Archivum Lithuanicum 15
Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas
Lietuvių kalbos institutas
University of Illinois at Chicago
Archivum Lithuanicum Lietuvių kalbos institutas
P. Vileišio g. 5
LT-10308, Vilnius, Lietuva
Prof. habil. dr. GIEDRIUS SUBAČIUS (filologija / philology),
(vyriausiasis redaktorius / editor),
University of Illinois at Chicago,
Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius
Dr. BIRUTĖ TRIŠKAITĖ (filologija / philology),
(vyriausiojo redaktoriaus pavaduotoja / assistant editor),
Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius
Habil. dr. ONA ALEKNAVIČIENĖ (filologija / philology),
Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius
Prof. habil. dr. ROMA BONČKUTĖ (filologija / philology),
Prof. dr. PIETRO U. DINI (kalbotyra / linguistics),
Università di Pisa
Prof. habil. dr. JOLANTA GELUMBECKAITĖ (kalbotyra / linguistics),
Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main
Dr. REDA GRIŠKAITĖ (istorija / history),
Lietuvos istorijos institutas, Vilnius
Doc. 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),
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
Dr. AURELIJA TAMOŠIŪNAITĖ (filologija / philology),
Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Kaunas
Dr. JURGITA VENCKIENĖ (filologija / philology),
Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius
Dar vienas Martyno Mažvydo laiškas
Petro Gotlybo Milkaus prierašai rankraštiniame žodyne Clavis Germanico-Lithvana
Vilento Lk 2,47: homografinė skirtis ar spaudos riktas?
Ona Aleknavičienė, Ieva Rekštytė
Jono Bretkūno Postilė (1591): nuo Lietuvių literatūros draugijos Tilžėje iki Matenadarano Jerevane
Reda Griškaitė, Tomas Andriukonis
Karolina Praniauskaitė: „Do młodego Poety“ („Jaunajam Poetui“). Eilėraščio istorija
Auszra ir Teodoras Narbutas
Lietuvos idėja Aušroje
Pasaulietinių dalykų – rusų kalbos, literatūros, tėvynės istorijos ir geografijos – mokymas dvasininkų rengimo įstaigose (XIX amžiaus antroji pusė)
„Bajoras, rašantis lietuviškai“, arba kalbos ir tautinės tapatybės ryšys ankstyvojoje Mečislovo Davainio-Silvestraičio publicistikoje
Lietuvių tautosakos rinkėjų Jano Karlovičiaus ir Mečislovo Davainio-Silvestraičio bendradarbiavimas: metodologijos raida, etnolingvistikos apraiškos
Mano susirašinėjimas su Petru Joniku, Antanu Saliu ir Pranu Skardžiumi
Ankstyvas lietuviškos kirilikos egodokumentuose liudytojas – Stanislovo Prakulevičiaus 1879 metų laiškas Godliauskių šeimai
Review of: Pietro U. Dini, Aliletoescvr: linguistica baltica delle origini: teorie e contesti linguistici nel Cinquecento, 2010
Rezension von: Vilma Zubaitienė (par.), Frydrichas Vilhelmas Hakas, Vocabvlarivm Litthvanico-Germanicvm, et Germanico-Litthvanicvm… Nebst einem Anhang einer kurtzgefaßten Litthauischen Grammatic (1730), I Kritinis leidimas, 2012; II Studija, indeksai rodyklės, 2012
Recenzuojama: Frydrichas Kuršaitis, Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1876, 2013
Recenzuojama: Ieva Šenavičienė (par.), Kunigas Mackevičius kaip istorinė asmenybė. Biografijos kontūrai, 2012
Rezension von: Daniel Petit ir Bonifacas Stundžia (par.), Ferdinand de Saussure, Baltistikos raštai = Travaux baltistiques, 2012
Rezension von: Jonas Palionis, XVII a. antrosios pusės Punios parapijos asmenvardžiai ir vietovardžiai, 2003; Jonas Palionis, XVII a. pabaigos – XVIII a. pirmosios pusės Punios parapijos asmenvardžiai ir vietovardžiai, 2008
William R. Schmalstieg
Review of: Jonas Palionis, Atsiminimų nuotrupos, 2012
Recenzuojama: Algirdas Sabaliauskas, Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija 1980–2010 m., 2012
Paulius V. Subačius
Recenzuojama: Tomas Andriukonis, Originalieji Antano Baranausko tekstai (1853–1863 m.) – rašymo istorija, 2013
Diskusijos, apžvalgos, pastabos (Discussions, Surveys, Notes)
Stephan Kessler, Stephen Mossman
Ein Fund aus dem Jahre 1440: Ein bisher unbekannter Text in einer baltischen Sprache
Biblija ir senoji Lietuvos raštija: XII Jurgio Lebedžio skaitymai
Svetimieji ir savieji Simono Daukanto kalbos gryninimo strategijoje
Zum 80. Geburtstag von Gertrud Bense
Apie 2-ąsias Berlyno Humboldtų universiteto „Lituanistikos dienas“ 2013 metų rugpjūčio 26–rugsėjo 13 dienomis
ONE MORE LETTER OF MARTYNAS MAŽVYDAS
This article introduces a letter by the Lutheran minister of the Ragainė (Ragnit) Parish Martynas Mažvydas (~1510–1563); this letter was so far unknown to the scholarly community. It was recently discovered in the Secret Archive of the Prussian Cultural Heritage (Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz) in Berlin (GStA PK: XX. HA Hist. StA Königsberg, Herzogliches Briefarchiv J 2, Nr. 984, 1553 Januar–März, [1r–1v]). The letter contains no date and no addressee.
I would date this letter between November 17, 1552 and April of 1553. The procedures of change in Ragainė Parish lands and the issues of population accommodation assure us that the chronological place of this letter was between the seventh and the eighth letters of Mažvydas that were known till recently.
The most probable addressee of the letter was Prussian Duke Albrecht’s preacher and palace adviser, the member of the Semba Consistory Johann Funck (1518–1566): one of the closest men of the Duke’s milieu and the follower of Andreas Osiander (1498–1552). This would help to interpret the reasons as to why Mažvydas had been also considered a follower of Osiander.
Mažvydas was obliged to address Funck as an intermediary for the land management issues due to the extremely centralized nature of the administration of the Duchy of Prussia: governing and economic might were concentrated in the Duke’s hands.
Mažvydas’ letter was one of his attempts to solve daily problems in a way that secured more intellectual space for himself and helped to comply better with the mission of a Lutheran clergyman that Mažvydas had taken on himself.
In an appendix I list all the letters known to this date with Mažvydas’ signature as well as his letters still lost but mentioned by someone.
INSCRIPTIONS BY PETER GOTTLIEB MIELCKE IN THE MANUSCRIPT DICTIONARY CLAVIS GERMANICO-LITHVANA
This article continues my research on the topic of authorship of inscriptions in the manuscript dictionary Clavis Germanico-Lithvana (abbreviated C; after 1680), which I began in my article “Friedrich Selle’s Inscriptions in the Manuscript Dictionary Clavis Germanico-Lithvana” (Archivum Lithuanicum, vol. 14). Inscriptions in C are the later layers of manuscript text that have appeared after the main dictionary text was completed. They encompass inscriptions by earlier owners and/or readers, and they are identifiable by specific handwritings and often by different ink color.
The main goal of the article was to prove that the most ample group of inscriptions (in former research identified as the handwriting B) is to be attributed to the Lutheran Evangelical clergyman in Lithuania Minor Peter Gottlieb Mielcke (lit. Petras Gotlybas Milkus; b. 1695 in Tilsit [lit. Tilžė]; d. 1753 in Mehlkehmen [lit. Mielkiemis]), who also was a translator of certain religious hymns and books of the first published Lithuanian Bible (Königsberg [lit. Karaliaučius], 1735). I have compared the longhand of these particular inscriptions to the signed autographs of Mielcke that were found in Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz zu Berlin (which has preserved a certain part of Preussisches Staatsarchiv in Königsberg collections). Analysis of the longhand has confirmed that B inscriptions were made by Mielcke’s hand.
Thus, Mielcke was the major supplementer of C text (after the dictionary compiler himself), he expanded its both macro- and microstructure. Mielcke’s inscriptions constitute over 90 percent of all additions in various hands to the initial text: dictionary entries, German entry-words and their Lithuanian equivalents, German and Lithuanian illustrative sentences, various references, etc. Beside the sources that were known as used for the B inscriptions (concordances of Luther’s Bible, edited by Friedrich Lankisch; Johannes Rehsa’s Psalteras Dowido; C itself), now we can attribute also the Lithuanian New Testament of 1701 to Mielcke’s hand.
The circumstance that Mielcke employed neither the New Testament of 1727 (QNT), nor the Psalter of 1728 (QPs), nor the Bible of 1735 (QB), of which he was one of the editors (translated, read proofs, recopied drafts), but used only earlier sources, lets me assume that his inscriptions in C had occurred prior to the publication of QNT, QPs, and QB. Thus, it means that the 1727 (publication of QNT) might be considered the terminus ad quem of Mielcke’s inscriptions. Most probably Mielcke was working with the C manuscript while still studying in Königsberg University or teaching at its Lithuanian Language Seminar.
After the death of an unknown compiler, the C manuscript could have been kept in private libraries of priests or churches in the Tilsit district. Mielcke could have obtained the C manuscript from the compiler himself or from his fellow Tilsitians. Later, while working on the Lithuanian Hymnal of 1732 and the Bible translation, Mielcke most probably gave the C dictionary to his collaborator, translator of Hymns and the Bible, the clergyman of Saalau (lit. Želva) Christian Stimehr (lit. Kristijonas Štimeris, 1676–1750). It is possible that this German–Lithuanian Dictionary served for the Lithuanian translation of the Bible. It must have been this Stimehr who donated the C manuscript to his son Christian Friedrich Stimehr (lit. Kristijonas Frydrichas Štimeris, 1725–1765), since there are inscriptions of the son’s ownership in both volumes of C.
Identification of the two initial readers/inscribers, Selle and Mielcke, are helpful in localizing the area of C dictionary compilation and manuscript circulation. Selle was inscribing the manuscript in Tilsit; Mielcke was born and raised in Tilsit, so he could have gotten it either there, or from someone from there. The so far unknown compiler of the C dictionary, theretofore, should be searched in this particular area (in the city of Tilsit or its environs).
LUKE 2:47 BY VILENTAS: A HOMOGRAPHIC DISTINCTION OR A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR?
Baltramiejus Vilentas (Bartholomäus Willent) is famous for a number of orthographic innovations in Lithuanian, one of them being the extensive use of in his translation of Luther’s “Enchiridion” and the lectionary “Euangelias bei Epistolas,” both published in Königsberg in 1579. In these books, the letter has two main functions (cf. Kabašinskaitė 2005), viz., (1) it predominantly marks the long stressed vowel /uː/ and thus helps avoid a number of homographs (cf. gen. pl. ſwecʒũ vs. instr. sg. ſwiecʒu of svečias ‘guest’) and (2), in some endings, is written due to the tendency to distinguish certain grammatical forms (gen. pl., subj. 3), despite the fact that their endings are not always stressed and the vowels are shortened (cf. gen. pl. walgimũ [the stress is most probably on the root] vs. instr. sg. walgimu of valgymas ‘eating, meal’). It has to be noted that appears not only in the endings where the nasal vowels are historically possible, but also in other positions where the nasal articulation is not expected (e.g. nom. pl. jũs of ‘you’, fut. 3 bũs of būti ‘be’, etc.). This suggests that is most probably not intended to mark the nasality of the vowel and is not related to the Latin tradition to use tilde for the omission of which subsequently gave rise to the marking of nasal articulation in a number of languages.
The use of the diacritical marks to avoid the homonymy and the homography in Latin was elaborated and promoted by the humanist tradition (Steenbakkers 1994, 71–101; Burkard 2003, 24–35) and Vilentas was the first to implement this practice in Lithuanian by using the letters , , , and . It has to be noted that the inclusion of with the tilde looks quite suspicious as this mark does not belong to the traditional set of diacritics and needs to be explained. I argue that Vilentas might have used with the circumflex (i.e. ) in his manuscripts instead, and this would perfectly correspond to the humanist tradition to put the circumflex over the long vowels to differentiate between some words and certain grammatical forms, cf. hîc, hôc (adv.) vs. hic, hoc (pron.), abl. sg. curâ vs. nom. sg. cura, perf. ind. 3 pl. incidêre (= inciderunt) vs. inf. praes. incidere, etc. (Steenbakkers 1994, 77–78). The original was probably replaced by taken from the Fraktur type during the publishing because it is quite likely that the printer Georg Osterberger did not have enough letters , if at all, in his antiqua type (note that the letters , , and were also set in antiqua). If is reconstructed in the manuscript, it also renders a number of typographical errors easier to explain, because the letters and with a breve (or similar mark used to differentiate it from and in the manuscript) are more likely to be mistaken for rather than (and vice versa). Therefore, the typesetter (or even the copyist?), knowing the rule that had to be replaced by , made for a number of errors, cf. acc. pl. tũs (6×) instead of tus (29×) (or even tůs [2×], cf. below), dat. pl. yũmus (6×) instead of y/j/iumus (103×), iness. pl. toſũ dienoſũ instead of toſu dienoſu, etc. In some cases, <ů> was printed instead of or (= of the printing), e.g. imp. 2 pl. bůkite, fut. 1 sg. bůſiu instead of bukite, buſiu or bũkite, bũſiu, cf. imp. 2 sg. bũk (5×), fut. 3 bũs (74×).
In the light of these observations, the letter of praet. 3 klaũſe ‘listened’ (Luke 2:47 in “Euangelias bei Epistolas”) can be either intentional or simply erroneous. The intentionality is supported by the preceding sentence of Luke 2:46 with nearly homographous present active participles (acc. sg. m.) of the verbs klausyti ‘to listen’ and klausti ‘to ask’: ir nůſidawe iog po tryiũ dienũ / ra=‖da ghi Baßnicio ſedinti widui mokitoyu / klau=‖ſanti yũ / ir klauſenti yuͤs (cf. Vnd es begab ſich nach dreien tagen, funden ſie jn im Tempel ſitʒen, mitten vnter den Lerern, das er jnen ʒuhoͤrete / vnd ſie fragete. LB 1546). If klauſe had a plain in the following sentence, the reading of it could have been hindered by the ambiguity of the form: is it a preterit of klausti (i.e. kláusė in the modern marking) or klausyti (i.e. klaũsė)? Is it those who were listening to Jesus or those asking him questions who were amazed? Knowing that the second elements of the circumflex diphthongs in Lithuanian are prolonged, it seems quite probable that Vilentas found his (printed as ) quite fitting to be used here to avoid the homography: Ir wiſſi kurie iò klaũ=‖ſe / ſtiebeioſi iô iſchmintiy / ir iô atſakimams (cf. Vnd alle die jm ʒuhoͤreten verwunderten ſich ſeines verſtands vnd ſeiner antwort. LB 1546). One may also support the intentionality of by the fact that Lasarus Sengstock possibly saw a motivation behind it and kept it when he republished the lectionary of Vilentas in 1612, while two other forms with the seemingly unnecessary tilde in were corrected to (buwaũ → buwau, naũj → naui).
Good as it might seem, the hypothesis of intentional use of in klaũſe also meets some substantial counter-arguments speaking in favour of the accidental character of this form. First of all, it was already mentioned earlier that in some cases is a misprint reflecting with breve in the manuscript and thus klaũſe can be interpreted as an error of typesetting (or copying?). Secondly, there are more instances of the homographic forms klauſe found in the lectionary (cf. especially John 18:21), but none of them are marked in any way to avoid their ambiguity. Thirdly, the edition of Sengstock is known to be far from meticulous and thus the reprinting of klaũſe could be quite accidental.
If the attempt of Vilentas to mark the circumflex diphthong was intentional and probably the first in the history of Lithuanian, it has to be noted that the conventions of accent marking developed in an opposite direction during the course of the 17th century. According to Šinkūnas 2010, the authors belonging to the Prussian tradition of Lithuanian tended to put the diacritical marks on the first elements of the acute diphthongs (cf. the influential grammars of Daniel Klein) and there were only rare instances when the second members of circumflex diphthongs were marked (cf. especially Clavis Germanico-Lithvana).
Ona Aleknavičienė, Ieva Rekštytė
POSTIL BY JONAS BRETKŪNAS (1591): FROM LIBRARY OF THE LITHUANIAN LITERARY SOCIETY IN TILŽĖ TO MATENADARANE IN YEREVAN
In this article we describe a copy of Jonas Bretkūnas’ Postil (BP; 1591) that since August of 2012 has been kept in Yerevan, in the department of Lithuanian books in the Matenadarane institute of the old manuscripts of St. Mesrop Mashtots. This is one more BP copy that has not been included in the Lithuanian Bibliography (1969) and its Supplements (1990) so far. The copy was known before WW II , but later considered lost.
Analysis of the ownership marks demonstrates that this copy between the end of the nineteenth century and World War Two was kept in three libraries in East Prussia: (1) Library of the Lithuanian Literary Society (Litauische literarische Gesellschaft) in Tilžė (Tilsit), up to 1892; (2) East German Homeland Service Library in Tilžė (Ostdeutscher Heimatdienst Tilsit), after 1923; (3) Library of the Baltic and Slavic Seminar in Königsberg University (Baltisch-slavisches Seminar der Albertus-Universität Königsberg Pr.), after 1936.
It was acquired by the Library of the Lithuanian Literary Society at the period when the national movement was gaining power in Lithuania Minor, and which aimed at preserving the endangered Lithuanian language, literature, and culture as a source for scholarly research. The books of the Library of the Lithuanian Literary Society were acquired not by Tilžė Town Library as it was assumed so far, but by East German Homeland Service, a German organization which had nothing to do with Lithuanistic activity. It was this organization, not the Library of the Lithuanian Literary Society, which from the books were transferred to the Baltic and Slavic Seminar in Königsberg University where they were used for teaching and research purposes. The BP copy was also transferred to the Baltic and Slavic Seminar in Königsberg University as a source for the study of the language.
These pages of the BP Yerevan copy that contain excerpts from the Bible (pericopes) are obviously worn out more than other pages; both this type of marks and dated manuscript inscriptions (1768, 1847, 1849) attest that the copy belonged to private persons and was used for religious purposes prior to reaching the libraries.
This sixteenth century Lithuanian book, published in Königsberg, was intended for the clergy working in Lutheran parishes, and it was not a product of a cultural space directly connected to Armenia, but the librarians in the Matenadarane institute of the old manuscripts assessed it as a heritage of certain culture that also must be known and preserved.
Reda Griškaitė, Tomas Andriukonis
KAROLINA PRONIEWSKA: “DO MŁODEGO POETY” (“TO THE YOUNG POET”). A HISTORY OF A POEM
The name of Karolina or Karolina Anna Proniewska (Lith. Karolina Praniauskaitė, 1828–1859) today is tightly connected to the biography of another Lithuanian classical poet of the nineteenth century Antanas Baranauskas (Antoni Baranowski, 1835–1902). His acquaintance with Proniewska is considered to be one of the most important and even crucial events in Baranauskas’ biography. Proof of this is Baranauskas’ texts: both poetry and ego documents. The latter today is represented by his diary (private correspondence of the writers did not survive), and the poetry – by the literary dialogue between Proniewska and Baranauskas. Baranauskas’ diary or fragments of it were published multiple times. The fate of the poetical dialogue is different: a fragment of it (one poem of Baranauskas and one of Proniewska) was first printed in a Vilnius (Rus. Вильна, Pol. Wilno) periodical in 1857.
A year later the second poem by Proniewska written to Baranauskas was included in her published collection of poems. In the following twentieth century only a few isolated pieces of this poetical conversation were published: in collections of works of both Proniewska and Baranauskas, in books of memoirs and essays, and in literary anthologies. For the first time attempts to reconstruct the complete dialog were made in 2013: two poems by Proniewska and seven poems by Baranauskas were published. But this time again they did not include Proniewska’s first work of the dialogue “Do młodego Poety” (“To the Young Poet”), which had been its impulse. Ludicrous misunderstanding ordained that this work so far was considered lost and unknown.
For the first time this poem of Proniewska’s was printed on July 24, 1856 (it is over a year after its creation on May 17 or 18, 1855) in the Warsaw periodical Gazeta Warszawska that was widely read in Lithuania as well. But it did not constitute a separate publication, it was only included (in its entirety) as a quotation in the publication Listy z nad brzegów Krożenty (Letters from the Banks of Kražantė) by the well-known historian, publicist, and public activist Michał Baliński (1794–1864). In this work, written in the form of satirical letters (all in all Baliński wrote 21 letters between 1856 and 1860, and 18 thereof were published), Baliński depicts a broad panorama of cultural and scholarly life in Lithuania of that time. Special attention was paid to the belles lettres, especially poetry. Baliński introduced Proniewska’s work in his very first letter.
We do not know the way the poem “To the Young Poet” reached the hands of Baliński. The literary draft of his letter that is kept in Kraków, in the Jagiellonian Library, does not supply any answer. On the other hand, Baliński’s archive presents another surprise: several manuscript versions of the poem “To the Young Poet,” and one among them is the autograph of the author Proniewska. We do not know why Baliński did not send back the original manuscript to the author. We do not know why and to whom its manuscript copy (which is preserved in Baliński’s collection) was made. In contrast to the history of this poem’s creation, the history of its dispersion is very murky and it is hardly possible to expect its future reconstruction. And it is still more challenging to give an answer to the most essential question: Why didn’t Proniewska include “To the Young Poet” in her 1858 collection of poems published in Vilnius. Contrary to her other works this poem was simply forgotten immediately after the first publication.
Nevertheless, the poem “To the Young Poet” is one of the most important poems addressed to Baranauskas. It marks the beginning of the poetical dialog between Proniewska and Baranauskas, which was the event facilitating Baranauskas’ admission to the Telšiai (Rus. Тельши, Pol. Telsze) periodical Diocesan Roman Catholic Seminary as a student. The change in social rank and the Seminary’s milieu supplied the conditions for the writing of the texts that have made us consider Baranauskas a classic of Lithuanian literature. The impact on the addressee is an important part of the history of the poem “To the Young Poet.” Before the acquaintance with Proniewska, Baranauskas was a lonely amateur versifier, who was writing his poetry in the copyist office environment (where he was working), while his fellow-workers refused to believe he was the author of the poems he quoted to them. For a certain period of time Proniewska herself was in a comparable situation, since she had to fight her family for her right to compose poetry. So this meeting via the texts was very critical to both participants of the dialogue. In her poem “Sen” (“A Dream”) Proniewska presents the encounter with Baranauskas’ texts as a meeting with an unknown but intimate person, a relative of her soul.
The poem “To the Young Poet” was considered lost, but at the same time it was read by a few scholars. This was the poem in which Proniewska reconfirmed the spiritual kinship she discovered, and this was the first text that authoritatively recognized Baranauskas as a poet. Following Proniewska’s insight in “To the Young Poet” Baranauskas could have recognized a poet in himself. Ultimately the insight of Proniewska became one of the reasons for us to find a poet in Baranauskas as well.
AUSZRA AND TEODOR NARBUTT
This article attempts to discover the approaches of pioneers of Lithuanian nationalism that were preparing the newspaper Auszra (1883–1886) for the most notorious and most prolific Lithuanian historian Teodor Narbutt (or Teodor Mateusz Ostyk-Narbutt, 1784–1864). Another goal was to identify the place of his works and ideas in the development of modern Lithuanian nationalism, to the limits of the available sources. I discuss the major thoughts of Auszra editors about Narbutt and his works, especially about his largest opus Dzieje narodu litewskiego (Deeds of the Lithuanian Nation, vol. 1–9, Wilno, 1835–1841; further DNL). Other people of Narbutt’s milieu, those that were active in the Vilnius Temporary Archeological Commission (1855–1865; further VTAC) were included in my research as well. Chronological limits of the article coincide with the years of Auszra only symbolically, my research has insights both before that time and afterwards, thus, encompassing all three phases of the national Lithuanian movement. Even though Auszra always was my departing point, I also amply exploited materials from other publications and manuscripts, both public and private. I have assumed that all this extensive basis of sources is the discourse of Auszra.
The most important unifying element of ethnic community for Auszra’s editors was a common language, but their program also envisaged a significant role for the study of Lithuania’s history. The past times were searched for evidences of uniqueness of the Lithuanian Nation, and the right for its independent existence and fostering of both its own traditions and values this way was being substantiated. Auszra’s focus aimed both at works of the fiction writers, who in the first half of the nineteenth century chose to write on the topic of Lithuania’s history and at scholarly works by contemporary historians. Therefore the importance of history, albeit very fragmentary, was discussed in Auszra’s editors program more than once or twice. I have paid separate attention to their relation to works of Simonas Daukantas’ (Pol. Szymon Dowkont, 1793–1864), and especially of Józef Ignacy Kraszewski’s (1812–1887) and Władysław Syrokomla’s (real name: Ludwik Kondratowicz, 1823–1862). The influence that Narbutt had on the supporters of Auszra was never researched, even if ipso facto it was mentioned. Not always, still.
A deeper insight into the texts (public and private) of both Auszra and Varpas times and of later national movement activists proves that it was not only Daukantas that was important (since he wrote in Lithuanian and complied with the program of Auszra mostly), but also Narbutt, who wrote in Polish, and thus was “as though inconvenient linguistically,” especially his work DNL. Although Daukantas almost always received priority, Narbutt was almost always presented by his side. It is also of significance that his last name was modified in the Lithuanian way: editors of Auszra mostly wrote “Norbutas” instead of the original “Narbutt”.
For the first time participants in the Auszra movement used Narbutt’s name in 1875; it was found among Jonas Basanavičius’ (Pol. Jan Basanowicz, 1851–1827) writings. DNL produced a great impact on Andrius Vištelis-Višteliauskas (Pol. Andrzej Jan Wysztelewski, 1837–1912). In 1884 Silvestras Baltramaitis (1841–~1918) extensively quoted Narbutt’s works on the pages of Auszra. But initiator of a real “Narbuttiana” in Auszra was Mečislovas Davainis- Silvestraitis (Pol. Mieczysław Dowojna-Sylwestrowicz, 1849–1919), who published Narbutt’s biographic sketch in 1886, and afterwards persistently popularized the name of the historian in his own writings and in other public spaces. Davainis-Silvestraitis even stayed connected with Narbutt’s descendants. Other celebrated activists of the national Lithuanian movement, like Jonas Šliūpas, Aleksandras Burba, Kazimieras Macius, Antanas Milukas, and Jonas Žilius, were substantially influenced by Narbutt’s works.
Even if periodical and other Lithuanian publications of Auszra followers are short of numerous opinions about Narbutt, and those that are present are especially dispersed, yet the manuscript heritage, first of all egodocuments, proves that Narbutt’s DNL was in constant use: they purchased it, read it, took notes from it, analyzed it, kept it in private libraries, loaned it. DNL was equally popular in secular and confessional communities of the so called “litwomany,” both in the so called NWP and in the Kingdom of Poland, in the latter especially among the schoolchildren of Marijampolė’s (Rus. Мариамполь, Pol. Mariampol) gymnasium and clergymen of Seinai (Rus. Сейны, Pol. Sejny) Spiritual Seminary. Narbutt’s personality received attention as well: readers were interested in his and his family biographies, in their notes marked important dates of Narbutt’s life. In 1904 on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Narbutt’s death he was remembered mostly by the Lithuanian part of the Vilnius population. Commemorative events turned into a declaration of Lithuanian nationalism. After the 1905, as visual culture was swiftly penetrating modern Lithuanian nationalism, Narbutt’s name got publicized on the first Lithuanian postcards.
Auszra followers were looking for arguments for Lithuanian nation’s existence and perspective, so first of all they attempted to prove the high civilization and political organization of the old Lithuanians, at least not lower than that of other European nations. Moreover, they wanted to prove that all this was already present before Lithuania entered the union with Poland. And they discovered evidence for that in Narbutt’s DNL. This work also impressed Auszra’s followers emotionally. Ideologists of Lithuanian nationalism were mesmerized by Narbutt’s fervent patriotism. Publications of Auszra followers were full of references to such patriotic disposition of Narbutt. Therefore Narbutt was often described as a mystic, compared to an oracle “krivių krivaitis,” who reminded everybody of Lithuania’s honorable past, who restored historical memory, and who provided hope for a new life.
Narbutt’s only “shortcoming” was the language of his writings. In contrast to Daukantas, who was called “an ideal of resurgent Lithuanianness,” Narbutt did not succeed in merging two important counterparts of Lithuanian nationalism: Lithuania’s history and the Lithuanian language. In other words, even if Narbutt was “an insider,” he was less of “an insider” than Daukantas. This tendency could be already spotted in Auszra’s publications, first of all in Jonas Šliūpas (1861–1944) texts, but by the priest Antanas Milukas (1871–1943) at the end of the nineteenth century it was structurally shaped into a sound theory of two influences in Lithuania’s history: National-Lithuanian and Polish-Lithuanian. The first influence belonged to Daukantas’ works, the second one—to Narbutt’s. They both were important, at least to Milukas. In any case, these attempts to make Narbutt “an insider” uncover not only inner mechanism of modern Lithuanian nationalism that claimed the language was the most valid attribute of identity, but also its complexity and inevitable contradictions.
No matter how popular Narbutt was, there were only two of his minor works translated into Lithuanian: one historical source prepared by him and one text of fiction. The most important and the most read was Narbutt’s multivolume work DNL which was too complex and too extended for a translation. It is important to note that both of the first translators of Narbutt’ texts—the medical doctor Basanavičius and the priest Kazimieras Macius (1875–1905)—chose the topic about the Grand Duke of Lithuania Vytautas, as it was common among the followers of Auszra. Both translations were published during the period of the ban on Latin letters for Lithuanian (in 1900 and 1902), and outside of Lithuania’s borders: in Plymouth (PA ) and in Tilžė (Prussia).
The case of Narbutt, and especially of his VTAC colleague Adam Honory Kirkor (or Jan ze Sliwina, 1818–1886) emphasizes the mechanics of cultural heritage selection. Even though ideologists of the national movement did not reject writings composed in Polish “for Lithuania’s sake,” they did not include every author in their list of important people for Lithuania. The approach of Auszra’s followers toward VTAC was especially knotty. They considered as insiders only some members of an undivided team of VTAC. The most dubitable appeared to be one of the most important leaders of VTAC, Kirkor. Even though Kirkoras’ works were not only read but also often translated into Lithuanian, this was caused not merely by the content, but also by coincidence, by enthusiasm of a single person Petras Vileišis (1851–1926), and by Kirkor’s personal contacts with the activists of the national Lithuanian movement. Generally the approach of Auszra’s followers toward Kirkoras could be termed reserved. We cannot reject the assumption that the origin of such an approach was influenced by Julian Klaczka’s (1825–1906) reproach to Kirkor of collaboration with the imperial authorities (being renegade).
There were no comparable doubts about Narbutt among the followers of Auszra. Generally representatives of the national Lithuanian movement were not criticizing Narbutt harshly. The criticism was mostly “linguistic” and usually “justifiable.” Auszra’s followers ignored reproaches of the most serious and severe of Narbutt’s opponents, viz., Kraszewski; later his reprimands became classical (continue in circulation to this date). Both Kraszewski and Narbutt were serving “Lithuania’s cause” very well. Therefore in a certain sense Narbutt was a common denominator fitting well both liberal and Catholic Lithuanian publications. Of course, an analogous denominator in public space was Daukantas. Still certain egodocuments allow us to even assume a “supremacy” of Narbutt over Daukantas. The argument is simple: the generation of Auszra’s followers was maturing with Narbutt’s DNL, and the most important historical works by Daukantas remained in manuscript form at least until 1893, so they were known only by few.
THE IDEA OF LITHUANIA IN THE NEWSPAPER AUSZRA
This article presents major ideological postulates of the newspaper Auszra, which was often called a magazine and which was published in Prussia, but aimed at Lithuanians in the Russian Empire. I generalize those postulates under the term Idea of Lithuania. The article claims that Auszra embraced the majority of fundamental postulates characteristic of ethno-nationalism. The foundation of the Lithuanian linguistic community was comprised of peasants and intelligentsia. Part of Auszra’s editors fostered the hope that the Polish speaking nobility would be successfully returned to the Lithuanian nation. Dissociation from Polishness became the most important task in cleansing national Lithuanian identity. Certain minute anti-Semitic manifestations appeared on the newspaper pages, but those were isolated cases. Criticism of the Russian government was not frequent. Some of the editors anticipated that the imperial authorities would support Lithuanians against their common foe, the Poles. Even such things as lack of demarcation of national boundaries, indecisiveness in selection of a center for national Lithuanian activities (Kaunas vs Vilnius), and reiteration of loyalty to the imperial authorities, all attest that there was no program of political independence formulated on pages of Auszra as yet.
TEACHING SECULAR DISCIPLINES IN CATHOLIC SEMINARIES: THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, THE HOMELAND HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY (THE SECOND HALF OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY)
The goal of this article was research of process and meaning of teaching secular subjects or subjects of general education (the Russian Language and Literature, the Homeland [Otechestvennaya] History and Geography) in Roman Catholic seminaries of the so-called Northwestern Province of Russia (NWP), in the context of the clerical policy by authorities in the second half of the nineteenth century. Also I attempted to measure the significance of those subjects taught for the sociocultural behavior of clergymen. In such a formulation of my goal I attempted to respond to the historiographical stance about modern Lithuanian nationalism as a project of secular authorities. Thus, I argue against the claim that Lithuanians were positively singled out in policies of the government in the so-called NWP at the end of the nineteenth century, and I do not agree that the measures by the authorities restricting Polish cultural expression in the same NWP were simultaneously rendering wider opportunities and spaces for the Lithuanian language and its users, as well as their political projects.
The meaning of teaching secular subjects in seminaries is to be assessed in one way in the period after 1863–1864 insurrection till the end of 1860s, when the policy of sanctions against the Roman Catholic Church or of social relations regulated by the administrative circulars was obviously continued. At that time seminaries did not accept freshmen and teaching of secular subjects there did not proceed smoothly. But the assessment must be different in the 1870s, after the admission to the seminaries was renewed and the project of linguistic assimilation very clearly involved not only believers, but also clergymen (especially those that were prepared in the Vilnius Roman Catholic seminary, because their alumni had to work not only in their own, but also in the former Minsk bishopric, that did not include Lithuanian speaking areas). At that time seminaries suffered from the active pressure by authorities in favor of secular subjects or subjects of general education, since teaching of the Russian language and its usage in schools that were instructing clergymen became especially relevant. This remained unchanged in the last decades of the nineteenth century, due to the spread of modern Russian nationalism and interests in Roman Catholic seminaries; in broader context, due to the expectations of authorities aimed at this social layer.
Tensions occasioned among the Ministry of Interior Affairs, Ministry of Education, and local administration, due to the difference in assessment of institutions that were preparing clergymen, and due to the different perception of the sphere of their competency.
One can assess problems of the subjects taught in Russian in more than a single way. Yes, teaching of these subjects meant a non-canonical control of seminaries, which was executed by the secular government, and study of those subjects, in the eyes of the same government, added to qualifications of clergymen, which enabled them to better fulfil their duties for the state. Secular authorities, however, had limited possibilities in the use of Roman Catholic clergymen for their depolonization policy in NWP. Secular subjects constituted only a certain part of their educational curriculum, and there were almost no quantitative modifications since the initial endorsement of seminaries’ statute (1843). Thus, involvement of the clergymen in application of concrete plans promoted by the authorities was challenging. More than that, it does not straightforwardly confirm arguments of the historiographical claim about the nexus between modern Lithuanian nationalism and the secular authorities.
Availability of a variety of judgments upon the situation may at least partially explain the genesis of the reproaches by the opponents of ethno-linguistic nationalists that it appeared as if modern nationalists produced new projects for their government. I would think, however, that the question remains open: to what extent the posture was influenced by the instruction of secular subjects and by the social reality. Instruction of secular subjects did not always produce a direct and desirable result, even though its goal was to instill the Russian imperial world outlook.
“A NOBLEMAN, WHO WRITES IN LITHUANIAN”: A LINK BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND ETHNIC IDENTITY IN THE EARLY JOURNALISM OF MEČISLOVAS DAVAINIS-SILVESTRAITIS
For Lithuanian scholars Mečislovas Davainis-Silvestraitis (1849–1919) is known as a poet, a folklorist, and a book-carrier. We can often see such kind of an image constructed in popular media on occasions of commemorative events for Davainis-Silvestraitis. In historical literature, however, fragmentary biographical studies of Davainis-Silvestraitis were shaping a different image of a Lithuanian nobleman participating in the modern nationformation process. Davainis-Silvestraitis’ Polish publications in newspapers Litwa (“Lithuania”, 1908–1914) and Lud (“People”, 1912–1913) suggested that he did not consider language a primary condition of one’s national identity; besides, he concurrently discussed other elements thereof as well. But he began his publicist career in the newspaper Auszra (“Dawn”), and that was the environment in which the Lithuanian language functioned as a means of molding national identity. During the period of ban on Latin letters for Lithuanian Davainis-Silvestraitis became one of the rare examples of “a nobleman, who wrote in Lithuanian,” who composed schemes of integration of nobility into the modern Lithuanian nation, who structured strategies to return symbolism of the Lithuanian statehood to the modern city of Vilnius, and who actively discussed language connection to national identity.
Davainis-Silvestraitis’ early journalistic heritage attests that he considered language a primary and core element of Lithuanian national consciousness and national distinctness. Sacralization of Lithuanian, and promotion of idea that Lithuanian script and literacy existed in old pagan times preceding Christianization helped him add symbolic value to his arguments. His goal was to prove the ancient history of the Lithuanian nation, to inculcate pride of one’s nation’s past, to point to Lithuanian cultural autonomy and its difference from the Poles. Davainis-Silvestraitis believed that the additional function of language in the church service had to not merely prevent manipulation with ethnic identity, but to turn the Lithuanian language into the primary tool of engineering national consciousness and cleaning national identity. In raising the idea of complete ethnosocial structure of the Lithuanian nation, Davainis-Silvestraitis tried to dismiss originality of Lithuanian nobility manifested through Polish as a marker of higher culture. During the time Auszra was published (1883–1886) he began working on the idea that using Polish had been the only way to preserve and maintain Lithuanian nobility’s social exclusiveness from other groups. Polonization of nobility, he believed, was only linguistic, external, but not internal, spiritual. Since Davainis-Silvestraitis considered language a primary marker of ethnic distinctness, he began considering a noblemen claiming Lithuanian identity to have no other choice than to accept the Lithuanian language and culture; there was no option open for him of a different cultural and political alternative. Later Davainis-Silvestraitis identified other forms of non-Lithuanian speaking nobility participation in the national movement; the language, however, was still considered a central element defining nationality.
COLLABORATION OF TWO LITHUANIAN FOLKLORE COLLECTORS JAN KARŁOWICZ AND MEČISLOVAS DAVAINIS-SIVESTRAITIS: DEVELOPMENT OF METHODOLOGY AND SIGNS OF ETHNOLINGUISTICS
My paper deals with the new research methodology that was emerging in late nineteenth and early twentieth century in the field of Lithuanian folklore. I pay particular attention to Jan Karłowicz and Mečislovas Davainis-Silvestraitis’ cooperation and to Karłowicz’s methodological revision of contemporary folklore theory and its practical application.
I based my research on Karłowicz’s insights and suggestions, published in his folklore collections of 1871 and 1888, and on Davainis-Silvestraitis’ folklore manuscripts. The texts uncover the talent of these Lithuanian folklore collectors – they prepared volumes for publication in Polish but managed to preserve original features of Lithuanian lexicon.
Ethnographic and literary societies of that time (Russian Geographical Society – Rus. Русское географическое общество; Lithuanian Literary Society—Ger. Litauische litterarische Gesellschaft; Society of Folklore Collectors—Pol. Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze; and Scientific Society of Lithuania, Lit. Lietuvos mokslo draugija) not only acclaimed Karłowicz and Davainis-Silvestraitis’ research, proposed methodology, and collections, they also carried out their own folklore research in Lithuanian speaking areas. Both Karłowicz and Davainis-Silvestraitis worked closely with these associations and were familiar with their methodology and main research directions.