Lituanistica

Title

2024-12-19T09:29:39+02:00

2024-12-19T09:35:37+02:00

The Original Necrology of Mathias Casimir Sarbiewski and the Cause of His Death

2024-12-23T16:18:47+02:00

In 2024, a brief description of the life of Mathias Casimir Sarbiewski of the Society of Jesus compiled by Jan Poszakowski (1684–1757) in the middle of the eighteenth century was published in volume 52 of Senoji Lietuvos literatūra [Early Lithuanian Literature]. The introductory observations regarding the published text stated that the original necrology of Sarbiewski did not survive.
The aim of this article is, firstly, to prove that the original necrology of Sarbiewski was written and is extant; secondly, to indicate its archival location; thirdly, to publish the text itself with the translation into Lithuanian, and, fourthly, to discuss some of its features.
Sarbiewski died in Warsaw on the 2 April 1640. To date, the circumstances of his death are not traceable in primary sources. The Jesuit poet held a position of preacher/predicant in the court of King Wladysław IV from 1635 to 1640 and was formally assigned to the house of the so-called professi of the Society of Jesus in Warsaw.
The year 1640 is very scarce in sources regarding the history of the Lithuanian Province of the Society of Jesus since no short catalogue of persons of the Warsaw house of professi is extant from 1639/1640. According to obligatory instructions, Sarbiewski’s death had to be mentioned in the so-called ‘Annual letters’ (Litterae annuae) or ‘History’ (Historia) of the aforementioned house of professi. To date, unfortunately, both of these sources are still lacking as well.
The necrologies of the deceased members of the Society of Jesus had to be entered in a special manuscript book kept for the purpose in each college, residence, or mission of the Society of Jesus. Unfortunately, only few such books are extant to date in the context of the Lithuanian Province of the Society of Jesus. Copies of these necrologies were obligatorily sent to the archive of Father Provincial in Vilnius. After the suppression of the Society of Jesus in 1773, the archive of Father Provincial of the Lithuanian Province disappeared or was destroyed as no longer relevant. As a result, these versions of necrologies did not survive. Additional copies of necrologies were obligatorily sent to the Archive of the House of the Superior General of the Society of Jesus in Rome (ARSI) and are now available to scholars. The necrologies from the former Lithuanian Province of the Society of Jesus are kept at the ARSI, in a special set of five volumes under shelf mark ‘Lith. 61–65’.
The necrology of Sarbiewski was entered not in the aforementioned corpus of necrologies kept at the ARSI, but in a separate volume containing the histories of the Lithuanian Province of the Society of Jesus, now under shelf mark ‘Lith. 39’ (fo. 268v). However, the original necrology of Sarbiewski appears to be very frustrating, since the text is very short and uninformative. Apart from minor details, it gives us no information of greater importance.
The circumstances of Sarbiewski’s death referred in detail by Poszakowski and especially by Langbein are only briefly mentioned: ‘[he] was consumed by occult malignity of hectic fever’. The hectic fever was already described by ancient medics and is now considered to possibly be tuberculosis. Considering both the climate changes in Eastern Europe at that time (the so-called minor glacial period) and quite harsh living conditions at the residencies of the Lithuanian Province the Society of Jesus, the diagnosis of tuberculosis is quite plausible. The text of the necrology along with its translation into Lithuanian is included at the end of the article. The newest archival findings from the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (collection ‘Barberini Latini’) are cited as well.

The Use of Slavic Loanwords and Hybrids from Konstantinas Sirvydas’s Promptuarium Dictionum Polonicarum, Latinarum et Lituanicarum (1620) in Dictionarium Trium Linguarum (1642)

2024-12-19T13:40:04+02:00

Among other seventeenth-century texts of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the dictionaries of Konstantinas Sirvydas are distinguished by their thematic scope. At that time, most texts were of a religious nature, influenced by polemics between representatives of different confessions, which led to a narrower lexicon. However, Sirvydas’s dictionaries included words from the spoken language of the time, which even covered the aspects of everyday life. His works serve as an excellent source for studying the lexicon of the Lithuanian language of that period as they contain numerous borrowings, derivatives, compounds, and occasional derivatives. Sirvydas’s dictionaries Promptuarium Dictionum Polonicarum, Latinarum et Lituanicarum (1620; hereinafter SPr) and Dictionarium Trium Linguarum (1642; hereinafter SD) differ not only in their scope but also in the words included. Although the later edition is more extensive, it often lacks the headwords found in the earlier dictionary. Differences are also evident in the borrowed lexicon, which can be divided into four groups: (1) words or their nests attested only in SPr (e.g., furmonas SPr32, furmonystė SPr32, furmonyti, -ija, -ijo SPr32), (2) words attested only in SD (e.g., čyžė SD44, čyžinykas SD44, čyžinis SD44); (3) borrowed words present in both sources (e.g., parakas SPr140, SD345; parakaunyčia SPr140, SD345), and (4) the cases where at least one word from the nest is attested in either SPr or SD (e.g., paramas SPr140, SD346; paramnykas SPr146). In this study, the first group of words was analysed in an attempt to determine why Slavic loanwords and derivatives with Slavic roots attested in SPr were excluded from SD. The material was assigned to several categories: Slavic loanwords and hybrids attested only in SPr are absent in SD because the later edition of the dictionary lacks the corresponding Polish headwords (e.g., Pol. fryjerka/Lith. prierka SPr32/- SD). In SD, the translation of the same Polish words replaces Slavic loanwords (e.g., Pol. furman/Lith. furmonas SPr32/Lith. vežtojas, vėžėjas SD65). SPr provides multiple Lithuanian words for translation, whereas SD omits the Slavic loanwords or hybrids used in SPr and sometimes adds new synonyms (both single words and word combinations) (e.g., Pol. hetman/Lith. hetmanas, kariavedis SPr42/Lith. kariavedis SD82; Pol. więzienie/Lith. kalinė, turma SPr193/Lith. kalinė, saitai SD479). From the multiple Slavic borrowings or hybrids given in SPr, only one remains in SD for the same Polish word translation (e.g., Pol. kuczka/Lith. būdelė, tavorėlis SPr67/tavorėlis SD140). The way the translation is presented changes in SD: a descriptive sentence is introduced, leading to the omission of Slavic loanwords or hybrids used in SPr (e.g., Pol. kadzidło/Lith. kodylas SPr50/Lith. sakai vieno nedėlio ant rūkymo SD92).

Lithuanian and Latvian Literature: Prerequisites for Intercultural Communication

2024-12-19T13:39:50+02:00

This paper aims to explore the context of the cultural ties between Lithuania and Latvia and to discuss the increasing supply of translations of Latvian literature into Lithuanian (and the other way round, of Lithuanian literature into Latvian) with a closer look at the choice of translated material as well as its genres and themes. It analyses how literary translation, a cultural practice that overcomes alienation and prejudices, can contribute to literary (and thus cultural) communication, discovery, and the development of a common Baltic identity. The paper examines the reasons why Latvians may appreciate Lithuanian literature (and vice versa) and the kind of a book that would most likely be chosen for translation: (1) specific works that fill the gaps in the receiving literature, (2) universal stories that deal with common issues, or (3) narratives based on shared experiences that are relatable between the peoples of the neighbouring countries. The paper discusses specific works of Latvian literature already translated into Lithuanian and their impact on the evolution of the literary process, including the importance of the translator’s role in this process. It also provides a bibliography of the novels translated from the Latvian to Lithuanian from 1990 to 2024 and a selection of five translated novels for further reading.
Recently, literary translation has stimulated an increasing level of cultural exchange between Lithuania and Latvia. Publishing houses in the Baltic countries have been focused on profitability and releases of translated works by the same authors, while the translators lack consistency in applying their selection criteria. Because of this, we do not have a panoramic view of the literature written by our neighbours. A high linguistic and cultural equivalence between Latvia and Lithuania is fostering a tradition of mutual understanding between the two countries. Therefore, this paper argues that a high potential for mutual communication is to be found in the literatures of these two nations, as they explore a similar historical situation and actualise shared social memories.

Public and Private Family Celebration Events as Reflected in the Soviet Press

2024-12-19T13:39:36+02:00

In the history of Lithuania, the Soviet period stands out as an era that changed the natural development of ethnic culture. For the first time in our country, an attempt was made to replace the traditional religious calendar and holidays of the human life cycle with new holidays and new socialist traditions and rituals. It was hoped that the new rites would replace the older religious rites, and that communist morality and socialist internationalism would defeat bourgeois nationalism.
The creation of socialist festivals and holidays was one of the most important ideological goals of the USSR, and no effort was spared for its implementation. Throughout the Soviet period, the concept of ‘new traditions’, which sought to legitimise newly created holiday rituals, was actively developed. The family was necessary for the meaningfulness of tradition as a value category, and the mass media, among which the periodical press occupied a leading role throughout the Soviet period, were necessary for its dissemination. As it had no analogues in Lithuania before, this cultural process of the pursuit of forming new, Soviet festivals and holidays by rejecting their religious aspect is important for ethnologists in order to understand the dynamics of holiday formation in crisis situations.
The object of this article is the description of celebrations or leisure events referred to as celebrations, which are repeated or planned to be repeated annually and are in any way connected with the family, as they are reflected in the Soviet press. The aim of the article is to analyse the family holidays as described in the periodical press and classify them according to certain criteria – the place and the nature of the celebration. To achieve this goal, I set the following tasks: (1) to delve into the definition of a holiday/ritual, (2) to analyse publications about events called family holidays in the private sphere, (3) to analyse publications about public events called family holidays, and (4) to reveal the ritual specificity of these events.
Analysis of Soviet periodicals has shown that many events organised at that time and dedicated to the family were aimed at being called ‘festivals’, giving them a fixed time and continuity, the value and the power of tradition. It was understood that the celebration was important from an ideological perspective. However, time has shown that a holiday is not possible without a ritual performed in it, which is important in the emotional sense and has a psychological impact on those participating in it.
If in the 1960s there was a call to create a holiday celebrated in the family, in a private space, in the parents’ house, most likely in order to distract people from celebrating Christmas or Mother’s Day, then in the 1970s and the 1980s, the so-called ‘traditional festivities’ celebrated outside the family, in the public space, already dominated and were often called not a celebration of just one family, but of several or many families; sometimes they were referred to as ‘an evening party’ (vakaronė), ‘an outdoor party’ (gegužinė), or a sports holiday. Family celebrations were usually held in a public space: in a culture house or a factory hall. Not only family members but also work colleagues participated, with professional actors, musical groups, doctors, lawyers, and specialists in other fields invited to such events. Sometimes, in order to ensure a festive mood, schoolchildren or even kindergartners were invited to perform at concerts. Even ordinary and anniversary weddings and baby naming ceremonies held in the halls of registry offices became occasions for mass celebrations.
The aim of these festivities was to ‘distract’ people from religious holidays, such as Christmas Eve, Easter, or Mother’s Day, which brought families and relatives together. However, this aim remained generally unfulfilled, because even in a secularised society, the traditional family rituals of Christmas Eve, Christmas, and Easter prevailed, while the socialist tradition that was attempted to be established along with the new celebrations did not materialise, just as public events for families promoted in the press did not acquire the scale of universally celebrated festivals or holidays. Even when shrouded in the veil of tradition as a value category, ideologised entertainment/leisure events, which especially intensified at the sunset of the Soviet era, did not form the ritual characteristics, feelings, and power of the new festivity. The variety of events advertised in the press pointed to unsuccessful efforts to create new festivities that were to be celebrated by families at home and with the family in the public space.

Lithuanian National Culture in the Soviet Era: Between Identity Control and Creative Work

2024-12-19T10:39:13+02:00

A Collection of Scholarly Articles on the Karaim Language

2024-12-19T10:42:35+02:00

A Monograph on the Lithuanian Diaspora and Its Ideology

2024-12-19T10:45:02+02:00