The Lithuanian Translation and Reception of Mór Jókai’s novel And Yet It Moves

The paper briefly discusses contemporary reviews and tries to answer the question of how the Lithuanian reception was influenced by the characteristics of Lithuanian society at the time. The study also examines which Lithuanian literary works show the influence of Jókai’s novel, and analyzes Maironis’s poems Through Pains to Glory [Tarp skausmų į garbę] (1893) and Young Lithuania [Jaunoji Lietuva] (1905), where the similarities in plot and motives with Jókai’s work are so numerous that these works can clearly be considered to be inspired by Jókai; as well as Šatrijos Ragana’s short novels Viktutė (1901) and In the Old Manor House [Sename dvare] (1922), and Liudvika Didžiulienė-Žmona’s For the Fatherland [Del tevynes!] (1893). Finally, it presents documented instances of the use of the novel’s title as a slogan and examines their context. The paper concludes that the success of the work in Lithuania can be explained by similarities in the historical and social development of the two countries and between the social conditions in Hungary pictured in the novel and prevailing in Lithuania at the time of the publication of the translation.


INTRODUCTION
Hungarian-Lithuanian literary relations began to develop rapidly in the second half of the 20th century, when several literary works were translated from and to Lithuanian and Hungarian, mainly thanks to the work of Endre Bojtár, Janina Išganaitytė, and Vitas Agurkis. Surprisingly, however, the Hungarian literary work that has probably had the greatest influence on Lithuanian literature was published in Lithuanian at the end of the 19th century. Mór Jókai's novel And Yet It Moves was published in Lithuania in 1892, translated by Antanas Kriščiukaitis-Aišbė, and not only did it attract the attention of critics but its influence can be seen in many contemporary Lithuanian literary works of the time, moreover, later the title itself was used as a kind of slogan by some figures in the Lithuanian national revival movement.
The novel is one of Jókai's best-known works. The 1870s were one of Jókai's most productive and successful periods. And Yet It Moves was published for the first time after Black Diamonds [Fekete gyémántok] and before The Golden Man [Az arany ember] from 14 December 1870 to 11 November 1871 in the daily newspaper A Hon [The Homeland]. The reviews at that time were not very flattering but the novel's canonization in Jókai's oeuvre was later helped by the fact that it became compulsory reading in secondary schools in 1954.
The work is set in Hungary in the Enlightenment and Reform Era. 1 It tells the story of the national revival movement following the life of a young man, the protagonist Kálmán Jenőy, who, together with his peers, vows to work for the good of their country, and later, after many adventures, becomes a poet, writes his works in misery, dies of consumption, and is only recognized after his death.
Like many of Jókai's works, this one was also quickly published in German translation. For the first time, it was put in installments in the daily Pester Lloyd from 2 January 1871, and then in the feuilleton column of Abendblatt from 27 December 1871, still under the title Eppur si muove -Und sie bewegt sich doch. The first edition appeared in a book form in 1875 (Jókai 1875), and the second edition was printed ten years later (Jókai 1885).
The novel was first published in Polish in Warsaw in 1886, translated by Aleksandra Callier (Jókai 1886). There is no information that Aleksandra Callier knew Hungarian. Since the novel was published in German translation only, apart from the Polish and Lithuanian translations, we can conclude that she translated the novel from German into Polish. The novel was published eight times in Polish (in 1886Polish (in , 1898Polish (in , 1907Polish (in , 1909Polish (in , 1927Polish (in , 1949Polish (in , 1957Polish (in , and 1959, making it one of the most successful novels of Jókai in Poland. In 1957, the novel was again translated into Polish by Camilla Mondral, this time from the Hungarian original. Elaborating on the reasons for Jókai's popularity in Poland, Jan Ślaski writes that the themes of the republished novels are linked to the Reform Era, the struggle for freedom and the Bach Era, 2 i.e. the events of the author's time, and the patriotism and struggle for freedom depicted in Jókai's works were close to the Poles, who were under foreign occupation at that time (Ślaski 1958: 46). István Csapláros has a similar opinion (Csapláros 1978: 38).

THE LITHUANIAN TRANSLATION
Antanas Kriščiukaitis (1864Kriščiukaitis ( -1933 under the pseudonym Aišbė 3 was a professor of law and a writer mainly of satirical works. His writings appeared in many periodicals of the time, including Varpas [The Bell], one of the main organs of the Lithuanian national revival movement. His only collection of short stories, What is Truth is not a Lie [Kas teisybė -tai ne melas] was published in 1892, at the same time as the translation of Jókai's novel. Among the seven short stories in the book, four are original, while three are translated and transposed into a Lithuanian milieu (written by L. Tolstoy, G. Maupassant, and Yu. Fedkovič). The book brought Kriščiukaitis popularity and made him one of the most important Lithuanian writers.
According to Adolfas Sprindis, a scholar of Kriščiukaitis' oeuvre, the significance of this book lies in the fact that it was the first collection of Lithuanian short stories with a completely secular content, in which the author managed to break away from didacticism, moralizing and literary templates, and instead took a critical view of negative phenomena (Sprindis 1974: 16-17 We do not have exact knowledge about the linguistic proficiency of Kriščiukaitis, however, it can be surely stated that like other members of the Lithuanian intelligentsia of the time, he spoke Polish and Russian very well. His field of vision therefore extended to Russian and Polish literary works, including texts translated into these languages. Jókai's novels must have been quite popular and well-known at that time in Lithuania just like in Poland, judging from the fact that in his review of the second edition of the translation in 1923, the poet and critic Adomas Dambrauskas-Jakštas writes that he himself had read 'many novels' by Jókai,  1923: 124). However, Kriščiukaitis in this case probably made his choice based on the topic and not on the author. This was also completely clear to his contemporaries, as it can be seen from the reviews. Kriščiukaitis was interested in the revival movements of other peoples. Writing about the Czech Maticas in Aušra [Dawn], the main organ of the Lithuanian national movement, he stressed that the Czech revival began with the publication of literary works and the study of the mother tongue (Aušra 1988: 16).
In his 1894 work on the Armenian literary writers, he describes the phenomenon of national revival at length, in addition to describing the authors, and finally he addresses the Lithuanians, calling on them to familiarize themselves with the movements of other peoples: "let us go to our neighbours, let us visit the Carpathians, the Danube, the Caucasus, and other corners of Europe, where people want to live and not remain moral cripples -let us get acquainted with small nations that have been reborn, and then we will want to live as a nation and, like each member individually, we will want to follow the giants of the spirit who can awaken the whole nation" (Kriščiukaitis-Aišbė 1974: 237). The translation of And Yet It Moves was thus part of the implementation of Kriščiukaitis' socio-cultural program. This novel by Jókai, which is set in early 19th-century Hungary, was fully topical in late 19th-century Lithuania. While Jókai intended this novel as a pious commemoration, in Lithuania, it could be regarded almost as propaganda literature when it was published.

THE LITHUANIAN EDITIONS
The Lithuanian translation was first published in Tilsit (now Sovetsk, Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia) in 1892, during the press ban after the Polish-Lithuanian uprising of 1863. After the uprising, the printing of Lithuanian-language books in Latin characters was banned in the Russian Empire, so Lithuanian-language texts could only be published in Cyrillic characters. This was done to reduce Polish influence on Lithuanians and to make them easier to Russify. The attempt was unsuccessful, and only a few Lithuanian books in Cyrillic were published. Instead, the Lithuanians printed books in Latin letters in the part of Prussia bordering Russia that was partly inhabited by Lithuanians, and then smuggled them into Russia by the so-called "book carriers" (knygnešys).
There is no publisher or printer's name on the volume but it is stated that it was published "at the expense of two sons of Lithuania". This may indicate that Lithuanian intellectuals collected 30 roubles as an honorarium for Kriščiukaitis because he gave the manuscript to the publisher and book carrier Petras Mikolainis for printing free of charge through Jonas Jablonskis (Krikštaponis 2008). The authorship is marked as: "Written in Hungarian by Maurikis Jokai, briefly narrated in Lithuanian by A.-isz-B". On the cover, one can also find the motto of the novel: "E pur si muove!". The inside cover states that it was authorized by the censors in Vilnius on 20 March 1892. (It is possible that this was forged. It is difficult to imagine that the censors would have authorized such a book which was clearly an incitement against foreign rule and, moreover, had it been authorized by the censors, there would have been no need to publish it in Tilsit.) It runs to 106 pages.
According to most Lithuanian sources, it was published for the second time in 1921 in Berlin by Hypatia Yčienė. Jablonskis states that this is a corrected edition (Jablonskis 1933: 240). Jókai's critical edition, however, lists a certain Otto Elsner as the publisher (Jókai 1965: 392).

THE PREFACE To the Reader
It is a joy and a pleasure for everyone to do something good for our homeland. Such is the fervent love of our country that we want to move everything to our own land in the twinkling of an eye that others can boast of and that would be useful to us. We look at the field where a ploughman is ploughing or a man is bent over mowing a meadow, and we are immediately seized by the desire to see iron ploughs there, to see machines harvesting the grain and cutting the grass. Or again, if we look at industry, science, the fruits of human intellect, talent, and genius -ah! What a joy it is to be a patriot and to present everything to our own people, so that they too may see it, learn from it, and not fall behind others in the struggle for existence! But… but only a barely visible small part of these big, beautiful desires of ours is fulfilled! And no wonder: our powers are still very small, and difficult circumstances and poverty block our way.
Only some of us can benefit from the fruits of human progress. Take literature, for example. When will we be able to read Shakespeare, Mickiewicz, Schiller, and others in our own language? Such giants would not even find a place here. And how do we introduce them to us, how do we introduce them to the people? It takes a lot of intellectual power, talent, and… money! Here I too, your humble servant, have found a beautiful novel, and I wanted to show it to you, so that you may enjoy it, too. But oh, what a misfortune! That beautiful gift is so big! I looked at it this way and that, how could I come to you with it? With so large an object it is not possible to enter: but it would be nice to show it. And I had to make it smaller. But how can you reduce a thing that neither fire nor knife nor water can touch? I broke it up, picked out only the best bits and put them together. And the result is in the form of the original but not so beautiful any more; though its soul remains in the new body, this body is too small for it, and not so beautiful: here and there you see holes.
The author of the original will forgive me that I had to spoil it in order to present it to my compatriots. I was driven to do so only by the desire that the beautiful thoughts of this novel should touch the heart of the Lithuanian, to inspire him to work for the good of his country.
In the preface, the translator leaves no doubt why he chose this work. What is interesting is the overt didactic tendency that was characteristic of 19th-century Lithuanian literature. His explanation of why he had to shorten the work is not entirely clear. It is likely that Kriščiukaitis felt that a novel of about 700 pages, with a fairly wide range of artistic devices, would be 'a hard nut to crack' for Lithuanian readers, who at that time were used to calendars and didactic narratives. Although Kriščiukaitis writes that he has selected the most beautiful passages, in my opinion, he has retained, above all, those that move the plot forward, without which the story would be incomprehensible, and those that relate to patriotic activity and the problems of the national movement.

THE OMITTED AND RETAINED PARTS OF THE TEXT
There are some episodes the translator omits completely, while in other cases, where the original work discusses a topic or event over several pages, Kriščiukaitis takes a few key sentences to describe the essence. In other cases, he summarizes the events in a few sentences in his own words.
The oddest thing is when he describes that he leaves out some parts and describes what these were, that is, what happened to Kálmán during the time he did not tell us about. The omissions sometimes make for rather forced solutions: for example, the farmer Máté Tóth is not mentioned at all, and then he turns up. Máté Tóth, the hard-working, successful, and wealthy peasant must have been a great role model for Lithuanians, therefore, Kriščiukaitis did not want to leave him out, so he tells us in three sentences who Máté Tóth is and what has happened to him so far in the novel.
It is also typical that various metaphors and allegories are usually omitted, probably as unnecessary word multiplication and frills. He also often simplifies long extended and complex sentences. For instance, "And the look of the reciter was completely exalted. He made the audience forget that he was not beautiful, that he had pock-marks: the soul sat on him, starlight was around him" (Jókai 1965: 29); "Borcsay's recitation was excellent" (Kriščiukaitis-Aišbė 1892: 9).
On the whole, it can be said that the translator retains the parts that advance the main plot thread, i.e. Kálmán's career and patriotic activities. The humorous scenes which make Jókai's novel so entertaining are omitted by Kriščiukaitis as superfluous and frivolous. One of the main threads of the novel, Kálmán's love for Dorothea is mentioned but we do not learn that Dorothea is married, nor that Kálmán receives a letter from her on his deathbed.
Kriščiukaitis' method was not unique for that epoch. According to László Szilasi, the English editions of Jókai's novels at the end of the 19th century made the overly proliferating text simpler and clearer, omitting everything that bored (Szilasi 2000: 222). The Lithuanian translator presumably did not make his selection based on the point of interest but to ensure that the humorous digressions did not distract from the patriotic message.
As far as the quality of the translation is concerned, despite the multiple translations, there are hardly any serious factual errors, the text may have been understandable and comprehensible to Lithuanian readers but it probably did not provide the aesthetic experience that a full translation could have provided. The story was more focused on its ideological message, with a propagandistic tinge.

LITHUANIAN REVIEWS
Shortly after its publication in 1892, four reviews of the translation were published, which is quite a lot by the standards of Lithuanian literary life and press at the time. The influential linguist Jonas Jablonskis had a hand in it; he not only contributed to the publication but also helped to promote the work. In addition to writing a review of the work himself, he sent two copies of the translation to Vincas Kudirka, the leading figure in the Lithuanian revival movement with a request to send one to the journal Skaitymai [Readings] and the other to the Švietimo Darbas [Popular Culture] (Jablonskis 1985: 190-191). In 1892, the year of the book's publication, a review by Kazimieras Pakalniškis (his pseudonym is Dėdė Atanazas, i.e. Uncle Athanasius) (Pakalniškis 1971) and Jonas Šliūpas was published (Šliūpas 1892).
In 1893, the year following the publication of the translation, Antanas Kaupas published his review (Kaupas 1893). Adomas Dambrauskas-Jakštas wrote his review five years after the translation was printed (in 1897) but it was not published until 1901 (Jakštas 1901). Jakštas read his review at a student club meeting in 1897, and provoked a very heated debate. The debate revealed that the students held views different from the reviewer's on a number of ideological issues. The second edition of the work published in 1921 was also reviewed by Adomas Jakštas and Jonas Jablonskis. Jakštas published his review earlier, in 1921 (Jakštas 1923, originally published in the journal Draugija). Jablonskis published a review of the book in 1922 (Jablonskis 1933: 240-241) and 1923(Jablonskis 1933. In his 1922 review, he remembers that at the time of its publication, it was read with pleasure by Lithuanian youth. He believes that it speaks volumes for present-day Lithuania, regrets that it is only being published for the second time, and wishes that as many people as possible would read it and that it would stir the sleepy youth who have so little intellectual nourishment for their task. In 1923, he largely repeats what he wrote in his review of the previous year, and takes issue with Jakštas's article of 1921. In his 1921 review, Jakštas asks whether the work can really inspire Lithuanian youth about these ideas, and whether the young people thus inspired will really be able to work for the good of their country if they perceive patriotic activities and prepare for their future vocation in the way the Hungarian youth in the novel did. He says that the young people portrayed in the work are more like hot-headed dreamers and enthusiasts than serious, intelligent, and cautious intellectuals who are prepared to lead their fellow countrymen. The review reveals that Jakštas took too practical an approach to the work, probably as a consequence of the fact that Lithuanian prose in the 19th century was dominated by didactic works. On the other hand, at several points, it turns out that his lack of knowledge of Hungarian history and literature also led to misunderstandings. For example, Jakštas may have misinterpreted the essence of the Chronicle of Csittvár 4 because the names and events mentioned in it only in passing presuppose a shared cultural knowledge and historical awareness. For example, Jakštas blames Kálmán and his companions that by debunking the myths about the Holy Crown, they had not built, only destroyed. However, they are in fact destroying the myths of the feudal nation as the mockery of the "worn-out nobles" shows (Jókai 1965: 25-26), and their aim is to create a more democratic Hungarian society based primarily on the Kuruc 5 and Jacobin traditions and on the Hungarian language and culture.
In his review of the second edition of the translation, he notes that the similarities are clear for all to see between the situation in Hungary depicted in the novel and the situation in Lithuania thirty years ago.
The reviews show that the work divided Lithuanian public opinion along pre-existing ideological-political fault lines: the right-wing, clerical intelligentsia (represented here by Jakštas and Pakalniškis) had some reservations about it (because of the sympathy shown in the novel for the Carbonari, who were identified with the Freemasons), although they also welcomed the general ideology of the novel. The reason for this popularity is the similarity between Lithuanian society at the time of the Lithuanian translation and the Hungarian society depicted in the novel. This similarity relates to foreign oppression, the lack of an independent state and the low prestige and primordial state of the national language and culture.

THE IMPACT OF THE WORK ON LITHUANIAN LITERATURE
In the introduction to the epic poem Young Lithuania [Jaunoji Lietuva] published in 1907 by one of the greatest Lithuanian classical poets, under the pseudonym Maironis (his real name is Jonas Mačiulis, 1862-1932), we read the following exclamation: "Let's get to work fast! / Let's love hotter! / Let's move the earth, men!" ("Tik į darbą greičiau! / Tik mylėkim karščiau! / Tik, vyrai, pajudinkim žemę!") (Maironis 1988: 7). This work is a revised version of the epic poem Through Pains to Glory [Tarp skausmų į garbę] published in 1895. (The latter work was completed in April 1893, immediately after the publication of the translation of Jókai's work, while the first six cantos of Young Lithuania were finished in 1905.) It presents the Lithuanian national revival movement through the self-sacrificing life of a young man. Both poems were extremely popular and had a profound influence on the development of the genre in Lithuanian literature (noted by Slavinskaitė 1988: 453, who cites the opinion of Leonas Gineitis in Lankutis 1979: 166), establishing the heroic national poem characteristic of European literature in the 1820s and 1830s (Pakalniškis 1981: 137, 142, 147). Through Pains to Glory was of decisive importance for the Lithuanian intellectuals of his time (Tumas-Vaižgantas 1924: 108-110, cited by Slavinskaitė 1988, and became part of and even an inspiration for the Lithuanian national movement (Pakalniškis 1981: 141). The influence of And Yet It Moves on Maironis' work is undeniable, despite the fact that Maironis himself claimed to have drawn the subject matter from his own present, he based some things on the events he knew, only changing the names of the characters (Maironis 1988: 345).
Maironis's monographer Vanda Zaborskaitė lists the following similarities (Zaborskaitė 1987: 192-193): both Kálmán Jenőy and the protagonist of Maironis's work, Juozas Rainys (Juozas Vilaitis in the first version) falls in love with a girl from an aristocratic family with whom they cannot love one another because of the difference in social status. However, the protagonist does not fight for his love but gives up his personal happiness to serve the rise of his country. This turn of events is triggered by Kálmán's acquaintance with the Carbonari and Juozas's acquaintance with the Slavic national independence movements. Both are active in the field of culture, and the author poeticizes this activity. However, Zaborskaitė notes that there are several differences between the two works: for example, Maironis's poem is characterized by a romantic-pathetic style, while Jókai's novel is partly humorous. Therefore, Zaborskaitė believes that And Yet It Moves may have both prompted Maironis to imitate it and may have awakened in him a desire to engage in debate.
In addition to the ones mentioned by Zaborskaitė, other connections between the two works can also be discovered. Like Kálmán, Juozas is not a completely lonely hero: together with his friends and fellow students, he is enthusiastic about the country and working for it. He organizes the publication of a Lithuanian-language newspaper with the help of Lithuanian students studying in various cities of the Russian Empire, just as Kálmán publishes a Hungarian-language journal. Like Jókai, Maironis also tells us about the different careers of the friends: at the end of the work, we find out that some of them became professors of medicine, lawyers, historians, or poets. As Zaborskaitė notes, the portrayal of the life of intellectuals is a new theme in Lithuanian literature (Zaborskaitė 1987: 209). Juozas struggles with similar dilemmas like Kálmán as he finds his vocation: Kálmán is disowned by his grandmother partly because he chooses poetry; Juozas is intended to become a priest by his family, so when he decides to study law, he can no longer count on his parents' support. Like Dorothea is learning Hungarian, Juozas's love Marinė (later Jadvyga) Goštautaitė learns Lithuanian (as aristocrats, one of them has German, while the other speaks Polish as their "mother tongue"). Both works end with the protagonist sacrificing himself for his country: Kálmán dies of tuberculosis because of living in misery; in the first version, Juozas is exiled to Siberia, and it is not known whether he is alive or dead; while in the second version, he is imprisoned in Saint Petersburg, where he falls ill with tuberculosis, and then uses borrowed money to treat himself in Davos but soon dies. His body is transported back to Lithuania, a solemn funeral is held, just as Kálmán's grave is found and he is solemnly reburied. Juozas's stay in Davos, death, and burial take place in a reborn Lithuania, after the abolition of the press ban and the 1905 revolution, when Lithuanians had managed to gain certain rights, just as Kálmán's reburial takes place in the imagined happy future, in a reborn Hungary.
We can find similar scenes as well: when Juozas and his friends finish their high school studies, they say goodbye to each other, just like the expelled Hungarian students; then Kálmán and Juozas return home for a short time. Towards the end of Maironis's work, a Tartar appears to pay his respects at the unveiling of the statue of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Vytautas: he reminds a little of Pál Barkó, former fellow of Kálmán, who also appears towards the end of the work at Kálmán's funeral, also attracting attention with his exotic appearance (Maironis 1988: 104, Jókai 1965. In the scene in which the difference in rank between Kálmán and Dorothea and between Juozas and Marinė is discussed as an obstacle, Kálmán and Juozas are both in a carriage talking to their friend in Latin so that the others do not understand them (Maironis 1988: 367-368, Jókai 1965. One of the cantos in the narrative poem begins with a pathetic, ode-like praise of the Slavic national movements. The narrator lists a few activists of the Slavic national revival movements (the Serbian linguist Vuk Karadžić, the Slovak poet, historian, and ethnographer Pavel Josef Šafařik, and the Czech linguist Josef Dobrovský), including, surprisingly, Ferenc Deák (who, by the way, does not really fit in this company). The following lines are revealing: "The Hungarian was not willing to be a prisoner any longer / He wished to see the crown of Saint Stephen / On the head of his kings" ("Ir vengras vergauti toliau nesutiko. / Užsigeidė Stepono švento vainiko / Ant savo karalių galvos" -Maironis 1988: 53). The crown of Saint Stephen plays an important role in the chapter on the Chronicle of Csittvár; we can almost be sure that this is where Maironis learned of its existence and significance. The most important common motif in the two works is the basic idea that the rise of the nation can be achieved through culture; as well as the condemnation of the aristocracy devoid of its original national character and the appeal to the common people.
An important difference between the two works is that while Kálmán comes from a landed gentry family, Juozas is of peasant origin. This change was necessary because the activists of the Lithuanian national movement came from the wealthy peasantry; both protagonists carry autobiographical elements of the authors which also extends to their social origin. Another important difference is that unlike Kálmán, Juozas initially has a "false" national consciousness, identifying with the Polish nation and history, and the Slavic movements make him realize that he is Lithuanian indeed. (It is probable that Maironis processed autobiographical elements here: like Juozas studying in Warsaw, he became acquainted with the Slavic national movements while studying in Kiev. The autobiographical element is also a common feature of the two works since it is well known that Jókai modelled Kálmán Jenőy partly on himself. 6 ) This change was also required because of the application to Lithuanian conditions: as a result of the Polish cultural dominance in the common Polish-Lithuanian state, which had existed for hundreds of years, at the end of the 19th century, only the peasantry had Lithuanian identity, the Lithuanian nobility merged with the Polish, considering the Lithuanian nation and thus itself part of the Polish nation, and those who rose a little higher up the social ladder switched to Polish (the narrator even mentions this in the later version of the poem) (Maironis 1988: 54-55). The roles of Dorothea and Marinė / Jadvyga are also different: apart from learning Hungarian, Dorothea plays a rather inglorious role as Bálvándy's wife, unless her enthusiastic poetry writing is taken into account. On the other hand, Marinė / Jadvyga becomes a supporter of the Lithuanian movement and as a famous pianist enhances Lithuania's reputation.
In light of all this, it seems strange that Adomas Jakštas, who wrote two reviews of the Lithuanian translation of And Yet It Moves, and who has also allegedly read the full Polish translation, considered Juozas and Jadvyga typical Lithuanian characters. He also writes: "From the point of view of the fable, Young Lithuania is unlikely to appeal to the non-Lithuanian reader. Translated into a foreign language it would simply be boring" (Jakštas 1971: 508). Balys Sruoga also considered Juozas a true Lithuanian type unlike Jadvyga (Sruoga 1971).
It is interesting to note that the second version of Maironis's work written twelve years later contains new elements that are probably taken from Jókai's novel (the most striking of them is the use of the novel's title cited above). This suggests that it may not have been a one-off impression but Maironis may have been deliberately using Aišbė's translation when writing the second version. Maironis considered the first version of this poem his first book, although it was published in the same year (1895) as his seminal poetry collection The Voices of Spring [Pavasario balsai] but completed earlier.
These works of Maironis had influenced some other Lithuanian literary works which can be regarded as an indirect influence of Jókai's novel and its Lithuanian translation. Maironis' epic poem Through Pains to Glory had a major influence on the writer Šatrijos Ragana (her real name is Marija Pečkauskaitė, 1877-1930), one of the classics of Lithuanian prose. This influence is directly reflected in her diary-form short novel Viktutė (1901) (Slavinskaitė 1988: 513), in which the narrator is a young girl of noble birth who becomes a supporter of the Lithuanian national movement, learns Lithuanian, and her desire is to be of use to others, to work for the good of her country. In her diary, she reports that she read this work by Maironis. The coincidence between the sphere of ideas of the two works is striking. There are several similarities in motifs: the theme of Slavic national movements (Šatrijos Ragana 2007: 32), the rejection of priesthood desired by parents (Šatrijos Ragana 2007: 65-66), students who "want to turn the world upside down" (i.e. 'move the Earth') (Šatrijos Ragana 2007: 51). In another work, the autobiographical short novel In an Old Manor House [Sename dvare] (1922), Šatrijos Ragana also mentions Jókai's "excellent novels about the Hungarian rebirth" (Šatrijos Ragana 2007: 362), these words being told by the narrator's mother.
Giedrius Židonis in his doctoral dissertation on Lithuanian positivist literature compares the Lithuanian translation of Jókai's novel to the Lithuanian writer Liudvika Didžiulienė-Žmona's short story For the Fatherland [Del tevynes!] published in 1893 (a year after the translation was published) (Židonis 2009: 74). According to him, the common motif in both works is that they both feature five students who vow to work for the good of their country while studying at the university. Jókai's heroes actually do so but the characters in Didžiulienė's work all go astray, only one of them remains true to his vow, and he alone is unable to do anything, dying because of the alienation of his friends.

THE SURVIVAL OF THE TITLE AS A CATCHPHRASE
The title of the work has also survived in Hungary but in Lithuania, the title has perhaps taken on even greater significance, becoming almost a catchphrase, a slogan of Lithuanian national rebirth.
Vincas Kudirka, a leading figure in the Lithuanian revival movement wrote in an open letter in 1895 (three years after the work was published in Lithuanian): "we need even the smallest forces which, united, can 'move the earth' [pajudint žemę]" (Kudirka 1971: 205).
Jonas Vileišis (1872Vileišis ( -1942, the author and one of the signatories of the 1918 Lithuanian Act of Independence, later minister and Lithuania's first ambassador to the United States also used the phrase "we moved the earth" ["Ir mes judinome žemę"] (Aničas 2001) in his memoirs of the revival movement. This phrase was often chosen as the title of the memoirs published on the occasion of the 130th anniversary of his birth.
Elsewhere, too, we can find the occasional use of the title of the work as a catchphrase in connection with the national revival movement, patriotic activity, and a mixture of romanticism and positivism. For example, in 1936, at the graduation ceremony attended by the prime minister, a graduating student of a military academy said in a short impromptu speech: "So brothers, viribus unitis let us move the earth and the sky" ["Tad broliai, viribus unitis pajudinkime žemę ir dangų!"] (Kasparas 2007).
In the case of the occurrences remote in time from the publication of the book, it is probably an indirect effect: the use was possibly inspired not by the title of the novel itself but by Maironis's widely known narrative poem Young Lithuania.

CONCLUSIONS
At the turn of the century, several of Jókai's shorter works were translated into Lithuanian, and in the post-World War II period, several of his novels were published in Lithuania. Two of them, A Hungarian Nabob [Egy magyar nábob] (1988) and The Poor Rich [Szegény gazdagok] (1993) were translated from the Hungarian original by Janina Išganaitytė but no later work by Jókai was as popular in Lithuania and had as much impact on Lithuanian literature and cultural life as And Yet It Moves.
On the whole, it can be concluded that the abridged Lithuanian translation of And Yet It Moves had a great impact on Lithuanian culture of the time, especially on the national revival movement: this impact was partly direct and partly indirect (through Maironis' narrative poems). It was the most successful of the Hungarian literary works translated into Lithuanian, and owed this success to the fact that the similarities in the historical and social development of the two countries made the phenomena depicted in Jókai's novel familiar and the program of creating a national culture appealing to Lithuanian readers of the time.