INGĖ LUKŠAITĖ

Institute of Lithuanian History

Research fields: the cultural history of Lithuania, the history of the Reformation, and the historiography and sources of Lithuania Minor (Prussian Lithuania).

DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all84–18

REFLECTIONS ON THE SPELLING OF PLACE NAMES AND PERSONAL NAMES IN TRANSLATIONS OF RESEARCH ON THE HISTORY OF OLD LITHUANIA

At present, an increasing number of works on the history of old Lithuania are being translated into foreign languages, including English, German, and others. Legitimate questions arise as to how personal names and place names should be rendered in translations. There is more than one approach. One of them was put forward by habil. dr. Harald Bichlmeier in a review of the German translation of Ingė Lukšaitė’s book (Bichlmeier 2020: 197–201). The reviewer takes a critical view of the principles established in the translation for spelling personal names and place names and criticizes the staff of the Leipzig University Press for them. I feel obliged to state that those principles were established by the author, while the publishing house cooperated in implementing them; therefore, I assume full responsibility.

In the reviewer’s opinion, “German scholarly literature gives priority above all to forms of personal names that are actually attested. Specifically, this means that if a Pole and a Lithuanian (even if his personal name is merely the Polonized form used by an official) from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is mentioned in the sources only in the Polish (and/or Latin) form of his personal name, precisely that form must be used, rather than the Lithuanian form (even if reconstructed with good intentions); (an exception may be the Lithuanian form of a person known internationally, e.g. Martynas Mažvydas, etc.). This applies especially when Lithuanian forms of personal names are not used in the German-speaking area: Radziwiłł(i) is known, but Radvila?” (Bichlmeier 2020: 198).

The requirement to use the form of a personal name mentioned in the sources is well founded, and it is followed in the book under review. However, the sources most often contain not two but considerably more forms. In scholarly texts, as in the reviewed book, when a name is first mentioned, its forms are listed in all the source languages. Lithuanian

Articles / Articles

351

INGĖ LUKŠAITĖ

In the Grand Duchy, during the first centuries of the state’s existence, the Neo-Latin, Ruthenian (the north-eastern Slavs living in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) / Belarusian chancery written languages were used; for correspondence with neighboring states, the languages of the addressees were most often used as well: with the states of the Teutonic and Livonian Orders—Latin and German; with Poland—Latin and Polish; and with the Tatars—their own language. With the beginning of the early modern period, the use of languages in writing became even more complex: from the mid-sixteenth century, Polish also competed for the position of a written language, as lingua franca for all the territories of the multilingual Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. From the sixteenth century, Polish gradually began to penetrate the sphere of spoken language as well: the highest state officials and nobles began to adopt it; over several centuries, some members of the nobility became bilingual: Ruthenian / Belarusian–Polish, Ruthenian / Ukrainian–Polish, and Lithuanian–Polish. Documents from Lithuania Minor (Prussian Lithuania) predominantly contain forms written in German. With the emergence of Lithuanian writing, Lithuanian also slowly began to become a written language; however, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania it was not used for documents intended for administration, diplomacy, or politics. Thus, the data it provides about personal names and place names were unsystematic and often sporadic. Despite the narrow use of Lithuanian as a written language, it began to provide us with data both about place names and about personal names. The question is whether we know that information sufficiently well. For the territories inhabited by Lithuanians and for persons of Lithuanian origin, there is another source that we ought to heed; to deny it would be unhistorical. This is the continuity of spoken Lithuanian and the relative stability of its linguistic forms: for both personal names and place names, spoken-language information in Lithuanian has survived. We must take these forms into account in the twenty-first century, especially now that onomastic and hydronymic research has advanced considerably, and we have collected information, dictionaries, and analyses of the regularities of language change. We must recognize spoken language as a source and rely on it when selecting Lithuanian forms of personal names and place names. They are not merely theoretical reconstructions or inventions of historians. It is true that historiography contains—and this view predominates—a formal approach according to which, if forms of a personal name or place name are not written in documents in a written language, they do not exist at all. Such an approach is not historically reliable or well argued. Thus, from the sixteenth century onward, personal names and place names appear in the sources in the following written languages: Neo-Latin, the Ruthenian chancery language, Polish, German, and Lithuanian; in the latter, they are also attested in spoken language. Therefore, if we remain faithful to the forms recorded in the sources, we must write at least three or four versions of each personal name and place name. This principle is followed in the book under review: all forms of a personal name mentioned for the first time (apart from insignificant spelling variations) that occur in the sources of the period are listed there (for persons of Lithuanian origin, forms attested in spoken language are also included), and they are repeated in the index of personal names. However, writing all the forms every time in a sentence

352

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Reflections on the Spelling of Place Names and Personal Names in Translations of Research on the History of Old Lithuania

such enumeration disrupts the fluency of the sentence, so one of them—the principal form—has to be chosen. Personal names written in different written languages differ in the spelling of their stems and, naturally, in their endings. The book chose the form that corresponds to the person’s ethnic origin, if it is known. The ethnic origins of high officials in the Lithuanian state and of some noble families have now been discussed, so it is possible to choose the form of their personal name according to the person’s origin. The reviewer agrees that the Lithuanian form of the compiler of the first Lithuanian book, Martyno Mažvydo, should be used. He regards the Lithuanian form as a reconstruction. This can be accepted. Two autographs signed by Martynas Mažvydas in Latin have survived: M. Mofsuīd, Martinus Mossuid, Martinus Mosvidius, Martinus Masvidas; many different forms are found on the title pages of his books, the principal ones being M. Mossuidas Vaitkunas, Martinas Mosvidas, Moscouidius and so on. This person’s dedication to preparing books in Lithuanian is also evidence of his national identity. Thus, using this Lithuanian form of the personal name is justified. However, the reviewer disagrees with the use of the personal names Radvila and Palius Megotas (a Prussian, and an assistant in the translation of the 1564 catechism into Prussian).

In the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth century, the sources likewise contain more than one form of the personal name Radvila: Neo-Latin Radivilus (Radvanas 1592: 1r.), Polish—Radziwiłł; Boguslav Radvila’s signatures in Latin and German texts—Radzivil / Radzivill (Čapaitė 2020: 15, 20–23); Lithuanian—Radvilas (Pociūtė 2004: 7). Rūta Čapaitė’s research into the autographs of nobles revealed that most of them knew several languages and were trained to write in more than one script (Čapaitė 2019: 228–230). In the mid-seventeenth century, the mayor of Kėdainiai, Steponas Jaugelis Telega, wrote the Lithuanian form of the surname Radivilus in a Lithuanian dedication to Jonušas Radvila: “Jonuſſie Radowilay, Kunigaiͤkſti, Pone...” (Pociūtė 2004: 7). The form of the surname Radvila, Radvilas has survived and is still used today (Vanagas, Maciejauskienė, Razmukaitė 1989: 241–249). The Radvilas were of Lithuanian origin; in the second half of the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth century, they were Evangelical representatives of a branch of a noble family. In the literature of the period, they were regarded as defenders of the Lithuanian state, guardians of its interests, and continuers of loyalty to Lithuania and its historical tradition. The book under review publishes a letter by Venclovas Agripa to Mikalojus Radvila Rudasis, which clearly states that Poland and Lithuania have different interests, that Poland seeks to subordinate Lithuania, and that Radvila Rudasis is addressed as a defender of the interests of the Lithuanian state (Lukšaitė 2017: 537–553). There is no historical basis for considering the Radvilas Poles in the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth century. On the basis of all this information, we may justifiably choose the Lithuanian form of their personal names as the principal form, if we agree that the principal form of a personal name should be chosen with regard to ethnic origin.

Insights / Insights

353

INGĖ LUKŠAITĖ

The most difficult case is choosing the principal form of the personal name of the Prussian Pauliaus Megoto, an assistant to the translator from German into Prussian. The only form preserved in the sources is the personal name Paull Megot, written in German in a letter signed in the name of an unknown person. The autograph is currently unknown (Mažiulis 1981: 242). Thus, it is unclear whether the writer of the letter rendered the Prussian translator’s personal name accurately. In the reviewer’s opinion, the personal name should either not be Lithuanianized at all or the German form should be used; in his view, the reconstructed Prussian form of the personal name could be Paulli/as/ Megot/i/as/. Since it may be doubted that the German personal name, mentioned only once, was recorded accurately, and since Prussian is a Baltic language, the Lithuanianized form established by Vytautas Mažiulis was chosen when the name is mentioned again (Mažiulis 1981: 241–249).

In the book under review, it was decided to provide the form corresponding to a person’s ethnic origin when the personal name is mentioned again. Therefore, when repeated in the book, the names of Ruthenian origin are written as Valovič, Chadkevič, Sapega, Eulašauski; those of Lithuanian origin as Kęsgaila, Goštautas, Radvila; Polish as Kiszka, Laski; German as Krautmüller, and so forth. When ethnic affiliation is unclear, the Latin form is chosen, if one exists.

A similar situation exists with the spelling of place names. The monograph covers a very broad territory in which place names used in sources in Lithuanian, Ruthenian, German, and Polish were found. Some of these territories were ethnically mixed and changed their political affiliation over the centuries. The reviewer believes that place names common in German historiography should be used. The principle proposed by the reviewer would suit place names that are widely used in historians’ works, which are usually the names of major political centers, cities, or sites of political events. When we turn to church foundations in the period of the Reformation, small towns, villages, estates, and folwarks must be indicated as the realities of the movement. Most of them are unknown or uncommon in German historiography. Thus, three groups of place names emerge that need to be discussed separately and for which the appropriate spelling must be determined: 1) widely used names of large cities or places well known in history; 2) names of small settlements found in different ethnic territories and language zones; 3) place names in ethnically mixed territories and in territories whose political affiliation has changed.

As with personal names, scholarly works list the forms of place names mentioned in the sources, but it is impractical to mention all their forms each time a place name appears. In German historiography, place names in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania have most often been adopted from Polish historiography; this was determined by the historical circumstances of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century. Polish historiography became influential in the nineteenth century and especially significant in the twentieth. Indeed, for several centuries it was developed by qualified historians, covers many subjects, is authoritative, and the Polish state maintains many institutions of historical scholarship. Over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Polish historiography became a soft power. Yet even today it contains the view that the Commonwealth of Both

354

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV

Reflections on the Spelling of Place Names and Personal Names in Translations of Research on the History of Old Lithuania

Nations is Poland, that all those writing in Polish in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were Poles, and this is transmitted to other historiographies. From the beginning of the twentieth century, the national historiographies of the lands that had constituted the Commonwealth of Both Nations more than a hundred years earlier also began to emerge; they became especially stronger after Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine declared their statehood. These historiographies have been entering international awareness for a century. The time has come to take account also of the historiographies of Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine; in them, place names are different from those written in Polish, they retain their place-name forms, and most of these are used in Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian. At present, Polish is not lingua franca in those territories, so it is hardly meaningful to continue Polonizing the place names of the states and peoples mentioned. Maintaining the principle that the forms of place names found in the sources must be mentioned (in the text or collected in indexes), as in the case of personal names, requires choosing their principal form. In the book under review, it was chosen as the form currently used in the territory according to its present political affiliation. This also resolves the issue when place names are located in territory that passed from hand to hand over the centuries, lie in border zones of states and peoples, and therefore have several forms in different languages: Gdanskas / Dancigas, Vroclavas / Breslau, Biaresce / Brest, Ošmianý / Ašmena. An exception is the place names of Lithuania Minor (Prussian Lithuania), since their present forms did not arise through centuries of evolution but were introduced by political will, without connections to former (earlier) forms. A different approach was chosen for them: in the German translation, the German and Lithuanian forms of place names are given the first time they appear; the German form is the principal one, while the current Russian forms are listed in the index.

These principles for spelling place names and personal names are discussed in the explanations to the indexes of personal names and place names in the book under review (Lukšaitė 2017: 635, 653). It must be acknowledged that the book leaves unresolved which German-language characters should be used to write the sounds č and ž, which are abundant in Lithuanian and Russian personal names and place names: the letters of the Lithuanian alphabet have been retained in them as a sign that the translation was made from Lithuanian.

Zigmantas Kiaupa has already tried a similar approach in the English translation of a synthesis of Lithuanian history (Kiaupa 2002), as have Darius Baronas and Steven Christopher Rowell in a scholarly monograph on pagan Lithuania’s entry into the ranks of Christian states (Baronas, Rowell 2015). In the English translation of Z. Kiaupa’s book, personal names of Lithuanian origin are written in Lithuanian form, while the Polish form was chosen for most persons of Ruthenian and Polish origin from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In Baronas and Rowell’s book, all personal names in the history of Lithuania are written in Lithuanian form, while the spelling of place names varies: some are in the language of their present territorial affiliation: Gerviaty, Gdansk, Briansk; for others, the traditional Lithuanian historical form is retained (Kreva, although it is now in the territory of Belarus), while Brest (Litovsk) uses the Russian and Belarusian form common in historiography.

Insights / Insights

355

INGĖ LUKŠAITĖ

Since four forms of this place name are used in Belarusian (Brest, Beraście, Bierascie, Berestje), this choice is justified.

The spelling of historical persons’ names and place names in translations is complex; defined approaches are already taking shape, and time will show whether they take root.

LITERATŪRA

Baronas Darius, Stephen C. Rowell 2015: The Conversion of Lithuania from Pagan Barbarians to Late Medieval Christians, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas.

Bichlmeier Harald 2020: Inge Lukšaitė, Die Reformation im Grossfürstentum Litauen und Preussisch-Litauen (1520er Jahre bis zum Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts), Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag GmbH, 2017 [recenzija]. – Acta Linguistica Lituanica 82, 197–201.

Čapaitė Rūta 2020: Boguslavo Radvilos autografas XVII a. lotyniškojo kursyvo kontekste. – Lietuvos istorijos metraštis 2020 2, Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 5–39.

Čapaitė Rūta 2019: Lotyniškojo kursyvo įvairovė Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje asmens autografo aspektu (XV a. paskutinysis ketvirtis – XVI a.). – Ženklai. Simboliai. Prasmės. Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės tyrimai pagalbinių istorijos mokslų aspektu, sud. R. Čapaitė, G. Zujienė, Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 185–230.

Kiaupa Zigmantas 2002: The History of Lithuania, Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

Lukšaitė Inge 2017: Die Reformation im Grossfürstentum Litauen und Preussisch-Litauen (1520er Jahre bis zum Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts), Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.

Mažiulis Vytautas 1981: Prūsų kalbos paminklai 2, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Pociūtė Dainora 2004: Knyga nobažnystės krikščioniškos 1653, Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas.

Radvānus Ioannus Lit[uanus] 1592: Radvilias, sive de vita et rebus [...] Nicolai Radvili [...], Vilna: Ioannus Kartzanus.

Vanagas Aleksandras, Maciejauskienė Vitalija, Razmukaitė Marytė 1989: Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas 2: M–Ž, atsak. red. A. Vanagas, Vilnius: Mokslas.

Įteikta 2021 m. kovo 2 d.

INGĖ LUKŠAITĖ

Lietuvos istorijos institutas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės skyrius Architektų g. 25–87, Vilnius LT–04105, Lietuva [email protected]

356

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXIV