Archivum Lithuanicum

Journals: Archivum Lithuanicum

Search results 115

Order by:

Select: All None Download:

Korektūriniai spaudos skirtumai kai kuriose lietuviškose XVI –XVII a. knygose

Mindaugas Šinkūnas

https://doi.org/10.33918/26692449-23002

Pub. online: 31 Dec 2021 Type: Article

Open Access

Journal: Archivum Lithuanicum Volume 23 (2021): Archivum Lithuanicum, pp. 41–58

Abstract

The differences in the print of the old books confirm that proof-reading was a common practice when printing Lithuanian books in the 16th century already. The differences can be classified into technical and proofing-related. The former occurred due to typographical actions or materials, the latter were caused by corrective proofing. They allow reconstructing the course of the printing processes and suggest that the presswork would not be ceased after the press proof was taken. While corrector was at work, certain copies of sheets would be printed and the unrevised sheets would later be bound rather than destroyed. They would end up in different copies, resulting in slight differences of print between some of them. Later on, any mistakes that were noticed would be included and printed in a list of errata. There were no lists of errata in the very first Lithuanian books. The oldest 16th century issue with clear evidence of revision was Evangelijos bei Epistolos (1579) by Baltramiejus Vilentas, with corrections made by pasting bits of paper on top of printed words with errors. The first Lithuanian book that had the list of errata was Postilė (1591) by Jonas Bretkūnas, which was printed at the same printing house of Georg Osterberger. Bretkūnas’s Postilė possesses a number of proofing differences in the print that show, with an almost absolute degree of accuracy, whether the printer’s sheet was printed before, or after proofing. A comparison of some of the differences present in the copies (accounting for a fraction of all copies known to exist) allows making a cautious statement that the unrevised sheets had been printed in a smaller number.

Some major differences between copies might have been caused by the printer’s decisions or could have occurred as a result of changing a part of the run to fit the target audience. The last half-sheet signature of the Lithuanian grammar in German (1654) by Daniel Klein was composed twice, allowing a more efficient use of the press and cutting of the printing time by half. The forewords to Klein’s hymnal were removed from some of the copies by the printer (1667). The forewords to the 1701 New Testament were removed to accommodate the target audience. To distribute the remaining run of Konstantinas Sirvydas’s postil (1629), the forewords of the first part were reprinted when publishing the second part of the book in 1664. The proofing differences in the print of the books by Bretkūnas, Sirvydas, Klein, and others were discovered by accident. After the second copy of the first issue of Suma Evangelijų, a postil from Knyga Nobažnystės was identified in Krakow, it was carefully compared to the copy that had been known to exist in Uppsala. Computer algorithms aided to discover four proofing differences, all of them in the headings of chapters. The Krakow copy contained printing errors (mixed-up order of words, mistakes in references to the Bible), which had been corrected in the Uppsala copy; still several headings had errors in both copies. One thing that the proofing revisions have in common is that they have to do with references to the Gospel of John. The postil was prepared by two translators. The distribution of variance of the references in the other parts of Knyga Nobažnystės and the proofing revisions thereof suggest that the translator of the middle part of the postil made the corrections of the part he had translated or that it was revised by the printing house’s proof-reader based on the translator’s manuscript.

Maironio autoredagavimas: neapsisprendimo dėl pakeitimų pernaša

Dovilė Gervytė

https://doi.org/10.33918/26692449-23001

Pub. online: 31 Dec 2021 Type: Article

Open Access

Journal: Archivum Lithuanicum Volume 23 (2021): Archivum Lithuanicum, pp. 9–40

Abstract

The 20th century Lithuanian writer Maironis is known for his collection of poems called The Voices of Spring. It was reprinted five times during the author’s lifetime and contains revisions made by the poet himself. Yet the strongest textual evidence of doubt, rejection, and pondering upon poetical decisions is to be found in the surviving manuscripts (drafts). The reconstructed dynamics of the textual variation within the fragments (a verse or a word phrase) or the segments (a stanza or the whole structure) of seven different poems within those drafts reveal intricate genetic interference between the units of the poems’ texts. The case of self-editing in Maironis manuscripts suggests that the concept of textual variation may be interpreted as the process of transferring the doubt – which concerns the decision whether the textual variant is to be accepted as suitable for the textual situation or to be rejected altogether – within the segments of a particular poem or between its versions, or even different poems (e.g., Vakarop Mintys and Dienų Sielvartai). Based on the macrogenetic analysis of Maironis’ drafts, the former trend of self-editing was called ‘the transport of indecision over revisions’. This concept was concluded by creating models and schemes of the micro- and macrogenetic changes reconstructed from the manuscripts. The interpretative manner of the research – the formation of the avant-texte alongside the application of the analogy of molecular transportation in biochemistry – also inspired the more general reflections. For example, the idea of indecision being transported over revisions helped to consider both the

overall dynamics of genetic processes in Maironis’ manuscripts and the individuality of the particular acts of self-editing. As for the latter, the poet tended to edit his works so that the attributes assigned to a particular verse’s subject/object were altered most intensely, changing the semantics to achieve the most metonymical meaning of the verse. Revision of the more rigidly structured works – Maironis’ hymns – contained the indecision as to which of the two works would carry the actual hymn’s name and which would be called its ‘variant’ (as it is in the case of Šv. Aušros Vartų Marijai).

Mokslinis seminaras „Sekant dvasią kalbos“. Kalbininkui Jonui Jablonskiui – 160 metų