Aleida G. Schot. 48 Hageraats 1988, p. 69. 46

COLLEAGUES

205

I can well imagine that your view of the Russian revolution has changed and that this has been a difficult time for you. Perhaps you will someday say that this time of crisis in the world and in yourself has enhanced your historical open-mindedness. For historians, I believe that the lived experience of one’s mature years is a constant lesson, and it seems to me not least when it leads one – precisely at a mature age – to a re-orientation.49

In his letter to the Minister, Van Wijk implicitly admitted that Romein held a more extreme left position than the average Dutch intellectual, but insisted that he had never advocated ‘a standpoint outside the democratic principles of our society or had in any way been deficient in his respect for what we all regard as the best traditions of the Dutch people’.50 Political differences of opinion had never stood in the way of good relations between Romein and Van Wijk, as Annie RomeinVerschoor witnesses: ‘But that did not in the least prevent him from acting as Jan’s concerned and helpful supervisor in ’24, or from welcoming him as a colleague in ’39 with a sincere: “now of course we call each other by our Christian names”, or when he was in Amsterdam, looking up the editor of De Tribune and mocking us when “those communist children of yours” disagreed over the rights of ownership of the Easter eggs he had brought with him’.51 In his relationship with Romein, Van Wijk seems never to have really drawn a clear distinction between his student, a colleague and a friend. It says much about his rather casual way of relating to others. F.H. Locher-Hibma, the wife of the historian Th.J.G. Locher, who had attended his Czech classes, confirms that the anything-but-magisterial Slavist loved to poke fun at the dignified, bourgeois professors of his time: he was a bit of a maverick.52 2. Rector Magnificus The honorary doctorate awarded to Princess Juliana – who had before her majority in 1927 had personal tuition in Greek and Latin from Gunning, Van Wijk’s old rector53 – was without doubt the most remarkable event of the academic year 1929-1930. This was the year that Van Wijk was Rector Magnificus of Leiden University. The princess had not been able to sit for examinations because she did not possess the diplomas that qualified her to do so. She need not bother with preliminary exams. ‘It was thought in Leiden, however, that to let her leave like this was rather meagre’, according to Queen Wilhelmina’s biographer,54 so it was agreed that it would be a good idea to award her an honorary doctorate. Huizinga was at the time dean of the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy and stood in as her supervisor. Just before 3 o’clock on the afternoon of January 31st, 1930, Juliana and her paranymphs left the house of a fellow-member of her sorority on the Stille Rijn 49

Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. Hageraats 1988, p. 69. 51 Romein-Verschoor 1970, p. 146. 52 Leiden, Croiset van der Kop-fonds archive. Report of a conversation of an unidentified person with F.H. Locher-Hibma on January 6th, 1976. 53 See Mulder 2001, p. 156. 54 Fasseur 2001, p. 81. 50

206

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

and proceeded to the Academy in a promotie-carriage drawn by plumed horses. The Algemeen Handelsblad of the day gave it front page coverage: The princess with her two paranymphs, the ladies De Brauw en Michelin Moreau, were loudly cheered when they took their places in the carriage. The route to the Academy took them over the Kippenbrug, along the Aalmarkt, the Vismarkt, the Koornbrugsteeg, Breestraat and the Steenschuur, along the east side of the Rapenburg, over the Doelenbrug and down the other side of Leiden’s most beautiful canal. Everywhere they were greeted with flags and by enthusiastic crowds, in some places several rows deep. At the Rapenburg, in front of the sorority house of the VVSL [the female students’ union] where the princess’s standard waved from the gable, the female students gave their fellow-sister a resounding ovation.

On the square in front of the Academy, Van Wijk, Huizinga, the PresidentGovernor and mayor of Leiden, A. van de Sande Bakhuyzen and several professors greeted the Queen-mother Emma, Queen Wilhelmina (born in 1880, the same year as Van Wijk), Prince Hendrik and a court retinue of ladies in waiting, courtiers and equerries, virtually all from noble houses. Preceded by the two registrars, they made their way to the Academy Senate Chamber, where the members of the Senate and a number of other guests had already taken their seats. It was then the turn of Van Wijk to open the proceedings and to ask the registrars to bring in the Princess and her paranymphs. In his address during the ceremony, Van Wijk referred to Juliana’s student period of two and a half years and to the decision by the Senate of November 26th, 1929, to grant her an honorary doctorate in letters and philosophy.55 The address by supervisor Huizinga commented rather more informally on the Princess’s studies, mentioning her ‘outstanding application and appetite for research’, her ‘clear understanding’ and ‘originality of mind’.56 Tea was served afterwards in the Small Auditorium, where the Senate assumed the duties of host. That evening saw a dinner at the Paleis Noordeinde in The Hague. This is how the Algemeen Handelsblad reported it: ‘We understand that this meal will have all the hallmarks of a normal promotie dinner. […] Even the usual promotie cake will be featured’. It was Prince Hendrik rather than Wilhelmina who thanked the professors; but the evening had something else in store for Van Wijk and Huizinga: they were nominated as Commander of the Household of Orange, the decoration being personally presented by Queen Wilhelmina.57 Later, in 1932, Van Wijk received another royal distinction when he was made a Knight of the Order of the Dutch Lion.58 Contact with Juliana was evidently maintained: in any case, Van 55

See Tjeenk Willink 1948, page r. of p. 160, for a photograph of Juliana’s degree certificate with Van Wijk’s signature. 56 For a detailed report of Juliana’s honorary degree and the literal text of the addresses given by Van Wijk and Huizinga, see Jaarboek der Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden 1930, p. 112-121. 57 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. The relevant decision, signed by the chancellor and the registrar of the Huisorde van Oranje, is dated 01.02.1930. 58 The Hague, Nationaal Archief, inv. no. 2.14.20, Ministerie van Onderwijs, Kunsten en Wetenschappen. Afdeling Kabinet, 1918-1940. The distinction was granted on the basis of a proposal of the curators of Leiden University in a letter dated 13.04.1932 to the Ministry of Education, Arts and Sciences. In the ministry’s nomination for decoration of 29.07.1932 one reads: ‘Dr. N. van Wijk,

COLLEAGUES

207

Wijk congratulated her on her birthday, there were two telegrams from Juliana to Van Wijk, and her letter of May 7th, 1934 – a ‘thank you’ letter for the good wishes ‘on my fifth levens-lustrum’ [twenty fifth birthday] – tell the same story: ‘I appreciate it especially that you have kept faith with the words you spoke on the day of my promotie’.59 Visits by Van Wijk together with the secretary of the Senate, J.Ph. Vogel, to Queen Wilhelmina and Princess Juliana,60 and later to the Queen-mother, Emma,61 followed from this ceremony. In his capacity as Rector Magnificus he represented the University both within and beyond Leiden, as at the unveiling by Prince Hendrik of the Lorentz-monument in Haarlem, the Juliana van Stolbergmonument in The Hague by Princess Juliana and at the opening of the Anna Clinic in Leiden.62 The question is whether Van Wijk set his own personal stamp on this rectorship. In his memoirs, P.J. Idenburg, the secretary of the college of Governors who had dealings with him as Rector Magnificus, paints a portrait that strongly corroborates the account given by Annie Romein-Verschoor. He too saw Van Wijk as someone with whom young people felt particularly at ease. When Idenburg put it that, ‘in the opinion of many, Prof. Van Wijk had perhaps rather too great a familiarity’,63 he was probably conveying an opinion shared by many governors and professors, whose life-style could rarely have corresponded with that of Van Wijk: In his house on the Nieuwstraat, near the Hooglandse Kerk, where he lived alone, apart from a housekeeper, he was always at home to the most different people from Leiden University circles and beyond, extending a warm and open welcome. I myself cherish the most pleasant memories. Many are the plans for University and student community that we worked out together there. Exchanges of ideas with him were always constructive and almost always led to positive results. When problems involved human assistance, he gave everything. Refugees from Eastern Europe found refuge and sympathy with him. Many were enabled to recover themselves as a result of temporary accommodation with him and deep conversations with him in their own language. At whatever time of day, even at the most unusual hour, students could always come to him with their difficulties, of whatever kind. He never spoke about this, yet I happen to know that he supported many – I would even say, very many – who were in need, not only with his sympathy but also financially. Prof. Van Wijk had something very un-Dutch in his detachment from material possession. He had very few demands for himself and everything in excess of what he needed to satisfy them was at the disposal of others. There was something in him of the Slavic attitude toward life, as we know it from the works of Russian writers. Despite enormously wide teaching commitments, a huge number of courses and tutorials, he never gave the impresProfessor of Balto-Slavic languages at the University of Leiden, is a man of considerable academic authority in the field of these languages, who also generates interest and is highly esteemed in the field of general linguistics beyond the university’. The nomination became fact by a Royal Decree of 29.08.1932, no. 21. 59 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 60 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief Rector Magnificus and de Senaat 1875-1972, inv. no. 3, Notulen van vergaderingen van de Senaat oktober 1920-oktober 1940, f. 304. 61 Ibid., f. 310. 62 See Van Wijk 1930b, p. 254. 63 Idenburg 1978, p. 32.

208

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

sion of being stressed and if he was not immediately engaged in some other task he always had time for everyone.64

We have already seen that Van Wijk was involved in the national ISS organization, but at the local level too student activities could always count on his support. In February, 1930, during the period Van Wijk was rector, the student association Unitas was founded in the Hotel De Burcht. The founders had paid a visit to the rector the previous December to explain their plan to him.65 Van Wijk, who in his professorial role always received people at home, used the Academy for his official rectoral consulting hour on Friday, between 11 and 12 o’clock (‘report to the registrars’66). He greatly appreciated the students’ visit, as he wrote in the foreword to the first almanac of the new association: ‘I consider the Unitas committee’s desire to keep the rector informed of what was happening, and to discuss questions that might arise, as evidence of the kind of tactful prudence that is well advised in the case of any such new venture that one undertakes […]’.67 In a 1935 jubilee issue of the club paper Vinculum Studiosorum, his role was remembered with emphatic approval: ‘The young association was most sympathetically welcomed by the then Rector Magnificus Prof. Dr. N. van Wijk, whose appreciative attitude toward the work of the founders was a great encouragement, for which today we can express our gratitude’.68 Of course, as Rector Magnificus he also appeared at meetings of other student associations, such as the lustrum [quinquennial anniversary] meeting of the Leiden Student Corps in the Pieterskerk on the 24th June, 1930, ‘where the Rector Magnificus expressed the warm feelings entertained by the Academy for this Lustrum event’.69 Van Wijk seems to have been almost completely taken over by his role as Rector Magnificus. On August 8th, 1939, when his term as rector was almost finished, he wrote to the Bulgarian linguist Stefan Mladenov that he had been so busy that ‘the work of scholarship had almost ceased to exist for me’.70 In any case, we have the evidence of Van Wijk’s bibliography, which contains only ten contributions for the year 1930, including two rectoral addresses and five reviews, compared with twenty for 1929 and twenty four for 1931.71 3. The Academician Van Wijk was first proposed as a member of the literary section of the Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen [Royal Academy of Sciences] in Amsterdam in 1918. The Academy was a rather dozy institution that, according to some of its members, fulfilled the role of an ‘Invisible College’: ‘Ask an Amsterdam taxi driver to take you to the “Akademie van Wetenschappen” and you will get no64

Ibid. See Almanak Unitas Studiosorum Lugduno Batava 1 (1931), p. 62. 66 Gids voor studeerenden aan de Rijks-Universiteit te Leiden. Academiejaar 1929/30, p. [3]. 67 Van Wijk 1931e, p. 4. 68 Vinculum Studiosorum 8 (1934-1935), no. 5, p. 50. 69 Almanak van het Leidsche Studentencorps 117 (1931), p. 148. 70 Sofia, Archiv na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite, archive 154K. 71 See Paardekooper and Van Schooneveld 1942, p. 146-149. 65

COLLEAGUES

209

where; but if you ask for the “Trippenhuis”, there is a slight chance he will understand you; best is simply to say “Kloveniersburgwal 29”…’.72 Nevertheless, gaining membership of the Academy was not an automatic affair. Whereas initially, for instance, all the professors of language and literature in The Netherlands had their place in the Literary Section, by the end of the nineteenth century membership of the Academy had become a mark of distinction. And yet the Academy occupied such a place in The Netherlands that they had little room to exercise their own initiative in the field of the humanities.73 The Academy certainly was an ‘Invisible College’: activities at the Academy do not feature significantly in the correspondence of its members known to date and nothing suggests that giving a lecture in the Academy held particular significance for the speaker.74 Members considered their membership more as a confirmation of their social position and of their name and fame as an academic scholar; but beyond the walls of the Academy Building, membership scarcely played any role and the institution itself did not have any great status. The Academy was regularly not invited to official commemorations, such as the 40-year jubilee celebration of Queen Wilhelmina’s reign in 1938.75 The memorandum of recommendation, signed by J.H. Kern, Uhlenbeck, Verdam and Van Ginneken among others, states that Van Wijk had in the first place distinguished himself as an Indo-Germanist and goes on to praise his etymological dictionary, and the attention given in it to the phonology of different Dutch dialects. With regard to his capacities in the field of Slavic studies, it is said that his inaugural lecture Balties-Slaviese problemen shows ‘a complete mastery in the field of Balto-Slavic comparative linguistics, while his studies published since then on Slavic intonation are both ingenious and multi-faceted’.76 At the meeting of March 11th, 1918, Van Wijk was chosen as a candidate for normal membership with sixteen of the forty votes cast.77 At the meeting of April 8th, however, he was not elected, attracting only fourteen of the thirty six votes cast, the least of all the nine candidates. N. Adriani, an expert on Indonesian, and M.W. de Visser, the Japanologist, were elected. A second attempt was made by the same individuals – apart from Verdam, who had died in the meantime – in 1920. This time, the members also praised Van Wijk as a man of letters. His book Hoofdmomenten der Russiese letterkunde, which had appeared in 1919, was said to witness not only to ‘his exceptionally wide reading in Russian literature, but also to his ability to understand and reveal the characteristic qualities of the writers and their works and the spirit of the people’.78 At a

72

Van Melle 1998. See Van der Lem 2004, p. 161. 74 Ibid., p. 144. 75 Ibid., p. 160. 76 Haarlem, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Archief Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, inv. no. 558, Aanbevelingen voor leden van de afdeling letterkunde, 1918-1927. 77 Ibid., inv. no. 23, Notulen van de afdeling letterkunde, 1915-1921, f. 170. 78 Ibid., inv. no. 558, Aanbevelingen voor leden van de afdeling letterkunde, 1918-1927. 73

210

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

meeting on March 8th, 1920, Van Wijk was once again adopted as a candidate;79 the actual election took place a month later, on April 12th, and this time he was elected with twenty five of the thirty two votes cast. He duly made his first appearance in the Trippenhuis at a meeting of the Academy of May 10th, 1920, together with two other newly elected Leiden colleagues: the lawyer E.M. Meijers and the orientalist Ph.S. van Ronkel. Among the Academy members present – who had to make do without the kind of official costume flaunted by their French counterparts – we find Van Wijk’s Amsterdam supervisor, R.C. Boer, and his Leiden colleague Johan Huizinga.80 Van Wijk read his first paper to the Academy on the 12th December, 1921, a discussion of ‘Pushkin’s place in literature’. Uhlenbeck, who liked to refer to the Academy as the ‘Kika’,81 made several comments afterwards, though we have no idea what exactly he said since the minutes do not deal with matters of content.82 As far as I can ascertain, this was the only literary paper he ever read before the Academy; all subsequent papers dealt with either linguistic or philological topics. In 1924, Van Wijk, together with Kern, Uhlenbeck and W. Caland, proposed Reinder van der Meulen for membership of the Academy, the memorandum of recommendation being in Van Wijk’s own handwriting. (It was Van der Meulen whom Van Wijk had trumped with his appointment to the new Chair in 1913.) The recommendation cites his studies of Lithuanian that had gained Van der Meulen his doctorate and also his work on the Dutch marine and sea-faring terms appropriated into Russian. ‘His work as editor of the Woordenboek der Nederlansche Taal is very highly regarded’, continues the recommendation. ‘Having published several instalments together with Dr. J. Heinsius, he edited the thirteenth volume, fourteen instalments of which appeared in the years 1914-’23, including the words from riant to rusthuis’.83 Van der Meulen was unsuccessful that year and had to wait until 1925, when his candidature was put forward once more, this time with success. In the list of his published writings submitted to the Academy with his curriculum vitae, Van der Meulen reports rather unnecessarily that his dissertation was reviewed by Van Wijk among others, but he makes no reference to the damning review of his book on Dutch sea-faring terms in Russian by Croiset van der Kop.84 Van Wijk congratulated Van der Meulen on a postcard of April 30th, adding: ‘Are you coming at 4 o’clock on Tuesday?’ which certainly suggests that they were on personal terms.85 At a meeting on the 15th June, 1925, it was announced that an invitation had been received from the Academy of Sciences in Leningrad to send a representative on the occasion of the celebration of its two hundredth anniversary. Van Wijk 79

Ibid., inv. no. 23, Notulen van de afdeling letterkunde, 1915-1921, f. 305. Ibid., f. 314. 81 See De Josselin de Jong 1952, p. 292. 82 Haarlem, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Archief Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, inv. no. 24, Notulen van de afdeling letterkunde, 1921-1931, f. 27. 83 Ibid., inv. no. 558, Aanbevelingen voor leden van de afdeling letterkunde, 1918-1927. 84 Ibid., inv. no. 574, Biografische aantekeningen van leden van de afdeling letterkunde, 1897-1940. 85 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3505. 80

COLLEAGUES

211

praised the great service of the Academy in Leningrad and let it be known that he put considerable store by the idea that a Dutch delegate should attend the celebrations. ‘He himself’, record the minutes, ‘would not be able to get a visa because of the attitude he had taken against the Soviets. But since none of the members present is prepared to accept the delegation, it was concluded that a letter of congratulation and good will should be sent’.86 Even the new member Van der Meulen had no wish to go to Leningrad. It is unclear why Van Wijk seemed so certain that he would not be granted a visa, and also precisely what ‘attitude’ he was referring to. In his writings, at any rate, he had not all that visibly opposed the new regime; he had, on the other hand, had contacts with Russian refugees, and perhaps it was above all these contacts that would betray his ‘attitude’. Van Wijk used his membership of the Academy to make connections with scholars in the Baltic and Slavic world. In 1928, along with Van der Meulen and others, he proposed the candidature of the Czech JiĜí Polívka for foreign membership of the Academy. The memorandum of recommendation, in Van Wijk’s handwriting, states that Polívka owed his ‘world-wide reputation, in the first place’ to his ‘scholarly activities in the field of folklore and folk literature’.87 But there was evidently also a tactical element at play in this recommendation. ‘In recommending Professor Polívka for foreign membership of the Academy, the undersigned are swayed by the consideration that the list of foreign members to date conveys, in a certain sense, a rather one-sided image of world scholarship’, writes Van Wijk in a defence of his own area of work, ‘through its lack of any representative of the nations of Eastern Europe, which count for two hundred million people and have produced scholars of the very first rank’.88 At the meeting of March 12th, 1928, Van Wijk defended the Polívka candidature by pointing out that ‘it can happen that a scholar’s discipline is an obstacle to universal familiarity’.89 In any case, his argument seems to have succeeded, for Polívka was duly chosen. In 1934, supported by Uhlenbeck, Van Wijk was also the driving force behind the candidacy of his old Latvian acquaintance JƗnis EndzelƯns, for foreign membership of the Academy. EndzelƯns, whom Van Wijk had met in 1914 in Charkov, had been appointed professor in Riga after Latvia had been declared independent of Russia in 1918.90 It was said of him that ‘he had largely built up the academic study of his native language, Latvian, himself and brought it to a level that has not been achieved by many countries with much older linguistic traditions’.91 And with perhaps implied reference to the profile of the members Van Wijk and Uhlenbeck themselves, there was this addendum to the recommendation: ‘this would not have been possible without the excellent training in general linguistics 86

Haarlem, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Archief Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, inv. no. 24, Notulen van de afdeling letterkunde, 1921-1931, f. 197. 87 Ibid., inv. no. 559, Aanbevelingen voor leden van de afdeling letterkunde, 1928-1940. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid., inv. no. 24, Notulen van de afdeling letterkunde, 1921-1931, f. 288. 90 See Van Wijk 1924g for a review of a book by EndzelƯns. 91 Haarlem, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Archief Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, inv. no. 559, Aanbevelingen voor leden van de afdeling letterkunde, 1928-1940.

212

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

and Indo-Germanic that is evident in his writings’.92 The occasion of this new recommendation seems to have been the death of Polívka in 1933: ‘It is difficult for scholars who belong to small nations, far removed from the centres of Western Europe, to acquire a world name. EndzelƯns has succeeded in this. [...] After the death of Polívka last year, our sole foreign member from East Europe, we are now very pleased to be able to recommend a philologist in the person of the Latvian EndzelƯns, who fully deserves membership of our Academy’.93 This recommendation led in turn to the acceptance of the candidate, albeit not at the first attempt but following a second nomination in 1936. EndzelƯns was delighted by his election.94 The same four that had nominated EndzelƯns for the second time, in 1936 – Van Wijk, Uhlenbeck, Van Ginneken en Gerlach Royen – ventured another candidate at the beginning of 1938: the Viennese professor, Prince Nikolaj Trubeckoj. The recommendation, this time written by Uhlenbeck and signed at his new Swiss domicile in Lugano-Ruvigliana, also followed the demise of another Academy member: ‘Since the death of Antoine Meillet, the undersigned miss among our foreign members a leading Indo-Germanist of major stature’.95 In circumlocutory fashion, Uhlenbeck seems to be talking about himself when, as an expert on Basque and Eskimo languages, he discusses Trubeckoj’s dedication to the study of the other non-Indo-European Caucasian languages: In the first place, as Master of the Prague school of linguistics, he has been the founder of Phonology, which, although not everything in it is new or infallible, has most certainly opened the eyes of all Indo-Germanists to a hitherto ignored view of the structure of the sound system of different languages, and as a result has opened new possibilities for the history of the development of languages and language sounds. Secondly, through a series of similarly original studies of the more recent Slavic languages, of Old Church Slavonic and of the pre-history of Old Slavic, he has demonstrated to Vienna University and to all Slavists that he is worthy of Miklosich’s Austrian Chair. And finally, through his example, he has demonstrated what the Old Kern first taught us here in The Netherlands, that the discipline of Indo-Germanic studies can also benifit enormously from the study of non-Indo-Germanic languages. This he did, for example, with his comparison of the Mordwinian and Russian sound systems, but especially through his studies of Caucasian languages, which drew his attention to various non-Indo-Germanic sound structures that were precisely relevant to his phonology.96

Trubeckoj was elected foreign member of the Academy at a meeting on the 11th April, 1938. On May 7th, he sent from Vienna a one-sentence letter of thanks to Paul Scholten, the Amsterdam legal scholar and secretary of the Literary Section: ‘Sehr geehrter Herr Sekretär, Ihr wertes Schreiben vom 3 Mai habe ich mit Freude erhalten, danke Ihnen aufs innigste dafür und bitte Sie beiliegendes Schreiben an den Herren Präsidenten der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Prof. Dr.

92

Ibid. Ibid. 94 Ibid., inv. no. 569, Benoemingen van leden van de afdeling letterkunde, 1855-1940. Letter from EndzelƯns dated 06.05.1936 to the Academy. 95 Ibid., inv. no. 559, Aanbevelingen voor leden van de afdeling letterkunde, 1928-1940. 96 Ibid. 93

COLLEAGUES

213

J. Huizinga, übermitteln zu wollen. Mit dem Ausdruck der vorzüglicher Hochachtung Ihr ganz ergebener N. Trubetzkoy’.97 But Trubeckoj had only been a foreign member of the Dutch Academy a few weeks when, on the 25th June, 1938, he died in Vienna. Van Wijk informed Scholten on July 4th that he would like to pay commemorative tribute to Trubeckoj: ‘I believe that of all of us I knew him best. I think I may speak for about 10 minutes’;98 and he duly paid his tribute to the great Prague School linguist at a meeting of the literary section held on the 12th September. In the subsequently published obituary, Van Wijk let it be known that Trubeckoj was already seriously ill at the time of his election and deeply depressed. But the ‘recognition from this Academy for his scholarly achievements was greatly appreciated by him; this was one of the small rays of light that brightened his last days’.99 These remarks would seem to point unmistakably to an exchange of letters in 1938 between Van Wijk and Trubeckoj or his widow, but nothing has been recovered. Although Van Wijk almost always attended Academy meetings, he seems to have been a less committed member than his old teacher Uhlenbeck who, even after leaving Leiden, played a remarkably prominent and active role in the Literary Section.100 But then Van Wijk found that his position as a Leiden professor suited him very well, whereas Uhlenbeck found it increasingly irksome. But the Academy did have its importance – and for Uhlenbeck increasingly so – as the publisher of some of their scholarly work. There is one occasion, in 1926, when Van Wijk casts a rather different light on the value of this learned company, and the scholarly world in general when, in a commemorative piece in De Gids dedicated to the memory of Bijvanck, his old chief at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, he wrote: ‘In the meantime, I have in general been able to endorse Bijvanck’s relative estimation of scholarly workers […]’,101 and went on: ‘It is still a puzzle to me how this man, whose intellectual equal I have hardly ever met in my life, never belonged among the no less than fifty ordinary members of the literary section of our Akademie van Wetenschappen’.102 It is very characteristic of Van Wijk that he should sound such a critical note out of feelings of loyalty to someone he admired. 4. Abroad The network of contacts Van Wijk had built up since his postgraduate stay in Russia in 1903 collapsed with the 1917 revolution. ‘Von meinen russischen Freunden habe ich seit dem Anfang der Bolšewistischen Revolution absolut nichts gehört: die werden auch wohl in schrecklicher Lage sein’, he wrote to Jagiü103 on the 15th

97

Ibid., inv. no. 569, Benoemingen van leden van de afdeling letterkunde, 1855-1940. I have not been able to track down the letter to Huizinga mentioned by Trubeckoj. 98 Ibid., inv. no. 581, Overlijdensberichten van leden van de afdeling letterkunde, 1859-1940. 99 Van Wijk 1939d, p. 221. 100 See Van Berkel 2004, p. 11-12. 101 Van Wijk 1926a, p. 251. 102 Ibid., p. 257. 103 Zagreb, Nacionalna i sveuþilišna knjižnica.

214

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

January, 1919. Van Wijk himself never returned to Russia and thought, as we have seen, that he would never again be granted a visa. Whatever the case, the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union elected Van Wijk to be a corresponding member of their literary section.104 This transpired at a meeting on the 2nd February, 1928.105 Previous to this, the philologist B.M. Ljapunov had asked Van Wijk for a bibliography of his publications, which Van Wijk duly sent to Leningrad in a letter dated 29th October 1927.106 As well as by Ljapunov, he was also proposed by E.F. Karskij and P.A. Lavrov. In their elucidation of his candidature, these three philologists mainly dwelt on the importance of Van Wijk’s work in the field of Slavic accentology and morphology and Old Church Slavonic. They also mentioned his work on comparative morphology and etymology, although there was a question mark set against these contributions: specifically, it was suggested that in these fields he ‘was not always convincing’ when, ‘in haste to see his own original ideas in print’, he had not always given due consideration to ‘what had been asserted on the same questions by other scholars’; however, his proposers found that ‘forgivable in a relatively young scholar endowed with a brilliantly perceptive mind and outstanding powers of synthesis’.107 The new member, rather paternalistically forgiven his omissions as a ‘relatively young’ scholar, even though he was almost fifty years old, cannot have been altogether flattered by this assessment: if there was one thing in which he did his best, it was to represent the opinions of others adequately and fairly. And yet this honour, if he really did think he would never be granted a visa, must have come as a surprise to him. Little came of it, however, because from the early thirties onward, under the weight of steadily increasing repression, contacts between scholars in the Soviet Union and the outside world came to an end in virtually all areas. From the surviving correspondence, it seems that the exchange of letters with Ljapunov was broken off in 1932.108 For a long time, Van Wijk’s attention had not been exclusively absorbed by Russia. Ever since his first journey to Poland in 1912 he had got to know many Polish scholars, particularly in Cracow. In 1913 he wrote to Stanisáaw Kot in German about his pending appointment in Leiden, but after his summer trip to the Tatra region in 1913, and his subsequent journey to war-torn Poland in 1915, he acquired such a practical knowledge of Polish that he could henceforth conduct his correspondence with Poles in their own language. During the time of his Leiden rectorship, the Polish academic world honoured him with the foreign membership of the Polish Academy of Sciences.109 But of all the Slavic countries, it was 104

See Akademija Nauk SSSR. Personal’nyj sostav, 2 (Moskva: Nauka, 1974), p. 393. The document of appointment was sent to Van Wijk with a letter dated 16.03.1928 from the secretary of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, S.F. Ol’denburg. See Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. 106 St Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburgskij filial Archiva RAN. 107 B. Ljapunov, E. Karskij, and P. Lavrov 1928, p. 479. 108 The letter from Van Wijk dated 13.4.1932 to Ljapunov is the last that has been preserved in St Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburgskij filial Archiva RAN. 109 See Van Wijk 1930b, p. 255. 105

COLLEAGUES

215

Czechoslovakia that most attracted Van Wijk and which he visited most often. His books about the new state also witness to his preference for this country which, as early as the twenties, awarded him several distinctions.110 Letters to Czech correspondents were written in Czech; he also had a lively correspondence with the Russian literary scholar, A.L. Bem, who lived in Prague. Bulgaria was another country he regularly visited, especially in the thirties, stopping over in Belgrade where the prominent linguist A. Beliü was his most significant contact. When writing to Bulgarians or Serbs he would write in either Russian, French or German. Van Wijk travelled to the Slavic countries almost each summer, not exactly on vacation: as usual, it is difficult to draw a distinction between his work and his private life. In fact, he seems to have had no taste for pure ‘tourism’, and apparently never undertook holiday trips to Switzerland or Italy, not to mention such exotic places as Egypt or Constantinople. In his writings he never remarked on any enjoyment of foreign cities in themselves, always of contacts and dinners with both familiar and unfamiliar local people. Conferences were the ideal venue for a man of his disposition and he was certainly a well-known figure at linguists’ and Slavists’ conferences during the twenties and thirties. We see him at the First International Linguists’ Conference in The Hague in 1928, for which he sat on the organizing committee along with Uhlenbeck, Van Ginneken and the Nijmegen Professor Jos. Schrijnen, among others.111 He also put in appearances at the Second International Linguists’ Conference in Geneva in 1931,112 and at the Fourth in Copenhagen in 1936.113 He did not, however, participate at the Third Conference, held in Rome in 1933, where the ‘Capo del Governo’ Benito Mussolini assumed the role of chairman of the committee of honour. He did take part in the First International Conference of Phonetic Sciences in Amsterdam in 1932, led by Van Ginneken – who in 1923 had been appointed to the Chair in Dutch, Comparative Indo-Germanic linguistics and Sanskrit at the newly established Catholic University of Nijmegen.114 On this occasion he invited several colleagues to Leiden, as Roman Jakobson attested: ‘I will never forget a beautiful afternoon spent in his house together with my Czech colleagues B. Havránek and J. MukaĜovský after the first Congress of Phonetic Sciences held in Amsterdam, summer 1932’.115 According to C.H. van Schooneveld, Jakobson remembered Van Wijk as a man who ‘could put away enormous quantities of alcohol without one noticing any effect’.116 It seems that he paid the latter’s travel ex110

See Hinrichs 1988, p. 23, p. 25. See Actes du premier congrès international de linguistes à la Haye, du 10-15 avril 1928 (Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff’s Uitgeversmaatschappij N.V.), p. viii, p. 2. 112 See Actes du deuxième congrès international de linguistes, Genève 25-29 août 1931 (Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien Maisonneuve, 1933), p. 15. 113 See Actes du quatrième congrès international de linguistes tenu à Copenhague du 27 août au 1er septembre 1936 (Copenhague: Einar Munskgaard, 1938), p. 17. 114 See Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Amsterdam 3-8 July 1932 (=Archives Néerlandaises de Phonétique Expérimentale 8-9 (1933), p. 219. 115 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3506, letter dated 03.01.1977 to A.H. van den Baar. 116 Ibid., C.H. van Schooneveld, in an autobiographical text that was probably appended to a letter dated 04.01.1979 to A.H. van den Baar. 111

216

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

penses back to Czechoslovakia – at least, that would seem to be the implication of the questions in Trubeckoj’s letter to Jakobson of the 4th August, 1932: ‘You did not tell me whether you had seen Van Wijk. And if so, what did he have to say about phonology and about Van Ginneken? And if not, how did you get the money for the return journey?’.117 These remarks certainly say something about Van Wijk’s reputation for generosity. Van Wijk was also present at the Third International Phonetics Conference at Ghent in 1938.118 Earlier, in 1925, as a delegate he had attended an international gathering in Copenhagen to discuss a general system for phonetic transcription and transliteration.119 At that meeting, organized by the Danish linguist, Otto Jespersen, he had represented the Literary Section of the Amsterdam Academy.120 Van Wijk was also a regular visitor at Flemish academic conferences.121 At the First International Slavists’ Conference in Prague in 1929, Van Wijk did not enroll as a participant. At the meeting of the Amsterdam Academy of September 9th, 1929, he explained that he would be ‘prevented from attending by this year’s obligations as Rector Magnificus of Leiden University […]’;122 but this was not so serious, for ‘his numerous journeys to the Slavic lands ensured that The Netherlands remained closely involved with Slavic scholarship’.123 He was a delegate at the Second International Slavists’ Conference held in Warsaw and Cracow in 1934,124 where, unlike the First Conference the Soviet Union was no longer represented: in the increasingly oppressive political climate, journeys abroad for soviet academics had by then virtually ceased. Among the participants, Van Wijk saw Bernd von Arnim again, his student and promovendus who had in the meantime been living in Berlin.125 Apart from his participation in conferences, as a Slavist Van Wijk was also invited to give guest lectures, in June, 1924, for example, at the University of Warsaw.126 His most famous guest lectures were those given at the Sorbonne in Paris in 1937, the texts of which were published under the title Les langues slaves: de l’unité à la pluralité.127 On the other hand he declined

117

Jakobson 1975, p. 250. See Proceedings of the Third International Congress of Phonetic Sciences held at the University of Ghent, 18-22 July 1938 (Ghent: Laboratory of Phonetics of the University, 1939), p. 8-12. 119 See Juul et al. 1995, p. 215, p. 292 for a group photograph including Van Wijk and Otto Jespersen. 120 Haarlem, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Archief Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, inv. no. 24, Notulen van de afdeling letterkunde, 1921-1931, f. 196. 121 See Grootaers 1941. 122 Haarlem, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Archief Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, inv. no. 24, Notulen van de afdeling letterkunde, 1921-1931, f. 326. 123 Ibid. 124 See Lekov 1973, p. 2, and Kucarov 1999, p. 117. 125 See Stanislav 1935, p. 92. 126 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1856-1952, inv. no. 7, Ingekomen stukken en concepten en minuten van uitgaande stukken, 1903-1949. Request from the faculty for leave dated 20.05.1924. 127 Van Wijk 1937. 118

COLLEAGUES

217

an invitation for the academic year 1937-1938, to give a year’s course of lectures at Columbia University in New York for an honorarium of $ 7500.128 Conference visiting must also have appealed to Van Wijk because it gave him the opportunity to keep his language skills honed. That was certainly the case with conferences of Slavists, where he could switch constantly from one language to another. After the 1934 conference in Warsaw he wrote: A slavist conference is distinct from most other international gatherings because of the multiplicity of languages. As well as French, German, English and Italian, all the Slavic languages are allowed both in papers and discussions. At this conference, I heard all the Slavic languages spoken except for Slovenian and Sorbish: Polish, Czech, Slovak, Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian. This created no great difficulty; the Slavic languages have so many elements of inflection, syntax and word derivation in common and the sounds have preserved such a similar pronunciation that any Slavic scholar who does not restrict his work exclusively to his own language and its literature can follow reasonably well papers in almost all Slavic languages; and that holds too for non-Slavs who are able to master more than just one living Slavic language, even if it is not always possible to follow a lecture word for word.129

Roman Jakobson, the famous Russian linguist, based in Prague, is a witness to just how adept Van Wijk must have been at switching from one language to another: ‘He often visited Prague and at our meetings I was impressed by how swiftly and magnificently he shifted from Russian to Czech or Polish, depending on the person to whom he was speaking during a group conversation’.130 The Prager Presse too, in a report of a talk by Van Wijk, remarks: ‘Er beherrscht die tschechische Sprache in vollendeter Weise […]’.131 A native-born Czech confirms Van Wijk’s mastery of the Czech language, though she does remember the occasional irregularities in his pronunciation: ‘Yes, he spoke Czech very well, occasionally mixing it a bit with old Slavic language [...], which we, silly children, used to laugh at. Also he could not pronounce the Czech “Ĝ” and his “rž” was funny and lovable to us’.132 Nor was Van Wijk’s passive knowledge of languages limited to Indo-European languages. This is evident from the advice he gave over a professorial appointment in Helsinki in 1934, in which he shows himself capable of reading linguistic articles in Finnish: ‘Obgleich die finnische Sprache mir keine geringe Schwierigkeiten bereitet, habe ich auch die in dieser Sprache geschriebenen Arbeiten aufmerksam durchgelesen’.133 Another significant theme behind Van Wijk’s dealings with both Dutch and foreign colleagues, not in the first place of a linguistic or Slavistic nature, was his involvement with the Nederlandsche Commissie voor Intellectueele Samenwerking [the Dutch Committee for Intellectual Cooperation]. Formed in September, 1926, this committee constituted the national committee of the League of Nations 128

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164, letter dated 29.03.1937 from Columbia University. Van Wijk 1934a. 130 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3506, letter from Roman Jakobson dated 03.01.1977 to A.H. van den Baar. 131 Prager Presse 18, 29.04.1938, p. 8. 132 Alena Maxová in a letter dated 11.05.2004 to the author. 133 Van Wijk 1934d, p. 11. 129

218

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Commission Internationale de Coopération Intellectuelle (CICI) in Geneva. The chairman of this Geneva Committee, whose functional organ was the Paris Institut International de Coopération Intellectuelle (IICI), was the Nobel Prize-winner H.A. Lorentz, who succeeded Henri Bergson in 1925. Lorentz also set up the Dutch committee, but he himself took no active role in it. Initially, the creation of the IICI in Paris had been opposed within the League of Nations as vigorously as possible by the Dutch government, because they feared French domination of the sphere of international cooperation.134 At the first meeting of the Dutch committee, Van Wijk was appointed chairman, a task that he did not interpret as a merely honorary position; instead, he devoted real effort to the job and took upon himself the necessary correspondence with the Paris IICI.135 In a 1930 report, Van Wijk sums up the committee’s most important activities: providing other countries with Dutch scholarly and scientific literature, ‘especially those countries with little purchasing power as a consequence of the war’,136 participation of the committee in a conference on traditional and popular art, organized by the organs of the League of Nations, that took place in October, 1928, in Prague. In addition, he mentions his participation in a documentation of intellectual life that would eventually lead to an international Who’s Who, compiling a list of twenty Dutch titles for a list of ‘Ouvrages remarquables dans les différents pays’ that was published by the IICI,137 and promoting the inclusion of French, German and English summaries at the end of Dutch language academic books and journals. Van Wijk and Huizinga were both in Paris for a meeting of the CICI in 1937. Huizinga had been a committee member since October, 1933,138 while Van Wijk was still chairman of its Dutch branch. We have many letters from this period that Huizinga wrote to his young fiancée, Auguste Schölvinck. ‘Being alone in a big city is not for me’, he informed her on July 3rd, 1937.139 He found a good companion in Van Wijk, who had always enjoyed dinners in foreign company. On July 5th Huizinga wrote: ‘Yesterday Prof. van Wijk and the rest walked in, so this week there will be much more company […]’.140 International conferences were evidently not Huizinga’s cup of tea: ‘I can’t listen and if I do listen it doesn’t interest me. Great floods of eloquence baring very little result’.141 A letter of July 10th includes an idyllic description of an automobile outing with the assistant council134

See Pham-Thi-Tu 1962, p. 39-40. Vincent Wintermans informed me in an e-mail dated 08.10.2004 that he had come across 16 letters and 1 telegram from Van Wijk to various persons in the IICI, in the Unesco-archive in Paris which holds the archive of the IICI. This correspondence dates from the years 1926-1931. 136 Van Wijk 1930a, p. 8. 137 Van Wijk himself undertook the work of compiling the list of these titles, as seen from his letters of 1928-1930 to Albert Verwey, poet and Professor of Dutch Literature in Leiden, in which he asks for suggestions. See Van Wijk’s letters in Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Hs. XLI B 18198, XLI B 18199 and XLI B 18200. 138 See De Voogd 2005. 139 Huizinga 1991, p. 185. 140 Ibid., p. 187. 141 Ibid., p. 188. 135

COLLEAGUES

219

advisor of the Paris Institut International de Coopération Intellectuelle, Maas Geesteranus: It continues to be particularly good weather here, not too hot and cloudy now and again. Yesterday between half past three and eight o’clock I went on a splendid trip by car to Saint Germain-en-Laye and Versailles on the way back, beautiful woods and the Versailles park in the evening. It was with Van Wijk in the car belonging to Maas Geesteranus and his wife (she is a Georgian princess; in the Caucasus one is either a princess or a Soviet dictator) […].142

There was, in any case, another tram ride together for the two Leiden colleagues later that summer: on the 8th September, 1937, they had an interview in The Hague with the Prime Minister, Colijn, probably related to the activities of the Nederlandsche Commissie voor Intellectueele Samenwerking: ‘Colijn pleasant, mission accomplished, back with Van Wijk in the yellow tram […]’.143 Van Wijk may have enjoyed hob-nobbing in international circles, but listening to so many addresses of a disparate, generalized kind must have taken its toll. He gives a glimpse of this, at least, in a report he sent to the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant of the 1937 Paris conference: ‘Of course, this did not prevent repetitions of matters that had already been discussed earlier, they were many; nor was it always easy to follow the reports and exchanges of ideas with unflagging attention. On the other hand, the sheer multiplicity of speakers and ideas did sometimes make a chaotic impression’.144 Playing a part in international scholarship had actually been Van Wijk’s lifeblood ever since his postgraduate apprenticeship at the beginning of the century. He would have been one of the most travelled Dutch scholars of his time, and in many circles, especially in the Slavic countries, he was a well-known figure. His status as a bachelor certainly had something to do with it. The satisfaction of his need for conviviality was undoubtedly an additional motive that drove him so often abroad. Administrative work and meetings, both national and international, should also be seen in this context. The fact that such diverse kinds of meetings could be highly disruptive in his life, as he remarked in a letter to Jan Romein in October, 1926,145 was something he accepted as part of the deal: and in the end it was the deal that he wanted.

142

Ibid., p. 190. Ibid., p. 224. 144 Van Wijk 1937a. 145 Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. 143

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER IX

FRIENDS

1. Polish Jews and Russians The extent of Nicolaas van Wijk’s attraction to Russians and to the Russian way of life emerged very early on from the travel account, his ‘Russian impressions’, that he published in De Gids in 1908. It seems to have been always his sympathy with the Russians, whom he tended to see as the victims of history, that determined his attitude. Like his father, the minister, he was by inclination philanthropic, a fact already in evidence as early as 1915, when he visited the Polish war zone as representative of a Dutch committee of assistance. The Bolshevik putsch of 1917, which began an exodus of Russians abroad that was to continue for many, many years, was followed by turmoil, great suffering and a need for assistance both inside and outside the fatherland that was unremitting. Providing aid to Russia itself was difficult to organize: it was scarcely possible to control where the aid would finish up. What Van Wijk did was to throw in his lot with a Finnish committee of professors in Helsinki who were lending assistance to academics in Petrograd. The Nederlandsch Comité voor Hulpverleening aan Russische mannen en vrouwen van wetenschap [Dutch Committee for Aid to Russian male and female academics], of which he was chairman, collected money in 1921. Clothes were welcome too, according to the circular sent out by the committee: ‘These are also needed for the academy members, professors etc. in dire straits, who come to the “House of Learning” to fetch their ration with a filthy sack on their back, with their coat collars turned up to hide their lack of a shirt’.1 This kind of initiative was not restricted to Russia. In 1922, in his capacity as chairman of the Commissie voor Internationale Studieaangelegenheden [Committee for International Study-related Affairs] in Leiden, he collected money among his colleagues for the impoverished scholars of Austria.2 His collection was perhaps not a huge success, for not everyone would have shared Van Wijk’s generosity. In any case, we read in a report of a visit by a delegation of Russian emigré students from Prague to see Van Wijk in Leiden on January 17th, 1923, that he was ‘pessimistic’ over the chances of collecting money for them.3 That did not discourage Van Wijk himself from giving considerable sums of money in several cases, as can be seen from a survey of donations to a Paris aid organization for assisting Russian youth in foreign countries, where Van

1

Leiden, Croiset van der Kop-fonds archive. Circular in Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 3 See Informacionnyj Bjulletin ORÈSO, no. 2, 15.03.1923, p. 11. 2

222

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Wijk is recorded as giving 10.042,85 French francs.4 In this light, it is not surprising that he was referred to as a ‘friend of the Russians’,5 even ‘a great friend of Russia and Russians’.6 In 1928, the Union russe des diplomés des hautes écoles à l’étranger based in Paris nominated Van Wijk as an honorary member,7 a distinction that would undoubtedly have had something to do with his considerable financial contributions. But Van Wijk’s greatest effort would have been at the personal level, with direct material assistance to the Russians and other East Europeans who presented themselves to him. The remarks already quoted about Van Wijk in the memoirs of Idenburg, secretary of the Leiden Governors, are corroborated by numerous other witnesses, the most well-known, perhaps, being the recollections of Annie Romein-Verschoor: With eastern hospitality, he was prepared to accept all the homeless refugees from behind Prussia who came knocking at his door – to the despair of his meticulous housekeeper – , Jews fleeing pogroms, like the young Ginsberg, who first set up a fish-trade from the house in the Nieuwstraat to defray expenses, but then changed to bookselling, which was much more in accord with his rabbinical schooling. Subsequently, his protegés were refugee White Russians, and the firmer the foothold gained by communism, the more he rejected it, and it was not so much the Soviet Russians as he himself, together with his emigré friends, who sought consolation in the old Russian mystical sphere […].8

Annie Romein-Verschoor here touches on an essential point: Russia and the Russians fulfilled a need in Van Wijk himself. He made no secret of the fact that it was not simply a case of him giving to the Russians, by whom he was known as ‘Nikolaj Vasil’eviþ’,9 but that he also got a lot from them. In a letter to Aleksandar Beliü of March 14th, 1923, he gives an account of the Leiden effort on behalf of Austrian scholars and then goes on to say: ‘Ich persönlich mache übrigens mehr für die russischen Emigranten. Meinen russischen Freunden verdanke ich sehr viel, und was man für tüchtige junge Russen macht, davon wird das künftige Russland Nutzen haben’.10 At that moment, he clearly saw his personal assistance as also an investment in an unknown Russia of the future. Van Wijk’s involvement with Russians and other East Europeans in the twenties began to attract the attention of the Leiden Police Commissioner P. Stapel, known as the author of a police textbook that went through many re-printings. The suspicion of having communist sympathies must have arisen through Van Wijk’s association with shabby Slavic types, for a letter written by Stapel to the AttorneyGeneral in the Court of Justice in The Hague on November 14, 1924, makes it very clear that Van Wijk’s comings and goings were highly unusual in the eyes of 4 See Russkaja molodež’ v vysšej škole za granicej. Dejatel’nost’ Central’nogo komiteta po obezpeþeniju vysšago obrazovanija russkomu junošestvu za granicej, 1922-23-1931-1932 uþebnye gody (Pariž, 1933), p. 58. 5 Ibid., p. 9. 6 Kovalevskij 1971, p. 115. 7 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 8 Romein-Verschoor 1970, p. 146. 9 See Šmelev and Bredius-Subbotina 2005, p. 574. 10 Beograd, Arhiv SANU.

FRIENDS

223

a Leiden police department whose instincts were largely guided by feelings of class: Although there was never proof to be had in Leiden that Professor VAN WIJK has held communist sympathies, it was frequently drawn to our attention that the said professor on many occasions received, assisted, and even frequently accommodated for considerable periods, unkempt individuals of the East European population. Most of these persons did not belong to the social class of Professor VAN WIJK. Understandably, I therefore wished to be further informed concerning the comings and goings of the said gentleman in foreign countries to which he frequently travels.11

In fact, that same year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was asked if it could clarify the nature of Van Wijk’s foreign travels, as a result of which the envoy in Warsaw informed his minister on June 16th, 1924, that ‘Professor Van Wijk has not only not entertained communist sympathies, he has condemned [communism] in the strongest terms’.12 In this context, one recalls that in 1925 Van Wijk declared at an Academy meeting that he would not have been able to get a Soviet visa because of his attitude. The Polish Jew, Jacob Ginsberg born in Kovno (Kaunas) in 1883,13 whom Annie Romein-Verschoor mentioned, was the first refugee from ‘behind Prussia’ whom we know Van Wijk helped. Van Wijk’s contacts with Ginsberg date from the time of the First World War: a Russian bible given to Van Wijk by Ginsberg bears a very warm dedication inscribed by the latter on February 15th (28th) February, 1917 in Leiden.14 In any case, we know that from 1922 on, Ginsberg worked as a bookseller from the address Diefsteeg 11a.15 Because of his contacts with Van Wijk, Ginsberg too was under suspicion in the eyes of Police Commissioner Stapel, who wrote as follows on March 4th, 1924, to the Attorney-General in The Hague: It has been found that the above-mentioned GINSBERG has connections with the here resident Professor VAN WIJK, who is suspected of harbouring communist sympathies and over whom an extensive correspondence has been conducted by me with the Central Intelligence Service in The Hague. It is moreover rather surprising that GINSBERG should go abroad so often.16

A few years later, Ginsberg moved with his business to Kort Rapenburg 17,17 strategically extremely well situated for a bookshop, on the pedestrian route between the station and the Academy building on the Rapenburg. Ginsberg became known not only as a bookseller (‘Through direct contacts with all countries, we deliver 11

Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden, Archief van de Gemeentepolitie, inv. no. 2401, dossier H 70/1924. 12 Ibid. Copy of letter no. 950/186. 13 See Van Zegveld 1993, p. 60. 14 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, sign. S.SLAV 01 3000. 15 See IJdo’s adresboek van Leiden 13 (1922-1924), p. 304. 16 Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden, Archief van de Gemeentepolitie, inv. no. 2401, dossier H 70/24. The correspondence with the Centrale Inlichtingendienst [Central Intelligence Service] mentioned in the letter could not be found in the archive of the Leiden Gemeentepolitie. The archive of the Centrale Inlichtingendienst in The Hague was destroyed in 1940. 17 See IJdo’s adresboek van Leiden 16 (1929-1930), p. 257.

224

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

promptly and at the prices of the country of origin’) but also as an antiquarian bookseller and supplier of appliances and accessories (‘notebooks for doctors, glasswork and draughtsman’s requisites’).18 Ginsberg also operated as a publisher of dissertations in various academic fields, and of inaugural speeches and other publications. One of his first initiatives in this area dates from 1925, when his firm, ‘Universiteits-Boekhandel J. Ginsberg’, acted as co-publishers of a book with J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung in Leipzig: a study by Van Wijk’s Berlin acquaintance Sigmund Feist on the history of Jewry. It is probably not by chance that Feist, in his foreword, thanks a certain Dr. Max Ginsberg in Berlin.19 Ginsberg remained within Van Wijk’s circle of friends, as the notebooks of ‘Books on Loan’ testify, and from a business point of view he would also have derived no small benefit from his association with Van Wijk, since the latter would undoubtedly have referred colleagues in his direction. When the Leiden sinologist Duyvendak needed a copy of Franck’s etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal in connection with a campaign in support of Austrian scholars, Van Wijk wrote to him from Zwolle, on March 1st, 1924: ‘I’m sorry I don’t have any more copies of my etymol. dictionary. I think Nijhoff gives no discount, in which case it’s worth seeing whether Ginsberg (Diefsteeg) may have a cheap copy’.20 Van Wijk also did his bit for Ginsberg’s business by recommending him to students. In 1932, for example, he pointed out to Johanna Oudendijk the possibility that Ginsberg might well have in stock a book needed for his reading course ‘for a few pence’.21 It is just possible that Ginsberg also played a role in the Von Leers-affair which caused such a political scandal at the University of Leiden in 1933. The question is, who disseminated the information over Von Leers’ authorship of an explicitly anti-semitic brochure? Von Leers himself, on returning to Germany, wrote: ‘Wie ich später erfuhr, haben mehrere Juden, sowohl aus Amsterdam, wie der jüdische Buchhändler Ginsburg in Leiden, sich an den Rektor gewandt’.22 Ginsberg, who opened a branch on the Stationsweg 24 in the thirties,23 was well able to look after himself, but that was not quite the case for Leonid and Vladimir Zatskoy, two Russian brothers with whom Van Wijk formed a very close relationship. It is not entirely clear when and with which of the two brothers the contact began. The first entry for the name Zatskoy in the ‘Books on Loan’ notebook, on January 22nd, 1921, gives no initial, but in what follows there is for quite some time mention only of V. Zatskoy; ‘Leonid Z’. makes his debut in the list on the 18th August, 1923. On the next occasion of a borrowed book, on the 7th September, he enters his name with the unusually friendly signature, simply ‘Leonid’. That Van Wijk got to know Leonid in 1923 can also be deduced from a letter to 18

See advertisement in Literaire Faculteit der Leidsche studenten. Jaarboekje voor het studiejaar 1931-1932, p. 50. 19 See Feist 1925, p. [iii]. 20 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 21 Ibid., BPL 3105, letter dated 26.10.1932. 22 Huizinga 1990, p. 471. 23 See IJdo’s adresboek voor Leiden 18 (1934-1935), p. 199.

FRIENDS

225

Jan Romein of December 9th, 1928, in which he talks of ‘five years of caring’ for Leonid.24 Vladimir Zatskoy, born in 1895 and ever since the Russian upheavals a stateless wanderer with a ‘Nansen passport’, settled in Leiden in 1927; Van Wijk’s residence at Nieuwstraat 36 was the first address he gave to the police.25 Leonid, born in 1900, came regularly from Czechoslovakia for longer or shorter stays. Vladimir and Leonid came to The Netherlands in the wake of their two other brothers, Aleksandr and Michail. They probably first got to know Van Wijk through their father, Petr Zatskoy, who still lived in Russia and who affectionately addressed him as ‘Uncle Kolja’ and signed himself as ‘Uncle Petja’.26 Valentina Loper, Vladimir’s youngest daughter, later wrote the following from Toronto, Canada, about her family and its origins in Porchov: My grandfather owned a tannery. He was also the mayor. My father was raised mainly by a governess/nanny. He had three sisters and at least three brothers. I can’t remember anything about my grandmother. My father lied about his age to join the White Russian Army, I don’t know when. He attained the rank of Captain. At some point a ship he was on docked in Greece. He studied law at the University of Prague. He thought Communism would not last and he would go back and practise law. He also studied at the Sorbonne. While in Paris to earn money he washed train/subway cars. Since he had no papers documentation was provided for him in France. […] I don’t know when my father left Russia or when he arrived in Holland.27

The reasons for Leonid’s comings and goings during those years were apparently all connected to his debilitating illness and the care given by Van Wijk. In a card sent to the Amsterdam Russian, Bruno Becker, on the 26th August, 1923 Van Wijk writes of his ‘“nephew” Leonid’.28 In his letters to Jan Romein, Van Wijk also refers regularly to Leonid, making clear the importance of the role the latter played in his life. Van Wijk also admits with disarming frankness how willingly he allowed others, whether Dutch or Slavs like Leonid, to distract him from his work. When Romein invited him to come and dine with them sometime after an Academy meeting, Van Wijk, if not actually declining, replied noncommittally in a letter of February 23rd, 1925: The difficulty with Academy meetings is that they end around 2 or at the latest 3 o’clock and that to stay to eat in Amsterdam inevitably means a considerable loss of time. And I am very busy, since I have to write a history of Church Slavonic and at the same time I am finding relationships with various Slavs – and Dutch too – so engaging that I am always still receiving people whenever it pleases them to call on me. Correspondence sometimes takes up several hours each day.29

24

Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden, Archief van de Gemeentepolitie, inv. no. 2500. 26 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164, letter dated 17.04.1930 from Staraja Russa. This is the only letter we possess from a member of the family Zatskoy to Van Wijk. 27 E-mail from Valentina Loper-Zatskoy to the author dated 13.03.2002. 28 Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. 29 Ibid. 25

226

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Van Wijk’s willingness to be disturbed – even to consider contacts with his friends in principal more important than his academic work – was certainly no temporary aberration: in a letter to Romein of December 24th, 1925, he writes: ‘My life continues in the same way; except there are always new Russians coming over my horizon and, since I don’t drop any of the old relationships I still have to devote much time to all these friends. Any other time goes to the history of Church Slavonic’.30 It was evidently not only in Holland that Van Wijk found time for Leonid. In the summer of 1925 he visited him in Czechoslovakia,31 and in the summer of 1926 in the South of France.32 He thought of the Russian as a foster son: in a letter of August 10th, 1927 to Romein he writes, with reference to Leonid and Vladimir: ‘My ill Russian foster son is in Prof. Storm van Leeuwen’s clinic and his healthy brother, for whom I am looking for work, is also in Holland: all good reason for me not to stay away too long’.33 Storm van Leeuwen was an asthma specialist – an indication of the nature of Leonid’s illness. F.H. Locher-Hibma, wife of the historian Locher who wrote his dissertation on a Czech subject under Huizinga, met Leonid in 1927 in a sanatorium in Czechoslovakia. In 1989 she wrote: ‘What exactly Leonid’s illness was, I don’t know. I suspect that it had something to do with the lungs. The wooded environment of ěíþany was healthier than the air of Prague, which lay in a basin’.34 She refers here to a wood in which she was photographed together with her husband and Leonid.35 She wrote about this visit to Leonid in a letter of November 18th, 1927 to her parents: Since my last letter, we have been out twice, not however to see profs and ambassadors but to the opera and to visit Leonid Zatskoy. The latter was on Saturday. Leonid lives in ěíþany, 50 min. by rail from here. [...] L. picked us up from the station and we ate at a hotel, the three of us. Leonid wanted to pay for everything and when Theo said he felt unhappy about that, he said very laconically: ‘Iek niet, ik foel mij heel goed [But I don’t, I feel very good about it]’ with such a comic Dutch pronunciation, and he also uses words that have a strong German flavour, like gastvriendelijk, middenalter and uitland. And for any pleasant feelings he knows no other word than aangenaam, but all this makes it so funny to hear him speaking Dutch, and he is terribly nice. We took a walk after eating. There are wonderful woods in ěíþany, we’ll show you too! Drank tea, looked at snapshots and talked in Leonid’s room. His sofa also sagged in the middle, which seems to be very typical of things here.36

Leonid, who travelled on a Soviet passport, later returned from the environs of Prague to The Netherlands. On September 13th, 1928, the director of the Academic Hospital in Leiden informed the Leiden Commissioner of Police, apparently 30

Ibid. Praha, Archiv Akademie VČd þeské republiky, postcard dated 24.08.1925 from Van Wijk to Adolf ýerný; sent from the Czech holiday resort Janské LáznČ and also signed by Leonid Zatskoy. 32 Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis, letter dated 17.06.1926 from Van Wijk to B.B. Becker. 33 Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. 34 Letter to the author dated 24.01.1989. 35 Photograph printed in Hinrichs 1988d, p. 20. 36 Quoted from a copy, as a supplement to a letter to the author dated 24.01.1989. 31

FRIENDS

227

because of regulations of the time, that Leonid had been taken in, coming from Storm van Leeuwen’s Leiden Clinic for Allergic Disorders on the Zoeterwoudse Singel.37 On September 27th, Van Wijk wrote to Romein that ‘immediately after dinner he always went to the hospital to see his Russian foster son’.38 Leonid died in Leiden on October 13th, that same year, ‘after an operation’39 as the Leiden police noted in the register of foreign nationals. At the time, he had no profession, his domicile was registered in Radošovice in South Bohemia, his father still lived in Staraja Russa, near Leningrad, and his mother was dead.40 In fact, Van Wijk had counted on his recovery, as one reads in a letter to Locher, written a week after his death, on October 21st, 1928: ‘Your letter also gave Vladimir great pleasure. We miss L. very much, and the knowledge that he could have completely recovered after his operation if there had been no complication makes his passing doubly hard to bear. For years I had never dared hope for his recovery, only this last month’.41 On December 9th, in a letter to Romein, Van Wijk gives a kind of summary of what he had been through with Leonid: It has indeed been a difficult time for me, both the last three month period of illness and the emptiness afterwards. I have never known anyone who had to suffer so much during the best years of his life as this young man. Finally, this operation gave hope of a complete recovery but this hope was doomed to remain idle. Still, it is lucky that he was here those last three months and died here; nowhere else was he so well cared for as here under the direction of Professor Zaayer, where everything humanly possible was done to make him better. And for myself and for his brother, it is very gratifying that he is buried here and that we were able to bury him ourselves. These five years of caring for such a lovable and in many ways such a gifted young man constitute a period of my life.42

Van Wijk often wrote to colleagues abroad about the vicissitudes of his Russian foster family. He wrote to his Norwegian colleague, Olaf Broch, on June 3rd, 1928 about his ‘nephew V. Zatskoy (my adopted nephew!), who […] suffered hunger in Paris’.43 On October 16th, 1927 he wrote to Locher about Vladimir: ‘He has started a business here in medical instruments […]; I am pleased he is staying in Leiden. Russians and Polish Jews – that brings a little diversity into our lives’.44 Together with Vladimir, Van Wijk often visited Leonid’s grave at Leiden’s Rhijnhof cemetery. In a letter he wrote on the 4th September, 1929, enclosing a photograph of the grave, he told the Russian emigré scholar A.L. Bem that it seemed to him ‘like a Russian corner’.45

37

Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden, Archief van de Gemeentepolitie, inv. no. 2415, dossier H 218/28. 38 Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. 39 Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden, Archief van de Gemeentepolitie, inv. no. 2500. 40 Ibid., Burgerlijke stand van Leiden, Akten van overlijden, no. 793 dated 13.10.1928. 41 Didam, collection W.P. Locher. 42 Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. 43 Oslo, Nasjonalbiblioteket. 44 Didam, collection W.P. Locher 45 Praha, Památník národního písemnictví.

228

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Meanwhile, Van Wijk had already taken the step of naming his mother as his beneficiary in a will drawn up and signed by the notary, J.A. de la Hayze, in Heemstede on July 8th, 1929. In the event of his mother dying before himself – which in the normal course of events is what one would have expected – Vladimir Zatskoy should be so nominated and would inherit, on the basis of this will, everything apart from the library, which Van Wijk had bequeathed to Leiden University Library.46 This speaks volumes for the crucial role the Zatskoy brothers played in his life. Exactly what their relationship was we do not know; nor is there any correspondence available to us. There are, however, other sources from which we can glean something. For example, we know that after the book dealer J. Ginsberg left Diefsteeg 11a, he was succeeded at that address by none other than the dealer Vladimir Zatskoy.47 The firm ‘Zatzkoy & Co., Chir. instruments’ is recorded in the Leiden address book for 1929,48 which also informs us that the dealer Jac. Grünbaum was established at the same address.49 This must have been the partner to whom Zatskoy’s daughter referred: ‘With a partner, my father owned a company that sold medical instruments’.50 Grünbaum, who was born in Ostrowiec in 1896, was like Ginsberg a Polish Jew. He too had Polish nationality when he arrived in Leiden.51 This shop must have been in existence by the end of 1927, for Van Wijk mentions it in a letter written on December 11th, 1927, to Locher: ‘His [Leonid’s] brother Vladimir lives and runs a business in Ginsberg’s old shop and this seems to be going well. I wish it all success: at least one of the many destitute emigrants will be decently provided’.52 Following in the footsteps of Grünbaum, who had meanwhile married a Dutch woman, another Polish Jew from Ostrowiec arrived in Leiden in the early thirties: Pinkwas Rozencwaig. He very rapidly became involved in the women’s clothing business and moved from the Diefsteeg, where he had lodged with Zatskoy and Grünbaum, to The Hague.53 We have here a kind of chain migration of small businessmen. The firm of Zatskoy and Grünbaum was soon registered at Diefsteeg 6a, which was also the address of the partners themselves.54 These gentlemen advertised in university publications and student organizations; for instance, they announce their wares in a first year students’ guide as: Microscopes Zeiss, Leitz, Reichert and Zanger & Endres Sole importers of Zanger & Endres microscopes Ask for our catalogue. 46

Wassenaar, collection N.P.C. van Wijk. From information registered in the Kadaster at Zoetermeer it is evident that neither Ginsberg nor Zatskoy was owner of the property at Diefsteeg 11a. 48 IJdo’s adresboek van Leiden 16 (1929-1930), p. 580. 49 Ibid., p. 16, p. 267. 50 E-mail from Valentina Loper-Zatskoy dated 13.03.2002 to the author. 51 See Van Zegveld 1993, p. 136. 52 Didam, collection W.P. Locher. 53 See Van der Harst and Lucassen, p. 51. 54 IJdo’s adresboek van Leiden 17 (1931-1932), p. 276, p. 593. 47

FRIENDS

229

All metal and glass instruments for the study of medicine and physics. Large stocks of second hand instruments All instruments are unconditionally guaranteed. Special commerce with East- and West-Indies. Zatskoy & Co. Diefsteeg 6a – Leiden55

Presumably this business was not enough to ensure Zatskoy of a living. In 1929 the Leiden police received a report by telephone from the Delft police that foreign companies had lodged a complaint: it was alleged that the dealer had bought ten microscopes from them, and that despite demands for payment, he had not paid for them but had sold the material to students in Delft at far below their market value. ‘For the time being, nothing to be done’ scribbled a police functionary on the note bearing this report.56 Whatever the case, at the same time as his dealing in medical and laboratory instruments, Zatskoy also emerged as a translator of Russian literature. This transpired under the personal guidance of Van Wijk who probably also laid the contacts that would lead to his work being published. Thus, there appeared in 1928 under the imprint of his old publisher J. Ploegsma in Zeist a collection of Russische novellen [Russian short stories], on the title page of which stood: ‘under the supervision of Prof. Dr. N. van Wijk, translated from the Russian by Vladimir Zatskoy’. Van Wijk also wrote an introduction to this collection in which he says that all but one of the fourteen stories had first appeared serialized in the Hague daily newspaper, Het Vaderland.57 This formula of Van Wijk’s supervision was repeated the following year when Ploegsma published Bulgakov’s De noodlottige eieren [The Fatal Eggs] in Zatskoy’s translation, again with an introduction by Van Wijk;58 but when the Leiden publishers Sijthoff published Leskov’s De betooverde pelgrim [The Enchanted Wanderer] in 1931, there was no mention – on the title page, at least – of supervision, although Van Wijk did write the introduction.59 Van Wijk went a step further in his efforts to find Zatskoy a secure position in Dutch society by deploying him as a teacher of Russian conversation for his students. At Van Wijk’s instigation, his faculty board asked the Governors in a letter in 1931 to allocate an annual f 800.– for practical classes: ‘In connection with the number of students that choose Russian as their main subject,’ the letter proposes, ‘Professor Van Wijk feels the need for the assistance of an educated Russian who can give classes in speaking, writing and reading in addition to the grammatical instruction an teaching on academic Slavistic subjects provided by the professor

55 Gids voor eerste jaars studenten aan de Leidsche Universiteit (Leiden: Unitas Studiosorum Lugduno-Batava, 1930), inside cover. 56 Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden, Archief van de Gemeentepolitie, inv. no. 2410, dossier H 98/27. 57 See Van Wijk 1928b, p. 6. 58 Van Wijk 1929. 59 Van Wijk 1931f.

230

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

himself’.60 The request was not granted, however, nor the following year when it was re-submitted with the nomination of a smaller sum. For a few years the professor did get a subsidy for an assistant from the Leids Universiteits-Fonds [Leiden University Fund],61 describing Zatskoy’s contribution as follows: ‘He gives five lessons a week. My students are highly appreciative of this, more so than with private lessons which they previously took from others’.62 When in 1937 Van Wijk declined an invitation to give a one-year course at Columbia University in New York, he had appealed to the Leiden Governors for their cooperation, as a quid pro quo, in getting the necessary sum of f 800,– added to the budget. ‘Out of any consideration of decency and reason, that ought to happen automatically’, argued Van Wijk in a letter written from Groesbeek on June 11th, 1939 to Jan Romein.63 But again, in the end nothing came of it. For all that, Van Wijk seems not to have been the least reluctant to introduce Zatskoy in public at such an official occasion as the university’s anniversary. As C.H. van Schooneveld recalled, the bookseller Ginsberg had told him that ‘when Van Wijk was rector (I believe in 1930), on the occasion of the February 8th dinner, to which the rector would normally invite two guests, he brought Vladimir as one of his guests’.64 Margo Visser-Kruijtbosch, the daughter of D.J. Kruijtbosch, Van Wijk’s friend from his time in Goes, knew Leonid and Vladimir Zatskoy well. In her recollections of Van Wijk that she put in writing in 1988, she had this to say of the brothers Zatskoy: Later I noticed myself how he [Van Wijk] gave help and shelter to the penniless and often ill refugees from Russia. I knew the Zatskoy brothers well, Leonid and Vladimir. The first was seriously ill and Oom Niek [Uncle Niek, i.e. Nicolaas] did everything possible to help him, and I know that he really loved Leonid. Unfortunately he died young. Vladimir was healthy and strong and stayed with us in Wageningen on several occasions with Oom Niek. He tried everything to get work for Vladimir. For example, he got splendid visiting cards printed so that he could give them when applying for work. This is one here: Vladimir Zatskoy Russian graduate lawyer Officer – Tsarist army House painter Taxi driver Translator – Russian – Dutch

60

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1856-1952, Ingekomen stukken en concepten en minuten van uitgaande stukken, 1903-1949, inv. no. 10, letter dated 24.01.1931. 61 See three letters from the years 1931-1932 from the Leidsch Universiteits-Fonds to Van Wijk in Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 62 Ibid., draft of a letter from Van Wijk dated 05.12.1930 to the Leidsch Universiteits-Fonds. 63 Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. 64 Letter dated 19.06.1998 from C.H. van Schooneveld to the author.

FRIENDS

231

Vladimir was charming, happy, outgoing and overly optimistic. Now and again he had a minor job but it didn’t go terribly smoothly.65

Charming Zatskoy must certainly have been: at a competition dance at a fancy dress, masked ball in the Hotel Royal in Scheveningen he won first prize,66 though this distinction may not be entirely divorced from the fact that he was himself the chairman of the organizing Russian Emigrants’ Association.67 Beyond Van Wijk’s house and Zatskoy’s small shop there was another famous ‘Russian’ address in Leiden: Witte Rozenstraat 57,68 where the professor of physics Paul Ehrenfest had lived with his Russian wife, Tat’jana Ehrenfest-Afanas’eva, since 1913. Many Russians and others, particularly from the world of physics, stayed here. Van Wijk’s register of ‘Books on loan’ shows books lent to Tat’jana, but we have no means of knowing how close the contacts were between the two houses. Van Wijk himself emphasized the importance of his association with Russians in general – and at the same time one cannot but think of the Zatskoy brothers in particular69 – in his introduction to Leskov’s The Enchanted Wanderer. He claims there that ‘such an openness of mind and such a goodness of heart as possessed by this “wanderer” from Leskov’s novel, and by so many Russians in real life, have a salutary influence on everyone who comes into closer contact with Russian life’.70 His conclusion has a humility of an almost religious cast that in Van Wijk’s work one can only imagine in relation to matters Russian: ‘Such types make us feel clearly that a man is not in the first place an instrument for achieving particular social ends, but finds the justification for his existence in his own incomplete personality’.71 2. The household But Van Wijk’s circle of friends in Leiden was by no means restricted to Russians and Polish Jews; the large house in the Nieuwstraat stood always open to Dutch friends, for some even a virtually permanent place of residence. In the twenties and thirties, as well as the professor A.W. Bijvanck whom we traced earlier, there were

65

Manuscript with reminiscences of Van Wijk, as a supplement to an undated letter [1988] to the author. 66 See the report ‘Russisch bal-masqué’ in Het Vaderland (Ochtendblad A), 28.02.1938. 67 See the report ‘Russische Emigranten Vereeniging. Een namiddag-thee’ on the front page of Het Vaderland (Avondblad A), 13.09.1937. 68 See Boender 1994. 69 Among others, Van Wijk had contact with the Dutch-Russian family of Egbert Engberts in Leiden (see Tellegen 2004, p. 8) and Anna Kozlova-Rževskaja who translated Russian literature into Dutch as A. Kosloff. Van Wijk wrote a foreword for one of her translations; see Van Wijk 1926d. In a letter dated 16.01.1953 from Bussum to C.H. van Schooneveld, who had just been appointed to the Leiden Chair in Balto-Slavic languages, she writes that she had long been a friend of Van Wijk; see Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, C.H. van Schooneveld archive, inv. no. 14. 70 Van Wijk 1931f, p. 8. 71 Ibid.

232

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

successively the shoemaker I. Jasperse,72 A.C. Bakker73 and W. Helfenstein.74 The latter probably looked after the household. The Hungarian tailor, Andor Keszy from Budapest, and his wife Maria Keszy-Wenzel lived with Van Wijk from late 1931 onwards as house staff.75 After Keszy’s death in 1937, his Sudeten-German widow, who had at some stage acquired a Hungarian passport, remained living in the house. Erzsébet Keszy, a member of the tailor’s family, and her husband Zoltán Gurányi also lived for a considerable time in the Nieuwstraat during the early thirties.76 Whenever Van Wijk was travelling, it was his habit to send postcards to the family Keszy. Of the cards that have survived, the first was written in Prague on the 20th July, 1932. The Keszy’s had obviously packed his case for him. ‘Never have I unpacked a suitcase that had been so beautifully packed’.77 He would also let them know by postcard the date of his return home or for how long post should be redirected to another address. In a card from 1933 from Zwolle, where he was evidently visiting his mother, he informs them: ‘I hope to be home on Friday around half past one and would like to take coffee with you. Thursday afternoon’s post is the last that should be sent on here’.78 On September 16th, 1934, he again writes from Prague: ‘I have never seen a more beautifully packed suitcase than my own’.79 When he announced his return from Zwolle that same year, he added: ‘I am also writing to de heer Zatskoy, who will pick me up’.80 In winter, there was the heating to think of, as when he wrote from Groningen in December, 1934, to announce his return: ‘Light the stove in the dining room, I think that should be enough!’.81 And guests, too, were also thought of: ‘the usual Sunday visit can be invited’, again announcing a return from Groningen.82 After her husband’s death, Van Wijk always wrote his cards to Mevrouw Keszy in German. In 1933, a certain Boris Bobroff, who called himself a student and came from Brussels, also lived with Van Wijk for a few months.83 After his departure for The Hague, at the beginning of 1934, Van Wijk evidently felt compelled to write a letter to the police in The Hague with a request for information concerning Bobroff. The reply, sent to the police in Leiden, contained the following: ‘It has not been

72

See IJdo’s adresboek van Leiden 13 (1922-1924), p. 107; IJdo’s adresboek van Leiden 14 (19241926), p. 111. 73 See IJdo’s adresboek van Leiden 15 (1926-1928), p. 112. 74 See IJdo’s adresboek van Leiden 16 (1929-1930), p. 82; IJdo’s adresboek van Leiden 17 (19311932), p. 85. 75 Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden, Archief van de Gemeentepolitie, inv. no. 2485. 76 Ibid., inv. no. 2481. 77 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Or. 14.606. 78 Ibid., letter dated 19.04.1933. 79 Ibid., letter dated 16.09.1933. 80 Ibid., letter dated 02.10.1934. 81 Ibid., letter dated 29.12.1934. 82 Ibid., letter dated 25.04.1935. 83 Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden, Archief van de Gemeentepolitie, inv. no. 2474.

FRIENDS

233

found that BOBROFF is in debt to any pension-owner in this city for lodgings enjoyed’.84 It is perfectly possible that there were other house-mates who were registered neither with the Immigration Police, the housing register, nor the publishers of the Leiden address book, but in any case the picture we get is of a household with a strongly non-Dutch element that was continually shifting, with Van Wijk as the one constant – although often travelling – point of stability. For some time, the curator of the Rijks Ethnografisch Museum [National Ethnographic Museum], Dr. W.H. Rassers, also lived with Van Wijk.85 He too was unmarried. In a letter to Locher written in December, 1927, Van Wijk refers to Rassers as ‘an extremely pleasant tenant’.86 He probably lived with Van Wijk in the Nieuwstraat up to 1933,87 after which he moved to Wassenaar where he subsequently lived with his two sisters, both unmarried like himself.88 As a successor to Rassers, Van Wijk found another bachelor for his tenant, Dr. C. van Arendonk, assistant Interpretis Legati Warneriani and curator of Oriental manuscripts in Leiden University Library, who only had to move round the corner from his previous residence on the Hooigracht, probably in 1934.89 The Nieuwstraat house was large enough even to accommodate Van Arendonk’s own friends from time to time.90 Both these tenants were very different types from their ‘landlord’, Van Wijk, who maintained a level of almost feverish scientific and social activity and never shunned public appearance. He seems rarely to have suffered from fear of failure; his enormous production speaks for itself. Rassers, the expert on Indonesian language and folklore, on the other hand, comes across as a modest, even selfeffacing man. He had led a very different life: after persistent illness and years of working as an arboriculturist at Rosendaal, in Brabant,91 he had studied as a mature student and gained his doctorate in 1922 at the age of 45. He could never have aspired to a professorial position: his oeuvre of published works was relatively small.92 He was, however, offered membership of the Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Van Wijk was not one of those who proposed him, but Uhlenbeck gave his signature.93 In 1937 Rassers became director of the Rijks Ethnograf84

Ibid., inv. no. 2428, dossier H 207/33. See IJdo’s adresboek van Leiden 16 (1929-1930), p. 82. 86 Didam, collection W.P. Locher. 87 The Jaarboek der Rijks-Universiteit Leiden, in its instalments for 1929 up to and including 1933, gives Nieuwstraat 36 as the home address of Rassers. IJdo’s adresboek van Leiden 17 (1931-1932), p. 461, however, also gives Oude Singel 20 as Rassers’ address. 88 See Locher 1978, p. 62. 89 Het Jaarboek der Rijks-Universiteit Leiden gives from the volume for 1934 (p. 27) onward Nieuwstraat 36 as Van Arendonk’s address. 90 In a postcard dated 14.09.1935 to Van Arendonk, the orientalist Joseph Schacht thanks him together with Van Wijk for the hospitality he had enjoyed with them ‘in dem paradiesischen Leiden’. See Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Or. 14.606. 91 See Locher 1985, p. 447. 92 See Locher 1978, p. 60-61. 93 Haarlem, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Archief Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, inv. no. 559, Aanbevelingen voor leden van de afdeling letterkunde, 1928-1940. 85

234

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

isch Museum, which had in the meantime been renamed the Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde [National Museum of Ethnology],94 but it seems that he derived his deepest pleasure at home: ‘He deeply appreciated the fact that once at home, he was completely removed from his circle at work and, as it were, in another sphere in which he could quickly relax’.95 Like Rassers, the Arabist Van Arendonk was not a man of strong constitution. Margo Visser-Kruijtbosch remembered him as a ‘taciturn figure’.96 At the age of three he had lost the sight of his left eye, which over the years may have exacerbated a natural tendency toward introversion and self-criticism.97 He too had taken his doctoral degree later in life, at the age of 37, in 1917. He apparently looked up to his old mentor Snouck Hurgronje no less than Van Wijk respected Uhlenbeck: he was one of those students who ‘had fallen under the spell of his suggestive manners and had adopted the master’s way of expressing himself in word and gesture […]’.98 As curator, he started various contributions and publications but few were ever finished because he was so quickly dissatisfied with his own work. Van Wijk, on the contrary, appeared to be relatively unperturbed by criticism: if something was not good, he would readily admit as much in a subsequent publication. In his readiness to assist others, Van Arendonk must have far outstripped Van Wijk, so that scholars sometimes hesitated to call on his help ‘knowing that it meant calling up a spirit that they would no longer be able to exorcize, rather like the attendant spirits of the Thousand-and-one-Nights’.99 As far as his knowledge was concerned, he was certainly eligible for a professorial chair, but when a vacancy did occur in the twenties, the Faculty passed over him, finding that ‘he lacks the flexibility that is necessary in order to have ready an activity assigned to him at the time allotted, there is too serious a lack of decisiveness and self-confidence’.100 Van Arendonk, to whom Van Wijk would send cards whilst travelling as early as in 1930,101 was here the opposite of his landlord, who always had jobs finished earlier than expected of him. Tenants like Rassers and Van Arendonk – who, incidentally, knew each other very well: there is a correspondence between them that goes back to 1921102 – would have had the privilege of sharing a side of Van Wijk’s life that remained hidden from his students: his passion for music. There are no performances on record after his performance at the jubilee evening at the HBS in Goes, in 1904, but he had a grand piano at home, and his playing must have been of a sufficiently 94

See Van Wengen 2002, p. 76ff. G.W. Locher 1978, p. 62. 96 Telephone communication on 20.05.1987 from M.C. Visser-Kruijtbosch. 97 See Kramers 1947, p. 145. 98 Ibid., p. 146. 99 Ibid., p. 148. 100 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1856-1952, inv. no. 8, Ingekomen stukken en concepten en minuten van uitgaande stukken 1903-1949. 101 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Or. 14.606. 102 Ibid. Rassers, going by a letter dated 10.01.1929 to Van Arendonk, appeared also to keep check of Van Arendonk’s post while the latter was in Egypt. 95

FRIENDS

235

high standard for the director of the conservatory to invite him regularly to sit as a member of the jury for exams.103 3. Beyond Leiden In Zwolle, which he visited regularly, in any case, up to the death of his mother in 1935, Van Wijk liked to call on his old classmate Anton ten Doesschate, who lived close to the station.104 Just how often he still saw Buitenrust Hettema one cannot say. His function as a sounding board and agent within the university circuit had become redundant with Van Wijk’s professorial appointment. During the First World War he had requested leave from the Gymnasium to become Professor of Dutch language and literature at the Flemish High School in Ghent, operating under the German occupation. This was a very brief adventure, however, and on his return he no longer felt comfortable in the harness of the Zwolle Gymnasium and asked to be retired. In 1921 Van Wijk provided his old teacher with some etymological information; a year later a rather isolated Buitenrust Hettema died.105 We also know very little about Van Wijk’s contacts with another classmate, Leo Polak, who maintained his old reputation as a militant free-thinker. Polak was married in 1917 and had three daughters. From 1925 to 1928 he was Extraordinary Professor in Jurisprudence at the University of Leiden, after which he was appointed Professor of Philosophy in Groningen. Van Wijk certainly looked the family up in Groningen. Polak’s youngest daughter remembered him from that time – both for his limp and for his corpulent frame.106 Throughout the twenties and thirties he regularly sent post from Groningen, which may well have been connected with visits to Polak, but the documentary proof is missing.107 In the cards he sent to the family Keszy there is mention of another family in Groningen: the Maschhaupt family.108 Jan Gerard Maschhaupt, who in 1907 became director of the Rijkslandbouwproefstation [the National Agricultural Research Station] in Groningen, was his old friend from Goes,109 who lived with his wife and five daughters on the Kraneweg.110 Van Wijk’s first missive from Groningen that I have been able to trace is dated December 30th, 1922 – long before Polak moved to Groningen.111 It would seem that Van Wijk was celebrating the advent of the New Year with the Maschhaupts. ‘The young’ Kern was also living in Groningen at that time, so Van Wijk could well have had another port of call there. 103

See Kuiper 1988, p. 4. Telephone communication on 08.10.2003 from A.J. ten Doesschate-Ente of Zwolle, who had heard various reports from her husband, J. ten Doesschate, the son of Anton ten Doesschate. 105 See Schepers 1923, p. 31-33. 106 Telephone communication on 08.03.2004 from A.L.W. Samama-Polak. 107 No correspondence available between Van Wijk and Polak. Polak’s diaries have been preserved, but the family member in possession does not permit inspection by third parties. 108 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Or. 14.606. 109 See Wie is dat? Naamlijst van bekende personen op elk gebied in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden met biografische aantekeningen, opgave hunner voornaamste werken, adressen, enz., enz. (‘s Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 19485), p. 329. 110 Telephone communication on 10.05.2004 from W.A. Letschert-Maschhaupt of Tilburg. 111 Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek, letter to R. Ekblom dated 30.12.1922. 104

236

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

A firm friendship between Van Wijk and Derk Jan Kruijtbosch began while they were colleagues together at the HBS in Goes: Van Wijk’s time in this city, in fact, left its mark on the rest of his life through the friendships he made there. Following a teaching post in The Hague and directorships of the HBS in Zierikzee and in Wageningen, Kruijtbosch gave up work in 1929 for health reasons and settled in The Hague.112 He kept up his love for the literature through which he and Van Wijk had once found each other in their literary club. Several of his adaptations of Dostoevsky stories were issued by the Hague publishers Servire in the thirties. He also wrote a few pieces on Russian literature in Het Vaderland, the daily newspaper published in The Hague. Kruijtbosch’s daughter Margo, who often received brief letters from Van Wijk in his almost illegible handwriting,113 put on paper her recollections of her Oom Niek, as she called him: I knew Oom Niek from my third year. He visited us regularly and was my father’s best friend. We all loved him, and he was always there on our birthdays. Later on, when he travelled a lot, there was always a letter from him and a present. He was always punctual and precise on time… and he expected others to be the same. It is a great pity he never married, because he would have been a good husband and father. He loved children and young people and we could always tease him without him getting angry. He knew the weaknesses of all his nieces and nephews, and gave as good as he got. My father and Oom Niek were fanatical chess-players and to my amazement would often spend an entire Sunday sitting over a chessboard. […] And if it wasn’t chess they talked endlessly about Russian literature. The two giants, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky also lived with us, hanging on the wall in my father’s study. Contact with Russia was always for us a natural thing since my grandmother was half-Russian. […] That was how they came to meet in Goes, where as young men they both were appointed teachers at the State HBS. My father was an engineer from Delft and taught mathematics and Oom Niek taught Dutch. [...] The two of them talked about all kinds of things on their long walks in the countryside round Goes. That was where this close friendship developed that lasted the rest of their lives and later came to include our whole family. […] When my sister and I got engaged, Oom Niek came to meet both our young men, Sim and Bob. He was very satisfied with our choice, and they were immediately elevated to the status of nephews. This led to an invitation from the two students to their new ‘uncle’: a weekend in Bennekom in the forest warden’s lodge where Sim had rooms. Oom Niek was fetched in a car by Sim and Bob and driven to the forest warden’s lodge, wonderfully situated among the trees. Oom Niek had not the least objection to being put up in the attic room. The following morning he was woken by the forest warden’s wife with a cup of tea and a boiled egg. He liked to tell the story of this awakening with an arch expression. That evening he was the guest at the student society and the centre of a very lively circle. His visit to Wageningen was a great success. My sister and I immediately got a card from Oom Niek, saying he had much appreciated the visit, though perhaps had consumed a little too much alcohol.

112 113

See Bolkestein 1956, p. 104-105. Telephone communication on 20.05.1987 from M.C. Visser-Kruijtbosch.

FRIENDS

237

When we married, it was obvious that Oom Niek should be witness. As a wedding present we were given a real samovar, just what we wanted, that he’d managed with some difficulty to capture on a trip to the Baltic States. Just one more anecdote. My father loved to invent games. Oom Niek was staying with us and had to take part in an ‘animal drawing’ contest. Beginning with a chicken. Oom Niek looked appalled. ‘What am I going to do with a beast like that? But I’ll do my best’. After a few scribbles he looked at me with an unhappy face and asked: ‘Go, tell me, does a chicken have 2 or 4 legs?’ Everyone burst out laughing, the artist too. I think Oom Niek had never taken a close look at a chicken.114

This last remark actually corresponds with the observation of another friend of Van Wijk, the Nijmegen priest, Father Van Ginneken, who suggested that Van Wijk’s natural gifts were acoustic rather than visual: ‘With his musicality and preference for the study of sounds and intonation he was actually rather deficient in the visual realm’.115 Van Wijk was also a good friend of the Czech Prokop Maxa and his family. He had got to know Maxa during 1920-21 when the latter was the Czech envoy in The Hague, after which he was moved to Warsaw and subsequently worked at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Prague. Van Wijk’s relationship with Maxa was evidently already close in the early twenties: in a letter to Wilhelm Streitberg of August 14th, 1922, he writes that he would travel ‘am 30. August mit dem tschechischen Gesandten in Polen nach Warschau’.116 Maxa may also have something to do with the subsidized publication in English of Van Wijk’s booklets on Czechoslovakia.117 In 1931, Maxa was appointed Czech envoy in Sofia, where he still was in 1939 when his post disappeared along with the Czech State under the German invasion. Van Wijk, who had grown up as an only child, once again played the role of ‘uncle’ in the eyes of Maxa’s children. Alena Maxová recounts that Van Wijk signed his postcards to her with ‘strýc-profesor’ [uncle professor], and goes on: ‘From our childhood (meaning my brother VojtČch and me) he was an integral part of our family holidays’.118 In fact, Van Wijk must have spent almost every summer with the family: ‘Professor van Wijk used to come and stay with us where ever we were but only in summer, when the family, especially my parents were together’.119 A postcard sent by Van Wijk to Locher from the Bulgarian ýam-Korija (Borovec) in August, 1935 is co-signed by Maxa.120 Van Wijk’s friendships with the families Kruijtbosch, Maschhaupt and Maxa existed and prospered outside any academic context and seem to speak of the importance of relationships within a domestic sphere – although it cannot be said that he himself always distinguished clearly between work and private spheres. We 114

Manuscript with recollections of Van Wijk, as appended to an undated letter [1988] to the author. 115 Van Ginneken 1941, p. 201. 116 Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek. 117 See Van Wijk 1923a, 19242 and 1931b. 118 Letter from Alena Maxová to the author dated 11.05.2004. 119 Letter from Alena Maxová to the author dated 25.06.2004. 120 Didam, collection W.P. Locher.

238

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

saw that earlier in his contacts with Jan Romein, his promovendus, whom we would not automatically count among his friends, and yet Van Wijk’s letters to Romein are of a highly paternal, friendly tone and possess an openness in relating personal details from his own life that he would almost certainly not have shared with most of his university colleagues.

CHAPTER X

THE LAST YEARS

1. Phonologie The First International Conference of Linguists held in The Hague in 1928 was a milestone in the history of linguistics.1 Although the programme was a very general one, almost all of the three hundred scholars who attended came from Europe, including more than a hundred from the host country; there were, however, eight linguists from the United States, including such major figures as Franz Boas, Leonard Bloomfield and Edward Sapir.2 But the show was stolen by three Russians, all of whom were now working abroad: Roman Jakobson, N.S. Trubeckoj and S.I. Karcevskij, members of the Cercle linguistique de Prague founded in 1926 by Vilém Mathesius. Nicolaas van Wijk played a significant role behind the scenes of this conference, as Jakobson himself later acknowledged: I would like to state that I have had the greatest admiration for Nicolaas van Wijk as a great linguist and slavist and as a noble person. I carefully followed his valuable publications and I was introduced to him for the first time in 1926-7 by my friend S. Karcevskij. It was van Wijk who took the initiative in inviting me to the famous International Congress of Linguists in the Hague, 1928, a Congress which has played a decisive role in my scholarly life and work.3

Whenever one reads that Van Wijk invited a colleague, what that meant in practice was that he had paid for his travel expenses. In retrospect, and in view of Jakobson’s dominant role at the conference, one is entitled to feel that Van Wijk’s action in this instance had truly significant consequences for the development of linguistics; for it was as a result of the Russian presence at this conference in The Hague that phonology was first established as a branch of linguistics. This new direction defined itself in contradistinction to phonetics, a branch of linguistic science that had come to the fore in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The fundamental idea was that phonetics, which was concerned with establishing and describing speech sounds, in its efforts to achieve scientific precision had lost sight of the nature of its subject, viz. language rather than simply sounds. The phonologists emphasized that a speech sound was a part of a language and essentially fulfilled a function in it. It was a matter of describing language as a coherent whole, as a system, and arriving at a typology of the structure of different languages. Van Wijk put it as follows: ‘Phonetics makes use of the experimental methods of the natural sciences, whereas phonology belongs to the humanities’.4 1

See Daalder 2004. See E.M. Uhlenbeck 1977, p. 489. 3 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3506, letter from Roman Jakobson dated 03.01.1977 to A.H. van den Baar. 4 Van Wijk 1939, p. 201. 2

240

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Despite his personal relations with Jakobson, Van Wijk was at first not so keen on everything that was being peddled under the heading of ‘phonology’. In fact, he still inhabited the conceptual realm of the Leipzig Junggrammatiker, whose aim, by taking the comparative approach and with the help of the various sound laws, was to reveal the kinship relations between languages and separate elements of those languages. As a historic linguist he was all at once confronted with a totally different, i.e. synchronic approach. In 1930, Van Wijk reacted to the new developments in one of the few articles that he wrote during his time as Leiden’s Rector Magnificus, and this he did with a degree of peevishness. This is evident, for instance, when he comments on Jakobson’s French: ‘While reading, I was bothered by the feeling that, however correct grammatically, the author’s French was extremely un-French. With German, one is used to a certain scholarly jargon much more than with French’.5 ‘Another objection that distanced him from phonology’, explained his Nijmegen friend, Father Van Ginneken: … was, as he confided to me, Jakobson’s tendency to embrace of all the novel, rather slippery terminology introduced by Trubeckoj, reformulate them into hair-splitting, razor-sharp definitions and impose them on all phonologists […]. As he said to me, the practice of linguistics had taught him that we make little progress with definitions and ideological distinctions, and that any genuinely new linguistic discoveries can and must always and only be derived from acute discernment from the material itself.6

The Second Conference of Linguists held in August, 1931 in Geneva gave, as Van Wijk put it, ‘its seal of approval to phonological studies […]’.7 Van Wijk stressed that ‘the basic idea [of phonology] is not new’.8 What one sees here is actually Van Wijk’s tendency to protect his old mentors, in this case Brugmann: it is loyalty that determines his position, whether in life or scholarship. ‘Both ignoring one’s predecessors and the new, yes, the modernist terminology’, he says, ‘give a rather doctrinaire impression, as also, in my opinion, do the categories that this science uses to group its material, whose terminology is its external garb’.9 It was not only to Van Ginneken but also in writing that he showed a strong aversion to new terminology when old terms were equally capable of dealing with the phenomena. ‘The name of the science phonology was already a modernism that was in itself capable of generating confusion […]’,10 he wrote in 1934 as he took aim against the concept of ‘morphonology’ introduced by Trubeckoj: Another question is whether the new term ‘morphonology’ was indeed necessary; Meillet managed perfectly well without such newfangled terminology; is it no longer possible in our own day? Certainly, ‘morphophoneme’ is a construct one can see the point of […]; but why would not a term such as ‘phoneme alternation’ have been just as good? […] When such – to my mind – monstrous terms have existed of old I can accept them without complaint, but why invent them today? […] Well, then, if phonology is less revolutionary than it sometimes appears, then in my view it would do well not to try to be too innovative in its termi5

Van Wijk 1930c, p. 231. Van Ginneken 1942, p. 1. 7 Van Wijk 1932b, p. 65. 8 Ibid., p. 66. 9 Ibid., p. 67. 10 Van Wijk 1934b, p. 116. 6

THE LAST YEARS

241

nology; otherwise it will only increase the already astonishing degree of terminological anarchy.11

Despite Van Wijk’s grumbling and the criticism that he received in turn from Trubeckoj himself,12 Van Wijk nevertheless moved steadily further into the field of phonology and general linguistics. Trubeckoj himself was not yet totally convinced of this, writing to Jakobson from Vienna on September 26th, 1936: ‘Otherwise, he is a good man, but he cannot free himself from the traditions of pre-war linguistics and is still looking for some compromise or other’.13 One could see Van Wijk’s comments on Trubeckoj and Jakobson as his response to work that fell within the normal purview of his own Slavist activities, but that was no longer the case when he turned to consider the work of such American linguists as E. Sapir14 and W. Freeman Twaddell.15 Van Wijk goes even further beyond the framework within which he had operated over several decades when in his articles he refers to such languages as Chinese or the Australian Aranta.16 Initially, Van Wijk mainly wrote on phonology in his Dutch language articles that appeared in De Nieuwe Taalgids; but a few years later phonology was also featuring in his articles in oldestablished, specialist journals like Indogermanische Forschungen, articles in which he showed himself still sceptical: M.E. beschränkt die phonologische Schule zu viel den Terminus ‘phonologisch’ auf eine ziemlich geringe Anzahl solcher Fälle, wo die strukturellen Ursachen der Lautveränderungen sich besonders deutlich nachweisen lassen, während für andere Fälle, wo strukturelle Ursachen angenommen werden müssen, aber nicht bis in die Einzelheiten bekannt sind, ziemlich willkürlich das Epitheton ‘phonetisch’ gewählt wird.17

Van Wijk, who did not see linguistics as an exact science,18 thought that many explanations given by phonology were very shaky indeed: ‘Ich glaube sogar, dass wir noch einen Schritt weitergehen dürfen und die Vermutung aussprechen, dass in den meisten Fällen, wo wir einen Lautübergang nicht aus dem Lautsystem der Sprache, wo sie stattfindet, erklären können, das einfach unserer Unwissenheit zuzuschreiben ist’.19 Trubeckoj, the founder of the phonological school, died in 1938. In the obituary that Van Wijk wrote for the yearbook of the Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, in which he recalled the rise of phonology and the resistance it evoked, he was unable to refrain from again drawing a parallel between the writings of Russians and what he assumed to be Russian character traits: But besides this, phonology stimulated one to argue with it through its apodictic tone and the lack of subtlety of its advocates. These characteristics, in my view, are related to the ‘recti11

Ibid., p. 115. See Trubeckoj 1933, p. 234. See also Lepschy 1970, p. 62. 13 Jakobson 1975, p. 369. 14 See Van Wijk 1934c. 15 See Van Wijk 1936b. 16 See Van Wijk 1939c, p. 119. 17 Van Wijk 1937b, p. 50. 18 See Van Wijk 1934c, p. 372. 19 Van Wijk 1937b, p. 51. 12

242

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

linearity’ […] of the Russian nature, which, if it sees an enticing perspective is inclined to go flat out with a fixed forward vision, and without any of the circumspection of a Western approach, looking to one side and the other.20

This obituary reminds us again how immense was the role of Leipzig in the history of modern linguistics. Trubeckoj had not only studied in Moscow with Poržezinskij and Pokrovskij, whom Van Wijk knew, but also shortly before the First World War in Leipzig with Leskien, Brugmann and Sievers, whom we have already met in the course of Van Wijk’s biography.21 Phonology was not for Van Wijk merely a novelty that he practised in the privacy of his own study. He was to be seen in Prague at meetings of the Cercle linguistique de Prague.22 In Trubeckoj’s published letters, Jakobson refers in a footnote to a projected visit by Van Wijk to Trubeckoj, which apparently never took place because of the German annexation of Austria: N. van Wijk came to Prague and [on] April 25 [1938] spoke in the CLP on ‘phonological questions’, but in view of the political situation he abstained from visiting Vienna. Totally depressed by the situation, he used to say to his friends: ‘Before bedtime I read SaltykovŠþedrin: a not very comforting but timely occupation, especially his saying “If all bec[o]me dogs, don’t bark”’.23

He seems to have taken this maxim of Saltykov-Šþedrin to heart, for he writes in a letter to Jan Romein of October 20th, 1938: ‘I think a great deal of our common friend Saltykov-Šþedrin. In a time of espionage, blackmail and agitation he wrote to his fictitious persona, whom he called “Auntie”: “When people around you start barking like dogs, don’t bark, Auntie!”’.24 Meanwhile, phonology had in a broader sense entered the purview of the Dutch academic linguistic world. Van Wijk was not the only speaker on the subject at Academy meetinfs, there was also Barend Faddegon, the Sanskrit scholar from Amsterdam whom we encountered earlier during Van Wijk’s time as a student in Amsterdam, writing in the student magazine Propria Cures. Here too, at a meeting of the 12th September, 1938, he spoke his mind freely when he made a connection between phonology and Freud’s psychoanalysis: ‘Following this talk, Messrs Van Wijk and Van Ginneken exchanged ideas with the speaker’, the record reports in its usual summary fashion.25 Other Amsterdam linguists who embarked on this phonological path included Albert de Groot, originally a classicist who in 1937 took over Faddegon’s teaching responsibilities in general linguistics at the University of Amsterdam,26 and the philosopher H.J. Pos.27 20

Van Wijk 1939d, p. 224. Ibid., p. 221. 22 See Jakobson 1997, p. 78. 23 Jakobson 1975, p. 426. 24 Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. 25 Haarlem, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Archief Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, inv. no. 25, Notulen van de afdeling letterkunde, 1931-1947, f. 198. See further Faddegon 1938. 26 See Noordegraaf 2002, p. 149. 27 Ibid., p. 147-149. 21

THE LAST YEARS

243

During the academic year 1937-1938, Van Wijk gave a course on phonology, attended not only by students but also by several colleagues and ex-students.28 It was the sceptic Van Wijk who, in 1939, published the first textbook on phonology: Phonologie: een hoofdstuk uit de structurele taalwetenschap. This book, from Nijhoff, his old publisher in The Hague, appeared several weeks before Trubeckoj’s Grundzüge der Phonologie. With this textbook Van Wijk had put himself at the centre of a new academic movement which, initially, he had not wished to be associated with at all; and he was now known as such not only in The Netherlands but internationally too. Phonologie was widely reviewed, more so than any other book Van Wijk ever wrote. Van Wijk’s book was more of a survey of a state of affairs in a particular academic field than a fundamentally original book propagating his own ideas. It was also regarded internationally as a first attempt to bring together and summarize all that had been published on the subject since the 1928 Linguists’ Conference, with Van Wijk bringing with him his own perspective as a historical linguist. Van Wijk, although still faithful to his old mentors and incapable of not referring somewhere in passing to Sievers’ Schallanalyse,29 nevertheless did his best in this book, more than any other, to remain topical and up to date. Even in the proof stage, when the book was already set, he managed to attach an addendum with data on the most recent papers from the Fourth International Conference of Linguists, held in 1936 in Copenhagen, at the same time observing that ‘none of these papers gave me cause to introduce corrections’.30 But in the main text of the book the current state of phonological affairs was constantly snapping at his heels. ‘I would not be up to date if I did not mention the paper given by R. Jakobson at the conference of phonetic sciences held in Ghent in July, 1938’,31 he writes, giving the relevant reference in the literature. He even goes so far as to cite unpublished work by others, something one would expect in the report of a meeting but hardly in the main text of a book: ‘H.J. Pos will shortly publish an Academy paper on Phonologie en Betekenisleer [Phonology and Semantics]’.32 He also often willingly sacrifices the form of his work to his desire to be topical. The subtitle of his book itself, in which he refers to phonology as a ‘chapter’ of structural linguistics, shows that he sees his work as being of a rather provisional character. One gets an idea of just how up to the minute Van Wijk actually was in his work from the following remark by A.W. de Groot: ‘When Van Wijk’s Phonologie appeared, Professor Sommerfelt in Oslo forced the participants in his seminar to learn Dutch solely for this reason, but I know of no other cases of this nature. A linguistic work that is published in the Dutch language runs a very grave risk of being merely a vox clamantis in deserto’.33

28

See Van Wijk 1939, p. xiv. Ibid., p. 144. 30 Ibid., p. xvi. 31 Ibid., p. 49. 32 Ibid., p. 204. 33 De Groot 1956, p. 7-8. 29

244

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Van Wijk’s wrestling with his subject is also evident in what he writes about his old idol Hermann Paul. For some time he had avoided synchronic linguistics, even in reviews. According to Van Wijk, linguistics could only be historical. In his introduction to Phonologie, he refers back to Paul, who in his Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte denied the right of synchronic linguistics even to exist. According to Paul, as soon as one attempted to look at different linguistic facts in relation to each other one was automatically in historical territory. But Van Wijk, in a Uturn that a decade earlier he would have found inconceivable, now thought: This indisputably erroneous point of view is nevertheless understandable, for in Paul’s time linguists did not yet recognize the fact that a language at each moment of its existence is a system, characterized by a certain balanced state of relations between its parts, a system whose structure is a valuable object of study as such; and this failure to recognize the value of the system-concept was again correlated with the fact that one was unable to understand a collective psychic possession such as the system of a language is, and therefore simply denied it.34

The concept of ‘system’ was always used by Van Wijk to make clear the distinction between the structural linguistics of the thirties and the principles of the Junggrammatiker from the past. He even tried both to distance himself from the past and to preserve what he thought worthwhile from it: The phonologists often reproach the Junggrammatiker for their ‘atomism’, i.e. their tendency to regard all the separate facts rather than their connection, which links those facts into a structural whole; they consider their own appearance on the scene as a reaction to the fruitless work of these Junggrammatiker. And rightly too! But their reproaches are more relevant to the way the Junggrammatiker have applied the principle of sound laws in practice – all too often remaining apparently satisfied with the formulation of a series of separate sound laws – than to the principle itself. The concept of ‘sound law’, as introduced by the Junggrammatiker, actually fits extremely well into the framework of phonological doctrine, as it acknowledges the operation of tendencies working in particular directions and also implicitly assumes the phonemes as elements of the collective linguistic consciousness. The ‘atomism’ was in fact more the consequence of an inability to reconstruct the development of sound systems in their organic relatedness than a denial of any systemic evolution.35

Van Wijk’s Phonologie comprises three chapters, the first of which deals with synchronic phonology and the second with diachronic phonology, while the third looks briefly at the relation between phonology and phonetics. Particularly in the first – much the longest – chapter, which looks at such matters as vowel- and consonant-systems, accent, intonation, and the definition of the phoneme, Van Wijk follows Trubeckoj fairly closely in his treatment, constantly quoting and referring to him. In a generally favourable review in the Danish journal Acta linguistica, Jakobson also briefly touched on the difference between Van Wijk’s book and Trubeckoj’s Grundzüge der Phonologie by calling the first ‘le premier manuel de la phonologie générale’ and the second a ‘monographie initiatrice’.36 Van Wijk’s book, he said, consisted in no small part of quotations, and was thus mainly an explanatory, instrumental work, whereas Trubeckoj’s was of more fundamental sig34

Van Wijk 1939, p. 6. Ibid., p. 181-182. 36 Jakobson 1939, p. 124. 35

THE LAST YEARS

245

nificance. The same opinion is voiced in another review, by George Trager in Language – which is, to the best of my knowledge, the first review of a work by Van Wijk ever to appear in the United States: ‘The first part is very largely Trubetzkoyan – too much so; in the second Van Wijk contributes some good ideas of his own; the third is merely a sketch, and could well have been much longer’.37 Trager is rather critical, especially of the general tenor of the book: ‘The general criticism must be made that the book as a whole suffers from a mentalist attitude. The author is constantly talking of “psychic” values […]’.38 Linguists, he implies, work solely with linguistic facts and have no place for such values. It seems rather exaggerated to claim that Van Wijk was ‘constantly’ talking about these ‘psychic values’, but one can imagine that Trager was reacting, for instance, to a passage in which he had strayed into areas of psychology with which he was certainly unfamiliar – in a manner that recalls his writings on Russian literature in which he also presumed knowledge of various psychological matters: We can, I think, consider the phonological system as a kind of superstructure, situated within a psychological layer of a rather high degree of consciousness, and resting on deeper layers characterized by differences and antitheses of a subtler kind, some of which can be apperceived by attentive listening to ourselves and others, whilst others lie too deeply hidden in our subconscious for this.39

Continuing from his querying of these ‘psychological values’ Trager alleges a much more serious failure on Van Wijk’s part, namely ‘the lack of precise logical thinking’40 when the latter criticizes Trubeckoj’s use of the term ‘morphonology’. Trager’s general impression of the book is of a snapshot of a scientific field at a time when no consensus yet existed over fundamental questions: ‘But what stands out most clearly from this book is how far our science is to date from any agreement on fundamental assumptions. And phonology, with its subdivisions, is probably the field most advanced in this respect!’.41 The French linguist André Martinet follows Jakobson and Trager in regarding Van Wijk’s book as, in the first place, a survey in which the author clearly has students in his sights as the target group of readers: Ceci ne veut dire que toute vue originale en soit résolument bannie, mais l’exposé de van Wijk est volontairement simple et discursif; l’auteur n’indique sa position personelle qu’après avoir exposé longuement celle des auteurs qui ont traité des différents problèmes; il n’hésite pas à sacrificier la rigueur de son plan à des préoccupations pédagogiques, et chaque démarche théorique est largement illustrée au moyen de faits néerlandais familiers à ses lecteurs.42

One gets a good idea of the pedagogical need for this book when one turns to the Academic Statute of 1921, which stipulated that no student could sit the kandidaatsexamen in any language without having done some general linguistics. Most 37

Trager 1940, p. 248. Ibid. 39 Van Wijk 1939, p. 148. 40 Trager 1940, p. 250. 41 Ibid., p. 251. 42 Martinet 1942-1945, p. 34. 38

246

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

professors at that time were setting their students to read Hermann Paul’s Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, the fifth edition of which had been issued in 1920, and F. de Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale (1916),43 but following the 1928 conference in The Hague, a range of questions regarding this new direction of phonology were raised in the educational world. Van Ginneken lists a number of these questions in his review of Van Wijk’s book: ‘What finally should one retain of this phonology? And what could one reject? In what respect is it a marvellous new complement to our understanding of language? And to what extent is it also an exaggeration?’.44 Van Ginneken was of the opinion that there had not been a suitable book for a long time, either in The Netherlands or further afield, but that such a book had now appeared with Van Wijk’s Phonologie. Van Ginneken – and here his viewpoint differed from that of foreign reviews – sees it as Van Wijk’s great merit that he provides a broad survey of different opinions, so that one can see how phonology had developed with the help of other linguistic disciplines: ‘Precisely because Van Wijk was not one of the first acolytes of the phonological movement, but rather came out initially as more of a critical opponent, his approbation in the chief issues is all the more valuable and convincing’.45 Van Ginneken declares himself in agreement with him on almost all points and concludes that Phonologie is ‘the best critical textbook that exists at the present time in any language in the world, since Trubetzkoy’s brilliant posthumous book is not commensurable with Van Wijk’s textbook with its carefully judicious criticism’.46 Uhlenbeck also reviewed the book of his ex-pupil, who continued faithfully sending him off-prints of his articles,47 just as he had done in earlier decades with his dissertation and his etymological dictionary. More generous than ever from his Villa Eugenia in the Swiss Lugano-Ruvigliana, he refers to Van Wijk as ‘one of the most highly qualified linguistic scholars in the world’ who ‘can be counted in the first rank both as Slavist and as neerlandicus […]’.48 Uhlenbeck restricts himself to a summary of the contents. He has a few critical observations, such as his complaint that Van Wijk pays no attention to language mixing: ‘We would really like to know what happens when two totally different phonological systems collide and unite to produce a new system’.49 Perhaps the nicest thing in his whole review is a rhetorical question posed in the context of a discussion of ‘teleology’, a term that Van Wijk frequently employs in relation to ‘certain tendencies’ in linguistics. Uhlenbeck then lets us know in what direction his own interests now lay: ‘Or are all these so-called tendencies, and the forces that are supposed to lie behind them, merely a mƗyƗ, an illusion of the human mind deceived and astonished by certain 43

See Van Ginneken 1939, p. 185. Ibid. 45 Ibid., p. 186. 46 Ibid., p. 187. 47 See the collection of offprints that originally belonged to C.C. Uhlenbeck, in Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, sign. 2359 A 7. 48 Uhlenbeck 1939, p. 275. 49 Ibid., p. 277. 44

THE LAST YEARS

247

parallelisms in the endless multiplicity of phenomena?’.50 It was exactly at this time that Uhlenbeck had again immersed himself in Russian literature. ‘I am reading the Russian classics systematically’, he informs his pupil and friend Van der Meulen. ‘I also read a lot of linguistics and I give Sanskrit lessons to Lady Ortt! I have done nothing recently for “the press”’.51 In another review, Etsko Kruisinga, a productive English specialist who worked (not without rancour) outside the academic confines of the universities, slated Van Wijk because he found that the book had limited itself in the main to what foreign linguists were claiming for the subject. He was not particularly impressed by the fact that the book had been written in Dutch, since it ‘often gives the impression of being a rather awkward translation from German, with various terms remaining untranslated. Thus we are given scharf geschnittener accent and schwach geschnittener accent and sometimes the sham-Dutch equivalents, scherp- and zwakgesneden accent, respectively’.52 Van Wijk had less to fear from the Franciscan Father Gerlach Royen, who warmly recommended the book to all linguists and language teachers, though he complained about the absence of an index and the price (f 6,–), which he thought could have been reduced by a third.53 The Flemish reception must also have pleased Van Wijk. In Kongo-Overzee, Wils thought that Van Wijk’s book was more satisfying than its counterpart by Trubeckoj: ‘One does not find here that somewhat sombre Slavic impulse which characterizes Trubeckoj’s Grundzüge, always seeking the further application of the same principles, however correct those may be’.54 He applauds the fact that Van Wijk has incorporated the historical aspect in his phonological considerations where many phonologists let themselves be guided by their synchronic approach. The strong impression of impartiality conveyed by Van Wijk’s book is best expressed in a review by the Flemish linguist Grootaers, who thought that: ‘no-one was better suited to the task of giving an objective account of this new branch of linguistics than the Leiden Slavist’.55 In 1939, when he was almost sixty, the reception of his book would seem to have brought Van Wijk to the pinnacle of his career. He stood at the centre of a lively discussion whose significance extended well beyond the confines of the small world of Slavists; and interestingly, the inclusion of so much Dutch linguistic material in his book had brought him closer once more to his old field of Dutch studies. The practice of scholarship was for him certainly not the work of an anchorite cut off from the rest of humanity, but rather a continuous assimilation and reworking of both the factual material and the views of others, contemporary and past, which he subsequently tried to reproduce as objectively as possible. His work 50

Ibid., p. 276. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3505, letter from C.C. Uhlenbeck dated 17.12.1938 to R. van der Meulen. 52 Kruisinga 1939, p. 77. 53 See Royen 1940. 54 Wils 1940, p. 110. 55 Grootaers 1940, p. 87. 51

248

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

in the area of phonology, where he seems to have had mainly pedagogical ambitions, shows just how receptive he was to the new issues that crossed his path, how strongly he allowed himself to be influenced by external circumstances, yet without abandoning his earlier experience and his own judgement. It is clear from the way Van Wijk continued his work on the book that he saw himself as merely a link in a larger enterprise. The notes with comments, the cuttings from papers and the offprints and reviews preserved in his author’s copy, all show him going ahead with the collection of material for a possible new edition, or for other publications.56 After all, the book had only been a snapshot of the state of affairs in a particular field at a particular time as he saw it from the perspective of his own workroom. The science of linguistics moved on and the indefatigable Van Wijk evidently went with it. But the value of scholarship needed to be kept in perspective, he seems to be saying when he declares that ‘the wisdom of the older generation, whenever it has to give way to new insights that are a reaction to its own onesidedness, can nevertheless still nourish the development of scholarship through certain lasting achievements. A consolation especially for those schools currently enjoying high esteem!’.57 As he grew older, Van Wijk seemed to enjoy the discovery that he was no longer in complete command of affairs. At any rate, on October 20th, 1938, at a time when he was busy writing his book Phonologie, he admitted to Jan Romein: ‘I don’t know how it is in history, but for myself I have rarely worked in such good humour as now, since a younger generation has taken over the reins and not only sought but found new directions’.58 Perhaps Van Wijk was sometimes regarded with a certain envy by representatives of an older generation, viz. his own colleagues in the Leiden faculty, because of his vast knowledge of general linguistics matters. One gathers this from a rather amusing anecdote that comes from E.M. Uhlenbeck, the nephew of C.C. Uhlenbeck: Around that time the Leidse Linguïstenkring [the Leiden Linguists Circle] was founded, which incidentally still exists to this day. And what happened was that a number of people who considered themselves interested in language, mainly professors, who had joined this circle, were well aware that they were not terribly well versed in linguistics and were therefore not at all happy at the prospect of Van Wijk joining – because Van Wijk was an expert, and they had no wish, as it were, to take lessons from Van Wijk. Of course, in the nature of things, I only heard this story second-hand.59

2. War and occupation Although the Second World War began with the German invasion of Poland on the 1st September, 1939, for many of the inhabitants of Central Europe war had already started earlier. It began with the Anschluss – the annexation of Austria by 56

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 2481. Van Wijk 1940a, p. 43. 58 Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. 59 Taken from an unpublished text of an interview that Jan Koster and Henk Verkuyl held with E.M. Uhlenbeck on 16.08.1983; quoted here with the permission of Henk Verkuyl. 57

THE LAST YEARS

249

Germany – in March, 1938, the German occupation of the Sudetenland in the autumn of 1938 and the annexation of Czechia in March, 1939, after which the German protectorate Bohemia-Moravia was created next to the formally independent Republic of Slovakia. For Van Wijk, with his many contacts in Czechoslovakia and Poland, the wider world all at once looked a very different place seen from the traditionally neutral and peaceful Netherlands. International contacts were broken. Under the threat of war, the Fifth International Conference of Linguists due to be held in Brussels from the 28th August to the 2nd September, 1939, where Van Wijk was to have spoken, was cancelled. The same held for the Third International Slavists’ Conference scheduled for the 18th to the 25th September in Belgrade where, again, Van Wijk had been announced as one of the speakers. The programmes for both these conferences had already been printed and distributed to the participants. As late as the 4th August, he wrote to F.B.J. Kuiper, who was at the time in Batavia and was on the point of travelling to The Netherlands to take up the professorship in Sanskrit at Leiden, that after the Brussels conference he wanted to ‘slip down to Switzerland and from there travel on to Belgrade’.60 But he was already alert to the intentions of Hitler and Mussolini: ‘Should they threaten trouble nearer the time I would not consider a conference so important as to expose myself to the danger of being cut off by the axis powers from the Fatherland’.61 Van Wijk was still living with Van Arendonk and the housekeeper Maria Keszy-Wenzel in the Nieuwstraat. Meanwhile, a major change had taken place in the life of his beneficiary, Vladimir Zatskoy: on the 14th October, 1939, when he was already over forty, he married a Russian girl in Voorschoten.62 Margo VisserKruijtbosch, the daughter of his friend, D.J. Kruijtbosch, wrote of this event: ‘Happily, he met a Russian girl in The Netherlands whom he had known earlier: Kira Klimenko. She was a particularly energetic and stalwart woman who would do anything for her man. They married and had two daughters. It was a highly successful marriage. Oom Niek was very pleased about it and often called in on them’.63 The Zatskoy couple moved to The Hague,64 but the firm Zatskoy & Co. continued under its existing name, with Zatskoy’s old partner J. Grünbaum as the single owner and the sole occupant of the house at Diefsteeg 6a.65 The position of a number of Van Wijk’s friends abroad was now cause for concern, especially that of Czechs and Russians living in Czechoslovakia. It seems that Van Wijk wanted to help the Jewish linguist Roman Jakobson escape from Prague. A letter from A.W. de Groot to Van Wijk written on February 21st, 1939, 60

’t Harde, collection Huib Kuiper. Ibid. 62 Information communicated by e-mail from Valentina Loper-Zatskoy to the author dated 28.02.2002. 63 Manuscript with recollections of Van Wijk, as attachment to an undated letter [1988] to the author. 64 Information from an e-mail dated 28.02.2002 from Valentina Loper-Zatskoy to the author. 65 See IJdo’s adresboek voor Leiden 20 (1940-1941), p. 633. 61

250

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

suggests that he helped Jakobson get a visa for The Netherlands: ‘I was very impressed by your news of Jakobson […]. I don’t really dare write to him after what you have told me, I shall wait for news of his arrival from you’.66 In this same connection, C.H. van Schooneveld wrote: ‘he helped him escape from the Protectorate of Bohemia when the Germans were already there and were looking for him. He presumably went to see Van Kleffens, the then Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, and obtained for Jakobson a visa valid for his entire life. It’s a dramatic story that Jakobson told me several times’.67 But Jakobson, who told Van Schooneveld that Van Wijk always behaved towards him ‘like an older brother’,68 has never written anything – as far as I know – about any Dutch involvement in his flight from Prague. What is known is that he eventually travelled to Copenhagen on a Danish visa.69 In these circumstances, there was no further question of the Dutch linguist, Willy Dols, travelling to Prague to take up the readership in Dutch he had been offered there. Van Wijk, who had earlier encouraged Dols to write on Limburg dialects, had also invited him to take the post in Prague.70 The Czech classes Dols had been taking with Van Wijk thus came to nothing, but Van Wijk did provide him with references for his applications for teaching posts in such cities as Terneuzen, Utrecht and Zwolle,71 the necessary first steps to gain a career foothold that Van Wijk knew so well from his own past. Meanwhile Van Wijk was also doing his best for Prokop Maxa, the Czechoslovakian envoy in Sofia. In a letter to Locher of March 30th, 1939, just before the German take-over of Prague, Van Wijk outlined the situation the Maxas were faced with in Sofia: I promised to write to you as soon as I had heard from the Maxas. This I am now doing, but I must ask you most urgently to speak about it with nobody beyond your own family circle and to ensure that nobody hears of this from you. One simply cannot be too careful with this kind of thing. […] Maxa and his wife are at present in Sofia, in the legation, which is controlled by Germans. M. has offered his services to Beneš, who will either summon him to America or send him to Russia. Their greatest concern is for the fate of the children. If he can get them out of Prague he can take them with him and the older group can seek work. He has asked Alena and Vojta to come to ýam-Korija (Bulgaria) for the Easter vacation. If they are not allowed to leave he has asked me to invite them. […] I should be only too glad to do what he wants, but our country is closed to people from Central Europe. I am pestering the Dept. of Justice and have called on the help of someone there who has considerable clout. But to get any-

66

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. E-mail dated 06.10.2002 from C.H. van Schooneveld to the author. 68 Quoted from C.H. van Schooneveld, ‘N. van Wijk and R.O. Jakobson: a linguistic and personal retrospect’, p. 7. This is an unpublished article made available to me by Dorothy van SchooneveldAbel. 69 See Jangfeldt 1999. 70 See Van de Bergh 1953, p. xiv. 71 See the letter dated 10.03.1940 from Willy Dols to Van Wijk in Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 67

THE LAST YEARS

251

thing like this done here is extremely difficult. And even if successful, will the Gestapo let them leave the country? That is the present tragic state of affairs.72

By the next day the tragedy had assumed greater proportions. Van Wijk informed Locher of the following by postcard: ‘A wretched correction to my missive of yesterday. Jan M., the eldest of the three guests I wanted to invite, died unexpectedly several days ago, asphyxiated by gas – possibly an unfortunate, accidental death, his father thinks. The parents are now trying all means possible to get the children together with them. Jan was an outstanding young man of about 30’.73 Van Wijk’s lobbying of the Ministry of Justice bore no fruit. On the 12th April, 1939, the Ministry informed the Leiden Commissioner of Police that ‘on the basis of existing regulations’, the family Maxa ‘could not be granted permission to stay in this country’.74 Eventually the entire family succeeded in 1939 in reaching Paris, where Van Wijk visited them. On the 25th April, 1940, he wrote from there to Van Arendonk, his house-mate: ‘I am now going to see the Maxas, and will stay with them for two nights’.75 The Maxas then succeeded in fleeing Paris for London. Shortly afterwards, on May 10th, Germans troops invaded The Netherlands. The Dutch army surrendered five days later and so began the German occupation: a new barrier had been erected between Van Wijk and his East European colleagues. Furthermore, contacts with the Dutch East Indies were steadily worsening. And yet Van Wijk’s Phonologie still had its readers there, as E.M. Uhlenbeck76 recalls: It was even circulated in mimeographed form among linguists in the Dutch East Indies in 1940 when Dutch scholars working in that part of the world were cut off from their occupied home country and could no longer obtain Dutch books. It is in this manner, through a hardly readable copy, that the writer of this article learned about the activity of the Prague school and the role played by Jakobson and his associates at the Hague congress.77

Even though many contacts had been broken, there were other matters to see to. F.B.J. Kuiper recalled that Van Wijk, who was always easy-going where financial matters were concerned, undertook efforts on behalf of his old teacher, C.C. Uhlenbeck, who, although still able to receive post in Switzerland, could no longer receive his Dutch pension: ‘Uhlenbeck must still have been in contact with Van Wijk at the beginning of the war (on his side, the relationship had for decades been rather cool), because by the beginning of the war U. was financially in trouble (probably his pension was no longer getting through regularly) and then Van Wijk came to his assistance’.78

72

Didam, collection W.P. Locher. Ibid. 74 Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden, Archief van de Gemeentepolitie, inv. no. 2442, dossier H 110/39. 75 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Or. 14.606. 76 See Portielje 2004, p. 207. 77 E.M. Uhlenbeck 1977, p. 490. 78 Letter dated 16.02.1991 from F.B.J. Kuiper to F. Kortlandt (private collection). 73

252

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Presumably shortly before of shortly after the start of the occupation Van Wijk got a telegram from Columbia University in New York: ‘Columbia University [c]ordially invites you as visiting professor for coming spring semester early February to middle May honorarium 3500 dollars plus 500 travelling expenses uncertain conditions explain late invitation letter follows Fife’.79 Four days after the capitulation, Van Wijk duly replied to this telegram on May 18th, in English: During the terrible days we passed this week I compared my present situation with that of a New York professor, but although it was very bad here, I think it is better to be at home at such a time of temptation. If I had accepted your invitation, I should have felt guilty for having run away from my country at a moment of national danger. Now life is regaining its ordinary aspect. Will it be for a long time? I should like to tell you that it would be impossible for me to come to America in the next autumn if in our poor country university life should be going on in the old way; I think there will be so much work to be done that a good Dutchman should not leave his country. But I assure you that, if scientific and academic life should become impossible in Holland I should not prefer any other work to teaching Slavic languages in Columbia University. And if this year I might go on teaching at Leyden, I hope another year it will be possible for me to come to Columbia.80

For the time being, academic life in The Netherlands continued as usual. Obviously, in the summer of 1940 Van Wijk had to forego his usual trip to Czechoslovakia and other Slavic countries, but it must have been partial compensation that he had enough addresses in his own country to call on. For example, we have a card that he sent home to Van Arendonk from Hattem,81 where in June, 1940, he stayed with Jan Duys, an ex-member of Parliament and alderman for the SDAP [the Social Democrats] who was known and notorious even for the outspoken and spirited manner in which he publicly berated such figures of authority as mayors and ministers. In the meantime, however, he had grown disillusioned with the social democrats and, partly because of his sympathy with Nazi-Germany, had joined the NSB [the Dutch National Socialist Party].82 He lived in Lochem with his wife Cornelia van Wijk, a daughter of Van Wijk’s uncle, Pieter Cornelis van Wijk. Otherwise, official duties also took Van Wijk to the east of the country, for he sat on the examining committee for the final examinations at his old school, the Zwolle Gymnasium – which in the meantime had been renamed the Gymnasium Celeanum and moved to a new building on the Veerallee. ‘The examination passed off pleasantly and Zwolle and its surroundings are very agreeable’ he writes to Van Arendonk on June 9th.83 Van Wijk would still speak warmly of the Zwolle Gymnasium in his later years, and according to Kuiper he still had great respect for his old rector Gunning,84 who was then still living and had acquired an unassailable status in the field of pedagogy in The Netherlands.85

79

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. Draft of a letter in Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 81 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Or. 14.606. 82 See De Jonge 1994, p. 124-125. 83 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Or. 14.606. 84 See Kuiper 1944, p. 156. 85 See Mulder 2001, p. 156. 80

THE LAST YEARS

253

In August, 1940, Van Wijk stayed in a manor house called the Huize ter Aa, with its one hectare grounds, built in 1922 by the provincial administrator, L.H. Mansholt, on the edge of the forest of Glimmen.86 It is not clear whether Mansholt was still living there – he left Glimmen toward the end of 1940 – but Van Wijk’s presence in the house was probably the result of his friendship with J.H. Maschhaupt, the director of the Rijkslandbouwproefstation [National Agricultural Experimental Station], whom Mansholt must certainly have known through their work in the field of agriculture and land reclamation. In these surroundings Van Wijk set himself a new project, one that was just as remote from his commitments to teach Balto-Slavic languages as his 1939 book on phonology had been: this time it was to publish the Book of Hours of Geert Grote. According to Van Wijk, in the fifteenth century this horarium had been the most widely read book in the Northern Netherlands; it was used as a prayer book ‘by devout ordinary people’.87 In the introduction to his edition of liturgical and semi-liturgical texts published later that year, Van Wijk gives the following account of the origin of this work: In the period 1909-1913, I carried out the preparatory studies for an edition of Geert Grote’s Book of Hours. W.G.C. Bijvanck had encouraged me to undertake this task and followed my work with the greatest interest. I still consider my association with him and working under his guidance as one of the best things my life has given me. This book is dedicated to his memory.88

There is also a letter to Brummel, the Librarian at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek – by order of the Germans renamed the Nationale Bibliotheek in 1940 – which shows that Bijvanck served as an iconic figure for Van Wijk even at this later stage of his life. In this letter of June 29th, 1937, congratulating Brummel on his appointment, he confessed: ‘I looked up to him and I still look up to him as an intellectual such as one very rarely meets in one’s life’.89 Brummel was also the recipient of a letter from Van Wijk written on July 31st, 1940, in which he wrote that he had begun a new project for which the material remained several years at the Koninklijke Bibliotheek when he left for Leiden: ‘At the time, de heer Bijvanck wanted to produce an edition by the Kon. Bibl. De heer Molhuysen later returned my transcript to me with all the notes I had made, to do with them whatever I wished’.90 While in Glimmen, Van Wijk wrote to Brummel on August 17th of his further plans: ‘I hope to be able to borrow the manuscript itself through the Leiden Univ. Bibl. at the beginning of September, preferably for several months, because I can then collate the proofs of the edition with the manuscript’.91 It is evident from the introduction : to Het Getijdenboek van Geert Grote naar het Haagse handschrift 133 E 21 (1940) that Van Wijk was working with haste under the pressure of the circumstances of the time: ‘My descriptions are of rather differing degrees of thoroughness […]. It seemed to me better to present now what I have already assembled 86

See Mellink 1982, p. 221-224. Van Wijk 1940, p. 2. 88 Ibid., p. [v]. 89 Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 135 D 37. 90 Ibid., Briefwisseling KB 1940, no. 431. 91 Ibid., no. 454. 87

254

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

rather than wait for such a time that improved international communications will make it easier to describe all the manuscripts with equal thoroughness and by an identical system’.92 Ostensibly, Van Wijk’s book comes across as a rather nostalgic return to a long closed chapter of his life and a belated tribute to Bijvanck, the librarian he so revered. In this context one thinks involuntarily of his birthplace, Zwolle, with its Fraterhuis [Friary], which had once belonged to a community that Geert Grote is thought to have been the spiritual father of, and whose goal was ‘for men to live together and work together, and to walk in purity with godly hearts’.93 But in fact, like so many other of Van Wijk’s publications, the book took shape because of the interest shown by someone else. In his introduction, Van Wijk describes the course of its genesis as follows: When I realized that I would not be able to find the time, given my then profession, to complete the work according to the original plan, I put the papers away – until in 1939 I lent Dr. B. van den Berg in Rotterdam my transcription of the Hague manuscript 133 E 21. He wanted to write a grammatical study of this ms., which is now almost completed. In the meantime, I began to regain interest in the subject and felt I would be failing if I did not bring at least a part of my work to fruition.94

Besides two reviews that were effectively little more than summaries of the book’s contents,95 Van Wijk’s publication was also discussed in rather critical terms in Museum by A.G.M. Haas. This reviewer took the author to task for not taking the trouble to indicate which psalms his manuscript contained: ‘It would have been very useful for anyone wanting to follow the translation technique, which the author himself exhorts’.96 Perhaps Van Wijk knew that Van den Berg would complement his work, for the latter’s thorough study of Geert Grote’s Book of Hours, published in the Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde, provides what Van Wijk had omitted: the psalms in the book of hours identified in the numbering of the Vulgate together with the page number in Van Wijk’s publication.97 Haas’ second complaint against the book – ‘that no attempt has been made to locate the manuscript on the basis of dialect and if possible to date it’98 – is obviated by Van den Berg’s study.99 Van Wijk does in fact point to a ‘type of language that is indubitably close to the Deventer dialect’,100 in the text he edited, but he goes no deeper into the question – which is remarkable, given that he himself in 1913 had urged the importance of books of hours for Middle Dutch dialectol-

92

Van Wijk 1940, p. 10. Elberts 1910, p. 268. 94 Van Wijk 1940, p. 7. 95 See De Vooys 1941, and Persijn 1942. 96 Haas 1941, col. 296. 97 See Van den Berg 1942, p. 259. 98 Haas 1941, col. 297. 99 See Van den Berg 1942, p. 260ff. 100 Van Wijk 1940, p. 8. 93

THE LAST YEARS

255

ogy.101 Almost thirty years later, he comes almost no closer than ‘expressing the hope that this publication will be used for dialectological research’.102 Van Wijk was well aware of the shortcomings of his book. It furnishes, he said, ‘material of major significance for a future critical edition [of the Book of Hours of Geert Grote], which will bring us closer to the idiom of the translator himself […]’.103 It was apparently the lack of time – and also the circumstances of the time, for example, the difficulty in 1940 of going to look at similar manuscripts in German libraries – that were responsible for preventing Van Wijk completing the work as he would have wished. But there was also another element involved: his impatience once he had got started. Once the urge had taken him, Van Wijk was always anxious to get the job done and finished as soon as possible. And from his own point of view, that was no bad thing since, just as in the case of his Phonologie, here too Van Wijk most emphatically saw himself as a pioneer. He unhesitatingly assumed the professorial posture when he pronounced that ‘I believe De Vreese once told me he knew of some 800 of these books of hours’104 and that he had been put on to material for his book ‘by suggestions of the late Willem de Vreese, ‘with whom I worked for a few days in Ghent, in 1909 or 1910’.105 We saw earlier that this visit in fact took place in late 1911. The fact that he still retained his original standpoint is also evident from his observation that, as far as the correctness of the descriptions and transcripts was concerned, he was confident of his accuracy at the time he made them.106 Once this work was completed, Van Wijk was ready for the new academic year at the University. As of old, he received his students at home. In 1940, with its garages, warehouses, shops and dispatch agencies, the Nieuwstraat was the same commercial street it had been when he first went to live there before the First World War. Steffelaar’s wine-shop and liqueur distillery was still operating at number 38; there was a vinegar producer, a printing press, an agency and commission business and, as a sign of the times, the local office of the NSB at number 9. Van Wijk and Van Arendonk appear to have been the only intellectuals in this street.107 And in his own domestic world too, Van Wijk remained a man who did not fit the mould of a normal Leiden professor. Van Wijk began this war year with a heavy course offering: Lithuanian; readings and discussions of F. de Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale (‘For students of the Slavic languages and others linguistically oriented. Continuation; participation, however, does not require past attendance of the previous course’.); Russian reading and grammar and Russian grammar: ‘In two groups, according to level of progress; a course for beginners, another for the more advanced. Thursday, 2-4, and Wednesday, 11.00, respectively (at my home, if number of students 101

See Van Wijk 1913b. Van Wijk 1940, p. 23. 103 Ibid., p. 19. 104 Ibid., p. 2. 105 Ibid., p. 10. 106 Ibid. 107 See IJdo’s adresboek voor Leiden 20 (1940-1941), p. 247. 102

256

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

is too large, in the Faculty lecture hall)’; Old Church Slavonic; Czech; Russian literature of the nineteenth century.108 Among that year’s students taking Slavic languages and literature as their main subject, we find Paul Rodenko, Aimé van Santen and Adri H. Hommerson. We know that Rodenko was hugely impressed by Van Wijk’s lectures and that he sometimes, according to his biographer, accepted his teaching literally: ‘When he said that Russians found it unnecessary to take out any insurance because there was no avoiding fate, this was yet one more reason for Paul not to bother with it. It was simply pointless to try to get the better of fate by means of laws, arrangements and rules’.109 As before, students from Amsterdam also attended Van Wijk’s lecture courses, for there was no facility for studying Slavic languages and literature as a main subject there. These students were present for his sixtieth birthday on October 4th, 1940. Etty Hillesum, a student of Professor Becker, who came to Leiden from Amsterdam once a week for the course on Old Church Slavonic, noted in her diary his ‘cheerfully optimistic words on his birthday: “Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I am allowed to give courses until I am seventy and I hope to be able to do so for another ten years, or do you think I shall become a tedious, boring old man?”’.110 The news of his birthday made the national press, with a notice – ‘Prof. Dr. N. van Wijk is 60 years old’ – that appeared in Het Vaderland on the day itself. The notice went on to declare that with his breadth and his major influence on non-Slavist pupils, Van Wijk ‘was continuing the illustrious tradition of Leiden linguists set by H. Kern [J.H.C.] and Uhlenbeck’. The notice also reported that a festschrift was planned for Van Wijk, but that circumstances did not permit this plan to be realized at present. The author of this notice was probably F.B.J. Kuiper, Van Wijk’s ex-pupil who had been appointed Professor of Sanskrit in Leiden in 1939, and who subsequently wrote: ‘It was to have been on an international scale, for he was a cosmopolitan. Van Wijk knew about it and was very much interested in it but the war wrecked the project’.111 Etty Hillesum wrote in her diary of the lectures given in the autumn of 1940.112 Her account fits closely the recollections of Annie Romein-Verschoor, who had attended Van Wijk’s classes at his home twenty years earlier: That was something special, those lectures at his house. The little Verheij woman, the goodnatured, over-weight Emilie113 and me on the old-fashioned sofa with the lace spread over the back. The elegant Hommerson, the stuttering little Russian, Rodenko, and the Gogollike, rather gloomy and detached Aimé, distributed round the room in armchairs of a hundred years ago. And Van Wijk himself sunk almost out of sight in his armchair. And that ridiculously tiny blackboard next to the grand piano, in front of which Van Wijk always placed his full girth, so that not a single soul could read anything of the many mysterious signs he wrote on it. And that panel above the mantelpiece, laden with old-fashioned por108

Gids der Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden voor 1940/’41 (1940), p. 206. Hilberdink 2000, p. 55-56. 110 Hillesum 19913, p. 56. 111 Kuiper 1988, p. 5. 112 See Van der Linden 1997. 113 C.P.E. van de Well (information taken from Hillesum 19913, p. 727). 109

THE LAST YEARS

257

traits, hung one above the other and across and on top of each other. And the familiar heads of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. And the old trees in the garden we looked out on to. And we students, feeling ourselves the elect few that we were allowed to sit there. And Van Wijk, very closed and impenetrable, but also highly changeable, from extremely friendly to glacial. Then a straight vertical furrow appeared between the eyes and the eyes became icecold, not unpleasant exactly but almost majestic. And a gleam in those grey eyes when you asked something with extra interest. And that always slightly ironic voice, probably disguising excessive shyness.114

Etty Hillesum also gives a description of the house and of Van Wijk’s housemate, the Arabist, Van Arendonk, whom she refers to as ‘the Egyptian’: The large house with its old garden (where he first received me that summer evening behind a tea tray), the rather stately housekeeper, the Egyptian who knew Sanskrit and with whom he lived, unmarried, lame, austere, entirely wedded to his scholarship, always working till deep into the night; that ridiculously small desk piled high with books and papers, where he also had to find room to work, the worn grand piano in the corner (he seems to have been very musical), the long marble corridor along one wall of which his library was arranged in rows. It was all a different world with completely its own atmosphere, a small oasis of rest and coolness and deference to scholarship and faithful support for this remarkable, solitary, engaging and yet impenetrable figure, because he was so utterly unique.115

Academic life continued. On the 11th October, 1940, Dr. W.J.M.A. Asselbergs, who was appointed to a special Chair for the study of the 17th century Dutch poet Joost van den Vondel endowed by the Vondel Foundation, gave his inaugural address in Leiden. Van Wijk’s letter of congratulation the following day reveals a moment of irritation that was quite exceptional in his correspondence: ‘Please accept my sincere thanks for sending me your address – which I found most interesting – and my best wishes for your work. These are well-intentioned, even though the pre-history of the Chair you now occupy – which I find rather disagreeable – prevented me from attending yesterday’.116 On the 26th November, 1940, R.P. Cleveringa, the Dean of the Law Faculty gave an address in the packed Grand Auditorium in the Academy Building, in which he protested in the name of the Faculty of Law against the dismissal announced by the German occupying forces of his Jewish colleague and teacher, E.M. Meijers. Meijers had received his letter of dismissal that very morning. Cleveringa’s address was at the same time a protest against the general regulation imposed by the occupiers that all Jews in public service should be relieved of their positions. It is doubtful whether Van Wijk was present at this address, since it was an action staged by the Law Faculty. But in any case, the Rector Magnificus A.W. Bijvanck was not present: in the eyes of the then law student Huib Drion, he was ‘little inclined to take any risk in the interests of resistance to unjust German regulations’.117 After delivering this address, Cleveringa went home, took coffee that afternoon in the Academy Building, and then went on to a meeting of the governors of the Heilige Geest- of Arme Wees- en Kinderhuis [Orphanage of the Holy 114

Hillesum 19913, p. 53-54. Ibid., p. 54. 116 Den Haag, Letterkundig Museum, VDA. 117 Drion 1991, p. 17. 115

258

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Ghost] on the Hooglandsegracht. His colleague Van Wijk, who lived close by in the Nieuwstraat, could easily meet him there: At the end of the afternoon I had a meeting of the governors of the orphanage; by the Hooglandse Kerk I spoke to Goudsmit, who shook my hand. While I was standing talking to him, Van Wijk came by and was tactless enough to draw parallels with what had happened in Prague. He said: ‘The Dean of the Law Faculty was shot dead there, but they wouldn’t do that here’. Probably to put my mind at rest! Fortunately I didn’t see it in quite such dramatic terms myself. Poor man; I liked him well, though: a great scholar, a man of feeling, he was a well-intentioned man even though he had his peculiarities.118

With this last reference to unexplained ‘peculiarities’ that a person in the know would know how to interpret, Cleveringa places Van Wijk firmly on the edge of the professorial community: someone who was, after all, not altogether one of ‘us’. The same was certainly also true of Van Wijk’s place in Leiden society, where his hospitality had already once led him to be deeply distrusted by the police. ‘He occupied none of those positions to which other professors are so readily invited’, observed Bijvanck.119 For example, the kind of position suitable for a ‘man of standing’, whose profile Van Wijk did not fit, would have been Cleveringa’s position as governor of an orphanage. Following Cleveringa’s address, the Leiden students went on strike. The next day, on the 27th November, 1940, Cleveringa was arrested and the University was closed by order of the German authorities. This development must have been a blow to Van Wijk, for whom associating with students had become a way of life.120 Naturally, students were still able, as of old, to call in on him – his notebook of ‘Books on Loan’ record borrowings by such students as Wils Huisman, Aimé van Santen and Cornelius van Schooneveld – but the regularity of a lecture timetable was broken. Van Wijk the indefatigable scholar wrote on, but even in the privacy of his study he was not spared the effects of the war. Journals ceased their publication in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and France. There was nothing to be done with articles already lodged with the editors of Slavia in Prague and in Belgrade with the editors of Južnoslovenski Filolog. During 1940, Van Wijk published only twice in foreign journals, an extremely low score by his standard: one article in the Danish journal Acta linguistica and a review in the Munich journal SüdostForschungen. Otherwise he had to make do with facilities in his own country, with articles in De Nieuwe Taalgids, Onze Taaltuin and in the Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. He placed reviews in Museum and Ons eigen volk. He had no problem sending his international articles to Germany, where journals such as Indogermanische Forschungen and Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, on which he had long collaborated, were still appearing and remained open to him. In Germany, Van Wijk still had a tricky, unresolved matter to deal with: the publication of the second volume of his Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen 118

Van Holk and Schöffer 1983, p. 26. Bijvanck 1942, p. 42. 120 See De Josselin de Jong 1946, p. 22. 119

THE LAST YEARS

259

Sprache, over which he had for many years been conducting a correspondence with the Berlin publishers Walter de Gruyter & Co.121 The manuscript of the whole book had been finished in 1927, after which Van Wijk had several times worked new literature into the text. The first volume appeared in 1931, after which the second volume devoted to syntax and derivation was delayed because of poor sales on the first volume and because of the very high cost of printing. In August, 1939, the publishers had informed Van Wijk that type-setting could begin that same month, but of course the outbreak of the Second World War caused further delay. The correspondence with the publishers continued during the occupation. In a letter of November 26th, 1940, they informed Van Wijk that they would have the book type-set by early 1941, ‘unter allen Umständen’.122 Van Wijk’s attempts to get his book published had their repercussions in his correspondence with Fritz Valjavec, the editor of Südost-Forschungen, the journal of the Südostinstitut of the University of Munich, on which he collaborated during the occupation. The initiative for this came from Valjavec, who invited Van Wijk to contribute articles and reviews to his paper. In response to a letter from Van Wijk of July 21st, 1940, in which the latter writes about his difficulties with Walter de Gruyter,123 Valjavec writes on August 6th that he is in principle also prepared to publish more extensive works in book form: ‘Falls Sie mit der Veröffentlichung des 2. Bandes Ihrer altkirchenslawischen Sprachgeschichte Schwierigkeiten haben sollten, so würde ich gerne die Möglichkeit prüfen, Ihnen dabei an die Hand zu gehen’.124 Valjavec, who gives the impression in his letters of being very pleased with his contact with the famous Leiden Slavist, saw a solution closer to home: ‘Ich halte es nicht für ausgeschlossen, dass unser Institut gegebenenfalls den 2. Band veröffentlichen würde’.125 Van Wijk replied from Glimmen on August 16th that his manuscript belonged to the publishers Walter de Gruyter & Co. and that Valjavec could perhaps best write to them: ‘Vielleicht könnte eine Art Zusammenarbeit zustande kommen’.126 Valjavec had also written to Berlin, in fact, as he later informed Van Wijk. Indeed, it could well have been Valjavec’s interest that spurred the publishers to have the book set ‘unter allen Umständen’ by early 1941. At the end of the year, Van Wijk was not at home for New Year’s Eve. In a letter to Valjavec of January 6th, 1941, he writes: ‘Ich habe das Ende des alten und den Anfang des neuen Jahres grösstenteils bei Freunden in anderen Städten verbracht […]’.127 One imagines from this that he was with the Maschhaupt family in Groningen. Everything was ostensibly going well. A day later he writes to his old Russian acquaintance A.L Bem in Prague, ‘Protektorat Boehmen u. Mähren’: 121

See Schaeken 1988 and 1996 for detailed documentation of the second volume Van Wijk’s Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache, which in the end never appeared. 122 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 123 München, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Südost-Institut, vorl. no. 38. See further Nehring 1994, p. 336. 124 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 125 Ibid. 126 München, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Südost-Institut, vorl. no. 38. 127 Ibid.

260

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

‘Ich bin gesund, wohne an der alten Adresse, arbeite regelmässig. Einige junge Leute arbeiten an einer slavistischen Dissertation; zwei davon, Frau de Vries und Herr Driessen werden hoffentlich bald damit fertig sein’.128 On the 4th February, 1941, he also wrote to Beliü in Belgrade – again in German, whereas previously he had usually written to both in Russian, the switch of languages undoubtedly related to the censorship of the day. One gathers from these letters that the post from unoccupied Yugoslavia was still getting through: ‘Auch die Sachen die der Buchhändler Cvijanoviü und einige Herren aus Laibach mir schicken, bekomme ich regelmässig’.129 And as for himself: ‘Mir geht es so gut wie in dieser Kriegszeit nur möglich ist. Ich lebe und arbeite wie immer. Ich hoffe, dass der Krieg an Jugoslavien vorübergehen wird’.130 As far as his work was concerned, apart from his activities as a Slavist and a neerlandicus, Van Wijk was now thoroughly absorbed in linguistics as the practitioner of his new speciality, phonology. He was also chairman of the Nederlandsche Phonologische Werkgemeenschap [Dutch Phonological Study Group] founded by himself and Van Ginneken in 1939 as a sub-committee of the Nederlandsche Vereeniging voor Phonetische Wetenschappen [the Dutch Association for Phonetic Sciences]. The aim of this committee was to investigate and describe the Dutch language and its dialects with a view to the compilation of a phonological map of The Netherlands. On a photograph taken during the founding meeting, a rather bloated Van Wijk can be seen sitting between Van Ginneken and C.B. van Haeringen.131 The office of secretary of the study group was in the hands of the neerlandicus Dr. K.H. Heeroma, with whom Van Wijk had worked on a phonological questionnaire for research on Dutch dialects in 1940,132 one of his rare coauthored publications: however willingly he collaborated, he wrote alone, under his own name. If only on the grounds of his singularly rapid style of working, always ensuring that a piece of work was finished before anyone else would have even begun, he was never the man with whom to collaborate on any writing project. Linguistics must also have been a kind of consolation for Van Wijk, or so one is led to think when one reads how enthusiastically he reviewed Otto Jespersen’s book Efficiency in linguistic change, which appeared in Copenhagen in 1941, for De Nieuwe Taalgids: ‘one can only consider Jespersen a fortunate man, that in “a period when pessimism and misanthropy are as it were forced on one” he has been able “to find out some bright spots in the history of such languages, as I am myself familiar with” (p. 88)’.133 The final words of this review are particularly striking, in which Van Wijk stresses that linguistic work has to be a communal enterprise that has no place for ‘the linguistics of some of the younger generation who give the impression that they prefer to keep their own science for their private use 128

Praha, Památník národního písemnictví. Beograd, Arhiv SANU. 130 Ibid. 131 See Daan 2000, p. 58. 132 Heeroma and Van Wijk 1940. 133 Van Wijk 1941a, p. 129. 129

THE LAST YEARS

261

rather than seeking to discover those permanent principles that will advance the collective enterprise’.134 His own direction was without question diachronic phonology. It was the duty of this new discipline ‘to supersede the history of separate sounds as accumulated in monographs of the old school, forming a kind of repository, by a genuine history of systems, developing along the lines of decadence and restoration’.135 Van Wijk must have undergone an immense inner struggle before he was able to write in this fashion about the ‘repositories’ of the Junggrammatiker that he himself had done so much to fill. The meetings of the Akademie van Wetenschappen, in which Huizinga served as chairman of the Literary Section, continued normally, although this institution had in August 1940 been re-christened on German orders: it was no longer ‘Koninklijke’ [Royal] but simply the Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen. The report of the meeting of January 13th, 1941, records: ‘De heer Van Wijk hereby offers the library the work written by himself and titled: Getijdenboek van Geert Grote [The book of Hours of Geert Grote]’.136 At this time there also occurred a remarkable nomination for a new member, to wit that of Van Wijk’s tenant Dr. C. van Arendonk. The recommendation was signed by the Orientalist Ph.S. van Ronkel, the Assyriologist F.M.Th. Böhl and W.H. Rassers. The latter was an ex-inhabitant of Nieuwstraat 36, in fact Van Arendonk’s predecessor at that address. Van Wijk’s name is absent from the memorandum of recommendation. Van Arendonk’s fear of failure, mentioned earlier, was also again mentioned here. His dissertation was extremely thorough, but ‘he has not published papers of special significance, mainly due to an excessively self-critical stance and a disinclination to put something in print that might not withstand scrutiny in the smallest detail; several bibliographical studies and papers on the history of his discipline, however, have appeared from his hand’.137 The recommendation praises Van Arendonk for all the assistance he had given others. The occupation of The Netherlands meanwhile began to assume more gruesome forms. On the 15th February, 1941, Van Wijk’s old classmate Leo Polak, who, as a Jew, had already been expelled from his professorial position in November 1940, was summoned by telephone to appear before the Groningen Sicherheitsdienst. The reason for this was that he had complained in a letter to the university, in which he referred to the occupying force as the ‘enemy’, that he was no longer being informed about promoties. Polak never returned to his family but was imprisoned in the House of Detention, where he managed with some difficulty to acquire an exercise book in which he could continue the diary that he had been writing for some years.138 On Saturday, the 22nd february, 1941, Van Wijk chaired the fifth meeting of the Nederlandsche Phonologische Werkgemeenschap in the Phonetics Laboratory, 134

Ibid., p. 130. Van Wijk 1941c, col. 94. 136 Haarlem, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Archief Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, inv. no. 25, Notulen van de afdeling letterkunde, 1931-1947, f. 248. 137 Ibid., inv. no. 559, Aanbevelingen voor leden van de afdeling letterkunde, 1928-1940. 138 See Van der Wal 1947, p. xviii, and Langemeijer 1985, p. 434. 135

262

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

at Jodenbreestraat 72 in Amsterdam. There were 23 members present, among them professors such as Van Ginneken and A.W. de Groot, but also Van Wijk’s students P.C. Paardekooper and C.H. van Schooneveld.139 The minutes read: ‘Where the financial circumstances allow, the Chairman proposes to have printed in abbreviated form the papers given during the past year and to have them sent to all members’.140 A letter from the Leiden printer E.J. Brill to Van Wijk, dated February 18th, 1941, shows that the latter had no objection at all to assuming responsibility for such practical tasks as seeking estimates.141 On the 1st March, Van Wijk was present at the monthly Saturday afternoon meeting of the Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde [Society of Dutch Literature] in Leiden, where his promovendus Jan Romein was giving a lecture. Romein’s topic – ‘Methodological considerations concerning national character’ – would certainly have interested Van Wijk, with his lifelong belief in the Russian national character.142 On March 17th Van Wijk was once more in Amsterdam for an Academy meeting where, according to the minutes, he participated in a discussion of a legal topic: ‘De heer Scholten then gave a communication titled: On the structure of Law and Jurisprudence. Van Kan, Van Ginneken, Van Eysinga and Van Wijk exchanged ideas with the speaker’.143 That same day, Fritz Valjavec wrote to Van Wijk from Munich, admitting that he had been unable to find a solution to Van Wijk’s protracted problems with the publishers Walter de Gruyter & Co.: ‘Mit grossem Bedauern ersehe ich, dass der 2. Band Ihres Werkes von de Gruyter noch nicht in Angriff genommen ist, aber ich hoffe, dass sich dies nur durch zeitbedingte Umstände verzögert hat’.144 In the same letter, Valjavec discusses another manuscript of Van Wijk, a critical publication with a detailed introduction of the Old Church Slavonic translation of ‘Andron Hagion Biblos’, that he had based mainly on a fourteenth century Bulgarian manuscript from Vienna, and where missing passages were concerned, on Serbian and Bulgarian manuscripts in libraries in Paris, Leiden and in a Dalmatian monastery.145 Van Wijk’s basic assumption was that the Old Church Slavonic translation of this collection of apophthegmata and anecdotes of Egyptian desert monks had originally been compiled by the Slav apostle Methodius, who lived in the ninth century. 139 Amsterdam, Meertens Instituut, Archief Nederlandse Phonologische Werkgemeenschap, inv. no. 79.3, Agenda’s en presentielijsten van vergaderingen van de Nederlandse Phonologische Werkgemeenschap, manuscripten en typoscripten van voordrachten gehouden tijdens de vergaderingen 1939-1949. 140 Ibid., inv. no. 79.2, Notulen van de Nederlandse Phonologische Werkgemeenschap 1940-1950. 141 Ibid., inv. no. 79.1, Correspondentie van de Nederlandse Phonologische Werkgemeenschap. Met enkele krantenknipsels 1937-1961. 142 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde, inv. no. 56, Notulen der maandelijksche ledenvergaderingen mei 1933-october 1941. 143 Haarlem, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Archief Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, inv. no. 25, Notulen van de afdeling letterkunde, 1931-1947, f. 252. 144 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 145 See Schaeken 1988b, p. 35.

THE LAST YEARS

263

In the final analysis, Van Wijk’s motive for this work was not purely philological, but rather of a linguistic nature: for him it was more a matter of deepening our knowledge of the Old Church Slavonic lexicography. In the Leiden manuscript, he was dealing with the same Serbian folios that he had been shown by the bookdealer Von Scherling in the winter of 1930-1931. As we saw earlier, it was that event which had aroused Van Wijk’s interest in researching the language and composition of Old Church Slavonic paterica. The idea was that Van Wijk’s publication should appear as a separate number of Südost-Forschungen. In this context of publication, a problem of content was also frustrating Van Wijk, a similar problem to that which he had encountered with the recently concluded publication of Geert Grote’s Book of Hours: some of the material necessary for comparative and supplementary purposes lay inaccessible in Russian libraries. Just as Van Wijk had had no desire to wait for material from German libraries to become available for his Geert Grote edition, he had no wish to wait for copies from Russia. Quite apart from the circumstances of the time, it was absolutely out of the question for Van Wijk himself to travel to the Soviet Union and so he came to a firm decision: ‘Das Schwerste musste am schwersten wiegen; dass hiess in diesem Falle, dass der so wichtige Methodianische Text so schnell wie möglich den Slavisten zugänglich gemacht werden sollte’.146 The result was satisfactory in his eyes: ‘und trotz der Weglassung zahlreicher Apophthegmen schien mir dieser Text reichhaltig genug, den Forschern eine richtige und genügend vollständige Vorstellung von der Grammatik und dem Vokabular der von Method abgefassten Übersetzung zu geben’.147 He saw his own work as an interim stage: he still looked towards a ‘künftige Rekonstruktion der allerältesten Fassung’148 of the Old Church Slavonic translation of the ‘Andron Hagion Biblos’. He himself thus admitted the limitations of his work. Anyone comparing this work of Van Wijk in the field of Old Church Slavonic with his Geert Grote edition, can hardly avoid seeing in it a broader pattern of over-hasty work. Even without the conditions of wartime, Van Wijk always worked rapidly toward an end. As was evident in the case of his book Phonologie, which had appeared several years earlier, he saw absolutely no objection to publishing work in progress in book form. How was Van Wijk during these times? In the main, according to F.B.J. Kuiper, he remained optimistic: ‘He was well-balanced, and till his last years, basically optimistic: shortly before his death, when the war had broken out and the prospects of this country were extremely gloomy, he foresaw a post-war Europe in which national boundaries would no longer play a dominant role […]’.149 The French Slavist André Mazon is another witness to Van Wijk’s outlook on this question: ‘Il avait foi, et il me le disait encore au mois de janvier 1940, presque à la veille de l’invasion, en une Europe nouvelle née de l’association des nations

146

Van Wijk 1975, p. 45. Ibid. 148 Ibid. 149 Kuiper 1988, p. 3. 147

264

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

démocratiques et libérales’.150 His continuing support for the International Auxiliary Language Association which bears his name on its notepaper in 1940 proves his internationalism,151 nor, as we have seen, did he have any objection to continuing his collaboration with Germans in the field of scholarship. Kuiper also noted something else: that Van Wijk – who in 1912 had been considered for a Chair in Dutch – had reflected in a recent conversation on how totally different his academic career would have been as a neerlandicus and to what totally different questions this might have led him.152 3. Death and funeral On Saturday, the 22nd March, 1941, Van Wijk had a visit from the student Johan Bool, who borrowed two books from him, according to the second ‘Books on Loan’ notebook.153 We know something about Bool from a recollection of Karel van het Reve, who has him down as the first student at the University of Amsterdam to study Slavic languages regularly, with Russian as his main subject: ‘He was a communist, his parents, I believe, lived in Het Gooi, he lived “in rooms” in Amsterdam, and once invited me to have lunch with him. That was the first time in my life that anyone had invited me to lunch’.154 The same day, Van Wijk went to Rijnsburgerweg 13,155 close to the station, to dine with the Jewish lawyer Meijers, the same whose dismissal had been the cause of Cleveringa’s protest speech that led to the closure of Leiden’s University. During the dinner he became ill. A contemporary source, a letter written on the 24th August, 1941 by the Russian emigré O.A. Bredius-Subbotina, who knew Van Wijk, to the Russian writer Ivan Šmelev, speaks of intestinal cancer as the cause of death.156 A doctor was called who, according to the only published accounts of Van Wijk’s illness, diagnosed a stomach haemorrhage.157 C.H. van Schooneveld, on the other hand, whose parents shared the same doctor as Van Wijk, says the diagnosis was of a thrombosis.158 Van Wijk was taken to the Diaconessenhuis hospital on the Witte Singel, where he died on Tuesday, the 25th March, 1941, at half past six in the morning.159 Van Wijk’s death must have come as a totally unexpected shock to those around him: we saw that in previous weeks he was still fully involved with others. 150

Mazon 1946, p. 292. See Darnell 1990, p. 275. 152 Kuiper 1944, p. 160. 153 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3163. 154 Van het Reve 1989, p. 42. 155 See Smits 1995, p. 71. 156 See Šmelev and Bredius-Subbotina 2003, p. 90. 157 See Van den Baar 1988, p. 36, and Van den Baar and Pijnenburg 1990, p. 59. There are no first hand accounts of what happened at Meijers’ house known to me; nor do I know who might also have been present at the dinner. 158 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3506, C.H. van Schooneveld in an autobiographical text that was probably appended to a letter to A.H. van den Baar dated 04.01.1979. 159 Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden, Bevolkingsregister van Leiden, Akten van overlijden, no. 385, 27.03.1941. 151

THE LAST YEARS

265

Yet Van Ginneken could reflect that: ‘despite the unremitting work and the fact that he was seldom indisposed, his powerful mind had in fact never been supported by a strong, vital physical constitution. His complexion was too pallid and his slight build, especially after his sporting accident, was too unsteady’.160 When he speaks of a ‘sporting accident’ he presumably means the accident of 1921, the cause of Van Wijk’s limp. Van Ginneken suggests that the sudden nature of his death had some influence on the image that subsequent generations formed of him: ‘However that may be, the sudden demise, whilst still at the height of his powers, made us all much more vividly aware of his merits’.161 Many of the papers that evening and the following day carried the report of Van Wijk’s death. The Leidsch Dagblad carried a detailed report on page two with a factual account of his life and work. The front page of the evening edition of the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant of the same day printed the news of Van Wijk’s death accompanied by a photograph. The paper reported that he had been taken into the Diaconessenhuis on Sunday. If that is correct, it is possible that he returned home after his evening visit to Meijers. We also find in the evening edition of the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant that day a piece written by an ‘ex-pupil’: ‘At the Death of Prof. N. van Wijk’, in which the writer’s account of Van Wijk’s significance is set emphatically against a background of his house and the human qualities that meant so much to his friends: For some time to come, it will be difficult for these friends, so many friends in The Netherlands, in France too, in Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Bulgaria, to take in the knowledge that the house in the Nieuwstraat in Leiden has become vacant. Wherever one went in the Slavic countries, whenever one met people there who had been in The Netherlands, they all knew that house, so quiet behind the trimmed trees; they spoke of the long corridor lined with many bookcases and of his quiet room at the end of it where the only sound was the clock ticking and where the old-fashioned garden, run a little wild, which one looked on to from the window, only reinforced the natural and unforced atmosphere of the place. One may wonder how it was possible that someone whom the hardness of life had not, after all, left unharmed, could receive so trustingly and sincerely anyone who came to visit him in his room. We believe the strength of this way of life can be traced to a trust in humans and in humanity that made it possible for him as a man to empathize with his fellowman, whether it was the plumber who came to repair a leaking roof, or an officer billeted with him, or the student to whom he had to impart the principles of a language or a homeless vagrant; he did this without airs, without suspicion and without prejudice. He let them feel that there are still people who are seriously concerned to demolish the artificial barriers that separate people one from another. That this attitude toward his neighbour – and the biblical word is not out of place here – did not originate from any feeble soft-heartedness will be testified by all who have known his sense of outrage over people who, through injustice and driven by misplaced pride, injured or humiliated others. But he was not quick to pronounce a harsh judgement. So long as it was possible, he persisted in a belief in others’ good intentions and in the profession of a Dutch tolerance. Yet besides the Dutch conception of life, the Slavic literature that he loved so much was of huge significance in shaping his personality. His Dutch-ness and his reading of Dostoevsky, Gogol and Chekhov, these are the fac-

160 161

Van Ginneken 1941, p. 206-207. Ibid., p. 207.

266

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

tors that first come to mind when one tries to explain how this man, with his rich talent and nature, grew to become such a mild and sensitive person.

Etty Hillesum had begun her diary on March 9th, 1941. On the 25th March, around nine in the evening, she recorded her reaction to Van Wijk’s death, which she had learned about from the newspaper, in her characteristic, hot-house style of that time: My God, how could this happen – Van Wijk passed away. The shock is so great that I have lost all feeling. And one cannot yet look into the chasm that has suddenly opened up. All I can say to myself, again and again: I don’t understand, I just don’t understand at all. A world of scholarship that has suddenly, soundlessly collapsed, just like that. It seems to me worse than the whole war, even though I know I shall have to retract these words later on. There are professors sitting in concentration camps in Germany, profs and literary men and women have done away with themselves, but that was in the struggle with world events, that was in action, that was a piece of your own history, you could take a stand, be outraged, campaign and sometimes hope, but this is simply unbelievable. Just a few days’ illness and then dead. A whole world has collapsed. It can never be restored.162

Etty Hillesum briefly outlines his significance and recalls memories of the last course of his that she had followed in November 1940. Perhaps she allowed herself in this sketch to be influenced by the image conveyed by the newspaper, given that she had just read the report of Van Wijk’s death in the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant: A world of knowledge and scholarship has collapsed and the void this leaves cannot be filled again: this man was unique in Europe and will probably be found to be irreplaceable for decades to come. Our Slavic studies have lost their pre-eminent, indeed their sole support. It is so strange, I actually only followed a course of three months with him, and only one hour a week, yet for me a part of the world has collapsed and I sit looking at it, aghast and numbed. Personally, on my last visit, during the strikes, I became rather fond of him when he suddenly asked Aimé [van Santen]: And do you have a stove in your room? And a bit later: Yes, the journey to The Hague costs money, no? Otherwise, I would suggest going round to see Zatskoy. The man, wedded as he was to his scholarship, all at once showed such a moving, fatherly concern, , that I took him to my heart. I shall never forget that last visit. Hectic, turbulent days in the political sphere, strikes, agitation, tension, enthusiasm etc. And then, in the middle of all this upheaval, Van Wijk’s austere, touchingly old-fashioned room, with him behind his ridiculously small desk, with his vertical furrow, but more welcoming than ever and completely absorbed by the events in the University, and yet somehow remaining at a highly exalted level. In fact, disagreeably disturbed in his scholarship by all the commotion, and yet declaring his solidarity with the complete decency of someone of high standing. And when in the course of conversation I let slip the remark: Well, yes, in so far as anything at all can come of my studies, he looked at me a little surprised, with raised eyebrows, as though I had actually made a sub-standard comment, and said: Well, if the mob ever gains power, that of course will be the end of everything. And I felt ashamed even, that I had said something really vulgar and that scholarship would always continue etc. And in the room he gave me his hand, and then he accompanied Aimé and myself to the door, along the whole length of the corridor with its rows of books, with his lame leg, and at the door he gave me another handshake, the last one, that I shall never forget. Not because I had such a strong personal bond, but because of the great respect

162

Hillesum 19913, p. 52.

THE LAST YEARS

267

I had for this man, which is why I always considered it a special privilege to sit in such a creaking armchair in his study and be initiated into the secrets of linguistics.163

In a letter to her parents of March 26th, 1941, which she incorporated in her diary, Etty Hillesum relates what she did when she had read the report in the paper: ‘I ran in a kind of anaesthetized state to Becker, who could also scarcely believe, refused to believe the report’.164 Perhaps she had been influenced by Becker’s reaction when she wrote in her diary entry about Van Wijk’s importance as a Slavist. The date on which Van Wijk fell ill can also be inferred as Saturday, the 22nd March, from her remark: ‘A student from Leiden has just written to me that he only fell ill on Saturday’.165 It is evident from this letter that by the 25th – the date the letter was posted – it was already known, possibly via Wils Huisman, what would happen next: ‘A Russian mass will be read in his house one of these days, which I shall of course attend and then on Saturday there will be the funeral’.166 A notice of bereavement was placed with family notices in the Leidsch Dagblad, March 26th. It is curious that once again Van Wijk’s Christian name is spelt with a k. It was apparently his preference, for the same spelling is found on the title page of his dissertation, whereas his birth certificate gives a c. The notice was signed, not by Zatskoy as his legatee, but by a cousin, the son of Van Wijk’s uncle Pieter Cornelis van Wijk: Today to our deep sorrow, we announce the death, after a brief illness, of Dr. NIKOLAAS VAN WIJK, Professor at the University of Leiden, at the age of sixty. On behalf of us all: N.P.C. VAN WIJK. Leiden, 25th March, 1941. Nieuwstraat 36. The interment will take place Saturday next, at 3 o’clock at the Rhijnhof cemetery. Only announcement.

The Russian mass that Etty Hillesum referred to was held on the day of the funeral in Van Wijk’s study on the Nieuwstraat. It is not known whether she was present, but he diary does not mention it. The serving Rector Magnificus of the University, A.W. Bijvanck, did leave an account of the event, which took place in the house where he himself had lived for a while as a lodger almost twenty years earlier. The ‘young friend’ mentioned by Bijvanck must have been Vladimir Zatskoy, who would have been forty five at the time; the choir was probably the Russian Orthodox Church Choir that Zatskoy himself, as his youngest daughter recalled, had founded in The Hague:167 He lay on a bier in the semi-darkness of the study, surrounded by flowers. A Russian priest in a gold-brocaded cope and a deacon, similarly in gold brocade, with an incensory, a small choir, and in front of the bier Van Wijk’s young Russian friend, who had been closest to him in his life, a tightly packed group of sympathizers, holding candles, further filled the large room. For most of them the ritual was unintelligible. But the familiar surroundings, the wonderfully beautiful singing, the combination of gravity and devotion, gave everyone present at the ceremony the sense of a consecration worthy of the man who had passed away. It

163

Ibid., p. 52-53. Ibid., p. 56. 165 Ibid. 166 Ibid. 167 Account contained in an e-mail from Valentina Loper-Zatskoy to the author dated 13.03.2002. 164

268

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

was an utterly unconventional, un-Leiden ceremony, in fact it was just as untypical of Leiden as Van Wijk’s own place in Leiden society had been.168

The Russian mass was also described by Father G.M. Metzemaekers in his report ‘Funeral prof.dr. N. van Wijk’ that appeared in the Catholic Leidsche Courant of March 31st, 1941: A remarkable man, as indeed was Professor V. Wijk, also had a remarkable funeral […]. The mortal remains stood on a bier in V. Wijk’s study, submerged beneath a rich floral tribute of lilac and Arum lilies. The workroom of this scholar had acquired what was for us an unrecognizable order. The writing desk was shut, the piano from which the music of so many Slavic masters had resounded, had been pushed into a corner. The comfy, oldfashioned armchair out of which the professor usually addressed us had disappeared. The large stuffed bookcases stood there as silent witnesses of a great intellect that had wrestled here with its problems. Peace and rest had returned here and everything spoke of the vanity and the brevity of human existence.

It is clear from the words of the student of Chinese, Carl Barkman, that students as well as professors were present at the service: Barkman had attended Van Wijk’s lectures on general linguistics and Russian. ‘Everyone in a row lit a candle; with your burning candle you lit the next one and so on,’ he remembered. ‘Huizinga was a good friend of Van Wijk. He stood next to me. When he turned to me with his candle I saw that his face was streaming with tears’.169 Van Wijk wrote something about the significance of the Russian Church vocal music in a rare article on musical matters in the Leidsch Universiteitsblad of October 4th, 1935, In this article he announced a performance in Leiden of a Russian Church Choir: Russian Church vocal music, like the icon, seeks to be the direct utterance of the divine truth of religious belief. The belief in the continued workings of divine influence on earth, which is made possible by Christ’s becoming man, his death and resurrection, is a central point of Eastern Orthodoxy. A contact and interpenetration of two worlds takes place in the Christian community, in the Church – and through the singing of her church choirs the congregation bears witness to the supernal truths, which they contemplate in prayer. Thus, through the cooperation of the god-fearing, who sing these songs, with the godly of earlier times, who created the text and melody, there arises a single impressive confession of Christian belief.170

The funeral was handled by the Leiden Funeral Parlour run by H.P.H. Keereweer, whose offices were on the Aalmarkt and who had also signed the death certificate at the Town Hall.171 There was a detailed, anonymously written report of the funeral ceremony itself (which took place later on March 29th), ‘The burial of the mortal remains of prof.dr. N. van Wijk’, that appeared in the Leidsch Dagblad of Monday, March 31st, 1941. ‘Apart from members of the family, the cortege included the Rector Magnificus, Prof. A.W. Bijvanck, Prof. E.M. Meijers, Prof. 168

Bijvanck 1942, p. 45. Van Wijnen 1997, p. 11-12. 170 Van Wijk 1935-1936. 171 Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden, Bevolkingsregister van Leiden, Akten van overlijden, no. 385, 27.03.1941. 169

THE LAST YEARS

269

F.B.J. Kuiper, Prof. Kruijtbosch from Delft, Dr. C. van Arendonk and Dr. W.H. Rassers, Director of the city’s Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde’. That Bijvanck, as a personal friend and as Rector Magnificus of the University, should have been in the front rank of the funeral procession is predictable; and the same can be said for Kuiper, who had also been a close friend. It was at the home of Meijers, the lawyer dismissed from his university position because he was a Jew, that Van Wijk had fallen ill. Kruijtbosch, Van Arendonk and Rassers were notable friends, the latter two also Van Wijk’s tenant and ex-tenant. The key figure whose name is missing from the newspaper report is Vladimir Zatskoy. The report goes on to list those present, including notables, some of whom were there by reasons of their positions, but others, such as Van Ginneken and the brothers Tjeenk Willink from Zwolle, were friends of Van Wijk who had had personal contact with him over the years.172 One notes the absence of the name of Van Wijk’s old publisher, J. Ploegsma, who had in fact died only a day before him.173 After the coffin, covered in a great many floral wreaths, had been placed in the chapel of the Rhijnhof cemetery, Bijvanck spoke first. According to the report in the Leidsch Dagblad (the same report of March 31st) Bijvanck distinguished three influences at the beginning of Van Wijk’s life: Amsterdam, Leipzig and Moscow: He owed to Amsterdam his introduction to academic scholarship, while he took from Uhlenbeck that passion for scholarly work that was so characteristic of them both. And it was Uhlenbeck who also pointed him to Russian, to which Van Wijk later felt himself so strongly attracted. In Leipzig he learned the strict methods of linguistic scholarship, or as he put it himself: ‘In Leipzig I learned to make filing-cards’. And he had Russia and Moscow to thank, finally, for the stamp that was printed on his entire life and personality.

Bijvanck outlined Van Wijk’s career in Goes, The Hague and Leiden before going on to his importance for Russian refugees and for the study of Slavic languages: For the Russians living here he was virtually an apostle and in regard to other Slavs he greatly enhanced the reputation of The Netherlands. There was a very special connection between the Slavist Van Wijk and Van Wijk the man. The best evidence of his great reputation 172

‘Among the very many present at the graveside we noted: the President of the Governors, A. van de Sande Bakhuyzen, the Governor, P.E. Briët and the Secretary of the College of Governors of Leiden University P.J. Idenburg, Prof. dr. B.G. Escher, Secretary of the Academic Senate, Prof. dr. Ph. S. van Ronkel, Dean of the united Faculties of Law and Literature and Philosophy, Prof. dr. N.J. Krom, Dean and Prof. dr. G.G. Kloeke, Secretary of the Faculty of Literature and Philosophy, the ex-Minister of Public Works, Engineer M. Bongaerts, Prof. dr. B.B. [=N.B.] Tenhaeff and Prof. B. Becker for the Chair of East European Cultural History in Amsterdam, H.J. Boelen from Amsterdam, on behalf of the Polish Support Committee, Prof. Jac. van Ginneken from Nijmegen, heer H.E. Stenfert Kroese, publisher of this city, J.C. and J.W. Tjeenk Willink, publishers of Zwolle, Dr. K. Heeroma, Secretary of the Nederlandsche Phonologische Werkgemeenschap, Dr. J.J. de Gelder, Secretary of the Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde, drs. E. Pelinck, Director of the Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal and many other professors, students and former students’. A report in the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant of 30.03.1941 (Ochtendblad C), p. 4, adds to this list the names of ‘prof.dr. W. Martin, director of the Rijks Prentenkabinet’ and of ‘drs. A.A. Kampman, secretary of the Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap Ex Oriente Lux, drs. P.G.J. Korteweg, editor of the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant’. 173 See the report in Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 30.03.1941 (Ochtendblad A), p. 2.

270

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

was that he was offered a Chair at the University of Prague, but Van Wijk believed he had to remain loyal to The Netherlands. A prominent scholar once said of Van Wijk that not only was he the only scholar in Western Europe who spoke the Slavic languages fluently, but also the only one who had complete command of them.

Bijvanck noted that Van Wijk had been a more than welcome guest in the families of his colleagues. The report continued: The speaker then closed with the Russian greeting with which he had taken leave of the deceased one week ago, after a visit: ‘Until the next time, Nikolaï Nikolajewitsj’ [Vasil’eviþ?]. The second and last speaker was the professor of Sanskrit F.B.J. Kuiper, who did not wish to commemorate Van Wijk as a scholar but as a teacher and friend. ‘For his students he was always a reliable compass and now that he is gone it is as though we have lost our sense of security and our orientation’, he declared. ‘He was called to – and was driven by – scholarship, and he was able to achieve so much through the sheer vigour that he communicated to his students.’

Bruno Becker had apparently also wanted to speak, but he either withdrew or did not get the opportunity. The relevant text, evidently intended for this occasion, was found among his papers after his death. He had written: Never, nowhere have I met such a good, helpful and humane person. [...] I see many Russians among those of us present today; countless other Russian, Polish and Czech emigrés dispersed throughout many countries of Europe will be deeply moved when they hear the news of Van Wijk’s decease. His significance for these Slavic emigrés – scholars, students, intellectuals in general – is difficult to express in words. Never has anyone of them sought his help in vain; he enabled many of them to pursue their studies and their academic work abroad, in a new country.174

The funeral ceremony ended at the grave, where the minister Abraham van Wijk from Zaandam, the son of Van Wijk’s uncle, the minister Nicolaas Anne van Wijk, thanked those present for the sympathy they had shown. One can find no other source to clarify what G.M. Metzemaekers might have meant in his report in the Leidsche Courant – cited above – when he refers to ‘a minor political incident’ that occurred at the beginning of the funeral at the entrance to the churchyard. 4. Commemoration Following Van Wijk’s death and the reports in the newspapers, the usual memorial speeches were held at gatherings of the various institutions he had been connected with. On Friday, April 4th, 1941, he was commemorated at a meeting of the Leiden Faculty of Letters and Philosophy. ‘We all feel that this most recent loss has been a direct blow to the heart’, the report runs, continuing: ‘Van Wijk was deeply involved with the Faculty and devoted himself to its affairs in an unparalleled manner. He was adored by students, he was a splendid colleague for us all and for

174

Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis.

THE LAST YEARS

271

many he was also a friend. He provided an ironic element in the life of the Faculty that we shall sorely miss’.175 On April 5th he was commemorated by the Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde at its monthly meeting; nothing out of the ordinary is recorded in the minutes.176 In the ordinary meeting of the Literary Section of the Akademie van Wetenschappen, on April 7th, the chairman Johan Huizinga announced Van Wijk’s death, with the additional remark that, if possible, the deceased would be commemorated at the following meeting.177 After this ordinary meeting there followed almost at once an extraordinary meeting, at which Van Arendonk was elected a member of the literary section – not yet two weeks after the death of his friend and landlord Van Wijk.178 On April 19th, Van Ginneken commemorated Van Wijk at the sixth meeting of the Nederlandsche Phonologische Werkgemeenschap in Leiden, a meeting also attended by Van Arendonk,179 at which he referred to Van Wijk’s role in founding this working group: ‘Van Wijk founded the Phonologische Werkgemeenschap to foster the development of the provisional synthesis set out in his book [Phonologie], to achieve a better and larger synthesis’.180 As a foreign honorary member, Van Wijk was also commemorated by the Koninklijke Vlaamsche Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde te Gent [The Royal Flemish Academy for Linguistics and Literature in Ghent], through the chairman De Bom, ‘before the standing meeting’ on April 23rd.181 Van Ginneken, who during this time of war had also immersed himself in a study of Geert Grote, led the commemoration of Van Wijk at a meeting of the Akademie van Wetenschappen in Amsterdam on May 12th, 1941.182 The printed version of his address was the first of a whole series of obituaries in national and foreign academic yearbooks and journals, several of which never saw the light of day until years later, right up to 1954, partly because of the war.183 Uhlenbeck, 175

Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1856-1952, inv. no. 3, Notulen van faculteitsvergaderingen 1920-1946, f. 277. 176 Ibid., Archief van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde te Leiden, inv. no. 56, Notulen der maandelijkse vergaderingen mei 1933-october 1941. 177 Haarlem, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Archief Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, inv. no. 25, Notulen van de afdeling letterkunde, 1931-1947, f. 254. 178 Ibid., f. 255. 179 Amsterdam, Meertens Instituut, Archief Nederlandse Phonologische Werkgmeenschap, inv. no. 79.3, Agenda’s en presentielijsten van de Nederlandse Phonologische Werkgemeenschap, Manuscripten en typoscripten van voordrachten gehouden tijdens de vergaderingen 1939-1949. 180 Ibid., inv. no. 79.2, Notulen van de Nederlandse Phonologische Werkgemeenschap 1940-1950. 181 Verslagen en mededeelingen der Koninklijke Vlaamsche Academie van Wetenschappen 1941, p. 385. 182 Haarlem, Rijksarchief Noord-Holland, Archief Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, inv. no. 25, Notulen van de afdeling letterkunde, 1931-1947, f. 256. 183 For Dutch obituaries see Van Ginneken 1941, Grootaers 1941, Bijvanck 1942, Van Ginneken 1942, Kuiper 1944, Bijvanck 1945-1946, and De Josselin de Jong 1946; for obituaries in foreign journals, see Jakobson 1939-1944, Hjelmslev 1940-1941, Hujer 1941, Kuiper 1941, Novák 1941, Lekov 1942-1943, Mazon 1946, Horálek 1947-1948, Van Schooneveld 1953, and Lehr-SpáawiĔski 1954.

272

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

firmly holed up in his Swiss abode, wrote nothing to commemorate Van Wijk. He was informed of his death by Kuiper, who records that ‘his reaction was: “He has gathered an excellent karma.” It was the background against which he had come to view human life’.184 Van Ginneken did not see Van Wijk as a seer, but in the first place as a researcher: Van Wijk was no intuitive genius, but rather an indefatigable and mainly deeply analytical thinker whose work was based on the proven conservative method, a critical weigher of pros and cons who never scorned minutiae, and finally was able to penetrate even the most obscure and difficult questions with the great, self-willed gift of his razor-sharp powers of discrimination; and finally he would carry out the synthetic work, slowly and quietly, in such a way that for a long time to come his work will continue to point the way forward and will be found of lasting worth.185

In his commemorative article Van Ginneken – who, unlike Van Wijk, was often extremely critical of others and made many enemies – suggests that Van Wijk never again had the desire to learn a non-Indo-European language after his Gymnasium Hebrew. According to him, the position taken by Uhlenbeck was decisive in this: And precisely because in Van Wijk’s university years, his ideal – Uhlenbeck – was still more or less exclusively an Indo-Germanist, Van Wijk always remained so too. Had he begun his studies in Leiden five years later, when Uhlenbeck had moved on first to Basque and then to Eskimo, finally tackling Algonquian and before long covering the entire world of North American languages, then I believe that Van Wijk’s academic career would have taken a very different turn and in the end he would probably have reached even greater heights.186

This fidelity to the ideals of his youth unmistakably played a major role in Van Wijk’s life. We can actually set that beginning further back: in Zwolle, where his Dutch teacher was Buitenrust Hettema and where he made the choice of studies that had a decisive influence on the rest of his life. In an obituary published in the yearbook of the Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde, Kuiper cites fidelity as Van Wijk’s ‘most distinctive characteristic’.187 He wanted in the first place to rescue of his teachers’ views all he could and even before he articulated his own ideas on any particular question, he tried to come to a synthesis of others’ views on it. Kuiper speaks in this connection of Van Wijk’s ‘extraverted style of thinking’ and ‘great receptivity for facts and opinions’.188 The Danish linguist Louis Hjelmslev, probably referring mainly to the recent book, Phonologie, observed that Van Wijk was in fact too susceptible to the work of others: Son activité étendue et son orientation vers le monde extérieur ne lui ont pas toujours permis de travailler en grande profondeur; ses vues théoretiques portent parfois l’empreinte de l’inachevé et d’un certain manque de sûreté. Il a visé surtout à aboutir vite, en appliquant les théories modernes aux faits qui l’intéressaient particulièrement, et en établissant de grands 184

Kuiper 1988, p. 2-3. Van Ginneken 1941, p. 201. 186 Ibid., p. 202. 187 Kuiper 1944, p. 167. 188 Ibid., p. 166. 185

THE LAST YEARS

273

exposés facilement abordables; les buts qu’il s’était ainsi proposés l’ont obligé dans une certaine mesure de travailler de seconde main et de se borner quelquefois à une simple reproduction.189

But the enormous extent of Van Wijk’s oeuvre should not hide the fact that his writing activities did not take first place in his life. We have seen how the rectorship brought an almost total halt to the writing of articles. In an address on the occasion of handing on the rectorship in 1941, Bijvanck touched on Van Wijk’s enormous attachment to his official functions: As rector, when it came to fulfilling all the duties tied to the often difficult and demanding dignity of the position, Van Wijk was an unequalled example for those rectors who succeeded him. In addition, we should also remember the deanship of the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy which he fulfilled with unflagging diligence. He immersed himself in these functions to such a degree that he only left them because it was necessary.190

The Leiden ethnologist De Josselin de Jong thought that university life itself had been the main priority for Van Wijk: Because Van Wijk was before anything else the civis academicus, citizen of the university community in which he was totally absorbed, for which he lived. He fulfilled his official duties, of whatever kind, even the most trivial administrative chores, with the same dedication – one would almost say with the same enthusiasm. Nothing concerning the university was unimportant for him.191

Those who gained most from this attitude were of course the students: ‘He was always available for students; no trouble was too much for him to satisfy all their needs. For sharing his knowledge with others was not only a duty willingly accepted, it was a vital necessity; the scholar and the teacher were inextricably joined in his personality – to the benefit of both’.192 In her diary, Etty Hillesum expressed in dramatic fashion just what the loss of Van Wijk meant. It had no immediate effect on the continuation of her own studies, however, since these had been at a standstill for several months. It was a very different matter for the Baroness Irène de Vries-de Gunzburg, from St Petersburg, who had graduated with Van Wijk. Her dissertation, Catherine Pavlovna, grandeduchesse russe 1788-1819, which she had researched and written under his supervision, lay finished at the time of his death, and the idea had been that she was to take her doctorate with him. As a Jew, in the middle of the war she probably was anxious to get her work finished and out of the way as soon as possible. Irène de Vries-de Gunzburg in fact took her doctorate on May 27th, 1941 – two months after Van Wijk’s death – with Bruno Becker, in Amsterdam, but not without making clear her debt to Van Wijk: ‘Celui à qui je dois mon éducation universitaire et sous l’égide duquel j’ai abordé et enfin parachevé ce travail, n’est plus de ce monde depuis peu de jours seulement. Il m’est impossible de parler déjà de la mémoire que je garde du cher Professeur Van Wijk, parce qu’il est encore trop 189

Hjelmslev 1940-1941, p. 110. Bijvanck 1941, p. 55. 191 De Josselin de Jong 1946, p. 21. 192 Ibid., p. 21-22. 190

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

274

près de moi et que je ne puis encore comprendre qu’il me faudra continuer sans lui’.193 There is an rather eloquent poem written in memory of Van Wijk by Muus Jacobse, a pseudonym of K.H. Heeroma, the neerlandicus with whom Van Wijk had collaborated within the Nederlandsche Phonologische Werkgemeenschap:194 IN MEMORIAM voor P.J.M. Wat wisten wij van hem? Het was zijn deel Ons met zijn intellekt te overtroeven. Wel scheen hij ons nabijzijn te behoeven En gaf zich elk van ons, maar nooit geheel. Zocht hij ons als zijn zonen te beproeven, Zocht hij zichzelf in ons – maar nooit geheel? Wij strooiden bloemen en vermoedden veel, Toen wij hem naast de dode Vriend begroeven… Hij die zijn glimlach als een masker droeg, Die voor zijn liefde nooit herkenning vroeg, En zich door droombeeld liet verraden, Had eindelijk die hem het liefste was Hervonden in de bloemen en het gras En zijn geheim gefluisterd in de bladen.195 IN MEMORIAM to P.J.M. What did we know of him? His part Was to outstrip us with his intellect, He seemed to need to be close to us And gave himself to each of us, yet never entirely. Was he seeking to put us, his sons, to the test, Was he seeking himself in us – but never entirely? We scattered flowers and wondered when We laid him to rest beside the dead Friend… 193

De Vries-de Gunzburg 1941, p. 10. W.U.S. van Lessen Kloeke drew my attention to this poem in a telephone conversation in 1988. At the time, the catalogue for the Van Wijk exhibition (see Hinrichs 1988) held that year in Leiden University Library was already printed. Nonetheless, Muus Jacobse’s book of poems Het bescheiden deel, laid open at the poem ‘In memoriam’, was given its place in this exhibition. 195 Jacobse 1941, p. 29. 194

THE LAST YEARS

275

He, who wore his smile as a mask Who never asked recognition of his love And was willingly betrayed by a dream, Had finally found in the flowers and the grass The one he loved most, Whispering his secret to the leaves. The poem gives no explicit acknowledgment that it was written for the death of Van Wijk, but the allusions are so overwhelmingly clear that it cannot be doubted. Heeroma was present at the funeral – we know that from the report in the Leidsch Dagblad – and he published this poem in the same year as Van Wijk’s death. The poem is about the funeral of someone who is buried next to a dead friend, just as Van Wijk was buried beside Leonid Zatskoy: a detail that was never reported, or at least, never wholly correctly reported, by the press.196 The person described can only be Van Wijk: a highly intelligent man who needed the intercourse with students, who made himself so openly available to them and yet who closed himself off from them. The person in Muus Jacobse’s poem has something tragic about him in the tension described between the awe in which he was held by his students and his inability to share his personal life with others; and so the burial assumes the character of a reunion with a friend, but also of a revelation of something that for many had remained hidden during his lifetime. It is certain, both from his own correspondence and from the report of others, that Van Wijk loved Leonid deeply. In fact, Leonid is the only person, as far as we know, for whom he acknowledged a kind of platonic love. But we know no more about their relationship. Muus Jacobse’s poem bears the dedication ‘For P.J.M.’, which can scarcely refer to anyone other than Piet Meertens, who worked at the Dialectology Section of the Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen and was also the treasurer of the Nederlandsche Phonologische Werkgemeenschap. The dedication assumes a more dramatic significance when one learns that at the time of the funeral Meertens was serving out a prison sentence for alleged homosexual contacts with a minor.197 Meertens was released on March 31st, two days after the funeral. In this poem, therefore, Muus Jacobse is actually addressing the absent Meertens: what did we know, the young secretary and the treasurer of the working group, about our eminent chairman, Van Wijk? This poem of Muus Jacobse looks at Van Wijk very differently from all the other more academically shaped pieces in which he is commemorated. The line ‘He, who wore his smile as a mask’ points to a sharp division between his inner and outer lives. The report of the Leiden faculty meeting, quoted earlier, where it was observed that, with him, ‘an ironic element’ had passed away, makes it par196

Without giving any names, the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant (Ochtendblad C) of 30.03.1941 did report, erroneously, that there were already two persons in the grave: the coffin was laid in the opening ‘beside those of the two Slavic friends of the deceased, who many years ago had preceded their dear friend and teacher into the next world’. 197 See Margry 2002, p. 21.

276

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

ticularly clear that Van Wijk must have worn this irony more or less as a habit in academic circles. The remark comes across unexpectedly and unusually for such an official context, and for that reason suggests the more strongly that it must have corresponded with a rather generally held image of Van Wijk. One is reminded again of Etty Hillesum’s reference to ‘a slightly ironic voice, probably disguising excessive shyness’, while Kuiper talked of Van Wijk’s ‘friendly bonhomie, with an undertone of slight conceit’.198 Irony as a line of defence – it seems altogether true of Van Wijk’s demeanour in the university. However open and accessible he was, according to Bijvanck, he was also at the same time someone who ‘virtually never revealed his inner self’.199 Kuiper described him as ‘reserved as far as his inner life was concerned’.200 But whether Van Wijk’s friends and tenants who lived with him at closer quarters would say the same – the Zatskoy brothers, Van Arendonk, Rassers and the families with whom he so often stayed as their guest – we simply do not know. Whatever the case, friendship was certainly important; if nothing else, his burial in the grave of a dead friend proves that. Friendship and fidelity took first place, even before scholarship, and from this perspective, he was by no means exclusively the civis academicus. The words spoken by Van Wijk at his inaugural address in 1913 in the Leiden Stadsgehoorzaal [Concert Hall] – ‘for I consider the obligations that a man has toward his fellow man are even higher than his obligations to scholarship’ – was the basic principle to which he remained always faithful. In the final analysis, Van Wijk the minister’s son seems to have been more of a religious man, albeit not in the church-going sense, than the titles of his bibliography would lead one to suspect. Certainly, he wrote nothing about religious belief. On the other hand, when he died a memorial service after the Russian Orthodox rite was held for him, apparently with his approval. There was unmistakably something of the minister in his demeanour: he saw it as his task to deal without prejudice with the different people with whom he came into contact, to stick faithfully together and in his own life not to be cowed by adversity. He was virtually never heard to complain. He was certainly a kind of ‘minister’ in his academic scholarship: he always coupled his unrivalled working energy and the inventiveness that opened new paths in several areas of his discipline with a quest for consensus, or one could say: communion with his predecessors and his colleagues. If necessary he was always ready to review his own scholarly insights, certainly in questions of detail, but he was unwilling to give up old allegiances. In a certain sense, he always remained a pupil of the Zwolle Gymnasium. Loyalty was unmistakably one of the governing principles of his life. In his later work, Van Wijk increasingly adopted an attitude that spoke of resignation and his own ignorance, allowing others lead the way wherever possible. One of his last articles, published in the Nazi vassal state of Slovakia in 1941, tellingly ended with a quotation from the work of a colleague, the Norwegian linguist Alf Sommerfelt, which he linked to his own work on the reconstruction of Proto198

Kuiper 1988, p. 3. Bijvanck 1942, p. 45. 200 Kuiper 1944, p. 167. 199

THE LAST YEARS

277

Slavic: ‘“The real causes of phonological changes are yet, at least, for the most part shrouded in mystery. We must explain what can be explained and hope that in the future linguists will be able to grasp also the causal factors”’.201 He could equally have quoted from his own inaugural address of 1913 – before the term ‘phonology’ had created a school – where he speaks of parallelism in the development of sounds and accent in Proto-Slavic and in Old French: ‘in both languages the causes lay shrouded in darkness’.202 Van Wijk had a great instinct for matters that one can imagine through the power of intellectual argument but can never prove. From the outset, he was outspokenly involved in hypothetical questions where his scholarly imagination actually came rather close to a literary imagination: in linguistics, for instance, when he was engaged in the reconstruction of the sound laws of Proto-Slavic or of the accent system of the period of Balto-Slavic unity, but also in literary considerations, when he speculated on unprovable notions of national character and mentality. There was certainly a difference of approach: when he wrote about literature, Van Wijk was mainly interested in the discovery of the person behind the written texts, whereas as a linguist he was always concerned with solving more abstract problems to which the actions of individuals are irrelevant. In his lectures at the Sorbonne in 1937, Van Wijk argued for the power of the imagination as the highest quality of a scholar: ‘Nous devons donc compléter nos connaissances positives par des hypothèses qui reposent naturellement, pour une bonne part, sur l’imagination. Or, l’imagination, pourvu qu’elle soit tenue en frein par l’esprit critique, est la plus haute qualité du savant […]’.203 In the end, Van Wijk represents a curious paradox: on the one hand, he had an astonishing capacity for work, he produced an oeuvre of enormous breadth and versatility – his name could be a byword for energy and flexibility in the elucidation of the most diverse and often complex matters (even if, as seems the case, much of this work was done because he felt it to be his obligation: the prompt so often came from outside). On the other hand, he seems to have been a man who actually welcomed the interruption of his work when friends, or even of persons unknown to him, arrived unexpectedly. He was an only child and a life-long bachelor: his need for company can be seen in the light of these facts. Perhaps we can also recognize here the son of the minister, who in his pastoral work was used to being confronted at all times of the day and by individuals of all kinds, and who could not easily separate his professional and private lives because of the nature of the work. In keeping such an open house, it seems that Van Wijk was fundamentally concerned less with the instruction of others than with a thoroughly normal need for companionship. In this sense, when he wrote his report of his unique journey through the Slavic world in 1914, Van Wijk seems to have drawn the image of himself, as both a scholar and a gregarious, convivial person, to which he would conform throughout the rest of his life. 201

Van Wijk 1941b, p. 48. Van Wijk 1913, p. 28. 203 Van Wijk 1937, p. 111. 202

This page intentionally left blank

EPILOGUE

On the basis of a will drawn up on July 8th, 1929, Nicolaas van Wijk left his excellent library to Leiden University Library.1 The rest of his estate was to go to his mother, or, if she should die before him, to Vladimir Zatskoy. Van Wijk’s mother had died in 1935, so that in the event Zatskoy inherited the entire estate apart from the books. Zatskoy seems to have taken an active part in the execution of the will. The bequeathed books were transferred from Nieuwstraat 36 to the University Library shortly after Van Wijk’s death. Van Wijk’s will did not specify his Slavic library but rather mentioned ‘the library’, tout court: that is, the University Library would have received practically all the books Van Wijk had possessed. These books were given an ex libris with the text ‘Legaat Prof. Dr. N. van Wijk 1941’. When he stepped down as Rector Magnificus in September, 1941, Bijvanck noted this bequest as follows: The University Library’s most significant acquisition was the library of the deceased Professor N. van Wijk, who bequeathed his entire collection of around 7000 volumes to the State of The Netherlands to be placed in the University Library in Leiden. As a result of this bequest, the Library possessions in both general linguistics and Slavic languages and literature have been considerably expanded. The aim is to place all the material in the Slavic field in a smaller room, for the purpose of providing an attractive and well-equipped centre for the study of Slavic languages.2

Because Van Wijk’s testament made no mention of his papers, it was formally up to his heir, Zatskoy, to decide what should happen to them. The University Library received from the estate the card-indices with lexicographical material that Van Wijk had used for his studies of Old Church Slavonic, notebooks, writing pads with notes and other personal material such as the certificates of his time as a student and of his election to the membership of various academies. The university also acquired a small amount of correspondence,3 a total of 151 letters addressed to Van Wijk4 plus a few letters and drafts of letters by Van Wijk himself.5 1

See Hinrichs 2005a. Bijvanck 1941, p. 67. 3 The whole collection probably stood more or less untouched in the manuscript department of Leiden University Library for several decades. One can deduce that from a letter of 11.09.1970 from Wils Huisman, who was at the time the Slavic languages specialist of the University Library, to C.H. van Schooneveld, who had requested from the United States a copy of a letter from N.S. Trubeckoj from this collection: ‘I went immediately to look for the “Van Wijk papers” in the manuscript department. I found there 5 large boxes full of envelopes sand papers, still in the same condition as you left them, I believe’. See Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, C.H. van Schooneveld archive, inv. no. 14. – Van Wijk’s papers were ordered at the end of the eighties and now classified according to forma and subject in Leiden University Library: personalia (BPL 3163), correspondence (BPL 3164), work associated with committees and organizations (BPL 3165), publications (BPL 3166), addresses (BPL 3167), filing cards (BPL 3168), Middle Dutch literature (BPL 3169), 2

280

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

The amount of correspondence is so small, however, one has to assume that a significant part of the letters Van Wijk received over the course of time have disappeared – whether deliberately destroyed or not one cannot say. Of course, there is no standard rule which decrees that everyone should keep all their correspondence: it is always possible that Van Wijk’s normal habit was to throw his letters away, or perhaps in some cases they were returned to the senders after his death. But whatever the case, the thought must have occurred to Van Wijk, if he still had in his possession a fairly large quantity of letters during those May days of 1940, that his correspondence could fall into the wrong hands during the occupation. One can reasonably infer this from the testimony of C.H. van Schooneveld, who as a student of Slavic languages during the war catalogued the Slavic titles of the Van Wijk Bequest for the University Library.6 In May, 1940, immediately after the Dutch capitulation, Van Schooneveld was rung up by Van Wijk and sent by taxi to Amsterdam to the office of the solicitor H.J. Boelen, to get him to destroy the archive of a Dutch-Polish committee.7 Anyone who could so deliberately take care of the archives of others must have surely been aware of the need to deal with his own papers. Letters that he himself might have in his possession from Poles or Czechs might well contain remarks on sensitive political or personal matters. It must have occurred to him that under the prevailing circumstances it might be better to destroy them. Van Schooneveld was actually surprised that more than a hundred letters had been kept, since he himself, he wrote, had seen far fewer in 1941.8 It is no more than a surmise, of course, that Van Wijk himself was responsible for destroying his correspondence; but if one assumes that he did, one may well ask why 151 letters were preserved – and why those ones precisely? The reason could have been that many letters can be characterized as on-going correspondence: papers that Van Wijk needed for matters still currently in hand. For example, this would include the correspondence (24 letters) with the Berlin publishers Walter de Gruyter & Co. related to the publication – which actually never came to fruition – of the second volume of his Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache. The correspondence with Fritz Valjavec, editor of the Munich-based journal Südost-Forschungen to which Van Wijk sent several contributions during that first year of the war, also belongs in this category. His eighteen letters to the Ministerie van Onderwijs, Kunsten en Wetenschappen [Ministry of Education, Arts and Sciences] concerning cultural cooperation with Slavic countries were also preserved, as were eight letters to a solicitors’ office in The Hague that relate to Van Wijk’s position as a governor of the Croiset van der Kop Fund. Other busiSlavic studies (BPL 3170), general linguistics (BPL 3171) and varia (BPL 3172). The references in older literature on Van Wijk to numbered boxes are no longer current. – Van Wijk’s copy of his book Phonologie: een hoofdstuk uit de structurele taalwetenschap (1939) was taken from his unsorted archive in 1947 and placed under BPL 2481. – For a brief survey of Russian language handwritten material from the twentieth century in Leiden University Library, see Hinrichs 1997, p. 14. 4 See Hinrichs 2006. 5 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 6 See Hinrichs 2001, pp. 46-47. 7 E-mail dated 06.10.2002 from C.H. van Schooneveld to the author. 8 Ibid.

EPILOGUE

281

ness correspondence can be added to this, such as his correspondence with the publishing house Meulenhoff. All this soon adds up to almost a hundred letters from various institutions or businesses. Nor has the correspondence from these sources survived intact. This is evident from the fact that the Hauptstaatsarchiv in Munich possesses copies of twelve letters from the above mentioned Fritz Valjavec to Van Wijk, whereas only seven letters have been preserved in Leiden. Five would thus seem to have disappeared. The remainder are less official letters, the oldest of which dates back to 1907. They are almost exclusively letters from colleagues and students, many of them from the last years of Van Wijk’s life and related to the activities of the Nederlandsche Phonologische Werkgemeenschap and the Nederlandsche Vereeniging voor Phonetische Wetenschappen, in which he was active. Here too, therefore, it was a question of on-going correspondence. Rarely has more than a single letter from each correspondent been preserved. It is possible that at least part of the letters collected in Leiden University Library were preserved inside his books; as late as 1988, letters were found interleaved in books from the Van Wijk Bequest that stood in the stockroom, among them letters from the Russian author Ivan Šmelev (whom, in 1932, Van Wijk had done his best to promote before the Nobel Prize Committee in Stockholm as a candidate for the Prize for Literature9), which lay in a German translation of one of his books that had probably never been requested by a borrower.10 Van Wijk’s own copy of his book Phonologie: een hoofdstuk uit de structurele taalwetenschap (1939) throws some light on the possible state of Van Wijk’s library at the time of his death. Between its covers we find all kinds of things: reviews of his book, offprints of articles related to the subject by colleagues, cuttings from newspapers and a great number of notes on filing cards.11 To this day one still finds newspaper cuttings and notes written by Van Wijk tucked inside books from the Van Wijk Bequest. The preservation of current correspondence certainly argues for the idea that Van Wijk himself had a hand in the disappearance of the greater part of his correspondence as a whole. Why otherwise should just that part have been preserved if the rest was removed or burnt by somebody? It is telling that among the other correspondence there are a letter and two telegrams from Princess Juliana to Van Wijk: items surely that he would have been slow to destroy himself. Another letter that was kept was the one written by his friend J.H. Kern shortly before his death: perhaps a sentimental element had a part to play in its preservation. The letter of 1911 quoted earlier, from Hermann Freise to Van Wijk, is actually the only one of an explicitly personal character. The collection thus gives us no answer to the question of who Van Wijk’s friends were. There is not a line to be found in his papers from his adopted son Leonid Zatskoj or his heir, Vladimir Zatskoy, nor from his tenants W.H. Rassers and C. van Arendonk. One assumes that Van Arendonk, who was still living at Nieuwstraat 36 at the time of Van Wijk’s death, must have been fully informed of 9

See Šmelev and Bredius-Subbotina 2003, p. 100, p. 697. See Bongard-Levin 2000 and 2002. 11 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 2481. 10

282

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

the winding up of Van Wijk’s affairs. The presence at hand of the curator Van Arendonk must also have been a kind of guarantee that Van Wijk’s estate was dealt with as he himself had wished. What is certain is that Van Wijk did have a great deal of correspondence. In a letter to Jan Romein quoted earlier, Van Wijk writes that his correspondence takes up ‘several hours each day’, and it is not unlikely that this remark held for his entire time as professor at Leiden. When one goes looking for Van Wijk’s letters to others it soon becomes clear that his correspondence was vast. Against the two letters preserved in Leiden from the grand master of Slavic studies Vatroslav Jagiü to Van Wijk, there are 31 from Van Wijk to Jagiü in the National and University Library in Zagreb. But in most cases where another institution holds letters from Van Wijk there is no reciprocal correspondence at all in Leiden. The Sanskritist F.B.J. Kuiper also had a hand in settling Van Wijk’s affairs. In a letter of May 2nd, 1941, he wrote to B.D.H. von Arnim: ‘Van Wijk never kept a list of his publications nor, as far as we can see at the moment, had he by any means kept offprints of all his articles’.12 It would seem, in any case, that Van Wijk was no fanatical archivist of his own works. We also learn from Kuiper that Van Wijk left no unfinished work at his death,13 a comment no doubt on his explosive method of working: to go at something indefatigably until it was finished, whether the work lasted the duration of a summer vacation as in the case of De Nederlandsche taal, five years for Franck’s etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal, or an evening if it were a question of a review. But then get rid of it at once and wait for the proofs before correcting and inserting any additional material. It was apparently never his habit to keep texts in the house once they were finished. One infers this also from a draft of a letter to Walter de Gruyter & Co., the publishers, written on the 27th February, 1931. He was writing in connection with the manuscript of the second, not yet published volume of his Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache that he had received back from the publishers and immediately returned: ‘Ich habe wenig Lust, diesen nur in einem Exemplar vorhandenen Text solange in meiner Wohnung zu haben; ich brauche ihn jetzt nicht und trage dann auch lieber das Risiko nicht’.14 And earlier, it appears from a draft of a letter of April 21st, 1928, that when he had temporarily received the manuscript back before the first volume (which appeared in 1931) could be printed, he had similarly returned it at once with the request ‘es mir etwa einen Monat vor der Drucklegung nach vorheriger Mitteilung für die Addenda zuzuschicken’.15 It is rather curious that in 1931 Van Wijk should be concerned about the ‘risk’ of keeping his own manuscripts in his own house. The remark may also throw light on Van Wijk’s attitude towards preserving letters from others. The house from which Van Wijk’s books and papers were transferred to the University Library had in the meantime passed to Vladimir Zatskoy, who was then 12

Graz, Institut für Slawistik, Nachlass Von Arnim, inv. no. 115. Kuiper 1941, p. 395. 14 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3164. 15 Ibid. 13

EPILOGUE

283

making his living as a dealer. He now had two tenants: the housekeeper Maria Keszy-Wenzel and Van Arendonk. The first committed suicide at nine o’clock in the morning of April 15th, 1941, dressed for her funeral and with a purple flower pinned to her dress.16 She was forty three years old.17 Van Arendonk kept the postcards that Van Wijk had sent her and her husband, who had died in 1937.18 Van Arendonk, whose election to membership of the Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen had not yet been confirmed by the authorities, moved on May 19th to the Witte Singel, 21.19 Zatskoy, who had meanwhile become a Dutch citizen and resident at an address in the Van Hogenhoucklaan in The Hague, sold the property on September 11th, 1941 for 10.500 guilders to the Wassenaar wineseller A.C. Bakker, who, as we saw, had already lived in the house previously as a tenant.20 It is not clear exactly what A.W. Bijvanck meant when (according to the report quoted earlier from the Leidsch Dagblad) he declared at Van Wijk’s funeral: ‘There is some hope […] that we can keep up the house, even if we cannot maintain the spirit of Van Wijk in it’. His words could well indicate that he was not aware of the contents of Van Wijk’s will. Leiden University, it is true, had been closed for teaching by the Germans, but was still functioning administratively. On April 19th, 1941, a committee of the Leiden Faculty of Letters and Philosophy met to consider the vacancy that had now arisen.21 There was no self-evident successor at hand, although Van Wijk himself had had his own thoughts on who might succeed him. Kuiper remarks rather enigmatically in his recollections of Van Wijk that ‘the study of Slavic was so little professionalized yet that van Wijk had an outsider in mind as his possible successor’.22 Whatever the case, on April 17th the Governors appointed Kuiper to take charge temporarily of Balto-Slavic studies.23 On June 3rd, 1941, the Faculty Board sent a detailed letter to the Governors with a list of nominees for the vacancy. The Faculty had investigated the claims of four scholars: Van Wijk’s promovendus Von Arnim who, since March of 1941 had replaced the professor of Slavic languages in Graz; the Utrecht extraordinary professor of iconography and religious art L.H. Grondijs; Th.J.G. Locher, history teacher in The Hague and since 1939 lecturer in the didactics of history at Leiden University, and R. van der Meulen, a private citizen ever since he had fallen out with the editorial board of the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal in 1935. 16

See Hillesum 19913, p. 727. Leiden, Regionaal Archief Leiden, Bevolkingsregister van Leiden, Akten van overlijden, no. 450 dated 16.04.1941. 18 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Or. 14.606. 19 Leiden, Stadhuis, Bevolkingsregister. 20 Zoetermeer, Kadaster. 21 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1856-1952, inv. no. 14, Ingekomen stukken en concepten en minuten van uitgaande stukken 1940-1942. 22 Kuiper 1988, p. 1. 23 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Archief van de Faculteit der Letteren en Wijsbegeerte van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden 1856-1952, inv. no. 14, Ingekomen stukken en concepten en minuten van uitgaande stukken 1940-1942. 17

284

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

The report on the Austrian Von Arnim, whose abilities were praised by the Berlin professor of Slavic studies Max Vasmer in a letter of May 13th to J. Rahder,24 the Leiden professor of Japanese, mentioned, issued as it was during a time of occupation: ‘Dr. Von Arnim, who is married to a Dutch woman, is able to teach in our language’.25 However, Von Arnim, whose academic credentials were fully recognized, was not further considered, because nobody wished to recommend a foreigner as long as there were qualified Netherlanders available. To which was added: ‘The Faculty adduces as a further reason for its decision the fact that Dr. von Arnim’s personality is of such a nature that we could not anticipate strong leadership from him’.26 Grondijs was also rejected because he was not a linguist but a cultural historian. The Faculty thought it would be a highly dubious experiment to change the character of the Chair: all that Van Wijk had built up would disappear. Van der Meulen, who, as we know, had also been in consideration in 1913, was again a suitable candidate: he was considered a sound Slavist who could maintain the standard of Balto-Slavic studies; ‘His teaching would perhaps not be compelling for a large audience of students, but in smaller circles he can certainly captivate his audience’.27 The choice, however, was for Locher. Although he was a historian, he knew several Slavic languages and was capable of steering his interest in a linguistic direction: ‘His appointment would be a so-called “creditappointment”, yet the Faculty would not hesitate to grant him the necessary credit’.28 The nomination was a fact, but for the time being there was no prospect of an appointment. In the meantime, two of Van Wijk’s students whom we have already met at the meetings of the Nederlandsche Phonologische Werkgemeenschap, the neerlandicus P.C. Paardekoper and the Slavist C.H. van Schooneveld,29 began the compilation of a Van Wijk bibliography. Their ‘Schriftenverzeichnis von N. van Wijk’ was published in Berlin in 1942 in Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie.30 In view of the circumstances of the time, this bibliography, comprising 574 titles, is fairly detailed and complete. The editor Max Vasmer did not shrink from printing the data on Van Wijk’s peripheral Dutch publications – such as an introduction in a brochure on a student work camp or the announcement of a performance by a Russian Church Choir. In Leiden, the Diaconessenhuis hospital in which Van Wijk died was appropriated by the Germans in 1942 and reserved as the Orts-Lazarett of the Wehrmacht.31 The war took its toll of Van Wijk’s Jewish friends and students. His old classmate Leo Polak, who had already been transferred from the detention cen24

Ibid. Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 They appear together on a group photograph of Van Wijk with students taken c. 1939. See Hinrichs 2001, p. 44. 30 See Paardekooper and Van Schooneveld 1942. 31 See Van Lieburg 1997, p. 15. 25

EPILOGUE

285

tre in Groningen to a prison in Leeuwarden before Van Wijk’s death, was dismissed from his professorship on March 1st and on May 6th was sent to Sachsenhausen concentration camp,32 where he died following an operation on December 9th, 1941. The Leiden bookseller Ginsberg lost his bookshops on the Kort Rapenburg and the Steenstraat in the summer of 1941, when these were forcibly taken over by the collaborationist Volksche Boekhandel.33 Ginsberg was subsequently transported to Auschwitz, where he died on November 18th, 1943.34 A.E. Boutelje, Van Wijk’s promovendus and his first alumnus in Slavic languages, died in the Sobibor concentration camp on April 16th, 1943.35 He did not live to see the publication of his translation of Tolstoy’s War and Peace. Etty Hillesum, the Amsterdam Slavist who briefly attended Van Wijk’s classes in 1940, died in Auschwitz on November 30th, 1943. During the war, several publications that Van Wijk had himself sent to various editors appeared posthumously in both Dutch and foreign journals. Two large manuscripts remained unpublished. The first, the second volume of his Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache, which was in the possession of the publishers Walter de Gruyter in Berlin, was probably burned during the war as a result of an air raid.36 Van Wijk had kept no copy in the house, so that a valuable manuscript which he had not wanted to keep at home for reasons of safety was lost all the same. The other manuscript, his critical edition of the Old Church Slavonic translation of the ‘Andron Hagion Biblos’, was returned to Leiden University after Van Wijk’s death by Fritz Valjavec in Munich, who no longer saw any possibility of publishing it in his journal Südost-Forschungen.37 With the end of the German occupation of The Netherlands on May 5th, 1945, Leiden University opened again. The news of Van Wijk’s death in 1941 had evidently not yet penetrated everywhere throughout Europe: there is a letter written to him by the Paris Institut International de Coopération Intellectuelle on September 4th, 1945, in his capacity as chairman of the Nederlandsche Commissie voor Intellectueele Samenwerking,38 while a Swedish scholar sent him a book with a dedication dated December 5th, 1945.39 False rumours must have been circulating concerning the last period of Van Wijk’s life, for Roman Jakobson, who had finally succeeded, via Denmark, Norway and Sweden, in reaching New York on a Swedish passenger boat, mistakenly wrote in an obituary that appeared in 1944 that he had been pursued by the German occupying forces.40 Van Wijk’s old friend Prokop Maxa, who in 1940 had managed with his family to reach London from Paris, also apparently believed this. Speaking in commemoration of Van Wijk on the 32

See Van der Wal 1947, p. xviii-xix. See Goudriaan 1995, p. 29. 34 See Kasteleyn 2003, p. 71. 35 See Reens 1999. 36 See Van Schooneveld 1975, p. v, and Schaeken 1996. 37 See Van Schooneveld 1975, p. v. 38 Vincent Wintermans informed me in an e-mail dated 08.10.2004 that a transcript of this letter is to be found in the Unesco archive in Paris. 39 See Hinrichs 1988, p. 11. 40 See Jakobson 1939-1944, p. 547. 33

286

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Czech service of BBC Radio, he voiced the suspicion that he had been a victim of the Gestapo.41 In 1946, Van der Meulen was appointed Professor in Balto-Slavic languages, while Locher succeeded Huizinga, who died early in 1945, as Professor of History. ‘Do not be too modest in your inaugural address’, C.C. Uhlenbeck had urged his friend and pupil Van der Meulen on July 29th, 1946, writing from LuganoRuvigliana.42 ‘Anyone called on to become professor at my age knows that he can be no more than a link between his predecessor and his successor’, said Van der Meulen in his inaugural address. ‘I shall never be able to replace my late lamented predecessor, Van Wijk, who occupied this Chair almost thirty years with such distinction – nor do my academic inclinations run entirely in the same direction as his […]’.43 As far as his accessibility was concerned, Van der Meulen acquired the reputation among some of his students, at least, of a man who was the opposite of his predecessor. A student at the time, Van den Baar recalled going to see him in 1949 at Witte Singel 67: ‘His long grey beard appeared behind a crack in the door where he stood to speak to me. Why was it so necessary for me to want to study Russian? What would I do with it? This brief exchange in the open air ended with the words for which he has since become famous: “Go to my colleague Becker in Amsterdam, I already have four students …”’.44 Becker himself, however, throws a different light on Van der Meulen in a letter he wrote to him on July 26th, 1946: ‘Today I shall not forget to extend my sincere thanks to you for all that you have done for my students during the past 5 years’.45 What it comes down to is that after Van Wijk’s death Van der Meulen had helped Amsterdam students even though he held absolutely no official position in any university. Another resident of the Witte Singel, Van Arendonk, saw his membership of the ‘Koninklijke’ Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen – ‘Royal’ once more – confirmed after the liberation of The Netherlands. He died, however, in 1946. Van der Meulen became emeritus professor in 1952. He spent the last years of his life in an old people’s home in Emmen, ‘ultima Thule’ as he wrote.46 He died on the 17th of April, 1972 in total obscurity: there was no commemoration of him either in the Akademie yearbook – in which he himself in 1961 had written about Van Wijk’s Latvian friend, JƗnis EndzelƯns47 – or in the yearbook of the Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde, if he was still a member. Van Wijk’s old friend Van Ginneken died shortly after the liberation in 1945. Two other key figures from his life survived him by several years. His old rector, 41

Information taken from the typed text of Prokop Maxa’s radio talk which Alena Maxová appended to a letter to the author dated 02.04.2005. 42 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3505. 43 Van der Meulen 1946, p. 15. 44 Van den Baar 1998-1999, p. 59. See Van het Reve 1986 for a report of exams sat with Van der Meulen in Old Church Slavonic and Czech. 45 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, BPL 3505. 46 Hinrichs 2001, p. 53. 47 See Van der Meulen 1968.

EPILOGUE

287

Gunning, died in 1951 and in Switzerland Uhlenbeck died that same year. Several years later, at an advanced age, Uhlenbeck’s widow Wilhelmina UhlenbeckMelchior committed suicide. The diary she had kept during their stay with the Blackfoot Indians in Montana in 1911 was later published and guarantees her a lasting place, beside her husband, among the researchers of Indian languages.48 Van Wijk’s old tenant in the Nieuwstraat, the ex-Rector Magnificus A.W. Bijvanck, died in 1970. Vladimir Zatskoy lost much of the money he had acquired from the sale of the house at Nieuwstraat 36 in transactions concerning a toy factory that he was involved in with a Russian partner.49 In 1952 he emigrated with his wife and daughters to Canada, where he resumed his old erratic existence as jack of all trades: he worked as a labourer on the docks, sold houses for an estate agency and started a chicken farm. He died in Ridgeville, Ontario, on May 30th, 1962.50 Jacob Grünbaum, the Polish Jew who had been Zatskoy’s companion in Leiden, managed to survive the war,51 as did Jakob J. (Jaap) Ginsberg, the son of the bookseller who died in Auschwitz. After the liberation, he carried on his father’s bookshop, until 1967 with his mother, who had divorced his father in 1936. In 1975, he sold the business, whose name – and with it the story of its founding with Van Wijk’s assistance – lived on until very recently in Leiden’s Breestraat as a branch of the Kooyker chain of bookshops. Ginsberg died on November 19th, 1993.52 How did Van Wijk’s students and promovendi fare? The communist Francisca de Graaff, who gained her doctorate on Esenin with Van Wijk, emigrated with her parents to the United States in 1939 where she was one of the pioneers of teaching Russian in universities. Before the outbreak of the Second World War and the Cold War there were only a handful of universities that provided courses in Russian. She worked for some 25 years as professor of Russian at Bryn Mawr College until her retirement as emeritus professor, apparently avoiding the McCarthyite witch hunt of communists and ex-communists in the early fifties. In 1966 she published an English reworking of her dissertation of 1933 on Esenin, which was written in French, without either any reference to the Leiden book in her introduction 48

See Eggermont-Molenaar 2005. Zatskoy was in any case not prepared to spend the money he had inherited from Van Wijk, in so far as he had any to spare, on the publication of work by his benefactor. As heir, he did however apparently stand on his rights where questions of Van Wijk’s copyright was concerned. When F.B.J. Kuiper wrote to him in connection with his attempts to get the manuscript of Van Wijk’s edition of the Old Church Slavonic translation the ‘Andron Hagion Biblos’ published, Zatskoy replied in a letter to Kuiper dated 19.01.1948 ‘that he would greatly appreciate it the ms. could be printed, without of course any financial contribution on his part. “Obviously”, he added, “any honorarium, however small, would be most welcome”‘. See the letter from F.B.J. Kuiper dated 30.03.1948 to C.H. van Schooneveld in Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, C.H. van Schooneveld archive, inv. no. 14. 50 Information taken from an e-mail dated 13.03.2002 from Valentina Loper-Zatskoy to the author. 51 See Van Zegveld 1993, p. 136. 52 See the report ‘Jacob Ginsberg (77) overleden’, Leidsch Dagblad, 23.11.1993, p. 13. Ginsberg was not 77 but 67 years old at his death. 49

288

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

or even including it in her list of references.53 She died in 1997 in Chestnut Hill, Pennsylvania.54 Jan Romein spent part of the war in Hem, in hiding with Dr. K.F. Proost, the leftist minister who had spoken at the funeral of Van Wijk’s father.55 After the war, Romein pursued his career as an Amsterdam professor and prominent intellectual of the left. A German edition of his Erflaters van onze beschaving [Testators of our civilization, German title Ahnherren der holländischen Kultur] (19381940), written together with his wife Annie Romein-Verschoor, appeared in 1946 in Switzerland, in the translation of Ulrich Huber Noodt, another of Van Wijk’s promovendi. Romein’s old friend Jef Suys, also a promovendus of Van Wijk, resigned as teacher in 1946, before he was nominated by Amsterdam University as the first Professor of Political Sciences. The Amsterdam City Council appointed him to this position but the Minister refused to ratify it because of suspicions of his communist affiliation. In 1950 he was nevertheless appointed in Amsterdam, this time as reader.56 Suys died in 1956, Romein in 1962. Huber Noodt worked after the war in Switzerland, but I have no further knowledge of his fate. De Graaff, Romein, Suys – the Van Wijk who so abhorred communism had absolutely no problem in taking as promovendi these outspokenly leftwing intellectuals. Adri Buning compiled the Turkenkalender 1942, an anthology of freedom texts from the sixteenth century which was issued in a small edition during the occupation by the famous Groningen publishing house De Blauwe Schuit, of H.N. Werkman. As a teacher of German in Winschoten, Buning was one of the founders of De Blauwe Schuit.57 She was thus very much engagé during the occupation. She died in 1948. Bernd von Arnim, nominated in 1941 as a possible successor to Van Wijk, was called during the war to serve in the German army. He returned to Graz, where he was appointed Professor of Slavic languages, but died in 1946.58 Wils Huisman had almost finished her studies in Slavic languages when Van Wijk died. On November 17th, 1941, two days before Leiden University was closed by the Germans even for examinations, she sat her doctoraal examination. At the end of 1947 she completed the cataloguing of the Van Wijk Bequest at Leiden University Library that had begun during the war with Van Schooneveld. After a short break she took up her place from where, seated beneath the dormer

53

See De Graaff 1966. See Bryn Mawr Alumnae Bulletin, Summer 1998, p. 20. 55 See Hageraats 1995, p. 239. 56 See Romein 1956-1957. 57 See Van Straten 19803, p. 113, p. 116. In the photographic section of this book there is a photograph of the ‘captains of De Blauwe Schuit’, among whom Adri Buning, who stands with H.N. Werkman next to a printing press. 58 See Sadnik-Aitzetmüller 1952, Zlatanova 1985, and Zeil 1993. 54

EPILOGUE

289

window behind a gigantic cylinder desk, she ruled over the Slavic studies room until 1974 and greatly extended Van Wijk’s collection.59 She died in 1979. Another ex-student of Van Wijk, V.R. Spatkowa, published her Beknopte Russische grammatica met uitgebreide syntaxis [Concise Russian Grammar with comprehensive syntax] in 1946. In her list of references she includes Van Wijk’s ‘Dictaten-Syntaxis, from which many examples have been taken, and other notebooks’.60 Like the earlier mentioned textbook of C.I. Spruit, this is a rare instance of a publication that demonstrates Van Wijk’s influence on the study of modern Russian. She died in 1976. Johan Bool, the student who borrowed books from Van Wijk on the very day of his fatal illness, became involved with the student resistance. Toward the end of 1942 he committed suicide.61 The war also clinched the fate of the neerlandicus Willy Dols, who with Van Wijk’s support had prepared himself in vain for a readership in Prague. The contact with Van Wijk had led to a lecture to the Nederlandsche Phonologische Werkgemeenschap in Leiden in 1940.62 On October 1st, 1944, Dols was by chance in Putten when the Germans seized the entire male population and transported them as a reprisal. He died on November 5th in a concentration camp near the German Husum. It seems that Van Ginneken had wanted him to be his successor.63 Cornelis (Kees) van Schooneveld sat his kandidaatsexamen on the 10th October, 1941 and his doctoraal on June 13th, 1946. He pursued his studies at New York’s Columbia University, to which Van Wijk had twice been invited, without issue, as a guest professor. Van Schooneveld took his doctorate there under Roman Jakobson and in 1952 was appointed as successor to Van der Meulen as professor in Leiden. Shortly thereafter he began working as an editor for the publishers Mouton & Co. in The Hague where he was thus present at the birth of two famous series: Slavistic printings and reprintings and Janua linguarum. He dedicated the latter linguistics-oriented series to the memory of Van Wijk: Seria memoriae Nicolai van Wijk dedicata. In this fashion, many hundreds of books appeared with Van Wijk’s name in the front. Van Schooneveld’s most important advisor was Roman Jakobson, who had also thought of the name of the series Janua linguarum.64 In the fifties and sixties there was no other publishing house in the western world publishing on the same scale as Mouton in the field of Slavic studies and linguistics. The personal relationship between Van Schooneveld and Jakobson of course had everything to do with this, and it is hardly imaginable that this would have arisen without the personal connections of both of them with Van Wijk. Van Schooneveld, who left Leiden University in 1959, was present on the 2nd February, 2001, for the opening of 59

See Van Groningen 1979. Spatkowa 1946, p. [101]. 61 See Van der Linden 1997, p. 23. 62 See the report ‘Phonologische Werkgemeenschap’, in Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 27.04.1940 (Ochtendblad B). 63 See Van de Bergh 1953, pp. xiv-xv, and Kooij and Van Oostendorp 2003, pp. 198-200. 64 See Hinrichs 2001, pp. 6-7. 60

290

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

an exhibition in Leiden University Library devoted to the very extensive archive that he had bequeathed to this institution.65 He died on March 18th, 2003 on his farm in Vozérier-Amancy, in France.66 On November 14th, 2003, the Sanskrit scholar F.B.J. Kuiper died at the age of 96,67 possibly the last Leiden emeritus professor who had been a colleague of Van Wijk. Some sixty two years had passed since he had spoken at Van Wijk’s funeral. His three commemorative articles certainly contributed significantly to the shaping of Van Wijk’s image for a future generation. For years he had kept a photographic portrait of Van Wijk on his desk.68 Van Wijk’s most important scholarly articles had appeared in pre-eminent international journals that could and can be consulted in many large libraries. This was not the case with several separately published works. His book with the Sorbonne lectures Les langues slaves: de l’unité à la pluralité appeared in 1937 rather peripherally, and was probably very soon unobtainable. The idea of a reprinting was already being mooted during the German occupation of the Czech Republic and The Netherlands. On August 17th, 1944, B. Trnka, secretary of the Cercle linguistique de Prague, sent a postcard from Prague to the ‘Mitglieder des Slavischen Seminars d. Prof. N. van Wijk, LEIDEN, Holland, Universität, Philosoph. Fak.’. The card was returned to its sender, stamped by the German censor ‘Mort’, ‘Overleden’ and ‘Retour’.69 Consent was sought from Prague for a reprinting of Les langues slaves: de l’unité à la pluralité in memory of Van Wijk in the Prague Circle’s Travaux. Although this came to nothing, Van Schooneveld did later get the work reprinted, in 1956, in his Mouton series Janua linguarum.70 A reprint of Van Wijk’s Akademie text from 1923 on accent and intonation in the Balto-Slavic languages appeared in the same series in 1958.71 Van Wijk’s old publisher Nijhoff issued in 1949, 1976, 1980 and 1984 unchanged reprints of his etymological dictionary of the Dutch language. Nothing came of plans by the Amsterdam linguist A. Reichling for a new edition, with introduction and commentary, of Van Wijk’s book on phonology.72 In 1965 Nijhoff published instead an unaltered reprint of the 1939 book. In 1957, during the Cold War, a Russian translation of the first volume of Van Wijk’s Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache appeared in Moscow.73 As far as Old Church Slavonic is concerned, Van Wijk’s edition of the Old Church Slavonic translation of the ‘Andron Hagion Biblos’ finally appeared in 1975 in

65

See Weijts 2001. Death notice in NRC Handelsblad, 03.05.2003, p. 38. See further Hinrichs 2003. 67 Death notice in NRC Handelsblad, 20.11.2003, p. 16. 68 Reported by Huib Kuiper in a letter to the author dated 05.01.2006. 69 Praha, Archiv Akademie VČd þeské republiky, Pražský linguistický kroužek, box 2, no. 18. 70 Van Wijk 19562. For an article on the occasion of this book, see Lehr-Spáawinski 1956, and for a review, see W.K. Matthews 1958. 71 Van Wijk 19582. For a review see Kuryáowicz 1959. 72 See De Groot 19683, p. 49, and Noordegraaf 1997, p. 191. 73 Van Wijk 1957. For the introduction to this book, see Kondrašov 1957. 66

EPILOGUE

291

Van Schooneveld’s Mouton series, Slavistic printings and reprintings.74 Van Schooneveld had from the very beginning kept open the number 1 of this series for Van Wijk’s book; but when the edition appeared the series was in the last stage of its existence. Van Schooneveld commented on Van Wijk’s work for the book as follows: Van Wijk repeatedly refers to projects which were to be incorporated later in this edition but which he evidently failed to include. Although he was a rapid, almost feverish worker, such carelessness was totally uncharacteristic of him. But this text also evokes the atmosphere in which it was prepared for the printer: the first period of the German occupation of Holland, still relatively quiet but fraught with the foreboding of the devastating years that were to follow. One sees him rushing to put a premature close to his book in order to avail himself of what he feared was the last opportunity for a long time to have the work appear in print.75

It is very clear that Van Wijk felt a sense of urgency to get his edition finished. But Van Schooneveld’s observation of imperfections in the text is open to question, for Van Wijk never had a proof of this text which he had prepared during the last year of his life. In consultation with the editors of the journal for which he had originally prepared his edition, he could have changed a great deal in the second or third version, as he would also have done with his other publications. In 1980, on the hundredth anniversary of Van Wijk’s birth, the only country that paid any particular attention, as far as I know, was Bulgaria.76 Meanwhile, Van Wijk’s name has maintained a solid place in the various reference works on linguists, Slavists and Baltologists that have appeared over recent decades.77 His name appears regularly in publications over Dutch etymology, dialectology and phonology, while experts are agreed that Van Wijk’s etymological dictionary of the Dutch language is still the best book of its kind. The etymologist F. de Tollenaere, who took a course under Van Wijk, declared with considerable reverence in 1991: ‘“What interests me in etymology is: can I reach a little further than Van Wijk? Is there anything of my own that I can contribute?”’.78 Moreover, the role Van Wijk played as a phonologist is recognized to this day in the historiography of linguistics79 and in current Dutch studies.80 His writings on the doctrines of body 74

Van Wijk 1975. On this edition, see Pope 1974, Lunt 1976, Bláhová 1977, Thomson 1977, and Birkfellner 1980. For a supplement to the textual edition, see Schaeken 1988b. 75 Van Schooneveld 1975, p. vii-viii. 76 See Ilþev 1980, and Hinrichs 1987, p. 19 for a personal recollection of Ilþev’s interest in Van Wijk. 77 See, among other references, Kravþuk 1961, p. 115-118, Horálek 1966, Heinz 1978, p. 272, p. 333, Sabaliauskas 1979, pp. 226-228, Suprun and Kaljuta 1981, p. 359, Penkova 1985, Pijnenburg 1996, Sabaliauskas 1999, Judakin 2000, and Kucarov 2002, p. 706-707. See further Stankiewicz 1986, p. vii: the title of his book The Slavic languages, unity in diversity contains an overt reference to Van Wijk 1937. 78 Sanders 1991. 79 See Vachek 1968, p. 6-10, Häusler 19762, p. 75-78, E.M. Uhlenbeck 1977, p. 490, Parret and Van de Velde 1980, p. 147-148, Booij 1990, p. 38-39, and Matthews 2001, p. 48-49, p. 55 80 See Kooij and Van Oostendorp 2003, p. 55-56. See also Peters 1994 for observations on the occasion of a Dutch dissertation on tonal languages, the author of which would have overlooked Van Wijk’s work.

292

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

posture, however, are no longer taken seriously.81 In the historiography of Leiden his role as a hosteler for refugees and strangers is highlighted.82 Nor has he been forgotten in Zwolle, the city of his childhood and youth.83 In 1982 a new complex for the Faculty of Letters came into use on the Witte Singel in Leiden. One of the areas in this complex was named Van Wijkplaats, so that Van Wijk still lives on in a Leiden street name.84 Several decades earlier, Van Wijk had been passed over when streets in Leiden’s ‘professorial quarter’ were named after such colleagues of his as Colenbrander, Duyvendak, Snouck Hurgronje, Uhlenbeck and Verdam. In 1983, Leiden University Library moved from the Rapenburg to a new building at Witte Singel 27, Van Wijk’s books and papers going with it. Was it a quirk of fate? This is the very address where the Diaconessenhuis hospital stood until 1964, before the old building was demolished. The address where he died thus eventually became the home of Van Wijk’s bequest.85 One object from the estate, a bust of the German phonetician Eduard Sievers, whom Van Wijk so admired, which once stood in the Slavic studies room on the Rapenburg, acquired a place on the second floor of the building at P.N. van Eyckhof 2, to which the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures was moved in 1982. Since then, no doubt, it has been a complete mystery to students: what possible connection with the Department could this bearded individual, who was never a Slavist, have? Van Wijk’s books became a current issue in 1983 when, in the context of a national plan for financial cuts in the universities, there was a proposal to abolish the Leiden Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures. The Department was able to use the collection as an argument against its closure: the finest collection of Balto-Slavic literature in The Netherlands would at a stroke lose the greater part of its value. Karel van het Reve, professor of Slavic literature, raised this prospect in his address to the Leiden University Council on April 18th, 1983, when he was given the chance to respond to the proposal to close the Department of Slavic studies: We are the oldest Slavic Department in The Netherlands, founded with Van Wijk’s Chair in 1913. And connected with Van Wijk’s name – a name as well-known in our discipline as the names of Lorentz and Huizinga in other fields – there is the Slavic collection of Leiden University Library, one of the world’s best known collections of Slavic material.

Van het Reve then proceeds, with his characteristically sardonic humour:

81

See W.Th.J.M. Kuiper 1989, p. 232 pursuant to the remarks made by Van Wijk (1915d), based on the theory of body posture, on the authorship of the Middle Dutch Ferguut manuscript. See Meyer-Kalkus 2001, p. 73-125 for detailed evaluation of the body posture theory of Rutz and Sievers. 82 See Van der Harst and Lucassen 1998, p. 46-47. 83 See Coster et al. 1996, p. 12-13. 84 See Van den Broek 2005, p. 119-120. 85 See Van Lieburg 1997, p. 72.

EPILOGUE

293

It has been remarked in this context that the presence of this collection should be no impediment to the closure of our department since all these books can be crated and loaded on to a few lorries and taken to Groningen or Utrecht.86

In the end, it was not the Leiden but the Utrecht Slavistics department that had to close and join with Leiden. So, in 1988 Leiden’s Slavic studies was able to celebrate its 75 years of existence with a Van Wijk exhibition in the University Library,87 accompanied by a catalogue,88 a richly illustrated article in a literary journal,89 a collection of essays on Van Wijk,90 a series of articles on Van Wijk in the Leiden Slavists’ journal Šþipþiki91 and a reprint of Van Wijk’s article in De Gids of 1908, ‘Russische indrukken’ [Russian impressions].92 During the presentation of the collected essays, there were still a number of people sitting in the hall of the Lipsius-building on the Witte Singel who had either known Van Wijk personally or had first-hand stories of him to relate. Merely the fact that it was possible, almost fifty years after the death of a scholar, to find enough authors to put together a book of essays on him was sufficient proof of the vitality of Van Wijk’s oeuvre. Apart from the Emeritus Professor F.B.J. Kuiper, who had been asked to write a foreword, none of these authors had known Van Wijk personally. In one of the essays, in a discussion of Van Wijk’s contribution to the study of Old Prussian, we read: ‘His solutions to various problems are sometimes definitive, sometimes untenable, but always stimulating’.93 This observation could in fact apply to a current assessment of Van Wijk’s whole oeuvre covering a wide range of linguistic and literary studies. In one of the essays mentioned above, we encounter the remark that there have been speculations over Van Wijk’s homosexuality (one recalls that the same kind of speculation also circulated over Van Wijk’s teacher Uhlenbeck), without any source being cited from which these speculations may have derived.94 To my knowledge, nothing to this effect had been written before. At the time, no doubt, many of his contemporaries would not have passed comment on such a subject, whether due to good manners or moral propriety. Van Wijk’s association with, and sharing his house with men, his tendency toward an exaggerated worship of such ‘powerful’ figures as Uhlenbeck, Bijvanck and Sievers, the absence of any information concerning relationships with women, his need for the company of young 86

Van het Reve 1983. See Deden 1988, Hinrichs 1988e, and Smit 1988. 88 Hinrichs 1988. 89 Hinrichs 1988c. 90 Groen et al. 1988. This collection contains essays by the following: Kuiper 1988, Van den Baar 1988, Goossens 1988, Groen 1988, Hinrichs 1988a, Jansen 1988, Kortlandt 1988, Pijnenburg 1988, Schaeken 1988 and 1988a, Veder 1988, and Vermeer 1988. For reviews, see Feldstein 1989 and Swiggers 1989. 91 See Hinrichs 1988b, Meintema 1988, Vermeer 1988a, and Van den Baar 1988a. Years later these publications provided the basis for a new portrait of Van Wijk in a Leiden Slavists’ almanac. See Tiethoff 2004. 92 Van Wijk 1988. 93 Kortlandt 1988, p. 89. 94 See Van den Baar 1988, p. 25. 87

294

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

men and his attachment to Leonid Zatskoy could and can all easily lead one to speculation along these lines.95 His burial beside Zatskoy and the earlier quoted poem ‘In memoriam’ by Muus Jacobse, which is unmistakably about Van Wijk, can only reinforce such speculation. These facets of his life could also fit the idea of Van Wijk – an idea that surfaces out of remarks by contemporaries – as someone who hid his true nature behind a mask of irony. But in the end we get no further than speculation, we know nothing for certain. I know of no facts and no witnesses that could provide safe grounds for considering him as someone with a homosexual nature. We have already seen that Van Wijk – himself an only child – sought contact in his vacations with friends who had families with children. His role as ‘uncle professor’ must have suited him extremely well. We also know that his contemporaries did not generally consider him a homosexual. We saw that Margo Visser-Kruijtbosch, who had known him very well for a long time, regretted that he had never married: even in retrospect, she had evidently never considered him as homosexual. His student and subsequently his successor, C.H. van Schooneveld wrote in this connection: Dr. J.R.F. Rassers, our doctor, was also the family doctor and a good friend of Van Wijk. He was also friendly with my parents. Whenever he paid a visit to our house he always stayed for an hour or so talking. I cannot imagine that he would never have said something about it [Van Wijk’s suspected homosexuality]. The same goes for my good friend Caspar Kern (Dr. J.H.C. Kern) […]. Caspar and I once joked about what Van Wijk did in the evening when he was in Paris for a meeting – but homosexuality was never mentioned.96

In 1988, during the preparations for the Leiden Van Wijk exhibition, a portrait of a youthful Van Wijk surfaced at Nieuwstraat 36. This pastel was donated to the University Library by A.A. Bakker – the owner of the house and descendant of A.C. Bakker who bought the property from Vladimir Zatskoy in 1941.97 The portrait has since hung in the work room of the Slavic librarian. Not long afterwards, another object from Van Wijk’s estate, the famous samovar that stood beside him on the table at home during classes appeared in an exhibition in the Rijksmuseum.98 Around the same time it was discovered that Van Wijk’s grave in the Rhijnhof cemetery still existed, but that the gravestone had been removed in 1977. On making inquiries with the administration, it was learned that this had been done because no further payment for upkeep, or acknowledgement, had been received for some time from the owners, Vladimir Zatskoy’s descendants in Canada. The stone turned out to have been stored in a fenced-off enclosure together with scores of other gravestones from graves whose upkeep had apparently not been paid for for some time.99 As is the Dutch custom with graves that are no longer maintained, grave no. 625 containing the remains of Leonid Zatskoy and Van Wijk – and also of Michail Zatskoy who had also been buried there in 1954 – was about to be 95

See Hinrichs 1988d. Letter dated 19.06.1998 from C.H. van Schooneveld to the author. 97 See Hinrichs 1988, p. 43, and Vermeer 1988a, p. 44. 98 See Driessen 1989, p. 161. 99 See Hinrichs 1988d, p. 20. 96

EPILOGUE

295

cleared out and its contents disposed of. On the initiative of Leiden’s Slavists and with the financial support of the Croiset van der Kop Fund the stone was replaced on the grave on August 11th, 1989. It took four men to replace the five hundred kilogram Belgian bluestone in its original position.100 The orthodox cross that originally surmounted the stone had by then disappeared. This cross was an essential part of the grave: Nicolaas van Wijk, son of a Dutch Reformed minister, had been buried under an orthodox cross, not only sealing his friendship with a Russian but also with Russian culture. His acquaintance with Russia during his Moscow postgraduate experience of 1903 had left an indelible stamp on the rest of a life that ended in the grave of an exile from that country. Anyone who pays a visit to the grave can observe the hole at the top of the stone where the cross once stood.

100

See Couvée 1989.

This page intentionally left blank

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I first encountered Nicolaas van Wijk as a Leiden student of Slavic languages in 1975, when first-years had to sit the so-called Tentamen Van Wijk – the Van Wijk Exam. This written exam entailed answering questions set by Karel van het Reve, professor of Slavic literature, on Van Wijk’s Geïllustreerde geschiedenis der Russische letterkunde, which meant that one had to learn this book virtually by heart. Leiden Slavists would meet Van Wijk a second time when they encountered books in the Slavic studies room in the University Library that bore inside the cover the ex libris sticker ‘Legaat Prof. Dr. N. van Wijk 1941’. Subsequently, one was to come across this ex libris many times, since a substantial part of Leiden’s Slavic book possession derived from this bequeath. I discovered with a vengeance, too, that Van Wijk’s aura was not restricted to Leiden when in 1979 I arrived in Sofia to spend a study period of one year there. The director of studies assigned to me there first of all wanted to pick my brains of everything I knew about Van Wijk, stories of whom, I suspect, he had heard first-hand from his own teachers. As a student in Leiden I had already picked up a certain amount of the ample oral tradition concerning Van Wijk. The stories turned on his appointment, the fate of his archive, his sexual proclivity and his role as a benefactor of refugees; unfortunately, I have since been able to find evidence for almost none of the stories that I heard then. In 1988 the Leiden Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures celebrated its seventy fifth year of existence. In the context of this event, I wrote a few articles on Nicolaas van Wijk. In addition, I was involved in the publication of a collection of essays on him which was mentioned in the Epilogue of this book and at the same time organized a Van Wijk exhibition in Leiden University Library. Ever since I have entertained the idea of making Van Wijk the subject of a more extensive study. Despite further sporadic publications about him, the larger idea of a Van Wijk research project came to nothing until Frederik Kortlandt, professor of Balto-Slavic languages and comparative linguistics in Leiden, reawakened this dormant ambition in February 2002. Together with Jos Schaeken, who has since succeeded him as Leiden’s professor of Balto-Slavic languages, he requested a replacement bursary from the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek [Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research] that would give me a sabbatical leave of absence from my work as Slavic librarian at Leiden University Library (from October 2003 to September 2004), to enable me to write this book. By mid-December, 2004, the book was ready. In the course of the work on this book I have spoken and corresponded with many people about Van Wijk. Unfortunately, hardly anyone who knew him personally was still alive. But with the help of dozens of library and archive assistants both in The Netherlands and abroad, many letters from Van Wijk came to light

298

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

that had previously been unknown. A special word of thanks is due to my colleagues at Leiden University Library, who have assisted me in so many ways. I can mention here by name only a few of the many to whom I owe thanks: Frederik Kortlandt and Jos Schaeken for their interest and their comments on my text; the late Margo Visser-Kruijtbosch for all the information she provided in 1988, a great deal of which I have now been able to use; Dorothy van Schooneveld-Abel and the late Kees van Schooneveld (Vozérier-Amancy) for much information and hospitality; Valentina Loper-Zatskoy (Toronto) and Alena Maxová (Prague) for their recollections of Van Wijk that they put into writing for me; Huib Kuiper (’t Harde), Wim Locher (Didam) and N.P.C. van Wijk (Wassenaar) for putting at my disposal material in their possession. This book was originally written in Dutch. A Dutch edition appeared on the 10th November 2005 (see Hinrichs 2005 and Weijts 2005, for an interview on the occasion of the book’s publication; see also Booij 2006, Van Driel 2006, and Willemsen 2006). But the two editions are not identical: the English edition has been slightly expanded. I would like to thank the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek for the grant which enabled the book to be translated. At the same time I would like to thank Murray Pearson, who translated the book from Dutch into English, for an enjoyable and rewarding collaboration. I owe many thanks to Peter Houtzagers and Janneke Kalsbeek for their comments on the translation. Throughout the book, French and German quotations have been left untranslated. In the main body of the text, the notes and reference list, names and titles originally written in Cyrillic script are given in the scholarly transliteration, including the use of diacritical signs (for example, Šachmatov). An exception is made in the main text for the names of writers such as Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov and Gorky: for these generally known names the traditional English spelling is used in the main text. The Russian family name Zatskoy, which recurs frequently, is written according to the usual Dutch spelling of the time. Jan Paul Hinrichs Oegstgeest, 7th March 2006

ARCHIVES AND CORRESPONDENCE CONSULTED

Archives Organizations In The Netherlands Amsterdam

Arnhem Delden Den Haag

Goes Haarlem Leeuwarden Leiden

Middelburg Nijmegen Zoetermeer Zwolle

Bureau van de Universiteit van Amsterdam Gemeentearchief Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis Meertens Instituut Universiteitsbibliotheek Gemeentearchief Gemeentearchief Gemeentearchief Koninklijke Bibliotheek Letterkundig Museum Nationaal Archief Gemeentearchief Rijksarchief in Noord-Holland Tresoar Academisch Historisch Museum Academiegebouw, Bureau van de Pedel Gemeentehuis Regionaal Archief Leiden Universiteitsbibliotheek Zeeuws Archief Archief van de Nederlandse Provincie der Jezuïeten Kadaster Overijssels Historisch Centrum

Outside The Netherlands Beograd Graz Helsinki Kraków København Leipzig Ljubljana Lund

Arhiv SANU Institut für Slawistik Universitätsbibliothek Kansallisarkisto Biblioteka JagielloĔska Biblioteka Naukowa PAU i PAN Det Kongelige Bibliotek Universitätsarchiv Universitätsbibliothek Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica Universitetsbibliotek

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

300 München Oslo Praha Riga St Petersburg Sofia Uppsala Zagreb

Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Nasjonalbiblioteket Archiv Akademie VČd þeské republiky Památník národního písemnictví Latvijas AkadƝmiskƗ BibliotƝka RakstniecƯbas, teƗtra un mnjzikas muzejs Sankt-Peterburgskij filial Archiva RAN Archiv na Bălgarskata Akademija na naukite Universitetsbibliotek Nacionalna i sveuþilišna knjižnica

Private collections Didam W.P. Locher ’t Harde Huib Kuiper Leiden Croiset van der Kop-fonds Vozérier-Amancy Dorothy van Schooneveld-Abel Wassenaar N.P.C. van Wijk Correspondence from Nicolaas van Wijk The following list comprises, in alphabetical order, the names of recipients of letters from Nicolaas van Wijk that I have seen either in the original or as copies. Given are the number of letters concerned, the period in which they were written and the archives or collections (see under I) where they are kept. The list deals exclusively with Van Wijk’s correspondence with individual persons: letters to institutions (ministries, faculty boards, editorial boards, libraries etc.) are not included. This survey does not pretend to be exhaustive, but records solely the material that could be identified and consulted in the context of the work for this book. Arendonk, C. van – 8 letters, 1930-1940. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek. Asselbergs, W.J.M.A. – 1 letter, 1940. Den Haag, Letterkundig Museum. Becker, B.B. – 26 letters, 1923-1936. Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis; 13 letters, 1936-1939. Den Haag, Letterkundig Museum. Beliü, A. – 20 letters, 1914-1941. Beograd, Arhiv SANU. Bem, A.L. – 20 letters, 1929-1941. Praha, Památník národního písemnictví. Bijvanck, A.W. – 1 letter, 1931. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek. Bijvanck, W.G.C. – 1 letter, 1907. Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek. Bolland, A.E.K. – 1 letter, 1922. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek. Bolland, G.J.P.J. – 2 letters, 1919-1921. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek. Broch, O. – 3 letters, 1918-1928. Oslo, Nasjonalbiblioteket. Brummel, L. – 1 letter, 1937. Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek. Buitenrust Hettema, F. – 27 letters, 1903-1921. Leeuwarden, Tresoar. ýerný, A. – 7 letters, 1922-1938. Praha, Archiv Akademie VČd þeské republiky. Cvijanoviü, S. – 1 letter, 1935. Beograd, Arhiv SANU. Egle, R. – 3 letters, 1924. Riga, Latvijas AkadƝmiskƗ BibliotƝka. Ekblom, R. – 7 letters, 1917-1933. Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek.

ARCHIVES AND CORRESPONDENCE CONSULTED

301

EndzelƯns, J. – 2 letters, 1931-1932 [?]. Riga, RakstniecƯbas, teƗtra un mnjzikas muzejs. Eyck, P.N. van – 2 letters, 1935. Den Haag, Letterkundig Museum. Fortunatov, F.F. – 3 letters, 1903-1914. St Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburgskij filial Archiva RAN. Franck, J. – 3 letters, 1912. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek. Ginneken, J.J.A. van – 6 letters, 1915-1922. Nijmegen, Archief van de Nederlandse Provincie der Jezuïeten. Horák, J. – 1 letter, 1937. Praha, Archiv Akademie VČd þeské republiky. Huizinga, J. – 8 letters, 1914-1931. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek; 1 letter, 1933. Leiden, Academisch Historisch Museum. Jagiü, V.I. – 31 letters, 1913-1920. Zagreb, Nacionalna i sveuþilišna knjižnica. Kempenaer, A. de. – 1 letter, 1925. Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek. Keszy, A.M. – 15 letters, 1932-1937. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek. Keszy-Wenzel, M. – 10 letters, 1932-1940. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek. Kock, K.A.L. – 1 letter, 1920. Lund, Universitetsbibliotek. Kossmann, F.K.H. – 1 letter. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek. Kot, S. – 40 letters, 1913-1939. Kraków, Biblioteka JagielloĔska. Krofta, K. – 1 letter, 1934. Praha, Archiv Akademie VČd þeské republiky. Kuiper, F.B.J. – 6 letters, 1926-1939. ’t Harde, collection Huib Kuiper. Ljapunov, B.M. – 6 letters, 1925-1932. St Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburgskij filial Archiva RAN. Locher, Th.J.G. – 15 letters, 1927-1939. Didam, collection W.P. Locher. Mágr, A.S. – 1 letter, 1937. Praha, Památník národního písemnictví. Mare, A.J. de. – 1 letter, 1940. Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek. Meertens, P.J. – 1 letter, 1934. Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibliotheek. Meulen, R. van der. – 4 letters, 1907-1925. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek. Mikkola, J.J. – 10 letters, 1921-1940. Helsinki, Kansallisarkisto. Mladenov, S. – 20 letters, 1921-1940. Sofia, Archiv na Bălgarskata Akademija na naukite. Møller, H. – 2 letters, 1909-1914. København, Det Kongelige Bibliotek. Murko, M. – 3 letters, 1914-1917. Ljubljana, Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica. Novák, A. – 1 letter, 1923. Praha, Památník národního písemnictví. Nováková, J. – 1 letter, 1939. Praha, Památník národního písemnictví. Oudendijk, J.K. – 2 letters, 1932-1933. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek. Pedersen, H. – 1 letter, 1925. København, Det Kongelige Bibliotek. Romanski, S. – 2 letters, 1939. Sofia, Archiv na Bălgarskata Akademija na naukite. Romein, J.M. – 28 letters, 1922-1939. Amsterdam, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. Rozwadowski, J.M. – 6 letters, 1923-1927. Kraków, Biblioteka Naukowa PAU i PAN. Šachmatov, A.A. – 12 letters, 1914-1916. St Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburgskij filial Archiva RAN. Schuchardt, H.E.M. – 1 letter, 1915. Graz, Universitätsbibliothek. Siedlecki, M. – 1 letter, 1915. Kraków, Biblioteka JagielloĔska.

302

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Stang, C.S. – 2 letters, 1936-1939. Oslo, Nasjonalbiblioteket. Streitberg, W. – 6 letters, 1901-1922. Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek. Trifonov, J. – 1 letter, 1934. Sofia, Archiv na Bălgarskata Akademija na naukite. Valjavec, F. – 11 letters, 1940-1941. München, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv. Verwey, A. – 5 letters, 1921-1936. Amsterdam, Universiteitsbibliotheek. Vollenhoven, C. van – 1 letter, 1924. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek. Vreese, W.L. de. – 15 letters, 1907-1935. Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek. Winkel, J. te. – 13 letters, 1902-1918. Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek. Zubatý, J. – 6 letters, 1913-1914. Praha, Archiv Akademie VČd þeské republiky.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF NICOLAAS VAN WIJK: CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS

In 1942, P.C. Paardekooper and C.H. van Schooneveld published in Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie a bibliography of Nicolaas van Wijk that comprised 574 titles (see Paardekooper and Van Schooneveld 1942). In 1988, Jos Schaeken published a list with additions and corrections to this bibliography (see Schaeken 1988a). In the following, further new corrections and additions have been introduced. The numbers refer to the 1942 bibliography. Corrections 32: ‘Niederländische sprache und literatur. Bibliographie des jahres 1905’. Instead of Jahresbericht der germanischen philologie 28 (1907), 1, p. 158-173 read: Jahresbericht der germanischen philologie 27 (1907), 1, p. 158-173. 41: ‘Waar heeft het Indogermaansche stamland gelegen?’. Instead of Onze Eeuw 8 (1908), p. 60-98 read: Onze eeuw 8 (1908), 3, p. 60-98. 126: ‘K intonacii praslavjanskich padežej na -ɴ’. Instead of Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka 20, 3, 1916, p. 32-40 read: Izvestija otdelenija russkogo jazyka 20, 3, 1915, p. 32-40. 158: ‘Opmerkingen over Russische mentaliteit’. Read: ‘Opmerkingen over Russiese mentaliteit’. Instead of De Hervorming (1918), p. 61-62 read: De Hervorming, no. 16, 20.04.1918, p. 61-62. 178: [Rec. N. Forbes, First Russian book, Oxford 1917 [etc.]]. Instead of Museum 26 (1919), col. 230-236 read: Museum 26 (1919), col. 233-236. 366: ‘Die polnische, slovakische und mährisch-schlesische Endung -och des Lok. Plur.’. Instead of Prace filologiczne 15 (1931), p. 437-447 read: Prace filologiczne 15 (1931), 2, p. 437-447. 408: ‘In Memoriam Prof. Dr. J.H. Kern’. Instead of Leidsch Universiteitsblad 2 (1932-1933), no. 8, p. 1 read: Leidsch Universiteitsblad 3 (1933-1934), no. 8, p. 1. 466: ‘Poolsche taal en letterkunde’. Instead of Winkler Prins’ Algemeene Encyclopedie5 13 (1937), p. 700-704 read: Winkler Prins’ Algemeene Encyclopedie5 13 (1937), p. 700-705. 517: Read: 516. 559: ‘Die slavischen Metatonien im Lichte der Phonologie’. Instead of Indogermanische Forschungen 18 (1941), p. 51-66 read: Indogermanische Forschungen 18 (1942), p. 51-66. 560: ‘Die litauischen Quantitätsoppositionen’. Instead of Indogermanische Forschungen 18 (1941), p. 153-168 read: Indogermanische Forschungen 18 (1942), p. 153-168.

304

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Additions 1912: [with W.G.C. Bijvanck, H.E. Greve, A.G. Roos, and S.G. de Vries] ‘Monografieën voor boek- en bibliotheekwezen. Ter inleiding’. De Boekzaal 6, p. 65-66. 1914: [Rev. S. Feist, Kultur, Ausbreitung und Herkunft der Indogermanen, Berlin 1913.] Museum 21, col. 241-246. 1931: [‘Voorwoord’]. Almanak Unitas Studiosorum Lugduno Batava 1, p. 4. 1931-1932: ‘Leidsche Commissie voor Internationale Studie-aangelegenheden’. Leidsch Universiteitsblad 1, no. 2, p. 5. 1932: I.S. Toergenew, Het verhaal van Vader Aleksej. Uit het Russisch door N. van Wijk. Assen: Van Gorcum & comp. (Van Gorcum’s Volksboekerij; 5 / Premieboekje No. 5, Supplement to Kerk en wereld, no. 47, 18.11.1932). 1933: ‘“Rond” als eigenschap van mensen in een Grieks Apophthegma en bij Leo Tolstoj’. Hermeneus 5, no. 6, p. 82-84. 1934: ‘[Slaavilaisen filologian professorinviran täyttäminen. Asiantuntijain lausunnot] Professori N. van Wijkin lausunto’. Asiakirjoja yliopistoasioissa, no. 2, p. 10-16. – Text in German. 1937: ‘De draagwijdte van art. 7 lid 3 Acad. Statuut ten aanzien van het candidaatsexamen Ned.-Indisch recht’. Nederlandsch Juristenblad 12, no. 37, 30.10.1937, p. 927. 1938-1939: [with I. Opstelten]. ‘[Ingezonden]. I.S.S. Hulpverleening aan buitenlandsche noodlijdende studenten’. Leidsch Universiteitsblad 8, no. 9, p. 2-3. – Also appears in Vinculum Studiosorum 12 (1938-1939), no. 6, p. 50-51. 1939: ‘[L’état dialectal de l’indo-européen commun]’. Vme Congrès International des Linguistes à Bruxelles 28 août – 2 septembre 1939. Première publication. Réponses au questionnaire. Bruges: Imprimerie Sainte Catherine, p. 89-90. 1988: Russische indrukken. Leiden: De Slavische Stichting te Leiden (Slavische prospekten; 1). – Reprint of no. 43. 1994: ‘Die Vokale i und y in den Ostslavischen und in den anderen slavischen Sprachen’. In Jurij Ševel’ov, Oleksa Horbaþ, and Mikola Mušinka (eds.), Zbirnyk pam’jati Ivana Zilyns’koho (1879-1952): sproba rekonstrukciji vtraþenoho juvilejnoho zbirnyka z 1939 r. N’ju-Jork [etc.]: Naukove tovaristvo im. Ševþenka, p. 101. – Only the title of the article is recorded: the text appears to be lost.

REFERENCES

This list comprises exclusively books and articles referred to in the notes accompanying the text. For a bibliography of the approximately six hundred writings of Nicolaas van Wijk see Paardekooper and Van Schooneveld 1942, and Schaeken 1988a; for corrections and additions see the survey: ‘Bibliography of Nicolaas van Wijk: corrections and additions’ in the present book. Aa, A.J. van der 1841 Aardrijkskundig woordenboek der Nederlanden, 3. Gorinchem: Jacobus Noorduyn. Arnim, B.D.H. von 1930 Die Schreiber des Psalterium Sinaiticum und ihre Vorlage. Leiden: N.V. Boeken Steendrukkerij Eduard IJdo. 1930a Studien zum altbulgarischen Psalterium Sinaiticum. Leipzig (Veröffentlichungen des Slavischen Instituts an der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Berlin; 3). Baar, A.H. van den 1984 Een eerste kennismaking met tante Anna [s.l.]. 1985 ‘The history of Slavic studies in The Netherlands’. In: J. Hamm and G. Wytrzens (eds.), Beiträge zur Geschichte der Slawistik in nichtslawischen Ländern. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, p. 317-360 (Schriften der Balkankommission. Linguistische Abteilung; 30). 1988 ‘Nicolaas van Wijk: the man and his work’. In: B.M. Groen et al. 1988, p. 9-41. 1988a ‘Van Wijk, de mens, zijn werk’. Šþipþiki 3, no. 9, p. 40-58. 1998-1999 ‘Reinier van der Meulen’. Trefwoord. Jaarboek lexicografie 13, p. 57-59. Baar, A.H. van den, and W.J.J. Pijnenburg 1990 ‘Nicolaas van Wijk (1880-1941)’. In: A. Moerdijk, W. Pijnenburg, and P. van Sterkenburg (eds.), Honderd jaar etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands: een verzameling artikelen over etymologen en etymologie. ’s-Gravenhage: Sdu Uitgeverij, p. 51-91. Bakhuis Roozenboom, H.W. 1905 ‘Verslag van de lotgevallen der Universiteit van Amsterdam gedurende den cursus 1903/1904 bij de overdracht van het Rectoraat op den 19den September 1904 uitgebracht’. Jaarboek der Universiteit van Amsterdam 1903-1904, p. 1-17. Barkman, C.D., and H. de Vries-van der Hoeven 1993 Een man van drie levens. Biografie van diplomaat / schrijver / geleerde Robert van Gulik. Amsterdam: Forum. Barth, A.J. 1989 Inventaris van het archief van de gemeente Goes 1851-1919. Goes: Gemeentearchief van Goes (Goese inventarissen; 8). Bastet, Frédéric 2005 De grote wandeling. Schoorl: Conserve. Berg, B. van den 1942 ‘Geert Grote’s psalmvertaling’. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde 61, p. 259-314. Bergh, J.C. van de 1953 ‘In memoriam Willy Dols, litt. drs.’. In: Willy Dols, Sittardse diftongering. Een hoofdstuk uit de historische grammatica. Sittard: Alberts’ Drukkerijen, p. xi-xv.

306 Berkel, K. van 2004

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

‘Stuwende kracht of deftig ornament? Enige inleidende opmerkingen’. In: K. van Berkel (ed.), De Akademie en de Tweede Gouden Eeuw. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, p. 7-14 (Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen; 6). Berkel, Klaas van, and Mary Eggermont-Molenaar 2005 ‘The Uhlenbecks and the burdens of life: a biographical introduction’. In: Mary Eggermont-Molenaar (ed.), Montana 1911: a professor and his wife among the Blackfeet: Wilhelmina Maria Uhlenbeck-Melchior’s diary and C.C. Uhlenbeck’s original Blackfoot texts and a new series of Blackfoot texts. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, p. 7-17. Berkenvelder, F.C. 1970 Zo was Zwolle rond 1900. Zwolle: Waanders. Bijvanck, A.W. 1941 ‘Verslag van de lotgevallen der Universiteit, uitgebracht door den Rector magnificus Dr. A.W. Byvanck bij zijn aftreden op 15 september 1941’. Jaarboek der Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden 1941, p. 52-74. 1942 ‘Prof.Dr. N. van Wijk’. Jaarboekje voor geschiedenis en oudheidkunde van Leiden en Rijnland 34, p. 42-45. 1945-1946 ‘In memoriam Prof. Dr. N. van Wijk † 25 maart 1941’. Leidsch Universiteitsblad 11, no. 3 (15.10.1945), p. 2. Bijvanck, W.G.C., H.E. Greve, A.G. Roos, S.G. de Vries, and N. van Wijk 1912 ‘Monografieën voor boek- en bibliotheekwezen. Ter inleiding’. De Boekzaal 6, p. 65-66. Birkfellner, Gerhard 1980 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1975]. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 26, p. 223-225. Bitter, R.A. 1998 ‘Wijk, Pieter Cornelis van’. Biografisch lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlandse protestantisme, 4. Kampen: Kok, p. 470. Bláhová, Emilie 1977 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1975]. Byzantinoslavica 38, p. 229-234. Blankenstein, Elisabeth van 1999 Dr. M. van Blankenstein: een Nederlands dagbladdiplomaat, 1880-1964. Den Haag: Sdu. Blankenstein, M. van 1920 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1919]. De Gids 84, 3, p. 159-161. 1969 ‘Journalistieke herinneringen’. In: Kijk in een jarige krant: NRC 125. Rotterdam: Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant N.V., 1969, p. 148-167. Boender, Jeroen 1994 ‘Een Russische villa in Leiden’. Kolokol’þik 2, no. 3, p. 42-44. Bolkestein, G. 1956 ‘Derk Jan Kruijtbosch (Leiden, 17 mei 1883 - Amersfoort, 1 november 1954)’. Jaarboek van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde te Leiden 19551956, p. 104-109. Bongard-Levin, G.M. 2000 ‘Pis’ma i avtografy I.S. Šmeleva v Gollandii’. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, no. 44, p. 199-207. 2002 ‘”Sto mel’nic meljut: “Am! Ster! Dam!”. Ivan Šmelev v Gollandii’. In: idem, Iz “Russkoj mysli”, Sankt-Peterburg: Aletejja, p. 111-120. Booij, Geert 1990 ‘Phonology and morphology: the Dutch contribution’. In: Flor Aarts and Theo van Els (eds.), Contemporary Dutch linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, p. 38-49.

REFERENCES 2006

307

‘Nicolaas van Wijk en de brede bachelor’. Forum. Nieuwsbrief van de Faculteit der Letteren, no. 1 [= http://www.letteren.leidenuniv.nl/forum/index.php3?m=322&c=287].

Borko, B. 1933 ‘Živlenje Sergeja Jesenjina’. Ljubljanski zvon 53, no. 9, p. 557-562. Bosch, J.H. van den 1895 ‘Over het Oude en het Nieuwe Taalonderwijs (Lezing)’. Taal en Letteren 5, p. 187-212. Boutelje, A.E. 1928 ‘Zwei Gemermundarten’. VČstník Královské ýeské Spoleþnosti Nauk. TĜída filosoficko-historicko-jazykozpytná, p. 1-122. 1929 Zwei Gemermundarten. Praha: Dr. Ed. Gregr a Syn / Amsterdam: N.V. Uitgevers Mij voorheen Van Creveld & Co. Brandenburg, Angenies 1988 Annie Romein-Verschoor 1895-1978, 1. Leven en werk. Amsterdam: de Arbeiderspers. Broek, Jos van den 2005 Van Albinusdreef tot Zeemanlaan. Een wetenschappelijke wandeling langs Leidse straten, gebouwen, musea en instituten. Leiden: Karteon. Brückner, A. 1911 ‘Holländisch-Russisches’ [= Rev. Croiset van der Kop 1910]. Museum 18, col. 450-451. 1914 ‘Der neue Lehrstuhl für Slavistik an der Universität Leyden’. Archiv für slavische Philologie 35, p. 612-614. 1931 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1931]. Deutsche Literaturzeitung 44, p. 2088-2091. Bruggen, J. van 1950 ‘Wat nog voortleeft’. De Loupe. Officieel orgaan van de Goese Lyceumvereniging “Vlam” 5, no. 1, p. 10-11. Brummelkamp, A. 1913 ‘De Balto-Slavische leerstoel te Leiden’. Stemmen des Tijds 2, p. 1298-1305. Bnjga, K. 1924 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1923]. Tauta ir žodis 2, p. 479-480. Buitenrust Hettema, F. 1892 Analecta: Nederlandsch leesboek voor Gymnasia, Hoogere Burgerscholen en Normaalscholen. Utrecht: H. Honig. 1895 ‘Uit de spraakleer’. Taal en Letteren 5, p. 37-71, 247-264. Bulachovskij, L.A. 1925 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1923]. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 1, p. 216-232; p. 533 (Berichtigung). 1947 ‘Akcentologiþeskij zakon A.A. Šachmatova’. In: S.P. Obnorskij (ed.), A.A. Šachmatov 1864-1920. Sbornik statej i materialov. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, p. 399-434. Buning, Adriana Jantine 1927 De Indogermaansche athematische conjugatie in het Slavisch. Amsterdam: De Spieghel. Buter, Adriaan 1972 Portret van Delden. Enschede: Twents-Gelderse Uitgeverij W.G. Witkam. Caland, W. 1918 ‘Levensbericht van H. Kern’. Handelingen van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche letterkunde te Leiden en Levensberichten harer afgestorven medeleden 1917-1918, p. 1-30 (Levensberichten). Cannegieter, H.G. 1920 ‘De geest van Rusland’ [= Rev. N. van Wijk 1919, 1920]. Eigen Haard 46, p. 746-747.

308

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Cornelissen, Igor 1989 De GPOe op de Overtoom. Spionnen voor Moskou 1920-1940. Amsterdam: Van Gennep. Coster, W., W. Huijsmans, and J. Otten 1996 ‘Contacten tussen Zwolle en Rusland’. Zwols Historisch Tijdschrift 13, no. 1, p. 8-14. Couvée, Petra 1989 ‘Graf van N. van Wijk’. Het Oog in ’t Zeil 7, no. 2-3, p. 96. Croiset van der Kop, A.C. 1910 ‘K voprosu o gollandskich terminach po morskomu delu v russkom jazyke’ [= Rev. Van der Meulen 1909]. Izvestija Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk 15, kn. 4, p. 1-72. Daalder, Saskia 2004 ‘Achter de schermen van een congres. Het eerste Internationale Linguïstencongres (Den Haag, 1928)’. Voortgang: jaarboek voor de neerlandistiek 22, p. 315321. Daan, Jo 2000 Geschiedenis van de dialectgeografie in het Nederlandse taalgebied: rondom Kloeke en het Dialectenbureau. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen. Dalen, J.L. van 1907 ‘De voorwaardelijke wijs’. Noord en Zuid 30, p. 122-124. Darnell, Regna 1990 Edward Sapir: linguist, anthropologist, humanist. Berkeley: University of California Press. Deden, Ivon 1988 ‘Glasnost maakt studie slavistiek populair. Leidse vakgroep viert 75-jarig bestaan’. Mare 12, no. 7 (06.10.1988), p. 5. D[ijk, J.C.] v[an] 1920 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1919]. Stemmen des Tijds 9, p. 187-188. Driel, Lo van 2006 ‘Van Wijk’ [Rev. Hinrichs 2005]. Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant, 15.02.2006, p. 27. Driessen, Jozien J. 1989 Russen en Nederlanders: uit de geschiedenis van de betrekkingen tussen Nederland en Rusland 1600-1917. Amsterdam-’s-Gravenhage: Rijksmuseum / Sdu. Drion, F.J.W. 1927 ‘Levensbericht van Dr. W.G.C. Bijvanck’. Handelingen van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde te Leiden 1926-1927, p. 63-76 (Levensberichten). Drion, H. 1991 ‘[Herdenkingsrede op 26 november 1990 uitgesproken door H. Drion’]. In: P.B. Cleveringa and H. Drion, 26 november 1940 en de terugblik vijftig jaar later. Leiden: Leids Universiteits-Fonds, p. 15-24. D.W. 1927 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1926]. Dietsche Warande en Belfort 27, p. 829. Eeten-Koopmans, Jana van 1996 ‘Boris Raptschinsky (1887-1983)’. Studia Rosenthaliana 30, no. 2, p. 282-303. Eggermont-Molenaar, Mary 2005 ‘Mrs Uhlenbeck: an informed diarist?’. In: Mary Eggermont-Molenaar (ed.), Montana 1911: a professor and his wife among the Blackfeet: Wilhelmina Maria Uhlenbeck-Melchior’s diary and C.C. Uhlenbeck’s original Blackfoot texts and a new series of Blackfoot texts. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, p. 17-27.

REFERENCES

309

Einhauser, Eveline 1989 Die Junggrammatiker: ein Problem für die Sprachwissenschaftsgeschichtsschreibung. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Elberts, W.A. 1910 Historische wandelingen in en om Zwolle. Zwolle: Tijl. Elte, S. 1954 ‘Schets van de geschiedenis van de Latijnse School en van het Gymnasium te Zwolle’. Verslagen en mededeelingen Vereeniging tot beoefening van Overijsselsch regt en geschiedenis 69, p. 25-94. EndzelƯns, J. 1914 ‘Latyšskaja parallel’ k pol’sk. bóg : bok i dr.’. Russkij filologiþeskij vestnik 71, p. 562-563. 1922-1923 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1918]. Slavia 1, p. 611-617. Engels, M., and H. Bijlstra 2000 Nieuwe inventaris van de brievencollectie F. Buitenrust Hettema (Harlingen 1862 – Zwolle 1922). Leeuwarden: Provinciale Bibliotheek van Friesland. Erdtsieck, J., and W. Faber 1989 Een aanzienlijke gemeente met een eerlijke verdraagzaamheid. Verkenning in de Zwolse Hervormde Gemeente gedurende de jaren 1830-1940. Zwolle: Hervormde Gemeente Zwolle. Faddegon, B. 1899-1900 ‘De A.S.V.’. Propria Cures 11, no. 25 (05.05.1900), p. 263-264. 1899-1900a ‘Uit de Literarische Faculteit’. Propria Cures 11, no. 28 (29.05.1900), p. 297299. 1938 ‘Phonetics and phonology’. Mededelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. letterkunde, N.R. 1, no.10, p. 485-504. Fajnsjtejn, Michail 2004 ‘Anna Croiset van der Kop: een Nederlandse aan de oevers van de Neva’. In: Emmanuel Waegemans and Hans van Koningsbrugge (eds.), Noord- en ZuidNederlanders in Rusland 1703-2003. Groningen: INOS, p. 393-409 (Baltic studies; 9). Fasseur, Cees 2001 Wilhelmina. Krijgshaftig in een vormeloze jas. Amsterdam: Balans. Feist, Sigmund 1923 Etymologisches Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache mit Einschluss des Krimgotischen und sonstiger gotischer Sprachreste. Zweite, gänzlich neubearbeitete Auflage. Halle (Saale): Max Niemeyer. 1925 Stammeskunde der Juden. Die jüdischen Stämme der Erde in alter und neuer Zeit. Historisch-anthropologische Skizzen. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung / Leiden: Universiteits-Boekhandel J. Ginsberg. 19393 Etymologisches Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache mit Einschluss des Krimgotischen und sonstiger zerstreuter Überreste des Gotischen. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Feldstein, Ronald F. 1989 [Rev. B.M. Groen et al. 1988]. Slavic and East European Journal 33, p. 612614. Fockema Andeae, W.H. 1933-1934 ‘De twaalfde jaar-conferentie der International Student Service’. Leidsch Universiteitsblad 3, no. 3, p. 1-3. Gauthiot, R. 1911 [Rev. N. van Wijk, Franck’s etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. ’s-Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1910-1911, fasc. 1-5]. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 17, p. cix-cxj. Ginneken, Jac. van 1913 ‘De rompstanden’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 7, p. 1-15.

310 1939 1941 1942

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK ‘Een Nederlandsch handboek voor de phonologie’ [= Rev. N. van Wijk 1939]. Onze Taaltuin 8, p. 185-187. ‘Levensbericht van Nicolaas van Wijk (4 October 1880 – 25 Maart 1941)’. Jaarboek der Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen 1940-1941, p. 192-207. ‘In memoriam Prof. Dr. N. van Wijk’. Referaten der voordrachten in 1941 gehouden voor de Nederlandsche Phonologische Werkgemeenschap, p. 1-2.

Gombault, W.F. 1906 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1906]. Weekblad voor Gymnasiaal en Middelbaar Onderwijs 2, no. 50 (16.8.1906), p. 1379-1380. Goossens, J. 1988 ‘Dutch dialectology and Dutch historical grammar in the work of N. van Wijk’. In: B.M. Groen et al. 1988, p. 43-62. Goudriaan, Buck 1995 Het Leidse literaire leven tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Leiden: De nieuwe vaart. Graaff, Francisca de 1933 Serge Ésénine (1895-1925), sa vie et son oeuvre. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1966 Sergej Esenin: a biographical sketch. The Hague: Mouton (Slavistic printings and reprintings; 55). Groen, B.M. 1988 ‘Nicolaas van Wijk’s work on phonology’. In: B.M. Groen et al. 1988, p. 63-70. Groen, B.M., J.P. Hinrichs, and W.R. Vermeer (eds.) 1988 Nicolaas van Wijk (1880-1941): a collection of essays on his life and work published on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the founding of the chair for Balto-Slavic languages at Leiden University. Amsterdam: Rodopi (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics; 12). G[roningen], [J. ] v[an] 1979 ‘Afscheid mevrouw Drs. W. Huisman’. In: A.L. de Heer-Cremer et al., Wils Huisman. Leiden: Lectura [p. 8-9]. Groot, A.W. de 1956 De moderne taalwetenschap, in het bijzonder in Amerika. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van gewoon hoogleraar aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht op 17 december 1956. Groningen-Djakarta: J.B. Wolters. 19683 Inleiding tot de algemene taalwetenschap, tevens inleiding tot de grammatica van het hedendaagse Nederlands. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff N.V. Grootaers, L. 1940 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1939]. Leuvensche bijdragen. Bijblad 32, no. 3-4, p. 87-89. 1941 [In memoriam N. van Wijk]. Leuvensche bijdragen. Bijblad 33, no. 1-2, p. 40. Gunning, J.H. Wzn. 1934 Autobiographie. Groningen: Wolters. Haas, A.G.M. 1941 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1940]. Museum 48, col. 295-298. Haeringen, C.B. van 1936 Franck-Van Wijk, Etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. Supplement door C.B. van Haeringen. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. 19602 Netherlandic language research: men and works in the study of Dutch. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1962 Gramarie. Keur uit het werk van zijn hoogleraarstijd. Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp. N.V. / Dr. H.J. Prakke & H.M.G. Prakke. Hageraats, Bart 1988 De stoelendans rond Jan Romein. De perikelen rondom de benoeming van dr J.M. Romein tot hoogleraar geschiedenis aan de Gemeentelijke Universiteit van Amsterdam: 1938-1939. Weesp: Heureka.

REFERENCES 1995

311

‘Levenskroniek van Jan Marius Romein’. In: Bert Hageraats (ed.), ‘Geloof niet wat geschiedschrijvers zeggen…’ Honderd jaar Jan Romein, 1893-1993. Amsterdam: Stichting beheer IISG, p. 233-243.

Hamel, A.G. van 1930 ‘Levensbericht van Dr. R.C. Boer’. Jaarboek der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam 1929-30, p. 1-50 (Levensberichten). Hamm, Josip 1960 ‘Register der Korrespondenz von Vatroslav Jagiü im Besitz der Universitätsbibliothek in Zagreb’. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 8, p. 75-111. Hanssen, Léon 1987 ‘Dilettanten in de genialiteit. Jan Romein en Jef Suys in de eerste jaren van hun vriendschap, 1919-1931’. Maatstaf 35, no. 11-12, p. 93-112. 1989 ‘Suijs, Joseph’. Biografisch woordenboek van Nederland 3, p. 575-576. 1990 ‘Jong, hard en als ’n object in het universum. Jan Romein en Jef Suys, twee vrienden in de jaren dertig’. In: H.M. Beliën (ed.), Vijftig jaar erflaters. Een terugblik op De erflaters van onze beschaving van Jan en Annie Romein. Den Haag: Universitaire Pers Rotterdam, p. 113-129. Harst, Gerard van der, and Leo Lucassen 1998 Nieuw in Leiden: plaats en betekenis van vreemdelingen in een Hollandse stad (1918-1955). Leiden: Primavera Pers (Leidse historische reeks; 12). Häusler, Frank 19762 Das Problem Phonetik und Phonologie bei Baudouin de Courtenay und in seiner Nachfolge. Halle (Saale): VEB Max Niemeyer Verlag. Heeroma, K. 1953 De Nedersaksische letterkunde. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar in de Nedersaksische taal- en letterkunde aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen op zaterdag 7 november 1953. Groningen / Djakarta: J.B. Wolters. Heeroma, K., and N. van Wijk 1940 ‘Ter inleiding bij de phonologische vragenlijst voor de dialekten in Nederland’. Onze Taaltuin 9, p. 77-78. Heestermans, Hans 1996 ‘Adrianus Cornelis Crena de Iongh (Dordrecht 10 juni 1910 – Amsterdam 8 augustus 1992)’. Jaarboek van de Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde te Leiden 1994-1995, p. 67-70. Helden, Andries van 2001 Een halve eeuw UNESCO: idealisten en ideologen, intellectuelen en boekhouders. Den Haag: Nationale Unesco Commissie. Heinz, Adam 1978 Dzieje jĊzykoznawstwa w zarysie. Warszawa: PaĔstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Heugten S.J., J. van 1926-1927 ‘Een Russische-literatuurgeschiedenis’ [= Rev. N. van Wijk 1926]. Boekenschouw 20, p. 439-445. Hijma, Bouwe 1993 ‘Wijk, Aart Willem van (1852-1918), drankbestrijder en christen-socialist’. Overijsselse biografieën 3, p. 132-136. Hilberdink, Koen 2000 ‘Ik ben een vreemdeling. Ik sta apart’: een biografie van Paul Rodenko (19201976). Amsterdam: Meulenhoff. Hille-Gaerthé, C.M. van 196x3 Zwolse mijmeringen. Herinneringen aan de jaren 1881-1914. Zwolle: Koninklijke Uitgeverij van de Erven J.J. Tijl N.V.

312 Hillesum, Etty 19913

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Etty. De nagelaten geschriften van Etty Hillesum 1941-1943 (ed. Klaas A.D. Smelik). Amsterdam: Balans.

Hinrichs, Jan Paul 1987 ‘De Collectie Van Wijk’. Doelwit. Personeelsorgaan van de Universiteitsbibliotheek te Leiden 3, no. 3, p. 19-22, 1988 De erfenis van Nicolaas van Wijk (1880-1941). Catalogus van een tentoonstelling ter gelegenheid van het vijfenzeventigjarig bestaan van de studierichting Slavische taal- en letterkunde aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden, gehouden in de Universiteitsbibliotheek van 7 oktober tot 18 november 1988. Leiden: Universiteitsbibliotheek (Kleine publicaties van de Leidse Universiteitsbibliotheek; 2). 1988a ‘A linguist on literature’. In: B.M. Groen et al. 1988, p. 71-77. 1988b ‘Over N. van Wijk, grondlegger der Leidse slavistiek’. Šþipþiki 2, no. 6, p. 5057. 1988c ‘Een gekkenhuis op grote schaal. Nicolaas van Wijk en zijn geschriften over Rusland’. Het Oog in ’t Zeil 5, no. 5, p. 1-11. 1988d ‘Muus Jacobse, Nicolaas van Wijk en ‘de dode vriend’’. Het Oog in ’t Zeil 6, no. 2, p. 20-21. 1988e ‘Tentoonstelling over Nicolaas van Wijk’. Bibliotheekmededelingen 2, no. 3, p. [6-7]. 1990 ‘N. van Wijk als Toergenjev-vertaler’. Het Oog in ’t Zeil 7, no. 5-6, p. 68. 1994 ‘Wijk, Nicolaas van’. Biografisch woordenboek van Nederland 4, p. 551-553. 1997 Valerij Perelešin (1913-1992). Catalogue of his papers and books in Leiden University Library. Leiden: Leiden University Library (Codices manuscripti; 27). 2001 The C.H. van Schooneveld Collection in Leiden University Library. Editorial correspondence and documents relating to Mouton & Co., The Hague, and other papers in the fields of Slavistics and linguistics. With contributions by A.Th. Bouwman. Leiden: Leiden University Library (Codices manuscripti; 31). 2003 ‘Van Schooneveld terug in Leiden’. De Parelduiker 8, no. 4, p. 59-62. 2005 Vader van de slavistiek. Leven en werk van Nicolaas van Wijk (1880-1941). Amsterdam: Bas Lubberhuizen. 2005a ‘Legaat Van Wijk Revisited’. Omslag, no. 3, p. 10-11. 2006 ‘De correspondentie van Nicolaas van Wijk’ (forthc.). Hjelmslev, Louis 1940-1941 ‘N. van Wijk’. Acta linguistica 2, p. 108-110. Holk, L.E. van, and I. Schöffer (eds.) 1983 Gedenkschriften van prof. mr. R.P. Cleveringa betreffende zijn gevangenschap in 1940-1941 en 1944. Leiden: E.J. Brill / Universitaire Pers Leiden (Studies over de geschiedenis van de Leidse Universiteit; 1). Horálek, K. 1947-1948 ‘Nicolas van Wijk (1880-1941)’. Byzantinoslavica, p. 409-411. 1966 ‘Nicolas van Wijk (1880-1941)’. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Portraits of linguists: a biographical source book for the history of Western linguistics, 17461963, 2. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, p. 459-462. Horst, Joop van der, and Kees van der Horst 1999 Geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de twintigste eeuw. Den Haag-Antwerpen: Sdu Uitgevers / Standaard Uitgeverij. Huber Noodt, Ulrich 1922 L’occidentalisme d’Ivan Tourguénev. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion. Hugenholtz, F.W.N. 1879 Geloofsstrijd. Eene schets uit het kerkelijk leven onzer dagen. Amsterdam: J.F.V. Behrns.

REFERENCES

313

Huizinga, Johan 1948 ‘Mijn weg tot de historie’. In: idem, Verzamelde werken, 1. Haarlem: H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon B.V., p. 11-42. 1989 Briefwisseling, 1. 1894-1924 (eds. Léon Hanssen, W.E. Krul, and Anton van der Lem). Utrecht: Veen. 1990 Briefwisseling, 2. 1925-1933 (eds. Léon Hanssen, W.E. Krul, and Anton van der Lem). Utrecht: Veen. 1991 Briefwisseling, 3. 1934-1945 (eds. Léon Hanssen, W.E. Krul, and Anton van der Lem). Utrecht: Veen. Huizinga. Leonhard 1963 Herinneringen aan mijn vader. Den Haag: H.P. Leopolds Uitgeversmij N.V. Hujer, O. 1941 [In memoriam N. van Wijk]. Listy filologické 68, p. 419-420. Idenburg, P.J. 1978 De Leidse Universiteit 1928-1946. Vernieuwing en verzet. ’s-Gravenhage: Universitaire Pers Leiden. Ilþev, Petăr 1980 ‘Nikolaas van Vejk (po sluþaj 100 godini ot roždenieto mu)’. Săpostavitelno ezikoznanie 5, no. 5, p. 108-114. Jacobse, Muus 1941 Het bescheiden deel. Gedichten. Nijkerk: G.F. Callenbach N.V. Jakobson, Roman 1932 ‘Neue Arbeiten N. van Wijks über das Altkirchenslavische’. Prager Presse, 14.04.1932, p. 8. 1939 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1939]. Acta linguistica 1, p. 123-129. 1939-1944 ‘[Nécrologie:] N. van Wijk’. Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves (Université Libre de Bruxelles) 7, p. 546-547. 1975 N.S. Trubetzkoy’s letters and notes. The Hague: Mouton (Janua linguarum. Series maior; 47). 1997 Z korespondence (ed. Alena Morávková). Praha: Paseka. Jangfeldt, Bengt 1999 ‘Roman Jakobson v Švecii v 1940-1941 gg.’. In: H. Baran and S.I. Gindin (eds.), Roman Jakobson: teksty, dokumenty, issledovanija. Moskva: Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj gumanitarnyj universitet, p. 167-174. Jansen, Marc 1988 ‘”Russia is and will remain a mystery for us”. Nico van Wijk about Russia and Eastern Europe’. In: B.M. Groen et al. 1988, p. 79-88. Jelgersma, G. 1914 ‘Verslag van de lotgevallen der Universiteit in den cursus 1913-1914’. Jaarboek der Rijks-Universiteit te Leiden 1913-1914, p. 39-64. Jong, A.M. de 1918-1919 ‘Een proffenboek’ [= Rev. N. van Wijk 1919]. De Nieuwe Stem 1, no. 2, p. 335345. Jonge, A.A. de 1994 ‘Duys, Jan Eliza Wilhelm (1877-1941)’. Biografisch woordenboek van Nederland 4, p. 123-125. Josselin de Jong, J.P.B. de 1946 ‘In memoriam N. van Wijk’. Almanak van het Leidsche Studentencorps 128, p. 20-22. 1952 ‘Herdenking van Christianus Cornelis Uhlenbeck (18 October 1866 – 12 Augustus 1951)’. Jaarboek der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen 1951-1952, p. 282-297.

314

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Judakin, Anatolij 2000 ‘Van Vejk’. In: idem, Vedušþie jazykovedy mira: ènciklopedija. Moskva: Sovetskij pisatel’, p. 147. Juul, Arne et al. (eds.) 1995 A linguist’s life. An English translation of Otto Jespersen’s autobiography with notes, photos and a bibliography. Odense: Odense University Press. Kalda, F. 1923-1924 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1919, 1920]. Slavia 2, p. 557-558. 1967 ‘Niet-schoolse herinneringen van een neerlandist’. Ons erfdeel 11, no. 2, p. 97100. Kalff jr., G. 1913-1914 ‘De Balto-Slavische leerstoel te Leiden’. Minerva 39, no. 9, p. 97-98. Kamerbeek jr., J. 1965 ‘Marie Ramondt (Soekowono (Oost-Java), 22 maart 1878 – Utrecht, 3 augustus 1963)’. Jaarboek van de Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde te Leiden 1964-1965, p. 111-116. Kasteleyn, Leonard 2003 Vervolging en bescherming, joden in Leiden 1933-1945. Leiden: Stedelijk Museum De Lakenhal. Kern, J.H. 1919 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1918]. Museum 26, col. 248-251. 1924 Idealen en grenzen. Redevoering bij de aanvaarding van ’t hoogleraarsambt aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden, op de 19de november 1924 uitgesproken. Groningen: J.B. Wolters’ U.M. 1931-1932 ‘Eduard Sievers † 1850-1932’. Leidsch Universiteitsblad 1, no. 9, p. 6-7. Klein, P.W., and M.A.V. Klein-Meijer 1998 De wereld van de Koninklijke Bibliotheek 1798-1998. Van statelijke institutie tot culturele onderneming. Amsterdam: G.A. van Oorschot. Kluyver, A. 1913 ‘Het etymologisch woordenboek van Dr. N. van Wijk’ [= Rev. N. van Wijk 1912]. De nieuwe taalgids 7, p. 36-43. 1934 ‘Prof.Dr. Johan Hendrik Kern’. Handelingen en levensberichten van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche letterkunde te Leiden 1933-1934, p. 79-92. Knuttel, J.A.N. 1989 Levensloop, 1 (red. Jaak Slangen). Met een voorwoord van Theun de Vries en een biografisch portret door Jaak Slangen. Leiden: Wetenschapswinkel Rijksuniversiteit Leiden. Koejemans, A.J. 1967 David Wijnkoop: een mens in de strijd voor het socialisme. Amsterdam: Moussault. Kondrašov, N.A. 1957 ‘Predislovie’. In: Van Wijk 1957, p. 5-11. Kooij, Jan, and Marc van Oostendorp 2003 Fonologie: uitnodiging tot de klankleer van het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Kortlandt, Frederik 1988 ‘Van Wijk’s Altpreussische Studien revisited’. In: B.M. Groen et al. 1988, p. 8997. Koschmieder, E. 1956 ‘N. van Wijks Einwand gegen die 2. Metatonie’. In: Margarete Woltner and Herbert Bräuer (eds.), Festschrift für Max Vasmer zum 70. Geburtstag am 28. Februar 1956. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, p. 235-244. Kovalevskij, P.E. 1971 Zarubežnaja Rossija. Paris: Librarie des Cinq Continents.

REFERENCES Kramers, J.H. 1947 Kravþuk, R.V. 1961 Kruisinga, E. 1908 1939 Kucarov, Ivan 1999 2002

Kuiper, F.B.J. 1941 1944

315

‘Levensbericht van C. van Arendonk’. Jaarboek der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen 1946-1947, p. 145-149. Z istoriji slov’janskogo movoznavstva (Vidatni slavisty-movoznavci). Kyjiv: Radjans’ka škola. ‘De verwaarlozing van de klankleer in de Nederlandse spraakkunsten’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 2, p. 292-306. [Rev. N. van Wijk 1939]. Taal en Leven 3, p. 77-79. ‘Meždunarodnite kongresi na filolozite slavisti’. Săpastavitelno ezikoznanie 24, 1, p. 112-157. Slavjanite i slavjanskata filologija. Oþerk na istorija na slavistikata i bălgaristikata ot vtorata polovina na XIX do naþaloto na XXI vek. Plovdiv: Plovdivsko universitetsko izdatelstvo.

‘Nikolaas van Wijk’. Indogermanisches Jahrbuch 25, p. 390-395. ‘N. van Wijk (Delden, 4 October 1880 – Leiden, 25 Maart 1941)’. Handelingen en levensberichten van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche letterkunde te Leiden 1942-1943, p. 156-168. 1988 ‘Nicolaas van Wijk (1880-1941)’. In: B.M. Groen et al. 1988, p. 1-5. Kuiper, Wilhelmus Th.J.M. 1989 Die riddere metten witten scilde: oorsprong, overlevering en auteurschap van de Middelnederlandse Ferguut, gevolgd door een diplomatische editie en een diplomatisch glossarium. Amsterdam: Schiphouwer en Brinkman. Kul’bakin, S.M. 1924 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1924]. Južnoslovenski filolog 4, p. 202-205. 1925-1926 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1925a]. Južnoslovenski filolog 5, p. 316-317. 1926-1927 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1925b]. Južnoslovenski filolog 6 (1926-1927), p. 274. 1932 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1931]. Slavia 11 (1932), p. 565-573. Kuryáowicz, J. 1935 Études indoeuropéennes, 1. Kraków: Skáad gáówny w ksiĊgarni Gebethnera i Wolffa. 1959 [Rev. N. van Wijk 19582]. Kratylos 4, p. 198-204. Kurz, Josef 1935 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1931]. Lysty filologické 62, p. 206-215. Kuyper, Abraham 1911 ‘Slavische talen’. De Standaard, 10.10.1911. Langemeijer, G.E. 1985 ‘Polak, Leonard’. Biografisch woordenboek van Nederland 2, p. 432-434. Lehr-SpáawiĔski, Tadeusz 1921-1922 ‘Najnowsze prace N. van Wijka o akcencie sáowiaĔskim’. Rocznik slawistyczny 9, p. 109-125. 1954 ‘Mikoáaj van Wijk’. In: idem, Rozprawy i szkice z dziejów kultury sáowian. Warszawa: Pax, p. 306-308. 1956 ‘Bemerkungen zu N. van Wijks Periodisierung des Urslavischen’. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 6, p. 5-9. Lekov, Ivan 1942-1943 ‘Prof. N. van Vejk (4.X.1880-†25.III.1941)’. Godišnik na Universiteta Sv. Kliment Ochridski-Sofija. Istoriko-filologiþeski fakultet 39, p. 1-8. 1973 ‘Iz naj-blizkata istorija na ezikovedskata slavistika. Beglo sravnenie na II meždunaroden kongres na slavjanskite filolozi văv Varšava – 1934 g., s programata na objavlenija pak tam VII kongres’. Ezik i literatura 28, 3, p. 1-6.

316

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Lem, Anton van der 1998 Inventaris van het archief van Johan Huizinga. Bibliografie 1897-1997. Leiden: Universiteitsbibliotheek (Codices manuscripti; 29). 2004 ‘Het historisch besef bij de Akademie’. In: K. van Berkel (ed.), De Akademie en de Tweede Gouden Eeuw. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, p. 139-177 (Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen; 6). Lepschy, Giulio C. 1970 A survey of structural linguistics. London: Faber and Faber. Lieburg, M.J. van 1997 Het Diaconessenhuis Leiden: de jaren 1940-1947. Rotterdam: Erasmus Publishing. Linden, Saskia van der 1997 ‘De wetenschap gaat toch altijd door. De docenten en medestudenten Russisch van Etty Hillesum’. Kolokol’þik, no. 16, p. 21-24. Ljackij, E. 1923-1924 [Rev. Huber Noodt 1922]. Slavia 2, p. 153-154. Ljapunov, B., E. Karskij, and P. Lavrov 1928 ‘Zapiska ob uþenych trudach prof. N.V. Van-Vejka’. Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR. Otdelenie gumanitarnych nauk, Ser.7, p. 478-479. Locher, G.W. 1978 Transformation and tradition and other essays. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff (Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde. Translation series; 18). 1985 ‘Rassers, Willem Huibert’. Biografisch woordenboek van Nederland 2, p. 447448. Locher, Th.J.G. 1931 Die nationale Differenzierung und Integrierung der Slovaken und Tschechen in ihrem geschichtlichen Verlauf bis 1848. Haarlem: H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon N/V. L[oosjes], J. 1899-1900 ‘De benoeming van prof. Uhlenbeck’. Propria Cures 11, no. 7 (11.11.1899), p. 63-64. Lunt, Horace G. 1976 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1975]. Slavic Review 35, p. 581-582. Mare, A.J. de 1926 Lijst der geschriften van Dr. W.G.C. Bijvanck, 1874-1925. ’s-Gravenhage: Humanitas. Margry, Peter Jan 2002 P.J. Meertens van het Meertens Instituut. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut. Martinet, André 1942-1945 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1939]. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 42, fasc. 2, p. 33-35. Matthes, J.C. 1905 ‘Rede bij de opening van de algemeene vergadering der Amsterdamsche Universiteitsvereeniging den 19den maart 1904’. Jaarboek der Universiteit van Amsterdam (1903-1904), p. 19-26. Matthews, Peter 2001 A short history of structural linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthews, W.K. 1958 [Rev. N. van Wijk 19562]. The Slavonic and East European Review 36, p. 531534. Mazon, André 1946 [In memoriam N. van Wijk]. Revue des études slaves 22, p. 291-292.

REFERENCES Meertens, P.J. 1974

Meillet, A. 1914-1915 1918 1923 1931 1931a

317

‘Klaas Hanzen Heeroma (Hoorn op Terschelling 13 september 1909 – Groningen 21 november 1972)’. Jaarboek van de Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde te Leiden 1972-1973, p. 137-150. [Rev. N. van Wijk 1913]. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 19, p. 112-113 (Comptes rendus). ‘L’accent dans la flexion des noms lituaniens’ [= Rev. N. van Wijk 1917]. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 21, p. 27-28. [Rev. N. van Wijk 1923]. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 24, p. 133-134 (Comptes rendus). [Rev. N. van Wijk 1928]. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 31, p. 201 (Comptes rendus). [Rev. N. van Wijk 1931]. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 32, p. 164-167 (Comptes rendus). [Rev. N. van Wijk 1931]. Revue des études slaves 11, p. 69-70.

1931b Meintema, Annie 1988 ‘Romantisch, reëel, relativerend: de letterkundige geschriften van prof. N. van Wijk’. Šþipþiki 2, no. 7, p. 44-53. Melle, A.G. van 1998 ‘1937: Het ‘Invisible College’. In: P.W. Klein (ed.), Een beeld van een academie. Mensen en momenten uit de geschiedenis van het Koninklijk Instituut en de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen 1808-1998. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, p. 146. Mellink, A.F. 1982 ‘Lambertus Helprig Mansholt, Gronings socialistisch boer (1875-1945)’. In: Ph.H. Breuker and Michaël Zeeman (eds.), Freonen om ds. J.J. Kalma hinne. Stúdzjes, meast oer Fryslân, foar syn fiifensantichste jierdei. Ljouwert: De Tille, p. 213-226. Metzemaekers, G. 1941 ‘In memoriam Prof.Dr. N. van Wijk’. Leidsche Courant, 26.03.1941. Meulen, R. van der 1908 [Rev. A.C. Croiset van der Kop, Altrussische Übersetzungen aus dem Polnischen, I. De morte prologus, Berlin-Schöneberg 1907]. Museum 15, col. 178-180. 1909 De Hollandsche zee- en scheepstermen in het Russisch. Amsterdam (=Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, afd. Letterkunde, N.R.10/2). 1946 Over de onderscheiding van levend en levenloos in de Slavische talen. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar in de BaltoSlavische talen aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden op 25 october 1946. Amsterdam: J.M. Meulenhoff. 1968 ‘J. Endzelin (22 februari 1873 – 1 juli 1961)’. Jaarboek der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen 1967-1968, p. 362-365. Meyer, K.H. 1931 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1931]. Central’naja Evropa 4, no.12, p. 750-752. Meyer-Kalkus, Reinhart 2001 Stimme und Sprechkünste im 20. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. M.M. 1927 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1926]. Boekzaal der geheele wereld 3, p. 131. Middendorp, Herman 1921 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1919]. De Nieuwe Gids 36, 2, p. 656-658.

318

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Miedema, H.Th.J. 1961 Paedwizers fan de Fryske filology: Th. Siebs (1862-1941), F. Buitenrust Hettema (1862-1922) en de Fryske filology tusken 1880 en 1940. Ljouwert/Leeuwarden: R. van der Velde. Mulder, E. 2001 ‘Gunning [Wzn.], Johannes Hermanus’. Biografisch woordenboek van Nederland 5, p. 154-157. Nehring, Karl 1994 ‘Der Briefwechsel von Fritz Valjavec 1934-1950. Personen und Institutionen’. Südost-Forschungen 53, p. 323-354. Noordegraaf, H. 1998 ‘Wijk, Aart Willem van’. Biografisch lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlandse protestantisme, 4, p. 469-470. Noordegraaf, Jan 1985 Norm, geest en geschiedenis. Nederlandse taalkunde in de negentiende eeuw. Dordrecht: Foris. 1992 ‘Hoogvliet versus van Ginneken – Dutch linguistics around the turn of the century’. In: Jan Noordegraaf, Kees Versteegh, and Konrad Koerner (eds.), The history of linguistics in the Low Countries. Amsterdam: Benjamins (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science; 64), p. 273-304. 1997 Voorlopig verleden: taalkundige plaatsbepalingen, 1797-1960. Münster: Nodus Publikationen. 2002 ‘Dutch linguistics between Humboldt and Saussure: the case of Jac. van Ginneken (1877-1945)’. Historiographia linguistica 29, p. 145-163. Novák, L. 1941 ‘[†Nicolaas van Wijk]’. Linguistica slovaca 3, p. 154. Ommen, G.H. van 1983 Delden in oude ansichten, 2. Zaltbommel: Europese Bibliotheek. Osthoff, Hermann, and Karl Brugmann 1878 ‘Vorwort’. In: idem, Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen, 1. Leipzig: S. Hirtel, p. iii-xx. Otterspeer, W. 1984 Huizinga voor de afgrond. Het incident-Von Leers aan de Leidse universiteit in 1933. Utrecht: Hes (Kwarto-reeks; 5). Paardekooper, P.C., and C.H. van Schooneveld 1942 ‘Schriftenverzeichnis von N. van Wijk’. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 18, p. 124-161. Parret, Herman, and Roger van de Velde 1980 ‘Structuralism in Belgium and in The Netherlands’. Semiotica 29, p. 145-174. Pastrnek, Fr. 1933-1934 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1931c]. Slavia 12, p. 228-229. Penkova, Pirinka 1985 ‘Van Vejk, Nikolas’. Kirilo-Metodievska enciklopedija, 1. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite, p. 319-323. Persijn, A.J. 1942 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1940]. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde 61, p. 78-80. Peters, A.J. 1994 ‘Toontalen (3)’. NRC Handelsblad, 25.08.1994, p. 2 (Wetenschap & Onderwijs). Pham-Thi-Tu 1962 La coopération intellectuelle sous la Société des Nations. Genève: Librarie E. Droz.

REFERENCES

319

Pijnenburg, W.J.J. 1988 ‘Nicolaas van Wijk und die Etymologie des Niederländischen’. In: B.M. Groen et al. 1988, p. 99-127. 1996 ‘Wijk, Nicolaas van’. In: Harro Stammerjohann (ed.), Lexicon grammaticorum: who’s who in the history of world linguistics. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, p. 1011. Polak, Leonard 1915 Oorlogsfilosofie. Amsterdam: W. Versluys. 1916 ‘Zinmelodie en lichaamsreaktie’. Neophilologus 1, p. 161-181. Pope, Richard 1974 ‘N. van Wijk’s edition of the Andron Hagion Biblos’. Slovo 24, p. 135-137. Portielje, Cecile 2004 ‘Professor E.M. Uhlenbeck, taalkundige (1913-2003)’. Voortgang: jaarboek voor de neerlandistiek 22, p. 205-234. P[ouw], E. 1899-1900 ‘Vergelijking en karakteriseering’. Propria Cures 11, no. 22 (31.03.1900), p. 223-224. Praag, S. van 1921 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1920]. De Amsterdammer, no. 2275 (29.01.1921), p. 9. Proost, K.F. 1935 De ontwikkeling der literatuur in Sowjetrusland. Arnhem: van Loghum Slaterus’ Uitgevers-Maatschappij N.V. Reens, Ginette 1999 Oorlog en vrijheid: ter nagedachtenis aan mijn oudoom Dr. Abraham Elias Boutelje, Amsterdam, 29 maart 1894-Sobibor, 16 april 1943: een verhaal. [Alphen aan den Rijn:] Reens. Reve, Karel van het 1983 ‘Advies over opheffen vakgroepen strijdig met academisch fatsoen’. NRC Handelsblad, 22.04.1983, p. 7. 1986 ‘Herinneringen aan Leiden’. Šþipþiki 1, no. 1, p. 16-18. 1989 ‘Het korte leven van Etty’. In: ‘Men zou een pleister op vele wonden willen zijn’. Reacties op de dagboeken en brieven van Etty Hillesum. Amsterdam: Balans, p. 41-43. Robbers, Herman 1919 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1919]. Elsevier’s Geïllustreerd Maandschrift 29, 58, p. 280281. Romanski, St. 1924-1925 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1925a]. Makedonksi pregled 1, no. 5-6, p. 169-172. Romein, Jan 1919 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1919]. De Nieuwe Tijd 24, p. 676-680. 1924 Dostojewskij in de Westersche kritiek. Een hoofdstuk uit de geschiedenis van den literairen roem. Haarlem: H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon. 1957 ‘Jef Suys (Groningen, 5 januari 1897 – Amsterdam, 22 december 1956)’. Jaarboek van de Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde te Leiden 1956-1957, p. 89-96. Romein-Verschoor, Annie 1970 Omzien in verwondering, 1. Amsterdam: de Arbeiderspers (Privé-Domein; 17). Royen, N.J.H. 1926 De jongere veranderingen van het Indogermaanse nominale drieklassensysteem. [Leiden]. 1937 [Rev. C.B. van Haeringen 1936]. Museum 44, col. 292-295. 1940 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1939]. Museum 47, col. 161-165. Russer, Wilhelmina Stevina 1930 De Germaansche klankverschuiving: een hoofdstuk uit de geschiedenis der Germaansche taalwetenschap. Haarlem: N/V H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon.

320

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Sabaliauskas, A. 1979 Lietuviǐ kalbos tyrinơjimo istorija iki 1940 m. Vilnius: Mokslas. 1999 ‘Wijk Nicolaas van’. In: Lietuviǐ kalbos enciklopedija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijǐ leidybos institutas, p. 715-716. Sadnik-Aitzetmüller, Linda 1952 ‘Bernd von Arnim’. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 2, p. 1-5. Sanders, Ewoud 1991 ‘Zoeken naar de oorsprong van “schorriemorrie”’. NRC Handelsblad, 01.06.1991, p. 1 (Zaterdags Bijvoegsel. Boeken). Schaeken, Jos 1988 ‘Die Geschichte einer Geschichte. Zu dem II. Band der Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache: Syntax, Wortschatz und Wortbildung von Nicolaas van Wijk’. In: B.M. Groen et al. 1988., p. 129-146. 1988a ‘Bibliographia Nicolai van Wijk: Addenda et Corrigenda’. In: B.M. Groen et al. 1988, p. 147-149. 1988b ‘The missing page of Nicolaas van Wijk's edition of the Old Church Slavonic Andron Hagion Biblos’. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 37, 35-43. 1996 ‘Neues zum Schicksal des II. Bandes der Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache von Nicolaas van Wijk (Aus dem Briefwechsel Max Vasmers)’. Studies in South Slavic and Balkan Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, p. 177-181 (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics; 23). 1998 ‘Übersicht der Baltistik in den Niederlanden (1888-1998)’. Res balticae 4, p. 201-211. Schaeken, Jos, and Nikolai Mikhailov 1998 ‘Die Briefe von A. Leskien an R. van der Meulen’. Res balticae 4, p. 213-231. Schallenberg, Evert Willem 1929 Studiën over Frédéric Chopin. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Schenker, Alexander M. 1995 The dawn of Slavic: an introduction to Slavic philology. New Haven: Yale University Press. Schepers, J.B. 1923 ‘Levensbericht van F. Buitenrust Hettema (6 Junie 1862 – 5 Oktober 1922)’. Handelingen van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche Letterkunde te Leiden en Levensberichten harer afgestorven leden 1922-1923, p. 27-33 (Levensberichten). Schönfeld, M. 1913 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1912]. Indogermanische Forschungen 32 (Anz.), p. 59-62. 1922 ‘De grammatica op de middelbare school’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 16, p. 125-130. Schoonees, P.C. 1921 ‘Suid Afrikaanse brief’. Het Getij 6, 1ste reeks, p. 213-216. Schooneveld, C.H. van 1953 ‘Nicolaas van Wijk (1880-1941)’. Südost-Forschungen 12, p. 259-261. 1975 ‘Foreword’. In: Van Wijk 1975, p. v-viii. Schothorst, W. van 1919 ‘Voorbericht voor de vierde druk’. In: Van Wijk 19194, p. vii. 1924 ‘Voorbericht voor de vijfde druk’. In: Van Wijk 19245, p. vii. 1931 ‘Voorbericht voor de zesde druk’. In: Van Wijk 19316, p. vii. Schultink, H. 1990 ‘C.B. van Haeringen (1892-1983) als etymoloog’. In: A. Moerdijk, W. Pijnenburg, and P. van Sterkenburg (eds.), Honderd jaar etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands: een verzameling artikelen over etymologen en etymologie. ’s-Gravenhage: Sdu Uitgeverij, p. 115-130.

REFERENCES Seekles, J.J. 1993

321

‘Tijl, Jan Jacob (1860-1927), uitgever en drukker’. Overijsselse biografieën 3, p. 100-103.

Seifert, Miloš 1922 U básníka Frederika van Eedena.Vzpomínky na Holandsko. Praha: B. Koþí. Šmelev, I.S., and O.A. Bredius-Subbotina 2003 Roman v pis’mach, 1: 1939-1942. Moskva: ROSSPÈN. 2005 Roman v pis’mach, 2: 1942-1950. Moskva: ROSSPÈN. Smidt, H.J. 1922 Het Academisch Statuut (Koninklijk Besluit van 15 juni 1921, Staatsblad No. 800) met aantekeningen. Alphen aan den Rijn: N. Samson. Smit, Louis 1988 ‘De Nederlandse Slavistiek wordt langzaam geprivatiseerd’. Trouw, 05.10.1988. Smits, Jan 1995 Een juridische wandeling door Leiden. ’s-Gravenhage: Juridische Boekhandel & Uitgeverij A. Jongbloed & Zoon. Spatkowa, V.R. 1946 Beknopte Russische grammatica met uitgebreide syntaxis. Haarlem: H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon N.V. Spruit, C.I. 1936 Leerboek der Russische taal. Zutphen: W.J. Thieme & Cie. Stanislav, J. 1935 ‘Druhý mezinár. sjezd slovanských filologĤ ve VaršavČ. 1. ýást lingvistická’. ýasopis pro moderní filologii 21, 1, p. 89-96. Stankiewicz, E. 1986 The Slavic languages: unity in diversity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Stenfert Kroese, W.H. 1918 ‘In memoriam A.W. van Wijk’. De Hervorming, no. 12 (23.03.1918), p. 47-48. Straten, Hans van 19803 Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman: de drukker van het paradijs. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff. Strootman, K.E.W. 1913 ‘Naar aanleiding van het Balto-Slavisch professoraat te Leiden’. De Amsterdammer, no. 1898 (09.11.1913), p. 2-3. Suprun, A.E., and A.M. Kaljuta 1981 Vvedenie v slavjanskuju filologiju. Minsk: Vyšơjšaja škola. Suys, Joseph 1931 Leo Sjestow’s protest tegen de rede. De intellectueele biografie van een Russisch denker. Amsterdam: N.V. Seyffardt’s Boek- en muziekhandel. Swiggers, P. 1989 [Rev. B.M. Groen et al. 1988]. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 84, 2, p. 134-137. Tellegen, Toon 2004 2004 ‘Inleiding’. In: Egbert Engberts, Herinneringen aan Rusland (ed. Adinka Tellegen). Amsterdam: Athenaeum-Polak & Van Gennep, p. 5-9. Thomson, Francis J. 1977 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1975]. The Slavonic and East European Review 55, p. 392393. Tiethoff, Saskia 2004 ‘In den beginne was er… Nicolaas van Wijk. Over de eerste hoogleraar slavistiek in Nederland’. Most Gedenkboek 2003-2004. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden, Opleiding Slavische talen en culturen en Ruslandkunde, p. 20-21.

322

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Tjeenk Willink, M. 1948 ‘Koningin Juliana als studente’. In: Koningin Juliana. Officieel gedenkboek van de troonsbestijging van Hare Majesteit Koningin Juliana, Louise, Emma, Marie, Wilhelmina 6 september 1948 in de Nieuwe Kerk te Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Scheltens & Giltay, p. 148-162. Trager, George L. 1940 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1939]. Language 16, p. 247-251. Trautmann, Reinhold 1918 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1918]. Deutsche Literaturzeitung 39, col. 627. Trubeckoj, N.S. 1933 ‘La phonologie actuelle’. Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique 30, p. 227-246. Uhlenbeck, C.C. 1891 Verslag aangaande een onderzoek in de archieven van Rusland ten bate der Nederlandsche geschiedenis. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. 1903 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1902]. Museum 10, col. 82-83. 1911 [Rev. N. van Wijk, Franck’s etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1910-1911]. Museum 18 (1911), col. 334-335. 1939 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1939]. De Nieuwe Taalgids 33, p. 274-277. Uhlenbeck, E.M. 1977 ‘Roman Jakobson and Dutch linguistics’. In: Daniel Armstrong and C.H. van Schooneveld (eds.), Roman Jakobson: echoes of his scholarship. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press, p. 485-202. Unbegaun, B. 1938 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1937]. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 39, p. 140 (Comptes rendus). UrbaĔczyk, Stanisáaw 1990 ‘Sytuacja slawistyki na przeáomie XIX i XX wieku. In: Mieczysáaw Basaj and Stanisáaw UrbaĔczyk (eds.), Slawistyka na przeáomie XIX i XX wieku. Wrocáaw: Zakáad narodowy imienia OssoliĔskich, p. 9-15. Vachek, Josef 1968 Dutch linguists and the Prague linguistic school. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van gewoon hoogleraar in de Engelse taalkunde aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden op 6 december 1968. Leiden: Universitaire Pers Leiden. Vaillant, A. 1932 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1931c]. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 33, p. 151 (Comptes rendus). Veder, William R. 1988 ‘Kirchenslavische Handschriften und Texte im Werk Nicolaas van Wijks’. In: B.M. Groen et al. 1988, p. 151-159. Vermeer, Willem 1988 ‘Some notes on Van Wijk’s accentology’. In: B.M. Groen et al. 1988, p. 161-181 1988a ‘De wet van Van Wijk’. Šþipþiki 2, no. 8, p. 38-44. Verrips, Ger 2004 Denkbeelden uit een dubbelleven. Biografie van Karel van het Reve. Amsterdam: de Arbeiderspers (Open domein; 42). Voogd, Christophe de 2005 ‘Johan Huizinga en de Coopération intellectuelle internationale: ‘een intellectueel ambassadeur’ van Nederland in de crisisjaren’. De Gids 168, no. 2, p. 159169. Vooys, C.G.N. de 1929 ‘Nieuwe Nederlandse spraakkunsten’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 23, p. 44-54.

REFERENCES 1941 Vos, H.J. de 1939

1942 Vries, J. de 1930

323

[Rev. N. van Wijk 1940]. De Nieuwe Taalgids 35, p. 94-95. Moedertaalonderwijs in de Nederlanden: een historisch-kritisch overzicht van de methoden bij de studie van de moedertaal in het middelbaar onderwijs sedert het begin van de 19e eeuw. Turnhout: Drukkerij J. van Mierlo-Proost (Koninklijke Vlaamsche Academie voor Taal- & Letterkunde. Reeks VI; no. 61). In memoriam J.H. van den Bosch. Verhoudingen en geestelijke ontmoetingen in ’t leven van Jan Hendrik van den Bosch. Brussel: Manteau. ‘Levensbericht van Prof.Dr. R.C. Boer (31 Jan. 1863 – 20 Aug. 1929)’. Handelingen van de Maatschappij der Nederlandsche letterkunde te Leiden en levensberichten harer afgestorven medeleden 1929-1930, p. 1-22 (Levensberichten).

Vries, Thom. J. de 1961 Geschiedenis van Zwolle, 2. Van de invoering der Reformatie tot het jaar 1940. Zwolle: Koninklijke Uitgeverij van de Erven J.J. Tijl N.V. Vries-de Gunzburg, I. de 1941 Catherine Pavlovna, grande-duchesse russe 1788-1819. Amsterdam: J.M. Meulenhoff. Wal, Libbe van der 1947 ‘Over Leo Polak’. In: Leo Polak, Verspreide geschriften, 1. Amsterdam: G.A. van Oorschot, p. vii-xix. Weingart, Miloš 1923 [Rev. N. van Wijk 1923]. ýasopis pro moderní filologii a literatury 9, p. 273275. Weijts, Christiaan 2001 ‘Redactiearchief van een bevlogen Slavist. Tentoonstelling over uitgeverij Mouton & Co.’. Mare 24, no. 17 (01.02.2001), p. 23. 2005 ‘Mysterieuze oerfiguur. Biografie van Leidse slavist en rector-magnificus Nicolaas van Wijk (1880-1941)’. Mare 29, no. 10 (10.11.2005), p. 9. Wengen, Ger van 2002 “Wat is er te doen in Volkenkunde?” De bewogen geschiedenis van het Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde in Leiden. Leiden: Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde. Wiezer, Jan 1995 ‘Jan Romein over zijn jeugd’. In: Bert Hageraats (ed.), ‘Geloof niet wat geschiedschrijvers zeggen…’ Honderd jaar Jan Romein, 1893-1993. Amsterdam: Stichting beheer IISG, p. 183-211. Wijk, A.W. van 1916 Afscheidswoorden tot de Zwolsche gemeente gesproken bij het neerleggen van zijn arbeid onder haar. [Zwolle]. Wijk, N. van 1902 Der nominale Genetiv singular im Indogermanischen in seinem Verhältnis zum Nominativ. Zwolle: J.J. Tijl. 1902a ‘De Nabalia’, Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde 21, p. 197201. 1903 ‘Zur relativen chronologie urgermanischer lautgesetze’. Beiträge zur geschichte der deutschen sprache und literatur 28, p. 243-253. 1903a ‘Westgermaansch nj + vocaal in het Nederlandsch’. Taal en Letteren 13, p. 3641. 1904 ‘Over eenige grammatische categorieën van het Nederlandsch’. Taal en Letteren 14, p. 309. 1904a ‘De Hamlets van de Russische letterkunde’. De Gids 68, 4, p. 127-164, 442-487. 1904-1905 ‘Die altitalischen Futura’. Indogermanische Forschungen 17, p. 465-483. 1905 ‘Naar aanleiding van het woord morgen’. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taalen letterkunde 24, p. 7-15.

324 1905a 1905b 1905-1906 1906 1906a 1907 1907a 1907b 1908 1908a 1908b 1908c 19092 1909a 1909b 1910 1910a 1910b 1910c 1911 1911a 1911b 1911c 1911d 1912 1912a 1912b 1912c 1913 19133 1913a 1913b 1913c

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK ‘Over Nederlandsche grammatica, naar aanleiding van Dr. K. Holtvast, Beknopte Nederlandsche Spraakkunst’. Taal en Letteren 15 (1905), p. 437-450. [Rev. J.W. Rutten, Leerboek der Russische taal, Amsterdam 1904]. Museum 12, col. 262-264. ‘Zur Konjugation des Verbum substantivum’. Indogermanische Forschungen 18, p. 49-59. De Nederlandsche taal: handboek voor de drie laagste klassen van Gymnasia en Hoogere Burgerscholen. Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink. ‘Een ideale orthografie’. Taal en Letteren 16, p. 440-447. ‘Over het Russische volkskarakter’. De Tijdspiegel 64, 1, p. 155-180, 294-310. [Rev. P. Boyer et N. Spéranski, Manuel pour l’étude de la langue russe, Paris 1905], Museum 14, col. 15-17. ‘Eendracht noodzakelijk’. Vereenvoudiging 11, p. 36-37. ‘Waar heeft het Indogermaansche stamland gelegen?’. Onze Eeuw 8, 3, p. 60-98. ‘Russische indrukken’. De Gids 72, 1, p. 463-502. [Rev. R. van der Meulen Rz., Die Naturvergleiche in den Liedern und Totenklagen der Litauer, Leiden 1907]. Museum 15, col. 61-63. [Rev. W. Vondrák, Vergleichende slavische Grammatik, II. Formenlehre und Syntax, Göttingen 1908]. Museum 15, col. 421-424. De Nederlandsche taal. Handboek voor Gymnasia en Hoogere Burgerscholen. Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink. ‘Zinsontleding en nieuwe spelling’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 3, p. 26-29. [Rev. H. Falk og A. Torp, Etymologisk ordbog over det norske og det danske sprog, Kristiania 1903-1906, 2 vol.]. Museum 16, col. 331-333. ‘Over leenwoorden’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 4, p. 273-287. [Rev. E. Berneker, Slavisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Lief. 2-5 Heidelberg]. Museum 17, col. 427-430. [Rev. Rocznik slawistyczny 1, 1908]. Museum 17, col. 336-338. ‘Russische literatuur’ [= Rev. Z. Stokvis, Inleiding tot de Russische literatuurgeschiedenis, Amsterdam 1909]. De Gids 74, 3, p. 150-153. ‘De leemten in onze dialektkennis’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 5, p. 80-90. ‘Over woordafleiding’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 5, p. 255-262. ‘N.W. Gogol (1809-1852)’. Onze Eeuw 11, 1, p. 404-443. [Rev. Fr.L.K. Weigand, Deutsches Wörterbuch; ed. H. Hirt, Lief. 12, Giessen 1910]. Museum 18, col. 174-176. [Rev. Olaf Broch, Slavische Phonetik, Heidelberg 1911]. Museum 18, col. 429431. Franck’s etymologisch woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. ‘Gerekte ǂ en ǎ in Oostnederlandse dialekten’. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde 31, p. 291-309. ‘Over dialektgrenzen’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 6, p. 113-126. [Rev. M. van Blankenstein, Untersuchungen zu den langen Vokalen in der ƟReihe, Göttingen 1911]. Museum 19, col. 121-125. Balties-slaviese problemen. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het hoogleraarsambt aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden op 8 oktober 1913. Groningen: Wolters. De Nederlandsche taal. Handboek voor Gymnasia en Hoogere Burgerscholen. Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink. ‘De transskriptie van Russische eigennamen’. Maandblad voor bibliotheekwezen 1, p. 33-42. ‘Over de betekenis van Middelnederlandse handschriften voor de studie van dialekten’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 7, p. 137-147. ‘Anton Tsjéchow (1860-1904)’. De Gids 77, 3, 461-498.

REFERENCES 1914 1914a 1914b 1915 1915a 1915b 1915c 1915d 1915e 1915f

1916 1916a 1916b 1916c

1916d 1917 1917a 1917b 1918 1918a 1918b

1918c 1919 19194

1919a 1920 1920a 1920b 1920c

325

‘De umlaut van a in Ripuaries- en Salies-frankiese dialekten van België en Nederland’. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde 33, p. 203-247. ‘Een nieuw boek over onze moedertaal’. De Gids 78, 1, p. 541-552. [Rev. J.J. Mikkola, Urslavische Grammatik, I: Lautlehre, Vokalismus, Betonung, Heidelberg 1913]. Museum 21, col. 423-426. Verslag van een reis naar de voornaamste centra van Slavistische wetenschap en Slavische cultuur 25 april-3 augustus 1914. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. ‘Bulgarije, indrukken en beschouwingen’. Onze Eeuw 15, 3, p. 119-137, 232250. ‘De wederopstanding van Polen’. De Amsterdammer, 07.03.1915, p. 1-2. ‘De nood in Polen en de leniging daarvan’. De Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 15.09.1915 (Avondblad). ‘De rompstand en zijn betekenis voor taal en muziek’. De Gids 79, 3, p. 458-494. [Rev. S. Agrell, Intonation und Auslaut im Slavischen, Uppsala 1913]. Museum 22, col. 208-210. [Rev. B. Kruitwagen, O.F.M., Catalogus van de handschriften en boeken van het Bisschoppelijk Museum te Haarlem, Amsterdam 1913]. Museum 22, col. 245247. ‘De tragedie van Polen’. Onze Eeuw 16, 1, p. 71-93. ‘Zur sekundären steigenden Intonation im Slavischen, vornehmlich in ursprünglich kurzen Silben’. Archiv für slavische Philologie 36, p. 321-377. ‘Rusland en Europa’. De Amsterdammer, 16.01.1916, p. 2-4. [Rev. A. Leskien, Grammatik der serbo-kroatischen Sprache. 1. Teil: Lautlehre, Stammbildung, Formenlehre. Heidelberg 1914; S.M. Kul’bakin, Serbskij jazyk. I. Fonetika i morfologija serbskogo jazyka. Char’kov 1915]. Museum 23, col. 8284. [Rev. W.F. Tiemeyer, Klankleer der gedichten van Willem van Hildegaersberch, Amsterdam 1916]. De Nieuwe Taalgids 10, p. 208-212. ‘Zur litauischen Nominalbetonung’. Le monde oriental 11, p. 211-223. ‘De nationale dichter der Polen, Adam Mickiewicz (1798-1855)’. De Gids 81, 1, 84-119. ‘De Russiese revolutie en het Russiese volk’. Leven en Werken 2, p. 457-472. Altpreussische Studien. Beiträge zur baltischen und zur vergleichenden indogermanischen Grammatik. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff. ‘Opmerkingen over Russiese mentaliteit’. De Hervorming, 20.04.1918, p. 61-62. [Rev. A. Meillet, Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues germaniques. Quatrième édition revue et corrigée. Paris 1915]. De Nieuwe Taalgids 12, p. 9799. [Rev. G. Weigand, Übungsbuch zur bulgarischen Schreibschrift, Leipzig 1917]. Museum 25, col. 251-252. Hoofdmomenten der Russiese letterkunde. Poeshkin, Gogolj, Tolstoj, Dostojewskij. Zeist: J. Ploegsma. De Nederlandsche taal: handboek voor Gymnasia en Hoogere-Burgerscholen. Met medewerking van den schrijver herzien door Dr. W. van Schothorst. Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink. ‘Opmerkingen over taalkundig nationalisme en internationalisme’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 13, p. 17-23. Geestelik leven en letterkunde in Rusland gedurende de negentiende eeuw. Zeist: J. Ploegsma. ‘De Tsjechoslowaakse republiek. Indrukken en beschouwingen’. De Gids 84, 4, p. 256-281. ‘Een modern Panslavisme’. Tijdschrift voor geschiedenis 35, p. 193-198. [Rev. H. Petersson, Baltische und slavische Wortstudien, Lund-Leipzig 1918]. Museum 27, col. 80-81.

326 1922 1922a 1922b 1923

1923a 1923b 1923c 19242 19245

1924 1924a 1924b 1924c 1924d 1924e 1924f 1924g 1925

1925a 1925b 1925c

1925d 1926 1926a 1926b

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK De ýechoslovaakse republiek. Indrukken en beschouwingen. Amsterdam: P.N. van Kampen. ‘Inleiding’. In: Alexej N. Tolstoj, Langs den lijdensweg. Uit het Russisch vertaald door U. Huber Noodt. Haarlem: H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon, p. [v-vi]. [Rev. H. Hirt, Indogermanische Grammatik, II: Der Indogermanische Vokalismus, Heidelberg, 1921]. Museum 29, col. 97-101. Die baltischen und slavischen Akzent- und Intonationssysteme. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der baltisch-slavischen Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse. Amsterdam (=Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde. N.R. 23/2). The Czechoslovak Republic. Impressions and studies. London: Czech Society of Great Britain. ‘Wladimir Korolenko (1853-1921) en de jongste Russiese geschiedenis’. De Gids 87, p. 274-292. [Rev. L. Niederle, Manuel de l’antiquité slave, I: L’histoire, Paris 1923]. Tijdschrift voor geschiedenis 38, p. 382. The Czechoslovak Republic. Impressions and studies. London: Czech Society of Great Britain. De Nederlandsche taal: handboek voor Gymnasia en Hoogere Burgerscholen. Met medewerking van den schrijver herzien door Dr. W. van Schothorst. Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink. ‘Remarques sur le groupement des langues slaves’. Revue des études slaves 4, p. 5-15. ‘Een grote figuur uit Rusland’s maatschappelik leven (A.F. Koni)’. De Gids 88, 3, p. 271-281. ‘Een nieuw boek over Dostojevskij’. De Groene Amsterdammer 28, 1.11.1924, p. 6. ‘T.G. Masaryk’. Haagsch Maandblad 1, 2, p. 570-581. [Rev. A. Meillet, A. Vaillant, Grammaire de la langue serbo-croate, Paris 1924]. Neophilologus 9, p. 309-311. [Rev. H. Petersson, Vergleichende slavische Wortstudien, Lund 1922]. Museum 31, col. 161. [Rev. R. Trautmann, Polnisches Lesebuch, Göttingen 1920]. Museum 31, col. 241. [Rev. J. Endzelin, Lettische Grammatik, Riga 1922]. Latvju GrƗmata 3, p. 307312. ‘Zur Komposition des altkirchenslavischen Codex Suprasliensis’. Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde, 59, serie A, p. 81-141. ‘Zur Grenze zwischen dem Ost- und Westbulgarischen’. Archiv für slavische Philologie 39, p. 212-216. ‘Kilka uwag o pochodzeniu Miszaáu Kijowskiego’. In: KsiĊga pamiątkowa ku czi Oswalda Balzera, 2. Lvov, p. 665-667. ‘Die slawischen Universitäten, ihre Ziele und Ideale’. In: Reinhold Schairer and Conrad Hoffmann jr. (eds.), Die Universitätsideale der Kulturvölker. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, p. 279-286 (Schriftenreihe des Weltstudentenwerkes des Christlichen Studentenweltbundes; 1). [Rev. Mélanges publiés en l’honneur de M. Paul Boyer, Paris 1925]. De Nieuwe Taalgids 19, p. 257-259. Geïllustreerde geschiedenis der Russische letterkunde. Amsterdam: J.M. Meulenhoff. ‘Herinneringen aan W.G.C. Bijvanck’. De Gids 90, 1, p. 250-258. ‘Zu den slavischen und baltischen Präteritalstämmen auf -a, -e’. Tauta ir žodis 4, p. 67-84.

REFERENCES 1926c 1926d

1926e

1927 1927a 1928 1928a 1928b 1929

1929a 1930 1930a 1930b

1930c 1931 19316

1931a 1931b 1931c 1931d 1931e 1931f

1931-1932 1932

1932a

327

‘Zur Vorgeschichte zweier altkirchenslavischer Sprachdenkmäler’. Archiv für slavische Philologie 40, p. 265-278. ‘Een woord vooraf’. In: Ivan Sjmeljow, Een oud vrouwtje: het verhaal van een man, die veel meegemaakt heeft. Uit het Russisch door Anna Kosloff. Amsterdam: De Spieghel, p. 7-10. [Rev. W. Vondrák, Vergleichende slavische Grammatik, I: Lautlehre und Stammbildungslehre (Zweite Auflage), Göttingen 1924]. Museum 33, col. 207210. ‘Eurazisme’. De Gids 91, 4, p. 236-251. [Rev. R. Trautmann, Die altpreussischen Personennamen, Göttingen 1925]. Museum 34, col. 100-101. ‘ýechies-Slovaaks-ýechoslovaaks’. Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde 65, serie A, p. 245-266. ‘Vondel’s Lucifer klankanalytisch onderzocht’. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde 47, p. 81-86. ‘Inleiding’. In: Russische novellen. Onder toezicht van Prof.Dr. N. van Wijk uit het Russisch vertaald door Wladimir Zatskoy. Zeist: J. Ploegsma, p. 6-18. ‘De schrijver Michaïl Boelgakow’. In: M. Boelgakow, De noodlottige eieren. Onder toezicht van Prof.Dr. N. van Wijk uit het Russisch vertaald door Wladimir Zatskoy. Zeist: J. Ploegsma, p. 5-11. [Rev. G. Ipsen and F. Karg, Schallanalytische Versuche, Heidelberg 1928]. Museum 36, col. 171-172. Optimisme en pessimisme in de Russiese letterkunde. Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink. De Nederlandsche Commissie voor Intellectueele Samenwerking. Haarlem: N/V H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon. ‘Rede van den Rector Magnificus Dr. N. van Wijk bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan Dr. J.Ph. Vogel op 15 september 1930’. Jaarboek der Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden 1930, p. 235-271. ‘Moderne studie der taalsystemen en ouderwetse linguistiek’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 24, p. 225-236. Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache, 1: Laut- und Formenlehre. BerlIn Walter de Gruyter & Co. De Nederlandsche taal. Handboek voor Gymnasia en Hoogere Burgerscholen. Met medewerking van den schrijver herzien door Dr. W. van Schothorst. Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink. ýechoslovakije 1920-1929. Feiten en indrukken. Amsterdam: P.N. van Kampen & Zoon. Czechoslovakia. Facts and impressions. [Prague: Orbis]. Studien zu den altkirchenslavischen Paterika. Amsterdam (= Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde, N.R. 30/2). ‘Slavische nationaliteiten-problemen’. Leiding 2, p. 141-153. [‘Voorwoord’]. Almanak Unitas Studiosorum Lugduno Batava 1, p. 4. ‘De schrijver N.S. Leskow en zijn novelle: De betooverde pelgrim’. In: N.S. Leskow, De betooverde pelgrim. Vertaling van Wladimir Zatskoy. Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff’s Uitgeversmij N.V., p. 1-8. ‘Internationale studentenbelangen’. Leidsch Universiteitsblad 1, no. 4, p. 1-2. I.S. Toergenew, Het verhaal van Vader Aleksej. Uit het Russisch door N. van Wijk. Assen: Van Gorcum & comp. (Van Gorcum’s Volksboekerij; 5 / Premieboekje No. 5, Supplement to Kerk en wereld, no. 47, 18.11.1932). ‘Inleiding I.S.S.’. Nederlandsch Studenten-Werkkamp. Verslag van het 2e Werkkamp 10 juli-10 september 1932 Bakkeveen. Amsterdam: International Student Service / Nederlandsch Comité, p. 1-2.

328 1932b 1932c 1932-1933 1933-1934 1934 1934a 1934b 1934c 1934d 1934-1935 1935 1935a 1935-1936 1936 1936a 1936b 1937 1937a 1937b 1938 1938a 1938b 1938c 1938d 1939 1939a 1939b 1939c 1939d 1940 1940a 1941

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK ‘De moderne phonologie en de omlijning van taalkategorieën’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 26, p. 65-75. [Rev. Albert Vogel, Rhetorica, Rotterdam 1931]. Museum 39, col. 314-315. ‘Het congres der International Student Service te Brno’. Leidsch Universiteitsblad 2, no. 3, p. 3-5. ‘In Memoriam Prof.Dr. J.H. Kern’. Leidsch Universiteitsblad 3, no. 8, p. 1. ‘Levensbericht van J.H. Kern (24-I-1867 – 19-XII-1933)’. Jaarboek der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam 1933-34, p. 147-151. ‘Het tweede congres van slavisten’. Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 03.10.1934 (Avondblad). ‘“Morphonologie”’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 28, p. 112-117. ‘Grammatika en woordvorming’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 28, p. 362-374. ‘[Slaavilaisen filologian professorinviran täyttäminen. Asiantuntijain lausunnot] Professori N. van Wijkin lausunto’. Asiakirjoja yliopistoasioissa, no. 2, p. 10-16. ‘Een mensa academica’. Leidsch Universiteitsblad 4, no. 9, p. 1-2. ‘Rukopisni paterik manastira Krke’. Magazin sjeverne Dalmacije 2, p. 108-110. ‘De klinkerrekking en stoottoon vóór stemhebbende medeklinkers in het Limburgs en in andere dialekten en talen’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 29, p. 405-411. ‘Het Kerkkoor der Russische Geestelijke Academie’. Leidsch Universiteitsblad 5, no. 2, p. 7. ‘Dostojewskij en zijn bronnen’. De Gids 100, 4, p. 192-200. ‘Rekking en stoottoon in het Limburgs’. Onze Taaltuin 5, p. 179-183. ‘Positieve en negatieve opmerkingen over de definitie van het phoneem’. De nieuwe taalgids 30, p. 311-326. Les langues slaves: de l’unité à la pluralité. Série de leçons faites à la Sorbonne. [Dijon: Imprimerie Darantière]. ‘De “Staten-Generaal” der intellectueele samenwerking’. Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 14.07.1937 (Ochtendblad). ‘Ist der slavische Lautwandel ky > ki, gy > gi, xy > xi phonologisch oder nur phonetisch?’. Indogermanische Forschungen 55, p. 41-51. ‘Slavistika v Nizozemsku’. ýasopis pro moderní filologii 24, 384-394. ‘Voorwoord’. In: I.A. Gontsjarow, Oblomow. Uit het Russisch vertaald door Else Bukowska. Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek, p. 5-8. ‘Klankhistorie en phonologie’. Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde, N.R. 1, no. 3, p. 181-217. ‘Slavonic studies in Holland and Belgium’. Baltic and Scandinavian Countries 4, p. 86-88. ‘Slaven’. Winkler Prins’ Algemeene Encyclopedie5, 15, 32-34. Phonologie: een hoofdstuk uit de structurele taalwetenschap. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. ‘De student in de Letteren’. De student aan de Leidsche Academie. Leiden: H.E. Stenfert Kroese, p. 81-95. ‘De Rijns-Limburgse polytonie, vergeleken met de Kasjoebse’. Onze Taaltuin 8, p. 146-152. ‘Parallelisme tussen “phonologie” en “grammatika”’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 33, p. 109-122. ‘Levensbericht van N.S. Trubetskoj (25 april 1890 - 25 juni 1938)’. Jaarboek der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen 1938-1939, p. 221-227. Het Getijdenboek van Geert Grote naar het Haagse handschrift 133 E 21 uitgegeven. Leiden: Brill. ‘Quantiteit en intonatie’. Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. letterkunde, N.R. 3, no. 1, p. 1-46. ‘Het etymologisch woordenboek en zijn waarde voor den niet taalkundig geschoolden lezer’. Onze Taal 10, p. 9-10.

REFERENCES 1941a 1941b 1941c 19562 1957 19582

1975

1988

329

‘Jespersen’s taalbeschouwing’. De Nieuwe Taalgids 35, p. 127-130. ‘Zum urslavischen sogenannten Synharmonismus der Silben’. Linguistica slovaca 3, p. 41-48. [Rev. Th. Baader, Phonologie des Dialektes von Tilligte in Twente, III. Historisch-dialektgeographische Einordnung, Nijmegen 1939]. Museum 48, col. 9394. Les langues slaves: de l’unité à la pluralité. The Hague: Mouton (Janua linguarum. Series minor; 2). [N. Van-Vejk]. Istorija staroslavjanskogo jazyka. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo inostrannoj literatury. Die baltischen und slavischen Akzent- und Intonationssysteme. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der baltisch-slavischen Verwandschaftsverhältnisse. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton (Janua linguarum. Series minor; 5). The Old Church Slavonic Translation of the Andron Hagion Biblos (eds. Daniel Armstrong, Richard Pope, and C.H. van Schooneveld). The Hague: Mouton (Slavistic printings and reprintings; 1). Russische indrukken. Leiden: De Slavische Stichting te Leiden (Slavische prospekten; 1).

Wijk, P.C. van 1907 Auto-biografie. [’s-Gravenhage]. Wijnen, Jan Fred van 1997 ‘Carl Barkman. Herinneringen van een topdiplomaat’. Vrij Nederland 58, no. 2 (11.01.1997), p. 10-12. W[ijnkoo]p, [D.J.] 1899-1900 ‘Ned. Litt. Ver. Jacob van Maerlant’. Propria Cures 11, no. 19 (10.03.1900), p. 186-187. Willemsen, Cees 2006 ‘Vader, zoon en geest van de slavistiek. Twee Nederlandse slavisten en ‘de Rus’’ [Rev. Hinrichs 2005]. Trouw, 11.02.2006, p. 19 (Letter & Geest). Wils, J. 1940 [Rev. N.S. Trubetzkoy, Grundzüge der Phonologie, Prague 1939, and Van Wijk 1939]. Kongo-Overzee 6, no. 2, p. 108-111. Zegveld, W.F. van 1993 De joden van Leiden, 3. Capelle aan den IJssel. Zeil, L. 1993 ‘Arnim, Bernd Dietrich Hans von’. In: Ernst Eichler et al. (eds.), Slawistik in Deutschland von den Anfängen bis 1945. Ein biografisches Lexikon. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag, p. 33-35. Zlatanova, Rumjana 1985 ‘Arnim, Bernd Ditrich Chans fon’. Kirilo-Metodievska enciklopedija, 1. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademija na Naukite, p. 105-106.

This page intentionally left blank

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES

Years of birth and death, as far as known, are given exclusively for contemporaries of Nicolaas van Wijk. References to illustrations are printed in bold face. Aa, Abraham Jacob van der, 13 Adriani, Nicolaus (1865-1926), 209 Agrell, Sigurd (1881-1937), 130 Andreev, Leonid Nikolaevič (1871-1919), 45, 81 Andreyev, see Andreev Arendonk, Cornelis van (1881-1946), 233, 234, 249, 251, 252, 255, 257, 261, 269, 271, 276, 281, 282, 283, 286, 300 Arnim, Bernd Dietrich Hans von (18991946), 85, 183, 184, 187, 216, 282, 283, 284, 288 Arnim, Hans Friedrich August von (18591931), 183 Asselbergs, Wilhelmus Johannes Maria Antonius (1903-1968), 257, 300 Baar, A.H. van den, 10, 81, 83, 87, 181, 182, 215, 217, 239, 264, 286, 293 Bakhuis Roozeboom, Hendrik Willem (1854-1907), 44 Bakker, A.A., 294 Bakker, Abraham C., 232, 283 Barbas, 12 Barkman, Carl, 198, 268 Barth, Aldert Jacobus, 42, 56 Bastet, Frédéric, 202 Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan Niecisław (1845-1929), 89, 107 Becker, Bruno Borisovič (1885-1968), 172, 204, 225, 226, 256, 267, 269, 270, 273, 286, 300 Beethoven, Ludwig van, 138 Behaghel, Wilhelm Maximilian Otto (1854-1936), 69 Belić, Aleksandar (1876-1960), 112, 131, 182, 193, 215, 222, 260, 300 Belinfante Jr., A., 93 Belinskij, Vissarion Grigor’evič, 180 Belinsky, see Belinskij Bem, Al’fred Ljudvigovič (1886-1945), 155, 189, 215, 227, 259, 300 Beneš, Edvard (1884-1948), 158, 250 Berg, Berend van den (1911-1979), 254

Bergh, J.C. van de, 250, 289 Bergsma, Jan, 69 Bergson, Henri Louis (1859-1941), 188, 218 Berkel, Klaas van, 197, 213 Berkel, Wilhelmina, 177 Berkenvelder, F.C., 28 Berneker, Erich (1874-1937), 35, 37, 72, 74, 179 Bezzenberger, Adalbert (1851-1922), 90 Bijleveld, Bob, 175, 236 Bijleveld-Kruijtbosch, San, 175 Bijlstra, Haye, 28, 39, 43, 45, 46, 48, 52, 57, 58, 59, 66, 67, 98 Bijvanck, Alexander Willem (1884-1970), 102, 177, 178, 202, 231, 257, 258, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 273, 276, 279, 283, 287, 300 Bijvanck, Willem Geertrudus Cornelis (1848-1925), 10, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 71, 76, 77, 78, 80, 92, 93, 98, 102, 107, 164, 177, 213, 253, 254, 293, 300, 304 Birkfellner, Gerhard, 291 Bitter, Rudolf Abraham, 12 Bláhová, Emilie, 291 Blankenstein, Elisabeth van, 120 Blankenstein, Marcus van (1880-1964), 120, 121, 150, 203, 204 Blok, Petrus Johannes (1855-1929), 86 Blom, Durk van (1877-1938), 200 Bloomfield, Leonard (1887-1949), 239 Boas, Franz (1858-1942), 239 Bobroff, Boris, 232, 233 Boelen, H.J., 269, 280 Boender, Jeroen, 231 Boer, Richard Constant (1863-1929), 10, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 38, 39, 44, 61, 63, 94, 97, 210 Boer, Tjitze Jacobs de (1866-1942), 61 Bogdan, Ioan, 110 Böhl, Franz Marius Theodore (1882-1976), 261 Bolkestein, Gerrit (1871-1956), 42, 236

332

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Bolland, Alfred Edwin Karel, 300 Bolland, Gerardus Johannes Petrus Josephus (1854-1922), 9, 300 Bom, Emmanuel de (1868-1953), 271 Bongaerts, Max Charles Emile, 269 Bongard-Levin, Grigorij Maksimovič, 281 Booij, Geert, 291, 298 Bool, Johan (1916-1942), 264, 289 Borko, Božidar (1896-1980), 189 Bosch, Jan Hendrik van den (1862-1941), 16, 17, 43, 58 Boutelje, Abraham Elias (1894-1943), 183, 184, 187, 285 Boyer, Paul Jean Marie (1864-1949), 179 Braak, Menno ter (1902-1940), 155 Brahms, Johannes, 138 Brandenburg, Angenies Maria, 185 Brantsen van de Zijp, W.G., 12 Brauw, H.C. de, 206 Bredius-Subbotina, Ol’ga Aleksandrovna (1904-1959), 222, 264, 281 Briët, P.E., 269 Broch, Olaf (1867-1961), 227, 300 Broek, Jos van den, 292 Brouwer, Luitzen Egbertus Jan (18811966), 9 Brückner, Aleksander (1856-1939), 84, 89, 100, 101, 102, 127 Bruggen, J. van, 43, 44 Brugmann, Karl (1849-1919), 17, 30, 32, 33, 35, 45, 83, 84, 96, 97, 104, 202, 240, 242 Bruijn, Bregitta, see Van Wijk-Bruijn Brummel, Leendert (1897-1976), 253, 300 Brummelkamp, A., 98, 99, 100, 101 Buck, Carl Darling (1866-1955), 68 Būga, Kazimieras (1879-1924), 126 Bugge, Sophus (1833-1907), 25 Buitenrust Hettema, Foeke (1862-1922), 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 32, 36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 61, 66, 67, 68, 98, 162, 194, 235, 272, 300 Bulachovskij, Leonid Arsen’evič (18881961), 126 Bulgakov, Michail Afanas’evič (18911940), 229 Buning, Adriana Jantina (Adri) (18961948), 183, 187, 288 Buter, Adriaan (1918-2000), 13 Byčkov, Ivan Afanas’evič (1858-1944), 77, 89, 107 Caland, Willem (1859-1932), 83, 210 Cannegieter, Hendrik Gerrit (1880-1966),

151 Čapek, Karel (1890-1938), 179 Catherine, see Ekaterina Cats, Jacob, 16 Čechov, Anton Pavlovič, 45, 81, 151, 152, 181, 265, 298 Černý, Adolf (1864-1952), 226, 300 Cervantes y Saavreda, Miguel de, 53 Chekhov, see Čechov Chopin, Frédéric, 190 Čičagova, Alina Josafatovna, 38, 76, 108 Cleveringa, Rudolph Pabus (Jzn.) (18941980), 257, 258, 264 Cohen, David (1882-1967), 9 Colenbrander, Herman Theodoor (18711945), 155, 292 Colijn, Hendrik (1869-1944), 219 Colinet, Philemon, 134 Conev, Ben’o (1863-1926), 111 Conscience, Hendrik, 142 Coornhert, Dirck Volckertszoon, 204 Cornelissen, Igor, 189 Corot, Jean-Baptiste-Camille, 139 Cosijn, Pieter Jacob (1840-1899), 23 Coster, W., 15, 292 Couvée, Petra, 295 Cramer, N.A. (1852-1908), 16, 19, 48, 66 Crena de Iongh, Adrianus Cornelis (19101992), 190 Croiset van der Kop, Anna Catharina (1859-1914), 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 98, 99, 101, 106, 107, 108, 123, 204, 210 Cvijanović, Sveta, 260, 300 Daalder, Saskia, 239 Daan, Johanna Catharina, 140, 260 Dalen, J.L. van, 51 Darnell, Regna, 264 Dębski, W., 105 Deden, Ivon, 293 Dijk, J.C. van, 150 Doesschate, Anton ten (1879-1940), 18, 19, 20, 66, 235 Doesschate, J. ten (1916-2002), 19, 235 Doesschate-Ente, A.J. ten, 19, 235 Dols, Jan Willem Hubertus Marie (Willy) (1911-1944), 136, 250, 289 Dorič, Aleksandăr, 110 Dostoevskij, Fedor Michajlovič, 45, 55, 56, 78, 79, 98, 145, 146, 147, 148, 153, 154, 178, 186, 188, 236, 265, 298 Dostoevsky, see Dostoevskij Driel, Lo van, 298 Driessen, Frederik Christoffel (1906-1963),

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES 260, 294 Driessen, Jozien J., 260, 294 Drion, F.J.W., 62 Drion, Huibert (1917-2004), 257 Dubrovskij, Petr Petrovič, 77 Duys, Jan Eliza Wilhelm (1877-1941), 252 Duys-van Wijk, Cornelia Johanna Quirina (1883-1955) Duyvendak, Jan Julius Lodewijk (18891954), 192, 224, 292 Eeden, Frederik van (1860-1932), 139, 159 Eeten-Koopmans, Jana, 190 Eggermont-Molenaar, Mary, 197, 287 Egle, Rūdolfs (1889-1947), 300 Ehrenfest, Paul (1880-1933), 231 Ehrenfest-Afanas’eva, Tat’jana Alekseevna (1876-1964), 231 Einhauser, Eveline, 138 Ekaterina II, Tsarin of Russia, 77 Ekblom, Richard, 235, 300 Elberts, Willem Antonie, 254 Elte, S., 15 Emma, Queen of The Netherlands (18581934), 206, 207 Endzelīns, Jānis (1873-1961), 95, 108, 124, 130, 132, 133, 211, 212, 286, 301 Engberts, Egbert (1875-1955), 231 Engels, Martin H.H., 28, 39, 43, 45, 46, 48, 52, 57, 58, 59, 66, 67, 98 Enschedé, Jan Willem (1865-1926), 64 Erdtsieck, Jacobus, 16 Escher, Berend George, 269 Esenin, Sergej Aleksandrovič (1895-1925), 153, 287 Eyck, Pieter Nicolaas van (1887-1954), 301 Eysinga, Willem Jan Marie van (18781961), 262 Faber, Wopke, 16 Faddegon, Barend (1874-1955), 25, 26, 27, 242 Fajnsjtejn, Michail, 84 Falk, Hjalmar Sejersted (1859-1928), 72, 74 Fancev, Franjo, 112 Fasseur, Cees, 205 Feist, Sigmund (1865-1943), 135, 224, 304 Feldstein, Ronald F., 293 Fife, Robert Herndon, 252 Florinskij, Timofej Dmitrievič, 109 Fockema Andreae, W.H., 192 Fortunatov, Filip Fedorovič (1848-1914), 37, 39, 41, 81, 90, 107, 124, 301 Franck, Johannes (1854-1914), 8, 71, 72,

333

73, 74, 76, 80, 301 Franz Ferdinand, archduke of AustroHungary, 113, 115 Freise, Hermann, 65, 66, 164, 281 Freise, Kurt, 65, 66 Frentzen, Carl Georg (1846-1914), 66 Fruin, Robert Jacobus (1823-1899), 24, 188 Gallée, Johan Hendrik (1847-1908), 58 Gauthiot, Robert (1876-1916), 75 Gelder, J.J. de, 269 Gevers, W.A.F., 117 Ginneken, Jacobus Johannes Antonius van (1877-1945), 30, 36, 38, 89, 94, 126, 136, 137, 140, 166, 184, 187, 202, 209, 212, 215, 237, 240, 242, 246, 260, 262, 265, 269, 271, 272, 286, 289, 301 Ginsberg, Jacob (1883-1943), 182, 222, 223, 224, 228, 230, 285, 287 Ginsberg, Jakob J. (1925-1993), 287 Ginsberg, Max, 224 Gladkov, Fedor Vasil’evič (1883-1958), 153 Goemans, Leo, 134 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 63, 138 Gogol’, Nikolaj Vasil’evič, 81, 98, 148, 178, 180, 256, 265 Golovin, Aleksandr Jakovlevič, 77 Gombault, Willem Frederik, 51 Gončarov, Ivan Aleksandrovič, 54, 151, 154 Goncharov, see Gončarov Goossens, Jan, 136, 293 Gor’kij, Maksim, 45, 54, 81, 298 Gorky, see Gor’kij Goudriaan, F.G.W. (Buck), 285 Goudsmit, H.J., 258 Graaff, Francisca de (1904-1997), 168, 183, 189, 190, 287, 288 Greve, Henri Ekhard, 64, 65, 304 Groen, Bernardus Maria, 293 Grondijs, Lodewijk Herman (1878-1961), 283, 284 Groningen, J. van, 289 Groot, Albert Willem de (1892-1963), 242, 243, 249, 262, 290 Grootaers, Ludovic Jean Joseph (18851956), 134, 216, 247, 271 Grot, Konstantin Jakovlevič (1853-1934), 90 Grote, Geert, 63, 64, 65, 128, 253, 254, 255, 261, 263, 271 Grünbaum, Jacob David, 228, 249, 287 Gulik, Robert Hans van (1910-1967), 198 Gunning, Johannes Hermanus (Wzn.)

334

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

(1859-1951), 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 42, 51, 161, 205, 252, 287 Gunzburg, I. de, see Vries-Gunzburg de Gurányi, Zoltán, 232 Haas, A.G.M., 254 Haeringen, Coenraad Bernardus van (18921983), 51, 75, 135, 190, 191, 260 Hageraats, Bart, 204, 205, 288 Hamel, Anton Gerardus van (1886-1945), 24 Hamm, Josip (1905-1986), 101 Händel, Georg Friedrich, 138 Hanssen, Leopold Hubert Marie, 186, 188 Harrassowitz, Otto, 35 Harst, Gerard van der, 228, 292 Hartleb, K., 109 Hartman, Jacobus Johannes (1851-1924), 86 Häusler, Frank, 291 Havránek, Bohuslav (1893-1978), 215 Haydn, Joseph, 138 Hayze, Johan Adriaan de la, 228 Heeckeren van Wassenaer, J.D.C. Baron van, 12 Heemskerk, Theodorus (1852-1932), 87, 90, 92 Heeroma, Klaas Hanzen (pseudonym Muus Jacobse) (1909-1972), 169, 191, 260, 269, 274, 275, 294 Heestermans, Hans, 190 Heinsius, Jacobus (1892-1947), 43, 210 Heinz, Adam, 291 Helden, Andries van, 7 Helfenstein, Willem, 232 Helten, Willem Lodewijk van (1849-1917), 19, 45, 50 Hendrik, Prince of The Netherlands (18761934), 206, 207 Henry IV, King of France, 26 Heugten, Joannes van (1890-1963), 152 Heuven, Johan Hendrik van, 183 Hijma, Bouwe, 11 Hilberdink, Koen, 256 Hille-Gaerthé, Catharina Magdalena van (1881-1958), 14 Hillesum, Esther (1914-1943), 256, 257, 266, 267, 273, 276, 283, 285 Hinrichs, Jan Paul, 42, 156, 184, 215, 224, 226, 274, 279, 280, 284, 285, 286, 289, 290, 291, 293, 294, 298 Hirt, Hermann Alfred (1865-1936), 33, 35, 36, 45, 52, 73, 74 Hitler, Adolf (1889-1945), 200, 249 Hjelmslev, Louis (1899-1965), 271, 272,

273 Holk, L.E. van, 258 Holtvast, K., see Kollewijn Holwerda, Antonie Ewout Jan (18451923), 86 Hommerson, Adrianus Hendrikus (19161954), 256 Hooft, Pieter Corneliszoon, 138 Horák, Jiří (1884-1975), 301 Horálek, Karel, 271, 291 Horst, Joop van der, 51 Horst, Kees van der, 51 Houben, Johan Henri Hubert, 134 Houtzagers, Peter, 298 Hruševs’kyj, Mychajlo Serhijovič (18661934), 109 Huber Noodt, Ulrich, 183, 184, 185, 288 Hugenholtz, Fredrik Willem Nicolaas (1839-1900), 12 Huisman, Willie (1914-1979), 169, 181, 183, 258, 267, 279, 288 Huizinga, Johan (1872-1945), 7, 24, 32, 33, 39, 106, 125, 155, 170, 173, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 198, 199, 200, 201, 205, 206, 210, 213, 218, 224, 226, 261, 268, 271, 286, 292, 301 Huizinga, Leonhard (1906-1980), 200, 201 Huizinga-Schölvinck, Auguste Alwine Caroline Maria (1909-1979), 218 Hujer, Oldřich, 104, 271 Hulstkamp, H.J., 178 Huygens, Constantijn, 22, 139 Idenburg, Petrus Johannes (1898-1989), 207, 222, 269 Ilčev, Petăr, 291 Ilešič, Fran (1871-1942), 113 Il’inskij, Grigorij Andreevič (1876-1937), 109 Istrin, Vasilij Michajlovič (1865-1937), 90 Jacobs, J.J., 20 Jacobse, Muus, see Heeroma Jacobsen, Reindert (1876-1962), 23 Jagić, Vatroslav (1838-1923), 99, 100, 101, 103, 114, 120, 123, 197, 213, 282, 301 Jakobson, Roman Osipovič (1896-1982), 10, 127, 215, 216, 217, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 249, 250, 251, 271, 285, 289 Jangfeldt, Bengt, 250 Janko, Josef, 105 Janse, Jacobus Marinus (1860-1938), 102 Jansen, Marc, 293 Jansma, R., 31 Jasperse, I., 232

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES Jelgersma, Gerbrandus (1859-1942), 102 Jespersen, Jens Otto Harry (1860-1943), 96, 216, 260 Jong, Adrianus Michiel de (1888-1943), 149 Jonge, A.A. de, 252 Jonker, Johann Christoph Gerhard (18571919), 91 Jónsson, Finnur (1858-1934), 25 Josselin de Jong, Jan Petrus Benjamin de (1886-1964), 38, 198, 210, 258, 271, 273 Judakin, Anatalij Petrovič, 291 Juliana, Queen of The Netherlands (19092004), 171, 205, 206, 207, 281 Juul, Arne, 216 Kalda, F., 151 Kalff, Gerrit (1889-1955), 99 Kaljuta, A.M., 291 Kalsbeek, Janneke, 298 Kamerbeek Jr., Jan (1905-1977), 43 Kamp, W., 19 Kampman, Arie Abraham, 269 Kan, Adam Hubert Marie Joseph van (1877-1944), 262 Kan, Cornelis Marius (1837-1919), 21, 26, 27 Karcevskij, Sergej Iosifovič (1884-1955), 239 Karskij, Evfimij Fedorovič (1860-1931), 105, 214 Kasteleyn, Leonard, 285 Keereweer, H.P.H., 268 Kempenaer, Aafke de, 301 Kern, J.H.C. (Caspar), 294 Kern, Johan Hendrik (1867-1933), 10, 80, 83, 84, 97, 132, 135, 191, 202, 203, 209, 210, 235, 281 Kern, Johan Hendrik Caspar (1833-1917), 39, 83, 84, 118, 212, 256 Keszy, Andor Mihály (1879-1937), 232, 235, 301 Keszy, Erzsébet, 232 Keszy-Wenzel, Maria (1897-1941), 232, 249, 283, 301 Kętrzyński, Wojciech (1838-1918), 110 Kleffens, Eelco Nicolaas van (1894-1983), 250 Klein, Peter Wolfgang, 62 Klein-Meijer, M.A.V., 62 Klimenko, Kira, 249 Kloeke, Gesinus Gerhardus (1887-1963), 191, 269 Kloos, Willem, 139

335

Kluge, Friedrich (1856-1926), 73, 74 Kluyver, Albert (1858-1938), 61, 75, 83, 85, 106, 203 Knuttel, Joannes Adrianus Nelius (18781965), 23, 24, 59 Kochanowski, Jan, 142 Kock, Karl Axel Lichnowsky (1851-1935), 301 Koejemans, Anthoon Johan, 26 Kollewijn, Roeland Anthonie (pseudonym K. Holtvast) (1857-1942), 17, 32, 47, 48, 49, 50, 67, 152 Kondrašov, Nikolaj Andreevič, 290 Kooij, Jan, 140, 289, 291 Koolhaas, 168 Koopmans, Jan, 67 Kordt, V.A., 109 Korš, Fedor Evgen’evič (1843-1915), 37, 90, 108, 138 Korteweg, Pieter Gerardus Johanees (19121987), 269 Kortlandt, Frederik, 251, 293, 297, 298 Koschmieder, Erwin, 126 Kosloff, A., see Kozlova-Rževskaja, A. Kossmann, Friedrich Karl Heinrich (18931968), 301 Koster, Jan, 248 Kot, Stanisław (1885-1975), 92, 214, 301 Kovalevskij, Petr Evgrafovič (1901-1978), 222 Kozlova-Rževskaja, Anna, 231 Kramers, Hendrik Anthony (1894-1952), 186 Kramers, Johannes Hendrik (1891-1951), 234 Krasiński, Napoleon Stanisław Adam Feliks, 157 Kravčuk, R.V., 291 Kretschmer, Paul Wilhelm (1866-1956), 115 Krofta, Kamil (1876-1945), 301 Krom, Nicolaas Johannes (1883-1945), 269 Kruijtbosch, Derk Jan (1883-1954), 10, 42, 45, 183, 230, 236, 237, 249, 269 Kruijtbosch, Margo, see VisserKruijtbosch Kruisinga, Etsko (1875-1944), 67, 247 Krylov, Ivan Andreevič, 180 Kucarov, Ivan Kostadinov, 216, 291 Kuiper, Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus (1907-2003), 23, 47, 85, 127, 168, 179, 180, 181, 191, 197, 235, 249, 251, 252, 256, 263, 264, 269, 270, 271, 272, 276,

336

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

282, 283, 287, 290, 293, 301 Kuiper, Huib, 179, 249, 298, 300, 301 Kuiper, Koenraad (1854-1922), 26 Kuiper, W.Th.J.M., 292 Kul’bakin, Stepan Michajlovič (1873-1941), 108, 127, 128 Kuryłowicz, Jerzy (1895-1978), 30, 126, 290 Kurz, Josef, 127 Kuyper, Abraham, 87, 89 Langemeijer, Gerard Eduard (1903-1990), 261 Lastman, Pieter, 66 Lavrov, Petr Alekseevič (1856-1929), 90, 214 Leers, Johann von (1902-1965), 199, 200, 201, 224 Lehr-Spławiński, Tadeusz (1891-1965), 126, 271 Leignes Bakhoven, Guillaume Henri, 42, 44 Lekov, Ivan (1904-1978), 216, 271 Lem, Anton van der, 198, 199, 209 Leonov, Leonid Maksimovič (1899-1994), 153 Lepschy, Giulio Ciro, 241 Lermontov, Michail Jur’evič, 54, 151, 180 Leskien, August (1840-1916), 10, 33, 34, 35, 37, 45, 83, 84, 96, 97, 104, 132, 163, 179, 202, 242 Leskov, Nikolaj Semenovič, 229, 231 Lessen Kloeke, Willem Ubbo Siewert van (1938-2004), 274 Letschert-Maschhaupt, Willemine Albertine (1924-2004), 235 Lieburg, Marius Jan van, 284, 292 Linden, Saskia van der, 256, 289 Liszt, Franz, 138 Ljackij, Evgenij Aleksandrovič (18681942), 185 Ljapunov, Boris Michajlovič (1862-1943), 214, 301 Locher, Gottfried Wilhelm (1908-1997), 233, 234 Locher, Theodor Jakob Gottlieb (19001970), 7, 168, 174, 190, 205, 226, 227, 228, 233, 234, 237, 250, 251, 283, 284, 286, 301 Locher, W.P., 227, 228, 233, 234, 237, 251, 298, 300, 301 Locher-Hibma, F.H., 174, 205, 226 Loosjes, Jakob, 23 Loper-Zatskoy, Valentina, 225, 228, 249, 267, 287, 298

Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1853-1928), 7, 41, 207, 218, 292 Łoś, Jan (1860-1928), 115 Lucassen, Leo, 228, 292 Lunt, Horace Gray, 291 Luther, Johannes, 45 Maas Geesteranus, Hendrik Gerard Johan, 219 Mágr, Antonín Stanislav, 301 Makovskij, Vladimir Egorovič, 77 Mandeville, John, 16 Mansholt, Lambertus Helprig (1875-1945), 253 Mare, Arie Jacobus de (1868-1958), 63, 301 Margry, Peter Jan, 275 Maris, 19 Marquart, Joseph, 87 Martin, Wilhelm (1876-1954), 269 Martinet, André (1908-1999), 245 Marx, Karl, 77, 78, 189 Masaryk, Tomáš Garrigue (1850-1937), 158, 159, 160, 179, 198 Maschhaupt, Jan Hendrik (1880-1960?), 45, 235, 237, 253, 259 Massenet, Jules Emile Frédéric, 138 Mathesius, Vilém (1892-1945), 239 Matthes, Jan Carel (1836-1917), 44 Matthews, Peter, 290, 291 Matthews, William Kleesmann (19011958), 290, 291 Maxa, Jan (†1939), 251 Maxa, Prokop (1883-1961), 175, 237, 250, 251, 285, 286 Maxa, Vojtĕch (†1989), 237, 250 Maxová, Alena (1920), 175, 217, 237, 250, 286, 298 Mazon, André (1881-1967), 185, 189, 263, 264, 271 Meertens, Pieter Jacobus (1899-1985), 191, 262, 271, 275, 299, 301 Mehler, Eugen (1826-1896), 15, 16 Meijers, Eduard Maurits (1880-1954), 210, 257, 264, 265, 268, 269 Meillet, Antoine (1866-1936), 48, 95, 101, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 132, 212, 240 Meintema, Annie, 293 Melle, A.G. van, 209 Mellink, Albert Fredrik (1915-1987), 253 Meringer, Rudolf (1859-1931), 113 Methodius, 128, 262, 263 Metzemaekers, G., 181, 268, 270 Meulen, Reinder van der (1882-1972), 78, 80, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91, 197, 210,

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES 211, 247, 283, 284, 286, 289, 301 Meulenhoff, Johannes Marius (1869-1939), 151, 152, 186 Meyer, Karl Heinrich, 115, 127, 292 Meyer-Kalkus, Reinhart, 292 Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm (1861-1936), 115 Michelin Moreau, M.S.L., 206 Mickiewicz, Adam Bernard, 98, 114, 157 Middendorp, Herman (1888-1941), 150 Miedema, Henricus Theodorus Jacobus, 16 Mikhailov, Nikolai, 84 Mikkola, Jooseppi Julius (1866-1946), 130, 182, 301 Miklosich, Franz Xaver von, 212 Miletič, Ljubomir (1863-1937), 111 Miljukov, Pavel Nikolaevič (1859-1943), 147 Miller, Vsevolod Fedorovič (1848-1913), 90 Mladenov, Stefan (1880-1963), 111, 143, 208, 301 Molhuysen, Philipp Christiaan (18701944), 253 Møller, Herman, 120, 301 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, 138 Mukařovský, Jan (1891-1974), 215 Mulder, E., 205, 252 Müller, Friedrich Max (1823-1900), 26, 114 Multatuli, 139 Murko, Matija (1861-1952), 113, 115, 301 Mussolini, Benito (1883-1945), 215, 249 Muyderman, 14 Muyderman, Gerritje, 14 Nadutkin, V.M., 106 Nagel, Petronella van der, 177 Nehring, Karl, 259 Nekrasov, Nikolaj Alekseevič (18211878), 98 Niederle, Lubor, 131 Nijhoff, Wouter (1866-1947), 132 Nikisch, Arthur (1855-1922), 32 Nitsch, Kazimierz (1874-1958), 70, 115 Noordegraaf, Herman, 11 Noordegraaf, Jan, 32, 137, 242, 290 Novák, Arne (1880-1939), 301 Novák, Ľudovit, 271 Nováková, Jiřina, 301 Novaković, Stojan (1842-1915), 112, 114 Odé, Arend Willem Mauritz (1887-1951), 179 Ol’denburg, Sergej Fedorovič (1863-1934), 214 Ommen, G.H. van, 13

337

Oostendorp, Marc van, 140, 289, 291 Opstelten, I., 304 Ortt, 247 Osthoff, Hermann (1847-1909), 32 Ostrovskij, Nikolaj Alekseevič (1904-1936), 190 Otterspeer, Willem, 192, 200, 201 Oudendijk, see Verheij-Oudendijk Paardekooper, P.C., 169, 208, 262, 284, 303 Parret, Herman, 291 Pastrnek, František (1853-1940), 128 Paul, Hermann (1846-1921), 17, 32, 49, 50, 244, 246 Pearson, Murray, 298 Pedersen, Holger (1867-1953), 301 Peisker, Johann, 114 Pelinck, Egbertus, 269 Peltenburg, Leonora, 183, 190 Penkova, Pirinka, 291 Peretc, Vladimir Nikolaevič (1870-1935), 109 Perk, Jacques, 139 Perron, Charles Edgar du (1899-1940), 155 Persijn, Anne Jacob, 254 Peter I, Tsar of Russia, 54, 77, 190 Peters, A.J., 291 Petersson, Herbert, 131 Pham-Thi-Tu, 218 Pijnenburg, W.J.J., 264, 291, 293 Ploegsma, Johannes (1876-1941), 64, 148, 150, 229, 269 Pokrovskij, Michail Michajlovič (18681942), 37, 242 Polak, Leonard (Leo) (1880-1941), 10, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 117, 142, 235, 261, 284 Polívka, Jiří (1858-1933), 211, 212 Pomjalovskij, Nikolaj Gerasimovič, 151 Pomyalovsky, see Pomjalovskij Pope, Richard, 291 Portielje, Cecile, 251 Porzeziński, see Poržezinskij Poržezinskij, Viktor Karlovič (1870-1929), 37, 77, 78, 108, 115, 124, 242 Pos, Hendrik Josephus (1898-1955), 117, 242, 243 Postel, J.G.W., 14 Potemkin, Grigorij Aleksandrovič, 19 Pouw, E., 24 Praag, Siegfried van (1888-1958), 151 Proost, Karel Frederik (1883-1962), 121, 156, 288 Ptaszycki, Stanisław (1853-1933), 90

338

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

Pushkin, see Puškin Puškin, Aleksandr Sergeevič, 54, 98, 148, 149, 150, 151, 178, 180, 181, 210, 298 Raar, J.F., 103 Racine, Jean Baptiste, 139 Radlov, Èrnest L’vovič (1854-1928), 107 Rahder, Johannes (1898-1988), 183, 284 Ramisch, Jacob, 70 Ramondt, Marie (1878-1963), 43 Rapoport, B., 112 Raptschinsky, Boris Naumovič (18871983), 183, 190 Rassers, Jacobus Renardus Frederik, 233, 294 Rassers, Willem Huibert (1877-1973), 233, 234, 261, 269, 276, 281 Reens, Ginette, 285 Reichling, Anton Joannes Bernardus Nicolaas (1898-1986), 290 Rembrandt, 77 Repin, Il’ja Efimovič (1840-1930), 77 Reve, Karel van het (1921-1999), 7, 204, 264, 286, 292, 293, 297 Robbers, Herman Johan (1868-1937), 149 Rodenko, Paul Thomas Basilius (19201976), 256 Rogge, Hendrik Cornelis (1831-1905), 21, 22 Romanski, Stojan (1882-1959), 110, 128, 301 Romein, Jan Marius (1893-1962), 149, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 195, 199, 204, 205, 207, 219, 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 230, 238, 242, 248, 256, 262, 282, 288, 301 Romein-Verschoor, Anna Helena Margaretha (1895-1978), 184, 185, 187, 205, 207, 222, 223, 256, 288 Ronkel, Philippus Samuel van (18701954), 210, 261, 269 Roos, Antoon Gerard (1877-1953), 41, 64, 65, 304 Royaards, W.A., 110 Royen, Nicolaus Jacobus Hubertus O.F.M. (1880-1955), 190, 212, 247 Rozencwaig, Pinkwas, 228 Rozwadowski, Jan Michał (1867-1935), 95, 96, 115, 124, 301 Russer, Wilhelmina Stevina, 168, 190 Rutten, J.W., 53 Rutz, Joseph (1834-1895), 138, 139, 141, 203, 292 Rutz, Ottmar (1881-1952), 136, 138, 141, 203, 292

Sabaliauskas, Algirdas, 291 Šachmatov, Aleksej Aleksandrovič (18641920), 90, 106, 107, 138, 298, 301 Sadnik-Aitzetmüller, Linda (1910-1998), 183, 288 Saint-Saëns, Camille, 139 Saltykov-Ščedrin, Michail Evgrafovič, 151, 185, 186, 242 Saltykov-Shchedrin, see Saltykov-Ščedrin Samama-Polak, A.L.W., 235 Sande Bakhuyzen, Adriaan van de, 206, 269 Sanders, Ewoud, 291 Santen, Aimé van (1917-1988), 256, 258, 266 Sapir, Edward (1884-1939), 239, 241 Saussure, Ferdinand de (1857-1913), 22, 179, 246, 255 Ščerba, Lev Vladimirovič (1880-1944), 106 Schacht, Joseph (1902-1969), 233 Schaeken, Jos, 84, 132, 259, 262, 285, 291, 293, 297, 298, 303 Schallenberg, Evert Willem, 190 Schaper, W.B.F., 168 Schenker, Alexander M., 96 Schepers, Johannes Bernardus (18651937), 235 Scherling, Erik von, 128, 263 Schiller, Friedrich von, 138 Schim van der Loeff, Herman Pieter van (1879-1949), 120 Schöffer, Ivo, 258 Scholten, Paul (1875-1946), 212, 213, 262 Schölvinck, Auguste, see HuizingaSchölvinck Schönfeld, Moritz (1880-1958), 51, 75 Schoonees, Pieter Cornelis (1891-1970), 134, 135 Schooneveld, Cornelis Hendrik van (19212003), 169, 181, 182, 208, 215, 230, 231, 250, 258, 262, 264, 271, 279, 280, 284, 285, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 294, 298, 300, 303 Schooneveld-Abel, Dorothy van, 250, 298, 300 Schopenhauer, Arthur, 77, 78 Schot, Aleida Gerarda (1900-1969), 204 Schothorst, Wijnand van, 134, 136 Schrijnen, Jozef Karel Frans Hubert (18691938), 215 Schubert, Franz, 138 Schuchardt, Hugo Ernst Mario (18421927), 113, 114, 301

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES Schultink, Hendrik, 135 Schumann, Robert, 138 Schutte, 28 Seekles, J.J., 30 Seifert, Miloš (1887-1941), 159 Seipp, Paul, 201 Šestov, Lev Isaakovič (1866-1938), 188 Seton-Watson, Robert William (18711951), 110 Shakespeare, William, 32, 53 Shestov, see Šestov Siedlecki, Michal, 301 Sienkiewicz, Henryk (1846-1916), 118 Sievers, Eduard (1850-1932), 8, 10, 32, 35, 83, 84, 104, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 166, 183, 202, 203, 242, 243, 292, 293 Sijmons, Barend (1853-1935), 32 Slepicki, 119 Sloet tot Oldhuis, A.G.A. van, 15 Slotemaker de Bruïne, Jan Rudolph (18691941), 204 Słowacki, Juliusz, 157 Šmelev, Ivan Sergeevič (1873-1950), 222, 264, 281 Smidt, Hendrik Jan, 182, 183 Smit, Louis, 293 Smits, Jan, 264 Smout, Herman, 134 Snouck Hurgronje, Christiaan (1857-1936), 234, 292 Sobolevskij, Aleksej Ivanovič (18561929), 90 Sommerfelt, Alf Axelssøn (1892-1965), 243, 276 Spatkowa, Vivienne Ruth (1910-1976), 183, 190, 289 Speranskij, Nikolaj Vasil’evič, 179 Speijer, Jacob Samuel (1849-1913), 39, 61, 85, 86 Spruit, C.I., 190, 289 Šrobár, Vavro, 159 Stadt, Hendrik van de, 41 Stang, Christian Schweigaard (1900-1971), 302 Stanislav, Ján (1904-1977), 216 Stankiewicz, Edward, 291 Stapel, P., 222, 223 Steffelaar, Cornelis Maria (1866-1928), 103, 177, 178, 255 Stenfert Kroese, H.E., 269 Stenfert Kroese, Willem Herman, 11 Stoett, Frederik August (1863-1936), 74 Stokvis, Zadok (1878-1947), 67, 84, 85

339

Stolberg, Juliana van, 207 Storm van Leeuwen, Willem (1882-1933), 226, 227 Straten, Hans van (1923-2004), 288 Strauss, Richard, 138 Streitberg, Wilhelm (1864-1925), 28, 32, 45, 237, 302 Strootman, Karel Elias Willem, 99 Suprun, A.E., 291 Suys, Josephus (1897-1956), 183, 188, 189, 199, 288 Sweerts de Landas Wyborgh, A.M.D., 106 Swiggers, Pierre, 293 Tacitus, 31 Talen, Jan Gerrit (1861-1942), 16, 17, 30, 32, 36, 48, 67 Tellegen, Toon, 231 Tenhaeff, Nicolaas Bernardus (1885-1943), 269 Terwey, Tijs (1845-1893), 17, 51 Thomson, Francis J., 291 Thomson, Jan Jacob (1882-1961), 148 Tienhoven, Cornelis Hendrik van, 31 Tiethoff, Saskia, 293 Tijl, Jan Jacob (1860-1927), 30 Tjeenk Willink, H.D., 185, 186 Tjeenk Willink, Johan Christoffel, 46, 47, 48, 66, 269 Tjeenk Willink, J.W., 269 Tjeenk Willink, Martina, 206 Tollenaere, Felicien Julien Maurits Leo de, 291 Tolstaja, Sof’ja Andreevna (1844-1919), 79 Tolstoj, Aleksej Nikolaevič (1883-1945), 185 Tolstoj, Lev Nikolaevič (1828-1910), 53, 54, 76, 79, 81, 145, 146, 148, 153, 155, 178, 236, 257, 285, 298 Tolstoy, see Tolstoj Torp, Alf (1853-1916), 73, 74 Trager, George Leonard, 245 Trautmann, Reinhold (1883-1951), 105, 132, 133, 157 Trifonov, Jurdan, 302 Trnka, Bohumil (1895-1984), 290 Trubeckoj, Nikolaj Sergeevič (1890-1938), 10, 212, 213, 216, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247, 279 Turgenev, Ivan Sergeevič, 53, 54, 151, 156, 185 Twaddell, William Freeman (1906-1982), 241 Uhlenbeck, Christianus Cornelius (18661951), 10, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31,

340

NICOLAAS VAN WIJK

36, 38, 45, 58, 61, 67, 75, 76, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 97, 100, 103, 106, 108, 109, 114, 120, 128, 135, 137, 152, 162, 190, 197, 198, 202, 203, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 233, 234, 246, 247, 248, 251, 256, 269, 271, 272, 286, 287, 291, 292, 293 Uhlenbeck, Eugeniusz Marius (1913-2003), 239, 248, 251 Uhlenbeck-Melchior, Wilhelmina Maria (1862-1954), 287 Unbegaun, Boris Ottokar (1898-1973), 129 Urbańczyk, Stanisław, 124 Ušakov, Dmitrij Nikolaevič (1873-1942), 108 Vachek, Josef, 291 Vaillant, André (1890-1977), 48, 128, 129 Vajs, Joseph (1865-1959), 105 Valjavec, Fritz (1909-1960), 259, 262, 280, 285, 302 Vasmer, Max (1886-1962), 179, 284 Veder, William Robbert, 293 Velde, Roger van de, 291 Vercoullie, Jozef Frederik (1857-1937), 17 Verdam, Jacob (1845-1919), 59, 71, 73, 86, 88, 91, 92, 97, 137, 202, 209, 292 Vereščagin, Vasilij Vasil’evič (18421904), 77 Verheij-Oudendijk, Johanna Elisabeth, 168, 224, 301 Verkuyl, Henk, 248 Vermeer, Willem, 126, 293, 294 Vermey, Elisabeth Henriëtte, 183 Verrips, Ger, 190 Verschoor, Anna, see Romein-Verschoor, Anna Verwey, Albert (1865-1937), 191, 218, 302 Vipper, Robert Jur’evič (1859-1954), 78 Virgil, 32 Visser, Marius Willem de (1875-1930), 209 Visser, Simon Hendrik (1908-1983), 236 Visser-Kruijtbosch, Margaretha Catharina (Margo), 42, 175, 182, 230, 234, 236, 249, 294, 298 Vogel, Albert (1874-1933), 141 Vogel, Jean Philippe Hubert (1871-1958), 207 Vollenhoven, Cornelis van (1874-1933), 302 Vondel, Joost van den, 16, 27, 138, 257 Vondrák, Václav (1859-1925), 81, 130 Voogd, Christophe de, 218 Vooys, Cornelis Gerrit Nicolaas de (1873-

1955), 51, 67, 254 Vos, H.J. de, 51, 58 Vreese, Willem Lodewijk de (1869-1938), 64, 65, 66, 69, 78, 90, 255, 302 Vries, Jan Pieter Marie Laurens de (18901964), 24 Vries, Matthias de, 46, 47 Vries, Scato Gocko de (1861-1937), 64, 65, 86, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 114, 115, 304 Vries, Thom. J. de, 13, 15, 116 Vries, W. de, 69 Vries-de Gunzburg, Irène de (1910-2004), 183, 190, 260, 273, 274 Vries-van der Hoeven, H. de, 198 Wagner, Richard, 138, 139 Wal, Libbe van der, 19, 261, 285 Water, Antonie van de, 134 Weigand, Friedrich Ludwig Karl, 73 Weigand, Gustav Ludwig (1860-1930), 104, 111 Weijts, Christiaan, 290, 298 Weingart, Miloš, 126 Well, Cornélie Pauline Emilie van de (19161990), 256 Wengen, Ger van, 234 Werkman, Hendrik Nicolaas (1882-1945), 288 Wiezer, Jan, 187 Wijk, Aart Willem van (1852-1918), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 120, 121 Wijk, Abraham van, 270 Wijk, Catharina van (1843-1918), 120 Wijk, Cornelia Johanna Quirina, see Duysvan Wijk Wijk, Cornelia Petronella van (1844-1918), 120 Wijk, Nicolaas van (1813-1875), 11 Wijk, Nicolaas Anne van (1841-1886), 270 Wijk, Nicolaas Pieter Cornelis van (18791953), 267 Wijk, Nicolaas Pieter Cornelis van, 228, 298, 300 Wijk, Pieter Cornelis van (1840-1912), 12, 252, 267 Wijk-Bruijn, Bregitta van (1849-1935), 11, 279 Wijnen, Jan Fred van, 268 Wijnkoop, David Jozef (1876-1941), 25, 26 Wildeboer, Gerrit (1855-1911), 86, 87 Wilhelmina, Queen of The Netherlands (1880-1961), 170, 205, 206, 207, 209 Willem I, Prince of Orange, 27

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES Willemsen, Cees, 298 William the Silent, see Willem I Wils, Johannes Arnoldus Fredericus (19011975), 247 Windisch, Ernst Wilhelm Oskar (18441918), 33, 34, 97, 104 Winkel, Jan te (1847-1927), 21, 22, 29, 36, 42, 46, 69, 94, 97, 302 Winkel, Lamert Allard te, 46, 47 Wintermans, Vincent, 218, 285 Wundt, Wilhelm Max (1832-1920), 49 Zaaijer, Johannes Henricus (1876-1932) 227 Zackoj, Aleksandr Petrovič, 225 Zackoj, Leonid Petrovič (1900-1928), 10, 174, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 275,

341

276, 281, 294 Zackoj, Michail Petrovič, 225, 294 Zackoj, Petr, 225 Zackoj, Vladimir Petrovič (1895-1962), 10, 175, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 249, 266, 267, 269, 276, 279, 281, 282, 287, 294 Zatskoy, see Zackoj Zegveld, W.F. van, 223, 228, 287 Zeil, L., 288 Zlatanova, Rumjana Christova, 183, 288 Zubatý, Josef (1855-1931), 94, 103, 104, 105, 302 Župančič, Oton (1878-1949), 113