Jono Kristijono Dicelijaus lietuviška 1690 metų dedikacija

JOHANN CHRISTIAN DICELIUS’S LITHUANIAN DEDICATION OF 1690 This article presents a dedication written in Lithuanian, that until recently was unknown, as well as additional information about its author and the circumstances of its writing. The poem of Johann Christian Dicelius from 1690, published together with Johann Christoph Taubert’s Master’s thesis, is the second known Lithuanian dedication created for the occasion of receiving a scholarly degree. Seven copies of the publication are known, and all of them are held outside of Lithuania. The exact date of Dicelius’s birth is not known, but he was born around 1670 into the family of Ernest Dicelius, a priest in Valtarkiemis (Walterkehmen), known for composing and translating Lithuanian hymns. In 1690 he began studies in Law at the University of Jena. After his studies, from 1695 he worked at the Vėluva (Wehlau) school until 1700 when he left his post as the school’s co-rector to return to Valtarkiemis where he lived with his mother until his death in 1706. From the 16th–17th century at least seven students from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and 25 from Lithuania Minor studied at the University of Jena. One of them—a fellow countryman from Klaipėda, Taubert—is the recipient of Dicelius’s congratulatory note written in Lithuanian. Dicelius’s mastery of the Lithuanian language and writing skills raise no doubts. The expected orthography of Lithuania Minor is used, but it is slightly altered due to the fact that the publishing house did not have the technical possibilities to produce Lithuanian script. Dicelius’s language is characterized by the typical mixing of the phonemes /ė/ and /ie/; for a more fluid rhyme or for the sake of a formal style he used the rare occasional derivative šviesimas ‘enlightening’ and the long athematic forms of the verbs plėšti ‘to rip’ and rėžti ‘to carve’.

Simono Daukanto BUDĄ Senowęs-Letuwiu Kalnienu ĩr Ƶamajtiu (1845) šaltiniai

SOURCES OF SIMONAS DAUKANTAS’S BUDĄ SENOWĘS-LËTUWIÛ KALNIENÛ ĨR ƵÁMAJTIÛ (1845) The article investigates Simonas Daukantas’s (1793–1864) BUDĄ Senowęs-Lëtuwiû Kalnienû ĩr Ƶámajtiû (The Character of the Lithuanian Highlanders and Samogitians of the Old Times, 1845; hereafter Bd) with regards to genre, origin of the title, and the dominant German sources of the work. It claims that Daukantas conceived Bd because he understood that the future of Lithuania is closely related to its past. A single, united version of Lithuanian history, accepted by the whole nation, was necessary for the development of Lithuanian national identity and collective feeling. The history, which up until then had not been published in Lithuanian, could have helped to create the contours of a new society by presenting the paradigmatic events of the past. The collective awareness of the difference between the present and the past (and future) should have given the Lithuanian community an incentive to move forward. Daukantas wrote Bd quickly, between 1842 and May 28, 1844, because he drew on his previous work ISTORYJE ƵEMAYTYSZKA (History of the Lithuanian Lowlands, ~1831–1834; IƵ). Based on the findings of previous researchers of Daukantas’s works, after studying the dominant sources of Bd and examining their nature, this article comes to the conclusion that the work has features of both cultural history and regional historiography. The graphically highlighted form of the word “BUDĄ” used in the work’s title should be considered the author’s code. Daukantas, influenced by the newest culturological research and comparative linguistics of the 18th–19th centuries, propagated that Lithuanians originate from India and, like many others, found evidence of this in the Lithuanian language and culture. He considered the Budini (Greek Βουδίνοι), who are associated with the followers of Buddha, to be Lithuanian ancestors. He found proof of this claim in the language and chose the word “būdas” (character), which evokes aforementioned associations, to express the idea of the work.

Jašiūnų dvaras kaip Lietuvos istorijos rašymo erdvė

JAŠIŪNAI MANOR AS A SPACE FOR WRITING LITHUANIAN HISTORY The aim of this article is to discuss the Jašiūnai manor (Pol. Jaszuny; Russ. Яшуны; Vilniaus Governorate, Vilnius County), owned by the historian, journalist, poet, translator and collector Michał vel Michał Wincenty Feliks Baliński (1794–1864). The manor will be discussed not only as a cultural hub for intellectuals in a general sense, but also as a unique space for writing Lithuanian history. The term “space” is understood here in the broad sense, as of the manor—as well as in the more narrow sense, as of the library itself (the historian’s office). Especially important for this research was the latter concept of a “space within a space”, the “historian’s workshop”, and its epicenter—the archive (manuscript collection). The aim of the research was to reconstruct the story of the emergence and fate of this collection of documents including its contents, sources, and most importantly its thematic direction and distinctiveness. The research showed that the largest collection of historical documents once housed in the archive of the Jašiūnai manor library is now kept in the Jagiellonian Library (Krakow). This material remains important to the history of the city of Vilnius, Vilnius University, and Lithuania’s academic history. Supplementary elements include attention to the Radvila family, the period of Steponas Batoras’s rule, and the history of the Szubrawcy (rascals) Society. This last component can be considered as an integral part not only of the history of Vilnius city but also of its university. The dual nature of the Jašiūnai archive is not necessarily an asset. When the library and archive of Jan vel Jan Chrzciciel Władysław Sniadecki vel Śniadecki (1756–1830) was transferred to the manor, Baliński’s own collection, which initially focused on the history of Lithuanian cities and Szubrawcy Society (especially of the latter), wound up relegated to the background. Keeping in mind the “competition for libraries” among the intellectual manors of Lithuania in the first half of the 19th century as they sought to distinguish themselves, it is very possible to conclude that the former University rector’s installment in the manor can today be viewed as a “historical error”. Thus Jašiūnai lost some of its playfulness and distinctiveness in the context of other intellectual manors of that time. The situation would have been different if the Auszlawis (such was Balinski’s pseudonym in the Szubrawcy Society) collection had been associated not with Jan Sniadecki, but rather with the documentary legacy of Sotwaros (i.e. Jędrzej Sniadecki vel Śniadecki [1768–1838]), especially his documentation of the Szubrawcy. All the more so since the egodocuments of Balinski suggest the idea that its real hero was not Sniadecki the Elder, but Sniadecki Jr. Analysis of the Balinski archival collection only confirmed that which was shown by the previously executed so-called common biographical research of this historian and lord: he was relegated to the background by circumstances. That is to say, relegated to a life lived in the shadow of Jan Sniadecki’s personality and to the importance of the Szubrawcy ideology, especially in the early and last periods of his life. The Jašiūnai document collection housed in the Manuscripts Department of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences shows that the latter circumstance was fully understood by Tadeusz vel Tadeusz Stanisław Wróblewski (1858–1925) and his peers. From here stems another “archival” conclusion regarding the uniqueness of the Wroblewski Library in our cultural and historical geography. The circumstances surrounding the transferral of the document collection from Jašiūnai remain unclear to this day, however it is very likely that Baliński’s will and testament was not taken into consideration. This shows that the owner of Jašiūnai did not have a Continuator for his work, and this can be seen in the ad te ipsum fragility of the collection.

Lietuvių tarmių samprata Povilo Frydricho Ruigio gramatikoje Anfangsgrunde einer Littauischen Grammatick (1747): centras ir periferija

THE CONCEPT OF LITHUANIAN DIALECTS IN PAUL FRIEDRICH RUHIG’S GRAMMAR ANFANGSGRÜNDE EINER LITTAUISCHEN GRAMMATICK (1747): CENTER AND PERIPHERY Paul Friedrich Ruhig’s (Ruhigk, ~1721–~1784) grammar Anfangsgründe einer Littauischen Grammatick (1747, RG) is the fifth Lithuanian grammar book of Prussian Lithuania. It was written by a very young man (in 1747 he was probably around twenty five years old) who came from the famous Ruhig family, known for its work with the Lithuanian language. Ruhig wrote the grammar while working as a Docent in the Lithuanian Language Seminar that was established in 1718 at the University of Königsberg’s Theology Department. He based his writing on earlier grammar books and on his own pedagogical experience. Ruhig’s Grammar is primarily intended for those attending the Lithuanian Language Seminar.The aim of this article is to determine how Ruhig understood Lithuanian dialects, how he defined their territories, and how he explained some particularities differently than authors of previous grammar books. The article will also pay attention to some of the inaccurate interpretations of this work in contemporary linguistic studies. The research addresses several aspects: 1) territorial—spread of variations; 2) markedness—distinctiveness related to other variants; 3) normative—the relationship with written language. The article first provides an overview of dialects as an object of Lithuanian language research from the 17th–18th centuries, then turns to Ruhig’s concept of dialects, their categorizations and linguistic particularities. The research seeks to determine the sources that he used and how original, how substantiated, and how acceptable are his conclusions.

Adamo Mickiewicziaus įsavinimas tarpukario Lietuvos mokykloje: Mykolo Biržiškos indėlis

CLAIMING ADAM MICKIEWICZ AS THEIR OWN IN INTER-WAR LITHUANIAN SCHOOLS: MYKOLAS BIRŽIŠKA’S CONTRIBUTION The society of the first Republic of Lithuania was not homogenous in its national and cultural self-perception. Although most intellectuals associated national culture exclusively with the cultural heritage of ethnic Lithuanians and Lithuanian-language writing, a part of the Lithuanian society’s elite opposed the ethno-linguistic approach to Lithuanian culture. One of the most prominent opponents of cultural ethno-nationalism in the first half of the 20th century was the literary historian Mykolas Biržiška. As the basis of national literature, he considered the society of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and that of the first half of the 19th century) to be more important than language and therefore, he developed a multilanguage conception of Lithuanian literature as an alternative to the ethno-linguistic one. At the center of the canon of national literature, as formed by Biržiška, is the work of the world-famous poet Adam Mickiewicz. Realizing that in order to spread the concept of national literature to the public, it was necessary to first introduce it into schools. Biržiška made an effort to develop the national curriculum for Lithuanian literature according to the model of the history of Lithuanian literature that he created. To this end, he participated in the preparation of the curriculum for Lithuanian literature and made efforts to ensure Mickiewicz’s canonical position there. Biržiška also produced methodological material for schools (including selected works of Mickiewicz).

Jono Berento giesmyno Is naujo perweizdėtos ir pagerintos Giesmu-Knygos ir maldyno Maldu-Knygelos antrasis leidimas (1735): nežinotas egzempliorius Prahoje

T he second edition of J ohann B ehrendt ’ s hymn book ISZ naujo pérweizd ėtos ir pagérintos Giesm û-Knygos AND PRAYER BOOK Maldû-Knygélos (1735): an unknown copy in Prague The article presents a 1735 Lithuanian publication from Königsberg (Lith. Karaliaučius) which was believed to not have survived—the hymn book for Prussian Lithuania’s Evangelical Lutherans Iß naujo pérweizdėtos ir pagérintos Giesmû-Knygos (Reviewed and Improved Hymn-book) and the prayer book Maldû-Knygélos (Prayer-book). The only known copy of the second edition of the hymn book and the prayer book was discovered in the National Library of the Czech Republic (Czech Národní knihovna České republiky; NK ČR: 33 K 139) in Prague. It has not been registered in Lithuanian bibliographies. Just as the first 1732 edition, the second edition appeared thanks to the initiative of the theology professor of the University of Königsberg and the chief court preacher, Johann Jacob Quandt (Lith. Jonas Jokūbas Kvantas, 1686–1772), while the archpresbyter of Insterburg (Lith. Įsrutis), Johann Behrendt (Lith. Jonas Berentas, 1667–1737), led the editing team. Aiming to reveal the differences of the second edition from the first, and to highlight the editing tendencies of the hymn and prayer books, this article not only discusses the main features of the copy, but also analyzes the structure of the 1735 edition including the repertoire of new hymns and linguistic particularities of the texts of hymns and prayers written in Lithuanian. Provenance research revealed that the copy belonged to the Lithuanian Dovydas Blindinaitis or Bl(i)undinaitis before reaching this library, and this is supported by handwritten inscriptions on the front and back flyleaves. He acquired the book in 1736 for 33 groschen and must have been its first owner. The imprint “REGIÆ BIBLIOTH: ACAD: PRAGEN:” (“Royal Library of the Academy of Prague”) which is seen on the title page of the hymn book could only appear after 1777 when the Public Imperial-Royal University Library (Czech Veřejná císařsko-královská univerzitní knihovna) in Prague had been established. From the perspective of structure, the 1735 Lithuanian publication is a convolute which consists of two alligates: (1) hymn book and (2) prayer book. The hymn book comprises: (a) two introductions—one written by Quandt in German and one written by Behrendt in Lithuanian, (b) the main section of the hymn book and its appendix “Kittos naujos Gieſmes ßwėey pridėtos” (“Other new recently added hymns”), (c) two indexes—the index for the Lithuanian hymns “Prirodijimas Wiſſû Gieſmû, ant kurro Laißko jos ßoſa Knygoſa randamos yra” (“A listing of all hymns which page they are found on in this book”) and the index of German original hymns called a “Regiſter” (“Register”). The prayer book comprises prayers, collects, the story of Christ’s suffering, and a list of thematic groups of these texts marked “Prirodijimas Wiſſû Maldû” (“A listing of all prayers”). The second (1735) edition of the hymn book differs remarkably from the first (1732) in its structure and scope: (1) All of the hymns that had been previously included in the 1732 edition’s “Appendix arba Kittos naujos Gieſmes ßwėey pridėtos” (“Appendix or other new recently added hymns”) (a total of 34) were integrated into the main section of the hymn book of the 1735 edition comprising 334 hymns; their thematic groupings and subgroupings remained the same; (2) The 1735 edition does not include one of the hymns published in 1732: Peter Gottlieb Mielcke’s (Lith. Petras Gotlybas Milkus, 1695–1753) translation “MIeli Krikßćionis dʒaukimės” (“Dear Christians let us rejoice”) (← Martin Luther, “Nun freut euch lieben Chriſten”); (3) The 1735 edition was supplemented with 26 hymns, that is to say, the second edition comprises 360 hymns. The new hymns are published in the appendix “Kittos naujos Gieſmes ßwėey pridėtos” (“Other new recently added hymns”). Cryptonyms attached to these hymns attest to the fact that their translators were two priests of Prussian Lithuania. For the first time, 18 hymns of the priest of Didlacken (Lith. Didlaukiai), Fabian Ulrich Glaser (Lith. Fabijonas Ulrichas Glazeris, 1688–1747), were included in this hymn book. The priest of Popelken (Lith. Papelkiai), Adam Friedrich Schimmelpfennig (Lith. Adomas Frydrichas Šimelpenigis, 1699–1763), translated 8 new hymns (while 15 of his hymns that had been already published in the 1732 edition were presented in the main section of the hymn book of the 1735 edition). The new repertoire of the Lithuanian hymn book was compiled from the translations of the following German hymn creators of the 16th–18th centuries: Johann Georg Albinus (1624–1679), Martin Behm (1557–1622), Kaspar Bienemann (Melissander, 1540–1591), Simon Dach (1605–1659), Johann Burchard Freystein (1671–1718), Paul Gerhardt (1607–1676), Johannes Gigas (Heune, 1514–1581), Ludwig Andreas Gotter (1661–1735), Johann Heermann (1585–1647), Heinrich Held (1620–1659), Martin Moller (1547–1606), Johann Rist (1607–1667), Samuel Rodigast (1649–1708), Johann Röling (1634–1679), Gottfried Wilhelm Sacer (1635–1699), Arnold Heinrich Sahme (1676–1734), Benjamin Schmolck (1672–1737). In contrast to the hymn book, the structure of the 1735 prayer book published concurrently were not changed; the thematic groups of prayers remained essentially the same as they were in the first edition of 1732. Texts of both the hymn book and the prayer book were edited. The editing tendencies in both are similar and encompass all linguistic levels (phonetics, morphology, lexicon, syntax), as well as orthography and punctuation, but the intensity of editing was different. The orthographic corrections prevail and the most consistent of them are: [i·] <ij> → <y> (characteristic only of the hymn book), [č’] <ć> → <cʒ> (together with refusing the marker indicating consonant palatalization <i>), [·] <e> → <ė>, [ž] ir [ž’] <Ʒ> → <>, marking accent placement with an acute accent < ’ >. The second edition reflects an important stage in the quantitative and qualitative development of Behrendt’s hymn book. In the second edition that appeared just three years later, we see the further consistent efforts of the editors to expand the repertoire of hymns and improve the texts in terms of language (i.e. they first of all sought to standardize the orthography of texts written in different centuries by many different translators). In contrast to the hymn book, the prayer book was improved along only one vector: the language of the texts was edited according to the same principles, while the number of prayers was not increased. The fact that the editors of the second edition devoted more attention to the hymn book than the prayer book probably stems from the important place that hymns hold in the Evangelical Lutheran liturgy.