Archivum Lithuanicum 12

Klaipėdos universitetas
Lietuvių kalbos institutas
Šiaulių universitetas
University of Illinois at Chicago
Vilniaus universitetas
Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas

Archivum Lithuanicum

Lietuvių kalbos institutas
P. Vileišio g. 5
LT-10308, Vilnius, Lietuva
El. paštas / e-mail: subacius@uic.edu

Leidykla / Publishing House
Harrassowitz Verlag
Kreuzberger Ring 7b-d, 65205, Wiesbaden, Germany
Tel. +49 [0]611 530 999
Faksas +49 [0]611 530 999

ARCHIVUM LITHUANICUM 12 (4 MB, PDF) 

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

Klaipėdos universitetas

Prof. dr. PIETRO U. DINI (kalbotyra / linguistics),
Università di Pisa

Habil. dr. JOLANTA GELUMBECKAITĖ (filologija / philology),
Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main,
Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius

Dr. REDA GRIŠKAITĖ (istorija / history),
Lietuvos istorijos institutas, Vilnius

Doc. dr. BIRUTĖ KABAŠINSKAITĖ (filologija / philology),
Vilniaus universitetas

Prof. habil. dr. RŪTA MARCINKEVIČIENĖ (filologija / philology),
Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Kaunas

Prof. habil. dr. BRONIUS MASKULIŪNAS (filologija / philology),
Šiaulių universitetas

Doc. dr. JURGIS PAKERYS (filologija / philology),
Vilniaus universitetas

Habil. dr. CHRISTIANE SCHILLER (kalbotyra / linguistics),
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Prof. dr. WILLIAM R. SCHMALSTIEG (kalbotyra / linguistics),
Pennsylvania State University, University College

Dr. MINDAUGAS ŠINKŪNAS (kalbotyra / linguistics),
Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius,
Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Kaunas

Doc. dr. JANINA ŠVAMBARYTĖ-VALUŽIENĖ (filologija / philology),
Šiaulių universitetas

Dr. BIRUTĖ TRIŠKAITĖ (kalbotyra / linguistics),
Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius

Dr. JURGITA VENCKIENĖ (filologija / philology),
Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius,
Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Kaunas

Archivum Lithuanicum 12

In memoriam 

Ona Aleknavičienė
In memoriam Amici Sauli Ambrazi 

Ona Aleknavičienė, Mindaugas Šinkūnas (par.)
Saulius Ambrazas. Bibliografija

Straipsniai (Articles)

Giedrius SubačiusMariusz LeńczukWiesław Wydra
The Earliest Known Lithuanian Glosses (~1520–1530)

Pietro U. Dini
Martyno Mažvydo Formos Chrikštymo (1559) vertimo originalas – Form der Tauff (1559)

Lina Plaušinaitytė
Du Jokūbo Brodovskio žodyno šaltiniai – Johanno Jacobo Dentzlerio Clavis Germanico-Latina (1709) bei Andreaso Corvino Fons latinitatis (1638) tipo hipotetinis žodynas *A

Žavinta Sidabraitė
Dar kartą apie Kūdikių prieteliaus išleidimo aplinkybes

Giedrius Subačius
Nežinomas Zavadzkio spaustuvės leidinukas kirilikos raidėmis (1887)

Aurelija Tamošiūnaitė
Viena kalba – dvi abėcėlės: kirilika ir lotyniška abėcėle rašyti Petro Survilo laiškai

Reda Griškaitė
Eduardas Volteris ir Carlo von Schmitho Necrolithuanica (1863)

Jonas Palionis
Dėl vietovardžio Nemajūnai istorijos ir kilmės

 

Recenzijos (Reviews)

William R. Schmalstieg
Review of: Trys 1706 metų filologinės polemikos šaltiniai: Michaelio Mörlino traktatas Principium primarium in lingva Lithvanica; Jono Šulco Ezopo pasakėčios; Jokūbo Perkūno traktatas Wohlgegrundetes Bedenken uber die ins Litauische ubersetzten zehn Fabeln Aesopi und derselben passionierte Zuschrift, 2008

Christiane Schiller
Rezension von: Vincentas Drotvinas (par.), Jokūbas Brodovskis, Lexicon Germanico=Lithvanicvm et Lithvanico=Germanicvm. Rankraštinis XVIII amžiaus žodynas. Dokumentinis leidimas su faksimile, perrašu ir žodžių registru 1, 3, 2009

Vilma Zubaitienė
Recenzuojama: Lina Plaušinaitytė, Jokūbo Brodovskio žodyno leksikografinis metodas, 2010

Birutė Triškaitė
Recenzuojama: Vilma Zubaitienė, Neišlikusių XVIII amžiaus Mažosios Lietuvos rankraštinių žodynų fragmentaiBibliotheca Archivi Lithuanici 8, 2009

William R. Schmalstieg
Review of: Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 1, 2005

William R. Schmalstieg
Review of: Kalbos istorijos ir dialektologijos problemos 2, 2008

Vilma Žaltauskaitė
Recenzuojama: Reda Griškaitė (par.), Stanislovas Moravskis, Nuo Merkinės iki Kauno, Atsiskyrėlio gavenda, Iš visur po truputį 1, 2009

Ona Aleknavičienė
Recenzuojama: Mindaugas Šinkūnas, XVI–XVII amžiaus Mažosios Lietuvos raštų akcentografija, 2010

Diskusijos, apžvalgos, pastabos (Discussions, Surveys, Notes)

Zigmas Zinkevičius
Ar Tacito Aestiorum gentes yra estai?

Roma Bončkutė
Vaclovo Biržiškos laiškai Petrui Jonikui (1948–1955) Klaipėdos universiteto bibliotekos Kazio Pemkaus fonde

Ona Aleknavičienė, Birutė Triškaitė
Lietuvos mokslų akademijos seminaras „Mažosios Lietuvos religinė knyga“

Giedrius Subačius, Mariusz Leńczuk, Wiesław Wydra
SENIAUSIOS ŽINOMOS LIETUVIŠKOS GLOSOS (~1520–1530)
Santrauka

 

1. Joanneso Herolto inkunabule Liber Discipuli de Eruditione Christifidelium (Baselis, ne anksčiau kaip 1485; egzempliorius saugomas Lenkijos nacionaliniame muziejuje Krokuvoje, Emeryko Hutten-Czapski’o rinkinyje [Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie, Muzeum im. Emeryka Hutten-Czapskiego]) įrašyta 20 anoniminių lietuviškų glosų (28 leksemos): teprÿda/v[ſ]ʒÿ ‘tetrenkia (Dievas)’; vbagÿſte ‘skurdas’; pryßcha/deymaſ ‘užkerėjimas’; ÿßdumo/ÿmaſ thÿkraſ ‘geros valios svarstymas’; pakÿethÿnÿmaſ ∙ gÿerÿeaßnÿa ∙ pradeÿma ∙ ßu ∙ ÿßmÿntÿeſ padruthÿnÿmu ‘geresnio pradėjimo ketinimas su sutvirtintu pasvarstymu’; ſchwą/cumaſ ‘padorumas’; abßÿueÿ/ſdeÿmaſ ‘apdairumas’; paÿka/uÿmaſ ‘paikas elgimasis; nesusilaikymas’; glauda ‘mielumas, meilumas (kūniškas), malonumas (kūniškas)’; glaud[us] ‘linksmas, draugiškas’; kÿthraſtÿſ ‘gudrumas, suktumas, klastingumas’; mokąſ p[rÿ]uÿl/tÿ ‘mokąs apgauti, nuvilti’; platÿ ſo[m]ne[n]ia ‘plati (palaida) sąžinė’; lÿ[n]xmaſ ‘linksmas’; prÿdereÿ[m]aſ ‘pritikimas, draugiškumas’; prÿſſÿmanąſ ‘prisigalvojąs; kalbąs, plepąs’; ßch[ÿ]kſtu[m]aſ ‘šykštumas’; p[rÿ]dęctaſ ‘hipokritas’; neÿſmÿ[n]/ti[n]gaſ ‘neišmintingas’; iſaie ‘Isajo’. Lietuviškos glosos Herolto knygoje (toliau – HGl) įrašytos maždaug 1520–1530 metais (arba apie 1525 metus).

2. HGl turi bendrų rašybos bruožų su seniausiais žinomais lietuviškais poteriais, įrašytais Mikalojaus Bloniečio (iš Blonės) knygos Tractatus ſacerdotalis (1503) pabaigoje (toliau – Pr): žodžio pabaigos ; ; ; [š] ir galbūt [ž]; taip pat ( nebuvimas). Sutampa gana unikalios ypatybės – žodžio galo (ßch[ÿ]kſtu[m]aſ ir mergaſ); dvibalsiuose (paÿka/uÿmaſ ir ßamÿaÿ) bei minkštumo ženklas (gÿerÿeaßnÿir gÿalbÿaki); dvi pastarosios sutampa ir su lenkiškais įrašais toje pačioje Herolto knygoje. Toks bendrumas akivaizdžiai sugestionuoja, kad HGl ir Pr kilo iš tos pačios pranciškonų observantų tradicijos rašyti lietuviškai ir kad šios glosos buvo įrašytos maždaug tuo pačiu metu kaip ir poteriai, 1520–1530 metais. HGl ir Pr laikytini seniausiais žinomais lietuvių kalbos paminklais.

3. HGl autorius greičiausiai vartojo kurią nors pietinės vakarų aukštaičių šiauliškių patarmės šnektą (apie Dotnuvą, Kėdainius, Šėtą, Kulvą). Ši apytikslė šnekta turėjo būti gimtoji garsiam lietuvių raštijos pradininkui Abraomui Kulviečiui (~1510–1545). Tai leidžia manyti, jog tokia ar panaši šnekta buvo vartojama rašomajai kalbai daugiau negu vieno asmens; vadinasi, tradicija rašyti pietinių šiauliškių (Kėdainių, Kulvos) patarme galėjo prasidėti bent tuo metu, kai įrašytos HGl, o gal ir anksčiau. (Vis dėlto, kad ir silpnesnė, išlieka ir vakarų aukštaičių kauniškių autoriaus mokėtos patarmės tikimybė. Todėl tvirtai tegalima pasakyti, kad HGl autorius kalbėjo vakarų aukštaičių patarme.) O greta gimtosios lietuvių, HGl autorius turėjo mokėti lotynų, lenkų ir galbūt vokiečių kalbas. Kėdainių apylinkių šnektomis paremta rašomoji kalba (dar vadinamasis vidurinis rašomosios kalbos variantas) LD K buvo vartojama knygoms spausdinti keletą šimtmečių (ypač Katalikų Bažnyčios, bet ne vien) – nuo 1595 (DK) iki pat antrosios XIX amžiaus pusės. Vėliau, XIX amžiaus pabaigoje, ši sena tradicija buvo vienas iš bendrinės kalbos iškilimą kauniškių patarmės pagrindu remiančių veiksnių (dėl ryškaus šiauliškių ir kauniškių patarmių panašumo). 1520–1530 metų HGl yra seniausias vakarų aukštaičių rašto pavyzdys – galbūt ir šiauliškių patarmės. HGl liudija daug senesnę šios rašto kalbos tradiciją.

4. Inkunabule su HGl yra tik vėlesnių proveniencijų iš Jėzuitų kolegijos Nesvyžiuje. Bet dėl ranka įrašytų pranciškonų observantų religinei praktikai būdingų lenkiškų maldų, dekalogo bei įrišimo galima daryti išvadą, kad prieš patekdamas jėzuitams inkunabulas priklausė pranciškonams observantams ir kad būtent kas nors iš jų įrašė HGl. Glosos galėjo būti sukurtos Vilniaus ar Kauno vienuolynuose, kurie tada jau veikė dabartinės Lietuvos teritorijoje. Nėra galimybių išskirti vieną kurį iš jų.

5. Glosose rasti 28 lietuviški žodžiai: apsiveizdėjimas ‘apdairumas’, geras-a ‘geras’, glauda ‘mielumas, meilumas (kūniškas), malonumas (kūniškas)’, glaudus-i ‘linksmas, draugiškas’, Isajas ‘Isajas’, išdūmojimas ‘svarstymas’, išmintis ‘išmintis’, kytrastis ‘gudrumas, suktumas, klastingumas’, linksmas-a ‘linksmas’, mokėti ‘mokėti (sugebėti)’, neišmintingas-a ‘neišmintingas’, padrūtinimas ‘sutvirtinimas’, paikavimas ‘paikas elgimasis; ardymas, atmetimas’, paketinimas ‘ketinimas’, platus-i ‘platus; palaidas’, pradėjimas ‘pradėjimas’, pridaužti ‘trenkti’, pridengti ‘pridengti; apsimesti’ [pridengtas ‘hipokritas’], priderėjimas ‘pritikimas, draugiškumas’, prisimanyti ‘prisigalvoti; kalbėti, plepėti’, privilti ‘apgauti’, prižadėjimas ‘užkerėjimas’, somnenia ‘sąžinė’, su ‘su’, šykštumas ‘šykštumas’, švankumas ‘padorumas’, tikras-a ‘tikras’, ubagystė ‘skurdas’. Dauguma HGl lietuviškų žodžių – abstraktūs daiktavardžiai (15), kurie buvo reikalingi to meto teologiniams diskursams. Ši abstrakti leksika daro HGl labai skirtingą nuo maždaug tuo pačiu metu užrašytų Pr. Tik vienas HGl žodis yra pavartotas ir Pr – tai prielinksnis su. Vadinasi, iš 28 HGl leksemų 27 laikytinos lietuvių kalbos istorijoje raštu užfiksuotomis pirmą kartą. O prielinksnis su pirmą kartą užrašytas HGl arba Pr.

Pietro U. Dini
FORM DER TAUFF (1559) — THE ORIGINAL OF THE TRANSLATION OF MARTYNAS MAŽVYDAS’ FORMA CHRIKŠTYMO (1559)
Summary

 

The article tackles the problem of the original from which Martynas Mažvydas translated his Forma Chrikštymo (1559). Publication Form der Tauff (1559), which was discovered by the author of this article in the State Library of Prussian Cultural Heritage (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Haus Nr. 1, Unter den Linden: Dr 14728 R) in Berlin, allows one to justify the opinion of Christian Stang (1976), who thought that Mažvydas was using this publication for his translation and not the Kirchenordnung written in 1558, as it is most often stated in the historiography of the Lithuanian literature. Thus, the analysis of Mažvydas’ Forma Chrikštymo cannot be based on the comparison to the Kirchenordnung of 1558 any more.

Lina Plaušinaitytė
ZWEI QUELLENDES WÖRTERBUCHS VON JACOB BRODOWSKI – DIE CLAVIS GERMANICO-LATINA VON JOHANN JACOB DENTZLER (1709) UND DAS HYPOTHETISCHE, MIT DEM FONS LATINITATIS (1638) VON ANDREAS CORVINUS TYPOLOGISCH VERWANDTE WÖRTERBUCH *A
Zusammenfassung

 

Das Wörterbuch Clavis Linguæ Latinæ (Cla), das in der 2. Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts von dem Schweizer Philologen Johann Jacob Dentzler verfasst wurde und bis 1716 mehrere Auflagen erlebt hatte, war auf dem Forschungsgebiet der kleinlitauischen Lexikographie seit einiger Zeit als Quelle des handschriftlichen Wörterbuchs Clavis Germanico-Lithvana bekannt. Der vorliegende Aufsatz zeigt, dass der deutsch–lateinische Teil des betreffenden Wörterbuchs ebenfalls eine wichtige Quelle der deutsch–litauischen Wörterbuchhandschrift Lexicon Germanico-Lithvanicvm von Jacob Brodowski (18. Jh.) (B) darstellt. Brodowski muss die Ausgabe des Dentzlerischen Wörterbuchs von 1709 (Cla 1709) benutzt haben.

Der Verfasser von hat das Wörterbuch von Dentzler selektiv ausgewertet. Neben einigen Ein-Wort-Lemmata (oft versehen mit bedeutungserklärenden Synonymen, die ebenfalls Eingang in gefunden haben) hat Brodowski vorwiegend (feste) Wortverbindungen und Sprichwörter übernommen. Aus den neben den längeren Wendungen befindlichen Leerzeilen ist ersichtlich, dass der Verfasser von vor hatte, das Material aus Cla 1709 weiter zu bearbeiten und litauische Äquivalente für alle Wendungen zu ergänzen. Der methodische Einfluss von Cla 1709 auf das Wörterbuch von Brodowski ist gering. Das Material aus Cla 1709 wurde in nach Bedarf modifiziert und an den zeitgenössischen Sprachgebrauch angepasst. Brodowski hat Cla 1709 nur bis einschließlich zum Buchstaben benutzt und es aus unbekannten Gründen weiter unberücksichtigt gelassen.

Da nur ein Teil des deutschsprachigen Materials mit bislang unbekannter Herkunft in dem Wörterbuch Cla 1709 zugeordnet werden konnte, muss angenommen werden, dass der Wörterbuchverfasser darüber hinaus eine bisher unbekannte deutsch–litauische lexikographische Quelle (hier bezeichnet als *A) als Vorlage benutzt hatte. Diese zeichnet sich durch vollständige Wörterbuchartikel mit den entsprechenden litauischen Äquivalenten, zuweilen lateinische Glossen und ein spezifisch aufgebautes Register aus, das auf den deutschen Index eines lateinisch–deutschen Wörterbuchs als Quelle hinweist.

Žavinta Sidabraitė
ONCE AGAIN—ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PUBLISHING KŪDIKIŲ PRIETELIUS
Summary

 

This article is devoted to establishing the year of publication of the first edition of the Lithuanian translation of Christian Gottlieb Mielcke’s textbook, Kūdikių prietelius. The year of publication is not indicated in the title page. The structure of this edition matches that of a textbook, Der Kinderfreund. Ein Lesebuch zum Gebrauch in Landschulen, which was written by Eberhard von Rochow, a well-known German pedagogue of the Age of Enlightenment, and published in 1787 in Königsberg by Daniel Christoph Kanter. Therefore it has to be regarded as the most credible original of the translation.

The article disproves the account that is most commonly used in the science of the history of the Lithuanian literature, namely that the first edition of Kūdikių prietelius was published in 1787 at the latest. The documents that the author of this article discovered in the State Archive in Olsztyn (Archiwum Państwowe w Olsztynie) in Poland attest to the fact that one edition of the Lithuanian Kūdikių prietelius was published in 1795: 1) in the handout which enumerates the publications of the Gottlieb Lebrecht Hartung publishing house one of the editions of Kūdikių prietelius was listed as published in 1795; 2) also, it was this publication about which Karl Gotthard Keber complained to the authorities in 1796, saying that its type quality was poor (his complaint is recorded by the Special Church and School Commission [Special Kirchen und Schulen Commission]). It is likely that the publication of 1795 was indeed the first edition.

Not one direct or indirect source was found, which would attest that the textbook was being used for the purpose of education prior to 1795. Domas Kaunas mentions an order of the authorities to start using Kūdikių prietelius in schools in 1787. This order could be related to some other edition of Rochow’s textbook in Lithuanian, which had a different structure and which might have been published, but was not yet discovered (for example, there was such a textbook published in Polish.

Giedrius Subačius
PUBLISHER ZAVADZKIS’ UNKNOWN BROCHURE IN CYRILLIC LITHUANIANS CRIPT (1887)
Summary

 

1. In 1887, Zavadzkis’ publishing house in Vilnius was setting up to publish a Lithuanian brochure in Cyrillic letters. It contained two parts: 1) I van Pososhkov’s testament to soldiers “Тевишкас тестаментас Русишкам карейвюй (Иш тестаменто жмогаус вальщоно Iоно Посошково)” (“Fatherly Testament to a Russian Soldier [From the Testament of a Peasant, Jonas Posoškovas]”; p. 1–5) and 2) “Календориус свецну [sic!] целу мету” (“Holiday Calendar for a Whole Year”; p. 6–8). On September 10, 1887 it received the approval of Vilnius censor, Petr Levitskii. Such a publication, however, is not known now. Perhaps it was never actually published. We are aware of it from the typographic prints intended for the proof that I have discovered in the Russian State Historical Archive in Saint Petersburg (ф. 1284, оп. 190, д. 83d, л. 111r–114v).

2. The text was translated by a certain Kiškis, a native of the Ukmergė district and a student of the Vilnius Education District; his translation was redone by a Lithuanian bibliographer, Silvestras Baltramaitis, who worked in the Saint Petersburg Public Library. Two proofs were read by Viktoras Aramavičius, a person who translated texts into the Lithuanian language, and who had worked as a censor of Lithuanian books in Vilnius (1857–1865). Later, the proofs were also read by Zakharii Lyatskii, a Lithuanian language teacher in the Panevėžys Teacher Training Seminary, and Andrius Poidėnas, a teacher in the Panevėžys Two-Year School.

3. The proofs that survived in the archive had corrections made by Lyatskii and, apparently, Poidėnas. Baltramaitis and Aramavičius must have read the proofs previously, and their corrections must have been typeset by the publisher (Baltramaitis may have corrected the manuscript, while Aramavičiaus may have corrected the previous proofs).

4. The typeset text has quite many characteristics of one subdialect of Eastern Highlanders, which in the position of the Western Highland subdialect accented [o·] has a long [a·], i.e., the so-called žadininkai subdialect from around the town of Rokiškis (cf. висакіосе ~ visokiose, кажна ~ kožną, каки ~ kokį). The hypercorrections (cf. кито ~ kitą, подорус ~ padorus) are quite revealing too. It is obvious that attempts were being made to at least somewhat modify žadininkai features (to correct from [a] to [o], and not vice versa). Hypercorrections could have appeared because the proofreaders (Aramavičius and Baltramaitis) made mistakes in reconstructing the Western Highland subdialect. The lexis (e.g., word straigybė) also shows that the subdialect of Eastern Highlanders from around the town of Rokiškis was used. The reason for that could have been that it was the native dialect of translator Kiškis (he was born in the Ukmergė District), or of proofreader Aramavičius (he was born and raised in Salamiestis and Papilys). Baltramaitis may not have been able to write in that dialect (he was born in the village of Mankiškiai, between Šiauliai and Radviliškis).

5. Corrections made by Zakharii Lyatskii often cannot be referred to as proofs in the traditional sense. These were rather commentaries that corrected the language and spelling and set the rules. As in his earlier reviews and corrections, Lyatskii did not tolerate the vowel combinations ‹іе›, ‹іо›, ‹іа›, ‹іи›, ‹ію›, introduced diacritical letters ‹ё›, ‹ў›, added ‹ь› and ‹ъ›. He rejected the characteristics of the žadininkai subdialect. He also offered some novelties that were not typical for himself—he rejected the Russian letters yat ‹ѣ› and ‹э› (he never used ‹ѣ› again, but he returned to the letter ‹э› later). 6. Andrius Poidėnas must have been a proofreader in the direct sense of the word: he corrected everything that seemed inaccurate to him and did it in a very concrete manner without any explanations. Contrary to Lyatskii, he suggested using the Russian letter ‹ѣ› (Попѣльчусъ). Positioning of graphic proofs in some places allows one to conclude that Poidėnas was making corrections prior to Lyatskii.

Aurelija Tamošiūnaitė
ONE LANGUAGE—TWO ALPHABETS: PETRAS SURVILAS’ LETTERS IN CYRILLIC AND LATIN ALPHABETS (BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY)
Summary

 

The article deals with the analysis of Petras Survilas’ letters written both in the Cyrillicand in the Latin alphabets. The five surviving letters of Survilas were written in the Eastern Highland Lithuanian subdialect of the town of Pasvalys. Possible standard language influence, however, is evident in the usage of the diphthongs [ai], [ei] and of full (non-reduced) endings, in marking in the position of dialectal [ẹ]. Survilas’ orthography was highly influenced by the traditional (pre-standard) Lithuanian orthography that was used at the end of the 19th century and that was still prevailing in the prayer books. The pre-standard orthography affected not only Survilas’ writing habits in the Latin alphabet, but also the orthography of Cyrillic letters (cf. his digraphs and ). Moreover, Survilas’ Cyrillic orthography letters did not correspond to any of the known Cyrillic spelling systems proposed for Lithuanian. Thus, Survilas created his orthography himself.Survilas attended only Russian elementary school and received basic education only in the Cyrillic script. Therefore, he developed better writing skills in this alphabet rather than in Latin. This claim is supported by the usage of Cyrillic grapheme instead of expected , and marking of palatalized consonants in Cyrillic letters vs. non-differentiation of and in Latin letters. The fact, that Survilas used the Latin alphabet later, may be related to the addressee’s (his family in Pasvalys) (in)ability to read in Cyrillic. This can be supported by the fact that his sister’s and brother’s letters to their relatives were written only in Latin script.  Reda GriškaitėEDUARDAS VOLTERIS AND CARL VON SCHMITH’S NECROLITHUANICA (1863)Summary

One of the most recognized Baltic scholars of the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, a linguist, ethnologist, literary and cultural historian, bibliographer, textual critic, archeologist, and museologist Eduardas Volteris (1856–1941) considered all the fields of Baltic studies, or in a more narrow sense of Lithuanian studies, to be important. However, during the last years of Volteris’ life, archeology occupied a central place in his research. He considered the role of archeology to be of special significance for many fields that were mentioned above. Both Volteris’ contemporaries and present-day scientists, however, were quite skeptical about his archeological research as well as his publications in the field. They saw significant haphazardness and hastiness in his works and considered them as lacking professionalism. Recently, this position has somewhat mellowed.

Even though the most important materials allowing one to judge Volteris’ scholarly competence are his reports about his archeological research, the archeological writings of a smaller scale, both the published and manuscript items deserve attention as well. One such item is his essay entitled Kas tai yra Šmidto Necrolithuanica? (What is Necrolithuanica by Schmidt?) (hereafter—VŠN), which was found among the archival documents that belonged to the historian Augustinas Janulaitis (1878–1950). Presently, this essay is kept in the Manuscript Department of the Vrublevskis’ Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (LMAVB RS : f. 267 – 3812, f. 1r–14r). It was written in Kaunas and dated July 14, 1933.

The focus of Volteris’ VŠN essay is an album of archeological drawings, Necrolithuanica (1863), by collector, archeologist, and museologist Carl von Schmith (~1795–1797–1876). Thus, the genesis of Volteris’ essay is linked to this controversial personality and to his most famous work, which, sadly, remained in manuscript form until 2006.

Research on Volteris’ manuscripts has shown that he had put a lot of effort in trying to achieve recognition for Carl von Schmith’s album as well as his other archeological collections so that the work would be known again after half a century, i.e., in 1929–1930; he wanted to make copies of these works available to Lithuanian researchers as well. Von Schmith’s album Necrolithuanica was taken from Lithuania to Sweden in 1880 and was not available to scholars for some time. Presently, it is kept in the Archives of the Royal Council of Antiques and the State Historical Museum in Stockholm (Riksantikvarieämbetet och Statens historiska museet Antikvarisk-topografiska arkivet: 124). Von Schmith’s archeological collections are presently kept in the State Historical Museum in Stockholm (Statens historiska museet). Until now, (the honor of) discovering von Schmith’s album was attributed entirely to Volteris’ colleague, archeologist and museologist, Karolis Mekas (1906–1993).

In VŠN, the historiography of Necrolithuanica (most attention is paid to the research of Tartu University History Professor Richard Hausmann, 1842–1918), as well as its structure, the most important and most interesting archeological findings recorded, mythologems, and the sources that von Schmith used are discussed in great detail. VŠN shows that Volteris was very familiar with archeological literature and had contacts with archeologists in other parts of the world (Birger Nerman, 1888–1971, Harri Moora, 1900–1968). It also demonstrates Volteris’ concern for the condition and preservation of archeological monuments in Lithuania.The exact reasons why Volteris’ essay remained unpublished are not known. The content of the essay, its date, and the place of its storage, however, shows that it may have been intended for the third volume of the magazine Praeitis (The Past), which was meant to be published by the Lithuanian History Society and was in preparation at the time. In 1992, when the restored Lithuanian History Society collected and published several articles that were meant to be published in Volume 3 of the magazine years ago, Volteris’ VŠN was not published again.

In spite of the fact that VŠN has many flaws (poor structure, quite haphazard enunciation, many mistakes of style, spelling and punctuation, von Schmith’s biography is not discussed, etc.), we can say that if this manuscript had been published, we would have had the most detailed description of von Schmith’s Necrolithuanica of that time.

The acquaintance with von Schmith’s album of drawings, Necrolithuanica, and his other archeological collections coincided with Volteris’ special interest in the science of archeology. The archeological findings and the mythologems that were recorded in the album, most of which were already lost to Lithuania, triggered Volteris’ desire to discuss the past and the experience of Lithuanian archeology (and in a broader sense, of history) and to foresee the prospect of research in the field. Volteris gave priority to the science of archeology because it dealt with the most ancient culture of a particular nation. However, he saw the future of archeology only in integrated research in which other disciplines of Lithuanian studies—ethnic culture, and especially language—were involved. Volteris considered the lack of such cooperation to be the biggest obstacle in the development of the science of archeology.

Jonas Palionis
ZUR GESCHICHTE UND HERKUNFT DES ORTSNAMENS NEMAJŪ́NAI
Zusammenfassung

 

Im vorliegenden Aufsatz wird der aus Südlitauen bekannte Ortsname Nemajū́nai unter historischen und etymologischen Aspekten diskutiert. Neben der Bezeichnung Nemajūnai werden für diesen Ort in der Literatur auch die Bezeichnungen Žvirždai und Dautartiškės genannt. Allerdings deuten die Angaben aus den in der St. Jacobi Kirche in Punia (Kreis Alytus) aufbewahrten Tauf- und rauungsverzeichnissen darauf hin, dass für den Ort Nemajū́nai offenbar niemals die Bezeichnungen Žvirždai bzw. Dautartiškės üblich waren. Der Ortsname Nemajū́nai ist wahrscheinlich anthroponymischen Ursprungs und lässt sich auf eine hypothetische Namensform *Nemajus zurückführen.

Zigmas Zinkevičius
ARE TACIT’S (TACITUS’AESTIORUM GENTES ESTONIANS?
Summary

 

In 1998, Estonia commemorated the 1900th anniversary (!) since Estonia was first mentioned in historical sources. It was stated that the Aestiorum gentes, which are mentioned by Roman historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus in his work, Germania 45, 2–4, written in approximately 98 A.D. are Estonians. And this was seemingly the earliest mention of Estonia. This article is devoted to finding out, what arguments help associate the ethnonym aisčiai with the Balts (Lithuanians) and what with the Finnish people (Estonians). The following conclusions have been drawn:

1. In ancient times, the ethnonym aisčiai was used to name one of the tribes of Western Balts.

2. This name is of Baltic origin, even though its etymology has not been completely clarified.

3. Due to the ‹ai › ‹ae › ē sound change in Latin, the vowel ē appeared in the name of aisčiai.

4. Eventually the ethnonym aisčiai was passed on to the local Finns. While this ethnic group moved towards the North, the name ‹aisčiai › estai was also passed on. In the Middle Ages, it was used by the Scandinavians, who understood it as “inhabitants of Eastern country”.

5. Estonians themselves introduced this name only in the middle of the 19th century in connection with the national rebirth.

 

12–14 žurnalo tomų leidyba remiama pagal Lietuvos mokslo tarybos remiamą projektą (sut. nr. LIT-2-57) / The publishing of vol. 12–14 was funded by a grant (No. LIT-2-57) from the Research Council of Lithuania.