Archivum Lithuanicum

The aim of this paper is to take a look at Władysław Syrokomla (real name Ludwik Franciszek Władysław Kondratowicz, 1823–1862) as a historian, and at the same time to discuss yet another so-called Lithuanian manor-archive – Bareikiškės (Pol. Borejkowszczyzna; Rukainiai parish, Vilnius County, Vilnius Province). The estate has been mentioned as an important intellectual island of that time, but it has never been discussed specifically as a workshop of accumulation of antiquities of the history of Lithuania and of writing the history of Lithuania. The compound ‘Syrokomla-historian’ may appear quite bold at first sight, but in this case the word ‘historian’ is understood in the meaning it was used when Syrokomla was writing, that is, bearing in mind the peculiarities of the historiography of Lithuania of the first half of the nineteenth century, when the boundary between the scientific and the fictional was still very fragile, and the professionalization of history was very poor. Yet no matter how complex this context might be, an attempt is made to ‘separate’ Syrokomla-historian from Syrokomla-poet. According to scholars, Syrokomla wrote all of his highly acclaimed lyrical works during the period of Bareikiškės. However, in this paper the focus is laid on those other, ‘not so glorious’ works. The intent of these works is important, but even more important are the sources that were resorted to while writing them. In other words, the gaze is directed not only at Syrokomla’s text, but also at its footnotes– particularly at them. Here a significant role is played by Syrokomla’s library, his archive, the collection of antiquities, and even of paintings. Therefore the research is not limited to Bareikiškės alone: the sources of those collections were sought in Syrokomla’s first manor, Zalucha (Pol. Załucze; Bel. Залучча, Minsk County, Minsk Province). Syrokomla’s views on history and the writing of history, his theoretical and even methodological attitudes, or what was even then defined by the word historiology, are also of importance. In general, priority was given to primary sources: both to the historical material collected by Syrokomla and to the autographs of his works, because it is an important part of the former library (archive) of Zalucha and Bareikiškės. Although Syrokomla thought he simply had to be a poet and only a poet, and although he came to believe in this ‘lyrical’ mission of his, it was obvious that he constantly kept suppressing his passion for the so-called genuine history. Nesvizh (Pol. Nieśwież; Bel. Нясвiж; Slutsk County, Minsk Province) had a profound influence on the biography of Syrokomla-historian. There he had experienced the charm of old documents, and, in the broad sense, of archives. In the spring of 1843, the idea to write the history of the town of Nesvizh and its castle was born. It was in Nesvizh that Syrokomla received his first commission ‘in the field of history’: at Michał Baliński’s (1794–1864) request, in the spring of 1844, he prepared the work Notatka o Nieświeżu na żądanie Wo Balińskiego, which became like an introduction to or a presentation of Syrokomla-historian. The talent of a historian, respect to a primary historical source and to a historical detail, attention to the latest historiographical research, strict requirements to the historical commentary, and the desire to present a historical fact in a broad historical-problematic context manifest themselves in other works of the Zalucha period. He wrote Dzieje literatury w Polsce od pierwiastkowych, do naszych czasów (Vilnius, 1850), translated Jean-Joseph François Poujoulat’s (1808–1880) work Histoire de la Révolution Française into Polish (Vilnius, 1851), participated in the series of historical sources Dziejopisowie krajowi (Saint Petersburg, 1854– 1858) published by Bolesław Maurycy Wolff (1826–1883).

In discussing the issue of the authorship of Daukša’s Postilė, some scholars raise the question of the unevenness of the language of this work and the ambiguity of some corrigenda. One of such corrigenda to give rise to various linguistic hypotheses – aimieus to łáimieus – should be considered simply a mistake of the person who corrected the mistake. In fact, the correction had to be done in the opposite direction – łaimiaus to aimieus, but pages were mixed up due to an oversight, and page 88 was indicated instead of page 78. This mistake was very likely made by Daukša himself and not by the typesetter at the printer’s. If the latter were the case, the old and not matching indication of the line (38) would have remained next to the wrong page number. However, the corrigendum indicates line 33 of page 88: presumably, when Daukša was revising the corrigendum, he found one of the two given forms and made corresponding corrections without giving much thought to them.

Yatvigian Book (hereinafter YB) is a conventional, probably the most exhaustive and the most important description of the ethno-cultural tradition of the tribe that spoke Yatvigian, one of the two languages of Western Balts, recorded during the Reformation period. It is based on the source of information disseminated in several variants of manuscripts, and later in small printed books (reprints). Unfortunately, the original of YB has not been found yet, and the scholars who discussed this source or analysed it to some detail after the appearance of Wilhelm Mannhardt’s book Letto-Preussische Götterlehre (1936), which contains copy A(p), resorted not to the analysis of the copies, but to the materials provided in the book, and did not doubt the authenticity of the given information. Due to these reasons, historical facts of the manuscripts were not investigated as the information in Mannhardt’s monograph was taken for granted. Unfortunately, in many cases it does not correspond to reality and is essentially erroneous or elliptical. Textological analysis of ten surviving manuscripts of YB shows that the method of information structuring in the copies A(p), α, B, X of the old edition presupposes a reflection of the mandatory tradition of the preparation of diplomatic documents, i.e., those that are related to the legal field: the presentation of factual material follows strict rules established for preparation of such works – a prologue, a narrative, and an epilogue. Although this circumstance has not been highlighted by any of the researchers of the source analysed, it is extremely important, because it can be related with the intent of the work and the aim

The paper deals with Johann Jacob Quandt’s (1686–1772) manuscript Prussian Presbyterology (Germ. Preußische Presbyterologie, vol. 1–5, ~1737–~1772, hereinafter referred to as QPP), currently stored in the Secret State Archives Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation in Berlin (Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz; GStA PK: XX. HA Hist. StA Königsberg, Hs, No. 2). The author of the presbyterology Quandt was professor primarius of theology at the University of Königsberg, the chief court preacher, and General Superintendent of Prussia; for over four years, he supervised the Lithuanian Language Seminar (1723–1727), and for two decades, he was in charge of publishing Lithuanian religious literature. The paper presents an overview of the history of the QPP manuscript, the aspects of its attribution, the structure and the content of the text, and the main sources of reference, with the focus on the QPP significance for the research into the history of Lithuanian writings. As testified by the analysis of handwriting, QPP is Quandt’s autograph. It is his largest currently known autograph and a very important part of his written heritage. Quandt worked on his presbyterology in Königsberg over three decades, from approximately 1737 until the last years of his life (his latest entries date back to the period between 1768 and 1772). Based on handwriting analysis, the chief court preacher, General Superintendent of Prussia, and later on, Archbishop of the Prussian Evangelical Church Ludwig Ernst von Borowski (1740–1831) was found to have been one of the contributors to that presbyterology. His additions were rather sporadic and found merely in volumes 1 and 2; they date back to the year 1816 or slightly later. An anonymous inscription on the provenance of the manuscript (QPP I 1) is also to be assigned to Borowski’s hand; together with the information provided by the Manuscript Catalogue of the Prussian State Archive Königsberg, it testified to Borowski having been the owner of volumes 1 to 4 of QPP. Both that fact and the handwriting analysis as well as the dating of subsequent additions led to the revision of Albert Nietzki’s (1866–1923) statement about the manuscript having been inherited and abundantly supplemented by Quandt’s colleague Daniel Heinrich Arnoldt (1706–1775): he could only have been the owner of volume 5 of QPP or its reader (between 1772 and 1775). The entries of the so far unidentified main contributor to QPP date back to the period between 1816 and 1829. In the mid-nineteenth century, Quandt’s manuscript continued to be supplemented by a third contributor.

Simonas Daukantas (1793–1864) introduced the letter <î> for his Lowland Lithuanian dialectal vowel [ẹ] first in gen. sg. m. flexion—from page 44 of his manuscript Historya Justina (HJ; 1834 and / or later); cf. brolî ‘(of) brother’. Approximately from page 142, the grapheme <‑î> in that particular flexion began dominating (as a morphological signifier). Then, approximately on page 242, Daukantas started to denote <‑î> more intensely in other endings as well: in instr. sg. f., iness., nom., and acc. sg. This way he began altering the morphological signifier into a phonetic one (wilontî; kapusî; essantî; diedî). Such phonetic marking of <‑î> flexions became preponderant (in gen. sg. m., iness., and instr. sg. f.) in the latest written part of HJ (in prefaces on pages 1–12) and the layer of later corrections. Further Daukantas started introducing the phonetic <î> [ẹ] more frequently into the stems of the words as well (cf. gîr; kîmiù). Daukantas decided to place the circumflex <ˆ> on the letter <‑i> in the open flexion most probably due to the influence of the Lithuanian texts in East Prussia that contained this diacritic in closed gen. sg. f. flexions on other letters (cf. Daukantas’s HJ <‑ês, ‑ôs>: isz baimês ‘because of fear’; Grecijôs ‘[of] Greece’; weczôs ukês ‘[of] old state [country]’). Sermons (Postilla) by Mikalojus Daukša (1599) could have also had some secondary influence on Daukantas’s decision to select <î>, but Daukša was mostly using <î> in the stem position, while Daukantas began introducing <î> in the endings. The initial usage of the grapheme <î> by Daukantas presupposes such approximate sequence of three manuscripts: (1) HJ pp. 13–400; (2) HJ corrections and writing of HJ prefaces on pp. 1–12; (3) Jstoriję Justinaus (JJ); and (4) Pasakas Pdraus (PaP). Most probably Daukantas chose the letter <î> at the beginning of his stay in St. Petersburg (the end of 1834 and somewhat later). The grapheme is absent from his manuscripts of the Rīga period (before the summer of 1834).

Maironis (1862–1932) prepared five editions of his poetry book Pavasario balsai. They were published in 1895 (in Tilžė), 1905 (Petersburg), 1913 (Kaunas), 1920 (Tilžė), and 1927 (Kaunas). The article analyses how Maironis changed the alphabet, spelling, phonetics, morphology, and syntax of these editions by tracking the causes of change. When the grammars by Jablonskis were published in 1901 and later, Maironis did not aim to take over the norms given there and to apply them in his poems. Only gradually, observing letters, the rules of spelling, and forms different from his own usage, recommended by authoritative persons or established in the media or in the texts of his friends Maironis himself started to use them. While preparing the edition of 1905, Maironis changed his mind about seven language features. This edition was printed with new characters <Č, č>, <Š, š> (instead of <Cz, cz>, <Sz, sz> in 1895 edition; mocziutė → močiutė, szirdies → širdies ) and <Uo, uo> (instead of <Ů, ů> in the 1895 edition; Jůksis → Juoksis). Earlier used nom., instr. pl. endings of the (i)ŏ stem nouns and adjectives ‑ei, ‑eis were changed to ‑(i)ai, ‑(i)ais (brolei → broliai, sveczeis → svečiais), instr. sg. endings of ()ā, ē stem nouns and adjectives ‑ą, ‑ę changed to ‑a, ‑e (bang → bangà, grožybę → gražybe). Maironis also edited the morphology: the ending ‑ė of adj. super. f. nom. sg. was changed to ‑ia, gen. sg. ‑ės – to ‑ios (brangiausė → brangiausia, brangiausės → brangiausios), cond. 1 sg. ending ‑czio, used in the 1895 edition, was changed to ‑čiau (Norėczio → Norėčiau). He stopped using conjunction ką in the attributive clauses as well. The language in the edition of 1913 was edited less. Maironis changed the nom. pl. m. ending of i stem ‑ys, used in the 1905 edition, to ‑įs (akys → akįs); he started to write ‑in‑ in the fut. forms of the verbs with ‑inti instead of the earlier ‑į‑ (pasveikįsiu → pasveikinsiu). These two changes were related with the works of Kazimieras Būga. Maironis also refused to use cond. 1, 2 pl. forms with ‑tumi‑ (learned from Jaunius; užmirsztumit → užmirštumėt) in the 1913 edition. Maironis slightly edited the language of the 1920 edition of Pavasario balsai as well. Acc. pl. f. of pronominal adjectives were written here with ‑ąsias instead of earlier ‑asias (Linksmasias → Linksmąsias). This ending was given by Jablonskis in 1901 and later in his grammars of 1918 and 1919 and recommended by Būga (1910). The language of the 1927 edition of Pavasario balsai, included in volume I of Maironis’s writings, underwent the most extensive editing. Here Maironis started using the letter <ū> much more consistently. He changed the endings of i, u stem nominals: he started to write ‑ys, ‑ūs instead of earlier ‑įs, ‑ųs (akįs, sunųs → akys, sūnūs); wrote the imperative forms with ‑k[‑] instead of earlier ‑kk[‑] (neverkk → neverk) (but still ‑gk[‑]; džiaugkis → džiaugkis), conjunctive 3 forms with ‑tų (earlier ‑tu; atspėtu → atspėtų). The ending of adjectives in the superlative nom. sg. ‑is was replaced with ‑ias (Augščiausis → Augščiausias), acc. sg. ‑į with ‑ią (didžiausį → didžiausią). Maironis edited the syntax of his poetry as well: he started to express the address of ė stem nouns not with the nominative, but with the vocative case (graži sesutė → graži sesute), replaced the conjunction kad with kai in the compound sentences meaning time.

Three handwritten copies of an order issued by George Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg- Ansbach, have recently come to light in the Secret State Archives Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation (Berlin). Two of these, A and B, had been edited before by Jurgis Gerullis (1927), but were meanwhile considered lost. The third one, K, has been newly discovered in a file of drafts which also contained the German drafts both for the text of the order and the Duke’s accompanying letter to the church administrations of Tilsit and Ragnit. It is edited here with the variants from A, B and a photograph of the lost copy U, and together with the two German drafts. The edition is accompanied by a full commentary and glossary. George Frederick, nephew of the first Prussian duke Albert of Brandenburg, took over the administration of the Duchy of Prussia after Albert’s son had been declared unfit to rule. The order, dating from December 1578 and addressed to the church administration of Tilsit, admonishes the members of the Protestant church district of Tilsit to fulfil their obligations as Christians and refrain from heathen practices. It is the earliest extant administrative document written in Old Lithuanian.

The Kvėdarna Parish (Šilalė District) Poster of Jesus Christ Heart Fraternity SPASABAS PASYLECAWOIMA SZWĘCZIAUSE SZYRDEY PONA JEZUSA Broctwoy Saldziausios Szyrdies Chrystusa (The Manner of Commitment to the Holiest Heart of Lord Jesus in the Fraternity of the Sweetest Heart of Christ) preserved in the archive of the Kretinga Franciscan monastery was not recorded in the Lithuanian Bibliography. The Poster was published in Vilnius by the printer Abromas Dvorčius (most probably in 1848). Until now, the activity of this fraternity in Kvėdarna has not been recorded either. A similar document of that fraternity in another parish (Rozalimas parish) had been printed four years earlier, in 1844, and has survived till now. A comparison of the two documents (from Rozalimas and Kvėdarna) uncovers significant textual differences. Even if their structures are comparable (they both contain a part of commitment to the fraternity and both list obligations and indulgences), the remaining content and the linguistic features differ substantially. The documents must have been prepared by different persons. The dialectal peculiarities of the Kvėdarna Poster suggest that it must have been prepared by a southern Samogitian (from the southern part of the Lithuanian Lowlands).