Archivum Lithuanicum

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

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.

The article introduces a document found in the Secret State Archives Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation (Germ. Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz; GStA PK: I. HA GR, Rep. 7 Preußen, Nr. 187 [1716–1729]) in Berlin that sheds new light on the seminar of the Lithuanian language – the first centre for teaching Lithuanian – that was founded at the Faculty of Theology of the Königsberg University in late 1720s. It is an academic account by Johann Jacob Quandt (1686–1772), the chief preacher of the court and the then dean of the Faculty of Theology of the Königsberg University and the fourth professor of theology in ordinary, who ran the seminar of the Lithuanian language between 1723 and 1727. This account provides insights into the early activities of the seminar that have not been documented in much detail so far. Neither the account nor any of its three appendices – lists of students attending Quandt’s courses – are dated. Based on other documents in the same archive file and the Christian holidays to which the account refers, Quandt’s account has been dated between 28 December 1724 and 11 January 1725, and the data that it contains cover the first half of the 1724– 1725 winter semester: October–December of 1724. Quandt’s account shows that during the winter semester of 1724–1725, the seminar of the Lithuanian language at the Königsberg University was attended by thirty theological students. Theology and language was taught twice daily between 10 and 11 AM and between 3 and 4 PM . The seminar under Quandt’s management continued to apply the so-called collegium privatissimum, the teaching method of its first supervisor, Heinrich Lysius (1670–1731). The names of the seminar attendees from that period are documented in the second appendix to Quandt’s account titled ‘Beyl. B. Auditores Seminarii Lithvanici’: these were Peter Gottlieb Mielcke (1695–1753), who was in his second year as a teacher, Gottfried Boeckel (?–after 1724), Samuel Boeckel (?–after 1724), Alexander Deutschmann (?–after 1724), Michael Sigismund Engel (1700–1758), Carl Julius Fleischmann (1704–1778), Christophor Daniel Franck (?–after 1724), Georg Friedrich Gehrke (?–after 1724), Heinrich Grabau (Grabovius, ?–after 1724), Friedrich Wilhelm Haack (1707–1754), Georg Ernst Klemm (1701–1774), Johann Friedrich Leo (1696–1759), Christophorus (Georg) Liebe (1705–1764), Joachim Friedrich Mey (?– after 1724), Johann Friedrich Mülner (?–after 1724), Jacob Friedrich Naugardt (1694–1751), Friedrich Gottlieb Perbandt (?–after 1724), Adam Heinrich Pilgrim (1702–1757), Heinrich Preuss (?–after 1728), Christoph Rabe (?–after 1724), Heinrich Ernst Rabe (1707/1708–1744), Gottlieb Richter (1707–1775), Johann Richter (1705–1754), Friedrich Rosenberg (?–1727), Adam Friedrich Schimmelpfennig (1699–1763), Ernst Gottfried Schimmelpfennig (1704– 1768), Martin Schimmelpfennig (1706–1778), Gottfried Schumacher (1704–1786), Friedrich Sigismund Schuster (1703–after 1732), Johann Trentovius (Trentowski, 1700–1765). Seven of them attended the seminar back in the winter semester of 1723–1724 and were among the first attendees of the seminar of the Lithuanian language under Quandt after it had been reinstated in 1723. Peter Gottlieb Mielcke was the first teacher at the reinstated seminar. During the winter semester of 1724–1725, the age of the theological students attending the seminar of the Lithuanian language at the Königsberg University was between 17 and 30. Most of them were from Prussian Lithuania. After finishing their studies, at least 19 of the attendees were ordained priests and served in Lithuanian parishes. Out of the thirty students who signed the second appendix to Quandt’s account, at least one-half have not been known as attendees of the seminar of the Lithuanian language yet.

The article deals with the discourse pertaining to the ties between the Lithuanian language and identity in the Prussian Kingdom at the cusp of the 18th and the 19th centuries. The main sources here are four forewords to Christian Gottlieb Mielcke’s (Lith. Kristijonas Gotlybas Milkus) dictionary Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch (1800) as monologue texts sharing the following elements: (1) the subject of the focus (the view of the language and the nation); (2) the direct context (book publication); (3) the historical context (the political situation in the Prussian Kingdom at the cusp of the 18th and the 19th centuries); (4) the target (German reader); (5) the contents (descriptive and evaluative statements about the language and the nation). Discourse analysis is applied as a methodological access-way. In this discourse, views of the language and the nation were articulated by persons holding different positions: (1) Christian Gottlieb Mielcke, cantor at the Evangelic Lutheran Church of Pilkalnis; (2) Daniel Jenisch, philosopher and Evangelic Lutheran priest of Berlin;

Johann Arndt (1555–1621), the German theologian and next-generation religious reformer is the author of the uniquely successful prayer book titled Paradiesgärtlein (Magdeburg, 1612). The first known Lithuanian translation of Arndt’s Paradiesgärtlein appeared in early 19th century in Prussian Lithuanian. It was published in 1807 by the widow of Gottlieb Lebrecht Hartung, a printer from Königsberg. This article aims to reveal the history of revisions of six prayers from Johann Arndt’s Rojaus Darelis (The Garden of Paradise) that were first published in Königsberg in 1807. The goal is to show the revision trends and content transformations Arndt’s texts underwent in the second, 1816 Königsberg edition of Rojaus Darelis, the 1816 Tilsit edition, and the unofficial 1817 conventiclers’ (Lith. surinkimininkai) hymnal Wiſſokies Naujes Gieſmes arba Ewangelißki Pſalmai (Tilsit). The analysis of the prayers has shown that the language of the hymnal Rojaus Darelis (Königsberg, 1807) is rather grounded on the standard of the official ecclesiastical and philological papers of Prussian Lithuania: the prevalent southern subdialect of the Western Aukštaitians of Prussian Lithuania. It is dominated by rather stable normative elements of morphology and diacritic orthography, as evidenced in the philological written works of the period: the grammars of the Lithuanian language by Gottfried Ostermeyer (1791) and Christian Gottlieb Mielcke (1800). The only identifiable non-grammatical orthography trait is the ending -ęs that sometimes appears in the acc. sg. endings of feminine adjectives, pronouns, and numerals. A comparison of the prayers from Rojaus Darelis that were published in Königsberg in 1807 and in 1816 has revealed that the texts had remained stable and free from major or significant revisions content-wise. This edition is even more consistent in its placement of the stress-marks than the one before. Efforts are made to keep up with the standard trend of spelling and language that prevailed in the official printed texts (grammars) of Prussian Lithuanian. It has been established that the making of the new edition of Rojaus Darelis published by the printing house of Johann Heinrich Post in Tilsit in 1816 relied on the Königsberg edition that had been released earlier that year. This is evidence in the morphological and lexical revisions that had been carried over. Structurally, the prayers in the 1816 Tilsit edition had remained intact. There were a little bit more orthography and syntactic differences compared to the 1816 Königsberg edition. It is probable that the Tilsit edition had had an effect on the preparation of Arndt’s prayers that were later featured in Wiſſokies Naujes Gieſmes arba Ewangelißki Pſalmai, a hymnal by Kristijonas Endrikis Mertikaitis (Tilsit, 1817). Nonetheless, it is the 1816 Königsberg edition (or the prior 1807 edition) that is to be considered the original source of the prayers published in Mertikaitis’s hymnal. It was in Wiſſokies Naujes Gieſmes arba Ewangelißki Pſalmai by Kristijonas Endrikis Mertikaitis (Tilsit, 1817) that Arndt’s prayers underwent the greatest extent of transformation. Contrary to the Königsberg or Tilsit editions mentioned in this article, this edition is teeming with differences on all sorts of levels: orthography, phonetics, morphology, lexis, word formation, and syntax. Analysis of the relationship between the sources shows that Mertikaitis’s hymnal did not try to follow the widely recognised grammatical usage. This unconventional approach most probably was the product of Mertikaitis’s savvy of the period language and lack of literacy. It is worth mentioning that Mertikaitis was not a man of academic or spiritual elite, but rather a vibrant preacher of the home-prayer service and schoolteacher who tended to pastoral care, matters of saving his own soul and those of the others as well as eternal life, someone who did not see making language more grammatically correct and standard-comp

The main source of Jonas Jablonskis’ Lietuviškos kalbos gramatika (Grammar of the Lithuanian language, Tilsit, 1901 [JaG]), signed under the pseudonym of Petras Kriaušaitis, is Petras Avižonis’ Liėtùviška Gramatiklė (Small Lithuanian Grammar, [Petersburg, 1898] [AvG]). However, Jablonskis significantly supplemented AvG by adding the chapters on preposition, conjunction, interjection, syntax and orthography. He also separated the descriptions of noun and adjective, added chapters on phonetics, pronoun, numeral, verb, used Lithuanian language terms. Jablonskis did not indicate other sources in JaG, fragments of the text taken from other works are not identified as such. However, later Jablonskis wrote that he also used Kazimieras Jaunius’ Lietùviškas kalbomõkslis. Baltiko padangese (Lithuanian Grammar. In the Baltic Skies, [Dorpat,] 1897 [JaunK]). The aim of this study is to determine the relationship between these two grammars. Some of the material for JaG was undoubtedly taken over directly from JaunK, for it was not present in AvG or other grammars that Jablonskis could have used. However, Avižonis also used JaunK, so some fragments entered JaG through AvG, rather than directly from JaunK. Since Jablonskis took over AvG almost in its entirety, there is no doubt such fragments of JaunK had previously been incorporated in AvG only to later appear in JaG. All the more so as JaunK’s statements and examples are equally reformulated, supplemented or abbreviated in AvG and JaG. The article analyses only the material that was taken over to JaG directly from JaunK and that was not present in AvG. It is much more difficult to identify the source of the fragments which are found in both JaunK and Friedrich Kurschat’ Grammatik der Littauischen Sprache (Grammar of the Lithuanian language, Halle, 1876 [KG]). It is not always clear whether Jablonskis took it directly from KG or through JaunK. In such cases, the immediate context is considered. When not only the idea of KG but also more material, adjacent sentences, are taken over from the same section of JaunK, the path of the fragment is considered to be KG → JaunK → JaG. The connection between JaunK and JaG is also evidenced by the uniform wording of sentences. In his grammar, Jablonskis stated that he supported character <tš> [č], proposed by Jaunius, as well as orthography of nom. pl. of i, u stems with endings ‑įs, ‑ųs. JaunK could also have influenced the spelling of the numerals trįs ‘three’, keturiasdešimtas–devyniasdešimtas ‘fortieth—ninetieth’. Jablonskis used Jaunius’ terms būdvardis ‘adjective’, veiksmažodis ‘verb’, prieveiksmis ‘adverb’, jausmažodis ‘interjection’; linksnis ‘case’, linksniavimas ‘declination’, dvilypuotieji būdvardžiai ‘pronominal adjectives’, tikrieji ‘quantitative’ and paeiliniai ‘ordinal’ (numerals), sakomasis būdas ‘mood’, savyveiksmis ‘reflexive verb, form’, nestati, nestačioji kalba ‘indirect speech’. Fragments of JaunK about the concept and types of sounds have been taken over to the JaG. JaG material on consonant assimilation also has connection with JaunK. Jablonskis also used JaunK while preparing the chapter of morphology. There are connections in the definition of adjective, the description of category of number of nouns, pronominal adjectives and gradation of adjectives. There are also identical statements about the declension of numerals and their semantic groups in JaunK and JaG. According to JaunK, the definition of the pronoun was formulated in JaG. Jablonskis also used JaunK to describe verbs, adverbs, and interjection. In the chapter of the syntax, the influence of JaunK can be seen in the description of the use of participants. Jablonskis used the linguistic material, examples of JaunK. Jablonskis used the data of dialects, mostly Samogitians, provided by JaunK. Comments on the grades of adjectives, variants of pronouns, forms of future tense, use of adverbs, as well as lexical variants are related to JaunK.

The critique of Dzieje narodu litewskiego (The History of the Lithuanian Nation 1–9, Vilnius, 1835–1841, [DNL]) had always made Teodor vel Teodor Mateusz Narbutt (vel O styk-Narbutt, 1784–1864) argue that he was not a layman nor a wilful forger. His own approach to defending himself against the attack was unique: he prepared a second edition of DNL and the so-called New Mythology – Mytologija Litewska ze sczegółami do wiary, obyczajów i oświaty przedchrześciańskiej Narodu litewskiego odnoszącemi się (Lithuanian Mythology with Details about the Belief, Customs, and pre-Christianity Education of the Lithuanian Enlightenment, 1848), intended to publish the collection of sources of Lithuanian history kept at his manor in Szawry (Lith. Šiauriai; Grodno Governorate, as of 1843 Vilnius Governorate, Lida Region), and finally, as proof of his honest work, pieced together his scientific correspondence – the letters from scholars, old collectors, and other citizens that cared for Lithuania’s past. Today, this collection that Narbutt made himself – Korrespondencya Uczona (Scientific Correspondence [KU]) is kept at the Manuscript Department of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Science (LMAVB : f. 18 [Manuscript collection B4], b. 185/2–185/16, 25r–791v). Narbutt’s peculiar method of defence bore an ad te ipsum character; however yet, due to historic circumstances (the sequestration of the Szawry manor, the seizure of the library and its transfer to the public library of Vilnius), originally designed as a tool of self-reflection, the collection became accessible to the public. And researchers dug into letters addressed to Narbutt with much gusto indeed. Nonetheless, the real attention grabbers were the celebrity names in this collection. Hence, just like the printed work of this historian, his handwritten legacy (in this case, correspondence), too, would often merit a fragmented read, which was largely due to its tremendous volume. For instance, DNL has 5,220 pages, KU 766 archival pages – a total of 1,532 pages recto and verso. In other words, letters to Narbutt were never approached in corpore, as an intentionally built collection with an incredibly bright idea and purpose. The idea that the appearance of this epistolary compendium had been inspired by autograph-hunting, a hot trend at the time, should be disregarded straight away, because not every one of Narbutt’s correspondents was a celebrity. With a few exceptions, their overarching trait was intellectual work and love of Lithuanian antiques. The goal of the article was to approach the collection of letters to Narbutt as a whole, as a means of self-reflection a unique weapon of defence. Narbutt’s epistolary collection had never been dissected from any of these angles. The research has showed that today, KU consists of 386 letters. It is correspondence in Polish, German, Russian, and French (in the order of appearance) written in 1808–1858 (4 letters are not dated). Of the authors of the letters, 68 are men, 3 are women. The social picture of KU is very colourful: from gymnasium students to civil governors, from clergy to members of governorate statistical committees. Still, most of Narbutt’s correspondents were historians, archivists, and litterateurs. Some of the authors were litterateurs just as they were landlords; historians, as they were government officials; clergymen, as they were collectors. This motley crew had one thing in common: they all had read DNL. Cataclysmic political developments have prevented us from having KU in its final form. Not all the letters Narbutt himself had included in his collection have survived to this day. However, regardless of how incomplete KU today is, it features the names of nearly every scholar of Lithuania’s history or lover of Lithuanian antiques of the period nonetheless. The underlying theme of KU is Lithuania’s history, search for and dissemination of historic sources.

The article addresses citations from vol. I, III , IV , VI of Johannes Voigt’s (1786–1863) Geschichte Preußens von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Untergange der Herrschaft des Deutschen Ordens (Königsberg, 9 vols., 1827–1839) in BUDĄ Senowęs–Lëtuwiû Kalnienû ir Ƶámajtiû (1845) by Simonas Daukantas. The goal of the article is to use the inventory of the references made by Daukantas to identify the places in the original GP text, revise the references, discuss the nature of the citations, and the impact of the tract as such. The article also touches upon the history of Daukantas citing Voigt’s GP in his prior work, ISTORYJE ƵEMAYTYSZKA (1834). The article analyses 20 references to Voigt’s text. Daukantas identified the page number wrong in seven references out of the twenty; four of the references were one page number off; one did not specify the volume. Nonetheless, all of these references were successfully revised and corrected. Analysis of the nature of reliance on GP has suggested that Daukantas treated this tract as a font of new resources. Daukantas used GP to recite handwritten work by medieval chroniclers or Königsberg scholars, university graduates or residents of the region that he was having difficulty accessing himself. The prevalence of work by Königsberg scholars shows that Daukantas valued this historiographical tradition first and foremost. In his reliance on GP references, Daukantas would obtain and quote some of the sources from the original texts. Comparing the indirect citations by Daukantas and the original text, one could say that it was only once (Bd 214) that he did not add information from elsewhere in the GP text or other sources to the text. Even though Daukantas did not have any open discussions with his predecessor, the ample revisions and the content of the supplementary material point to his critical stance. Relying on the narrative historic tradition (‘noumone patioie tautoie tebesąntĩ patwĩrten’ Bd 214), the Lithuanian language and folklore (‘kou dar pates patarles kałbo tebesąntes twĩrtĩn’ Bd, Pratarme 9) as sources of Lithuanian history with the highest degree of authority, he revised the text written by Voigt from a German position. However, the expression of Germanism in GP helped Daukantas create images of Lithuanianism. The GP text and the ample explanations given in footnotes sparked Daukantas’s creativity. GP was an example of composition of material to Daukantas. Drawing inspiration from GP, Daukantas discussed the history of the formation of the region, the characteristics of the landscape, delineated the borders of Lithuania, talked about the daily living and about the holidays, gave a lot of attention to the dynamics and sanctuaries of the ancient Lithuanian religion, the history of regional institutions, commerce as the key element of the viability of the state. The importance of the substrate of the ancient Prussians and crusaders in building the new German nation that Voigt had highlighted helped Daukantas understand how the development of the Lithuanian identity could not bypass the culture of Prussian Lithuanians, or rather that of the Balts in general. Daukantas assimilated many concepts that, despite being Herder-esque, had been assimilated by Voigt and made relevant in the historic tract, such as: the history of the nation (‘tautos wejkałus’ Bd 127), the culture of the nation (‘akyłómą sawo tautoie’ Bd 236), the manner of the nation (‘pagał budo sawo tautós’ Bd 190), the freedom of the nation (‘tautû lousybę’ Bd, Pratarme 9). GP’s expression helped Daukantas create multiple romantic images that later made their way into the golden fund of Lithuanian literature.

Simonas Daukantas spent 15 years (between 1834 and 1850) living in St Petersburg, where he worked as an assistant registrar at the Senate. This article highlights the exact addresses of where Daukantas lived and published books in St Petersburg. The address of the place where Daukantas lived in 1837 is published for the first time; the drawing of the building has been obtained, the landlord identified. Apparently, in 1837 Daukantas lived in the building owned by Marya Nelsen, the wife of chief (regiment) doctor Gavrila Nelsen, at the intersection of Kazanskaya street and Voznesensky prospect (or Voznesensky avenue; the exact address: Voznesensky Ave 15 17/Kazanskaya St 45). The article features the drawing of this building and contains information about its condition, which shows that in late 1830s and in 1840s the building was in an appalling state of repair. Marya Nelsen died in 1840, and the building was assigned to a care agency. Some of the tenants continued to live at the building for some time, only to move out later; apparently, Daukantas was among those who vacated this residence. More details are provided about Daukantas’s place of residence in 1842 (address: Malaya Masterskaya 9, the building near the Church of St Stanislaus), providing the drawing of the building and publishing pictures of how it looks today, revealing the characteristics of the building’s architecture, including those from the time when Daukantas lived there. The building next to St Stanislaus Church at Malaya Masterskaya 9 was built in 1841–1842. In one letter of 1842 Daukantas claimed his residency at this address, so we suggest that he might have moved in right after the completion of construction. The addresses of three printing houses where Daukantas published his books have been identified. On top of that, details of what the buildings looked like during Daukantas’s time there have been obtained. Christian Hintze’s printing house was located at Durygina’s house at Nevsky prospect 8. The building has survived to this date virtually intact. Ivanov’s lithograph based on Sadovnikov’s picture represents the view of the building in 1830s, the approximate time of Daukantas’s book publications at Hintze’s printing house. Later, the enterprise was acquired by Merkushev. The printing house of Karl Kray was located in the corner of Frost’s building at Malaya Morskaya 12/Gorokhovaya 9. Analysis of the archive drawings of the buildings has provided some insights into what the building’s appearance was during Daukantas’s time in St Petersburg. Before 1850, Gretsch’s house (current address: Moika 92; the building was demolished in early 1960s) was home to Eduard Pratz’s printing house. The blueprints of the building that were found in the archives shed a light on what the building looked like in 1840s and 1850s, when Daukantas would publish his books there. Gretsch’s own publishing house was in the same building. The archives contain blueprints of Gretsch’s house on Moika riverfront, showing the appearance of the building at the time of Daukantas’s printing his books there: the façade off Moika, the courtyard, and the plan of the building. Giedrius Subačius has noted that 1841–1845 were the years when Daukantas was the most consistent in his orthography. Βetter living conditions in the new building constructed in 1842 most probably had allowed Daukantas to improve the quality and efficiency of his work. It is also worth noting that the publishing houses were close to the places where Daukantas lived and worked. All these buildings are located in the Admiralteisky district of St Petersburg.