Laimutis Bilkis. Linkmenų bažnyčios XVIII amžiaus metrikų oikonimai, neišlikę iki šių dienų

VYTAUTAS KARDELIS Vilnius University Research areas: dialectology, dialectometry, variation in language, history of language, cognitive semantics. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all90-14 Laimutis Bilkis THE OIKONYMS OF THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY METRICAL BOOKS OF THE LINKMENYS CHURCH THAT HAVE NOT SURVIVED TO THE PRESENT DAY Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2023, 183 pp. DOI doi.org/10.35321/e-pub.65.linkmenu-istoriniai-oikonimai ISBN 978-609-411-350-5 At the very end of 2023, a monograph by Dr Laimutis Bilkis, a senior researcher at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language’s Centre for Research into Baltic Languages and Onomastics, and a professional and meticulous researcher of Lithuanian place names, was published: The oikonyms of the eighteenth-century metrical books of the Linkmenys Church that have not survived to the present day. The monograph is dedicated to the 650th anniversary of the first mention of Liñkmenys in historical sources. It was published electronically and is available to readers online at: https://lki.lt/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/laimutis-bilkis-linkmenu-oikonimai-monografija-2023.pdf. The cover of the substantial 183-page monograph features a photograph of the Liñkmenys Church taken by the monograph’s author himself. The text contains illustrations, for example, an interesting fragment of an 1812 map of the Utena, Labanoras, Suvaiñiškis, Linkmenys, and Kuktiškės parishes (p. 13), the covers of the 1740–1760 baptismal and marriage metrical books of the Linkmenys Church (LkmKRII, LkmJnII) (p. 18), as well as fragments of metrical books. There are also statistical diagrams supplementing and illustrating the generalizations. It is interesting that the metrical books of the Linkmenys Church were given to the monograph’s author 20 years ago by the researcher of historical toponymy Vidas Garliauskas, symbolically, Recenzijos / Reviews 335 VYTAUTAS KARDELIS that the study appeared in 2023, when Liñkmenys is celebrating a significant anniversary—the 650th anniversary of its mention in historical sources. Therefore, as the author himself says: “[t]he study presented here is, among other things, also a modest effort to contribute to revealing the venerable history of the town and its surroundings, and to analysing and publishing facts known to few” (p. 9). The monograph consists of a Preface and an Introduction, which presents an overview of research, describes the significance and the motives for choosing the object of study, and also indicates the aim, objectives, scope, and methodology of the work. The most important, analytical and research-oriented part of the monograph consists of four chapters: “Oikonyms of Toponymic Origin,” “Oikonyms of Personal-Name Origin,” “Oikonyms of Appellative Origin,” and “Oikonyms of Unclear Origin.” The first chapter is further divided into the following sections: “Oikonyms Derived from Hydronyms Naming Extinct Habitations,” “Oikonyms of Hydronymic Origin Used as Variants and Naming Habitations Existing Today or Existing During the Interwar Period,” “Oikonyms of Hydronymic Origin of Unclear Status,” and “Oikonyms of Oronymic Origin.” The sections of the second chapter are: “Oikonyms Naming Extinct Habitations,” “Oikonyms Used as Variants and Naming Habitations Existing Today,” and “Oikonyms of Unclear Status.” The third chapter is divided into the following sections: “Oikonyms Naming Extinct Habitations,” “Oikonyms Used as Variants and Naming Habitations Existing Today,” and “Oikonyms of Unclear Status.” The fourth chapter is not divided into sections. In addition, the first, second, and third chapters conclude with summaries. At the end of the monograph, concise and specific conclusions are presented. Sources and the literature used are also provided; there is a list of abbreviations, an English summary, and indexes of place names and personal names. The monograph contains all the scholarly apparatus required for works of this kind. The scope of the work meets the requirements for a monograph. The language of the monograph is scholarly, fluent, and correct. Its structure is well considered, clear, and consistent: in the first three chapters, according to origin, the oikonyms naming extinct habitations, oikonyms used as variants and naming habitations existing today, and oikonyms of unclear status are examined. Each chapter concludes with a summary, which, for the sake of clarity and vividness, also includes the statistical diagrams already mentioned. The overview of research is concise but sufficient for a monograph. The aim of the work is “to identify the eighteenth-century oikonyms of the Liñkmenys parish that have disappeared, i.e. have not survived to our days, to reveal the features of their development and characteristics of their origin, thereby supplementing the inventory of Lithuanian habitation names with new data” (p. 16). To achieve this aim, the monograph sets out the following objectives: 1) “to extract from the metrical books of the Liñkmenys Church covering the specified period the names of habitations that have no counterparts in the oikonymy of interwar Lithuania and later”; 2) “where possible, to establish their localization and status” 336 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XC Laimutis Bilkis. The oikonyms of the eighteenth-century metrical books of the Linkmenys Church that have not survived to the present day (whether they named an extinct settlement or were variants of a surviving name), the beginning of their use, the reasons for their disappearance, and the nature of their changes; to discuss the most important orthographic features; to analyse their formation; and to describe their relationships with the proper and common words underlying their origin” (p. 16). Without entering into lengthy arguments, it can simply be stated that the aim of the study has been achieved and the objectives have been fulfilled. The following research methods are indicated: descriptive and reconstruction methods; statistical analysis is employed to support the conclusions. In principle, the selected methods are applied appropriately. In view of the aims and objectives of the study, the methods applied, and the analysis carried out, the summaries of the monograph’s chapters and the final research conclusions raise no doubts. Although this is more of a technical detail, the indexes of place names and personal names are very useful, greatly facilitating the reader’s work. It is impossible to identify any substantial criticisms or important substantive comments that might concern place-name researchers or linguists of other specializations reading the completed study—the analysis has been carried out correctly and with sound justification. It is highly commendable that the monograph’s author undertook research into historical onomastics. It is well known that research into historical onomastics requires not only great care, meticulousness, and patience in collecting empirical material, but also appropriate competence when undertaking its linguistic analysis. As just noted, the monograph’s author essentially coped with these tasks. A further fortunate circumstance was that “almost all eighteenth-century (and later) church metrical records have survived. The following metrical books are preserved (or were preserved) at the Linkmenys Church: baptismal records from 1708–1940 (LkmKr₁) and marriage records from 1716–1739 (LkmJ₁), baptismal records from 1740–1760 (LkmKr₂) and marriage records, marriage records from 1760–1795 (LkmJ₃) and death records from 1760–1790 (LkmMr), as well as baptismal records from 1760–1790 (LkmKr₃)” (p. 12). This monograph by my colleague Laimutis Bilkis is, in my understanding, important not only for the study of place names and not only in the traditional linguistic context (although one of its aims, as already mentioned, is “to discuss the most important orthographic features, analyse their formation, and describe their relationships with the proper and common words underlying their origin” (p. 16)). It is not merely about orthography, word formation, and etymology. It is important and gratifying that the monograph does not shut itself inside a room whose interior is exclusively linguistic. It is even more important and gratifying that, despite its firm structure, clear analysis, and comprehensible results, the monograph is not a final study whose subject has been exhausted completely. Most important and most gratifying is that the monograph opens up and leaves prospects for further research, raising questions and problems that will still require considerable attention in the future. Several aspects with prospects for future research were personally important and interesting to me. The first concerns historical sociolinguistics, above all in relation to the clergymen who filled in the metrical books. Here I will insert a rather long quotation: “[I]t is obvious that the writing was by more than one clergyman, as this is reflected in some entries. LkmKr₁ was certainly written at least until 1723 by the aforementioned Kazimieras Gonsiorovskis.” Recenzijos / Reviews 337 VYTAUTAS KARDELIS Several more people are indicated as having performed baptisms later: Antanas Rosa (Antonius Rosa) in 1731, Jokūbas Kazimieras Sadovskis (Iacobg Casimiruf Sadowski) in 1732 and 1733, the monk Steponas Vrozbitavičius (Fr Stephang Wrozbitowicz) in 1738, the monk Pranciškus Lesota (Fr. Franciscus Lafsota) in 1738 and 1739, Petras Pliščiñskis (Petrg Pliszcẏnski) in 1739, and Mykolas Toplickis (Nicolaus Toplicki) in 1739. LkmKr₁₁ contains not only the records of Kazimieras Šukevicius. Entries were also made by the commendar (vicar) Kristoforas Lukoševicius (Christophorg Łukafzewicz) in 1743, the commendar (vicar) of Linkmenys Andriejus Vainoravičius (Andreas Woynarowicz) in 1743–1757, the monk Liudvikas Toplickis (Frater Ludovicus Toplicki) in 1746, the Franciscan monk Marijonas Bogdanskis (Fr Marianus Bogdanski Francifcanus) in 1747, Samuelis Višniovskis (Samuel Wiszniowski) in 1751, the Franciscan monks Viktoras Karevičius (Fr Victor Karewicz Francifcanus) and Juozapas Jacevičius (Fr Iosephg Iacewicz Francifcanus) in 1757, Dominykas Stanevičius (Dominicq Stanie wicz) in 1757–1760, Pranciškus Lygeika (Francisca Ligieyko) in 1758, Juozapas Augustinas Pavlovskis (Iosephus Augustinuf Pawłowski) in 1759, and the monk Bernardas Liubovickis (Fr Bernardanuf Lubowicki) in 1759. On the other hand, it cannot be ruled out that in some cases the entries may have been made not by the clergymen indicated in the registers as having performed the baptisms or marriages themselves, but by other persons who administered the affairs of the church” (pp. 17–18). The oikonyms in the monograph are reliably examined according to the traditional structural principle: phonetics, morphology, word formation. It is very important that the variation of place names is shown and emphasized. Variation raises the question of how much the variants of oikonyms are determined by structural factors and how much by the person who recorded them. Here, in my understanding, lies a difficult and not particularly rewarding, but important, research prospect in historical sociolinguistics. It is probably difficult to expect any data about the education, language skills, or biographical details of the people who made the entries, but archives sometimes reveal all kinds of surprises. To show that the sociolinguistic aspect is interesting and important, I will try to demonstrate it with one example: in the monograph, the usual phonetic terms are written in quotation marks, e.g., “monophthongization.” In footnote 24, the author gracefully resolves the issue: “[T]erms identifying features of the orthography of oikonym recorders (“monophthongization,” “distant assimilation,” “assimilation,” “hypernormalization,” “monophthongization”) are presented in quotation marks because these are not natural phonetic phenomena occurring in living speech” (p. 30). But here, in my understanding, a research prospect opens up: are these really not natural phonetic phenomena occurring in living speech? If so, attention turns to the recorders: what conditions, motives, and contexts might have determined the variation? Directly related to these questions is another promising aspect of historical sociolinguistics, connected with the Slavicization of place names. The author uses this term in many places in the text and, it must be understood, does not doubt the process itself, cf.: “[R]econstructed 338 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica XC Laimutis Bilkis. The oikonyms of the eighteenth-century metrical books of the Linkmenys Church that have not survived to the present day taking into account the methods of Slavicization, Latinization¹ and other distortion of onyms already identified in many works on Lithuanian historical toponymy and anthroponymy, specific cases of change are discussed by analysing the development of individual names” (p. 20). It seems to me that the matter is not so simple, because Slavicization is a process, so there is scope for investigating the interrelations among natural phonetic phenomena occurring in living speech, orthography, the intentions of the recorders (if possible), and the contexts of Slavicization—broader contexts and those specifically connected with Linkmenys. The second important aspect, which does not release the historical-sociolinguistic component just discussed, is the variation of place names. I have already mentioned that an important advantage of the monograph is the attention devoted to variation: not only to varying phonetic or morphological forms, but—particularly importantly—to oikonyms used variably. This analysis is useful not merely in a local sense, but is important for broader theoretical studies of place names and even ethnogenesis. An example. *Kalviai, *Kavoliai (← Lith. kálvis, kavòlius, kavõlis ⇔ now Cijōnai (pp. 101–102, 134)—if such data and attestations of variation did not exist, it would be easy to assume that Cijōnai is an old, primary place name, and an etymology-based sociolinguistic interpretation of it could lead one astray. In general, two questions are associated with the variation of place names: 1) why did one of the varying (competing?) place names disappear? The author provides the most reasoned and convincing answers to this question in the conclusions. This question is, of course, easier than the second—the difficult one: 2) why did variants of place names (competing variants?) arise at all? The author believes that “[t]he abundance of historical variants was most likely determined by the fact that they were recorded in metrical books from living speech (having been heard from local inhabitants participating in the rites), and were neither standardized, unified, nor codified. One may agree with the supposition of other researchers that variation could also have arisen from the use of separate names for parts of settlements (single farmsteads, plots)” (p. 133). That is true, but in my understanding this is only the tip of the iceberg, since I venture to suppose that the emergence of variation is a fairly complex phenomenon. The persons filling in the metrical books can be recalled as one of the components of this complex. However, one could also examine the current situation: do place names likewise vary in present-day living speech? Thus, I see considerable prospects for future research here. As a technical means, the following method of analysis might perhaps be suitable: in the research part of the monograph, the oikonyms from all the books are examined together. This choice by the author is entirely possible and understandable. In the future, it might also be worth considering an alternative: grouping oikonyms and their variants by book and comparing them with one another—perhaps some further regularities would emerge. ¹ Emphasis mine—V. K. Recenzijos / Reviews 339 VYTAUTAS KARDELIS And one final thought related to future prospects: the monograph includes fragments of an 1812 parish map. It would be very interesting and valuable to see the entire map, and even more interesting would be a contemporary map showing the oikonyms that have not survived to the present day and their geographical relationship to current ones—and all of this in digital format! It is not difficult to understand that the things stated here are not things missing from the monograph. They are, as it were, signposts with which the monograph’s author selflessly marks the channel of future research, for himself and for other researchers. My colleague Laimutis Bilkis’s monograph is undoubtedly valuable and interesting not only to researchers of oikonyms, but also to dialectologists, historians of language, researchers of ethnogenesis, and historians. As someone from Linkmenys myself, I am pleased with this work by my colleague and wish him continued success in his research into the eighteenth-century metrical books of the Linkmenys Church. Submitted on 6 May 2024. VYTAUTAS KARDELIS Vilnius University Faculty of Philology Department of Lithuanian Language, Institute of Applied Linguistics Universiteto St. 5, LT-01131 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected] 340 Acta Linguistica Lituanica XC