Prof. A. Salys ir Pavardžių bei vietovardžių komisija

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXXIV (1994) LIETUVIŲ KALBOS TARMĖS IR JŲ TYRINĖJIMAI Aleksandras VANAGAS PROF. A. SALYS AND THE COMMISSION FOR SURNAMES AND PLACE NAMES At an assembly of several dozen people in June 1933, the initiative of “Gimtoji kalba” (“The Native Language”) led to the election of the “Surname Commission.” It considered the Lithuanization of Lithuanian surnames its principal task. To do this, the surnames first had to be registered. With funds from the Ministry of the Interior and the assistance of the Citizens’ Protection Department, about 200,000 surnames were recorded on separate dictionary cards through the municipalities in a relatively short time (1:2). They were then set about organizing. The Commission was chiefly concerned with this work; its first meeting took place on January 24, 1934. Those attending were J. Balčikonis (chairman), A. Salys, I. Šeinius, A. Survila, Rev. P. Veblaitis, and J. Talmantas. After a representative of the Ministry of the Interior had provided information, A. Salys read out the draft memorandum “To the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.” Among other things, it emphasized that the surnames collected through the municipalities had various shortcomings, and therefore “still needed to be checked on site” (1:3). The memorandum went on to say: “In the Commission’s opinion, the most accurate way to check them would be to send throughout the country people with appropriate training, who could determine the definitive forms of surnames based on the pronunciation of elders summoned in the local districts. In our view, this work would require 6–7 people for six months. At the same time, all the place names of Lithuania would need to be recorded accurately, and uniform forms for use would need to be strictly established. In this way, two major tasks would be accomplished at once, since the question of place-name spelling has now become very pressing” (1:3). It also stated: “Since the Lithuanization of surnames cannot be left to the discretion of municipalities or other such bodies, it is essential to publish a dictionary of surnames for all Lithuania, specifying strictly which surnames must be Lithuanized, how they are to be Lithuanized, and which surnames may be changed at the holder’s discretion” (1:4). The Commission took a similar view of place names. Apparently wishing to forestall the arbitrary, unqualified alteration of place names, on May 28, 1935, it resolved to “Appeal to the Department of Land Management to instruct the District Land Administrators to refrain from urging that the non-Lithuanian names of villages and single-farmsteads be changed to Lithuanian names in accordance with the wishes of local intellectuals and residents” (1:79). It also understood that erroneous place names entered in personal documents would be difficult to correct, and so hastened to prepare a dictionary of place names: “To see to it that a dictionary of place names is published before new passports are issued as well” (1:10). The intention, of course, was not to cover all Lithuanian place names, but only the names of inhabited places. This envisaged scope of the place-name dictionary also shaped the approach to names of places: as we shall see, the material collected consisted mainly of oikonyms (names of inhabited places), while the na- 64 mes of other place-name features (rivers, lakes, fields, forests, meadows, pastures, and the like) were recorded only when they were especially important, and, moreover, not all were documented with equal care. “To expedite preparation of the surname and place-name dictionaries for publication, the Surname Lithuanization Commission elected A. Salys as editor of the surname dictionary and J. Balčikonis as editor of the place-name dictionary” (1:11). “The place-name editor would first need to identify the Slavicized place names, write them on slips, and send them via county governors to the district municipalities, which might be able to establish locally the origin of these place names or suggest replacements for them. In this way, the Surname Lithuanization Commission would have more material to consider when deciding on their replacement” (1:12). To carry out the work, the Commission requested 38,000 Lt, prudently suggesting that “this amount could be returned to the state treasury, with a surplus, by increasing the fee for new passports by just 20 cents” (1:5). At the second meeting (March 14, 1934), chaired by A. Salys, he explained that “the surnames of the residents of the Klaipėda Region have remained more Lithuanian than those in Greater Lithuania. Here, all that is needed is to ensure that they are written correctly in Lithuanian” (1:7). It was decided to obtain a list of surnames from the Klaipėda Region “through the Governor of the Klaipėda Region and A. Survila” (ibid.). Funding for checking surnames and recording place names was secured, and the work proceeded quickly. At the Commission meeting on October 16, 1934, “J. Griška, the official responsible for surname administration at the Ministry of the Interior,” reported that “of the seven surname checkers, four had already completed their work in the provinces and were now working at the Ministry, compiling county surname dictionaries” (1:9). Only one checker, M. Samulėnas, was not succeeding: he was working too slowly. Accordingly, on October 24, 1934, the Commission (chaired by J. Balčikonis) resolved to “release M. Samulėnas from the work of checking surnames and send another checker in his place to Utena County” (ibid.). M. Samulėnas also submitted a request to be allowed to finish the work assigned to him, but his request would not be granted (1:11). The Governor of the Klaipėda Region also responded. In his letter, he reported that “the Directorate of the Klaipėda Region, having considered the question of checking surnames and collecting place names in the Klaipėda Region, approved it at its meeting, resolved to allocate 1,000 litas for the work, and to provide all the necessary material” (1:15). The Commission thought it would be expedient to select two checkers from among Klaipėda students studying in Kaunas. “Prof. A. Salys invited one or another suitable student to discuss serving as a checker” (1:16). The Commission decided to “write to the Directorate and ask it to prepare and send lists of inhabited places and surnames, arranged by counties and districts. The letter will be signed by the Commission Chairman and the Head of the Surname Administration Section” (i.e., A. Salys) (ibid.). As the collection of surnames and place names was drawing to a close, it was realized that the Commission’s meetings did not have official status: at the meeting of October 16, 1934 (Minutes No. 3), it was noted that “until now they had been of a somewhat private nature, were not minuted, and the members received no remuneration for them.” It was therefore resolved: “Once the actual work of Lithuanizing surnames and place names, and of their standardization in general, has begun, the meetings are to be held officially, minuted, and the Commission members paid for them” (1:10). Thus, the first minutes of the Commission’s meetings must have been written retrospectively. The Commission’s name also changed somewhat—to “Ministry of the Interior Commission for Surnames and Place Names 65 Commission” (in the 1936–1940 minutes book it is called the “Commission for the Lithuanization of Surnames and Place Names of the Ministry of the Interior”). Thus, at the initiative of the Commission for Surnames and Place Names, an enormous and exceptionally important undertaking was carried out: most Lithuanian surnames, most names of inhabited places, and a considerable number of other place names were recorded from spoken language, one might say, by means of expeditions. All this was accomplished in an unimaginably short time—approximately one year. The collection of surnames and place names was, as it were, the first stage of the Commission’s work. Having completed it, the Commission took up another part of this work—namely, the standardization of surnames and place names, which at the time was usually called Lithuanization. Work began with surnames: in the minutes of the Commission meeting of January 19, 1935 (No. 8), we find the terse entry: “287 surnames considered, from Abadauskis to Aikauskis” (1:20). On January 22, 1935, similarly: “312 surnames considered, from Aikevičius to Aliach nos” (1:21). And so on: January 24, 1935—“418 surnames considered, from Aliachnos to Androkaitis” (1:23); January 28, 1935—“434 surnames considered, from Andronavičius to Arminas”; January 30, 1935—“526 surnames considered, from Arminaitis to Ąžuolas.” The Commission had remained almost unchanged: chair J. Balčikonis, members A. Salys, A. Survila, Rev. P. Veblaitis, J. Gr iška, J. Talmantas. Its pace of work was remarkably fast. But there were many surnames. Therefore, it seems, there was not enough time to consider them all. On December 16, 1938 (minutes No. 180), we find the final entry: “Lithuanized surnames from Pilypaitis to Polōkas” (2:161). The Commission did, however, consider various surname-related matters until the end of its activity—in its last meeting, held on May 16, 1940 (minutes No. 201), several petitions to correct surnames were still examined (2:185). It is unclear whether surnames continued to be Lithuanized systematically after the 180th meeting. There is no doubt that all surnames were dealt with, but it is not known whether this was done by the Commission or, perhaps more plausibly, by individual members. The surname files are full of corrections and notes covering the entire alphabet. They are simply inconsistent and sometimes entirely random. The very terse entries in the minutes say nothing about how the work was carried out or what criteria guided the Lithuanization of surnames. The draft memorandum read by A. Salys mentions the following four principles: ”1. all Lithuanian surnames with foreign Slavic suffixes, as well as those unquestionably translated from other languages, are to be Lithuanized by law, 2. borrowed surnames of non-Lithuanian origin are not to be altered, e.g., Butkus, Jankus, Jonušas, Stankus, 3. it is not obligatory to change the surnames of Lithuanians who are of foreign, non-Lithuanian origin, 4. other foreign, non-Lithuanized surnames and surnames with an unattractive meaning may be changed voluntarily” (1:4). These principles could be discussed at length and debated extensively. For example, as the experience of compiling the “Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames” (3) has shown, it would be very difficult to adhere even to the first principle—there are hundreds of cases in which it is impossible to say with certainty whether a surname is Lithuanian or non-Lithuanian. The surname Butkus mentioned in the second section can sometimes also be Lithuanian—a shortening 66 from what compound personal name (3: I 368–369). It will by no means always be known whether a Lithuanian of today is of native or foreign origin. Translated surnames are even more problematic—without comprehensive studies of the development and alteration of surnames, it is usually impossible to establish with certainty that a surname is a translation. Similar doubts arise in many other cases. They are sufficient to make one realize how difficult it was to apply in practice the principles declared in the memorandum. Again, these difficulties are not directly visible; they must be “reconstructed,” since the minutes do not reflect the laboratory work. The results were transferred to surname files arranged in alphabetical order, all of which have survived. In the files, by surnames that the Commission considered Lithuanized, one to a dozen suggested replacements were added by hand. For example (the first surname alphabetically): Abadauskas, Abadauskis, Abadovskis — suggested replacements: Abadas, Abadáitis, Abadãnas, Abadõnis, Abadėnas, Abadynas. What does such a proposal mean? First of all, it contradicts the second principle’s provision that “borrowed surnames of non-Lithuanian origin are not to be altered.” The surname Abadauskas is borrowed, perhaps Belarusian—Belarusian Абадоўскі, Обадэй, Абадзянка, Абадкоў and the like: Belarusian вобад “rim” (3: I 55). The second surname in sequence is Abakanauškis, and the third is Abakanavičius. They are proposed for replacement with Abakónis, Abakonáitis, Abakoníūnas, Abakoniónis, Abakonėnas, Abakonýnas. The surnames proposed for replacement are also “borrowed,” that is, Slavicisms: compare Russian Обакань, Обекань (3: I 55). There are many such questionable proposals. This is not unexpected, since the work was done quickly and in haste, without a single serious study of Lithuanian surnames, and in the absence of dictionaries of the surnames of neighboring peoples, among other things. In short, the work was empirical, guided by subjective experience and intuition rather than by research findings. Fortunately, these proposals were not implemented; they remained in the files as an interesting phenomenon in the history of our linguistic scholarship and the outlook of that period, and one that is well worth closer examination. While organizing and Lithuanizing surnames, the Commission also sought to give this activity legal standing. On February 28, 1935 (minutes No. 22), a draft law on the Lithuanization of surnames prepared by the Ministry of the Interior was read at the Commission (1: 45). It was returned to later as well. On March 11, 1935, the Commission considered the draft and, at A. Salys’s suggestion, added a fourth article. The draft was signed by the chair, J. Balčikonis, and members A. Salys, J. Gr iška, P. Veblaitis, and A. Survila (only the signature of J. Talmantas, who attended the meeting, is missing). On June 7, 1935, a delegation was formed (J. Balčikonis, A. Salys, P. Veblaitis, J. Talmantas), charged with taking the draft surname law to the president (1: 83). On September 22, 1936 (minutes No. 91), A. Survila reported that “the Cabinet of Ministers had returned the draft surname law to the Ministry of the Interior without any resolution, and, as far as is known, the draft had not been officially considered by the Cabinet.” It was decided to take steps to have the draft law brought before the Seimas” (2: 33). On January 12, 1937 (minutes No. 111), the draft surname law was reviewed once again and amended (2: 65). The Cabinet of Ministers returned the draft once more for redrafting (2: 81)—its first part was considered on March 2, 1937 (minutes No. 123), and its second on March 5 (minutes No. 124). Explanatory notes for the newly redrafted draft surname law were also prepared. The complete draft law, together with the explanatory notes, was copied into the minutes file (2: 89–93). Its 67 subsequent fate cannot be traced from the Commission’s meeting minutes. The Commission also had to deal with other matters concerning personal names. On November 25, 1938, it began considering a list of baptismal names received from the Vilkaviškis curia through Prelate J. Laukaitis (2: 158). Consideration continued for some time and was completed only on April 3, 1939 (2: 173). In 1939, the Commission recommended the following rule for forming married women’s surnames from their husbands’ surnames ending in -(i)us: “From the surnames Simius, Pocius, Girnius, Bartasius, Girdžius, Meidus, women’s surnames may be written as Simienė, Pocienė, Girnienė... or Simiuvienė, Girniuvienė, Pociuvienė—as their bearers call themselves or prefer” (2: 177). A similar rule is formulated in our own time. Another direction of the Commission’s work in its second phase was the standardization of place names. The collected names of inhabited places and some uninhabited places were transcribed into designated files, organized by rural districts and counties. These have all survived as well. The place names contained in these files were taken up for consideration by the Commission. In the minutes of May 20, 1935, No. 35, we find a brief entry: “Considered the villages and hamlets of Alytus rural district (220)” Commission: chair J. Balčikonis, members A. Salys, A. Survila, J. Grįška, P. Veblaitis, J. Talmantas (1: 75). This meeting marked the beginning of an entire epic of place-name standardization, which continued for several years. At first, the course of deliberations, the principles and reasons for modifying or changing place names, selecting new ones, and assigning them were not recorded in the minutes (much as in the Lithuanization of surnames). But soon (from the third meeting, held on May 20, 1935) the course of deliberations began to be documented in greater detail. For example: “Margava—Kėdariškės: that is what people call it”; “Smolnica—Strazdinė, the name of a nearby grove”; “translate Dembavka as Ąžuolinė” (1: 85). Later, the minutes (and apparently the work as well) became increasingly thorough, until eventually, for instance, by 1937, deliberations were recorded so precisely that even readers today can readily see the reasoning behind every correction. This is particularly important for today’s place-name standardizers and researchers, since some settlements were proposed to be given back their earlier names, named after places elsewhere (meadows, rivers, lakes, forests, hills, and so on), or simply assigned a new, that is, invented name. Some of these proposals took hold. It is true that establishing what percentage of the recommendations were implemented is very difficult—it would require checking approximately thirty thousand place names. We will therefore limit ourselves to the following example. In Aukštadvaris rural district, Trakai County, 53 oikonyms were considered that the Commission thought should be corrected or changed (2: 43–44). Of the fifty-three proposals, seven took hold: Juozapava→Juōzapiškės, Katalaučizna→Katilai, Kopecai→Kāpčiai (note: “that is what people call them”), Sabaliaučizna→Sabāliškes, Gubiškės→Ūbiškės (note: “that is what people call them”), Žukaučizna→Žukai, Novosadai→Naujasodis. These are still the standard forms in the common language today. Most of the proposals did not take hold—twenty-two in all: today Babrauninkai — *Babrininkai, Graužinkai — *Graužiniai, Mackāntiškės — *Mackōniškės, Malināvka — *Avietynė, Merġiškės — *Mērkiškės (formerly so called), Mickūnavà — *Mickūniškės, Mikalavà — *Mýkoliškės, Parankavà — *Parankiškės, Rangavà — *Ranginės, Ružiavà — *Rūžiškės, Samāuka — *Sāmė, Zabarauskai — *Paverkniai, Žilinčiškės — *Žiliškės, Albinavà — *Albi- 68 niškės, Andrijanavà — * Ãndriškės, Barišiavà — * Barišiškės, Kamantiškės — * Akmeniai, Lavaravà — * Lavarónys, Staniauà — * Stoniškė, Šafarnė — * Kirtimai, Dubėlka — * Duobėlė, Tamašiavà — * Tamóšiškės. For several oikonyms, forms different from those proposed by the Commission became established: Markutaičiūna was proposed as * Markutónys, but Markūtiškės became established; Okmenai — * Ãtakmenys (note: “people call it that”) — Akmeniai; Odincava — * Adiniškės — Adincavà; Vladislavava — * Vladiškės — Vladislava. It was not possible to identify the remaining twenty—probably mostly because the settlements themselves (mainly isolated farmsteads) no longer exist. Thus, although few corrections took hold, it can be asserted that the work was not in vain. A comparison with the corrections to the place names of other rural districts also reveals certain differences, though mostly minor ones; it is therefore reasonable to suppose that the recommendations took hold to a similar extent. Having begun to standardize place names on May 20, 1935, the Commission essentially completed this work on February 23, 1937, when it considered the place names of Zarasai County (2: 84–86). But its work did not end there. The minutes of the March 12, 1937 meeting contain the following entry: “After Lithuanianizing the place names of all 20 counties, the work was begun anew, starting with Alytus County, to Lithuanianize and correct the remaining unclear place names, about which the rural district municipalities had been asked for additional information” (2: 94). This second round of deliberations was completed on November 26, 1937 (minutes No. 149) (II: 129–130). The Commission continued to deal with place-name matters later as well, but no longer systematically—only as needed. One matter related to place names remains relevant today: the names of settlements approved by the Commission and their abbreviations: “manor — dv., as long as it has not been subdivided; the centers of subdivided manors are to be incorporated into a village or another settlement and called by that settlement’s common name, like its other farms. folwark — plv., according to the name used by local residents; if subdivided, it is treated like a manor (see above). single-farm settlement — vs., a settlement consisting of a single farm; an isolated homestead is also officially to be called a single-farm settlement. homestead — sod., an official’s single-farm residence; homestead is also the term to use for an eiguvà when it denotes a place rather than a territory or area; pasoda is not to be used. other settlements, such as colonies, farms, market gardeners, tithe-payers, cottagers, farmers, kumėčiai, plecininkai, and the like, are to be called villages or single-farm settlements according to the number of farms. watchman’s hut — sarg. (hut, small hut), e.g., railway watchman’s hut — gelež. sarg.” (2: 181). The Commission also proposed some abbreviations and established categories of settlement names for the Vilnius region (2: 181–182). The Commission carried out a vast body of work, divisible into two stages. The first, considerably shorter stage consisted of collecting surnames and place names from spoken language. The index of collected surnames, substantially supplemented later, after the war, especially with surnames from the Vilnius and Klaipėda regions, served as the source on whose basis the “Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames” was prepared and published (3). The surnames and place names collected in the rural districts 69 The files of verified place names were intended to be used in preparing the planned dictionary of place names (names of inhabited places). There was not enough time to do so. Moreover, the place-name files did not cover the Vilnius and Klaipėda regions (the draft dictionary of “Place Names of the Vilnius Region” was prepared later). But what the files contain is very valuable: these place names were used in preparing the normative official list of names of Lithuanian inhabited places — the “Directory of the Administrative-Territorial Division of the Lithuanian SSR” (4). The only possible objection might be that the inspectors sent to the local districts were not instructed to record all place names; most of all, they were asked to write down the names of inhabited places. One of the recorders, A. Žirgulys, wrote in his memoirs (1982): “As I see it now—and as it seemed to us then—we were not guided very promisingly in recording place names. The instruction to record only the larger place names, not names of marshes, little marshes, little streams, meadows... was not very sound. Before leaving, after consulting among ourselves, several of us resolved to record small field names and water names as far as we could. Later, when Balčikonis saw such notes, he said that this had been rather unnecessary work. Only those names that might be needed by the administration mattered to him” (5). In other words, the importance of place names to scholarship, Baltic studies, and Indo-European studies had not yet been properly understood at the time. This is worth mentioning if only because K. Būga’s onomastic research was famous in Lithuania and around the world at that time. Understandably, circumstances compelled them to hurry, not to complain, and to complete everything before the replacement of identity documents; yet it is also clear that thousands of the most beautiful place names remained uncollected. The work of managing, standardizing, and Lithuanizing surnames and place names should be assessed somewhat differently. A great deal of work was indeed done—the Commission met 201 times: as already mentioned, the first meeting took place on January 24, 1934, and the last on May 16, 1940 (its minutes were signed only by the Commission’s secretary, M. Jurkynas) (2: 185). A. Salys was one of the most diligent members (after J. Balčikonis)—he missed only 19 meetings. There is no doubt that A. Salys’s contribution to this work was one of the most substantial. Unfortunately, it cannot be said that the result was commensurate with the work invested. Most time was lost Lithuanizing surnames. But this work ultimately came to nothing—it remained merely the procedural outcome of certain efforts and distinctive tendencies. The standardization of place names was more fruitful. Whatever our assessment of the course taken by the Commission, we must undoubtedly acknowledge the importance of the work it accomplished. Even those efforts that were not particularly fruitful in certain respects nevertheless left their mark—at least as an expression of the views and moods of the time, which people attempted to transfer into a specific linguistic and cultural space. Much of what the Commission began continues in our own time, but the circumstances for doing so are now far more favorable: we have extensive collections of personal names, a card index of 700,000 place names collected from spoken language, a card index of 300,000 historical place names, and generalizing onomastic research. LITERATŪRA 1. V.R.M. Pavardžių ir Vietovardžių Komisija. Protokolų knyga. 1934. I. 24. — 1935—1936. III. 27 (Saugoma Lietuvių kalbos instituto Vardyno skyriuje). 2. V.R.M-ja. Pavardžių ir vietovardžių At lietuvinimo Komisijos Protokolų Kny- 70 gos. 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940 (Saugoma Lietuvių kalbos instituto Vardyno skyriuje). 3. Lietuvių pavardžių žodynas. V., 1985, T. 1; 1989, T. 2. 4. Lietuvos TSR administracinio-teritorinio suskirstymo žinynas. V., 1976. D. 2. 5. A. Žirgulio atsiminimai (saugomi Lietuvių kalbos instituto Vardyno skyriuje). PROFESSOR A. SALYS UND DIE KOMMISSION FÜR FAMILIEN- UND ORTSNAMEN Zusammenfassung 1933 ist ”Komission für Familien- und Ortsnamen” gewählt worden, die bis Mai 1940 als Organ des Innenministeriums tätig war. Durch die Sorge der Kommission wurden die litauischen Familiennamen registriert und vor Ort geprüft. Speziell geschulte Personen haben die litauischen Siedlungsnamen (Oikonvme), einen Teil der anderen Ortsnamen aus der lebenden Sprache aufgeschrieben. Später hat die Kommission die Familien- und Ortsnamen bearbeitet, normiert. Es wurde geplant, das Wörterbuch der Familien- und Ortsnamen herauszugeben. Der Krieg hat verhindert, das Vorhaben zu verwirklichen. Eines der aktivsten Mitglieder der Kommission war Professor A. Salys. 71