Lietuvių kalbos institutas
University of Illinois at Chicago
Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas
Lietuvių kalbos institutas
P. Vileišio g. 5
LT-10308, Vilnius, Lietuva
El. paštas / e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Leidykla / Publishing House
Kreuzberger Ring 7b-d, 65205, Wiesbaden, Germany
Tel. +49 611 530 999
Faksas +49 611 530 999
Prof. habil. dr. GIEDRIUS SUBAČIUS (filologija / philology),
(vyriausiasis redaktorius / editor),
University of Illinois at Chicago,
Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius
Habil. dr. ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ (filologija / philology),
Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius
Habil. dr. SAULIUS AMBRAZAS (filologija / philology),
Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius
Doc. dr. ROMA BONČKUTĖ (filologija / philology),
Prof. dr. PIETRO U. DINI (kalbotyra / linguistics),
Università di Pisa
Habil. dr. JOLANTA GELUMBECKAITĖ (filologija / philology),
Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main
Dr. REDA GRIŠKAITĖ (istorija / history),
Lietuvos istorijos institutas, Vilnius
Dr. BIRUTĖ KABAŠINSKAITĖ (filologija / philology),
Prof. habil. dr. RŪTA MARCINKEVIČIENĖ (filologija / philology),
Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Kaunas
Prof. habil. dr. BRONIUS MASKULIŪNAS (filologija / philology),
Doc. dr. JURGIS PAKERYS (filologija / philology),
Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius
Dr. CHRISTIANE SCHILLER (kalbotyra / linguistics),
Prof. dr. WILLIAM R. SCHMALSTIEG (kalbotyra / linguistics),
Pennsylvania State University, University College
Mgr. MINDAUGAS ŠINKŪNAS (kalbotyra / linguistics),
Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius,
Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Kaunas
Doc. dr. JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ (filologija / philology),
Dr. JURGITA VENCKIENĖ (filologija / philology),
Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius,
Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Kaunas
Archivum Lithuanicum 11
Įsruties apskrities bažnyčių ir mokyklų vizitacijos potvarkio Recessus generalis (1639) reikšmė lietuvių raštijai ir jo vykdytojas Danielius Kleinas
Pirmųjų lietuvių kalbos gramatikų pėdsakai rankraštiniame žodyne Clavis Germanico-Lithvana
Pirmasis Baltramiejaus Vilento Enchiridiono leidimas: terminus ad quem – 1572-ieji
Oikonimai Lankeliškių parapijos XVII amžiaus bažnytinėje knygoje
Kristijono Endrikio Mertikaičio giesmynų Wiſſokies Naujes Gieſmes arba Ewangelißki Pſalmai (1817) ir Maʒos Giesmju Knygeles (1819) sąsajos su Frantzo Alberto Schultzo giesmynu Kern Alter und Neuer geiſtreicher Lieder, Als der Ʒweyte Theil
Mikalojaus Akelaičio rankraščio Opisanie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego (1862) istorija
Lietuvių kalba ir jos vartotojai imperatoriškojoje Sankt Peterburgo Romos katalikų dvasinėje akademijoje XIX amžiaus pabaigoje
Zacharijaus Liackio pranešimas IX Rusijos archeologų suvažiavime Vilniuje (1893)
Tarmė, bendrinė kalba ir raštingumas: trys asmeniniai laiškai
Dėl liaudies giedojimo Žemaitijos bažnyčiose per Mišias: Juozapo Noreikos 1854 metų laiškas Motiejui Valančiui
Klara Vanek, Ars corrigendi in der frühen Neuzeit. Studien zur Geschichte der Textkritik. Historia Hermeneutica, Series Studia 4, 2007 (JOLANTA GELUMBECKAITĖ)
Pietro U. Dini, Bonifacas Stundžia (par.), Giuliano Bonfante, Baltistikos raštai. Scritti Baltistici, 2008 (SAULIUS AMBRAZAS)
Guido Michelini (par.), D. Kleino Naujos giesmju knygos. Tekstai ir jų šaltiniai, 2009 (ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ, INGA STRUNGYTĖ-LIUGIENĖ)
Pietro U. Dini
Baltų kalbotyros apyaušriai. Baltų kalbų paleokomparatyvistinės sampratos kalbotyros istoriografijos kontekste
New scholarly editions for mediating Finnish classics for contemporary readers
Tarptautinė mokslo konferencija „Danielius Kleinas ir jo epocha“
THE DECREE RECESSUS GENERALIS (1639) ON INSPECTING ĮSRUTIS (INSTERBURG) COUNTY CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS: ITS IMPORTANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LITHUANIAN WRITINGS AND DANIELIUS KLEINAS, WHO IMPLEMENTED THE DECREE
The year 2008 witnessed the discovery of three documents of utmost importance for the study of Lithuanian writings: 1) Danielius Kleinas’s (1609−1666) letter to Friedrich Wilhelm, Duke of Prussia, on a Lithuanian hymn book, Tilžė (Tilsit), 1659 06 19; GStA PK: XX EM 37 f No 2. Bl. 8r–9v; 2) a letter to Kleinas by Friedrich Wilhelm’s administration on the reviewers’ recommendation to publish Kleinas’s manuscripts, Karaliaučius (Königsberg), 1652 06 20; GStA PK: XX EM 37 f No 2. Bl. 10r; 3) Duke Friedrich Wilhelm’s decree (transcript) that Lithuanian priests should meet Kleinas in Tilžė and discuss issues related to the hymn book, Berlin?, 1659 06 20; GStA PK: XX EM 37 f No 2. Bl. 11r–11v. All the documents were found in the National Secret Archives of Prussian Cultural Heritage in Berlin (Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz).
The above documents shed some light on Kleinas’s contribution to the development of the Lithuanian writings in the 17th century and some circumstances of implementing the General Decree (Recessus Generalis) of 1639 and its section On Additional Measures.
Kleinas was the key person appointed by the government responsible for the implementation of the above decree. He undertook to edit the manuscript of the Bible translated by Jonas Bretkūnas (Johannes Bretke). Kleinas also started compiling a dictionary and a hymn book. In the meantime, he was writing a grammar, too. He took the initiative to prepare a prayer book in Lithuanian. The grammar was published the first (1653), then its German version came out (1654).
In the process of preparing the hymn book, the Lithuanian priests involved in its preparation expressed opposing views despite the fact that the hymn book had been already approved. This can be seen in the document of 1652. From the letter we are able to identify Kleinas’s main opponents as Melchioras Švoba (Melchiorus Schwabe) from Valtarkiemis (Waltarkehmen), Jonas Liudemanas (Johannes Lüdemann) from Nybudžiai (Niebudzen) and Jonas Forhofas (Johannes Vorhoff) from Gumbinė (Gumbinnen).
Melchioras Švoba and his followers had already prepared their own hymn book and took efforts to prevent Kleinas from publishing his hymn book. In his letter of 1659, Kleinas asked the Duke to stop the priests and arrange a meeting with the opponents to discuss the hymn book. From the third document (1659) it is evident that the Duke, in response to Kleinas’s request expressed in his letter, issued an order to arrange a meeting in Tilžė 14 July 1659. It is still unknown if the meeting took place; however, Kleinas’s hymn book (1666) contains a number of hymns of his two opponents Švoba and Liudemanas. The preface to the hymn book gives references to Švoba as one of the censors who approved of Kleinas’s hymn book. The hymn book by Švoba and his followers has never been published, what happened with the manuscript is unknown.
The letter provides interesting details about how Kleinas’s dictionary perished—it was destroyed by fire in the Great Northern War and has never been restored. So Kleinas was fully aware of the importance of the General Decree for the development of Lithuanian writings. He only managed to implement part of its provisions; his work was curtailed by his death.
SPUREN DER ERSTEN GRAMATIKEN DER LITAUISCHEN SPRACHE IM HANDSCHRIFTLICHEN WÖRTERBUCH CLAVIS GERMANICO-LITHVANA
Der vorliegende Beitrag befasst sich mit dem Verhältnis des handschriftlichen deutsch-litauischen Wörterbuchs Clavis Germanico-Lithvana (entstanden nach 1680, weiterhin C) zu den ersten in Ostpreußen erschienenen Grammatiken der litauischen Sprache: der lateinischen Grammatica Litvanica von Daniel Klein (1653, KlG), deren deutscher Kurzfassung Compendium Litvanico-Germanicum (1654, KlC) sowie dem Compendium Grammaticæ Lithvanicæ von Christophorus Sappu[h]n und Theophil Gottlieb Schultz (1673, SŠG).
Eine vergleichende textologische Analyse hat ergeben, dass der Verfasser von C bei der Abfassung des Wörterbuchs alle drei Grammatiken benutzt hat, allerdings nicht in gleichem Maße: Die meisten Parallelen weist C zu KlG auf, KlC und SŠG wurden hingegen lediglich in Einzelfällen herangezogen. Die Untersuchung hat gezeigt, dass das Wörterbuch deutlich mehr Bezüge zu den genannten Grammatiken hat, als es explizit seine Quellenangaben ausweisen.
Bezüge zu Kleins Grammatiken finden sich sowohl in der Grundschicht von C als auch in der dem Kompilator von Czuzuschreibenden Ergänzungsschicht. Allerdings wurden KlG und KlC in erster Linie zur Ergänzung des Wörterbuchs benutzt. Einflüsse von SŠG sind in der Ergänzungsschicht zu finden, so dass davon auszugehen ist, dass der Verfasser von C diese Grammatik in einer der späteren Bearbeitungsphasen des Wörterbuchs verwendet hat.
Die Art der Benutzung der ersten litauischen Grammatiken in C ist unterschiedlich. Aus KlG und KlC exzerpierte der Wörterbuchverfasser zumeist litauische (gelegentlich auch lateinische und deutsche) Verwendungsbeispiele. Seltener bezog er daraus grammatische Informationen über litauische Wörter (in der Regel über die Rektion, Grund- und Flexionsformen). Außerdem wurden den beiden Grammatiken einige litauische Entsprechungen entnommen. Aus SŠG hat der Wörterbuchverfasser grammatische Informationen und litauische Entsprechungen ins Wörterbuch übernommen. Obwohl die ersten Grammatiken der litauischen Sprache lediglich als eine zusätzliche Quelle für C dienten, ist ihre Bedeutung für dieses Wörterbuch nicht zu unterschätzen: mithilfe dieser Grammatiken wurden die Wörterbuchartikel von C erweitert. Durch die erweiterte Mikrostruktur übertrifft C alle anderen zeitgenössischen handschriftlichen deutsch-litauischen Wörterbücher ostpreußischer Herkunft.
Außer der direkten Zitierung von KlG und KlC (mit und ohne Quellenangaben) lässt sich in C auch ein weniger offensichtlicher Einfluss dieser Grammatiken und ihrer Tradition erkennen. Zur Wiedergabe litauischer Laute wird im Wörterbuch das Schriftzeicheninventar von Klein gewählt. In C wurden folgende von Klein in das litauische Alphabet eingeführte Grapheme verwendet: , , , , , , , . Aus Kleins Grammatiken übernahm der Verfasser des Wörterbuchs ebenfalls die Tradition der Verwendung des Akuts, Gravis und Zirkumflexes : Die Verwendungstendenzen dieser diakritischen Zeichen in C deuten auf einen in KlG kodifizierten Gebrauch hin. Der Akut und der Gravis erfüllen im Wörterbuch eine signifikative Funktion (d. h., sie dienen der Kennzeichnung des litauischen Wortakzents). Der Zirkumflex hat eine distinktive Funktion (d. h., er dient zur Unterscheidung von Homoformen), außerdem kann er gleichzeitig sowohl den Wortakzent als auch die Vokallänge kennzeichnen.
Der Umstand, dass die Grammatiken von Klein und Sappu[h]n/Schultz im 17. Jh. nicht nur für praktische Zwecke (d. h., zum Erlernen des Litauischen), sondern auch bei der Abfassung weiterer sprachwissenschaftlicher Werke, in diesem Fall eines Wörterbuchs, benutzt wurden, belegt ihre Bedeutsamkeit und Wertschätzung: Die ersten gedruckten litauischen Grammatiken, insbesondere die lateinische Grammatica Litvanica von Klein, galten als eine wichtige Quelle für die litauische Sprache.
TRACES OF THE FIRST LITHUANIAN GRAMMARS IN THE MANUSCRIPT DICTIONARY CLAVIS GERMANICO-LITHVANA
The paper sets out to examine the relationship between the manuscript German-Lithuanian dictionary Clavis Germanico-Lithvana (the year 1680 is its terminus post quem; C) and the first Lithuanian grammars which appeared in Lithuania Minor (East Prussia): Daniel Klein’s Grammatica Litvanica in Latin (1653, KlG) and its summary in German Compendium Litvanico-Germanicum(1654, KlC) as well as Christophorus Sappu[h]n and Theophil Gottlieb Schultz’s Compendium Grammaticæ Lithvanicæ (1673, SŠG).
A comparative-textological analysis has helped to show that the compiler of Clavis was referring to all three grammars (KlG, KlC, SŠG), though to a different extent: the dictionary mainly draws on KlG; references to the other two (KlC and SŠG) are scarce. Actual references to the grammars found in the dictionary are much more numerous than explicitly acknowledged.
Both explicit and actual references to Klein’s grammars have been found in two chronological layers of Clavis: in the main text and amendments handwritten by the compiler himself. Klein’s two grammars (KlG and KlC) were mainly made use of when amending the dictionary. References to SŠG were found in dictionary amendments; so the grammar was used as reference during later stages of compiling the dictionary.
The character of referencing to the first Lithuanian grammars by the compiler of Clavis is varied. From KlG and KlC the compiler collected Lithuanian (sometimes also Latin and German) illustrative examples, much less often he made use of the grammatical information on Lithuanian words (usually focusing on their syntactic combinability, basic and derived forms) and also transcribed one or another Lithuanian equivalent. From SŠG the compiler transferred to his dictionary some grammatical information and Lithuanian equivalents.
The first Lithuanian grammars were used merely as additional sources by the compiler of Clavis; however, they seemed to be of great importance and served as the basis for expanding the dictionary entries. Due to its developed microstructure, the dictionary can be treated as excelling other manuscript German-Lithuanian dictionaries of that time which were prepared in Lithuania Minor.
In addition to direct quotations (with or, more often, without references in the text), the dictionary seems to have experienced less obvious impact of the above grammars. First, Klein’s system of characters for transcribing Lithuanian sounds should be pointed out. The dictionary made use of the following graphemes introduced into the Lithuanian alphabet and/or codified by Klein: , , , , , , , . In addition, from Klein’s grammars the dictionary compiler also adopted the tradition of using the following diacritics: , , ; tendencies of using grave, acute and abrupt circumflex accents in Clavis are close to their codified usage in KlG. The grave and acute accents perform a signifying function (i.e. they identify the place of accentuation in the word). The circumflex accent performs a distinctive function (i.e. it helps to discriminate between homoforms); it could also indicate an accented syllable and the length of a vowel simultaneously.
The fact that in the 17th century the grammars by Klein and Sappu[h]n-Schultz were used not only for practical purposes (i.e. to learn Lithuanian), but also as a source of reference for another book in linguistics (in this case – a dictionary) attests their recognition and authority. The first printed Lithuanian grammars, and especially Klein’s Grammatica Litvanica in Latin, served as a guideline and the key source of the Lithuanian language data.
THE FIRST EDITION OF ENCHIRIDION BY BALTRAMIEJUS VILENTAS: THE YEAR OF 1572 is ITS TERMINUS AD QUEM
In 2008 in the National Secret Archives of Prussian Cultural Heritage in Berlin (Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz) 4 previously unknown letters of Baltramiejus Vilentas (Bartolomaeus Willentus, ca 1525−1587) were found. They are Vilentas’s longest surviving autographs. Two of his letters were written in Latin and addressed to Duke Albrecht, two were written in German and addressed to Duke Georg Friedrich. They are all preserved in the file Pfarrer bei der litthauſchen Kirche auf dem Sackheim 1556−1709, in the folder Barthol. Wilentus 1556−1582 (GStA PK: XX EM 72 f No 51. Bl. 3r–12v); the file also has a document referring to payment made to Vilentas. One of the letters has no date (1556?), others were written in 1556, 1572 and 1581 respectively.
The National Secret Archives of Prussian Cultural Heritage have also preserved Vilentas’s widow Ona Vilentienė’s (Anna Wilentin, Wiland) letter addressed to Duke Georg Friedrich. It is kept in the file Littauſche Pfarrer=Wittiben 1587−1755 (GStA PK: XX EM 72 f No 2. Bl. 1r−3v); on a separate sheet there is a decree on providing support to V ilentienė.
The letters and related documents give more details about some facts of Vilentas’s biography. They provide data on his previously unknown period of service in Karaliaučius (Königsberg), his financial situation and literary activities.
He started working as a priest in Karaliaučius in 1553; the date differs from the one given in other historiographical sources (1550). The sources also disagree over the churches where he served: some refer to St Nicolas Church in Šteindamas (Steindamm), whereas others point out to St Elisabeth’s Church in Sakaimis (Sachkeim). The letters confirm that he worked in St Nicolas Church in Šteindamas, but also provided services to Lithuanians of all Karaliaučius, who lived in the Senamiestis (Old Town), Knypava (Kneiphof), Lyvenikė (Löbenicht), Sakaimis (Sachkeim), Trakaimis (Tragheim) and Rosgartenas (Rossgarten).
His letter dated 1572 attests to the fact that the first edition of Enchiridion came out in or before 1572 rather than in 1575, as was claimed earlier. Vilentas’s (1581) and Vilentienė’s (1587) letters also mention that Vilentas started translating Veit Dietrich’s Posttilla but was unable to complete it. What happened with the manuscript remains unknown.
PLACE-NAMES IN THE 17TH CENTURY CHURCH BOOK OF LANKELIŠKIAI PARISH
The paper sets out to discuss how Lithuanian place-names (or oikonyms) have been written in the church book of Lankeliškiai parish. For that purpose, all village names were identified in the church book; then, names referring to villages in the administrative division of Vilkaviškis region were selected. Their total number amounted to 75.
Before the analysis of the above place-names, the criteria for selecting village names in the source are explained, the context of entering the place-names into the source is described and their key peculiarities of writing and major tendencies when adopting features of Slavic languages are presented. In the comments given after the village names all features which were not mentioned in discussing their general features of writing are enumerated. The paper concludes by offering more general observations.
It has been identified that the source contains a large variety of written forms of placenames which testifies to the fact that the text written in Latin might have preserved the Lithuanian data. The place-names are easily identifiable in the Latin text; many of their forms might have been influenced by Polish, which is particularly obvious in Slavic endings added to oikonyms and some of their roots (bases) translated into Polish.
It should be noted that in the whole book there were only several place-names which were quite distinct among the other place-names because of their precisely written Lithuanian genitive plural endings. It therefore does not make any sense discussing efforts to write oikonyms in Lithuanian. The situation is traditionally related to the nationality of people who made the above entries in the books, their lack of Lithuanian language skills etc.; however, more space should be left to a more comprehensive evaluation of the situation and possibilities opening in further research of the context of writing Lithuanian names in concrete historical sources.
The author claims that the features which help identify and evaluate the above forms of place-names are varied. The majority of differing forms appeared as a result of different combinations of letters written one after another. Other differing forms evolved as a result of writing oikonyms in small and capital letters, together with prepositions and separately, of a varied presentation of endings, an obvious though inconsistent attempt to adapt the above place-names to Slavic forms, accidental errors etc. The causes of such forms in most cases are extra-linguistic. Linguistic causes can only be identified in cases where two structurally different variants of the same place-name are found.
Speculating how the people who were responsible for making entries in the church books chose one or another form, an obvious fact was noted: village names were not written from the spoken forms, as they might have been or were pronounced by people mentioned in the entries. Therefore, differently from the approach noticed in some publications, the author of this paper claims that the quality of writing oikonyms in the sources can hardly be related to the language of communication between those who were making the entries and those mentioned in them.
Some differences in writing place-names have been identified in the entries made by concrete people; however, they are also rather inconsistent. Often specific place-name forms were found to be written by one and the same person. It thus is obvious that the writing of place-names did not follow any explicit rules; the process was mainly chaotic and random.
The paper concludes by claiming that the tendencies identified in writing place-names in the source reflect a graphic and orthographic context of the time and testify to a large variety of village names resulting from linguistic and non-linguistic causes. The source has preserved the Lithuanian data of a particular period in a particular place and thus could contribute to a better grounded approach to historical place-names and a more comprehensive and precise evaluation of their research and peculiarities.
RELATION OF KRISTIJONAS ENDRIKIS MERTIKAITIS’S HYMN BOOKS WISSOKIES NAUJES GIESMES ARBA EWANGELISZKI PSALMAI (1817) AND MAƷOS GIESMJU KNYGELES (1819) TO FRANTZ ALBERT SCHULTZ’S HYMNBOOK KERN ALTER UND NEUER GEISTREICHER LIEDER, ALS DER ƷWEYTE THEIL
Both the hymn book Wiſſokies Naujes Gieſmes arba Ewangelißki Pſalmai by Kristijonas Endrikis Mertikaitis of 1817 and a smaller version of the hymnal Maʒos Gieſmju Knygeles of 1819 presumably compiled by the same author contain inscriptions before 21 hymns noting that they have been translated into Lithuanian from “D. Sʒulca“ books. In 1825 and in later editions the hymns have been repeatedly included in the hymn book Visokios naujos giesmės ir evangeliški psalmai.
The year 1739 saw the publication of the hymn book Kern Alter und Neuer geiſtreicher Lieder, Als der Ʒweyte Theil compiled by Frantz Albert Schultz, a Pietist and a prominent professor of the University of Königsberg [Karaliaučius] (Johann Heinrich Hartung Printing House, Königsberg [Karaliaučius]). Later, in 1752, a new revised edition of the same hymn book by Schultz with some new hymns added was released in the same printing house. A comparative analysis of Lithuanian translations and German originals, Biblical quotations and references to melodies has shown that the translators of hymns into Lithuanian had referred to the hymn book by Schultz of 1752 or a similar edition rather than the version of 1739. The analysis is based on the version of the hymn book kept in Halle, St Mary’s Library (Marienbibliothek), and the version of 1752 kept in Hildesheim, the Library of St Michael’s Monastery (Bibliothek des Michaelisklosters).
THE STORY OF MIKALOJUS AKELAITIS’S MANUSCRIPT OPISANIE WIELKIEGO KSIĘSTWA LITEWSKIEGO (1862)
Mikalojus Akelaitis (also Mikołaj Akielewicz, also Chłop z powiatu Maryampolskiego, also Chłop z Litwy, also Bartosz z Czoderyszek, also Agricola, also Cziuoderiszkiu Mikałojus, also Wargdienelis isz Lietuwos, also Wytautas, 1829–1887) is one of the most prominent and contradictory personalities of the 19th century. The contradiction stems from Akelaitis’s personal features as well as his way of life, which can be best described in two words: research and politics. Such features of Akelaitis were also noted by Augustinas Janulaitis (1878–1950), a historian and Akelaitis’s best-known biographer. At the same time in the eyes of his contemporaries the personality of Akelaitis was unique in that he emphasised his descent from peasants and his excellent command of Lithuanian. The latter could have determined Akelaitis’s research interests. His biographers have shown that until the end of 1861 when he left Lithuania most of his works had focused on the Lithuanian language, literature, folklore and mythology. His works on history during the period had been scarce.
Thus, from the quantitative point of view, in Akelaitis’s biography history must have played a minor role. From a broader perspective, this feature could have contributed to his unique personality, bearing in mind his milieu at that time: his close cooperation with such historians as Julian Bartoszewicz, Simonas Daukantas, Adam Honory Kirkor, Michał Baliński, later also with Walerian Kalinka, let alone the fact that in 1858 he became a member of the Provisional Committee of Archaeologists of Vilnius (further referred to as PCAV). Most leading positions in the above Committee were also taken by historians; thus priority was clearly given to research into the history of the country. A closer look at Akelaitis’s writings opens a slightly different picture raising some doubts about the reliability of statistical calculations. Like all intellectuals of the time, he, as a literary and public figure, considered history, and especially history of Lithuania, rather important. The claim can be supported by reference to one of his large-scale and most outstanding works in history written in 1862 during his first emigration to Paris. It is now known to us as Opisanie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego (further referred to as OWKL). The genesis and analysis of this particular work kept in the Polish Library in Paris (Biblioteka Polska w Paryżu, also Bibliothèque Polonaise à Paris, further referred to as BPP) has become the key axis of this paper.
As attested by the archival data, Lithuanian researchers, first of all, Janulaitis became interested in the work in 1923. The first person who gave important information about the OWKL was Paulius Galaunė (1890–1924), an art historian, graphic artist, museologist, who in 1923–24 was on a study period in Paris, in Ecole du Louvre. In his free time, Galaunė, upon Janulaitis’s request, copied Lithuanian manuscripts in the BPP. Janulaitis also received some help from Władysław Mickiewicz (1838–1926), one of the most outstanding public figures among Lithuanian and Polish immigrants in Paris. From 1899 he was director of the BPP; he was also the founder of Adam Mickiewicz’s Museum in Paris (Muzeum Adama Mickiewicza w Paryżu). He had known Akelaitis in person. Interestingly, Janulaitis had been in contact with Władysław Mickiewicz since 1912 after having written him a letter on the works by Kiprijonas Zabitis-Nezabitauskis kept in the BPP. Some time later, ca 1932, Janulaitis received even more details about OWKLfrom Marija Mašiotaitė-Urbšienė (1895–1959), a bibliographer and historian, who upon Janulaitis’s request, was also collecting information about Lithuanian culture in the libraries of Paris. It was Urbšienė, who contributed most to finally producing Akelaitis’s most detailed biography and establishing contacts with his descendants.
So already in the third decade of the 20th century Lithuanian historians showed that OWKL had not only been Akelaitis’s work of history largest in scale, but also his most significant manuscript kept in the BPP. However, neither Janulaitis, nor other researchers made efforts to transcribe OWKL or even take pictures of it and find a way to send the pictures to Lithuania. Janulaitis and other Lithuanians who lived in pre-war Paris and helped him were rather indifferent; their indifference passed to other generations of researchers: a xerox copy of the work was only brought to the Institute of Lithuanian History in Vilnius in 1995. There have been very few mentions of OWKL in the press either. The first article about the work was published in 1924. Its author was Galaunė. After a rather long break almost the same information from time to time (1965, 1969, 1981 and 1995) appeared in different research publications. It was mostly a shorter or longer version of Galaunė’s description of the manuscript structure and a couple of commentaries. Only in 1996 a more detailed article by the Polish literary critic Mieczysław Jackiewicz was published. However, his rather short essay appeared in a non-research publication.
None of the researchers of OWKL has focused on its genesis, which seems to be a logical outcome of Akelaitis’s biography: the idea of the work was brought from Lithuania; however, the work was carried out in the BPP, which provided excellent conditions and gave access to numerous sources. The date of the work, 1862, also prompted the idea that the work could only be analysed in the context of his research carried out in Vilnius. Interestingly, a more thorough investigation of his milieu in Paris at the time as well as the analysis of OWKL has shown that the decisive role belongs to completely different, very concrete circumstances, mostly related to Walerian Kalinka (1826–1886), a famous politician of the diaspora, historian and publisher. Kalinka was able to find financial resources for OWKL, his study Galicya i Kraków pod panowaniem austryackiem (further referred to as GKPPA) was a prototype of OWKL. In general, OWKL can hardly be compared to any of Akelaitis’s works completed in Lithuania.
OWKL has five sections: 1) “Kraj i Mieszkańcy” [The country and its people], 2) “Sprawa włościańska na Litwie” [The issue of peasantry in Lithuania], 3) “Kościół” [Church], 4) “Oświata” [Education], 5) “Sądownictwo i Administracja” [Courts of Justice and Administration]. The first section has four subsections: a) “Granice Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego” [The borders of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania], b) “Polityczny podział na Księstwa, Województwa, Ziemie i Powiaty z wykazaniem Starostw. Rozległość i ludność szczegółowa, ogółowa i stosunkowa” [A political division into duchies, counties, lands and districts with reference to neighbourhoods. The area and population: detailed, general and relative data], c) “Zmiana granic i podziału politycznego” [Changes of borders and political division], d) “Mieszkańcy i ich prawa” [Citizens and their rights]. The second section of OWKL has two subsections: a) Introduction with no title, b) “Przegląd stanu gospodarstwa rolnego na Litwie” [An overview of Lithuanian agriculture]. Thus the manuscript has no preface, or beginning; it has no end, either. In other words, it is incomplete. The sections vary in length. Section 2 is the longest (133 pages), section 3 is of similar length (the first draft has 106 pages, the second, in folio, has 82 pages). Then comes section 1 (59 pages), followed by section 4 (47 pages). The last, section 5, is the shortest (25 pages).
In section 1, as reflected in its subsections and especially in the very first subsections, most attention is devoted to the geography of the country, its statistical data and administrative division. Akelaitis enumerates all administrative units of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (further referred to as GDL), provides data about their territory and population as well as identifies former, 19th century, territorial units of the Duchy. He also provides a detailed description of all three partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian State emphasising the loss of its territories and precisely identifying which territories were lost, focusing on the effect of the partitions on the GDL territories and their new administrative division within the Russian empire.
As already mentioned, section 2 of OWKL “Sprawa włościańska na Litwie” is the longest. In 1862 it was the most important, topical event marking a new epoch in the history of the Russian empire, including its western counties. Akelaitis gave an exhaustive description of the law of 1861 abolishing serfdom and characterised the members of its editorial board. Moreover, he highlighted the role of Lithuania’s two counties, Kaunas and Grodno, which, according to the author, were leading in the century’s largest-scale economic reform of the Russian empire. The reform of 1861 for Akelaitis becomes a stimulus to discuss Lithuanian economics, focusing on agriculture. Akelaitis praises Lithuania’s past. He expresses his point of view and supports it by figures showing that during the last years of the Republic the economy of the country had experienced an upsurge.
In section 3 “Kościół” the author expresses his idealistic attitude towards the time of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and tolerance of its rulers. The author of OWKL also discusses the Uniate Church and the Union of Brest (Brasta). The latter is given very high evaluation and treated as an achievement of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, an important, though temporary, victory against Russia. Akelaitis condemns the Russian policy against the Catholic Church. On the other hand, he also severely criticises the leaders of the Catholic Church for their connivance with the Russian authorities.
Section 4 “Oświata” deals with one of the most important issues of Russian politics in the country. Akelaitis, a literary figure and educator, treated education as an exclusively important area. In this section, he attempts to discuss the situation in all branches of education: higher, special, secondary and primary education. In addition, he devotes considerable attention to such specific spheres as education of girls and home education. The approach of the then authorities towards teachers is discussed separately. The impression of a very thorough analysis of this section is reinforced by no less important circumstance: in the Russian educational policy Akelaitis claims to have identified a system aimed at destroying two key educational institutions: University of Vilnius and Kremenec Lyceum. When discussing the closing of University of Vilnius, Akelaitis cannot not skip the prologue to the event—a legal case of the University students. The author of OWKL saw that the case was opened with no obvious reason and was artificial. Thus Akelaitis has contributed to the historiography of the events of the time and in a more general sense, to the case of closing down the University of Vilnius.
Section 5 “Sądownictwo i Administracja” is the last and the shortest; it is also incomplete, as can be seen from its content. Differently from the two previous sections, the development of ideas in the section is similar to the first two sections: in legal and administrative areas he praises the times of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and resents the laws and the court system imposed by Russia.
Thus if the work had been completed and published, we would have had a unique study of its time in several respects: a history of Lithuania of the period and, in a sense, a work on political sciences focusing on the analysis of the Russian policy on the former territory of the GDL. The work would have made up a study where most attention is devoted to the social and economic development of Lithuanian counties focusing on the issue of peasantry. The work, like periodicals of the time, reflects political tension and the spirit of the approaching uprising. Thus OWKL is like a public accusation directed at the then policy of Russia. Kalinka in his work focuses on Galicia under the rule of the Austrian empire, changes in its political, legal and economic systems after a complete change of the political situation of the country. In his own right, Akelaitis in his manuscript focuses on Lithuania under the rule of the Russian empire and similar changes in its development. Therefore, it can hardly be doubted that OWKL, or Opisanie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, is an artificial title given by the employees of the BPP, which has nothing to do with either the genesis of the work or its content. We could rightly claim that the authentic title of the work is Litwa pod rządem Rossyjskim, or Lithuania under the rule of Russia. This title was handwritten by Akelaitis himself, regrettably, not in the main text of the manuscript.
Up to 1862, i.e. up to the so-called OWKL project, in the area of historic research Akelaitis had not been well-known. In the PCAV Akelaitis found a niche for himself in Lithuanian philology and comparative linguistics. The fact the he had a good command of Lithuanian made him special among people who were not indifferent towards research. However, a purely psychological aspect should not be overlooked either. At the time of the PCAV , unlike Akelaitis, almost all his contemporaries and colleagues had a university education and fiercely competed among themselves; so Akelaitis must have felt the weight of their authority and influence. Therefore, a didactic compilation Trumpas papasakojimas apej Lietuwos wejkałus [A short story about works of Lithuania], which has been preserved in the manuscript, could be treated as his most ‘historic’ work of the period before Paris. In fact, he could only try history in Paris, having distanced himself from his previous milieu. It is interesting to note that OWKL is the only work by Akelaitis of such scope which does not have a single mention of any linguistic issue, contains hardly any discussion on etymology (except for one or another example). This is unusual and does not apply in any of his later works, such as Rzut oka na starożytność narodu litewskiego or Lëtuvių Budvëtis.
All the above attests to the fact that OWKL does not fit into the general context of Akelaitis’s works. OWKL is rather distinct in the historiography of his time. This might have also been the impression of the first readers of the manuscript, i.e. those who helped Janulaitis in Paris. This explains, albeit only partially, their indifference to the work. There is another circumstance which should not be overlooked: in OWKL, unlike any other work, Akelaitis explicitly declares his hatred for Russia as well as his love for and loyalty to Poland. This could have been another reason for the indifference of the then historians of Lithuania towards his work.
THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE AND ITS USERS IN ST. PETERSBURG’S SPIRITUAL ACADEMY OF ROMAN CATHOLICS AT THE END OF THE 19TH CENTURY
The issue of the public use of the Lithuanian language at St P etersburg’s Spiritual Academy of Roman Catholics, which operated in 1842–1918, is discussed in a broader context of using Lithuanian in the Catholic Church, its institutions, among clergymen, and in the most general sense, also in the Lithuanian society at the end of the 19th century which was notably under the influence of modern nationalism.
The investigation aims at more precisely identifying historical insights, giving a more thorough overview of the Lithuanian language used in public spheres in the cultural and social context of the Academy, evaluating the impact of the expression of modern ethnolinguistic nationalism on the use of Lithuanian and how its public use was moulded by specific conditions of the theological higher educational institution. The paper investigates factors and conditions determining the functioning of the Lithuanian language in the Academy, speculates about the causes of its use or non-use, who its protagonists and antagonists were and why.
The paper concludes that during the last decades of the 19th century in Lithuania it was important for a clergyman to clearly express his approach to modern nationalism; however, in St P etersburg’s Spiritual Academy of Roman Catholics the expression of modern nationalism was slightly delayed.
The social composition of the Academy students suggests that modern nationalisms might have been less clearly expressed in the Academy at the end of the 19th century and their tension was slightly milder. The analysis of the students’ disposition shows their attempts to combine aspirations of modern nationalism and traditions of Polish culture without their radical juxtaposition.
In the Academy such languages as Latin, Polish, Russian, French, German, Ukrainian and Lithuanian were used; however, their importance and context of usage were not the same. Lithuanian was neither used as a language of instruction nor in services. It only functioned as an expression of a specific ethnic character of dioceses.
The public use of Lithuanian in giving and delivering presentations on festive occasions of the Academy was not promoted by the Academy. Neither was the use of Lithuanian constrained in any specific way. Such public use of Lithuanian mostly depended on one’s individual choice and needs which might have been determined by the student’s positive disposition towards modern Lithuanian ethno-linguistic nationalism. On the other hand, it could not be treated as an expression of an explicit conflict between Polish and Lithuanian. The tension was only reduced by the specific character of the theological higher educational institution.
ZAKHARIJ LIATSKIJ’S PAPER IN THE NINTH CONGRESS
OF THE ARCHEOLOGISTS OF AL RUSSIA IN VILNIUS (1893)
Zakharij Liatskij (~1836–1899) was a military engineer by training and worked as a treasurer of the Panevėžys District (today Lithuania). Simultaneously for 22 years Liatskij worked as a teacher of Lithuanian at the Panevėžys Teacher Training Seminary (1873– 1895). He was the only official teacher of Lithuanian in the entire Kaunas province. Among other things Liatskij was an important “expert” of the Lithuanian language for the administrators of the Vilnius Educational District. In 1893 Liatskij presented his research on the etymology of certain Russian historical proper names in the Ninth Congress of Archeologists of all Russia in Vilnius. Liatskij considered Lithuanians to be a tribe of Russians, and Lithuanian—a dialect of (old) Russian. This approach enabled him to give Lithuanian etymologies for words like Руссъ ‘Russian’, варягъ, Рюрикъ, etc. Besides, Liatskij considered etymologies for quite a few Lithuanian words and names too: lenkas, Lietuva, Nemunas, Nevėžis, Žemaičiai, etc. At the Congress Liatskij was severely criticized for his “childish” linguistics and was not allowed to even finish his report. This failure at the Congress must have influenced his resignation two years later in 1895 from the position of the teacher of Lithuanian.
DIALECT, STANDARD LANGUAGE AND LITERACY: THE CASE OF THREE PERSONAL LETERS
The aim of this publication was to analyze and to compare the relationship between dialect, standard language, and literacy in three letters written in three different dialects— North Panevėžiškiai subdialect (E. I. letter), Vilniškiai subdialect (J. S. letter), and Šiauliškiai subdialect (S. P. letter).
The comparison of the letters revealed that better literacy does not necesserally indicate higher impact of the standard language. As the analysis exposed, the least literate letter (E. I.) had the largest impact of the standard language, while the most literate letter (J. S.) was the least influenced by the standard language. This may be related to the environment and the influence of the local dialect that was spoken in the place where the authors lived. E. I. spent most of her life living among the non-native dialect speakers, while J. S. lived all of his life surrounded by the speakers of his native dialect. Therefore, I suggested that during the process of the blend of the dialect (language) systems written standard language is not as important as the spoken dialect of the changed local environment.