Archivum Lithuanicum

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.

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 Ulric

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. Ruhig devotes more attention to Lithuanian dialects than the four previous grammar books of Prussian Lithuania. Rather than indicating exceptional cases of dialectic particularities as was done in previous books, the description in the special RG chapter shows that they are instead intended to be a teaching tool. The idea to create such a chapter was taken from father Philipp Ruhig’s (Ruhigk, 1675–1749) treatise Betrachtung der Littauischen Sprache, in ihrem Ursprunge, Wesen und Eigenschaften (1745, RB), in which dialects are understood to be a research object of interest to researchers of history and language. When classifying the Lithuanian dialects, RG distinguishes for the first time between a main dialect (Hauptdialect) and secondary dialects (Neben=Mundarten oder Dialectos). The main dialect is found in Prussian Lithuania, specifically around Įsrutis (Insterburg) and Ragainė (Ragnit). There are three secondary dialects: two in Lithuania Major—the Samogitian Duchy and the remaining parts of the Lithuanian Grand Duchy—and the third in Prussian Lithuania—in the area around Klaipėda (Memel). The Klaipėda dialect is divided into three subdialects for the first time: those of žemininkai (‘living on land’), žvejininkai (‘fishermen’), and the ethnic Kuršiai (Curonians). Such a layout of dialect classification can be seen as a clearly demarcated relationship of center and periphery, according to Ruhig. Paul Friedrich Ruhig sketched the territories of Lithuanian dialects not only according to the national boundaries, but also according to linguistic features. The most important criteria for distinguishing the dominant dialect as the core of the Lithuanian language are: 1) commonality; 2) stability; 3) authority. RG understands secondary dialects as an extension of the dominant dialect; they are more readily influenced by other languages and dialects, which by assimilating those characteristic features, diverge from the dominant dialect. RG considers dialects as a specific phenomenon of language which is influenced by external forces, namely the interaction of languages, other dialect variations, and cultures. By evaluating the Lithuanian dialects according to the opposition primary : secondary, Ruhig purposefully forged the path of codifying language norms and presenting them to society. Accentuating the stability, universality, and prestige of a single dialect must have influenced the for

Simonas Daukantas (1793–1864) moved to St Petersburg in 1835. Impermanence and competition of variants were typical for his orthography. During the four initial years in that city, Daukantas managed to shape at least two consecutive distinct Lithuanian orthographies of his own: (1) of the Beginning Years in St Petersburg (1835–1836) and (2) of his First Printed Books (ca. the 2nd half of 1836 to 1838). This study analyzes Daukantas’s third period of significant orthographic transformations during his residency in St Petersburg— a prolonged four-year phase of orthographic modifications that can be termed the Orthographic Switch of Proverbs (ca. 1838–1841), since the change was best reflected in the draft lists of proverbs. The major orthographic data was collected from Daukantas’s manuscript Margumynai (Miscellanea, p. 156–166, LLTIBR: f. 1 – SD 27) and printed book Abecieła Lîjtuwiû- Kalnienû ir Żiamajtiû Kałbos (The Primer of the Lithuanian Language—of Highlanders and of Lowlanders, St Petersburg, 1842). The most significant modifications within the Orthographic Switch of Proverbs were these:Orthography of Daukantas’s First Printed Books (ca. second half of

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. The synthesis of Buddha and Odin (who came to Europe from the East) by Alexander Humboldt and others may have determined the choice of the title’s form as a code for readers: Lithuanians belong among “the list of nations with a rich cultural context.” Bd is closely connected with the personal history of Daukantas, as he, the son of Kotryna Odinaitė, associated himself with the history of the high-status ancestors—Odinai. The legendary history of the ancestral Odinai determined the self-confidence and the perception of Daukantas’s uniqueness, which was necessary for cultural activities. This is confirmed by the text of Bd, where, unlike in previous works, there are many examples of the subjectivity inherent in the aesthetics of Romanticism, reliance on personal experience, and individual style. Bd draws on 85 sources total: 11 are from ancient and late Antiquity (Herodotus, Pytheas of Massalia, Strabon, Diodorus Siculus, Claudius Ptolemy, Titus Pomponius Mela, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Publius Ovidius Naso, Gaius Plinius Secundus Maior, Marcus Junianus Justinus, Procopius of Caesarea), 21 have local origins (Wincenty Kadłubek, Jan Długosz, Maciej Stryjkowski, Mykolas Daukša, Michalo Lituanus, Jan Łasicki, Albertas Kojalavičius-Vijūkas, Franciszek Ksawery Michał Bohusz, Teodor Narbutt, Tadeusz Czacki), 13 are from other countries (Danish, Dutch, French, Russian, Swedish), and 35 sources (but 40 titles) are from authors of Prussian or German descent, most of whom lived in East Prussia, other parts of the Baltics, or St. Petersburg. The tradition of German historiography is prevalent in Bd and individual authors are cited more than 30 times. Therefore, it can be concluded that the attention of this region’s scholars to the Prussian and Lithuanian language, history, culture, as well as the high appreciation of the conquered pagans adopted from the Medieval chronicles was one of the reasons why German sources were chosen.

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).

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

The egodocuments (letters and diaries) provide historians and linguists with the rare opportunity to observe the everyday life of generations, who lived long ago. The Diary of Vytautas Civinskis (1887–1910), a young nobleman, tells about the years he spent abroad while studying in Leipzig, Berlin, and Dorpat in the first years of the 20th century. Along with other information, one can find rather scarce, but nevertheless valuable data about the societies of Lithuanians in Moscow, Berlin, and Dorpat which he described. In Moscow Civinskis attended Lithuanian parties, in Berlin he joined some meetings and a picnic, arranged by the local society of Lithuanians. Most closely he observed the life of the Society of Lithuanian Students of Dorpat. Civinskis became an active member of this society, and temporarily worked as a secretary, a librarian, and even one of its leaders. Spending his vacations in the Lithuanian estate Mituva, which belonged to his family, Civinskis also helped to establish the Agricultural Society of Skapiškis, arranged a theatrical performance and founded its library. This Diary, previously practically unknown, adds some interesting new details and trivia about all the mentioned societies, their activities and members. Many surnames of members are mentioned, the printed program of the party in Moscow adds to our knowledge of the cultural life of Lithuanians there, and previously unknown facts about women studying in Tartu are also published. This article includes some good quality photographs, taken by the diarist in Tartu.