{"id":9260,"date":"2017-06-27T22:29:35","date_gmt":"2017-06-28T00:29:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lki.lt\/?p=9260"},"modified":"2017-06-27T22:30:25","modified_gmt":"2017-06-28T00:30:25","slug":"archivum-lithuanicum-15","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lki.lt\/en\/archivum-lithuanicum-15\/","title":{"rendered":"Archivum Lithuanicum 15"},"content":{"rendered":"

This page is only available in Lietuvi\u0173<\/a>. <\/p>

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

Vytauto Did\u017eiojo universitetas<\/p>\n

Klaip\u0117dos universitetas
\nLietuvi\u0173 kalbos institutas
\n\u0160iauli\u0173 universitetas
\nUniversity of Illinois at Chicago
\nVilniaus universitetas<\/p>\n

\n

Archivum Lithuanicum\u00a0Lietuvi\u0173 kalbos institutas
\nP. Vilei\u0161io g. 5
\nLT-10308, Vilnius, Lietuva<\/p>\n

El. pa\u0161tas \/ e-mail:\u00a0\u00a0subacius@uic.edu<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

ARCHIVUM LITHUANICUM 15<\/strong>\u00a0(6 MB, PDF)\u00a0<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text][vc_tta_tabs][vc_tta_section title=”Redaktori\u0173 kolegija \/ Editorial Board:” tab_id=”1498607887809-7b01086b-7dec85a2-4fde”][vc_column_text]Prof. habil. dr. GIEDRIUS SUBA\u010cIUS (filologija \/ philology),
\n(vyriausiasis redaktorius \/ editor),
\nUniversity of Illinois at Chicago,
\nLietuvi\u0173 kalbos institutas, Vilnius<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Dr. BIRUT\u0116 TRI\u0160KAIT\u0116\u00a0(filologija \/ philology),<\/p>\n

(vyriausiojo redaktoriaus pavaduotoja \/ assistant editor),<\/p>\n

Lietuvi\u0173 kalbos institutas, Vilnius<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Habil. dr. ONA ALEKNAVI\u010cIEN\u0116 (filologija \/ philology),
\nLietuvi\u0173 kalbos institutas, Vilnius<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Prof. habil. dr. ROMA BON\u010cKUT\u0116 (filologija \/ philology),
\nKlaip\u0117dos universitetas<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Prof. dr. PIETRO U. DINI (kalbotyra \/ linguistics),
\nUniversit\u00e0 di Pisa<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Prof. habil. dr. JOLANTA GELUMBECKAIT\u0116 (kalbotyra \/ linguistics),
\nJohann Wolfgang Goethe-Universit\u00e4t Frankfurt am Main<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Dr. REDA GRI\u0160KAIT\u0116 (istorija \/ history),
\nLietuvos istorijos institutas, Vilnius<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Doc. dr. BIRUT\u0116 KABA\u0160INSKAIT\u0116 (filologija \/ philology),
\nVilniaus universitetas<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Prof. habil. dr. R\u016aTA MARCINKEVI\u010cIEN\u0116 (filologija \/ philology),
\nVytauto Did\u017eiojo universitetas, Kaunas<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Prof. habil. dr. BRONIUS MASKULI\u016aNAS (filologija \/ philology),
\n\u0160iauli\u0173 universitetas<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Doc. dr. JURGIS PAKERYS (filologija \/ philology),
\nVilniaus universitetas<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Habil. dr. CHRISTIANE SCHILLER (kalbotyra \/ linguistics),
\nHumboldt-Universit\u00e4t zu Berlin<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Prof. dr. WILLIAM R. SCHMALSTIEG (kalbotyra \/ linguistics),
\nPennsylvania State University, University College<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Dr. MINDAUGAS \u0160INK\u016aNAS (kalbotyra \/ linguistics),
\nLietuvi\u0173 kalbos institutas, Vilnius<\/p>\n

Vilniaus universitetas<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Dr. AURELIJA TAMO\u0160I\u016aNAIT\u0116 (filologija \/ philology),
\nVytauto Did\u017eiojo universitetas, Kaunas<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Dr. JURGITA VENCKIEN\u0116 (filologija \/ philology),<\/p>\n

Lietuvi\u0173 kalbos institutas, Vilnius[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”TURINYS (CONTENTS)” tab_id=”1498607887862-09167218-b76a85a2-4fde”][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

Archivum Lithuanicum 15<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n

Straipsniai (Articles)
\n<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ona Aleknavi\u010dien\u0117<\/p>\n

Dar vienas Martyno Ma\u017evydo lai\u0161kas<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Birut\u0117 Tri\u0161kait\u0117<\/p>\n

Petro Gotlybo Milkaus priera\u0161ai rankra\u0161tiniame \u017eodyne\u00a0Clavis Germanico-Lithvana<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Jurgis Pakerys<\/p>\n

Vilento Lk 2,47: homografin\u0117 skirtis ar spaudos riktas?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ona Aleknavi\u010dien\u0117, Ieva Rek\u0161tyt\u0117<\/p>\n

Jono Bretk\u016bno\u00a0Postil\u0117\u00a0<\/em>(1591): nuo Lietuvi\u0173 literat\u016bros draugijos Til\u017e\u0117je iki Matenadarano Jerevane<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Reda Gri\u0161kait\u0117, Tomas Andriukonis<\/p>\n

Karolina Praniauskait\u0117: \u201eDo m\u0142odego Poety\u201c (\u201eJaunajam Poetui\u201c). Eil\u0117ra\u0161\u010dio istorija<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Reda Gri\u0161kait\u0117<\/p>\n

Auszra<\/em>\u00a0ir Teodoras Narbutas<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Darius Stali\u016bnas<\/p>\n

Lietuvos id\u0117ja\u00a0Au\u0161roje<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Vilma \u017daltauskait\u0117<\/p>\n

Pasaulietini\u0173 dalyk\u0173 \u2013 rus\u0173 kalbos, literat\u016bros, t\u0117vyn\u0117s istorijos ir geografijos \u2013 mokymas dvasinink\u0173 rengimo \u012fstaigose (XIX am\u017eiaus antroji pus\u0117)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Olga Mastianica<\/p>\n

\u201eBajoras, ra\u0161antis lietuvi\u0161kai\u201c, arba kalbos ir tautin\u0117s tapatyb\u0117s ry\u0161ys ankstyvojoje Me\u010dislovo Davainio-Silvestrai\u010dio publicistikoje<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Kristina Rutkovska<\/p>\n

Lietuvi\u0173 tautosakos rink\u0117j\u0173 Jano Karlovi\u010diaus ir Me\u010dislovo Davainio-Silvestrai\u010dio bendradarbiavimas: metodologijos raida, etnolingvistikos aprai\u0161kos<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Publikacijos (Publications)<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Jonas Palionis<\/p>\n

Mano susira\u0161in\u0117jimas su Petru Joniku, Antanu Saliu ir Pranu Skard\u017eiumi<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Aurelija Tamo\u0161i\u016bnait\u0117<\/p>\n

Ankstyvas lietuvi\u0161kos kirilikos egodokumentuose liudytojas \u2013 Stanislovo Prakulevi\u010diaus 1879 met\u0173 lai\u0161kas Godliauski\u0173 \u0161eimai<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Recenzijos (Reviews)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Outi Merisalo<\/p>\n

Review of: Pietro U. Dini,\u00a0Aliletoescvr: linguistica baltica delle origini: teorie e contesti linguistici nel Cinquecento<\/em>, 2010<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Gertrud Bense<\/p>\n

Rezension von: Vilma Zubaitien\u0117 (par.), Frydrichas Vilhelmas Hakas,\u00a0Vocabvlarivm Litthvanico-Germanicvm, et Germanico-Litthvanicvm\u2026 Nebst einem Anhang einer kurtzgefa\u00dften Litthauischen Grammatic (1730)<\/em>, I Kritinis leidimas, 2012; II Studija, indeksai rodykl\u0117s, 2012<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Albinas Drukteinis<\/p>\n

Recenzuojama: Frydrichas Kur\u0161aitis,\u00a0Lietuvi\u0173 kalbos gramatika 1876,\u00a0<\/em>2013<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Roma Bon\u010dkut\u0117<\/p>\n

Recenzuojama: Ieva \u0160enavi\u010dien\u0117 (par.),\u00a0Kunigas Mackevi\u010dius kaip istorin\u0117 asmenyb\u0117. Biografijos kont\u016brai,\u00a0<\/em>2012<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rainer Fecht<\/p>\n

Rezension von: Daniel Petit ir Bonifacas Stund\u017eia (par.), Ferdinand de Saussure,\u00a0Baltistikos ra\u0161tai = Travaux baltistiques,\u00a0<\/em>2012<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Christiane Schiller<\/p>\n

Rezension von: Jonas Palionis,\u00a0XVII a. antrosios pus\u0117s Punios parapijos asmenvard\u017eiai ir vietovard\u017eiai,\u00a0<\/em>2003; Jonas Palionis,\u00a0XVII a. pabaigos \u2013 XVIII a. pirmosios pus\u0117s Punios parapijos asmenvard\u017eiai ir vietovard\u017eiai,\u00a0<\/em>2008<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

William R. Schmalstieg<\/p>\n

Review of: Jonas Palionis,\u00a0Atsiminim\u0173 nuotrupos,\u00a0<\/em>2012<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Regina Venckut\u0117<\/p>\n

Recenzuojama: Algirdas Sabaliauskas,\u00a0Lietuvi\u0173 kalbos tyrin\u0117jimo istorija 1980\u20132010 m.,\u00a0<\/em>2012<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Paulius V. Suba\u010dius<\/p>\n

Recenzuojama: Tomas Andriukonis,\u00a0Originalieji Antano Baranausko tekstai (1853\u20131863 m.) \u2013 ra\u0161ymo istorija,\u00a0<\/em>2013<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Diskusijos, ap\u017evalgos, pastabos (Discussions, Surveys, Notes)<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Stephan Kessler, Stephen Mossman<\/p>\n

Ein Fund aus dem Jahre 1440: Ein bisher unbekannter Text in einer baltischen Sprache<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ona Aleknavi\u010dien\u0117<\/p>\n

Biblija ir senoji Lietuvos ra\u0161tija: XII Jurgio Lebed\u017eio skaitymai<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Giedrius Suba\u010dius<\/p>\n

Svetimieji ir savieji Simono Daukanto kalbos gryninimo strategijoje<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Christiane Schiller<\/p>\n

Zum 80. Geburtstag von Gertrud Bense<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art\u016bras Laisis<\/p>\n

Apie 2-\u0105sias Berlyno Humboldt\u0173 universiteto \u201eLituanistikos dienas\u201c 2013 met\u0173 rugpj\u016b\u010dio 26\u2013rugs\u0117jo 13 dienomis[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”Santraukos \/ Summaries” tab_id=”1498607913533-7abd6d3f-ed3b85a2-4fde”][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

Ona Aleknavi\u010dien\u0117<\/p>\n

ONE MORE LETTER OF MARTYNAS MA\u017dVYDAS<\/p>\n

Summary<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This article introduces a letter by the Lutheran minister of the Ragain\u0117 (Ragnit) Parish Martynas Ma\u017evydas (~1510\u20131563); 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 Preu\u00dfischer Kulturbesitz) in Berlin (GStA PK: XX. HA Hist. StA K\u00f6nigsberg, Herzogliches Briefarchiv J 2, Nr. 984, 1553 Januar\u2013M\u00e4rz, [1r\u20131v]). The letter contains no date and no addressee.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I would date this letter between November 17, 1552 and April of 1553. The procedures of change in Ragain\u0117 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 Ma\u017evydas that were known till recently.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The most probable addressee of the letter was Prussian Duke Albrecht\u2019s preacher and palace adviser, the member of the Semba Consistory Johann Funck (1518\u20131566): one of the closest men of the Duke\u2019s milieu and the follower of Andreas Osiander (1498\u20131552). This would help to interpret the reasons as to why Ma\u017evydas had been also considered a follower of Osiander.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ma\u017evydas 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\u2019s hands.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ma\u017evydas\u2019 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 Ma\u017evydas had taken on himself.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In an appendix I list all the letters known to this date with Ma\u017evydas\u2019 signature as well as his letters still lost but mentioned by someone.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Birut\u0117 Tri\u0161kait\u0117<\/p>\n

INSCRIPTIONS BY PETER GOTTLIEB MIELCKE IN THE MANUSCRIPT DICTIONARY\u00a0CLAVIS GERMANICO-LITHVANA<\/em><\/p>\n

Summary<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This article continues my research on the topic of authorship of inscriptions in the manuscript dictionary\u00a0Clavis Germanico-Lithvana<\/em>\u00a0(abbreviated\u00a0C<\/em>; after 1680), which I began in my article \u201cFriedrich Selle\u2019s Inscriptions in the Manuscript Dictionary\u00a0Clavis Germanico-Lithvana<\/em>\u201d (Archivum Lithuanicum<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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. Til\u017e\u0117]; d. 1753 in Mehlkehmen [lit. Mielkiemis]), who also was a translator of certain religious hymns and books of the first published Lithuanian Bible (K\u00f6nigsberg [lit. Karaliau\u010dius], 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 K\u00f6nigsberg collections). Analysis of the longhand has confirmed that B inscriptions were made by Mielcke\u2019s hand.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Thus, Mielcke was the major supplementer of\u00a0C<\/em>\u00a0text (after the dictionary compiler himself), he expanded its both macro- and microstructure. Mielcke\u2019s 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\u2019s Bible, edited by Friedrich Lankisch; Johannes Rehsa\u2019s\u00a0Psalteras Dowido<\/em>;\u00a0C<\/em>\u00a0itself), now we can attribute also the Lithuanian New Testament of 1701 to Mielcke\u2019s hand.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The circumstance that Mielcke employed neither the New Testament of 1727 (QNT<\/em>), nor the Psalter of 1728 (QPs<\/em>), nor the Bible of 1735 (QB<\/em>), 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\u00a0C<\/em>\u00a0had occurred prior to the publication of\u00a0QNT<\/em>,\u00a0QPs<\/em>, and\u00a0QB<\/em>. Thus, it means that the 1727 (publication of\u00a0QNT<\/em>) might be considered the terminus ad quem of Mielcke\u2019s inscriptions. Most probably Mielcke was working with the\u00a0C<\/em>\u00a0manuscript while still studying in K\u00f6nigsberg University or teaching at its Lithuanian Language Seminar.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

After the death of an unknown compiler, the\u00a0C<\/em>\u00a0manuscript could have been kept in private libraries of priests or churches in the Tilsit district. Mielcke could have obtained the\u00a0C<\/em>\u00a0manuscript 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\u00a0C<\/em>\u00a0dictionary to his collaborator, translator of Hymns and the Bible, the clergyman of Saalau (lit. \u017delva) Christian Stimehr (lit. Kristijonas \u0160timeris, 1676\u20131750). It is possible that this German\u2013Lithuanian Dictionary served for the Lithuanian translation of the Bible. It must have been this Stimehr who donated the\u00a0C<\/em>\u00a0manuscript to his son Christian Friedrich Stimehr (lit. Kristijonas Frydrichas \u0160timeris, 1725\u20131765), since there are inscriptions of the son\u2019s ownership in both volumes of\u00a0C<\/em>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Identification of the two initial readers\/inscribers, Selle and Mielcke, are helpful in localizing the area of\u00a0C<\/em>\u00a0dictionary 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\u00a0C<\/em>\u00a0dictionary, theretofore, should be searched in this particular area (in the city of Tilsit or its environs).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Jurgis Pakerys<\/p>\n

LUKE 2:47 BY VILENTAS: A HOMOGRAPHIC DISTINCTION OR A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR?<\/p>\n

Summary<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Baltramiejus Vilentas (Bartholom\u00e4us Willent) is famous for a number of orthographic innovations in Lithuanian, one of them being the extensive use of in his translation of Luther\u2019s \u201cEnchiridion\u201d and the lectionary \u201cEuangelias bei Epistolas,\u201d both published in K\u00f6nigsberg in 1579. In these books, the letter has two main functions (cf. Kaba\u0161inskait\u0117 2005), viz., (1) it predominantly marks the long stressed vowel \/u\u02d0\/ and thus helps avoid a number of homographs (cf. gen. pl.\u00a0\u017fwec<\/em>\u0292<\/em>\u0169\u00a0<\/em>vs. instr. sg.\u00a0\u017fwiec<\/em>\u0292<\/em>u\u00a0<\/em>of\u00a0sve\u010dias\u00a0<\/em>\u2018guest\u2019) 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.\u00a0walgim\u0169\u00a0<\/em>[the stress is most probably on the root] vs. instr. sg.\u00a0walgimu\u00a0<\/em>of\u00a0valgymas\u00a0<\/em>\u2018eating, meal\u2019). 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.\u00a0j\u0169s\u00a0<\/em>of \u2018you\u2019, fut. 3\u00a0b\u0169s\u00a0<\/em>of\u00a0b\u016bti\u00a0<\/em>\u2018be\u2019, 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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\u2013101; Burkard 2003, 24\u201335) 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.\u00a0h\u00eec, h\u00f4c\u00a0<\/em>(adv.) vs.\u00a0hic<\/em>,\u00a0hoc\u00a0<\/em>(pron.), abl. sg.\u00a0cur\u00e2\u00a0<\/em>vs. nom. sg.\u00a0cura<\/em>, perf. ind. 3 pl.\u00a0incid\u00eare\u00a0<\/em>(=\u00a0inciderunt<\/em>) vs. inf. praes.\u00a0incidere<\/em>, etc. (Steenbakkers 1994, 77\u201378). 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.\u00a0t\u0169s\u00a0<\/em>(6\u00d7) instead of\u00a0tus\u00a0<\/em>(29\u00d7) (or even\u00a0t\u016fs\u00a0<\/em>[2\u00d7], cf. below), dat. pl.\u00a0y\u0169mus\u00a0<\/em>(6\u00d7) instead of\u00a0y\/j\/iumus\u00a0<\/em>(103\u00d7), iness. pl.\u00a0to\u017f\u0169 dieno\u017f\u0169\u00a0<\/em>instead of\u00a0to\u017fu dieno\u017fu<\/em>, etc. In some cases, <\u016f>\u00a0<\/em>was printed instead of or (= of the printing), e.g. imp. 2 pl.\u00a0b\u016fkite,\u00a0<\/em>fut. 1 sg.\u00a0b\u016f\u017fiu\u00a0<\/em>instead of\u00a0bukite, bu\u017fiu\u00a0<\/em>or\u00a0b\u0169kite, b\u0169\u017fiu<\/em>, cf. imp. 2 sg.\u00a0b\u0169k\u00a0<\/em>(5\u00d7), fut. 3\u00a0b\u0169s\u00a0<\/em>(74\u00d7).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the light of these observations, the letter of praet. 3\u00a0kla\u0169\u017fe\u00a0<\/em>\u2018listened\u2019 (Luke 2:47 in \u201cEuangelias bei Epistolas\u201d) 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\u00a0klausyti\u00a0<\/em>\u2018to listen\u2019 and\u00a0klausti\u00a0<\/em>\u2018to ask\u2019:\u00a0ir n\u016f\u017fidawe iog po tryi\u0169 dien\u0169 \/ ra=<\/em>\u2016da ghi Ba\u00dfnicio \u017fedinti widui mokitoyu \/\u00a0<\/em>klau<\/em><\/strong>=<\/em>\u2016\u017fanti\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>y\u0169 \/ ir\u00a0<\/em>klau\u017fenti\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>yu\u0364s\u00a0<\/em>(cf. Vnd es begab \u017fich nach dreien tagen, funden \u017fie jn im Tempel \u017fit<\/em>\u0292<\/em>en, mitten vnter den Lerern, das er jnen\u00a0<\/em>\u0292<\/em><\/strong>uh<\/em><\/strong>o\u0364<\/em><\/strong>rete\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>\/ vnd \u017fie\u00a0<\/em>fragete<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0<\/em>LB 1546). If\u00a0klau\u017fe\u00a0<\/em>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\u00a0klausti\u00a0<\/em>(i.e.\u00a0kl\u00e1us\u0117\u00a0<\/em>in the modern marking) or\u00a0klausyti\u00a0<\/em>(i.e.\u00a0kla\u0169s\u0117<\/em>)? 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:\u00a0Ir wi\u017f\u017fi kurie i\u00f2\u00a0<\/em>kla\u0169<\/em><\/strong>=<\/em>\u2016\u017fe\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>\/ \u017ftiebeio\u017fi i\u00f4 i\u017fchmintiy \/ ir i\u00f4 at\u017fakimams\u00a0<\/em>(cf.\u00a0Vnd alle die jm\u00a0<\/em>\u0292<\/em><\/strong>uh<\/em><\/strong>o\u0364<\/em><\/strong>reten\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>verwunderten \u017fich \u017feines ver\u017ftands vnd \u017feiner antwort.\u00a0<\/em>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 (buwa\u0169\u00a0<\/em>\u2192\u00a0buwau<\/em>,\u00a0na\u0169j\u00a0<\/em>\u2192\u00a0naui<\/em>).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Good as it might seem, the hypothesis of intentional use of in\u00a0kla\u0169\u017fe\u00a0<\/em>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\u00a0kla\u0169\u017fe\u00a0<\/em>can be interpreted as an error of typesetting (or copying?). Secondly, there are more instances of the homographic forms\u00a0klau\u017fe\u00a0<\/em>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\u00a0kla\u0169\u017fe\u00a0<\/em>could be quite accidental.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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 \u0160ink\u016bnas 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\u00a0Clavis Germanico-Lithvana<\/em>).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ona Aleknavi\u010dien\u0117, Ieva Rek\u0161tyt\u0117<\/p>\n

POSTIL\u00a0<\/em>BY JONAS BRETK\u016aNAS (1591): FROM LIBRARY OF THE LITHUANIAN LITERARY SOCIETY IN TIL\u017d\u0116 TO MATENADARANE IN YEREVAN<\/p>\n

Summary<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In this article we describe a copy of Jonas Bretk\u016bnas\u2019\u00a0Postil\u00a0<\/em>(BP<\/em>; 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\u00a0BP\u00a0<\/em>copy that has not been included in the\u00a0Lithuanian Bibliography\u00a0<\/em>(1969) and its\u00a0Supplements\u00a0<\/em>(1990) so far. The copy was known before WW II , but later considered lost.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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 Til\u017e\u0117 (Tilsit), up to 1892; (2) East German Homeland Service Library in Til\u017e\u0117 (Ostdeutscher Heimatdienst Tilsit), after 1923; (3) Library of the Baltic and Slavic Seminar in K\u00f6nigsberg University (Baltisch-slavisches Seminar der Albertus-Universit\u00e4t K\u00f6nigsberg Pr.), after 1936.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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 Til\u017e\u0117 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 K\u00f6nigsberg University where they were used for teaching and research purposes. The\u00a0BP\u00a0<\/em>copy was also transferred to the Baltic and Slavic Seminar in K\u00f6nigsberg University as a source for the study of the language.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

These pages of the\u00a0BP\u00a0<\/em>Yerevan copy that contain excerpts from the Bible (pericopes<\/em>) 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This sixteenth century Lithuanian book, published in K\u00f6nigsberg, 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Reda Gri\u0161kait\u0117, Tomas Andriukonis<\/p>\n

KAROLINA PRONIEWSKA: \u201cDO M\u0141ODEGO POETY\u201d (\u201cTO THE YOUNG POET\u201d). A HISTORY OF A POEM<\/p>\n

Summary<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The name of Karolina or Karolina Anna Proniewska (Lith. Karolina Praniauskait\u0117, 1828\u20131859) today is tightly connected to the biography of another Lithuanian classical poet of the nineteenth century Antanas Baranauskas (Antoni Baranowski, 1835\u20131902). His acquaintance with Proniewska is considered to be one of the most important and even crucial events in Baranauskas\u2019 biography. Proof of this is Baranauskas\u2019 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 \u2013 by the literary dialogue between Proniewska and Baranauskas. Baranauskas\u2019 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.\u00a0\u0412\u0438\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0430<\/em>, Pol.\u00a0Wilno<\/em>) periodical in 1857.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A\u00a0year 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\u2019s first work of the dialogue \u201cDo m\u0142odego Poety\u201d (\u201cTo the Young Poet\u201d), which had been its impulse. Ludicrous misunderstanding ordained that this work so far was considered lost and unknown.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For the first time this poem of Proniewska\u2019s was printed on July 24, 1856 (it is over a year after its creation on May 17 or 18, 1855) in the Warsaw periodical\u00a0Gazeta Warszawska\u00a0<\/em>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\u00a0Listy z nad brzeg\u00f3w Kro\u017centy\u00a0<\/em>(Letters from the Banks of Kra\u017eant\u0117<\/em>) by the well-known historian, publicist, and public activist Micha\u0142 Bali\u0144ski (1794\u20131864). In this work, written in the form of satirical letters (all in all Bali\u0144ski wrote 21 letters between 1856 and 1860, and 18 thereof were published), Bali\u0144ski depicts a broad panorama of cultural and scholarly life in Lithuania of that time. Special attention was paid to the\u00a0belles lettres<\/em>, especially poetry. Bali\u0144ski introduced Proniewska\u2019s work in his very first letter.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

We do not know the way the poem \u201cTo the Young Poet\u201d reached the hands of Bali\u0144ski. The literary draft of his letter that is kept in Krak\u00f3w, in the Jagiellonian Library, does not supply any answer. On the other hand, Bali\u0144ski\u2019s archive presents another surprise: several manuscript versions of the poem \u201cTo the Young Poet,\u201d and one among them is the autograph of the author Proniewska. We do not know why Bali\u0144ski 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 Bali\u0144ski\u2019s collection) was made. In contrast to the history of this poem\u2019s 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\u2019t Proniewska include \u201cTo the Young Poet\u201d in her 1858 collection of poems published in Vilnius. Contrary to her other works this poem was simply forgotten immediately after the first publication.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the poem \u201cTo the Young Poet\u201d 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\u2019 admission to the Tel\u0161iai (Rus.\u00a0\u0422\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0448\u0438<\/em>, Pol.\u00a0Telsze<\/em>) periodical Diocesan Roman Catholic Seminary as a student. The change in social rank and the Seminary\u2019s 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 \u201cTo the Young Poet.\u201d 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 \u201cSen\u201d (\u201cA Dream\u201d) Proniewska presents the encounter with Baranauskas\u2019 texts as a meeting with an unknown but intimate person, a relative of her soul.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The poem \u201cTo the Young Poet\u201d 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\u2019s insight in \u201cTo the Young Poet\u201d 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Reda Gri\u0161kait\u0117<\/p>\n

AUSZRA\u00a0<\/em>AND TEODOR NARBUTT<\/p>\n

Summary<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This article attempts to discover the approaches of pioneers of Lithuanian nationalism that were preparing the newspaper\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>(1883\u20131886) for the most notorious and most prolific Lithuanian historian Teodor Narbutt (or Teodor Mateusz Ostyk-Narbutt, 1784\u20131864). 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\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>editors about Narbutt and his works, especially about his largest opus\u00a0Dzieje narodu litewskiego\u00a0<\/em>(Deeds of the Lithuanian Nation, vol. 1\u20139, Wilno, 1835\u20131841; further\u00a0DNL<\/em>). Other people of Narbutt\u2019s milieu, those that were active in the Vilnius Temporary Archeological Commission (1855\u20131865; further\u00a0VTAC<\/em>) were included in my research as well. Chronological limits of the article coincide with the years of\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>only symbolically, my research has insights both before that time and afterwards, thus, encompassing all three phases of the national Lithuanian movement. Even though\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>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\u00a0Auszra<\/em>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The most important unifying element of ethnic community for\u00a0Auszra\u2019s\u00a0<\/em>editors was a common language, but their program also envisaged a significant role for the study of Lithuania\u2019s 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.\u00a0Auszra\u2019s\u00a0<\/em>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\u2019s history and at scholarly works by contemporary historians. Therefore the importance of history, albeit very fragmentary, was discussed in\u00a0Auszra\u2019s\u00a0<\/em>editors program more than once or twice. I have paid separate attention to their relation to works of Simonas Daukantas\u2019 (Pol. Szymon Dowkont, 1793\u20131864), and especially of J\u00f3zef Ignacy Kraszewski\u2019s (1812\u20131887) and W\u0142adys\u0142aw Syrokomla\u2019s (real name: Ludwik Kondratowicz, 1823\u20131862). The influence that Narbutt had on the supporters of\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>was never researched, even if ipso facto it was mentioned. Not always, still.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A deeper insight into the texts (public and private) of both\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0Varpas\u00a0<\/em>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\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>mostly), but also Narbutt, who wrote in Polish, and thus was \u201cas though inconvenient linguistically,\u201d especially his work\u00a0DNL<\/em>. 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\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>mostly wrote \u201cNorbutas\u201d instead of the original \u201cNarbutt\u201d.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For the first time participants in the\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>movement used Narbutt\u2019s name in 1875; it was found among Jonas Basanavi\u010dius\u2019 (Pol. Jan Basanowicz, 1851\u20131827) writings.\u00a0DNL\u00a0<\/em>produced a great impact on Andrius Vi\u0161telis-Vi\u0161teliauskas (Pol. Andrzej Jan Wysztelewski, 1837\u20131912). In 1884 Silvestras Baltramaitis (1841\u2013~1918) extensively quoted Narbutt\u2019s works on the pages of\u00a0Auszra<\/em>. But initiator of a real \u201cNarbuttiana\u201d in\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>was Me\u010dislovas Davainis- Silvestraitis (Pol. Mieczys\u0142aw Dowojna-Sylwestrowicz, 1849\u20131919), who published Narbutt\u2019s 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\u2019s descendants. Other celebrated activists of the national Lithuanian movement, like Jonas \u0160li\u016bpas, Aleksandras Burba, Kazimieras Macius, Antanas Milukas, and Jonas \u017dilius, were substantially influenced by Narbutt\u2019s works.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Even if periodical and other Lithuanian publications of\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>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\u2019s\u00a0DNL\u00a0<\/em>was in constant use: they purchased it, read it, took notes from it, analyzed it, kept it in private libraries, loaned it.\u00a0DNL\u00a0<\/em>was equally popular in secular and confessional communities of the so called \u201clitwomany,\u201d both in the so called NWP and in the Kingdom of Poland, in the latter especially among the schoolchildren of Marijampol\u0117\u2019s (Rus.\u00a0\u041c\u0430\u0440\u0438\u0430\u043c\u043f\u043e\u043b\u044c<\/em>, Pol.\u00a0Mariampol<\/em>) gymnasium and clergymen of Seinai (Rus.\u00a0\u0421\u0435\u0439\u043d\u044b<\/em>, Pol.\u00a0Sejny<\/em>) Spiritual Seminary. Narbutt\u2019s personality received attention as well: readers were interested in his and his family biographies, in their notes marked important dates of Narbutt\u2019s life. In 1904 on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Narbutt\u2019s 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\u2019s name got publicized on the first Lithuanian postcards.<\/p>\n

Auszra\u00a0<\/em>followers were looking for arguments for Lithuanian nation\u2019s 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\u2019s\u00a0DNL<\/em>. This work also impressed\u00a0Auszra\u2019s\u00a0<\/em>followers emotionally. Ideologists of Lithuanian nationalism were mesmerized by Narbutt\u2019s fervent patriotism. Publications of\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>followers were full of references to such patriotic disposition of Narbutt. Therefore Narbutt was often described as a mystic, compared to an oracle \u201ckrivi\u0173 krivaitis,\u201d who reminded everybody of Lithuania\u2019s honorable past, who restored historical memory, and who provided hope for a new life.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Narbutt\u2019s only \u201cshortcoming\u201d was the language of his writings. In contrast to Daukantas, who was called \u201can ideal of resurgent Lithuanianness,\u201d Narbutt did not succeed in merging two important counterparts of Lithuanian nationalism: Lithuania\u2019s history and the Lithuanian language. In other words, even if Narbutt was \u201can insider,\u201d he was less of \u201can insider\u201d than Daukantas. This tendency could be already spotted in\u00a0Auszra\u2019s\u00a0<\/em>publications, first of all in Jonas \u0160li\u016bpas (1861\u20131944) texts, but by the priest Antanas Milukas (1871\u20131943) at the end of the nineteenth century it was structurally shaped into a sound theory of two influences in Lithuania\u2019s history: National-Lithuanian and Polish-Lithuanian. The first influence belonged to Daukantas\u2019 works, the second one\u2014to Narbutt\u2019s. They both were important, at least to Milukas. In any case, these attempts to make Narbutt \u201can insider\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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\u2019s multivolume work\u00a0DNL\u00a0<\/em>which was too complex and too extended for a translation. It is important to note that both of the first translators of Narbutt\u2019 texts\u2014the medical doctor Basanavi\u010dius and the priest Kazimieras Macius (1875\u20131905)\u2014chose the topic about the Grand Duke of Lithuania Vytautas, as it was common among the followers of\u00a0Auszra<\/em>. Both translations were published during the period of the ban on Latin letters for Lithuanian (in 1900 and 1902), and outside of Lithuania\u2019s borders: in Plymouth (PA ) and in Til\u017e\u0117 (Prussia).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The case of Narbutt, and especially of his VTAC colleague Adam Honory Kirkor (or Jan ze Sliwina, 1818\u20131886) emphasizes the mechanics of cultural heritage selection. Even though ideologists of the national movement did not reject writings composed in Polish \u201cfor Lithuania\u2019s sake,\u201d they did not include every author in their list of important people for Lithuania. The approach of\u00a0Auszra\u2019s\u00a0<\/em>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\u2019 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 Vilei\u0161is (1851\u20131926), and by Kirkor\u2019s personal contacts with the activists of the national Lithuanian movement. Generally the approach of\u00a0Auszra\u2019s\u00a0<\/em>followers toward Kirkoras could be termed reserved. We cannot reject the assumption that the origin of such an approach was influenced by Julian Klaczka\u2019s (1825\u20131906) reproach to Kirkor of collaboration with the imperial authorities (being renegade).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There were no comparable doubts about Narbutt among the followers of\u00a0Auszra<\/em>. Generally representatives of the national Lithuanian movement were not criticizing Narbutt harshly. The criticism was mostly \u201clinguistic\u201d and usually \u201cjustifiable.\u201d Auszra\u2019s followers ignored reproaches of the most serious and severe of Narbutt\u2019s opponents, viz., Kraszewski; later his reprimands became classical (continue in circulation to this date). Both Kraszewski and Narbutt were serving \u201cLithuania\u2019s cause\u201d 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 \u201csupremacy\u201d of Narbutt over Daukantas. The argument is simple: the generation of\u00a0Auszra\u2019s\u00a0<\/em>followers was maturing with Narbutt\u2019s\u00a0DNL<\/em>, and the most important historical works by Daukantas remained in manuscript form at least until 1893, so they were known only by few.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Darius Stali\u016bnas<\/p>\n

THE IDEA OF LITHUANIA IN THE NEWSPAPER\u00a0AUSZRA<\/em><\/p>\n

Summary<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This article presents major ideological postulates of the newspaper\u00a0Auszra,\u00a0<\/em>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\u00a0Idea of Lithuania<\/em>. The article claims that\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>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\u00a0Auszra\u2019s\u00a0<\/em>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\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>as yet.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Vilma \u017daltauskait\u0117<\/p>\n

TEACHING SECULAR DISCIPLINES IN CATHOLIC SEMINARIES: THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, THE\u00a0HOMELAND\u00a0<\/em>HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY (THE SECOND HALF OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY)<\/p>\n

Summary<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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\u00a0Homeland\u00a0<\/em>[Otechestvennaya<\/em>] 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The meaning of teaching secular subjects in seminaries is to be assessed in one way in the period after 1863\u20131864 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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\u2019 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Olga Mastianica<\/p>\n

\u201cA NOBLEMAN, WHO WRITES IN LITHUANIAN\u201d: A LINK BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND ETHNIC IDENTITY IN THE EARLY JOURNALISM OF ME\u010cISLOVAS DAVAINIS-SILVESTRAITIS<\/p>\n

Summary<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For Lithuanian scholars Me\u010dislovas Davainis-Silvestraitis (1849\u20131919) 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\u2019 Polish publications in newspapers\u00a0Litwa\u00a0<\/em>(\u201cLithuania\u201d, 1908\u20131914) and\u00a0Lud\u00a0<\/em>(\u201cPeople\u201d, 1912\u20131913) suggested that he did not consider language a primary condition of one\u2019s national identity; besides, he concurrently discussed other elements thereof as well. But he began his publicist career in the newspaper\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>(\u201cDawn\u201d), 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 \u201ca nobleman, who wrote in Lithuanian,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Davainis-Silvestraitis\u2019 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\u2019s nation\u2019s 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\u00a0Auszra\u00a0<\/em>was published (1883\u20131886) he began working on the idea that using Polish had been the only way to preserve and maintain Lithuanian nobility\u2019s 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Kristina Rutkovska<\/p>\n

COLLABORATION OF TWO LITHUANIAN FOLKLORE COLLECTORS JAN KAR\u0141OWICZ AND ME\u010cISLOVAS DAVAINIS-SIVESTRAITIS: DEVELOPMENT OF METHODOLOGY AND SIGNS OF ETHNOLINGUISTICS<\/p>\n

Summary<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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 Kar\u0142owicz and Me\u010dislovas Davainis-Silvestraitis\u2019 cooperation and to Kar\u0142owicz\u2019s methodological revision of contemporary folklore theory and its practical application.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I based my research on Kar\u0142owicz\u2019s insights and suggestions, published in his folklore collections of 1871 and 1888, and on Davainis-Silvestraitis\u2019 folklore manuscripts. The texts uncover the talent of these Lithuanian folklore collectors \u2013 they prepared volumes for publication in Polish but managed to preserve original features of Lithuanian lexicon.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ethnographic and literary societies of that time (Russian Geographical Society \u2013\u00a0<\/em>Rus.\u00a0\u0420\u0443\u0441\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0435 \u0433\u0435\u043e\u0433\u0440\u0430\u0444\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0435 \u043e\u0431\u0449\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e<\/em>;\u00a0Lithuanian Literary Society<\/em>\u2014Ger.\u00a0Litauische litterarische Gesellschaft<\/em>;\u00a0Society of Folklore Collectors<\/em>\u2014Pol.\u00a0Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze<\/em>; and\u00a0Scientific Society of Lithuania<\/em>, Lit.\u00a0Lietuvos mokslo draugija<\/em>) not only acclaimed Kar\u0142owicz and Davainis-Silvestraitis\u2019 research, proposed methodology, and collections, they also carried out their own folklore research in Lithuanian speaking areas. Both Kar\u0142owicz and Davainis-Silvestraitis worked closely with these associations and were familiar with their methodology and main research directions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_tta_section][\/vc_tta_tabs][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This page is only available in Lietuvi\u0173<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Penkioliktas tomas<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":9261,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[98],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9260","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-archivum-lithuanicum"],"permalink_manager":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lki.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9260","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lki.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lki.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lki.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lki.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9260"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lki.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9260\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9262,"href":"https:\/\/lki.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9260\/revisions\/9262"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lki.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9261"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lki.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lki.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9260"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lki.lt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}