Upton Sinclair: The Lithuanian Jungle--Upon the Centenary of The Jungle (1905 and 1906) by Upton Sinclair (On the Boundary of Two Worlds: Identity, ... Freedom, & Moral Imagination in the Baltics)

UPTON SINCLAIR: THE LITHUANIAN JUNGLE

On the Boundary of Two Worlds: Identity, Freedom, and Moral Imagination in the Baltics 5

Editor Leonidas Donskis, Professor of Political Science and Philosophy, and Director of the Political Science and Diplomacy School at Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania Editorial and Advisory Board Timo Airaksinen, University of Helsinki, Finland Egidijus Aleksandravicius, Lithuanian Emigration Institute; Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania Endre Bojtar, Central European University; Budapest, Hungary Kristian Gerner, University of Uppsala, Sweden John Hiden, University of Glasgow, UK Mikko Lagerspetz, Estonian Institute of Humanities, Estonia Andreas Lawaty, Nordost-Institut; Lüneburg, Germany Olli Loukola, University of Helsinki, Finland Alvydas Nikzentaitis, Lithuanian History Institute, Lithuania Rein Raud, University of Helsinki, Finland, and Estonian Institute of Humanities, Estonia Alfred Erich Senn, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA, and Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania David Smith, University of Glasgow, UK Saulius Suziedelis, Millersville University, USA Joachim Tauber, Nordost-Institut; Lüneburg, Germany Tomas Venclova, Yale University, USA

UPTON SINCLAIR: THE LITHUANIAN JUNGLE

Upon the Centenary of The Jungle (1905 and 1906) by Upton Sinclair

Giedrius Subačius

Amsterdam - New York, NY 2006

©Cover photo: Photograph from the private collection of Elizabeth Kuszlejko; printed with her permission. 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: 90-420-1879-8 ©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2006 Printed in the Netherlands

v Acknowledgements I am extremely grateful to Professor Clare Virginia Eby, who was the Virgil in my Inferno, especially in the initial phases of my journey through The Jungle. My sincere gratitude goes to my dear amicus genealogist Robin Neumann, who helped me to thoroughly research the census and church records of Lithuanians in Chicago. I am also very grateful to Professor Aleksas Girdenis for his help with interpreting certain Lowland Lithuanian dialectal data. Thanks go to the courteous staff members at the Chicago Historical Society, to the librarians at the University of Illinois at Chicago Special Collections Department, to the owner of Balzekas Museum of Lithuanian Culture in Chicago, Stanley Balzekas Jr., and to the managing director of the museum, Karilė Vaitkutė. I render especial gratitude to Neringa Klumbytė, who aided me with the manuscript materials from the Lilly Library at Indiana University in Bloomington. Professor Jurgis Anysas, Professor Patrick Chura, Dr. Paul F. Gehl, and Professor Randy Richards read my manuscript—I am grateful from the bottom of my heart for the valuable comments and corrections they proposed. I shall always feel profoundly grateful to those Lithuanians whose forebears settled in the Back of the Yards neighborhood and who shared their ideas and photographs to help make The Jungle’s topography as precise as they could: Paul Binkis, Susan Binkis, Jean (Brazauskas) Bush, Loretta Ezerski, Marlene (Trakselis) Feldhaus, Elizabeth Kuszlejko, Albert Petrulis, Jeannette Swist, and Vilius Zalpys. I also render my gratitude to the University of Chicago Press, University of Indiana Archive, Sanborn Mapping Co. (Environmental Data Resources, Inc.), and Algimantas Kezys, who all allowed me to (re)publish their photographs and maps. Last but not least my hearty gratitude goes to my friend Elizabeth Novickas, and her sister Aida who inspired certain ideas discussed in this book and who were so meticulous at editing its style and language. Yet ultimately the responsibility for any possible errors or inaccuracies lies with me alone.

This page intentionally left blank

Table of Contents Acknowledgements

v

Foreword

xi

ONE. Sinclair’s Sources and His Choice of Lithuanian Characters

1

1. 2. 3. 4.

Sinclair’s Method of Gathering Material for His Novel Immigrants in the Chicago Stockyards Two Main Lithuanian Sources for The Jungle 3.1. The Lithuanian Wedding 3.2. Ernest Poole’s (Kaztauskis’s) Text The Wedding, Kaztauskis’s Story, and Lithuanian

TWO. The Lithuanian Language 1. 2.

3.

Sinclair’s Passion for Foreign Languages Lithuanian Words and Phrases 2.1. Dialects 2.2. Orthography 2.2.1. and <sz> 2.2.2. <j> 2.2.3. and 2.2.4. and <w> 2.2.5. and <ei> 2.2.6. Diacritical Marks 2.2.7. “Zine” 2.2.8. The Basis of Sinclair’s Lithuanian Orthography 2.3. Colloquial versus Literary Language 2.4. Errors 2.5. Editing 2.6. Numbers and Frequency Surnames 3.1. Rudkos (→ 1906 Rudkus) 3.2. Grajczunas (→ 1906 Graiczunas) 3.3. Kuszlejka (→ 1906 Kuszleika) 3.4. Biarczynskas (→ 1906 Berczynskas) 3.5. Szadwilas (→ 1906 Szedvilas) 3.6. Valentynaicza (→ 1906 Valentinavyczia) 3.7. Jasaitis (→ 1906 Jasaityte) 3.8. Lukoszis (→ 1906 Lukoszaite) 3.9. Juknos (→ 1906 Jukniene) 3.10. The Remainder of the Lithuanian surnames

1 3 6 6 11 14 17 17 20 22 24 24 25 25 25 26 26 27 29 29 30 31 33 36 38 41 43 45 50 51 52 53 53 54

viii

Giedrius Subačius 3.11. Sinclair’s Paradigm for the Name-Donor Selection 3.12. Jurgis

THREE. Specific Locations 1. 2. 3. 4.

Carey’s Dump Back of the Yards The Wedding Feast Saloon The Church of the Wedding Ceremony

54 57 59 59 64 67 77

FOUR. Conclusion

83

Bibliography

91

Abbreviations

95

Index

97

“I joined in the singing—in Lithuanian, but it didn’t matter” Upton Sinclair

This page intentionally left blank

xi Foreword In 1906 Upton Beall Sinclair published his novel The Jungle in book format (Doubleday, Page and Co., New York). This book made the young writer, then only twenty-seven years old, a celebrity. It is Sinclair’s best-known book. The president of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, “was having the Department of Agriculture investigate the matter” (meatpacking industry issues in Chicago described in The Jungle); Sinclair himself “was invited to luncheon at the White House” (Sinclair, 1969, 166–167). Partly as a response to Sinclair’s novel, the Congress of the United States enacted the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906. An earlier version of The Jungle was published in 1905 in multiple installments in the socialist newspaper Appeal to Reason (Girard, Kansas, 25 Feb. to 4 Nov. of 1905). The research in my book is based mostly on this first newspaper version of The Jungle. Sinclair selected Lithuanians working in the Chicago stockyards as protagonists for his novel. He incorporated a conspicuous number of Lithuanian words and phrases into the text of The Jungle, as well as many Lithuanian names and surnames. The primary purpose of my book is to consider why Sinclair chose to portray Lithuanians, and what the possible sources for his Lithuanian language and Lithuanian surnames were— details that helped Sinclair shape the particular Lithuanian aura in the novel. Additionally, in relation to the Lithuanian surnames, I attempt to recreate some concrete topographical details of turn-of-the-century Chicago that were important in Sinclair’s novel: the site of Carey’s dump, the location of the fictitious Panei Aniele boarding house, the saloon which hosted the Lithuanian wedding feast, and the church where the wedding ceremony took place. Pittsburgh, Vilnius, Kaunas, and Chicago, 2002–2005

This page intentionally left blank

ONE Sinclair’s Sources and His Choice of Lithuanian Characters There are many different considerations concerning Sinclair’s decision to select Lithuanians as his protagonists for The Jungle. 1.

Sinclair’s Method of Gathering Material for His Novel During the course of his very long life Sinclair wrote and spoke many times about the genesis of The Jungle, including in his autobiography, which was published in 1962. After the publication of Sinclair’s novel Manassas, the editor of the socialist newspaper Appeal to Reason wrote him an enthusiastic letter and asked him to write something else about “wage slavery.” Later Sinclair gave the details of their agreement: I answered that I would do it, provided he would stake me. The editor, Fred D. Warren, agreed to advance five hundred dollars for the serial rights of the novel, and I selected the Chicago stockyards as its scene. The recent strike had brought the subject to my thoughts. (Sinclair, 1962, 108–109) On the basis of this offer, Sinclair decided to investigate the Chicago stockyards—his attention having been attracted by the recent (summer of 1904) strike there. So, in October 1904 I set out for Chicago, and for seven weeks lived among the wage slaves of the Beef Trust, as we called it in those days. People used to ask me afterward if I had not spent my life in Chicago, and I answered that if I had done so, I could never have written The Jungle; I would have taken for granted things that now hit me a sudden violent blow. (Sinclair, 1962, 109) In 1906, two years after his stay in Chicago, Sinclair elaborated on his methods of data collection in The Independent: In the earliest portions of the book, which deal with conditions in Packingtown, I have not invented the smallest detail. Everything that has been there described has, to my own positive knowledge, happened to some one in that neighborhood. And likewise every fact or

2

Giedrius Subačius figure which I have given is absolutely accurate and exact, the result of patient inquiry and investigation. I spent seven weeks in the stockyards district alone, living with the people, meeting them in their homes, in the places where they worked, in their saloons and clubs. During that time I talked with hundreds of workingmen; I talked also with every other class of persons to be found in the district, with bosses and superintendents, with doctors and lawyers and merchants, with saloon keepers and policemen, clergymen and criminals. Everywhere I took note of what they said, testing the statements of one by those of another, and verifying every minutest detail; and afterward, when I came home, I kept up a continual correspondence with many people in Packingtown—in cases which I could name I wrote several letters in order to make sure of a single statement which I was making in the story. (Sinclair, 1906b, 1129–1130)

Fifty-six years later, Sinclair’s explanation became much shorter, less strident, with fewer details (in the following quotation from his autobiography he omitted, for example, his conversations with saloon keepers, clergymen, and criminals): I sat at night in the homes of workers, foreign-born and native, and they told me their stories, one after one, and I made notes of everything. ... I went about the district, talking with lawyers, doctors, dentists, nurses, policemen, politicians, real-estate agents—every sort of person. I got my meals at the University Settlement, where I could check my data with the men and women who were giving their lives to this neighborhood. When the book appeared, they were a little shocked to find how bad it seemed to the outside world. (Sinclair, 1962, 109) In a typescript introduction to one of the editions of The Jungle that are kept at Lilly library at Indiana University in Bloomington, Sinclair wrote about the author of the novel (I give the first text before its correction): “In the evenings he sat in the workers’ homes, asking them questions about their lives and filling notebooks with what they told him.” (Sinclair, Introduction, 1). Sinclair gave one more explanation to a communist reporter from Lithuania—Albertas Laurinčiukas—who visited Sinclair after his 90th birthday. Laurinčiukas recounted Sinclair’s version of the novel’s genesis:

ONE. Sinclair’s Sources and His Choice of Lithuanian Characters

3

They gave me five hundred dollars and I set up for Chicago. There I got acquainted with the Lithuanian workers. I lived together with them for seven weeks. We became friends. (Laurinčiukas, 1981, 163) The author’s four explanations differ in the number of the details given and in certain nuances. Unlike the first three descriptions, Sinclair made evident to Laurinčiukas that he met many Lithuanian workers and made them his friends. From Laurinčiukas’s allusion, it might be understood that Sinclair chose Lithuanians because he had many Lithuanian friends. But this “last confession” was made in front of a Lithuanian— Sinclair might have especially emphasized the Lithuanian aspect to please his interviewer. Thus, Sinclair spoke to a variety of people, lived among the workers, and made notes of their stories (his notes were destroyed during the fire of his Helicon Hall house in March of 1907). Yet Sinclair denied that he had selected any particular Lithuanians as his protagonists: “In my literary characters you can find peculiarities of many Lithuanian workers that I met sometime” (Laurinčiukas, 1981, 164). Only one of the main characters—Ona—was a prototype of his wife: “Ona was Corydon [Sinclair’s wife], speaking Lithuanian but otherwise unchanged. ... Externally, the story had to do with a family of stockyard workers, but internally it was the story of my own family” (Sinclair, 1962, 112). There was no trace of any specific personal reason for Sinclair to select Lithuanians. 2.

Immigrants in the Chicago Stockyards The arrival of Lithuanian immigrants at the stockyards of Chicago was referred to in many contemporary and later publications. For instance, in 1904, in The Independent, Ernest Poole described immigrant Chicago laborers as: “The more recent Polish and Slavonian and Lithuanian immigrant men” (Poole, 1904b, 180); “fresh immigrants, Lithuanians, Bohemians, Slavs and Poles” (182); “constant buzz outside of voices in the big outside room speaking in Polish, Lithuanian, Bohemian, Slavic” (183); “notice, which is printed in English, German, Lithuanian, Polish and Bohemian” (184). (At that time Slavonian or Slavic for Poole and many others might also mean ‘Slovak.’) Carrol D. Wright published the report “Influence of Trade Unions on Immigrants,” in 1905, where he described immigration in the stockyards: “The Poles began to come into yards in 1886, after the settlement of the strike” (2); “The Bohemians began to affect noticeably the situation in 1894” (2); “In 1895 the Lithuanians began coming in, followed by Slovaks in 1896” (2–3); “Two years ago an enormous influx of Lithuanians, Slovaks, and Russian Poles occurred, swamping the labor market in the yards” (3).

4

Giedrius Subačius

Rick Halpern in his Down on the Killing Floor also wrote about the immigrants: This group of semiskilled workers ... was dominated by newcomers, most notably Poles, who by 1905 comprised the largest foreign-born group in the packinghouse workforce. The Slovaks and Lithuanians who followed after the turn of the century had a more difficult time adjusting to the industrial setting, in part due to their smaller numbers and, consequently, greater isolation. Unattached and unsettled, isolated by the formidable language barrier, these ethnic groups occupied the lowest space on the social ladder. (Halpern, 1997, 27) An extensive study of Chicago’s Packinghouse workers, Work and Community in the Jungle, was published by James R. Barrett in 1990. Barrett demonstrated that from 1900 to 1910 there was an increase in the number of Lithuanian male heads of household in Packingtown from 0.5% to 11.0%, of Poles—from 17.5% to 29.0%, of Slovaks—from 0% to 6.0% (Barrett, 1990, 74, table 5). It was obvious that these ethnic groups were the freshest in the stockyards and therefore living in the worst conditions. This is what Sinclair was looking for. At the same time, other ethnic groups of emigrants were losing their share in Packingtown: Germans had diminished from 34.5% to 16.5%, Irish—from 18.5% to 9.5%, Bohemians—from 18.0% to 13.0% (Barrett, 1990, 74, table 5). The neighborhood that Sinclair concentrated his attention on in The Jungle—the one between Ashland Avenue and Robey (today Damen) Street, west of the stockyards—was predominantly populated by Lithuanians and Poles, according to Barrett and his map No. 2 (Barrett, 1990, 80). Rabindra Nath Mookerjee wrote: “Of all the immigrant groups, the Lithuanians, who were simple, honest workers believing in ‘work and more work,’ were the worst sufferers” (Mookerjee, 1988, 42). For certain reasons he was persuaded that Lithuanians suffered the most. Lithuanian authors, or the authors who had analyzed Lithuanian aspects of The Jungle, also discussed this issue. For instance, Alfonsas Šešplaukis believed that Sinclair’s selection was “economically oriented” and that “one finds the answer in the sixth chapter” where Sinclair explains: “after a workers’ strike the Irish moved out and their place was taken by Czechs and Poles, and then by Lithuanians and incoming Slavs” (Šešplaukis, 1977, 26). Šešplaukis was familiar with the general plight of immigration in Chicago but did not proceed any further in his analysis. The Lithuanian author Antanas Musteikis also discussed the Lithuanian characters of The Jungle. He did not try to find Sinclair’s reasons for selecting the nationality. Musteikis found many arguments to

ONE. Sinclair’s Sources and His Choice of Lithuanian Characters

5

support the thesis that Lithuanian psychological aspects in the book do not agree with reality; in the words of the author they should be included “in the category of real distortions” (Musteikis, 1971, 30). Musteikis concluded that “the Lithuanian attributes of the heroes of The Jungle found their place in the novel accidentally” (Musteikis, 1971, 37). Musteikis found many mistakes, inconsistencies, and misrepresentations that, according to him, proved Sinclair’s relationship with Lithuanians to be very superficial. Similarly, some “inaccurate” or “erroneous” descriptions of the Lithuanian character were pointed out in Šešplaukis’s article (1977, 28, 29). Sinclair was accused of distorting Lithuanian cultural and psychological peculiarities, which could be an indirect signal that he did not research particular aspects of Lithuanian life in Chicago while talking with the “workingmen ..., with bosses and superintendents, with doctors and lawyers and merchants, with saloon keepers and policemen, clergymen and criminals.” In 1965, in Soviet Lithuania, Antanas Venclova wondered how Sinclair came up with the idea of Lithuanian protagonists: Even then, when I was writing my small book about Sinclair and his oeuvre in 1931, I wondered about the circumstances under which the author of The Jungle became acquainted with specifically Lithuanian immigrants, how he gathered the material for his novel and how he wrote it. (Venclova, 1965, 160–161) Venclova published a book about Sinclair’s life and oeuvre in 1931 in Lithuania (Venclova, 1931), but he did not discuss the Lithuanian aspects of The Jungle there. However, in 1963 Venclova wrote a personal letter to Upton Sinclair asking about the Lithuanian origin of The Jungle. Sinclair had a chance to explain some additional details; but instead he only sent his autobiography and several other books to Venclova and elucidated that “answers to your questions are given in my Autobiography” (Venclova, 1965, 161). Another article about Lithuanian life in The Jungle was written by Suk Bong Suh—“Lithuanian Wedding Traditions In Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle” (later he published the book Upton Sinclair and The Jungle in Seoul in 1997, which also encompassed this article as a chapter under the name “The Lithuanian Heroes,” 121–133). The author did not unravel the issue either; he merely mentioned that “by the turn of the century Lithuanian immigrants constituted one of the most important ethnic groups in the Chicago Stockyards district, so that it is no wonder that they attracted Sinclair’s attention when he visited there in late 1904” (Suh, 1987). In all, there were four nationalities mentioned most frequently at the time as the newest immigrants in Chicago—Lithuanians along with

6

Giedrius Subačius

Poles, Bohemians, and Slovaks. Even those authors who researched the Lithuanian features of The Jungle usually gave no explanation regarding what might have been the concrete reasons of Sinclair’s selection. Sinclair was well aware of the novelty of these nationalities in Chicago—he spoke about the “newest foreigners—Lithuanians, Poles, Bohemians, Slovaks” in The Jungle (FE 231; Ch 26; FE=First Edition, an abbreviation of The Lost First Edition of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, edited by Gene DeGruson in 1988, which is a reprint of the first 1905 newspaper serial; here and further on I shall mostly quote The Jungle from this edition, unless I indicate otherwise; when quoted, two figures are usually used: the first one indicates page number and the second indicates the number of a chapter; in certain cases only a page number of FE is added to a quoted Lithuanian word). It seems plausible to assume that since Sinclair had no personal reasons to select Lithuanians (he said that he got acquainted with Lithuanian workers only in Chicago, and Lithuanian scholars claimed Lithuanian attributes found their place in the novel accidentally), he might have chosen a family of laborers of any of those ethnicities. 3.

Two Main Lithuanian Sources for The Jungle The overall immigrant panorama did not force Sinclair to select Lithuanians exclusively, although it was an understandable choice—one of several imaginable. Presumably, there were concrete causes for Sinclair to decide on Lithuanians and not on Poles, on Lithuanians and not on Slovaks or Bohemians. Undoubtedly it could have been mere chance... In the following pages, however, I shall argue that this chance might have been stimulated by at least two sources: (1) the Lithuanian wedding feast, which Sinclair saw with his own eyes and which he transformed into the first chapter of The Jungle and (2) the journalist Ernest Poole’s text about a fictional Lithuanian immigrant Antanas Kaztauskis, which could not have escaped Sinclair’s attention, along with the advice Poole gave Sinclair. 3.1.

The Lithuanian Wedding Many agree that the Lithuanian wedding was described very realistically in the first chapter of The Jungle. Suh compared the traditional Lithuanian wedding to the one described by Sinclair. He found that many Lithuanian traditions depicted in that chapter are convincing. For instance, he claimed that “Sinclair has fully demonstrated the old tradition to serve the guests with abundant food and drinks” (Suh, 1987); also “probably the most important feature of the Lithuanian wedding feast is the songs, music, and dances, and Sinclair has wonderfully portrayed them in the novel” (Suh, 1987). All in all, Suh evaluated the portrayal of Lithuanian immigrant life in the first chapter as very compelling. In addi-

ONE. Sinclair’s Sources and His Choice of Lithuanian Characters

7

tion, Suh inferred that those descriptions “are just byproducts of Sinclair’s intention to denounce ‘a modern economic system’ ” (Suh, 1987). Other authors also assessed the Lithuanian wedding scene as containing nothing inaccurate or unacceptable (Šešplaukis, 1977, 26–29), or nothing that didn’t “truly” belong to the Lithuanian culture (Musteikis, 1971, 33). These two Lithuanian authors uncovered no inconsistencies in the opening chapter, which is, according to many scholars the “most Lithuanian” chapter of The Jungle. To mention mere linguistic features, where else if not in the wedding could Sinclair have picked up such specific Lithuanian words used in weddings—veselija ‘wedding’ and aczaviuas (sic!; instead of <m>) ‘thanking’? Scholars ventured to value the Lithuanian features of the wedding episode more than any other in the novel. As with his description of the way he took notes in Chicago, Sinclair gave several different explanations of how he created the opening wedding scene of the novel. The first account was written following the publication of the book edition of The Jungle in 1906: No one who knows anything about literature will need to be told that I saw the wedding feast with my own eyes. It was about four o’clock one Sunday afternoon. I had been over to inspect Tom Carey’s dump, and had narrowly escaped a clubbing at the hands of a policeman who had been posted there for the express purpose of preventing what I attempted—the taking of a photograph of it. I noticed a crowd in front of a saloon, and I pushed my way in, and behold, there was the opening scene of my story, a gift from the gods. I stayed there until seven o’clock; and then I went away and had a little supper, and returned and stayed there until two o’clock in the morning. My habit of working is such that I can carry long scenes about in my memory for days, and then write them down word for word; I seldom write anything about which I really care without having done this for a long period. So I sat there and wrote that whole chapter in my mind—every tiniest detail of it and every emotion of it; I watched the people there and had imagined their lives, and little by little the whole story took shape. Everything which I had previously planned seemed in some miraculous way to fit in with them, and when I came away I was so exhausted that I could scarcely walk; but l knew that I had my whole book. That was two years ago, yet even now I cannot

8

Giedrius Subačius hear a child whistle “In the Good Old Summer-time,” without feeling the tears start into my eyes. (Sinclair, 1906b, 1132)

The second account is found in Sinclair’s Autobiography and it is somewhat similar to the one printed in 1906, although shorter and rephrased anew: At the end of the month or more, I had my data and knew the story I meant to tell, but I had no characters. Wandering about ‘back of the yards’ one Sunday afternoon I saw a wedding party going into the rear room of a saloon. There were several carriages full of people. I stopped to watch, and as they seemed hospitable, I slipped into the room and stood against the wall. There the opening chapter of The Jungle began to take form. There were my characters—the bride, the groom, the old mother and father, the boisterous cousin, the children, the three musicians, everybody. I watched them one after another, fitted them into my story, and began to write the scene in my mind, going over it and over, as was my custom. ... It was two months before I got settled at home and first put pen to paper; but the story stayed, and I wrote down whole paragraphs, whole pages, exactly as I had memorized them. (Sinclair, 1962, 110) The introduction to an edition of The Jungle that was written some forty years after the novel was printed encompassed different details on the rear room of the beer saloon, on several people there who spoke English (first text before correction): Towards the end of his stay he chanced to be walking on a Sunday afternoon through the unpaved streets of this vast and depressing slum, when he saw a bridal couple alight from a hack and enter the rear room of a beer saloon. Other persons followed, and the writer joined them. No one appeared to have any objection to his presence, on the contrary they appeared to take it as an honor, and so he sat on a bench by the wall and watched the proceedings of a Lithuanian bridal super and dance. Several who spoke English explained to him what was going on and answered his questions, and gradually he realized that this was the family he wanted for his story. From four o’clock until close to midnight he sat, making

ONE. Sinclair’s Sources and His Choice of Lithuanian Characters

9

note of every detail and composing in his mind what here appears as the opening chapter of a novel ... he had trained himself to go over a scene and fix it verbally in his mind and retain it. (Sinclair, Introduction, 1–2) Sinclair wrote one more portrayal of the wedding party around 1965 and again the details were somewhat different, such as the process of getting all the information about the couple and Sinclair’s singing in Lithuanian (first text before correction): I was going to write a novel and I had everything but the characters. Then late one Sunday afternoon I was strolling past the saloon and I saw a carriage draw up in front of the dance hall in back of the saloon. A bride and bridegroom got out, followed by families and guests. I saw my opportunity and strolled in; and nobody had the slightest objection to my presence. Everybody was willing to talk to me, even the policeman who was there as a precaution. It was a Lithuanian family and I was told all about them, and little by little I realized that I had all the characters for my novel. I didn’t tell them what I was doing, because I was just a friendly observer from a world somewhat above their own. I listened to the music, I joined in the singing—in Lithuanian, but it didn’t matter. Some of the friends told me all about them, even the policeman was friendly and told me what he thought about them. And at one or two o’clock in the morning I went back to the stockyards Hotel and put it all down in my notebooks right away. (Sinclair, 1965a, 2–3) In the printed version of this preface (which became a foreword), the fact that Sinclair sang in Lithuanian was deleted, but it included the supplementary information that “friends of the couple told me about them, including their names” (Sinclair, 1965b, vi). Probably the last account was given by Laurinčiukas, who said that Sinclair told him: Once I found my way into a Lithuanian wedding party. It made such a striking impression on me; its contrast was so immense that when I was returning home from the wedding, I created the first chapter of my novel in my thoughts. (Laurinčiukas, 1981, 163)

10

Giedrius Subačius

First of all, Sinclair confessed that in the wedding party “I watched the people ... Everything which I had previously planned seemed in some miraculous way to fit in with them ... the opening chapter of The Jungle began to take form. There were my characters—the bride, the groom, the old mother and father, the boisterous cousin, the children, the three musicians, everybody.” Sinclair also emphasized that “No one who knows anything about literature will need to be told that I saw the wedding feast with my own eyes.” The wedding made an extremely strong impact on Sinclair. He was involved emotionally in the event to the point that he sang Lithuanian songs and “it didn’t matter” if they were vocalized in Lithuanian! Also, the only place Sinclair used the device of flashback in The Jungle was this wedding scene (Mookerjee, 1988, 48), which chronologically fits in chapter seven. Otherwise the entire novel is written in chronological order. In this regard, the first wedding chapter is conspicuously different from the others; thus, it is compositionally unique. Unlike most of the following chapters, it is also very bright, friendly, optimistic, and even beautiful. This chapter is a nexus among all the Lithuanian characters of the story as well. The importance of the Lithuanian wedding in the creation of a Lithuanian aura is also signified by the number of Lithuanian words and phrases Sinclair included in the first chapter. As Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show, there are 46 new Lithuanian words in chapter one (used 68 times), which make up the preponderance of Lithuanian words of the novel (cf. Two, 2.6.). Clearly, the more Lithuanian words used, the stronger the Lithuanian atmosphere. Several other chapters that contain some new Lithuanian words have fewer that ten such occurrences (cf. Two, 2.6. and Fig. 2). Also, the preponderant majority of Lithuanian names and surnames used in The Jungle are introduced in the first chapter (cf. Two, 2., Table 2). At this point, the issue remains of whether Sinclair made the final decision to select Lithuanians, leaving aside Poles or Slovaks, on the basis of the wedding feast he witnessed. There is no very direct answer to this question, but there is no evidence, either, that before he saw the wedding he had deliberately gathered any specific Lithuanian data. Conversely— since Sinclair fitted wedding participants into the story, he presumably had the story drafted in his mind by the time he saw the wedding feast. Then the assumption seems quite plausible that Sinclair could have selected Lithuanians as characters for the novel because of that fortuitously spotted wedding. Quite recently Tom Gregg published an article entitled “The Truth about ‘The Jungle’ ” in the Chicago Lithuanian magazine Lithuanian Heritage (2002); he reflected on the wedding party that “maybe that alone persuaded him to cast Lithuanians rather than Poles or Slovaks” (Gregg, 2002, 15).

ONE. Sinclair’s Sources and His Choice of Lithuanian Characters

11

The uniqueness of Sinclair’s experience and of his emotional involvement, which made the first chapter exceptional in the context of the entire novel, makes the connection between this experience and his decision to opt for Lithuanians undisputable. 3.2.

Ernest Poole’s (Kaztauskis’s) Text Journalist Ernest Poole had “taken up his residence in Packingtown so as thoroughly to investigate the strike at first hand.” His article “The Meat Strike” on the Chicago Packingtown strike appeared in the 28 Jul. 1904 issue of The Independent (Poole, 1904b, 179). In the next issue of the journal he printed an ostensibly autobiographical story by a Lithuanian immigrant, Antanas Kaztauskis. Poole gathered data from Lithuanians in Packingtown and told the story as if by one of them. There is a typographical error in the last name Kaztauskis; it should read Kazłauskis (according to the spelling of that period, the letter with a stroke <ł> signified a nonpalatal [l]), corresponding to today’s Lithuanian surname Kazlauskas; it is one of the most widespread Lithuanian last names, like the English Smith or Indian Patel; the selection might have been made deliberately by Poole to symbolize that this character did not represent a particular Lithuanian, but many thousands of them. For the sake of tradition I shall use Poole’s original spelling with a typographical error. Speaking as “Kaztauskis,” Poole depicted Lithuanian political, cultural, and material life, both in Lithuania and in Chicago, quite thoroughly. It contained information about smuggling Lithuanian newspapers and prayer books across the frontier from Germany into Lithuania; the prohibition against reading and writing in Lithuanian or having Lithuanian schools; it describes paying eighty roubles for taxes, an old wife plowing behind oxen, Chicago Lithuanians reading the Lithuanian newspaper Katalikas, singing the song by P. Brandukas, and other scenes of Lithuanian life. It is obvious that Poole was familiar with Lithuanians not just in Chicago, but in Lithuania as well. He must have heard many stories by Lithuanians to be able to come up with this kind of detailed picture of Lithuanian life. In his autobiography Poole described the following encounter with a Lithuanian in the stockyards: Many could speak no English yet. When I tried it on one big Lithuanian, he kept dumbly shaking his head, till at last I ventured the one word: “Strike?” It worked like magic. Out shot his fist. “Yo’ bet yo’!” this new American cried. (Poole, 1940, 93) Poole mentioned that president Theodore Roosevelt had noticed his text about the Lithuanian Kaztauskis:

12

Giedrius Subačius

It must have been read by the man in the White House, for only a few days later an agent from Washington came and said: “The President has sent me here to check up on that Lithuanian story of yours and get the facts. Where’s your man?” I smiled back and answered: “He’s not one man; he’s forty thousand. You’ll find him all around the yards.” (Poole, 1940, 95) Surely if Roosevelt knew the text, it had to be known quite widely, and this might have made an impression on Sinclair as well. Sinclair published his own articles in The Independent often, hence he probably read it regularly and would have known Kaztauskis’s text even before he came to Chicago, as it was published in August of 1904. In Chicago, Sinclair met Ernest Poole personally at least a few times. Poole recorded the meeting in his autobiography: Into our headquarters one day breezed a lad in a widebrimmed hat, with loose-flowing tie and a wonderful warm expansive smile. “Hello! I’m Upton Sinclair!” he said. “And I’ve come here to write the Uncle Tom’s Cabin of the Labor Movement!” He already had a man digging for “the inside dope” on conditions in the Yards, and I gave him some tips on where to get more, and the color that he wanted. Then he dived into the strike and I lost track of him for two weeks. “Well?” I asked when we met again. “Have you made a good start on your job?” “Start? I’ve finished!” he replied. “I’ve got all that I need to get on the spot and now I’m going home to write!” (Poole, 1940, 95–96) In her article “Upton Sinclair and the Writing of The Jungle,” Christine Scriabine listed some topics of Kaztauskis’s story that may have affected the plot of The Jungle: Among other things, Kaztauskis described how real estate agents cheated immigrants who attempted to buy houses on the installment plan, and how these newcomers became the tools of politicians and saloonkeepers. Even more important, his writing revealed the feelings

ONE. Sinclair’s Sources and His Choice of Lithuanian Characters

13

of Lithuanian immigrants as they reached Chicago and later reflected on their life in the old country. The contrasting images of the polluted Chicago landscape and the flowers and green woods of Lithuania which are integral to the structure of the first part of The Jungle may well have been inspired by Kaztauskis’s article. (Scriabine, 1981, 28–30) Scriabine asserted that “although the figure of Jurgis Rudkus cannot be regarded simply as a fictionalized portrayal of Antanas Kaztauskis, he is nevertheless a better developed character because of Kaztauskis’s ‘autobiography’ ” (30). She had no doubts about the impact of Kaztauskis’s story upon Sinclair (cf. also her dissertation Upton Sinclair: Witness to History, 1973, 63). Barrett, too, agreed that this story “probably helped to shape the character of Jurgis Rudkus” (Barrett, 1988a, xxxi). These assertions are very persuasive. Scriabine mentioned agents, politicians, and saloonkeepers that emphasized Lithuanian life in Chicago, not in the far-away country. An addition to Scriabine’s observations can be made––certain traces of Kaztauskis’s story of the events that occurred in Lithuania can likewise be uncovered in Sinclair’s. For instance, both Kaztauskis and Rudkos had to travel quite a long distance to see their fiancées in Lithuania—only it was ten miles for Kaztauskis (Poole, 1904a, 244), and ten times more for Rudkos—one hundred miles (FE 18; Ch 2). Musteikis criticized Sinclair’s choice of a hundred mile distance as very unrealistic in a country as small as Lithuania (Musteikis, 1971, 30); it seems reasonable to believe that the substitution of the distances occurred because of Sinclair’s attempts to change the details of Kaztauskis’s story. Also, both Kaztauskis and Rudkos left Lithuania for America because of the circumstances created by the death of family members; Kaztauskis’s mother died and then his father finally let him go (243–244), and Rudkos’s fiancée’s father passed away and no one was hindering their trip to America any more as well (FE 18; Ch 2). In addition, the oldest brother of Kaztauskis was killed serving in the Russian army during the war with Turkey (242), and the older brother of Rudkos “had been drafted into the army; that had been over ten years ago, but since that day nothing had ever been heard of him” (FE 17; Ch 2). Of significance here is that the Lithuanian influence of Kaztauskis’s story was incorporated into the beginning of The Jungle. After the opening wedding party scene, the second chapter chronicled all the events that had taken place in Lithuania. Indeed, the second chapter is the chronological beginning of The Jungle. Kaztauskis’s story obviously affected Sinclair’s novel; it was an important source of his Lithuanian information. Poole’s advice may also have influenced Sinclair. Poole “gave him [Sinclair] some tips on where

14

Giedrius Subačius

to get ... the color that he wanted.” The color for Poole might mean Lithuanians, the nationality whose representatives he spent much time communicating with. Thus, not only the written text, but also Poole’s suggestion to depict the lives of Lithuanian immigrants might have been partly decisive in Sinclair’s selection of a nationality. There were also Sinclair’s other helpers in the stockyards. No palpable evidence is available to show, however, that their impact might be of equivalent importance. For instance, Scriabine wrote about the first person Sinclair interviewed in the stockyards—the socialist Algie Martin Simons. She claimed that “it was Simons who introduced Sinclair to the workers ... He undoubtedly provided Sinclair with a copy of his pamphlet, Packingtown” (Scriabine, 1981, 28). Kent and Gretchen Kreuter were of the opinion that: Simons liked Sinclair at once. The two men, though very different in tastes and temperament, still had much in common. ... In short order, the preparations were made for Sinclair to enter the yards and begin gathering material for his projected novel. (Kreuter and Kreuter, 1969, 78) But no known biographical detail betrays any particular attention Simons may have paid to aspects of the Lithuanian immigrant life that would have influenced Sinclair’s choice. In the pamphlet Packingtown (1899), Simons never even mentioned Lithuanians or any other nationalities. Hence there is no hint of a possibility that Simons influenced Sinclair’s selection of Lithuanians. Conversely, in 1906 Simons defended The Jungle from its critics as a very truthful story in the following words: This story is hung upon a group of Lithuanians, who, in any other book, would be called the “principal characters.” But in this book the real characters are social classes and industrial conditions. (Simons, 1906, 712) Simons beheld only social classes and industrial conditions, as though nationalities might threaten to distract readers’ minds from socialist ideology. 4.

The Wedding, Kaztauskis’s Story, and Lithuanian The more general or more “objective” reason for Sinclair’s decision to opt for Lithuanians was the demographic situation in the neighborhoods adjacent to the Chicago stockyards—if Sinclair wanted to soak his characters in any national color, he needed to select from the most prevalent ethnic groups—Poles, Bohemians, Lithuanians, and Slovaks. The

ONE. Sinclair’s Sources and His Choice of Lithuanian Characters

15

chances of his picking any one of these may seem to be equal. It appears plausible that Sinclair did not set out to portray Lithuanians specifically before he arrived at the stockyards. The choice of Lithuanians was the result of Sinclair making concrete use of chance. More concrete and tangible subjective reasons for this turn out to be the two salient sources of inspiration: (1) the Lithuanian wedding feast and (2) Kaztauskis’s story and the advice written and given by Ernest Poole. The conjunction of these two influences might have been even more decisive for Sinclair than if any one of them were taken separately. Even so, if only emotionally, Sinclair put the emphasis on the first chapter, making the wedding the stronger candidate for the title of decisive source. The structure of The Jungle obviously supports the idea of these two sources as the main factors for deciding on Lithuanians. Both were used in the first and the second chapters of the novel. In the following chapters, Sinclair seemingly ran out of Lithuanian material. Had more Lithuanian data sources been available, the disproportional concentration of Lithuanian redolence or color in the two opening chapters might not be as conspicuous as it is. It is certain that Sinclair did not try to acquire any ample collection of specific Lithuanian cultural or historical materials. One more feature that accented the Lithuanian color in The Jungle was the Lithuanian language. Sinclair employed Lithuanian words, phrases, and names in his English text. The Lithuanian language may be considered a device that Sinclair used to instill the Lithuanian aura into his chef-d’oeuvre. How did he collect the language data and what were his Lithuanian linguistic sources? These questions are addressed in the next chapter of this book.

___________________________________________________________

This page intentionally left blank

___________________________________________________________

TWO The Lithuanian Language Since the Lithuanian wedding chapter is employed in the novel as a flashback, we might speculate that, in the same way, Sinclair could have distributed his Lithuanian phrases and names into the story during one of the later phases of delineating the plot. In the chapter I will examine various aspects of Sinclair’s use of the Lithuanian language. 1.

Sinclair’s Passion for Foreign Languages In Kaztauskis’s story Poole portrayed some aspects of Lithuanian life and heritage more precisely than Sinclair. But when we switch to the linguistic aspects of both texts this precision is reversed. Except for the names Alexandra (the Lithuanian alphabet did not possess the letter <x>), Antanas, Kaztauskis (i.e. Kazłauskis), and Brandukas (the latter is the pseudonym of Petras Tumasonis, 1875–1947), the newspaper name Katalikas, and the word skatina (which actually was a Russian word, an epithet that can be literally translated as ‘beast, brute’), Poole did not utilize any other Lithuanian linguistic features. The Lithuanian poem that Poole retold was entirely in English. Sinclair, on the other hand, recorded an entire stanza in Lithuanian, written by a Lithuanian poet, Antanas Vienažindys (1841–1892), and integrated many Lithuanian words and names into The Jungle (I have counted 69 words, which were used 194 times; cf. Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). Creating color by linguistic means was obviously more important to Sinclair than Poole. Why would Sinclair endeavor to pay this much attention to the Lithuanian language? It must be said that Sinclair enjoyed studying foreign languages. In 1902 he published two articles in The Independent on foreign language study: “On the Teaching of Languages” (Sinclair, 1902a) and “Language Study: Some Facts” (Sinclair, 1902b). By the time Sinclair arrived in the Chicago stockyards, he was fluent in reading German, French, and Italian, and had good knowledge of Latin and ancient Greek grammar. Three of these languages—German, French, and Italian—he learned on his own by studying on a regular basis. Thus, at the time Sinclair encountered the immigrants in Back of the Yards, he knew at least six languages (including English) quite well. Sinclair claimed he had developed his own “absolute rule” for language learning: I made it the one absolute rule of my work—and I know it is the one secret of learning a language—never to pass a word without remembering it, and remembering it for-

18

Giedrius Subačius ever. (Sinclair, 1902a, 495). [Another version: “I made it my one rule of language study never to pass a word without learning its meaning—learning it once, and learning it forever” (Sinclair, 1902b, 1473).]

And then this self-trained polyglot encountered one more different linguistic milieu—the Lithuanian one. Did Sinclair apply his “absolute rule” to Lithuanian? We can speculate that if Sinclair were not this enthusiastic about language studies, perhaps he would never have included Lithuanian words and phrases into The Jungle. But Sinclair might also have had a personal interest in collecting linguistic patterns along with other data. He probably never tried to study Lithuanian except for the notes he made or words he remembered while in Chicago. Being fluent in several languages made him well aware that the usage of a specific language evoked a special aura for the text. Sinclair made certain accurate linguistic observations. For instance, in the very first paragraph of The Jungle, Sinclair noticed that Marija used two different languages—Lithuanian and Polish: “Marija ... proceeded to tell him her opinion of him, first in Lithuanian, which he did not understand, and then in Polish, which he did” (FE 1; Ch 1). It was quite common for Lithuanians at that time to be bilingual in Lithuanian and Polish, although Poles did not usually speak Lithuanian: this was an extremely precise sociolinguistic observation of the Lithuanian and Polish communities in Chicago at that time. Several other references in the novel confirm that Sinclair was enjoying his “knowledge” of Lithuanian. For instance: “Z. Grajczunas, Pasilinksminimams darzas. Vynas. Sznapsas. Wines and Liquors. Union Headquarters”— that was the way the signs ran. The reader, who perhaps has never held much converse in the language of far-off Lithuania, will be glad for the explanation that the place was the rear room of a saloon in that part of Chicago known as “back of the yards.” (FE 1; Ch 1) Sinclair’s confidence that his reader did not know any Lithuanian seems to elevate Sinclair. A trace of linguistic ostentation in front of his non-Lithuanian audience is palpable. Sinclair could not elude the temptation to demonstrate his knowledge of the language. Sinclair felt very comfortable with his Lithuanian in the beginning chapters of the novel. When the family of Lithuanians came to New York and paid “enormous charges to get away,” Sinclair explained that “the law says that the rate card shall be on the door of a hotel, but it does not say that it shall be in Lithuanian” (FE 19; Ch 2). Sinclair probably felt

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

19

very witty. It seems that he could not conceal his pride in his knowledge, even if only of the existence of such an obscure language as Lithuanian. At one point he even wrote: For fear that the significance of all this should be lost, there was a label, in Polish, Bohemian, Lithuanian and English—“Namai. Home.” “Why pay rent?” The linguistic circular went on to demand: “Why not own your own home? ...” It even quoted “Home, Sweet Home,” and made bold to translate it into Polish—though for some reason it omitted the Lithuanian of this, perhaps because Lithuanian is not hospitable to poets. Most persons would admit that it might prove a difficult matter to be sentimental in a language in which a sob is known as a “gukcziojimas,” and a smile as a “nusiszypsojimas.” (FE 37; Ch 4) He went this far—to claim that the Lithuanian language was “not hospitable for poets.” And his proof for this was the two words given as examples. It seems that Sinclair could have come to this conclusion merely because of the length of the words he provided in comparison to their short English equivalents. The length was arguably also very important for Sinclair, as shown by his use of the word Pasilinksminimams, ‘for amusements,’ in the very first page of his novel, which remained untranslated by the author, but the dimension of which did not leave any doubts as to the strangeness of the language for speakers of English. In the quotation given above, the comment on the Lithuanian language was absolutely unrelated to the situation in the novel. It was apparently due to the itch Sinclair had to unleash his knowledge of the Lithuanian language. But in the following chapters, after chapters four, five, and six, Sinclair’s confidence about Lithuanian disappeared. He may have run out of new Lithuanian linguistic data, or he may have tired of the involvement in the issues of a language he did not speak. Sinclair’s Jurgis learned English quite quickly. It does not seem to be a very typical case—Lithuanian workers often did not acquire English at all, or perhaps merely certain words and phrases. They had their Lithuanian neighborhoods, stores, saloons, and friends, and had no strong motivation to master the official language. Sinclair liked learning languages himself and he bestowed this liking upon Jurgis. The Lithuanian language apparently permeated Sinclair’s Jungle because of his attraction to various languages, and because of his desire to give concrete color to the text, to make it as conspicuous as possible that his characters were foreigners.

20

Giedrius Subačius

2.

Lithuanian Words and Phrases As mentioned above, in his first 1905 Appeal to Reason serial, Sinclair included 69 different Lithuanian words and used them 194 times (about statistics cf. further, 2.6.). Later, in the 1906 Doubleday, Page edition, he had to a certain extent edited his Lithuanian language. So far I have found only a few hints about the Lithuanian linguistic features of The Jungle in some published articles. For instance, Algirdas M. Budreckis believed that Sinclair “even displays a rudimentary knowledge of the language” (1976, 90). Musteikis merely stated that “throughout the whole novel we find many Lithuanian names, some expressions, songs” (1971, 29). For the analysis of the Lithuanian linguistic features the list of all Lithuanian words and Lithuanian names used in both serial and book edition are presented here in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1. Lithuanian words and phrases of The Jungle. The first column contains forms and page numbers from FE; then the chapter number follows in parentheses; in cases of different spelling in the original Appeal to Reason 1905 serial, those differences are pointed out in square brackets (page number; number of the issue). The second column contains forms from the Doubleday, Page 1906 edition, which was extensively edited by Sinclair; pages are given according to the Eby 2003 edition. Differences in spelling are marked in bold font; occurrences of words that were eliminated in the 1906 edition are marked with a dash (–). Order is chronological (according to the first occurrence in the text). The Jungle 1905 (FE) Eik! Eik! Uzderck-durys 1 (Ch 1) [Appeal to Reason: Eik! Eik! Uzdarek-durys 1; 482] Pasilinksminimams darzas. Vynas. Sznapsas 1 (Ch 1) veselija 2, 6, 10(2x), 11(2x), 12 (Ch 1); 53 (Ch 6) Teta 3, 5, 9, 11(2x), 13(2x), 16 (Ch 1); 18(2x), 21(2x) (Ch 2); 26 (Ch 3); 36(2x), 37, 38, 39, 41(4x), 42(2x) (Ch 4); 44, 46(2x) (Ch 5); 53(4x), 57, 58(3x), 59(2x) (Ch 6); 64, 66, 70 (Ch 7); 72(2x) (Ch 8); 89, 95 (Ch 10); 98, 103(2x), 104(2x) (Ch 11); 109(3x) (Ch 12); 113(2x), 117, 118 (Ch 13); 124 (Ch 14); 131, 132 (Ch 15); 141 (Ch 16); 147, 151 (2x) (Ch 17); 170 (Ch 20) Eiksz! Graicziau! 3 (Ch 1) Sudiev’ kvietkeli, tu brongiausis Sudiev’ ir laime, man biednam, Matau-paskyre teip Aukszcziausis, Jog vargt ant svieto reik vienam! 6 (Ch 1) [Appeal to Reason: brangiausis 1; 482] Diedas 6(2x), 11(2x), 16 (Ch 1); 36, 38 (Ch 4); 53 (Ch 6); 66 (Ch 7); 125 (Ch 14); 156 (Ch 18) poetiszka vaidintuve ‘a poetical imagination’ 6 (Ch 1)

The Jungle 1906 Eik! Eik! Uzdaryk duris 5 Pasilinksminimams darzas. Vynas. Sznapsas 5–6 veselija 7, 11, 16(2x), 18, –, –, 64 Teta 8, 10, 15, 17(2x), 19, 20, 22, 24(2x), 28(2x), 34, 44(2x), 46, 47, 48, 50(3x), –, 51, 52 , –, 56(2x), 64, –, –, –, 69(2x), 70, –, 70, 71, 75, 77, 81, –, 83, 98, 105, 109, 114, –, 115, –, –, –, –, 123(2x), –, –, –, –, 144, 154, 160, –, –, 186

Eiksz! Graicziau! 8 Sudiev’ kvietkeli, tu brangiausis; Sudiev’ ir laime, man biednam, Matau-paskyre teip Aukszcziausis, Jog vargt ant svieto reik vienam! 11 Dede 11, 12, 17, –, 22, 44, 47, 64, 77, 136, 170 poetiszka vaidintuve 12

TWO. The Lithuanian Language The Jungle 1905 (FE) Mustok! Kas ira? 8 (Ch 1) [Appeal to Reason: Mustek! Kas ira? 2; 482] aczaviuas 9(2x) (Ch 1) panas 11, 13 (Ch 1); 28 (Ch 3) Szalin! 11 (Ch 1) Palauk! isz kelio! 11 (Ch 1) Ai! Skausmas! 11 (Ch 1) panei (or Panei) 13 [Appeal to Reason: poeni 2; 482], 13(3x) (Ch 1); 18, 21(2x), 22(2x) (Ch 2); 25 (Ch 3); 35 (Ch 4); 44, 45 (Ch 5); 155, 157(2x), 159(2x) (Ch 18); 162(2x), 164, 165 (Ch 19); 168, 170, 174 (Ch 20); 182, 183, 184(2x) (Ch 21); 185 (Ch 22); 222 (Ch 26) szilpnas 17 (Ch 2) obiezyzasy 18 (Ch 2) Zarmos. Pagaiksztis. Szlouti! 25 (Ch 3) [Appeal to Reason: Zarnos 2; 485] Durys? 25 (Ch 3) Rytoj! Priespietys! Septyni! 25 (Ch 3) Dekui tamistai! 25 (Ch 3) Tai jukai! 27 (Ch 3) Diewes 29 (Ch 3); Diewes! 54 (Ch 6) Namai 37 (Ch 4) gukcziojimas 37 (Ch 4) nusiszypsojimas 37 (Ch 4) Susimilkis! 55 (Ch 6) Ai! Ai! Beda man! 58 (Ch 6) Czia! Czia! 59 (Ch 6) Palauk (or Palauk!) 104 (Ch 11); 159 (Ch 18); 181 (Ch 21) Muma (or Muma!) 104 (Ch 11); 181 (Ch 21) Tu mano szirdele (or Tu mano szirdele!) 104 (Ch 11); 181 (Ch 21)

21

The Jungle 1906 Nustok! Kas yra? 13 acziavimas 15(2x) ponas 17, 19, 35 Szalin! 17 Palauk! isz kelio! 17 – poni –, 19, –, –, –, 28(2x), –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –

silpnas 23 – Zarnos. Pagaiksztis. Szluota! 32 Durys? 32 Rytoj! Prieszpietys! Septyni! 32 Dekui tamistai! 32 – Dieve 37; Dieve! 66 Namai 45 gukcziojimas 46 nusiszypsojimas 46 Susimilkie! 66 Ai! Ai! Beda man! 69 Czia! Czia! 71 Palauk! 115, 174, 199 Muma (or Muma!) 115, 199 Tu mano szirdele (or Tu mano szirdele!) 115, 199

One objective is to define the presumable sources of Sinclair’s Lithuanian language and his style of working with it. Theoretically, Lithuanian words and phrases might have been taken either from written Lithuanian sources or from speech. Standard written Lithuanian was still in a state of formation (although by then it was obvious that the dialect of the southern part of the Western Highlands had been selected as a basis for the standard), and there was no single spoken standard at the time (at least not in the American Lithuanian colonies). Lithuanians spoke various dialects, which were not always intelligible among their speakers, even in Lithuania. William A. Bloodworth has observed that Jurgis never speaks in a dialect: “Although Sinclair reveals that Jurgis comes to America with no understanding of the prevailing language, he never has him speak in dialect.” (Bloodworth, 1977, 50). Did he mean a Lithuanian dialect?

22

Giedrius Subačius

Table 2. Lithuanian names in The Jungle. The table does not cover all occurrences of the names—only the first occurrence (and variants) is recorded here. The first column contains forms and page numbers from FE; then the chapter number follows in parentheses; in cases of a different spelling in the original Appeal to Reason 1905 serial, those differences are pointed out in square brackets (page number; number of the issue). The second column contains forms from the Doubleday, Page 1906 edition, which was heavily edited by Sinclair; pages are given according to the Eby 2003 edition. Differences are marked in bold font. Order is chronological. The Jungle 1905 (FE) Marija Biarczynskas 1 (Ch 1) Z. Grajczunas 1 (Ch 1) Ona Lukoszis 1 (Ch 1) Jurgis Rudkos 2 (Ch 1) Elzbieta 3 (Ch 1) Kotrina 3 (Ch 1) Majauszkis 3 (Ch 1) Tamoszius Kuszlejka 4 (Ch 1) Valentynaicza 4 (Ch 1) Antanas Rudkos 6 (Ch 1) Jokubas Szadwilas 6 (Ch 1) Lucija 7 (Ch 1) Alena Jasaitis 8 (Ch 1) Juozas Roczis 8 (Ch 1); Juozas Raczius 255 (Ch 29) Jadviga Marciukus 8 (Ch 1); Jadwiga Marciukus 50 (Ch 5) Mikolas 8 (Ch 1) Sebastijonas Szadwilas 11 (Ch 1) Aniele 13 (Ch 1) Mrs. Juknos 13 (Ch 1) Bialowicza 17 (Ch 2) Elzbieta Lukoszis 18 (Ch 2) Jonas 18 (Ch 2) Stanislovas 36 (Ch 4) Villimui 108 (Ch 12) [Appeal to Reason: Vilimui 2; 496]; Vilimui 177 (Ch 21) Nikalojus 108 (Ch 12) Kristoforas 113 (Ch 13) Mrs. Olszewski 159 (Ch 18)

2.1.

The Jungle 1906 Marija Berczynskas 5 Z. Graiczunas 5–6 Ona Lukoszaite 6 Jurgis Rudkus 6 Elzbieta 8 Kotrina 8 Majauszkiene 8 Tamoszius Kuszleika 9 Valentinavyczia 9 Antanas Rudkus 12 Jokubas Szedvilas 13 Lucija 13 Alena Jasaityte 13 Juozas Raczius 13, 272 Jadvyga Marcinkus 14, 61 Mikolas 14 Sebastijonas Szedvilas 17 Aniele 19 Mrs. Jukniene 19 Brelovicz 23 Elzbieta Lukoszaite 24 Jonas 24 Stanislovas 44 Vilimas 118, 194 Nikalojus 118 Kristoforas 123 Mrs. Olszewski 174

Dialects Certainly, we cannot expect that Sinclair would have distinguished differences between Lithuanian dialects. The 1905 serial of The Jungle occasionally contained different Lithuanian dialectal forms. Thus, the words jukai ‘jokes’ 27, Muma ‘mother’ 104, 181, Rudkos 1, 6, Susimilkis! ‘(God) have mercy!’ 55, Szlouti ‘to sweep’ 25, can be considered

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

23

as containing dialectal features of Lowland in Western Lithuania. Linguistically, Lowland Lithuanian is the most distant dialect from Standard Lithuanian (hereafter SL), which was taking shape at the time. Instead of the Highland Lithuanian (and SL) diphthong [uo] (1) the Northern Lowland dialect has a diphthong [ọu] with the first vowel [ọ], which is pronounced as a sound in between SL [u] and [o] (in phonetic transcription it is traditionally marked [ọ] with a dot below; cf. Sinclair’s Szlouti; modern SL šluoti); and (2) the Southern Lowland dialect has a long monophthong [ū] (cf. Sinclair’s jukai; modern SL juokai). The form Muma (SL mama) contains the letter , which also signifies here the same special Lowland Lithuanian vowel [ọ]. In Lowland dialects the vowel [a] positioned between the nasal consonants [n] and/or [m] often switches into this open Lowland [ọ] (historically [a] → [ọ]). Most of the Highland Lithuanian dialects and SL have the ending -us instead of the Lowland Lithuanian ending -os in Rudkos nominative singular (pronounced with the same open [ọ]). The verb Susimilkis contains two reflexive particles, which are marked in bold font here. This is typical for certain Lowland dialects, but not for SL or Highland dialects. As I have mentioned, it is very doubtful that Sinclair could perceive these peculiarities as being dialectal. After the publication of The Jungle in 1905 he probably was told about them, however, by someone who had read the newspaper serial of The Jungle and was knowledgeable about the nascent Lithuanian standard, since Sinclair managed to edit almost all of them. Thus, in the 1906 edition, Sinclair made corrections: Rudkos → Rudkus (Eby, 2003, 6—when needed the text of The Jungle of 1906 is cited from the critical edition prepared by Clare Virginia Eby in 2003), Susimilkis → Susimilkie (Eby, 2003, 66; the Lowland reflexive particle was changed into a quite formal literary SL ending -ie; a more usual and colloquial form would have been no ending—Susimilk), Szlouti → Szluota (Eby, 2003, 32; the ending was also modified, which changed the infinitive form of the verb into the singular nominative case of a noun meaning ‘broom’); and the word jukai was omitted entirely. The only word with Lowland phonetic features that remained unaltered in the 1906 edition was Muma. There was also one East and South Highland dialectal form used—Graicziau ‘faster’ 3 (modern SL greičiau). It likewise remained unchanged in the 1906 edition of The Jungle. Sinclair’s original text was informed by some obviously dialectal Lithuanian examples, but he had extirpated most of them in the final 1906 edition. If in 1904 and 1905 Sinclair had known that the forms he selected were from dialects and not from the nascent Standard Lithuanian, most probably he would not have included them in the novel unaltered.

24

Giedrius Subačius

2.2.

Orthography Certain observations can be made about the orthographical peculiarities of the Lithuanian language that Sinclair used. At that time the Lithuanian standard was still in transition to a more or less stable orthography. In 1904 the orthography was still somewhat variable in the Lithuanian newspapers of the U.S. 2.2.1.

and <sz> In 1904 in Chicago and in other North American Lithuanian newspapers a double orthography reigned: most texts were being published with the then less prestigious traditional digraphs and <sz> denoting the sounds [tch] and [sh] respectively (newspaper orthography), while more prestigious texts were published with the letters carrying diacritics in the shape of a caron (haček; wedge)—<č> and <š> instead (these diacritics were borrowings from the Czech alphabet). The two competing Lithuanian newspapers in Chicago—Lietuva and Katalikas—in the period of Sinclair’s stay in Chicago (Oct.–Dec. 1904) had differing policies regarding the switch to the prestigious <č> and <š>. Since 8 May 1903 Lietuva had predominantly printed <č> and <š>, while digraphs prevailed in Katalikas until 17 Aug. 1905 (cf. Subačius, 2004, 195, 199–201). Thus, if Sinclair happened to get a Lithuanian newspaper in Chicago, he possibly discerned a difference in treatment of those digraphs or letters with diacritics. Variation was often present on the same page of a newspaper. Sinclair was definitely using the older, less prestigious version of these two orthographical patterns—always merely the digraphs and <sz>: Aukszcziausis ‘Lord’ 6, Biarczynskas 1, 2, Graicziau ‘faster’ 3, Grajczunas 1, gukcziojimas ‘a sob, whimpering’ 37, Valentynaicza 4; and Aukszcziausis 6, Kuszlejka 4, Lukoszis 1, nusiszypsojimas ‘smiling’ 37, Szadwilas 6, Szalin ‘out’ 11, Tamoszius 4. In one case he created a hypercorrect form—szilpnas ‘weak’ 17, which in his later 1906 edition (Eby, 2003, 23) was changed into standard Lithuanian silpnas. Sinclair also used <s> in Priespietys ‘forenoon’ 25, in the 1905 serial, but later he switched to the digraph <sz> representing the SL sound [sh]—Prieszpietys (Eby, 2003, 32). These peculiarities show that Sinclair may have known the phonetic meaning of <sz> and might have made efforts to adopt this spelling on his own. There may have been more than one reason why Sinclair used and <sz>. First of all, he probably was aware that the diacritics would entail complications in the printing of an English newspaper or a book. Secondly, if he had not made an attempt to study the newest Lithuanian printed texts (books or newspapers) he may have been more familiar with the older Lithuanian orthographical tradition from the Lithuanians he personally conversed with.

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

25

2.2.2.

<j> Sinclair knew how to use the letter <j> in Lithuanian orthography. He was probably well aware of the different phonetic meanings this letter possesses in various languages (as in the languages Sinclair knew— English, French, and German). The sound value of <j> in Lithuanian is similar to the German or Polish <j> (more or less equivalent to the English ) (cf. Subačius, 2003, 260–262). In the 1906 edition, Sinclair went so far as to include a note to the reader about how to pronounce the name of the protagonist Jurgis—“Pronounced Yoorghis” (Eby, 2003, 6). Sinclair used the letter <j> quite precisely, i.e., in correspondence with the then comparatively stable written SL norm: gukcziojimas ‘a sob, whimpering’ 37, Jog ‘that’ 6, Jokubas 6, Jurgis 2, Marija 1, nusiszypsojimas ‘smiling’ 37, veselija ‘wedding feast’ 2, 6. 2.2.3.

and Beside the quite uniform , <sz>, and <j> usages, there were also quite a few examples of inconsistent Lithuanian orthography. Most often Sinclair attached the SL meaning to the letter (which designated the long sound [ī] in SL, in opposition to the short [i] marked by the letter ): nusiszypsojimas ‘smiling’ 37, paskyre ‘appointed’ 6, Priespietys 25, Rytoj ‘tomorrow’ 25, Septyni ‘seven’ 25, Vynas ‘wine’ 1. In some other examples, though, he used different (non-standard) orthography: Jadwiga 50, 129, Kas ira? ‘what’s the matter?’ 8, Mikolas 8, Uzdarek-durys! ‘close the door’ (Appeal for Reason No. 482, 25 Feb. 1905: 1; in FE there are two typographical errors: Uzderck-durys! 1), Valentynaicza 4. Nevertheless, in the 1906 edition Sinclair corrected most of these forms in compliance with the SL written norms being formed: Jadvyga 61, Kas yra? 13, Uzdaryk duris 5, Valentinavyczia 9 (Mikolas, though, remained unchanged; cf. Eby, 2003, 14). 2.2.4.

and <w> There was also no consistency in spelling of the letters or <w>. In Lithuanian’s written tradition there was no phonetic difference attached to these two letters (unlike in English or German). Both graphemes merely meant the consonant [v]. The older written Lithuanian tradition, which was related to Polish orthography, simply employed the single letter <w> (no at all); conversely, the newer developing standard orthography was refusing <w> and accepting only . By 1904 the standard dominated; the decision to switch to it in Chicago Lithuanian newspapers was made approximately in the last decade of the nineteenth century. But even during the span of time that Sinclair stayed in Chicago the newspapers Lietuva and Katalikas occasionally used “the old fashioned” <w>, especially in the last pages with printed advertisements.

26

Giedrius Subačius

Sinclair preferred to employ the newer standard : aczaviuas 9, kvietkeli ‘little flower’ 6, Sudiev’ ‘good bye’ 6, vaidintuve ‘imagination’ 6, Valentynaicza 4, vargt ‘to suffer’ 6, veselija ‘wedding’ 2, 6, 10, 11, vienam ‘(for) one’ 6, Vilimui 177, Vynas 1. But Sinclair did not totally escape “the old fashioned” letter <w> either: Bialowicza ‘the proper name of an imperial forest’ 17, Diewes ‘God’ 29, 54, Jadwiga 50, 129, Szadwilas 6. The girl’s name Jadwiga was not used with <w> in the first chapter, there was only Jadviga 8, in the beginning, but in the process of writing Sinclair switched from to <w>. In the Doubleday, Page edition he made his spelling uniform by switching to the letter everywhere—every single occurrence of <w> was replaced by SL : Brelovicz 23, Dieve 37, 66, Jadvyga 61, Szedvilas 13. 2.2.5.

and <ei> By 1904, the Lithuanian diphthongs [ai] and [ei] were mostly spelled as digraphs and <ei>, i.e., with the letter as a second component. In most cases Sinclair also used this way of spelling: Ai ‘ouch’ 11, Eiksz ‘come here’ 3, Graicziau 3, jukai 27, laime ‘happiness’ 6, Namai ‘home’ 37, reik ‘(it) needs’ 6, Tai ‘this’ 27, tamistai ‘(to) sir’ 25, vaidintuve ‘imagination’ 6, Valentynaicza 4. However, Sinclair spelled two surnames—Grajczunas 1, 12 and Kuszlejka 4—with different digraphs, and <ej>, containing <j> as the second component. This was the traditional way of spelling, borrowed from Polish orthography during the 1840s and 1850s in Lithuania (cf. Subačius, 1991, 58–59). Until the 1880s or even the 1890s, Lithuanian texts contained certain digraphs with the second letter <j>. But by 1904 no Lithuanian newspaper used the spelling . Certain advertisements printed the two surnames in local Lithuanian newspapers at the time, but they were printed differently, i.e. with the diphthongs and <ei>: Graiczunas (Katalikas, 10 Nov. 1904; cf. 3.2. and Fig. 5), KUSZLEIKO (Katalikas, 6 Oct. 1904; cf. 3.3. and Fig. 6). Nevertheless, to write might have been a remaining habit of some Lithuanians, who gained their reading-writing skills in Lithuania; one could find this digraph spelling in the older Lithuanian prayer books that were brought from Lithuania. Hence, Lithuanian newspapers do not seem to be a source Sinclair utilized in writing the digraphs and <ej>. 2.2.6.

Diacritical Marks The diacritical marks in Lithuanian orthography presented a serious problem for Sinclair. By now I have referred to the digraphs and <sz>, and the fact that Lithuanian newspapers and books printed in Chicago amply introduced the caron (haček; wedge) diacritic—<č> and <š>. Sinclair opted for the non-diacritical and <sz>. He also omitted the diacritic above the SL letter <ė> (in Chicago’s 1904 Lithuanian newspa-

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

27

pers the shape of the printed diacritical mark resembled a dash <ē> rather than a modern dot above the letter <ė>). Cf. Aniele, paskyre, vaidintuve (SL Anelė, paskyrė, vaidintuvė). Sinclair also left out the dot or the caronshape diacritics in <ž> [zh]—Zarnos, Elzbieta (modern SL Žarnos, Elžbieta, but in 1904 Chicago newspapers printed the Lithuanian [zh] as either <ż> or <ž>). It seems that Sinclair avoided Lithuanian diacritics entirely, perhaps just because he foresaw problems in printing. Surprisingly enough, these examples account merely for the diacritics above the letters (<č>, <š>, <ē>, and <ž>). SL by that time had developed four characters with the nosinė/ogonek diacritic below them— <ą>, <ę>, <į>, and <ų>. It is not the fact that we do not find any of these diacritics in Sinclair’s texts that evokes surprise; it is that his novel did not contain any words in the Lithuanian grammatical/orthographical position in which the letters <ą>, <ę>, <į>, and <ų> should have been used. Even the stanza Sudiev’ kvietkeli did not contain any such required diacritical letters. Was this fortuitous, or was it Sinclair’s intention to avoid omitting the diacritics below the letter? Could Sinclair have believed that leaving out a nosinė/ogonek did greater harm to the orthography than the omission of a caron or a dot? It does not seem very credible to believe this omission could happen by sheer chance. It could have been a conscious effort on Sinclair’s part to avoid losing the lower diacritics at an English printer. This could also mean that Sinclair may have been somewhat concerned whether Lithuanians would notice and appreciate the way he printed the Lithuanian words and phrases in The Jungle. 2.2.7.

“Zine” A comparison of another example of Lithuanian printed matter in an English-language newspaper reveals Sinclair’s comparative accuracy. The Chicago Tribune printed “Union’s Warning in Five Languages” on 16 Jul. 1904, a piece that Sinclair was aware of, but apparently not influenced by. The text announced that the strikers should strictly obey the law. The English original of it ran: NOTICE! WE CAN WIN IF WE STAND BY THE UNION. If we obey the Union’s Rules to molest no person or property and abide strictly by the laws of the Country. : All men on strike should retire to their homes and attend their various Union Meetings for all information. If you follow the above instructions you will be of great assistance in helping to win this strike. Your organization will not assist you if you get into unlawful trouble. One of the five languages was Lithuanian; this is the photocopied image of the Lithuanian translation of “Union’s Warning”:

28

Giedrius Subačius

Fig. 1. Lithuanian text of “Union’s Warning in Five Languages,” Chicago Tribune, 16 Jul. 1904.

According to Poole’s article printed on 28 Jul. 1904, this “Union’s Warning” was very well known at the time: Everywhere on fences and on trees you may see this notice, which is printed in English, German, Lithuanian, Polish and Bohemian. (Poole, 1904b, 183–184) Sinclair knew this text as well; he had quoted parts of it in his 1905 serial of The Jungle, even though he arrived in Chicago two months after Poole saw fences and trees decorated with the notice: They had even paid to have the neighborhood placarded with posters in five languages, warning the men “to molest no person or property, and abide strictly by the laws of this country. Your organization will not assist you if you get into unlawful trouble. ” (FE 235; Ch 27) However, this passage was removed from the 1906 version of The Jungle. A comparison of “Zine” to Sinclair’s Lithuanian words and phrases does not yield any evidence that it had influenced him. The text and phrases are very different from Sinclair’s Lithuanian inclusions. It does not appear to have had any linguistic impact on Sinclair. Moreover, Sinclair’s Lithuanian language was more precise, encompassing far fewer orthographical inconsistencies, typographical or other errors than that of “Zine.” Probably “Zine” was translated by a Lithuanian who was not a skilled writer; apparently, an English-speaking printer added typographical errors to the text as well. Ultimately, it seems that Sinclair’s usage of Lithuanian can be considered more accurate than the usage in Chicago Tribune’s “Zine”.

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

29

2.2.8.

The Basis of Sinclair’s Lithuanian Orthography All in all, it seems plausible to presume that printed Lithuanian texts were not Sinclair’s source of Lithuanian forms. If he had gone so far as to study the orthography of Lithuanian newspapers, he probably would not have opted for the Lowland Lithuanian forms jukai, Rudkos, Szlouti, etc.; also, it is likely that he would have avoided the inconsistencies in the spelling of and ; and <w>; , <ei> or <ej>. The most likely assumption is that Sinclair’s main source was the notes he had taken while communicating with the workers, saloon keepers, etc. of Packingtown. These notes could have been made on different occasions; some of them might have been written by Sinclair himself, some of them could presumably have been written into his notebook/s by some Lithuanians at his request. The only occasion on which we know for certain that Sinclair took important Lithuanian language notes was the famous wedding feast. Sinclair confessed that he was fixing the wedding scene he observed in his mind and that he retained it; he did not put it down in his notebooks until he returned to his stockyards hotel that night (or later—as other contradictory versions of his description suggest). Hence, in accordance with Sinclair’s methods, the attempt to memorize certain Lithuanian phrases might have been on his agenda, as his “absolute rule” implied. 2.3.

Colloquial versus Literary Language Most of the Lithuanian phrases Sinclair picked up were very colloquial, e.g., Ai! Ai! Beda man! ‘Oh! Oh! Woe is me!’ 58, Ai! Skausmas! ‘Oh! Pain!’ 11, Czia! Czia! ‘Here! Here!’ 59, Dekui tamistai! ‘Thank you, sir!’ 25, Diewes! ‘God!’ 29, 54, Eik! Eik! ‘Go! Go!’ 1, Kas ira? ‘What’s the matter?’ 8, Palauk! ... Muma ‘Wait! ... mom’ 104, Palauk! isz kelio! ‘Wait! Out of the way!’ 11, Rytoj! Priespietys! Septyni! ‘Tomorrow! Forenoon! Seven!’ 25 (Sinclair must have misunderstood the meaning of the word Priespietys), Susimilkis! ‘(God) have mercy!’ 55, Szalin! ‘Out!’ 11, Tai jukai! ‘That’s a laugh!’ 27, Tu mano szirdele ‘You are my dear one’ 104. These and some other words might have been heard by Sinclair himself, or they might have been put down on paper by Lithuanians for him after he asked them to do so. On the other hand, there are several words and phrases charged with literary connotation. For instance, the stanza of Vienažindys Sudiev’ kvietkeli seems very well-informed, written with no evident errors or inconsistencies (even though the older digraphs and <sz> were employed there). The abstract nouns gukcziojimas ‘sob, whimpering’ 37, nusiszypsojimas ‘smiling’ 37, and the phrase poetiszka vaidintuve ‘a poetical imagination’ 6 all seem very literary. The word vaidintuve was a neologism of the second half of the nineteenth century (cf. LKŽ 17: 843),

30

Giedrius Subačius

which was known in Lithuanian printed texts then. If Sinclair did not take these phrases from any written Lithuanian source, he probably had them written by Lithuanians with good writing skills. 2.4.

Errors Sinclair also committed some errors. For instance, he used the morphological forms Juknos 155 and Vilimui 177, as if they both were in the singular nominative case. The ending -os, however, here can only designate singular genitive or plural nominative (singular nominative would be Jukna), and the ending -ui—only singular dative (singular nominative would be Vilimas). Both mistakes were corrected in the 1906 edition: Juknos → Jukniene 170, Vilimui → Vilimas 194. In Jukniene not only the morphological ending -e (SL -ė) was corrected, but also the Lithuanian suffix -ien- was added to clarify the marital status of the lady. There are two singular forms of the second person imperative in the 1905 serial that contain the concocted suffix -ek: Mustek ‘stop it’ (Appeal to Reason No. 482, 25 Feb. 1905: 2); and Uzdarek ‘close’ (Appeal to Reason No. 482, 25 Feb. 1905: 1; FE edition varies here). Apparently, Sinclair generalized the suffix -ek for this singular second person imperative position. No Lithuanian dialect, however, has such a form. Later, in the 1906 edition, Sinclair corrected both forms and used the SL form: Nustok 13, Uzdaryk 5 (he also corrected the misspelled <M> at the initial position of the word in Mustek—replacing it with ). In the 1905 serial, Sinclair frequently used the form panei (or Panei) 155, which is most reasonably interpreted as SL panelė ‘Miss.’ Sinclair’s panei (or Panei) might be a misspelling of the shortened singular vocative case Panel. The distortion of the word might have occurred if Sinclair heard this word quite often, learned it in sound form and put it on paper himself without help for spelling. If there was someone else who helped him write this word into his notes, Sinclair might have taken for in somebody’s longhand—he might have been uncertain as to what letter should be located at the end of the word. The word Panei was used quite often in the 1905 serial; most frequently it was used adjacent to the name Aniele Juknos. It was incorrect, since Aniele Juknos had been a married woman (“a widow, and had three children” FE 13; Ch 1) and could not be called ‘Miss.’ Again, in the 1906 edition Sinclair corrected this inconsistency and dropped the artificial word panei (or Panei) entirely (cf. Table 1; 2.; 2.6.); in three cases he changed it into poni ‘Mrs.’ (Eby, 2003, 19), which was quite accurate (modern SL equivalent is ponia; Sinclair’s ending -i in poni was apparently influenced by the Polish equivalent of the word with the same meaning—pani). Once, in the 1905 serial, Lucija Szadwilas was termed poeni Lucija (Appeal to Reason No. 482, 25 Feb. 1905: 2; FE panei Lucija 13), but that was probably merely a typographical error.

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

31

There also was a mistake in the name of the forest that today is a part of Byelorussian territory: Bialowicza 17. If Sinclair had switched only one letter— → <e>—the form Bialowieza would be understandable, spelling the name of the forest in Polish at least, if not in Lithuanian. That might be Sinclair’s own mistake, or one by a typesetter. However, unexpectedly enough, when Sinclair corrected the name in the 1906 edition, the form became almost unrecognizable: Brelovicz (cf. Eby, 2003, 23). Musteikis had also noticed the mistake (Musteikis, 1971, 30). This is one of those rare cases in which the newspaper serial of The Jungle was more accurate than the one in book format. Diewes! ‘God!’ 54 was another misrepresented Lithuanian form. No Lithuanian dialect contains a singular vocative case ending in -es of the word Dievas (SL ‘God’). Like many other errors, this one was corrected in 1906 by Sinclair into the SL singular vocative case in -e: Dieve! (Eby, 2003, 66). Two more forms that can plausibly be reckoned as errors produced by longhand or in typesetting were aczaviuas 9 (in 1906 corrected into acziavimas; Eby, 2003, 15) and Marciukus 50 (later Marcinkus; Eby, 2003, 61). The letters , , and <m> might easily be confused by an author or a typesetter, especially when they were written in the words of an unfamiliar language. 2.5.

Editing The edited forms Jukniene, Vilimas, Nustok, Uzdaryk, poni, Brelovicz, Dieve, acziavimas, Marcinkus do not exhaust the scope of all the editing work Sinclair conducted in 1906 on the Lithuanian words. In the 1906 edition Sinclair also dropped some words, changed them or changed their flexions/suffixes. Sinclair omitted, for instance, the words and phrases Ai! Skausmas! 11; obiezyzasy ‘a kind of peon laborer’ 18; Tai jukai! 27. There is no way of knowing why Sinclair left out the phrases Ai! Skausmas! and Tai jukai! except for artistic reasons. He also omitted obiezyzasy, either a distorted Polish word or a loan-word from Polish, cf. standard Polish obieżyświat ‘the one who travels widely, wanders around the world.’ Barrett has commented on this word: “Chicago Polonia had a term to describe those in continual migration to and from the Old World—obiezyswiaty, or ‘globetrotters’ ” (1990, 77). Apparently, while preparing the 1906 edition Sinclair became aware that this word was not Lithuanian and dropped it. As stated in the previous section, Sinclair also left out the noun panei (or Panei) from his 1906 edition (cf. also 2.6.). Nevertheless, all these eliminations by no means support DeGruson’s claim that “Lithuanian phrases are for the most part eliminated” (DeGruson XXIV). Actually, only some were eliminated. And merely two words were significantly reduced—panei (or Panei) and Teta (cf. also 2.6.).

32

Giedrius Subačius

Sinclair also made some substitutions. He switched the word Diedas ‘old man; grandfather’ 6 into Dede ‘uncle; old man’ (Eby, 2003, 12). This was not merely a substitution of meaning but also a shift in connotation: Diedas might have been seen as more dialectal or even slightly derisive (cf. LKŽ 2: 497) while Dede might have seemed a more standard equivalent (cf. LKŽ 2: 300). I have already mentioned the substitution of Juknos for Jukniene, where the Lithuanian suffix -ien- was added to point out the marital status of the lady. The same suffix was used to depict the same marital status of Majauszkis 54—she became Majauszkiene (Eby, 2003, 65) in 1906. In a similar fashion Sinclair changed the surnames of the unmarried women— Ona Lukoszis 1 became Ona Lukoszaite (Eby, 2003, 6) and Alena Jasaitis 8 turned into Alena Jasaityte (Eby, 2003, 13). Here Sinclair added the suffixes -ait- and -yt- respectively to designate the status of the unmarried women, which is in precise compliance with the SL structure of surnames. The forms Jukna, Majauszkis, Lukoszis, and Jasaitis might be understood and interpreted solely as masculine surnames in Lithuanian. Some of these substitutions were also pointed out by DeGruson: “Spelling of surnames was changed: Biarc[z]ynskas to Berczyn[s]kas; Grajczunas to Graiczunas, Lukoszis to Lukoszaite, Rudkos to Rudkus, Majauszkis to Majauszkiene, etc.” (1988, XXIV). Almost all these corrections in the 1906 edition were made in the direction of the maturing SL and the majority of them were accurate and precise (the single exception was perhaps Bialowicza → Brelovicz). This did not mean that Sinclair learned Lithuanian better in a year, but that he had secured a good source of help in making alterations. This source could not have been a Lithuanian dictionary, since Lithuanian dictionaries of that period did not include any surnames, and Sinclair would not have been able to make all the corrections merely by using a dictionary (cf. phonetic, orthographic, and morphological adjustments made: durys → duris, Grajczunas → Graiczunas, Jadwiga → Jadvyga, Rudkos → Rudkus, Susimilkis → Susimilkie, Szadwilas → Szedvilas, Szlouti → Szluota, etc.). It is very likely that a Lithuanian person (or persons) informed Sinclair about the corrections that needed to be implemented. Sinclair wrote that when he came home from Chicago he “kept up a continual correspondence with many people in Packingtown,” and that he received thousands of letters about his book (Sinclair, 1906b, 1130). Some of these letters may have contained comments about his Lithuanian language. Among his correspondents there might well have been educated Lithuanians, knowledgeable in SL. Unfortunately, those early letters disappeared in the fire of Sinclair’s Helicon Hall house in 1907. Thus, the Lithuanian language of the 1906 edition would have looked quite correct, accurate, and standardized to contemporary Lithua-

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

33

nians, unlike the first newspaper edition of 1905, which contained many more dialectal features, inconsistencies, and mistakes. 2.6.

Numbers and Frequency As I have mentioned, Lithuanian words, word forms, and phrases were used disproportionately throughout the novel (not considering Lithuanian proper names as yet). Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 reveal that there were 69 Lithuanian words and word forms used 194 times in The Jungle. An especially large number of them were included in the first chapter of The Jungle—46 words or word forms (different morphological forms were counted as separate units; e.g. Eik! ‘Go!’ and Eiksz! ‘Come here!’ were counted as two separate items, even though they both are forms of the same verb in second person singular of the imperative mood). It means that the new Lithuanian words in the first chapter constitute 66.67% of all new words (69) in the novel. Lithuanian words from the first chapter were applied 68 times, which makes 35.05% of the total of 194 Lithuanian words used in The Jungle. In other words, Sinclair used two thirds of the new Lithuanian words and more than one third of all Lithuanian words in chapter one alone. It is obvious that the majority of new and reappearing Lithuanian words were placed in the first chapter. Then in chapter two there were only 2 new words or word forms (with the repeated forms—11); in chapter three—11 (15); in chapter four—3 (17); in chapter five—no new words (5 repeated); in chapter six—4 (21); then no new words in chapters seven to ten (repeated words: Ch. 7—4, Ch. 8—2, Ch. 9—none, Ch. 10—2); in chapter eleven—3 (10). In chapters twelve to thirty-five and in the conclusion Sinclair did not use any new Lithuanian words at all. It seems that Sinclair ceased using new Lithuanian words at the end of the sixth chapter (with the exception of chapter eleven). It could be presumed that Sinclair stopped introducing new words but continued to use the 69 unique words more or less consistently throughout the novel. Such a presumption, however, is misleading. The data shown in Table 1 (cf. 2.) show that three Lithuanian words were repeated many times and that they alone heightened the score of all Lithuanian words and word forms dramatically: Teta ‘aunt,’ panei (or Panei) ‘Miss,’ and Diedas ‘old man; grandfather.’ I have counted that Teta was used 64 times, panei (or Panei)—31, and Diedas—11. These three words alone appeared 106 times and constitute more than half (54.64%) of the total of 194 cases where Lithuanian words and word forms were used (in chapters twelve to twenty-two some other words were used repeatedly: Ch. 12—3, Ch. 13— 4, Ch. 14—2, Ch. 15—2, Ch. 16—1, Ch. 17—3, Ch. 18—7, Ch. 19—4, Ch. 20—4, Ch. 21—7, Ch. 22—1; also in Ch 26—1; cf. Fig. 3). Thus, Sinclair achieved the effect of approximate consistency of the scattered Lithuanian words not by distributing many of them, but merely by using

34

Giedrius Subačius

Words 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Chap. 1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fig. 2. Number of new Lithuanian words (a total of 69) occurring in The Jungle, 1905, by chapter.

three of them more than twice as often as all others. Fig. 3 shows how densely the three words were dispersed among the chapters and what part of Lithuanian appellatives they constituted (in Fig. 3 they are marked in black). The three words were special in the sense that they were almost always adjacent to a first name or a surname, since they meant ‘aunt,’ ‘Miss,’ and ‘old man; grandfather.’ For an English reader they might look like merely a part of a Lithuanian name (cf. Teta Elzbieta, Panei Aniele, and Diedas Antanas) and not an appellative word. There essentially was no significant accumulation of Lithuanian vocabulary throughout the text. Sinclair also repeated several other words or phrases: veselija (8 times), Palauk (4), panas (3), Muma (2), Tu mano szirdele (2), aczaviuas (2), and Diewes (2). But they were too sparse to make any conspicuous impact on the flavor of the novel. Some of these words were edited by Sinclair in his 1906 edition of The Jungle. Out of 194 words and forms in 1905, only 140 remained in 1906. Sinclair almost completely eliminated the artificial word panei or Panei; he used a different word, poni, in 1906 only 3 times, instead of 31 usages of panei in 1905; and drastically diminished the occurrences of the word Teta, which was reduced from 64 to 46 occurrences. The elimination of panei and the reduction in occurrences of Teta constitutes 85.19% of

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

35

Words 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Chap. 1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fig. 3. Total number of occurrences of Lithuanian words (194) in The Jungle, 1905, by chapter; share of the three words Teta ‘aunt,’ panei (or Panei) ‘Miss,’ and Diedas ‘old man; grandfather’ (106) are marked in black.

the total of 54 Lithuanian words dropped in the 1906 edition. It was these two words, but not Lithuanian phrases, that were for the most part eliminated, which contradicts what DeGruson had asserted (cf. DeGruson XXIV; also 2.5.). This distribution of the Lithuanian lexis strongly supports the idea that the wedding feast was a very important element in Sinclair’s plan to make his novel a Lithuanian one. Linguistically the first chapter is the most “Lithuanian” chapter. Since the wedding experience was so intense that Sinclair was actually singing in Lithuanian, he apparently may have gathered the majority of his Lithuanian linguistic materials at this illustrious event. Sinclair did not explain in any direct way why he had employed Lithuanian words disproportionally in the first and several following chapters. But we know he did complain about a lack of additional information: “Among other things he blamed Meta’s illness and the lack of funds that precluded his returning to Chicago to do more research” (Harris, 1975, 77). It seems quite plausible to assume that after those six chapters or so, Sinclair ran out of the Lithuanian linguistic examples that he had collected in his notes in Chicago in 1904. He was in a hurry to write the story and probably had no opportunities to request more linguistic data from his friends in Packingtown. More likely still, he did not think the dispropor-

36

Giedrius Subačius

tion mattered much, for the Lithuanian scene had been well set in chapter one. (Might he also feel that his English reader would get tired—that the color might be needed early but not often?) At this point, I would like to quote another Sinclair’s rule from 1902 regarding the study of foreign languages: I confess that I have that prejudice myself; that I believe that if the student does not learn to read the language, to read it fluently, to read it with pleasure, the time he spent at it he might better have spent hoeing potatoes; to put the thing in other words, there is no use preparing to crack a nut, unless you crack it. (Sinclair, 1902b, 1474) However, even if you do not crack a nut, you get a certain amount of experience in the attempt: you know that the nut is harder than you had predicted; you know how it feels to touch its shell; and besides, you become convinced that such a thing as the unopened nut is real, that it really exists with its concrete features even if those are hidden from you. If I were to answer for Sinclair’s preparations to crack the Lithuanian language, basing myself on The Jungle, I would answer that he preferred working with the potatoes, even if chanting Lithuanian songs. It seems Sinclair’s primary concern was with written literature instead of the spoken variety of a foreign language: My reason for wishing to know foreign languages has been to get at “the best that has been thought and felt in the world” as it is recorded in books. The ability to speak foreign languages was for me a matter of secondary importance. (Sinclair, 1902a, 493) Since Sinclair presumably was not examining the Lithuanian language from written or printed sources during those seven weeks he spent in Chicago, he apparently did not have a primary objective of mastering Lithuanian. Nevertheless, he cared to demonstrate a knowledge of the Lithuanian language in his novel. He understood that language might help solidify his story and tie it to the immigrant nature of his characters. Moreover, Sinclair tried to correct his Lithuanian in the 1906 edition very conscientiously. In case we dare to call Sinclair’s Jungle Lithuanian, the 1905 serial could be termed Dialectal Lithuanian and the 1906 edition should receive the name Standard Lithuanian. 3.

Surnames Sinclair had a specific strategy in dealing with the surnames in his Jungle. As DeGruson put it:

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

37

While in both the Appeal and One-Hoss versions, the major packing houses were thinly disguised (Anderson for Armour; Smith for Swift; Morton for Morris), revealing alliteration is discarded in the Doubleday, Page edition and the companies are called Durham, Brown, and Jones. (DeGruson, 1988, XXIV) Thus, in the 1905 serial Sinclair “thinly disguised” the main names of the packing companies, but he did not change their surnames entirely; he maintained the “revealing alliteration.” For a person who knew the situation in the stockyards, these names were easily recognizable. DeGruson’s list can be complemented by Tom Carey, a “Democratic alderman from 1893 to 1906 and leader of the Twenty-ninth Ward, owned many of the houses where workers lived and controlled many stockyards jobs” (Eby, 2003, 91), whose name was camouflaged by Sinclair in an analogous way—Tom Cassidy. The alliteration/assonance pattern that Sinclair seems to have preferred was: Armour → Anderson; Swift → Smith; Morris → Morton; Carey → Cassidy (letters in bold type indicate approximately matching letters); i.e. A..o.r → A...r.o.; S.i.t → S.it.; Mor... → Mor...; Ca..y → Ca....y (each dot representing an omitted mismatched letter). Least apt seems to be the permutation of letters in the name Anderson, since and have switched positions; nonetheless, all four names have the same three letters matching to the originals that make the camouflage transparent. Here the shape of the letters matters more than the sounds hidden behind them. All capital letters were matched exactly, and some of the longer or taller letters (, ) were maintained unaltered from the prototype surnames. The visual quality of a larger letter strikes the eye independently from the sound/s it represents and helps maintain a tighter connection with the familiar name. Sinclair had constructed this transparent camouflage extremely skillfully. The pattern brings us another message—that in the 1905 serial Sinclair, even if he had to hide the real persons’ names (he wrote a novel, not a report, after all), did not endeavor to erase them totally. He was comfortable with being as close to the actual people as to make them recognizable. In other words, Sinclair did not want to make the real names disappear, just to camouflage them slightly, allowing many readers to spot the real prototypes. There was no need, however, for Sinclair to camouflage Lithuanian real-life people in the same way, since first and foremost he wrote for the American reading public, which was obviously unfamiliar with Lithuanians in the Chicago stockyards. Sinclair also was not as familiar with Lithuanian surnames as to play so easily with the alliteration/assonance as he had with the English ones. Besides, as I have quoted,

38

Giedrius Subačius

Sinclair denied that he had opted for any concrete Lithuanians as his characters or that he had employed any real-life Lithuanian prototypes (cf. One, 1.). Sinclair probably never made an attempt to collect a large number of Lithuanian surnames (cf. Table 2). Gregg’s guess that Sinclair produced Lithuanian names “by tapping the rolls of the many local Lithuanian social and religious organizations” (Gregg, 2002, 25) does not seem convincing. Sinclair did not need a large number of them (I have counted fourteen in The Jungle; cf. 2., Table 2), so he could obtain them merely by talking to the people of Back of the Yards. It makes us suspect that he personally knew most of the Lithuanians whose surnames were utilized in his fiction. Yet Sinclair was probably aware that some Lithuanians (and the packers) from the stockyards would also read his novel. This small part of his audience might have had a potential to recognize the prototypes if they existed. Therefore, we may suspect that Sinclair used a different paradigm to manipulate the Lithuanian surnames, to attempt disguising them in a way that no one among the Lithuanians or the packers in Chicago would be struck by the idea that they referred to an actual Lithuanian and particularly that no one working in the packinghouses would face repercussions from vituperative employers. It is crucial to observe that certain Lithuanian surnames in The Jungle are relatively rare. Their exclusivity can be measured in at least two geographic spheres: (1) Chicago (North America) and (2) Lithuania. I shall try to extract most of the Lithuanian surnames Sinclair used in his Jungle and to trace their pervasiveness throughout Chicago and Lithuania. In cases of rare surnames, the possibility of detecting a real giver— a donor—of the surname increases and may be fairly trustworthy. 3.1.

Rudkos (→ 1906 Rudkus) The name of the main protagonist was Jurgis Rudkos (or Rudkus in 1906 edition). Neither of these surname forms were included in the Chicago city directories of 1901–1905. The Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames (Lietuvių Pavardžių Žodynas—further LPŽ) gives the version Rutkus alone (with instead of Sinclair’s ; LPŽ 2: 631). There were 32 families registered in LPŽ with this surname in Lithuania; the surname is mostly known in the territory of Lowland Lithuania. This makes the name relatively rare in Lithuania itself, although it is not in the category of “the rarest” either. However, there were two individuals registered in the 1900 federal census of the United States—Joseph Rudkos and Kasmierz Rutkus— living in Chicago. The first surname, Rudkos, exactly matches the one Sinclair used in the 1905 serial. Joseph Rudkos (born Feb. 1863) had a wife named

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

39

Agnes (born Apr. 1862), and two children: Nathalia (born March 1890), and son Joseph (born Dec. 1896). The family arrived in the United States in 1890 with their new-born daughter in their arms, and by 1900 they had been living there for ten years. The census gave the country of their birth as Russia; however, since Lithuania was incorporated into the Russian Empire at the time, most Lithuanians were marked as originating from Russia. Joseph Rudkos was a day laborer, and he indicated the number “0” in the entry “Months not employed,” meaning that he had a job. He could not read or write but he spoke English. Joseph Rudkos’s family was renting an apartment at 8708 South Houston Avenue in Chicago. This was only several blocks west of the huge steel mills. Sinclair’s protagonist Jurgis Rudkos was for a certain period employed at probably those same “great steel-works in South Chicago” (FE 178; Ch 21), which were identified by Barrett as the U.S. Steel Corporation, organized in 1901 (Barrett, 1988b, 346). For Jurgis, the “steel-works were fifteen miles away” (FE 178; Ch 21), since at that point in the narrative he lived at Panei Aniele’s boarding house in Back of the Yards. If Sinclair put his protagonist to work in the steel-works, he probably was familiar with them, too. The odds Sinclair met the real life Joseph Rudkos (a candidate for a name-donor) somewhere do not seem impossible. The strength of Joseph Rudkos’s candidacy is that the letters of the surnames match one hundred percent. Its weakness—the census was made more than four years before Sinclair’s visit to Chicago. Another candidate from the census was Kasmierz Rutkus, with a minimal difference in the spelling of the surname. In 1900 he was just a newcomer to the United States. He was then twenty years old (born May 1880), single, a laborer; and could not read, write, or speak English. Strangely enough, the census records that he had been unemployed for 10 months, although it seems that he had been present in the United States for a shorter time (the census form was filled out on 8 Jun. 1900 and he listed his emigration as 1900). This Kasmierz Rutkus declared that he came from Poland (Russia), which could hide a Lithuanian origin as well. Could Sinclair have known this person? There is such a possibility, since Kasmierz Rutkus lived at 112 West 18th Street (the address for this location since 1909 is 564 West 18th Street), a few blocks east of the current location of the Lithuanian Providence of God Church. A third possibility was for Sinclair to opt for the name of an outsider, not a Chicagoan. North American Lithuanian newspapers mentioned a man by the name of Karolis Rutkus. For instance, in Chicago’s newspaper Lietuva (18 Nov. 1904 and in later issues), Karolis Rutkus was announced as an agent for this newspaper in Cleveland, Ohio. In 1903, the newspaper Vienybė Lietuvninkų (Pennsylvania) published an advertisement: “ ‘What is socialism.’ The pamphlets are available at K. Rutkus, 708 Hamilton str., Cleveland, Ohio” (cf. Fig. 4), which was reiterated in

40

Giedrius Subačius

Fig. 4. Vienybė Lietuvninkų, 16 Dec. 1903. Lithuanian advertisement of socialist Karolis Rutkus.

many other issues. In 1906, Lietuva wrote that the socialist Rutkus became extremely irritated since, according to his words, “it is too early to organize a socialist group in Mahanoy City [Pennsylvania]” (5 Jan. 1906). Obviously, Karolis Rutkus was known as a socialist in all the Lithuanian colonies, including Chicago. He was eminent enough to be honored with an article in the Lithuanian Encyclopedia (Lietuvių enciklopedija, 26: 227). According to the Lithuanian Bibliography, Rutkus was extremely active in socialist propaganda work; in 1904 alone he prepared or translated at least four socialist pamphlets (Lietuvos TSR Bibliografija, 45, 476–477). Moreover, there were probably stories told in Chicago’s Lithuanian community about Sinclair’s book following its publication. Two different Lithuanian translations of The Jungle appeared in 1908: under the name Raistas ‘The Swamp’ in Chicago (the second edition appeared in 1912) and under the name Pelkės ‘The Bog’ in Vilnius. Some Lithuanians might have recalled Sinclair’s visit to Chicago. One Lithuanian interpretation of Sinclair’s story was published in the American Lithuanian communist newspaper Vienybė in 1968, commemorating Upton Sinclair after his death: For Jurgis Rudkus ... he probably picked up the name of Karolis Rutkus, who was a known ‘permanent agitator’ for socialism ... even to the Appeal to Reason editors. He was a lowbrow bum, and he helped J[onas] Šliūpas and J[uozas] O[tas] Širvydas to organize the Lithuanian socialist party in 1905 by means of speeches and voyages. (Širvydas, 1968) This third person—the famous socialist Karolis Rutkus—also becomes one of the candidates for the surname-donor, even if there is no certainty that Sinclair ever met him. Karolis Rutkus had to have been a comrade socialist for Sinclair, not a “lowbrow bum”; Sinclair’s protagonist Jurgis Rudkos also became a socialist at the end of the novel. Thus, there are at least three possible candidates for a namedonor title: Joseph Rudkos, Kasmierz Rutkus, and Karolis Rutkus. The

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

41

slender variation in their last names deserves further exploration. Sinclair opted for the form Rudkos; I have already argued for the dialectal character of the Lowland Lithuanian ending -os (cf. 2.1.). Sinclair’s letter in Rudkos is not known in the Lithuanian written tradition (only , which was also used in all of the North American Lithuanian newspapers, in the Lithuanian Encyclopedia, and in LPŽ). This ought to mean that Sinclair picked up the name not from any printed Lithuanian source but from colloquial (spoken) language. Lithuanians relate this last name to the Lithuanian word rudas ‘brown’; thus, it is not out of the ordinary that a Lithuanian could have thought foremost of the letter (not ) while writing Rudkos (even though here Lithuanians never pronounce the voiced consonant [d]—it is always a voiceless [t] in front of the voiceless [k]). It might have depended on whether Sinclair himself or a Lithuanian had inscribed the surname in his notes. Hence, there is no way to categorically reject any of the three name-donor candidates. All of them have pluses and minuses. Joseph Rudkos was the only one whose name matched exactly, and he lived close to the steel mills in which the protagonist of The Jungle had worked for a while; but he was not registered in the Chicago directories. Kasmierz Rutkus has no additional pluses except that he had the same surname as the protagonist (with slight spelling differences). He was not present in the Chicago directories either. Karolis Rutkus was known as a socialist and might have had a good ideological link to Sinclair; but he was not from Chicago, so Sinclair probably never met him. All in all, the stronger candidacies seem to be those of Karolis Rutkus (socialist) and Joseph Rudkos (employed day laborer), the weaker one—that of Kasmierz Rutkus (laborer, unemployed for months). 3.2.

Grajczunas (→ 1906 Graiczunas) Even if the name Grajczunas was mentioned only a few times in The Jungle, it was on the first page of the first chapter: “Z. Grajczunas, Pasilinksminimams darzas. Vynas. Sznapsas. Wines and Liquors. Union Headquarters.” A character named Grajczunas was the owner of the saloon where the Lithuanian wedding feast took place, and the quotation above was supposedly on the sign of his saloon. Sinclair did not bother furnishing him with a full first name, attaching the initial Z alone. The Chicago directory of 1904 has only one person with the surname Graiczunas: “Graiczunas Andrew L druggist 167 W 18th” (the current address would be 671 West 18th Street; however, there is an interstate expressway in that area today); this location was one block west of where the real-life Kasmierz Rutkus lived in 1900. Both the address and his profession were listed differently in the 1905 directory: “Graiczunas Andrew L physician 3315 S Morgan h 3202 S Halsted.” The 1900 census registered him living at 590 South Ashland Avenue with his wife Ursula (born

42

Giedrius Subačius

Fig. 5. Katalikas, 10 Nov. 1904. Lithuanian advertisement of physician A. L. Graičiūnas.

May 1876) and his son Vitold (born Sept. 1898) and being a student of medicine. This Andrew L. Graiczunas, druggist (later physician) and his family, who moved his office from West 18th Street to Morgan Street in Bridgeport approximately in 1904, was the only available name-donor to choose from in Chicago. In the Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames the name Graičiūnas (modern SL equivalent of the name) was described as remarkably rare; merely 10 families were known in Lithuania with this name (LPŽ 1: 699). In the United States the name would also be a rarity. Andrius L. Graičiūnas (SL for Andrew L. Graiczunas), as he himself spelled his name later, was a well-known figure in the Lithuanian community. Like Karolis Rutkus, he was described in the Lithuanian Encyclopedia (Lietuvių enciklopedija 7: 413). Graičiūnas published several medical books, and actively publicized his ideas and opinions in North American Lithuanian periodicals. His advertisements appeared quite often in Chicago newspapers (like this one in Katalikas, 10 Nov. 1904): “Doctor A. L. Graiczunas (LITHUANIAN) 3202 South Halsted St., Chicago, Ill Telephone South 61” (cf. Fig. 5). Like Karolis Rutkus, Doctor Graičiūnas was a socialist. He also took part in the discussions of the Lithuanian American socialist newspaper Kova, printed in Philadelphia. In issue No. 52, 28 Dec. 1906, Graičiūnas proposed a method for its editors to improve the financial situation of the newspaper. His concluding words sounded like an ultimatum: “if I do not receive an answer in two weeks, I shall start working independently in Chicago; even if the party would not be favorable to me” (414). In other words, Graičiūnas was not only a socialist, but a very active leading figure. The Lithuanian Encyclopedia said that “even though he had fought for the freedom of Lithuania all his life, in his old age he began adoring the occupants of Lithuania and their regime.” This is an obvious allusion to the communist government in Lithuania after World War II, and Graičiūnas’s permanent attachment to the socialist ideology. Sinclair simply could not come up with the Grajczunas surname in any other way than to borrow it from this Lithuanian socialist physician and his family; and the socialist aspect in making the decision might have

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

43

been of importance for Sinclair. The possibility that Sinclair had actually met the physician is supported by Vytautas Širvydas: [Sinclair] got acquainted with a young [Lithuanian] doctor A. Graičiūnas who took him to a Lithuanian saloon where a Lithuanian wedding party was taking place. Here, no doubt, he heard Vienažinskis’ [i.e. Vienažindys’] song and collected Lithuanian names for the characters of his novel. (Širvydas, 1968) Even if we are not certain that the details in this explanation were accurate (we know Sinclair did not mention any Lithuanians helping him get to the wedding party; he consistently claimed that he got there as a stranger but was still welcomed; One, 3.1.), we can accept that the connection between Sinclair’s Grajczunas and the real-life socialist physician was close enough for Lithuanians in Chicago to make the connection. Unlike Sinclair, who spelled the surname Grajczunas with in the 1905 Appeal to Reason serialized edition, Chicago directories and Lithuanian advertisements were spelling the surname Graiczunas with . As the spelling had not been used in printed Lithuanian texts for a decade or longer (cf. 2.2.5.), it is plausible to assume that Sinclair did not use Lithuanian newspapers or advertisements as his source for the surname Grajczunas. He might have obtained it from his handwritten notes, which might have been composed with the help of Lithuanians. The other possibility is that Sinclair was influenced by the spelling of the name Kuszlejka (cf. further 3.3.), since only these two names had diphthongs with <j> in The Jungle, and all other Lithuanian words were written with the equivalent instead. In the 1906 edition, however, Sinclair substituted for <j>. 3.3.

Kuszlejka (→ 1906 Kuszleika) Sinclair’s character Tamoszius Kuszlejka was a violin player, an inspired man, the leading musician in the wedding feast. The Chicago directories of 1902–1904 recorded only one person with such a name: “Kuszlejko Joseph saloon 4558 S Paulina.” The federal census of 1900 claimed that this Joseph Kuszlejko (born Jan. 1865) lived at 4533 South Paulina Street, had a wife Mary (born March 1870), and a daughter Aggie (born 1895); that he and his future wife both emigrated to the United States in 1889 from Poland (he—from Russian Poland, she—from Austrian), and that they had been married for seven years by 1900 (more about their family cf. Three, 3.); and that he could read, write, and speak English. The 1899 Chicago directory listed Joseph Kuszlejko as the owner of a saloon located in the same house he lived in at 4533 South Paulina.

44

Giedrius Subačius

Fig. 6. Katalikas, 6 Oct. 1904. Lithuanian advertisement of Kuszlejko’s saloon.

But around 1901 or 1902 Kuszlejko moved his saloon to the corner of Paulina and 46th Streets (4558 South Paulina; cf. Fig. 12 and Fig. 16 in Three, 3.; in the 1901 Chicago directory Kuszlejko was not registered as a saloon keeper). Joseph Kuszlejko advertised his new saloon in Chicago’s Lithuanian newspapers abundantly. For instance, one advertisement (it contained a typographical error, though—No. 5458 should have been 4558, as in the directories) ran: The First Class saloon in Town of Lake. I keep the best beer and different liquors, my vodka comes from Russia itself. I also have a big hall for meetings, weddings, and other festivities. Don’t forget, come and see! J. KUSZLEIKO. 5458 Paulina str. Cor 46 str. (Katalikas, 6 Oct. 1904; cf. Fig. 6) Similar advertisements were published from 1902 until the time of Sinclair’s arrival in Chicago. Also, there were meetings announced that were to take place in this saloon; for instance: “Association of St. Vincent will have a meeting on Sunday, December 4, at 2 pm in the hall of J. Kuszleiko, on Paulina str. and 47 [apparently, 46]. It is desirable that all the members are present” (Katalikas, 1 Dec. 1904). It is obvious that Joseph Kuszlejko’s saloon was big, well-known, and important for Chicago’s Lithuanians. The forms of the surname varied. In Chicago directories the digraph <ej> was set with the letter <j> (Kuszlejko); likewise in Sinclair’s 1905 serial Kuszlejka. But in all Lithuanian advertisements and other texts the digraph <ei> with (Kuszleiko) was used instead. Probably the owner wanted to have his name spelled with <ej>, so that it could seem Polish in that multilingual Chicago area. He might have had his saloon name written on the signboard with the digraph <ej>, which was also the

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

45

case in the directories. This might have been his personal spelling preference; Kuszlejko might have wanted to keep a bit of his Polish identity, since his wife was Polish (also cf. Three, 3.). But Lithuanians, who at that time were developing their own standard orthography and were eradicating its similarity to Polish spelling, might not have wished to tolerate the Polishness of this feature, and newspaper editors may have spelled it “the more Lithuanian way”—with the digraph <ei>. When Sinclair corrected his 1906 edition, he also substituted the “Lithuanian” digraph <ei> for the “Polish” <ej>. One more orthographic difference—Sinclair spelled Kuszlejka with the Lithuanian ending –a, as was spelled in the 1900 census, while all remaining printed sources contained the Polish flexion -o. Hence, Sinclair could not have taken this ending from any printed source; he could have gotten it, again, through informative Lithuanians. Also the digraph <ej> in Sinclair’s version could not have been copied from any printed Lithuanian text either (cf. Grajczunas spelling at 2.2.5. and 3.2.). If we assume that the name was written on the signboard with <ej>, this could have influenced Sinclair’s use of it in his novel. But the ending -a could only mean that the name was given to Sinclair by Lithuanians. The Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames registered 56 families in Lithuania with the surname Kušleika (this is the modern SL spelling)—not very common, but not an especially rare name either (LPŽ 1: 1140). As in the case of Graičiūnas, Sinclair had to have known the possessor of the name Kuszlejka personally. This Joseph Kuszlejko and his family, who had a saloon at 4558 South Paulina Street in Back of the Yards, were the only known name-donor candidates for Sinclair’s violin player Tamoszius Kuszlejka. 3.4.

Biarczynskas (→ 1906 Berczynskas) Marija Biarczynskas in The Jungle was an energetic cousin of Ona Lukoszis and the organizer of her wedding; she worked in a canning factory; at the end of the novel she became a prostitute. In the Chicago directories of 1901–1906 there was no such name, nor the possible variants *Biarczynski/as, *Berczynski/as, or *Bierczynski/as. In the Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames such a name was not registered either (i.e., no *Berčinskis/as). The last name Berczynski was recorded in the 1900 federal census, however, the longhand of the document is very unclear and the actual name may be different. Joseph Berczynski (?) was born in March, 1876, in Poland (Germany), was married to Mary, born in July, 1876, also in Poland (Germany); they lived at 548 Dickson Street (West Town; in 1909 this address was changed into 1215 Dickson Street). There are families registered with this surname in the later 1920 federal census, for example, John Berczynski with his wife Anna, and

46

Giedrius Subačius

their children Frank, Lucy, Stanley, Helena, and Margaret, who were living at 4621 South Talman Avenue, Chicago. Their parents John and Anna were Polish; both were born in Germany (or, most probably, in the part of Poland ruled by Germany at the time). To consider here the Polish surname Berczynski seriously would mean to consider the reasons why Sinclair would select the Polish name and transfer it to Lithuanian characters. One could argue that Sinclair simply may not have distinguished between Polish and Lithuanian names. True, but this argument does not clarify how Sinclair came up with the Lithuanian flexion of the surname: -as. It is not likely that his mastery of the Lithuanian language was so advanced as to allow him to easily substitute the Lithuanian ending for the Polish one. Additionally, if those families were indeed only Polish, it is unthinkable their surname could possess the Lithuanian ending –as. Their place of birth—Poland ruled by Germany (a territory located quite far from Lithuanian)—seems to prove it. Another possibility seems more likely. Chicago directories listed a person with a slightly different surname spelling: “Bierzynski Anton grocer 4538 S Hermitage av” (1901–1903); “Bierzynski Anton J saloon 4522 S Marshfield av and 4600 S Paulina” (1904); “Bierzynski Anton J saloon 4600 S Paulina” (1906). In the 1900 federal census, Anton Bierzynski (the surname form was given as Bierzinski) was also registered (born Jan. 1869) with his wife Annie (born May 1871) and their daughter Frances (born March 1881; it must have been “1891” since she was nine at the time). The family then lived at 4538 South Hermitage Avenue (i.e., they had a grocery store in the same building in which they lived). Anton Bierzynski declared that they had come from Lithuania (Rus). They had been married for eight years and had been in the U.S. for seven. Anton Bierzynski could not read or write, but spoke English. This Anton Bierzynski had two saloons ca. 1904 (according to the directories). In 1903–1904 he built a new house and opened a saloon in front of Kuszlejko’s at 4600 South Paulina Street—on the same intersection of Paulina and 46th (cf. Three, 3.). It was some time before Sinclair’s arrival in Chicago. Bierzynski’s saloon was heavily advertised in Chicago’s Lithuanian newspapers: “Antanas Bierzinskis, the owner of two saloons on 4600 South Paulina St. and ... on 4522 So. Marshfield Ave. ...” (Katalikas, 22 Sep. 1904; cf. Fig. 7). In addition, a poem of 32 lines was included—it invited the reader to drink the most delicious beer, to use the saloon hall, to have meetings, weddings, and other events arranged there: If sometimes, brother, you are glum, of an evening to sadness you succumb,

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

47

Go visit Bierżinskis every day They won’t turn a soul away. They take in everyone as a guest Each and all a gentleman professed All the arrangements are truly great, And the ale is really first-rate. In the heat it cools, in winter warms, Thus the sadness in your heart transforms. At Bierżinskis’s you’ll get direction That’s never subject to collection. If it’s a party you have in mind, And steins of beer you have divined, At Bierżinskis’s you’ll get them cheap Taste them and in joy you’ll leap. Go in the hall if you like to dance At Bierżinskis’s you’ll have your chance And if you have a mind to wed, They’ll take you in, it goes unsaid. At Bierżinskis’s they come to dance Boys and girls who love to prance The Lithuanians all know him well, Just to see him they feel swell. So if to Chicago you have come, No where will you find such wisdom. Come on by Bierżinskis’s place All your needs they will embrace So then, brothers, don’t be sad Come see my halls and you’ll be glad, Ask any old-timer you should meet, All know the way to my saloon’s street. Translated from Lithuanian by Elizabeth Novickas

Bierzynski’s saloon at 4600 South Paulina Street was, like Kuszlejko’s, employed by different organizations; for example, on 29 Oct. 1904, a meeting of Lithuanian Republicans was hosted there and it featured both Lithuanian and English speakers (Katalikas, 27 Oct. 1904); on 13 Nov. 1904, a meeting of the St. Stanislovas Society took place there (Katalikas, 10 Nov. 1904). Apparently Bierzynski’s saloon was also famous and important for Lithuanians. The Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames listed this surname as Beržinskas (in SL orthography). It seems quite popular in Lithuania (104 families throughout the country).

48

Giedrius Subačius

Could we regard these surnames (Biarczynskas in The Jungle and Bierzynski, Bierzinskis, Bierżinskis or Beržinskas) as equivalent? The most significant difference is the spelling of the digraph or the letters , <ż>, and <ž>. The digraph would be pronounced by Lithuanians or Poles as [tsh], the letters , <ż>, and <ž>—as [zh]. Since there is no Lithuanian surname *Berčinskas with the sound [tsh] (which is present in The Jungle), and only Beržinskas with the sound [zh], we are obliged to assume that this is a misspelling of Sinclair’s (there remains possibility of influence by the Polish surname Berczynski). As mentioned, Sinclair kept the more traditional Lithuanian way of writing the digraph (cf. 2.2.1.), and this may have tripped him up (especially if he was not aware of the Polish surname Berczynski or its pronunciation). When Americans try pronouncing Polish names spelled with the digraph , they often come up with the pronunciation [z] or [zh], for instance, in the last name Kaczyński or Kurczaba. If Sinclair had memorized the pronunciation of the name Bierzynski with [zh], he could have come up with the idea to spell it with the Polish or Lithuanian digraph . Other differences in spelling are easier to explain. The flexion -as or -is is a variation known in Lithuanian dialects. Sinclair’s ending -as (in Biarczynskas) is fixed in SL too; in local Lithuanian dialects, however, the name might be used with the ending -is, as was the case in Lithuanian advertisements (Bierzinskis). Sinclair’s spelling of in Biar- instead of in Bier-, as used in directories and advertisements, does not necessarily point to a difference in pronunciation. In the older tradition of Lithuanian and Polish orthography they both could be pronounced the same way (more or less like the English in Shack). Moreover, I would consider the Biar- of the 1905 serial as a spelling by a person who was not familiar with all the subtleties of Lithuanian orthography and was not very experienced in it. This person might have been Sinclair himself—since Anton Bierzynski only spoke English but could not read or write at all (according to the federal census), Sinclair might have learned the name by heart and might have adjusted it later according to the Polish or Lithuanian spelling as he understood it. In his 1906 edition, Sinclair switched to the more modern and standard spelling Ber- instead of Biar-. The last spelling difference was the letter in Sinclair’s novel and in the Chicago directories, in opposition to the used in Lithuanian advertisements. -yńsk- is the Polish way of writing this common suffix of Polish and Lithuanian last names; and -insk- is the way the suffix is spelled in SL. Sinclair’s -ynsk- in both the 1905 serial and the 1906 edition was closer to the Polish (or older Lithuanian) tradition. The inference might be drawn that the spelling Biarczynskas was probably produced with an error in (although there is some possibility of influence by the Polish Berczynski), by a speller inexperienced in

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

49

Fig. 7. Katalikas, 22 Sep. 1904. Lithuanian advertisement of Bierzynski’s saloons.

the usage of , and with an older Lithuanian (or Polish) spelling of the suffix -ynsk-. Most probably Sinclair did not endeavor to turn the Polish Berczynski into a Lithuanian surname. Anton Bierzynski and his family

50

Giedrius Subačius

seem to be the most plausible candidates for the name-donor title for Sinclair’s fictitious energetic cousin Marija Biarczynskas. 3.5.

Szadwilas (→ 1906 Szedvilas) Sinclair’s character Jokubas Szadwilas was the owner of a delicatessen store on Halsted Street, a friend of Jurgis Rudkos and his family, and a participant in the wedding. The Chicago directories include a person listed with two slightly varying surname forms: “Shedwill Frank saloon 2399 Kensington av” (1904); “Shedvras [sic!] Frank saloon 2428 Kensington av” (1905); (today these addresses would be 370 and 343 Kensington Avenue, respectively). No other person with such a name was registered in the Chicago directories in 1904–1905. This person was also included in the subsequent federal census of 1910 as Frank Szedwilas. He had emigrated in 1896 from Russia (Lithuania); in 1910 he was 35 years old. He and his family—his wife Anna (29 years old), his daughter Anna (8 years old), and his son Frank (2 years old) were living at 341 Kensington Avenue (next door to the saloon that he ran in 1905). And in 1910 he was still running a saloon and spoke English. The form of the name that was used in 1905 by Sinclair used the letter (Szadwilas), not <e>, as did the ones in the directories (Shedwill, Shedvras) or in the 1910 census (Szedwilas). In the Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames there is no last name with the letter registered, only with <e>—Šedvila (LPŽ 2: 904), and a variant Šedvilas (SL spelling). This surname is very rare in Lithuania; there are only 10 families listed by that name in LPŽ. It is mostly known in Lowland Lithuania. Sinclair may have gotten the form of the name with orally (as in the Grajczunas, Kuszlejka cases); this might be one of the spoken variants that were put down into Sinclair’s notes. In the 1906 edition, Sinclair switched the form of the name into Szedvilas, which is actually the SL form except for the digraph <Sz>, which Sinclair always opted for. Since there is no other candidate, this Frank Shedwill and his family remain the most probable candidates for the name-donor role. Even if Kensington Avenue was quite a way south of the stockyards (one block south from 115th Street, close to State Street and to Lake Calumet), Sinclair could have met this distant saloon keeper during the seven weeks he spent in Chicago. Another name-donor candidate, Joseph Rudkos, was also living in that far south end of Chicago, and there, in the adjacent steel mills, the protagonist of The Jungle, Jurgis Rudkos, worked (cf. 3.1.). Both the Rutkus and Šedvilas surnames were predominantly from the same Lowland dialect area in western Lithuania, which makes Joseph Rudkos and Frank Shedwill’s connection possible not only in south Chicago, but also in far-off Lithuania. Surprisingly enough, Sinclair’s charac-

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

51

ters Jurgis Rudkos and Jokubas Szadwilas both were from the same part of Lithuania as well (“it had been years since Jokubas Szadwilas had met a man from his part of Lithuania” FE 21; Ch 2). This is the connection that makes the hypothesis that Sinclair could have known these real-life people and their origin, and utilized this detail in his story, plausible, even if Sinclair’s fictitious Jurgis originated from Lithuania’s east (“he had lived in that part of Lithuania known as Bialowicza” FE 17; Ch 2; cf. 2.4.) and Sinclair’s details are thus only partly consistent. 3.6.

Valentynaicza (→ 1906 Valentinavyczia) The character Valentynaicza was a cellist at the wedding feast of Jurgis and Ona. Chicago directories listed only one person who might be a candidate for a name-donor: “Valentynowicz Charles A bicycles 3319 S Morgan” (1904); “Valentynowicz Charles A bicycles 3319 S Morgan h 3262 S Morgan” (1905). The directory of 1905 included the home address. The locations that this Valentynowicz kept his bicycle shop at and lived in were in Bridgeport, a predominately Lithuanian neighborhood. The medical office of the physician and socialist Andrius Graičiūnas was very close by—he was two doors away to the north on South Morgan Street (3315). The other candidate for the name-donor might be Jonas Valentanavicze, who was described in Katalikas as “the oldest [Lithuanian] leader of musicians in Chicago” (26 Jul. 1906: 3). However, there is some uncertainty about him, as his last name was spelled with a different vowel, instead of or , which might be a completely different name (this name does not appear in the Chicago directory of 1904 with ). Even so, he might be the same person who was listed as John Valentinowicz in the 1900 federal census. The first names match (the Lithuanian Jonas is equivalent to the English John). This John Valentinowicz from the census was born Jan. 1870, had lived in the U.S. for ten years (at 626 West 17th Street; now it is 1512 West 17th) with his wife Pauline (born Feb. 1875, arrived in the U.S. in 1894, married in 1895) and daughter Anna (born March 1896). He was a tailor and he was able to read, write, and speak English. Could the profession of tailor be matched to the position of musical director? In the novel Sinclair matched the profession of stockyards laborer to a musician: “Tamoszius Kuszlejka is his name, and he has taught himself to play the violin by practicing all night, after working all day on the killing-floor” (FE 4; Ch 1). There is no reason to deny this possibility for the real-life person. Sinclair may have had more than one real-life person whose surname he could utilize: that of the bicycle store owner or that of the tailor-musician.

52

Giedrius Subačius

However, Sinclair’s spelling of the name was different. The Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames listed one more version of the name: Valentinavičius (SL orthography; LPŽ 2: 1150; there were 75 families with this name). The variant in the city directories was a hybrid of Polish and Lithuanian (or English) spelling: the suffixes -yn- and -owicz are spelled according to the Polish orthography, but the initial is either Lithuanian or English, as the Polish alphabet does not contain this letter at all. Sinclair’s spelling Valentynaicza, which was not recorded either in the directories or LPŽ, was probably a dialectal and colloquially shortened version of the name Valentinavičius (SL). A no less brief, but still dialectal form was used by Sinclair in the 1906 edition—Valentinavyczia. Sinclair probably was advised to change it to the longer version by a Lithuanian. However, both of Sinclair’s variants sound colloquial. Sinclair could not have acquired the name Valentynaicza (likewise Rudkos, Grajczunas, Kuszlejka, Biarczynskas, and Szadwilas) directly from printed Lithuanian texts. 3.7.

Jasaitis (→ 1906 Jasaityte) Sinclair’s character Alena Jasaitis was the beauty at the wedding feast of Jurgis and Ona; she painted cans at a factory; at the end of the novel she was abandoned by her friend Raczius and could hardly make ends meet. There were no names in Chicago directories of the period spelled that way—with the initial <J>. Instead, there was a Yasatis: “Yasatis Charles molder h 403 W 25th” (1904; today it would be 2636 West 25th Street). He was listed under the letter (spelled the English way instead of with the Lithuanian <J>; both letters represent the same pronunciation [y]). In addition, the name in the directory had the suffix ‑atis instead of Sinclair’s ‑aitis. The suffix ‑atis is a known dialectal counterpart of the SL suffix ‑aitis (‑atis was used mostly in Lowland Lithuania and the then-current Eastern Prussian Lithuanian dialects). The phonetic parity of Jasaitis and Yasatis is apparent. The Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames includes the exact spelling Sinclair used of the name Jasaitis; it means that Sinclair kept the Lithuanian spelling of <J> in this and other cases (cf. also 2.2.2.). The name is very popular in Lithuania (the list consists of 217 families; LPŽ 1: 813). The limited odds that Sinclair might have used the molder Yasatis as a name-donor for his Jasaitis still exist. In the 1906 edition of The Jungle, Jasaityte was substituted for Jasaitis—this is the standard Lithuanian way to denote the surname of an unmarried girl (the form Jasaitis is without exception a masculine surname, which, when used for a girl in The Jungle, looked English, not Lithuanian; about the derivation of such names cf. 2.5.).

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

53

3.8.

Lukoszis (→ 1906 Lukoszaite) The character Ona Lukoszis was the fiancée and the wife of Jurgis Rudkos. The surname Lukoszis is not registered in the Chicago directories of 1905 and 1906, but there is one (and only one) version of the surname with a slightly different flexion: “Lukoszius Louis saloon 160 W 14th pl” (1905 and 1906). Louis Lukoszius’s saloon was quite far north of Back of the Yards—at 160 West 14th Place (today this address would be 671 West 14th Place, but an interstate expressway runs there now). The Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames presents the last name Lukošius as extremely common in Lithuania—446 families (LPŽ 2: 114). The name Lukošis, however, is listed for only 8 families and is rendered as a variant of Lukošius. Lukošius in dialects might be called Lukošis; the confusion is known in Lithuania. There is no certainty that Louis Lukoszius from the directories might have been a name-donor for Sinclair, but there is a slight possibility. The federal census of 1900 offers one more candidate. Anthoni Lukosis was registered there, a day laborer, born in Jan. 1872, living at 8824 [?] South Houston Avenue (one block south from another possible name-donor—Joseph Rudkos), who arrived in the U.S. in 1899, was single and boarded with the George Pulejkis family. He could not read, write, or speak English. Hence, there are at least two people that match the candidacy requirements for the name-donor for Ona Lukoszis: Louis Lukoszius and Anthoni Lukosis. However, considering the extreme popularity of the last name Lukošius among Lithuanians, there may have been more as yet unknown candidates. In The Jungle of 1906, Lukoszis was switched to Lukoszaite (the derivation pattern is discussed in 2.5.). 3.9.

Juknos (→ 1906 Jukniene) Sinclair’s character Panei Aniele Juknos was a widow, a boarding house keeper in Back of the Yards. The Chicago directory has more than one surname listed under the similar name Yuknis. Apparently, this was the way the Lithuanian name Juknys was spelled according to the English orthography, with instead of the Lithuanian <J>. But the singular nominative case of the name Juknos should be Jukna (cf. 2.4.). The Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames lists quite a few families (174) with this surname. This makes it very difficult to make any guesses as to the real-life candidate for the name-donor. The different ending -is might make the surname Yuknis different from Jukna. Nonetheless, there is a reason to point out one person as the most likely candidate: “Yuknis Joseph saloon 160 W 14th pl h 84 W 14th pl” (1904); “Yuknis Joseph h 84 W 14th pl” (1905). In 1904 this Joseph Yuknis was a saloon keeper at 160 West 14th Place (today 671 West 14th

54

Giedrius Subačius

Place, or, to be more specific—an expressway), but a year later he was listed only by at his home address at 84 West 14th Place (today 555 West 14th Place). An important congruence here seems to be the address of the saloon. The same year (1905) that Joseph Yuknis stopped operating a saloon, Louis Lukoszius started running one (cf. above 3.8.). It is uncertain how the saloon of Yuknis became Lukoszius’s place, but it is certain that they must have at least known each other. If Sinclair used both surnames of these two subsequent keepers of the same saloon, could that be a mere coincidence, or could we expect Sinclair to have known both of them personally? This is a possibility, yet not strong enough to prove that they were Sinclair’s name-donors. Other options existed for Sinclair as well. 3.10.

The Remainder of the Lithuanian surnames There are several more Lithuanian surnames in Sinclair’s novel, e.g. Majauszkis (→ 1906 Majauszkiene), Marciukus (→ 1906 Marcinkus), Roczis and Raczius (→ 1906 Raczius). But it is very difficult to trace them and make a connection to any concrete real-life people. The form Majauszkis was not listed in the Chicago directories (it is a colloquial version of Lithuanian Majauskas, Majevskis; Polish Majewski), but there were 32 people listed under the name Majewski in the 1904 directory—too many possibilities to spot anyone concrete. 3.11.

Sinclair’s Paradigm for the Name-Donor Selection Table 3 summarizes the way Sinclair manipulated the obtained surnames and what personages he attached to these names (cf. Table 3). Sinclair may have changed Rudkos from the socialist editor or laborer to the main character, a laborer too; Grajczunas—from the physician and socialist to a saloon keeper; Kuszlejka—from the saloon keeper to a violin player; Biarczynskas—from the saloon keeper to a cousin of Ona and a laborer; Szadwilas—from the saloon keeper to an owner of a delicatessen store; Valentynaicza—from the bicycle shop keeper or musical director to a cellist; Jasaitis—from the molder to a beauty of the wedding feast; Lukoszis—from the saloon keeper to the fiancée and wife of Jurgis; Juknos—from the saloon keeper to a widow and boarding house keeper. The pattern of how Sinclair attached a name to his character appears to be quite simple: he attempted to shift the profession or occupation of the real-life person he knew. This is understandable, as Sinclair probably sought to camouflage his real name-donors; he did not wish to expose the real-life persons along with their real-life occupations (he claimed that there were no real Lithuanian prototypes in The Jungle; cf. One, 1.). Sinclair scattered the names in such a way that there remained no implications or suggestions that might have pointed to a prototype.

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

55

Table 3. Lithuanian surnames that were used by Sinclair in the 1905 serial of The Jungle and the probable name-donors. Personage 1905 Rudkos: main character, laborer

Grajczunas: owner of the wedding feast saloon Kuszlejka: violin player Biarczynskas: cousin of Ona, laborer

Szadwilas: owner of the delicatessen store on Halsted Street Valentynaicza: cellist

Jasaitis: beauty of the wedding feast; laborer Lukoszis: fiancée and wife of Jurgis Juknos: widow, boarding house keeper

← Donor of Surname ← 1. Karolis Rutkus: socialist from Cleveland; editor ← 2. Joseph Rudkos: day laborer ← 3. Kasmierz Rutkus: laborer ← Andrew L. Graiczunas: druggist, physician at 3315 South Morgan St., socialist ← Joseph Kuszlejko, J. Kuszleiko: owner of the saloon at 4558 South Paulina St. ← Anton Bierzynski, Antanas J. Bierżinskis: owner of the saloons at 4600 South Paulina St. and 4522 South Marshfield Ave. ← Frank Shedwill, Shedvras, Szedwilas: owner of the saloon at 2399 (370) Kensington Ave. and later at 2428 (343) Kensington Ave. ← 1. Charles Valentynowicz: owner of the bicycle shop at 3319 South Morgan St.; ← 2. Jonas Valentanavicze, John Valentinowicz: oldest musical director, tailor ← Charles Yasatis: molder, living at 403 (2636) West 25th St. ← 1. Louis Lukoszius: owner of the saloon at 160 (671) West 14th Pl. ← 2. Anthoni Lukosis: day laborer ← Joseph Yuknis: owner of the saloon at 160 (671) West 14th Pl.

Sinclair probably intentionally selected the names of saloon keepers, physicians, or known socialists—people who were not in danger of losing their jobs due to the implication that they were associated with socialists—to avoid bringing repercussions down on the heads of his name-donors. As I have stated above (cf. 3.), Sinclair had a technique for camouflaging English surnames in the novel. Unlike in the case of the Lithuanian surnames, Sinclair often had the real prototypes in mind and he kept some letters of the real name in the fictitious equivalent intentionally to make the prototype recognizable to an insightful reader. Conversely, Sinclair probably wanted to avoid any possibility of connecting real Lithuanian workers to the characters of his novel. To have desirable results he merely needed to disseminate the names he had collected. Note too, that Sinclair knew how to alter English names to end up with real English names. He had to stay closer to his models in Lithuanian because he could not make real substitutions as his knowledge was limited. Yet even this method of switching and dispersion did not obscure all the interpretations of the possible Lithuanian name-donors. It seems

56

Giedrius Subačius

that Sinclair often picked the names of people well-known in the Chicago Lithuanian community, names that would be recognized by the majority of Lithuanians (like the physician socialist Graičiūnas, the saloon keepers Kuszlejko, Bierzynski, and Shedwill [Szedwilas], owner of the bicycle store or musician [tailor?] Valentinowicz, etc.). He spoke to many Lithuanians, but those who were better known in the society were more likely to be conversant in English (Joseph Rudkos, Karolis Rutkus, Andrew L. Graiczunas, Joseph Kuszlejko, Anton Bierzynski, Frank Szedwilas, and John Valentinowicz spoke English), and therefore would have been of greater value to him as informants. If Sinclair had met “Jurgis Rudkos,” his protagonist, in real life, immediately after Jurgis had arrived in Chicago, he would not have been able to extract any information from him, as Jurgis did not speak any English (the real-life Kasmierz Rutkus and Anthoni Lukosis did not, either). Sinclair seems to have obtained mostly the names of the people with whom he could communicate best with, those whom he gathered the most information from. For instance, in the preface to the 1965 edition of The Jungle, Sinclair mentioned that at the wedding feast “Friends of the couple told me about them, including their names” (Sinclair, 1965a, 3). It can also be pointed out that those better-known people might not only have been articulate speakers of English but potential readers of Sinclair’s novel as well. Sinclair could expect that his novel would be read only by those Lithuanians who were fairly fluent in English; it was too early to consider the readers of the Lithuanian translation of The Jungle. And the Lithuanian reader was pushed into nurturing the feeling that he/she knew the way this or that surname had made its way into the novel. However, the candidacies of those real-life name-donors whose names had no known competitors among contemporaries are stronger. In other words, since the names of Andrius L. Graičiūnas, Joseph Kuszlejko, Anton Bierzynski, Frank Szedwill, and Charles Yasatis and their families were the only imaginable exposures to Sinclair’s ears and eyes, the probability of their candidacies is very strong. Psychologically, the selection of a surname for a character might be similar to picking a name for your child. You might know several people with the name that you select, but usually you don’t come up with the name of a person you dislike. And such well-known Lithuanian socialists as Karolis Rutkus and Andrius L. Graičiūnas might have been attractive figures for Sinclair, due to their political stance. Presumably Sinclair paid tribute to Lithuanian socialists by using the Rudkos and Grajczunas surnames in the very opening of The Jungle—in the third and fourth paragraphs of the first chapter. However, it does not follow that Sinclair had Karolis Rutkus alone in mind when opting for the surname Rudkos. The spelling of many surnames, such as Rudkos, Grajczunas, Kuszlejka, Biarczynskas, Szadwilas, and Valentynaicza, shows that Sin-

TWO. The Lithuanian Language

57

clair’s source for their acquisition was not a printed text; he most likely utilized the names inscribed into his notebooks by himself or by some Lithuanians during various conversations. Apparently, Sinclair’s main source was spoken Lithuanian and assistance from Lithuanians. In the same fashion, other Lithuanian words and phrases were often gathered from speech rather than from writing. All in all, it is evident that Sinclair was working preponderantly with oral rather than printed sources, doing field rather than library research of Lithuanian. 3.12.

Jurgis So far I have not attempted to interpret any first Lithuanian names. In effect, there is no method to trace the path they made into The Jungle. Most of them were simply popular Lithuanian Christian names— like Anelė (Angela), Antanas (Anthony), Elena (Helen), Elžbieta (Elizabeth), Jadvyga (Hedwig), Jokūbas (Jacob), Jonas (John), Juozas (Joseph), Jurgis (George), Kotryna (Catharine), Kristoforas (Christopher), Liucija (Lucy), Marija (Maria), Mikalojus (Michael), Mykolas (Michael), Ona (Ann), Sebastijonas (Sebastian), and Stanislovas (Stanley). The only first name I wish to consider is Jurgis, which was the name of the main protagonist Rudkos. Since Sinclair was known to have a penchant for playing with the aural and visual similarities in names, we could assume that the name Jurgis was matched to the most important concept in Sinclair’s novel—its title word Jungle. The alliteration/assonance that was skillfully used in camouflaging some of the names of Sinclair’s non-Lithuanian prototypes is also evident in Jurgis—Jungle. It matched Sinclair’s pattern of the three coinciding letters exactly: Ju.g..—Ju.g.. Moreover, the match was better than in some of the cases mentioned earlier (cf. 3.) since Jurgis—Jungle have the same number of letters and the coinciding ones are in the same positions in the names (even if the pronunciation of the letter <J> varies in Lithuanian and English, cf. Sinclair’s note in the 1906 edition: “Pronounced Yoorghis”; Eby, 2003, 6). And not only were the names and the sequence of letters matched, but also the position and the length of the words, too. Even the letters that did not match had a similar shape: and ; and ; and <s> and <e>. It would be hard to believe that Sinclair did not see this allusion to “Jungle” while selecting the name for his main character “Jurgis” and dispersing it hundreds of times throughout the novel. Hence even the main first name of the story covertly captures the metaphor of the title; in effect, Jurgis locks a symbolic “jungle” in itself.

___________________________________________________________

This page intentionally left blank

_________________________________________

THREE Specific Locations 1.

Carey’s Dump As mentioned earlier, Sinclair put great emphasis on the reality of the wedding feast that he had observed. He claimed that he noticed the wedding procession when he was returning from his inspection of Tom Carey’s dump. Sinclair presented the scene of the wedding as though it were located somewhere in the vicinity of that dump: “I had been over to inspect Tom Carey’s dump ... I noticed a crowd in front of a saloon” (Sinclair, 1906b, 1132). The position of the dump, therefore, is germane to the process of locating the saloon where Sinclair had seen the real-life wedding feast. Thomas Carey was the president of the American Brick Company at the time. In the 1904 Chicago directory he was listed as: “Carey, Thomas pres American brick co 4500 S Robey h 4201 S Western av boul” (1904). So, his brick factory address is given at 4500 South Robey Street (today’s Damen Avenue). But there was more than one city dump there. As Sophonisba P. Breckinridge and Edith Abbott demonstrated, there were four city dumps in the neighborhood in 1909 (Breckinridge, Abbott, 1911, 464–465), five years after Sinclair’s visit to Chicago; probably, Sinclair had seen the same number of them as well. To determine which one of the four could have been called “Carey’s dump” by Sinclair in his 1906 article, we have to study his description of the dump’s geographical position in his novel (in the 1905 serial Tom Carey was camouflaged under the name Tom Cassidy; in the 1906 edition, his alias was Mike Scully): It was Cassidy ... who owned that dump which Jurgis and Ona had seen the first day of their arrival. Not only did he own the dump, but owned the brick-factory as well; and first he took out the clay and made it into bricks, and then he had the city bring garbage to fill up the hole, so that he could build flimsy houses and sell them. (FE 82; Ch 9) Jurgis and Ona’s first visit to the dump was described quite elaborately in The Jungle: Later that afternoon he and Ona went out to take a walk and look about them to see more of this district which

60

Giedrius Subačius

Fig. 8. The Chicago City dumps and their vicinity in 1909, reduced map by Estelle B. Hunter, reprinted from Breckinridge and Abbott (1911). Courtesy University of Chicago Press. Fig. continued on the next page.

was to be their home. In back of the yards the dreary two-story frame houses were spread out ... (FE 23; Ch 2) A little way further on, and Jurgis and Ona ... came to the place where this “made” ground was in process of making. Here was a great hole, perhaps two city blocks square, and with long files of garbage wagons creeping into it. ... Beyond this dump there stood a great brickyard, with smoking chimneys. First they took out the soil to make bricks, and then they filled it up again with garbage ... A little way beyond was another great hole,

THREE. Specific Locations

61

Fig. 8. (Continued.)

which they had emptied and not yet filled up. This held water, and all summer it stood there, with the nearby soil draining into it, festering and stewing in the sun; and then, when winter came, somebody cut the ice on it, and sold it to the people of Packingtown. (FE 24; Ch 2) Sinclair’s description includes the details that in the Back of the Yards neighborhood where Jurgis and Ona lived in the beginning of their stay in Chicago, they came to a dump. Then beyond this dump there stood a great brickyard, and a little way beyond there was another great hole, which was not yet filled up and held water, which was cut up and sold in

62

Giedrius Subačius

winter as ice. Sinclair described merely two dumps out of the four marked on Hunter’s map (cf. Fig. 8). Obviously, Sinclair spoke about the dumps on both sides of Carey’s brickyard at 4500 South Robey: a dump, beyond the dump the brickyard, and beyond the brickyard a great hole that was a dump in development. A comparison of this description to Hunter’s map makes it evident that Sinclair wrote about dumps No. 2 and No. 3 (cf. Fig. 8), which were positioned south and north of Carey’s brickyard. They were both located on the west side of Robey Street. No. 2 lay between 47th and 46th Street. No. 3 lay between 45th and 43rd or 44th Street. They stood there while the sun went down upon this scene; the sky in the west turned blood-red ... Jurgis and Ona were not thinking of the sunset, however—their backs were turned to it, and all their thoughts were of Packingtown, which they could see so plainly in the distance. (FE 24; Ch 2) This scene makes it clear that the characters in the novel observed the dumps to the west, and then turned their backs on them and faced Packingtown. This is quite a precise description of the position: they went west of their home at the boarding house of Panei Aniele Juknos and faced the dumps and the brickyard. This might be a place somewhere on Robey Street between 47th and 43rd Street, depending on which of the two dumps Jurgis and Ona saw first: No. 2 or No. 3. Breckinridge and Abbott’s article provides assistance here. Five years after Sinclair’s visit to Chicago (in the autumn of 1909), the dumps were described this way: No. 2 had been nearly filled, but clay was still being removed so that the space continued to be enlarged; No. 3 which was still filled with water had been as yet only slightly used as a dumping-ground. (Breckinridge, Abbott, 1911, 465) Obviously, as the southern dump No. 2 was nearly filled in 1909, it was the dump that Sinclair described first, where garbage wagons were creeping in. And since dump No. 3 was still filled with water and only slightly used as a dumping-ground in 1909, it had to be the one that Sinclair described last as the great hole filled with water. Hence, if Jurgis and Ona first observed the southern dump No. 2, and beyond it they saw the brickyard and then the other great hole with water, they would have been standing somewhere on Robey Street

THREE. Specific Locations

63

Fig. 9. A photograph of children in a dump, tentatively Carey’s dump (No. 2) that Sinclair unsuccessfully attempted to photograph, with the brick factory in the background (in Sinclair’s words “a great brick-yard, with smoking chimneys”). Judging by the shadows the view is to the north or northeast. Beginning of the twentieth century glass positive (Edwin P. Richter Transparencies) from the private collection of Albert Petrulis; printed with his permission.

between 47th and 46th Streets, directly in front of dump No. 2. Sinclair’s description in the novel matched the description of Breckinridge and Abbott’s article quite precisely. Sinclair himself stated that he had not invented anything in his novel (except for some episodes that he had pointed out separately). One can assume that the spot where he positioned his characters to see the dump might be the place he went himself to make photographs. Apparently, Sinclair never termed dump No. 3 “a dump”; he called it a “great hole” that “held water.” Sinclair also stated that “it was Cassidy who owned the brick-yards, and the dump, and the ice-pond” (FE 229; Ch 26)—again dump No. 3 was merely the ice-pond for Sinclair. Thus, he spoke about Carey’s sole dump, which evidently was dump No. 2 (cf. Fig. 8). This dump had to be the one at which Sinclair had “escaped clubbing at the hands of a policeman” before he noticed the crowd from the wedding feast in front of a saloon. Dump No. 2 was adjacent to 47th, Robey, and 46th Streets (today this dump is a shopping mall and a parking lot).

64 2.

Giedrius Subačius

Back of the Yards Sinclair had also stated that Z. Grajczunas’s “Pasilinksminimams darzas,” which hosted the wedding feast of Jurgis and Ona in the novel, “was the rear room of a saloon in that part of Chicago known as ‘back of the yards’ ” (FE 1; Ch 1). What territory did Sinclair call “back of the yards”? There are several indications in the novel where Back of the Yards was for Sinclair. The first place where Jurgis, Ona, and their family stayed in Chicago was Panei Aniele Juknos’s boarding house, and this place became their home again after they had lost the house they had purchased on installments: “Panei Aniele had a four-room flat in one of that wilderness of two-story frame tenements that lie in ‘back of the yards’ ” (FE 21; Ch 2). It was close to Carey’s dump, since when they walked to see more of the district which was to be their home they came across it (cf. 1.). More precisely, Sinclair mentioned that little Juozapas “found the way to Tom Cassidy’s dump, which lay three or four blocks away” (FE 177; Ch 21). Three or four blocks meant that Panei Aniele could have had her boarding house somewhere on South Honore or on South Wood Street (I shall argue shortly that South Wood Street is the more likely location; cf. 3.) in the vicinity of 46th Street (cf. Fig. 8). When Jurgis and the family found a house to purchase, it was “to the south, about a mile and a half from the yards” (FE 38; Ch 4). From Panei Aniele’s house in Back of the Yards they walked “a long mile and a half ” (FE 39; Ch 4). Later the distance was slightly changed: from their house “to Panei Aniele’s house, in back of the yards, was a good two miles” (FE 157; Ch 18); “The distance was in reality over two miles” (FE 45; Ch 5). Sinclair was quite precise geographically, a mile and a half from the yards directly southwards would be somewhere around West 59th Street. Additionally, if we calculate the distance from Panei Aniele’s boarding house (in the vicinity of South Wood and 46th Streets) to approximately the same place, we would come up with a distance of about two miles. This means that the only minor imprecision of Sinclair’s was to mention “a long mile and a half” from the boarding house to their house instead of two miles. Hence it is obvious that Sinclair always referred to Panei Aniele’s boarding house as located in Back of the Yards, in the same neighborhood where the fictitious wedding party took place in Grajczunas’s saloon. But Sinclair never termed the neighborhood of Jurgis’s new house as a place in Back of the Yards. It was always called merely “the neighborhood”: “typical frame dwellings of the neighborhood, where architecture is a luxury” (FE 39; Ch 4); “They had been in the neighborhood so short a time that they could not get much credit” (FE 53; Ch 6); “About a block away from them there lived another Lithuanian family ... the first subject

THREE. Specific Locations

65

upon which the conversation turned was the neighborhood and its history” (FE 54; Ch 6); “old Lafferty had been caught with a gang that had stolen cows from several of the poor people of the neighborhood, and butchered them in an old shanty back of the yards and sold them” (FE 56; Ch 6). From the last citation it becomes more than obvious that the neighborhood of Jurgis’s house and Back of the Yards were entirely different areas to Sinclair. James R. Barrett in The Encyclopedia of Chicago (and in his notes on the Jungle; cf. Barrett, 1988b, 335) defines Back of the Yards as a rather vast territory: “the neighborhood extends from 39th to 55th Streets between Halsted and the railroad tracks along Leavitt Street, just south and west of the former UNION STOCK YARD and adjacent packing plants” (The Encyclopedia of Chicago, 58). The same dimensions of the Back of the Yards neighborhood may be traced throughout the book Pride in the Jungle by Thomas J. Jablonsky. According to their definitions, Back of the Yards extended in two directions from the stockyards— westwards and southwards. It is one mile from 47th Street (the southern rim of the stockyards) south to 55th Street, the southern border of the Back of the Yards neighborhood. So there were still approximately four more blocks south (half a mile) to the house Jurgis owned in the vicinity of 59th Street. This neighborhood definitely was beyond the borders of Back of the Yards. Sinclair used the term “back of the yards” only to refer to the western part of the neighborhood, never to the southern one. And it is understandable since, for instance, according to the 1920 federal census of the U.S.: Almost three-fourths of all the Lithuanians lived in the neighborhood’s least desirable blocks, just west of the stockyards, between Ashland Avenue and the city dumps on the east and west and between freightyards and Forty-seventh Street on the north and south. (Barrett, 1990, 78) This was the territory containing the majority of Lithuanians; and for Sinclair this concrete area was his “back of the yards.” Thus, Sinclair placed the domiciles of Jurgis’s family in two different areas: (1) Back of the Yards, Panei Aniele’s boarding house near South Wood and 46th Streets (cf. further 3.) and (2) “the neighborhood” around 59th Street. The first area was, obviously, the place where the wedding feast was set in the novel and where Sinclair happened to spot it in real life. At this point I have to turn to one inconsistent detail. At the very end of the first chapter, when the wedding feast had ended, Sinclair writes

66

Giedrius Subačius

that “they [Jurgis and Ona] live only two blocks away, and Jurgis does not care about the carriage” (FE 15; Ch 1). Presumably, Sinclair wanted to explore this intimate two blocks distance for artistic reasons, to let Jurgis carry Ona all the way home: “Jurgis, without a word, lifts Ona in his arms, and strides out with her, and she sinks her head upon his shoulder with a moan” (FE 16; Ch 1). But during the time span when Jurgis and Ona got married they were living in their house in “the neighborhood,” and not in Back of the Yards. The distance to that house, according to Sinclair’s geography, was two miles, not two blocks away. Most probably making the family live two blocks from Grajczunas’s saloon was Sinclair’s miscalculation. They might have lived two blocks away if they were still at Panei Aniele’s. But... Sinclair moved them out of there before the wedding feast took place. It is reasonable to assume that when writing the first chapter, Sinclair intended to make his characters Jurgis and Ona get married while still living at Panei Aniele’s boarding house in the vicinity of the wedding saloon. Therefore the two blocks away distance could have been intended to denote a precise geographical spot in Sinclair’s Back of the Yards area. But later, during the process of writing, it happened that Sinclair had the family purchase the house far away. In all probability, Sinclair needed to move his characters away to impair their living conditions. The advantage of living closer—in Back of the Yards—“was obvious from the common laborer’s point of view—one could walk to work” (Barrett, 1990, 68). Sinclair was writing “the Uncle Tom’s Cabin of the Labor Movement” (Poole, 1940, 95), and he had to make his characters suffer—to be unable to pay the street car fares, to have to walk a long distance to work in snowdrifts, to freeze on the way to work, and so forth. However, by the time the family purchased the house in chapter four, Sinclair might have forgotten about the two-block distance he had mentioned in the first chapter. Chronologically, though, Sinclair put the wedding feast into chapter seven. Had he put it, say, in the beginning of chapter four, the error would not have occurred, since at that point the family was still living in the vicinity of Grajczunas’s saloon; the two blocks would be a plausible distance. Sinclair somehow distorted the reallife geography that he otherwise strived to present accurately. However, I assume he did this inadvertently. Even though Sinclair was for the most part accurate in his novel’s scenery and distances, he made other topographical mistakes, too, for instance: “To the west of the yards ran Ashland avenue, and here was an unbroken line of saloons—‘Whiskey Row,’ they called it; to the north was Forty-seventh street” (FE 69; Ch 7). 47th Street was to the south, not to the north, of the stockyards. This leads us to believe that Sinclair’s geography was not entirely accurate.

THREE. Specific Locations

67

It is justifiable, then, to make an adjustment for Sinclair, to uncover what he might have really had in mind: the two blocks were to be the distance from the wedding feast saloon to Panei Aniele’s boarding house. 3.

The Wedding Feast Saloon By now it seems indubitable that Sinclair had attempted to describe topography in his novel with precision (without giving away the exact address). Therefore, it is tempting to endeavor to track down the concrete wedding feast saloon that Sinclair saw in real life and gave Z. Grajczunas’s name to, even though there were many saloons in Back of the Yards at the time: “The saloons in Packingtown lie as thick as the leaves of Vallambrosa, and the competition is deadly” (FE 62; Ch 7). One might assume that Sinclair was returning from Carey’s dump eastward toward Ashland Avenue. He could not return anywhere else—there was “nothing” to visit westward from Carey’s dump; eastward, on the other hand, there was “everything.” There was the University of Chicago Settlement, located quite nearby at 4638 South Ashland Avenue—Sinclair confessed to having his meals there and double-checking his information with sources there. Sinclair also claimed that he “took a room at the Stockyards Hotel” (1965a, 2) when he reached Chicago. This could be the famous hotel “Transit House,” as noted by Barrett (1988a, xi), on South Halsted Street, adjacent to Exchange Avenue and the arched main entrance to the stockyards (cf. description and photographs of the hotel in Jablonsky, 1993, 6, 8–9, 27). Every location he could imaginably be visiting in Chicago seems to have been located eastward from his starting point at Carey’s dump. Presumably while walking down 46th or 47th Streets, which were closest to the dump, Sinclair may have caught sight of the Lithuanian wedding procession. Which Lithuanian saloons could have been within Sinclair’s view from that position? The system of Lithuanian surnames employed by Sinclair in The Jungle can help us select real-life saloons as candidates for the host of the wedding. There were two Lithuanian saloons in Back of the Yards whose owners’ surnames were taken and reused by Sinclair for other functions in The Jungle: Kuszlejko’s and Bierzynski’s (cf. above Two, 3.3. and Two, 3.4.; also Fig. 10, Fig. 12, and Fig. 16). Both saloons lay in the vicinity of the dump and of Panei Aniele’s (fictional) boarding house. They were located at 4558 South Paulina and at 4600 South Paulina, respectively (cf. above Two, 3.3. and Two, 3.4.); they were facing each other across 46th Street, and they were both popular street corner saloons. Both saloons were located exactly on Sinclair’s way if he returned along 46th Street. Sinclair, walking with his back turned to the dump, could have spotted the wedding crowd in the distance some blocks away, near the crossing of Paulina and 46th Streets. This perspective

68

Giedrius Subačius

Fig. 10. The former Bierzynski’s saloon at 4600 South Paulina Street after it was destroyed by fire on 27 Dec. 1948. The second door from the right (north side on 46th Street) led to the rear room (hall) of the saloon. Photograph by Charles W. Cushman, 16 Jan. 1949. Courtesy Indiana University Archives (P4164).

would allow Sinclair to notice the crowd at a distance. If Sinclair walked along 46th Street, the wedding crowd might have been directly in his way. Even if Sinclair took 47th Street to return, he might have seen the wedding procession when reaching the crossing of 47th and Paulina—the crowd would have been visible only one block further north from that crossing, to the left of the tentative direction of Sinclair’s promenade. If Sinclair “honored” the surnames of people who may have been important for him (hypothetically the socialist Rutkus and the socialist physician Graičiūnas) and included their names in his novel, why could he not follow the same pattern and want to “honor” the owner of the saloon that was so extremely important for him? It was at this saloon where Sinclair claimed to mentally compose the first chapter about the wedding feast, the chapter that “was the opening scene of my story, a gift from the gods.” In that saloon “everything which I had previously planned seemed in some miraculous way to fit in with them” (Sinclair, 1906b, 1132). It is very reasonable to expect that Sinclair may have immortalized this important saloon or his owner in the same indirect way as he did with other surnames. A first educated guess might be made that it was at one of the two

THREE. Specific Locations

69

Fig. 11. The same perspective of 4600 South Paulina Street (9 Nov. 2005) as in Fig. 10. Only the part with the apartments of the previous Bierzynski’s saloon building survives. The door to the rear room of the saloon was removed with the rest of the debris, and only the door to the apartments remained (the door on the right; it is the same door as the far right door in Fig. 10). An empty lot is all that remains here now.

saloons on the corner of 46th and South Paulina Streets—Kuszlejko’s or Bierzynski’s—where Sinclair forged his first chapter’s wedding feast. Kuszlejko’s and Bierzynski’s saloons precisely fit Sinclair’s description of distances. Sinclair located the boarding house of Panei Aniele at two blocks from the wedding saloon (adjusted location, cf. above, 2.), and three to four blocks from Carey’s dump. Thus, if Panei Aniele was portrayed as living “three or four blocks away” from Carey’s dump (on South Honore or South Wood Streets), then the addition of two more blocks locate the wedding saloon on South Hermitage or South Paulina Street. Both saloons—Kuszlejko’s and Bierzynski’s— were on South Paulina Street! (In 1905, “Lithuanians were concentrated disproportionately on Paulina Street in the blocks just west of the yards”; Barrett, 1990, 79.) So, if the wedding saloon were on South Paulina Street, then the fictitious boarding house of Panei Aniele had to have been on South Wood Street (near the intersection with 46th Street), and not on South Honore (six blocks to Carey’s dump from Paulina minus two blocks to Panei Aniele’s house makes four blocks from Panei Aniele’s to the dump). The topographical dimensions given in the novel fit better than we could have expected.

70

Giedrius Subačius

Fig. 12. Kasper’s tavern at 1714 West 46th Street and its then owner (right) William Kasper (1940s). In the back of the picture beyond the alley from the perspective of 46th Street (facing northeast) the southwest corner of the building where Kuszlejko’s saloon was located is visible (4558 South Paulina Street). In the center of the building there are two big doors facing south—they used to lead to the rear room (hall) of Kuszlejko’s saloon. This was the most probable location of the wedding celebration that Sinclair observed. Photograph from the private archive of Marlene (Trakselis) Feldhaus; printed with her permission.

So far, in terms of locations and names, both Kuszlejko’s and Bierzynski’s saloons seem to be strong candidates for the title of host of the wedding feast that Sinclair saw in real life. Both saloons were important in Lithuanian cultural life; both advertised in the newspapers; both had halls available for weddings. And both of them were on Paulina Street, a street with special importance for Lithuanians. Is there any way to tell which of the two saloons is the best candidate for the title of wedding host? At this point we can turn to the internal (interior) peculiarities of the saloons. For instance, in one of the typescript introductions to The Jungle, Sinclair mentioned that the wedding took place in “a beer saloon” (Sinclair, Introduction, 1). The advertisements make it clear that both saloons were selling beer. It is also obvious, however, that while Kuszlejko had advertised his beer along with other drinks (vodka reached him from Russia itself; cf. Fig. 6), beer was the only drink advertised in Bierzynski’s long poem (cf. Fig. 7). This might mean that Bierzynski’s saloon looked more like a beer saloon than did Kuszlejko’s—the type of institution Sinclair hinted at. However, I do not believe that this constitutes enough evidence to give preference to Bierzynski’s saloon—in any case beer was sold in both places.

THREE. Specific Locations

71

Fig. 13. The same perspective of 46th Street facing northeast as in Fig. 12, with a new singlestory house instead of the former Kuszlejko’s saloon at 4558 South Paulina Street (9 Nov. 2005).

Also, as we know, Sinclair claimed that he sat in the saloon and wrote that whole chapter in his mind—“every tiniest detail of it.” It is crucial, then, to look for the details of the interior of the rear room of the saloon in his novel itself, which we expect to be quite precise. Sinclair wrote: The room is about thirty feet square ... To the right there is a door from the saloon ... and in the corner beyond it a bar ... In the opposite corner are two tables, filling a third of the room ... At the head, where sits the bride, is a snow-white cake ... Beyond opens a door into the kitchen ... In the corner to the left are the three musicians, upon a little platform ...; also the babies ... and an open window ... (FE 3; Ch 1) Some other passages in chapter one contain detailed descriptions. For instance, the door outside of the room was described this way: Now and then some one coming in or out would leave the door open, and the night air was chill; Marija as she passed would stretch out her foot and kick the doorknob, and slam would go the door! (FE 11; Ch 1)

72

Giedrius Subačius

The room is about 30 feet square

Door into the kitchen

Table

Window

Table

Bar

Door from the saloon

Little platform

Narrator’s position

Fig. 14. Plan of the rear room of the saloon that hosted the wedding feast as described in The Jungle; drawn by G. S.

From the wording “there is a door from the saloon ... and in the corner beyond it a bar” we should understand that the bar was inside the same room. The bar should be adjacent to the same wall that held the door, and from the narrator’s perspective it had to look “beyond” the door. Another interpretation, that the bar could have been located in the next room beyond the door, seems to be impossible, since the chill was coming inside through that door, meaning that there was nothing else on the other side of it save the cold air. Also, the configuration of the two tables is a bit confusing: “In the opposite corner are two tables, filling a third of the room.” The movements of the violin player Tamoszius Kuszlejka, though, help us understand the deployment of the tables across the space more precisely: In the excitement of this masterpiece Tamoszius Kuszlejka begins to edge in between the tables, making his

THREE. Specific Locations

73

way towards the head, where sits the bride. There is not a foot of space between the chairs of the guests, and Tamoszius is so short that he pokes them with his bow whenever he reaches over for the low notes; but still he presses in, and insists relentlessly that his companions must follow. (FE 5; Ch 1) Apparently the two tables were standing one beside the other and the guests were sitting around each of them at all sides, leaving little space for Kuszlejka to move. Still, there was a little passageway left between the tables if Kuszlejka and his companions could make their way “in between the tables.” Sinclair’s description of the rear room of the saloon in his fiction is precise enough to reconstruct an approximate plan of it (cf. Fig. 14). Neither Kuszlejko’s nor Bierzynski’s saloons survive to this day. Loretta Ezerski, a daughter of the subsequent owner (during the 1920s–1940s) of the building at 4600 South Paulina (former Bierzynski’s saloon) has related to me in private conversation (24 Sep. 2005) that their saloon burned down in a fire on 27 Dec. 1948 (cf. the photograph in Fig. 10, taken three weeks after the fire). The Chicago Tribune reported that one fireman (James Daly) died of injuries while fighting the fire (30 Dec. 1948). The building of the earlier Kuszlejko’s saloon at 4558 South Paulina disappeared later. According to Ezerski, it was still standing in 1980. Thus, there is no possibility today of just walking into these buildings to see if they match Sinclair’s configuration. Still, some historical information about the buildings exists. At the time Sinclair visited Chicago, Kuszlejko’s saloon was a newly built two-story frame house for a store and flats (a permit for construction was registered on 5 Sep. 1901). The building was constructed by Kuszlejko’s next door neighbor contractor John Paczkowski (4335 South Paulina) and cost 4,000 dollars. The measurements of the house were: 32 feet wide, 76 feet deep, and 32 feet tall (American Contractor, 14 Sep. 1901: 22; Records, 5). Almost two years later, on 11 Jun. 1903, a permit to construct a two-story frame house for a store and flats at 4600 South Paulina Street was issued for Anton Bjernski (American Contractor, 27 Jun. 1903: 26; Records, 94)—no doubt this was the distorted last name of Anton Bierzynski. Bierzynski’s house was constructed by the same contractor, John Paczkowski, cost 6,000 dollars, and was 22 feet wide, 124 feet deep, and 32 feet tall (American Contractor, 22; 27 Jun. 1903: 26; Records, 94). A comparison of the measurements shows that both buildings were the same height, but Kuszlejko’s was wider (32 feet as compared to 22) and shorter (76 feet as compared to 124). Into which building could

74

Giedrius Subačius

Fig. 15. A fragment of a Sanborn map (1925) showing the intersection of South Paulina and 46th Streets. On the northern side of 46th Street, which runs through the middle of this fragment, stood Kuszlejko’s saloon. On the southern side—Bierzynski’s. Reprinted with the permission of Sanborn Mapping Co. (Environmental Data Resources, Inc.).

the 30-foot by 30-foot room from Sinclair’s novel fit better? Apparently, into Kuszlejko’s, since Bierzynski’s building was too narrow for it (only 22 feet wide). Minimal plans of both saloons were displayed in one of the Sanborn maps of 1925 (cf. Fig. 15). The scale and the measurements on the map reasserted that Kuszlejko’s building was wider and that the structure of Bierzynski’s saloon was too narrow to hold a 30-by-30 foot room. It is also important to note that the Sanborn map showed that Kuszlejko’s building, at 32 feet wide, was exceptional in the neighborhood, which depended on the irregularly wide lot (or two narrower lots combined into one). Houses on these and on neighboring blocks were predominantly built as wide as 22 feet. Hence, Sinclair could not have seen many saloons capable of containing a 30-by-30 foot space. Could Sinclair have known the exact length of the side of the square? He might have measured it by eye or have been told by someone—for instance, the saloon keeper could have boasted about the unusual size of his room. I have received some information about the rear rooms of both Kuszlejko’s and Bierzynski’s saloons from people who had visited the buildings while they still were standing. On 1 Nov. 2005, Ezerski drew a plan of the “J. J. Tavern” that her father, Joseph John Ezerski, had owned, which was formerly Bierzynski’s saloon. Ezerski indicated that the hall of the saloon extended over two buildings on two lots (4600 and 4602 South Paulina Street), and that those buildings were connected. It seems that the configuration Ezerski described was after a reconstruction—Ezerski remembered the interior from the 1940s. In the Sanborn map the center of the building is shown as separated from the adjacent building by a wall, cf. Fig. 15. According to Ezerski, the hall was located in the center of the building. However, even if we hypothesize that in Sinclair’s time those

THREE. Specific Locations

75

buildings may have been connected, the measurements of the room would be too big to fit Sinclair’s description—not less than 44 feet instead of 30 (Ezerski remembered windows on the northern, western, and southern walls of the room, which at least meant that the room extended through the two buildings’ combined approximate 44 feet width). In the Sanborn map, the “CLUB R[OO]M” marked at 4602 South Paulina Street, partly connected to the 4600 South Paulina building, was too narrow to fit Sinclair’s description, either (cf. Fig. 15). Further on, we can compare the inner details given by Sinclair in his novel to both rooms under consideration. According to Ezerski’s plan the dancing hall of her father’s saloon was configured differently from the one described by Sinclair: the kitchen and the bar were not in front of the narrator, but behind him. Kuszlejko’s rear room fits the description of Sinclair’s much better. Jean (Brazauskas) Bush, Loretta Ezerski, Marlene (Trakselis) Feldhaus, Albert Petrulis, and Jeannette Swist—all of them confirmed that the entrance door to the hall of Kuszlejko’s saloon building (at their time Brazauskiene’s saloon) was on 46th Street, and that it was in the middle of the building (the door is seen in Fig. 12), and that the saloon itself was situated in the eastern part of the house. Swist also recalled that the hall of the former Kuszlejko’s saloon was a square (e-mail letter of 11 Nov. 2005). Thus, if the door from the room were to the right of the narrator in Kuszlejko’s place, then the door to the kitchen had to be in the wall in front of the narrator, and the window— to his left (the Sanborn map showed a narrow passage between Kuszlejko’s house and the adjacent building, meaning that there could have been a window or windows in that wall). Jean (Brazauskas) Bush, who was one of the owners of the building, has confirmed (22 Nov. 2005) that after one entered the hall the platform for the musicians was to the left and to the right there was the main tavern and the small kitchen behind it, in the northern part of the building. The position of these details given by the witnesses coincides with Sinclair’s description in The Jungle. Thus, the major interior details of Kuszlejko’s rear room fit Sinclair’s description: (1) 30 feet square; (2) the position of the doors to the outside and to the kitchen; (3) the position of the platform; and (4) the probable location of the window. The plan of The Jungle wedding room (Fig. 14) could be complemented by certain real-life details from Kuszlejko’s saloon: the narrator might be standing or sitting near the western wall of the chamber; the door from the saloon to the right of the narrator might lead southward to 46th Street; the door in front of the narrator might lead eastward to the kitchen and to the saloon itself on Paulina Street (cf. Fig. 16), and the window to the left of him might be on the north wall of the room. Considered this way, Kuszlejko’s saloon seems the most probable candidate for the title of host of the Lithuanian wedding feast that

76

Giedrius Subačius

Fig. 16. The interior of Joseph Kuszlejko’s saloon (not the rear room used for wedding parties) at 4558 South Paulina. On the upper right, above the door, the mirrored number “4558” can be seen. The door led out to the intersection of Paulina and 46th Streets. According to Elizabeth Kuszlejko, the person in the middle behind the bar is Joseph Kuszlejko. The saloon was sold around 1916, thus, the photograph was taken before then. How many of the posing men did Sinclair know personally and collect information for his novel from? Photograph from the private collection of Elizabeth Kuszlejko; printed with her permission.

Sinclair observed. The most reliable hypothesis of the wedding reception location is the former saloon of Joseph Kuszlejko. It means that the address for the wedding party Sinclair had so emotionally observed might be 4558 South Paulina Street, Chicago, Illinois. The building itself did not survive. It was replaced by a small single-story brick house. A picture of Joseph Kuszlejko—a person to whom Sinclair spoke and who probably hosted the Lithuanian wedding feast that Sinclair observed—has survived (cf. Fig. 16). The federal census of 1900 records that Joseph Kuszlejko was born Jan. 1865 (cf. Two, 3.3.) but his gravestone in St. Casimir Lithuanian Cemetery in Chicago, on which his name is spelled “Juozapas Kuszlejko,” gives his birth date as 20 Oct. 1866, and the day he died—6 Nov. 1916. Joseph’s wife Mary (Marijona) lived much longer (gravestone dates: 1871–1950; census birth date March 1870, cf. Two, 3.3.). According to her granddaughter Elizabeth Kuszlejko, Mary did not keep the saloon after her husband Joseph passed away. It became the property of the Brazauskas family—neighbors and friends of Kuszlejko’s kin, according to Jean (Brazauskas) Bush. Joseph Kuszlejko was

THREE. Specific Locations

77

Lithuanian and his wife Mary was Polish (according to Elizabeth Kuszlejko). They had a daughter Agnes (gravestone dates 1894–1959; 1900 census name Aggie and birth date 1895, cf. Two, 3.3.) who could have met Sinclair during his visit. At that time she was nine or ten years old, and Sinclair did write about children in his wedding chapter. Joseph and Mary had two more boys born after Sinclair’s stay in Chicago: Ted and Edward (Elizabeth Kuszlejko’s father). 4.

The Church of the Wedding Ceremony Sinclair could not see the ceremony in the church himself, as he was inspecting and photographing Carey’s dump at that particular time. Nevertheless, Sinclair gave away some details about the location where the matrimony was concluded: There had been a crowd following all the way ... ... continuing all the way down Ashland avenue, had added a new swarm of urchins to the cortege at each side street for half a mile. (FE 1; Ch 1) Thus, the procession must have arrived via Ashland Avenue (cf. Fig. 17); and it had to be a long ride, since half a mile (covered by a swarm of urchins) constituted merely a segment of the ride on the avenue. Sinclair also maintained a certain precision in time specifications. He wrote “It was about four o’clock one Sunday afternoon ... I noticed a crowd in front of a saloon” (Sinclair, 1906b, 1132). The first line of The Jungle also ran: “It was four o’clock when the ceremony was over and the carriages began to arrive” (FE 1; Ch 1). Sinclair’s fictitious description was matched to his experience. In addition to the “Sunday” and “four o’clock” Sinclair mentioned the month of November: “In the latter part of November they hired a hall”; “For a week or two there was preparation” (FE 61; Ch 7). All of the events in The Jungle were extended over several years. They ended in 1904 when the strike in the stockyards commenced. But according to the plot, the wedding of Jurgis and Ona took place several years earlier, circa 1901. But the real-life wedding Sinclair saw took place in 1904. Hence, if one intends to look for the real-life couple Sinclair observed, one has to search in the church records of 1904. There were no less than five Lithuanian Catholic parishes in Chicago in 1904. The oldest, St. George Parish, was established in 1892 in Bridgeport, and a new large church edifice was erected and opened in 1902 on the corner of Auburn (today Lituanica) Avenue and 33rd Street. There were two parishes established around 1900: (1) Providence of God (at 717 West 18th Street) and (2) St. Joseph: a small wooden church was built at 8812 Marquette; later at 88th between Marquette and Saginaw. Another

78

Giedrius Subačius

Fig. 17. Ashland Avenue facing north between 45th and 43rd Streets. To the right beyond the cabbage field (on Hunter’s map marked as CULTIVATING FIELDS; cf. Fig. 8)—Packingtown. The Lithuanian wedding procession probably traveled down this section. To the left from the factory there is an advertisement of CAPADURA cigars. The Chicago Tribune ProQuest database (accessed 24 Nov. 2005) shows that this brand of cigar was advertised in the years 1898–1906. This suggests that the photograph was taken about the period Sinclair came to Chicago or a bit earlier. Glass positive (Edwin P. Richter Transparencies) from the private collection of Albert Petrulis; printed with his permission.

two parishes were founded in 1904, the year Sinclair visited Chicago: (1) Holy Cross (at 4557 South Wood Street); and (2) Our Lady of Vilna (at 2327 West 23rd Place). In his article “The Truth about ‘The Jungle’ ” Gregg mentions another possible church: Assuming the couple was Catholic, the ceremony would most likely have been at the now closed St. Rose of Lima Church. Serving English-speaking Back of the Yards residents, St. Rose was a temporary home for the fledgling Holy Cross congregation July 1904 to June 1905. (Gregg, 2002, 25) But Gregg himself was far from sure; he clearly admitted that “it could easily have been a different church entirely” (Gregg, 2002, 25). Research of the matrimonial documents of those churches (records from

THREE. Specific Locations

79

five of them are available—including St. Rose of Lima Church; Our Lady of Vilna Parish matrimonial records begin in 1906) did not suggest any clues regarding which church hosted the wedding that Sinclair observed. There are no surnames coinciding with Sinclair’s characters that could be brought up here as relevant. Hence, church documents did not reveal any clues regarding the exact church of the wedding. Considering the topography, it is obvious that the parish of St. Joseph was very far away, close to the steel mills and to the location where the real-life Joseph Rudkos lived and where Frank Szedwill kept his saloon. It was approximately fifteen miles away from the wedding feast saloon. This distance is probably too large to seriously consider registration of the wedding in St. Joseph Parish. But if the ceremony were concluded there notwithstanding, the procession would have to arrive from the south and most probably to proceed northwards up Ashland Avenue. Since the wedding procession extended a long way down Ashland Avenue, the new parish of Holy Cross can be eliminated, as it was only a block away from the probable wedding saloon of Kuszlejko’s. In the case of Holy Cross Parish, the procession might have walked, as carriages would not have been needed. Three remaining churches—St. George, Providence of God, and Our Lady of Vilna—were all located more or less to the north of Back of the Yards. The wedding procession would have arrived on Ashland avenue southwards from any of these parishes. However, if we consider some aspects of minor importance, we could presume that the Parish of Our Lady of Vilna was not yet registering weddings at the time Sinclair was in Chicago, and that the Parish of Providence of God was much farther north (approximately 18 blocks, i.e., more than two miles) from the wedding saloon than the St. George Parish. St. George Parish seems to be the most probable candidate for the wedding location. Besides, as Sinclair wrote in The Jungle, Marija “had left the church last of all” (FE 1; Ch 1). Presumably by the church he might mean St. George’s new brick edifice, which the other parishes were lacking as yet. The church building that was finished two years earlier would have made the Parish of St. George the most prestigious Lithuanian church in Chicago at that time. (The building did not survive; it was demolished in 1993.) The records of St. George Church show that in the second half of November, on a Sunday, there were two marriages registered—the day was 20 Nov. 1904: (a) Ignatius Kuzminas (29 years old) with Francisca Noruniute (22); (b) Ladislaus Kiszkunas (31) with Carolina Kazlauckaite (23) (Registrum Georgii Martyris). None of these names was reused by Sinclair in his novel. Since there were no matrimonies concluded in December and only one more in November—but on November 23, which

80

Giedrius Subačius

Fig. 18. The Lithuanian St. George Church in Bridgeport, Chicago; possibly the location of the real-life matrimonial whose wedding feast Sinclair observed. The view is from the intersection of Lituanica (then Auburn) Avenue and 33rd Street. The edifice was demolished in 1993. Photograph by Algimantas Kezys; published with his permission.

was a Wednesday, not a Sunday—only these two weddings can be considered. Of these two couples, the second one is the more probable candidate for Sinclair’s observation and inspiration, since the procession had arrived relatively late, at four o’clock. Thus, it is possible that Sinclair

THREE. Specific Locations

81

Fig. 19. The same perspective of the same intersection as in Fig. 18 of Lituanica (then Auburn) Avenue and 33rd Street (9 Nov. 2005). A parking lot replaced the edifice of St. George Church.

may have observed the wedding feast of Ladislaus Kiszkunas and Carolina Kazlauckaite, which was contracted on 20 Nov. 1904, Sunday, early in the afternoon, in St. George Church, while Sinclair was still visiting Carey’s dump. Sinclair’s bride Ona Lukoszis in The Jungle “was so young—not quite sixteen” (FE 2; Ch 1). It might be that in this case the artistic inducement was more important for Sinclair than the real-life age of the bride (Kazlauckaite, for instance, was 23); all the other brides on that specific date in all Lithuanian parishes were 20 years old or older as well.

___________________________________________________________

This page intentionally left blank

FOUR Conclusion There are volumes written about The Jungle and the Chicago stockyards. Many of them are literary, historical, economical, and political studies of both Sinclair’s fiction and the meatpacking industry. My intent was to focus primarily on the Lithuanian characteristics of The Jungle, on analyzing Sinclair’s possible sources and methods for gathering material among the Lithuanians in Chicago, and on the way he embedded those findings in his novel. Sinclair openly declared that he had “not invented the smallest detail” and that he had “imagined nothing” (Sinclair, 1906b, 1129) in his novel. This is helpful to know—the novel itself becomes the foundation for real-life historical considerations. An analysis of Sinclair’s use of the Lithuanian language gives us insights into how he collected the material he used in the novel, just as an analysis of the topography of his novel ties it to the turn-of-the-century Chicago neighborhood known as Back of the Yards. Sinclair observed a Lithuanian wedding and was blissfully mesmerized by it. This was the most emotionally emphasized episode of Lithuanian life that Sinclair wrote of; his emotion was reiterated throughout the rest of Sinclair’s long life. The first chapter of The Jungle, which described this wedding, became the most Lithuanian one in its description of the wedding customs and in the use of Lithuanian words (46 out of a total of 69 Lithuanian words used in the novel, which were used 68 times in the wedding chapter out of a total of 194 times throughout the book). Another important source for Sinclair’s information about Lithuania was Ernest Poole’s story, told as though through the lips of a Lithuanian named Antanas Kaztauskis. Sinclair used certain details from Poole’s text inter alia to depict his characters’ life back in Lithuania, slightly altering things and in this way camouflaging his source. Details of life in Lithuania constituted part of the second chapter, which was the chronological beginning of The Jungle. The structure of The Jungle clearly supports the idea that these two sources (the real-life wedding and Kaztauskis’s story) were the main inspirations for Sinclair choosing to use Lithuanians instead of some other ethnic group. Sinclair provided these details in the very beginning chapters. Apparently, in the following chapters, Sinclair ran out of Lithuanian data. Yet of those two sources, the wedding remains the stronger contender for the title of the decisive source of inspiration. It is quite credible that Sinclair selected Lithuanians as characters for the novel solely because of the Lithuanian wedding he encountered incidentally.

84

Giedrius Subačius

Sinclair used the Lithuanian language to make the Lithuanian aura conspicuous in The Jungle. He interposed Lithuanian words, phrases, and names in his English text. The Lithuanian language might be considered a device that Sinclair employed to embed Lithuanian color in his novel. He understood that language might help give his story a concrete setting and tie it to the immigrant nature of his characters. In Kaztauskis’s story, Poole used and even quoted Lithuanian publications from Chicago, such as Brandukas’s poem and the newspaper Katalikas. Nevertheless, there were almost no Lithuanian words used in Poole’s text. Sinclair did not follow Poole’s example—in contrast, he used a significant number of Lithuanian words and collected them mostly in an oral rather than visual way—from the spoken, not from the written language. I have found no evidence that Sinclair used any printed Lithuanian newspapers or books. Even the text of the “Union’s Warning in Five Languages” with the Lithuanian translation “Zine,” of which Sinclair was well aware, left no Lithuanian linguistic traces in The Jungle. Sinclair may have asked Lithuanians to inscribe words or names in his three thick notebooks that would perish in the Helicon Hall fire in 1907. Sinclair was a polyglot or “language lover”; he could read in at least five languages by the time he was composing The Jungle. His demonstration of his knowledge of the Lithuanian language was also Sinclair’s self-expression. Probably Sinclair was a better specialist in the field of Lithuanian linguistics than Poole (in contrast, Poole had better expertise in the field of Lithuanian history). Sinclair discovered the phenomenon of the Lithuanian language himself and explored it with pleasure. If we had to find “a Lithuanian linguist” working in field research conditions in Back of the Yards in 1904—there was Upton Sinclair. He joined in the singing—in Lithuanian, but it didn’t matter to him. Sinclair’s enthusiasm for attracting the attention of his readers to Lithuanian, however, never led him to any deeper studies of this language—except for the notes he made or words he remembered while in Chicago, Sinclair did not attempt a more profound mastery of Lithuanian. In the 1905 publication of The Jungle in installments, Sinclair captured more Lithuanian dialectal features and all of the linguistic particularities were more inconsistent than in the later book edition of 1906. After the revision, the 1906 edition became closer to the nascent Lithuanian standard and more consistent in terms of its language. It is plausible that some Lithuanians helped him to transform his linguistic field research data into the more standardized Lithuanian written language in 1906. If we term Sinclair’s novel Lithuanian, then the 1905 serial should get the attribute Dialectal and the 1906 edition—Standard. Sinclair denied that he had opted for any concrete Lithuanians as models for his characters. Yet an analysis of the Lithuanian proper names reveals the actual people who were owners of these names. The limited

FOUR. Conclusion

85

number of Lithuanian surnames Sinclair could physically collect in Chicago makes us believe that he personally knew most of the Lithuanians whose surnames he utilized for his fiction. With certainty I have traced down quite a few people—name-donors—that Sinclair selected to name the characters of The Jungle after. Names of the known individuals Andrius L. Graičiūnas (a physician), Joseph Kuszlejko (a saloon keeper), Anton Bierzynski (idem), Frank Szedwill (idem), and Charles Yasatis (a molder) were extremely rare in Chicago. Therefore, they were the only exposures for Sinclair’s ears and eyes; the probability that Sinclair used the surnames of these people to name his protagonists is very strong. The name Grajczunas was used for a saloon keeper; Kuszlejka—for a violin player; Biarczynskas—for a laborer; Szadwilas—for the owner of a delicatessen store; Jasaitis—for the beauty of the wedding, a laborer. Sinclair endeavored to camouflage the name-donors’ personalities. I also found at least three candidates for a surname-donor title for the protagonist Jurgis Rudkos (1905) or Rudkus (1906): (1) Joseph Rudkos, a day laborer in Chicago; (2) Kasmierz Rutkus, a laborer in Chicago; (3) Karolis Rutkus; a socialist editor in Cleveland. There is no way to firmly reject either of the three candidates, but apparently the most wellknown was the socialist Karolis Rutkus from Cleveland. The first name of the protagonist Jurgis is too much alike in written form to the novel’s title word Jungle to believe it is a mere coincidence. The alliteration/assonance that Sinclair used skillfully to camouflage some of the English names is also apparent in Jurgis—Jungle. It matches Sinclair’s pattern of three coinciding letters very exactly: Ju.g..—Ju.g.. Hence, the main first name of the story covertly captures the metaphor of the title; in effect, the name Jurgis locks a symbolic “jungle” in itself. During the search for the real-life Lithuanians that Sinclair based his names upon, I also investigated the locations Sinclair “reported” on. Sinclair did not intend to give away precise addresses of the locations where his characters lived, celebrated, met other people, and worked. But he did not intend to distort any details either—thus, sometimes we can “do the work for him”—and uncover concrete locations that he had, to a certain degree, intentionally camouflaged. In my analysis I tried to locate those places as accurately as I could. In one article Sinclair mentioned Carey’s dump: “I had been over to inspect Tom Carey’s dump ... I noticed a crowd in front of a saloon” (Sinclair, 1906b, 1132). The same dump was also described in chapter two and chapter nine of The Jungle (FE 23, 24, 82). The search for the location of this particular dump out of at least four possible candidates revealed the site—the dump was confined within these streets: 47th on the south, Robey (today Damen) on the east, 46th on the north, and railroad tracks on the west (cf. Fig. 8, dump No. 2).

86

Giedrius Subačius

Sinclair placed his fictitious Panei Aniele Juknos’s boarding house, where Jurgis and his family lodged in at the very beginning of their stay in America, in the Back of the Yards neighborhood. According to my study of The Jungle topography, this imagined boarding house had to be adjacent to the intersection of South Wood and 46th Streets. Returning from Carey’s dump, Sinclair spotted the Lithuanian wedding procession. Sinclair’s experience of the wedding feast was transformed into the first chapter of The Jungle. Details of the locations of the dump and Panei Aniele’s fictitious boarding house also helped to trace a possible site for the saloon where the wedding feast took place. The former Kuszlejko’s and Bierzynski’s saloons match Sinclair’s topography quite precisely. Moreover, the names of these two saloon keepers were each taken and given to a character in The Jungle. Sinclair bestowed these names upon the fictitious characters of the violin player and Jurgis’s cousin (a laborer). Yet the configuration and the parameters of the rear room of the saloon as described in The Jungle fits Kuszlejko’s hall parameters more precisely. Thus, hypothetically, the real-life wedding that Sinclair observed may have taken place in the rear room of Joseph Kuszlejko’s saloon at 4558 South Paulina Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. We can also assume with some certainty that the real-life wedding ceremony may have taken place in the Lithuanian church of St. George, on the northwest corner of 33rd and Auburn (today Lituanica) Streets. At that moment Sinclair was still inspecting the dump. This is how I see the construction of The Lithuanian Jungle. My main focus was the Lithuanian sources, language, surnames, name-donors, and locations as described in The Jungle. All the detail provided in my study help the reader feel himself in Sinclair’s shoes. It also helps us map The Jungle on today’s Chicago landscape. It sets both the Lithuanian Chicago of 1904 and The Jungle closer to our experience. Algie Simons, a friend of Sinclair’s, wrote that “in this book the real characters are social classes and industrial conditions.” Even so, the characters of The Jungle are Lithuanians. Not Lithuanians as a somewhat distant or alien group in the panorama of Chicago in the beginning of the twentieth century, but the Lithuanians like other ethnic groups— encompassing characteristics of various similar immigrant communities. *** I ask myself: who reads The Jungle now, now that a hundred years have passed? My experience is that it is not just students of American literature in English departments that study Sinclair’s novel. I have about sixty American students each term in my Lithuanian Culture class at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and when I ask them about The Jungle, approximately 10 to 20 percent claim to have read the novel in high school. My colleague, Professor Leon Fink of the Department of History at our university, confirmed that his students diligently study The Jungle

FOUR. Conclusion

87

as part of a study of labor history. A friend of mine, Professor Randy Richards, who teaches business ethics at St. Ambrose University in Davenport, Iowa, maintains that one of the most popular books in the elective reading list for his classes still remains Sinclair’s The Jungle. Am I a part of such an experience? I have to make a clean breast that I was not, until Sinclair “met” me in Chicago one day. Elizabeth Novickas, a friend of mine, told me once: “I have always wondered why Lithuanians in Lithuania know so little about The Jungle—the novel is so famous, after all, and it is about Lithuanians!” She used to ask many of the recent immigrants if they had read The Jungle and the typical answer was no! A reformulation of her question—if they at least knew of The Jungle— received mixed answers—many seemed to have heard of it at least. As I was beginning to get involved in my research of the Lithuanian linguistic features of The Jungle, I realized that I myself used to be one of those Lithuanians from Lithuania. Really, why were I and my generation in then Soviet Lithuania almost totally unfamiliar with The Jungle? After all, there were at least five Lithuanian editions of the novel: (1) Raistas (1908, Chicago), (2) Pelkės (1908, Vilnius), (3) Raistas (1912, Chicago), (4) Raistas (1939, New York), (5) Džiunglės (1948, Kaunas). I recall that in my home in Kaunas, my parents had lots of books. Both of them had degrees in literary criticism from Vilnius and Vytautas Magnus (Kaunas) universities, and it was their passion to get as many “good” books as possible. I always knew that we had the book titled Džiunglės. I used to stay in my bed longer on Sunday mornings and look at the different book spines on the surrounding bookshelves. As a child, I liked the spines that were multicolor and beautifully decorated. I used to check out the books I liked, sometimes I read them if they were in accord with my expectations. I remember a book with a blue spine with stamped golden ornaments on it. To my disappointment it was in French (I could not read it), but even today I can still picture it in my imagination very clearly. But the book Džiunglės was not the kind that arrests your attention—just an old yellowish paper spine. It was the 1948 Lithuanian edition of The Jungle. My parents had purchased it long before I was born. In my childhood, I never knew that this was a novel about Lithuanians, not to mention that it was a very famous piece of literature in the other end of the world. I don’t know if my parents knew that the characters in Džiunglės were Lithuanians; at least they never told me that. Several years ago I asked my father if he still had the book Džiunglės. I have received a precious gift from him—the fifty year old book with the pages still uncut. When Elizabeth asked me about the reasons for the undeniably limited knowledge of The Jungle by Lithuanians from the old country, my guess then was that the intellectuals of Soviet Lithuania did not trust those American books that the Soviets were eager to translate into Lithuanian (the 1948 edition was published during one of the worst years of Stalin’s

88

Giedrius Subačius

regime in Lithuania). Intellectuals often turned their noses up at the very word socialism; they probably believed that socialist ideas were not the best thing they could obtain from America, and that if the Soviets were offering that book in Lithuanian translation, its purpose could be deceitful—to present a distorted image of American life. In any case, the Lithuanians had way too much of their own socialism at the time. In addition to what I was reflecting then, my guess today is that Lithuanians from Lithuania did not relate closely to the Lithuanians in Chicago, especially during the time of the Iron Curtain, since their experiences were utterly different. Even with Sinclair’s socialist ideas, the book was published only once in Soviet Lithuania—in contrast to the three preWorld War II editions in Lithuanian published in the United States. American Lithuanians relate to The Jungle much more than Lithuanians in Lithuania. Eleven years have passed since I first came to Chicago. When I first read The Jungle my emotion was—is it possible that the city I live in was the city of Jurgis Rudkos? Are these the same urban entities? Only 100 years apart? The beauty and the beast... But when you turn the beast into a handsome youngster, isn’t something lost?.. Many things have changed in Chicago. Carey’s dump is no more and Kuszlejko’s saloon, which could have hosted the Lithuanian wedding feast, no longer exists. Even the most plausible location for the wedding of the Lithuanian couple—the majestic edifice of St. George Church— was torn down. There are no stockyards anymore. The entire Lithuanian community of Back of the Yards has left. I wonder how many photographs focusing on the Lithuanian community in Back of the Yards might yet survive from the very beginning of the twentieth century? There are many pictures from the Chicago stockyard strike in 1904 kept in the Chicago Historical Society’s archives; some of them are even available on-line by now (at Photographs from the Chicago Daily News, 1902–1933: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpco op/ichihtml; accessed on 27 Sep. 2005). But I mean pictures of the Lithuanian community that Sinclair chose to write about. Private archives of the people who fled the neighborhood long ago. Pictures of concrete people (the name-donors), whose names Sinclair had recycled in his novel, like the photograph of Joseph Kuszlejko in his saloon from Elizabeth Kuszlejko’s archive (cf. Fig. 16), or pictures of important buildings, like the picture of Kuszlejko’s saloon from Marlene (Trakselis) Feldhaus’s collection (cf. Fig. 12). And why not a picture of the bride and groom from the wedding Sinclair observed? Why not let our fantasy fly and imagine that Sinclair himself could have made their photograph? If he was returning from a “photo session” at Carey’s dump and accidentally ran into the wedding, he was probably still carrying his camera (what camera could there be in

FOUR. Conclusion

89

1904?). If he was not allowed to take a picture of the dump, couldn’t he have used his saved photo materials to take a picture of the bride and the groom, or of the entire celebration? (The policeman who was inside the wedding hall would have allowed him to take a picture, in contrast to the policeman outside who did not let Sinclair immortalize Carey’s dump... Or perhaps that was the same policeman inside, who might not need to guard the dump from photographers any more because of the coming dusk?) After all, Sinclair was so excited about the wedding. Why couldn’t he have shared his pictures with his Lithuanian friends, even if his own photographs might have vanished in the Helicon Hall fire? The webpage Photographs from the Chicago Daily News, 1902– 1933, which contains pictures that might help visualize The Jungle, reads: “a search on Lithuanian provides only one image; searches on other European nationalities, such as Polish, German, and Scandinavian, provide evidence that many immigrants like the Rudkus family came to Chicago in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries” (http://memory.loc.go v/ammem/ndlpedu/collections/chicago/langarts3.html; accessed on 27 Sep. 2005). Are there still more private archives to be uncovered that contain images of the Lithuanian community that Sinclair observed?

___________________________________________________________

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography American Contractor, 14 Sep. 1901: 22; 27 Jun. 1903: 26. Chicago Historical Society. Barrett, James R. (1988a), “Introduction,” The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair; (ed.) J. R. Barrett. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, xi–xxxiii. –––––– (1988b), “Notes,” The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair; (ed.) J. R. Barrett. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 335–353. –––––– (1990), Work and Community in the Jungle: Chicago’s Packinghouse Workers, 1894–1922. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Bloodworth, William A., Jr. (1977), Upton Sinclair. Boston: Twayne Publishers. Breckinridge, Sophonisba P., and Edith Abbott (1911), “Housing Conditions in Chicago, III: Back of the Yards,” The American Journal of Sociology, 16.4: 433–468. Budreckis, Algirdas M. (ed.) (1976), The Lithuanians in America, 1651– 1975: A Chronology and Fact Book. Dobbs Ferry, New York: Oceana Publications. Chicago Directory. 1899, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906. DeGruson, Gene (ed.) (1988), The Lost First Edition of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. Memphis, Atlanta: Peachtree Publishers. Eby, Clare Virginia (ed.) (2003), The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair, 1906. New York, London: W. W. Norton and Company. The Encyclopedia of Chicago. (Eds.) James R. Grossman, Ann Durkin Keating, and Janice L. Reiff. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Federal Censuses. 1900, 1910. Microfilms: Roll T623–267; Roll T623– 254; Roll T623–252; Roll T 623–287; Roll T623–288; Roll T 623–290. Chicago Newberry Library. Gregg (Grigonis), Tom (2002), “The Truth about ‘The Jungle’,” Lithuanian Heritage, 9.1: 12–15, 25. Halpern, Rick (1997), Down on the Killing Floor; Black and White Workers in Chicago’s Packinghouses, 1904–54. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Harris, Leon (1975), Upton Sinclair: American Rebel. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. Jablonsky, Thomas J. (1993), Pride in the Jungle: Community and Everyday Life in Back of the Yards. Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University Press. KATALIKAS: Savaitinis Laikrasztis paszvenstas reikalams LietuviųKatalikų Amerikoje [CATHOLIC: A Weekly Newspaper Committed to the Cause of the Catholic Lithuanians in America].

92

Giedrius Subačius

KOVA: Organas Lietuviu socijalistu partijos Amerikoje [BATTLE: An Organ of the Lithuanian Socialist Party in America], Philadelphia. Kreuter, Kent, and Gretchen Kent (1969), An American Dissenter: The Life of Algie Martin Simons, 1870–1950. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press. Laurinčiukas, Albertas (1981), “Vstrecha s Eptonom Sinklerom na nive lituanistiki” [“Meeting Upton Sinclair on the ground of Lithuanistica”], Litva literaturnaja, 3: 159–165. LIETUVA: Savaitinis Laikrasztis, Išeina kas Pétnyčią [LITHUANIA: A Weekly Newspaper, Published Fridays], Chicago. Lietuvių enciklopedija [Lithuanian Encyclopedia]. 37 vols. Boston: Lietuvių Enciklopedijos Leidykla, 1953–85. Lietuvių kalbos žodynas [Dictionary of Lithuanian]. 20 vols. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla; Mintis; Mokslas; Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla; Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas; Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 1956–2002. Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas [Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames]. By Aleksandras Vanagas, Vitalija Maciejauskienė, and Marytė Razmukaitė. 2 vols. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985–89. Lietuvos TSR Bibliografija: Serija A. Knygos lietuvių kalba [Bibliography of Lithuanian SSR: Ser. A. Books in Lithuanian]. Vol. 2.2. Vilnius: Mintis, 1988. Marital Records of Lithuanian Parishes in Chicago: Providence of God; St. Joseph; Holy Cross; St. Rose of Lima. Microfilms: FHL 17047, item 4; FHL 1602781, item 8; FHL 1763441, item 1–5; FHL 1711274, Item 2. Family History Library. Mookerjee, R. N. (1988), Art for Social Justice: The Major Novels of Upton Sinclair. Metuchen, N.J., London: Scarecrow. Musteikis, Antanas (1971), “The Lithuanian Heroes of The Jungle,” Lituanus, 17.2: 27–38. Photographs from the Chicago Daily News, 1902–1933; http://memory. loc.gov/ammem/ndlpcoop/ichihtml; http://memory.loc.gov/amme m/ndlpedu/collections/chicago/langarts3.html; accessed on 27 Sep. 2005. Poole, Ernest (1904a), “Antanas Kaztauskis: From Lithuania to the Chicago Stockyards—An Autobiography,” The Independent, 4 Aug. 1904: 241–248. –––––– (1904b), “The Meat Strike,” The Independent, 28 Jul. 1904: 179–184. –––––– (1940), The Bridge: My Own Story. New York: Macmillan. ProQuest Historical Newspapers Chicago Tribune (1849–1985), at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb.

Bibliography

93

___________________________________________________________ Records of Building Permits for Permanent Structures. 1901, 1903. Microfilms, Roll 13. Chicago Historical Society. Registrum matrimoniorum in Ecclesia Sancti Georgii Martyris, Chicago, Ill, 1904. Microfilms: FHL 1711278, item 3. Archdiocese of Chicago’s Joseph Cardinal Bernardin Archives and Records Center. Scriabine, Christine Brendel (1973), Upton Sinclair: Witness to History, Thesis, Jun. 1973. –––––– (1981), “Upton Sinclair and the Writing of The Jungle,” Chicago History: The Magazine of the Chicago Historical Society, 10.1: 27–37. Šešplaukis, Alfonsas (1977), “Lithuanians in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle,” Lituanus, 23.2: 24–31. Simons, A. M. (1899), Packingtown. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr. –––––– (1906), “Packingtown, ‘The Jungle’ and Its Critics,” The International Socialist Review, 6.12: 712–714. Sinclair, Upton (1902a), “On the Teaching of Languages,” The Independent, 27 Feb. 1902: 493–497. –––––– (1902b), “Language Study: Some Facts,” The Independent, 19 Jun. 1902: 1472–1477. –––––– (1905), The Jungle: A Story of Chicago [First version, printed in installments in Appeal to Reason (Girard, Kansas, U.S.)]. 25 Feb.–4 Nov. 1905. –––––– (1906a), The Jungle. New York: Doubleday, Page. –––––– (1906b), “Is ‘The Jungle’ True?,” The Independent, 17 May 1906: 1129–1133. –––––– (1908), Raistas [The Jungle]. Chicago: Naujokas. –––––– (1908), Pelkės: Apysaka iš lietuvių darbininkų gyvenimo Amerikoje [The Jungle: A Story of the Lithuanian Workers’ Life in America]. Vilnius: M. Kuktos sp. –––––– (1912), Raistas [The Jungle]. Antras leidimas [Second Edition]. Chicago (Ill.): Spauda “Lietuvos.” –––––– (1939), Raistas. Pataisytas ir papildytas lietuvių kalbon vertimas [The Jungle. Improved and Expanded Translation into Lithuanian]. Brooklyn, New York: Dienraščio “Laisvės” leidinys. –––––– (1948), Džiunglės [The Jungle]. Translated by Antanas Milukas. [Kaunas]: Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla. –––––– (1962), The Autobiography of Upton Sinclair. New York: Harcourt, Brace. –––––– (1965a), “Preface to ‘The Jungle’ By Upton Sinclair,” typescript manuscript. Upton Sinclair Collection. Box 12. Lilly Library, Indiana University, Bloomington. –––––– (1965b), “Foreword,” The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. New York: Heritage, v–xi.

94

Giedrius Subačius

–––––– (1969), American Outpost: A Book of Reminiscences. Port Washington, N.Y., London: Kennikat. ––––––, “Introduction to The Jungle By Upton Sinclair,” typescript manuscript. Upton Sinclair Collection. Box 12. Lilly Library, Indiana University, Bloomington. Širvydas, Vytautas (1968), “Jo pyktis pasiekė visus kompaso kampus” [“His Anger Reached All Corners of the Compass”], Vienybė, 6 Dec. 1968. Subačius, Giedrius (1991), “Simonas Daukantas: rašybos ir kūrybinių interesų kitimas” [“Simonas Daukantas: Changes in Orthography and in Creative Interests”], in: Iš Lietuvos istorijos tyrinėjimų, Vilnius: Academia, 58–64. –––––– (2003), “XVIII–XIX amžiaus lietuviškų tekstų grafemos ir <J>” [“Graphemes and <J> in the Lithuanian Texts of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries”], Archivum Lithuanicum, 5: 227–262. –––––– (2004), “Double Orthography in American Lithuanian Newspapers at the Turn of the Twentieth Century,” in: Philip Baldi, and Pietro U. Dini (eds.), Studies in Baltic and Indo-European Linguistics: In honor of William R. Schmalstieg. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s, 189–201. Suh, Suk Bong (1987), “Lithuanian Wedding Traditions in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle,” Lituanus, 33.1: accessed through the Internet on 12 Dec. 2002, at: www.lituanus.org/1987/87_1_01.htm. –––––– (1997), Upton Sinclair and The Jungle: A Study of American Literature, Society, and Culture. Seoul: American Studies Institute, Seoul National University. Swist, Jeannette (2005), An e-mail letter to Giedrius Subačius, 11 Nov. 2005. “Union’s Warning in Five Languages,” Chicago Tribune, 16 Jul. 1904: 2. Venclova, Antanas (1931), Upton Sinclair: Gyvenimo ir kūrybos bruožai [Upton Sinclair: His Life and Works]. Kaunas. –––––– (1965), “ ‘Džiunglės’ – gyva knyga” [“The Jungle—a Living Book”], Pergalė, 6: 158–168. VIENYBE LIETUVNĮKŲ [LITHUANIAN UNITY: A Lithuanian Newspaper], Plymouth, Pennsylvania. Wright, Carrol D. (1905), “Influence of Trade Unions on Immigrants,” Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor, 56.

___________________________________________________________

Abbreviations FE—First Edition (=DeGruson, Gene (ed.) (1988), The Lost First Edition of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. Memphis, Atlanta: Peachtree Publishers); when quoted, two figures are usually used: the first one indicates page number and the second—the number of a chapter; in certain cases a bare page number of FE is added to a quoted Lithuanian word. LKŽ—Lietuvių kalbos žodynas [Dictionary of Lithuanian]. 20 vols. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla; Mintis; Mokslas; Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla; Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas; Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 1956–2002. LPŽ—Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas [Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames]. By Aleksandras Vanagas, Vitalija Maciejauskienė, and Marytė Razmukaitė. 2 vols. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985–89. SL—Standard Lithuanian.

This page intentionally left blank

Index Words, word forms, suffixes, flexions, and names discussed in this book are in italic font.

A -a, 45 Abbott, Edith, 59, 60, 62, 63, 91 aczaviuas, 21, 26, 31, 34 acziavimas, 21, 31 Ai, 21, 26, 29, 31 -ait-, 32 -aitis, 52 Alena, 22, 32 Alexandra, 17 Anderson, 37 Anelė, 27, 57 Angela, 57 Aniele, 22, 27, 30, 34 Ann, 57 ant, 20 Antanas, 17, 22, 34, 57 Anthony, 57 Anysas, Jurgis, v Armour, 37 -as, 46, 48 -atis, 52 Aukszcziausis, 20, 24

B Baldi, Philip, 94 Balzekas, Stanley Jr., v Barrett, James R., 4, 13, 31, 39, 65, 66, 67, 69, 91 Beda, 21, 29 Berčinskas, 45, 48 Berčinskis, 45 Berczynskas, 22, 32, 45 Berczynski, 45, 46, 48, 49 Berczynski, Anna, 45, 46 Berczynski, Frank, 46 Berczynski, Helena, 46 Berczynski, John, 45, 46

Berczynski, Joseph, 45 Berczynski, Lucy, 46 Berczynski, Margaret, 46 Berczynski, Mary, 45 Berczynski, Stanley, 46 Beržinskas, 47, 48 bet, 11 Bialowicza, 22, 26, 31, 32 Bialowieza, 31 Biarczynskas, 22, 24, 32, 45, 47, 48, 52, 54, 56, 85 Biarczynski, 45 biednam, 20 Bierczynskas, 45 Bierczynski, 45 Bierzinski, 46 Bierzinskis, 47, 48 Bierżinskis, 47 Bierzinskis, Antanas J., 46, 49; see Bierzynski, Anton Bierżinskis, Antanas J., 47, 55; see Bierzynski, Anton Bierzynski, 47, 48 Bierzynski, Annie, 46 Bierzynski, Anton (also Bierzinskis, Antanas J.; Bierżinskis, Antanas J.; Bjernski, Anton), 46, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 79, 85, 86 Binkis, Paul, v Binkis, Susan, v Bjernski, Anton, 73; see Bierzynski, Anton Bloodworth, William A., Jr., 21, 91 Brandukas, 17 Brandukas, P., 11, 84; see Tumasonis, Petras brangiausis, 20 Brazauskas, 76 Brazauskiene, 75

98

Giedrius Subačius

Breckinridge, Sophonisba P., 59, 60, 62, 63, 91 Brelovicz, 22, 26, 31, 32 brongiausis, 20 Brown, 37 Budreckis, Algirdas M., 20, 91 Bush (Brazauskas), Jean, v, 75, 76

C Carey, Thomas, 7, 37, 59, 63, 64, 67, 77, 81, 85, 88, 89 Cassidy, 37 Catharine, 57 Christopher, 57 Chura, Patrick, v Corydon (Sinclair’s wife), 3 Cushman, Charles W., 68 Czia, 21, 29

D darzas, 20, 41, 64 Daukantas, Simonas, 94 Dede, 20, 32 DeGruson, Gene, 6, 31, 32, 36, 37, 91, 95 Dekui, 21, 29 Diedas, 20, 32, 33, 34, 35 Dievas, 31 Dieve, 21, 26, 31 Diewes, 21, 26, 29, 31, 34 Dini, Pietro U., 94 Durham, 37 duris, 20, 25, 32 durys, 20, 25, 32 Durys, 21

E -e, 30, 31 -ė, 30 Eby, Clare Virginia, v, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 37, 91 Eik, 20, 29, 33 Eiksz, 20, 26, 33 -ek, 30 Elena, 57

Elizabeth, 57 Elzbieta, 22, 27, 34 Elžbieta, 27, 57 -es, 31 Ezerski, Joseph John, 74 Ezerski, Loretta, v, 73, 74, 75

F Feldhaus (Trakselis), Marlene, v, 70, 75, 88 Fink, Leon, 86

G Gehl, Paul F., v George, 57 Girdenis, Aleksas, v Graičiūnas, 45 Graičiūnas, Andrius L. (also Graiczunas, Andrew L.), 42, 43, 51, 56, 68, 85 Graicziau, 20, 23, 24, 26 Graiczunas, 22, 26, 32, 41, 43 Graiczunas, Andrew L., 41, 42, 55, 56; see Graičiūnas, Andrius L. Graiczunas, Ursula, 41 Graiczunas, Vitold, 42 Grajczunas, 22, 24, 26, 32, 41, 42, 43, 45, 50, 52, 56, 67, 85 Gregg (Grigonis), Tom, 10, 38, 78, 91 greičiau, 23 Grossman, James R., 91 gukcziojimas, 19, 21, 24, 25, 29

H Halpern, Rick, 4, 91 Harris, Leon, 35, 91 Hedwig, 57 Helen, 57 Hunter, Estelle B., 60, 62, 78

I -i, 30 -ie, 23

Index -ien-, 30, 32 -insk-, 48 ir, 20 ira, 21, 25, 29 -is, 48, 53 isz, 21, 29

J Jablonsky, Thomas J., 65, 67, 91 Jacob, 57 Jadviga, 22, 26 Jadvyga, 22, 25, 26, 32, 57 Jadwiga, 22, 25, 26, 32 Jasaitis, 22, 32, 52, 54, 85 Jasaityte, 22, 32, 52 Jog, 20, 25 John, 51, 57 Jokubas, 22, 25 Jokūbas, 57 Jonas, 22, 51, 57 Jones, 37 Joseph, 57 jukai, 21, 22, 23, 26, 29, 31 Jukna, 30, 32, 53 Jukniene, 22, 30, 31, 32, 53 Juknos, 22, 30, 32, 53, 54 Juknys, 53 Jungle, 57, 85 juokai, 23 Juozas, 22, 57 Jurgis, 22, 25, 38, 57, 85

K Kaczynski, 48 Kas, 21, 25, 29 Kasper, William, 70 Katalikas, 17 Kazlauckaite, Carolina, 79, 81 Kazlauskas, 11 Kazłauskis, 11, 17 Kaztauskis, 11, 17 Kaztauskis, Antanas, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 83, 84, 92 Keating, Ann Durkin, 91 kelio, 21, 29 Kezys, Algimantas, v, 80 Kiszkunas, Ladislaus, 79, 81

99 Klumbytė, Neringa, v Kotrina, 22 Kotryna, 57 Kreuter, Gretchen, 14, 92 Kreuter, Kent, 14, 92 Kristoforas, 22, 57 Kurczaba, 48 Kušleika, 45 Kuszleika, 22, 43 Kuszleiko, 26, 44 Kuszleiko, J., 44; see Kuszlejko, Joseph Kuszlejka, 22, 24, 26, 43, 44, 45, 50, 52, 54, 56, 85 Kuszlejko, 44 Kuszlejko, Aggie, 43 Kuszlejko, Agnes, 77 Kuszlejko, Edward, 77 Kuszlejko, Elizabeth, v, 75, 76, 77, 88 Kuszlejko, Joseph (also Kuszleiko, J.), 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 55, 56, 67, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 85, 86, 88 Kuszlejko, Mary, 43, 76, 77 Kuszlejko, Ted, 77 Kuzminas, Ignatius, 79 kvietkeli, 20, 26

L laime, 20, 26 Laurinčiukas, Albertas, 2, 3, 9, 92 Liucija, 57 Lucija, 22, 30 Lucy, 57 Lukošis, 53 Lukosis, Anthoni, 53, 55, 56 Lukošius, 53 Lukoszaite, 22, 32, 53 Lukoszis, 22, 24, 32, 53, 54 Lukoszius, Louis, 53, 54, 55

M Maciejauskienė, Vitalija, 92, 95 Majauskas, 54 Majauszkiene, 22, 32, 54 Majauszkis, 22, 32, 54

100

Giedrius Subačius

Majevskis, 54 Majewski, 54 mama, 23 man, 20, 21, 29 mano, 21, 29, 34 Marcinkus, 22, 31, 54 Marciukus, 22, 31, 54 Maria, 57 Marija, 22, 25, 57 Matau, 20 Meta (Sinclair’s wife), 35 Michael, 57 Mikolas, 22, 25 Milukas, Antanas, 93 Mookerjee, Rabindra Nath, 4, 10, 92 Morris, 37 Morton, 37 Muma, 21, 22, 23, 29, 34 Musteikis, Antanas, 4, 5, 7, 13, 20, 31, 92 Mustek, 21, 30 Mustok, 21 Mykolas, 57

N Namai, 19, 21, 26 Neumann, Robin, v Nikalojus, 22 Noruniute, Francisca, 79 Novickas, Aida, v Novickas, Elizabeth, v, 47, 87 nusiszypsojimas, 19, 21, 24, 25, 29 Nustok, 21, 30, 31

O -o, 45 obieżyświat, 31 obiezyswiaty, 31 obiezyzasy, 21, 31 Olszewski, 22 Ona, 22, 32, 57 -os, 23, 30, 41 -owicz, 52

P Paczkowski, John, 73 Pagaiksztis, 21 Palauk, 21, 29, 34 panas, 21, 34 panei, 21, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35 Panei, 21, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35 Panel, 30 panelė, 30 pani, 30 Pasilinksminimams, 19, 20, 41, 64 paskyre, 20, 25, 27 paskyrė, 27 Petrulis, Albert, v, 63, 75, 78 poeni, 21, 30 poetiszka, 20, 29 ponas, 21 poni, 21, 30, 31, 34 ponia, 30 Poole, Ernest, 3, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 28, 66, 83, 84, 92, 93 Priespietys, 21, 24, 25, 29 Prieszpietys, 21, 24 Pulejkis, George, 53

R Raczius, 22, 54 Razmukaitė, Marytė, 92, 95 Reiff, Janice L., 91 reik, 20, 26 Richards, Randy, v, 87 Richter, Edwin P., 63, 78 Roczis, 22, 54 Roosevelt, Theodore, xi, 12 rudas, 41 Rudkos, 22, 23, 29, 32, 38, 41, 52, 54, 56 Rudkos, Agnes, 38 Rudkos, Joseph, 38, 39, 40, 41, 50, 53, 55, 56, 79, 85 Rudkos, Joseph, son, 39 Rudkos, Nathalia, 39 Rudkus, 22, 23, 32, 38 Rutkus, 38, 50 Rutkus, Karolis, 39, 40, 41, 42, 55, 56, 68, 85

Index Rutkus, Kasmierz, 38, 39, 40, 41, 55, 56, 85 Rytoj, 21, 25, 29

S Schmalstieg, William R., 94 Scriabine, Christine Brendel, 12, 13, 14, 93 Sebastian, 57 Sebastijonas, 22, 57 Šedvila, 50 Šedvilas, 50 Septyni, 21, 25, 29 Šešplaukis, Alfonsas, 4, 5, 7 Shack, 48 Shedvras, 50 Shedvras, Frank, 50, 55; see Szedwill, Frank Shedwill, 50 Shedwill, Frank, 50, 55; see Szedwill, Frank silpnas, 21, 24 Simons, Algie Martin, 14, 86, 92, 93 Širvydas, Juozas Otas, 40 Širvydas, Vytautas, 40, 43, 94 skatina, 17 Skausmas, 21, 29, 31 Slavic, 3 Slavonian, 3 Šliūpas, Jonas, 40 šluoti, 23 Smith, 37 Stalin, 87 Stanislovas, 22, 57 Stanley, 57 Subačius, Giedrius, 24, 25, 26, 72, 94 Sudiev’, 20, 26 Suh, Suk Bong, 5, 6, 7, 94 Susimilk, 23 Susimilkie, 21, 23, 32 Susimilkis, 21, 22, 23, 29, 32 svieto, 20 Swift, 37 Swist, Jeannette, v, 75, 76, 94 Szadwilas, 22, 24, 26, 32, 50, 52, 54, 56, 85

101 Szalin, 21, 24, 29 Szedvilas, 22, 26, 32, 50 Szedwilas, 50 Szedwilas, Anna, 50 Szedwilas, Anna, daughter, 50 Szedwilas, Frank, 50, 55, 56; see Szedwill, Frank Szedwilas, Frank, son, 50 Szedwill, Frank (also Shedvras, Frank; Shedwill, Frank; Szedwilas, Frank), 56, 85 szilpnas, 21, 24 szirdele, 21, 29, 34 Szlouti, 21, 22, 23, 29, 32 Szluota, 21, 23, 32 Sznapsas, 20, 22, 41

T Tai, 21, 26, 29, 31 tamistai, 21, 26, 29 Tamoszius, 22, 24 teip, 20 Teta, 20, 22, 31, 33, 34, 35 Tom, 37 tu, 20 Tu, 21, 29, 34 Tumasonis, Petras (pseudonym Brandukas, P.), 17

U -ui, 30 -us, 23 Uzdarek, 20, 25, 30 Uzdaryk, 20, 25, 30, 31 Uzderck, 20, 25

V vaidintuve, 20, 26, 27, 29 vaidintuvė, 27 Vaitkutė, Karilė, v Valentanavicze, Jonas, 51, 55; see Valentinowicz, John Valentinavičius, 52 Valentinavyczia, 22, 25, 51, 52 Valentinowicz, 51, 56

102

Giedrius Subačius

Valentinowicz, Anna, 51 Valentinowicz, John (also Valentanavicze, Jonas), 51, 56 Valentinowicz, Pauline, 51 Valentynaicza, 22, 24, 25, 26, 51, 52, 54, 56 Valentynowicz, Charles, 51, 55 Vanagas, Aleksandras, 92, 95 vargt, 20, 26 Venclova, Antanas, 5, 94 veselija, 20, 22, 25, 26, 34 vienam, 20, 26 Vienažindys, Antanas (also Vienažinskis), 17, 29, 43 Vienažinskis, 43; see Vienažindys, Antanas Vilimas, 22, 30, 31 Vilimui, 22, 26, 30 Villimui, 22 Vynas, 20, 25, 26, 41

W Warren, Fred D., 1 Wright, Carrol D., 3, 94

Y Yasatis, 52 Yasatis, Charles, 52, 55, 56, 85 -yn-, 52 -ynsk-, 48, 49 yo’, 11 Yo’, 11 yra, 21, 25 -yt-, 32 Yuknis, 53 Yuknis, Joseph, 53, 54, 55

Z Zalpys, Vilius, v Zarmos, 21 Zarnos, 21, 27 Žarnos, 27