LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXX (1993) PERIFERINĖS LIETUVIŲ KALBOS TARMĖS

Petras GAUČAS

100 YEARS OF A. PLIATERIS’S ETHNOLINGUISTIC STATISTICS FOR VILNIUS GOVERNORATE

For research into the ethnolinguistic composition of the population of Eastern Lithuania at the end of the 19th century, the questionnaire data collected in 1890 by Count Adamas Pliateris, head of the nobility of Vilnius Governorate, are very important. They were summarized and published in the press by a person calling himself Anonimas (an interesting case—the author of the article did not wish to publish his surname)¹. The Polish linguist Jan Rozwadowski used these data to compile a map of the spread of the Lithuanian language in Vilnius Governorate². Later, drawing on both the aforementioned data and other data from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, J. Rozwadowski compiled a map of the entire area where Lithuanian was spoken, marking in some places areas where mixed languages were spoken as well³.

Anonimas’s data are valuable because they are quite detailed—they are published for individual villages. Thus, it is possible to compare them statistically and territorially with other sources: data from earlier and later researchers, information from the restored Lithuanian press, and so forth. Admittedly, Anonimas presented data for purely Slavic municipalities or elderships aggregated by these administrative units.

A. Pliateris collected data from municipal heads about every village (he did not study towns) using a questionnaire that included questions about the inhabitants’ nationality and home language. Since nationality and language often did not correspond in the answers (e.g., nationality—Lithuanian, but home language—Belarusian or Polish, etc.), Anonimas chose language as the criterion for people’s ethnic affiliation. The aforementioned article also makes clear that A. Pliateris’s data included reports that the inhabitants of individual villages or even entire elderships spoke two or three languages. Anonimas selected one language from among them, which, in his opinion, predominated. There are cases in which information about the inhabitants’ language, and sometimes even about individual settlements, is missing from A. Pliateris’s data. In the former case, Anonimas uses information from additional sources to determine the language; in the latter case, he confines himself to

¹ Anonim. Obszar języka litewskiego w gub. Wileńskiej // Materiały antropologiczno-archeologiczne i etnograficzne. Kraków, 1898. S. 3-72.

² Rozwadowski J. Mapa języka litewskiego w gubernii Wileńskiej // Materyały i prace komisyi językowej Akademii umiejętności w Krakowie. Kraków, 1904. T. 1.

³ Rozwadowski J. Mapa języka litewskiego // Polska i Litwa w dziejowym stosunku. Warszawa-Lublin-Łódź-Kraków, 1914.

14

note on how many inhabitants were omitted. It should be noted that Anonim’s article itself also contains inaccuracies in place names and population figures, especially in the tables, most likely typographical errors.

In our view, Anonim acted incorrectly by selecting a single language under conditions of language shift and adding no information about the use of other languages, since he provided no information about the prevalence of bilingualism among the inhabitants; that is, he did not use all the information collected by A. Pliateris. Moreover, the choice of the prevailing language may have been strongly influenced by subjectivity.

Anonim recorded the prevailing language of bilingual and trilingual inhabitants in various ways. Comparing his data with other sources (information from the Lithuanian press restored in the early twentieth century, postwar data from linguists’ research, etc.) reveals that he classified most Lithuanian-Belarusian and especially Lithuanian-Polish bilinguals as speakers of Belarusian or Polish. As a result, in many rural districts, especially those closer to the city of Vilnius or on the margins of Belarusian ethnic territory (that is, where the process of language shift began earliest and advanced furthest), he either did not indicate any Lithuanian speakers at all (Riešė, Rudamina, Mickūnai, Bistryčia, Kiemeliškės, Lentupis, Trakai, Graužiskiai, Vija, etc.), or indicated very few (e.g., Maišiagala, Nemenčinė, Varnionys, Šalčininkai, Tarpuopis, Kamojis, etc.). It should be noted that Lithuanian speakers were still living in places that Anonim identified as Belarusian even after the Second World War (e.g., in some localities in the present-day Šalčininkai, Varėnavas, and other districts). There are also cases to the contrary. For example, in Aukštadvaris rural district, where Polish had already begun to spread at that time, almost all inhabitants were classified as Lithuanian speakers.

Often, Anonim assigned all the inhabitants of a single village, and frequently of an entire eldership, to the same language. There were few mixed villages. More such villages were found deep within Lithuanian ethnic territory, where Polish speakers were also reported alongside Lithuanian speakers (in the rural districts of Paberžė, Giedraičiai, Širvintos, Žasliai, Butrimonys, etc.). This shows that the article’s author made a greater effort to identify Polish speakers and devoted more attention to them. Among the rural districts along the Lithuanian-Belarusian ethnolinguistic border, Paberžė district is a certain exception: there, almost every village (even the smallest) was reported to have both Lithuanian and Polish speakers.

Thus, Anonim’s statistical data (and the maps drawn up on their basis by J. Rozwadowski) must be regarded as approximate. J. Rozwadowski himself noted that "in Lithuania and Belarus, the confusion of ethnic, political, religious, and linguistic concepts, as well as ethnic self-awareness, is often so great that even with the best intentions and competence it is difficult to deal with. Therefore, departmental, political, ecclesiastical, or any other official statistics are not entirely reliable"⁴.

How many bilingual inhabitants (speaking Lithuanian and Belarusian

⁴ Rozwadowski J. Mapa językowego obszaru litewskiego // Polska i Litwa w dziejowym stosunku. Warszawa-Lublin-Łódź-Kraków, 1914. S. 338.

15

or Lithuanian and Polish) whom Anonim classified as speakers of Belarusian (Polish) can be determined in part with the help of data collected in Lithuanian parishes by Lithuanian priests in the early twentieth century on the use of the Lithuanian language. Data for five counties of the Vilnius Governorate (excluding the Belarusian-speaking counties of Vileika and Dysna) were summarized in 1910⁵. In those five counties (excluding the city of Vilnius), Lithuanian priests found almost 100,000 more Lithuanian speakers than Anonim did, while the share of Lithuanian speakers among Catholic inhabitants was approximately 10 percentage points higher than in Anonim’s data (46 and 36%, respectively). The interval between the years in which the data were collected was considerable—20 years—so part of the difference arose from population growth. On the other hand, it should be remembered that language shift proceeded particularly rapidly in that territory during those two decades. It may be assumed that in 1890 there were more Lithuanian speakers than in 1910. Thus, it is plausible that, during the period under discussion, nearly 100,000 (or almost 30%) of the Lithuanian speakers in the five counties of the Vilnius Governorate were bilingual (more precisely, Lithuanians on the verge of losing their national identity), whom Anonim classified as Belarusian or Polish speakers. The total number of bilingual Lithuanians must have been even greater, since some were also classified as Lithuanian speakers.

In some parts of the article there are hints that most of the inhabitants of one rural district or another (e.g., Tarpuopis) who spoke Belarusian were identified as Lithuanian by nationality in A. Pliateris’s questionnaires. This means that, at the end of the nineteenth century, inhabitants of the Vilnius region who had changed languages still considered themselves Lithuanian (or were regarded as such by the census takers). This is an important fact. Thus, the language shift at that time had not yet changed their Lithuanian ethnic self-awareness. Later they considered themselves "tuteišiai" (that is, people from here, locals). In the early twentieth century, and especially during the years of Polish occupation, under the growing influence of Polish priests and the authorities, they became Polish speakers who spoke Belarusian.

In A. Pliateris’s data, Belarusian clearly predominates among the Slavic languages, while there are very few Polish speakers. It should be noted that the 1897 census data recorded a similar ratio of Belarusian to Polish.

According to Anonim’s data, Lithuanian predominated in the northwest of Vilnius County—in the rural districts of Gelvonai, Musninkai, Širvintos, Giedraičiai, and Joniškis, situated along the Kaunas Governorate; in five rural districts—Maišiagala, Paberžė, Nemenčinė, Šalčininkai, and Varnionys—there were considerably fewer Lithuanian speakers (see Table 1). According to data from later researchers, these latter five rural districts, as well as Bistryčia district in part, were more or less bilingual. Anonim determined the ethnolinguistic affiliation of the bilingual inhabitants of these districts inconsistently. He classified most of the inhabitants of Maišiagala district as Belarusian speakers. Moreover, as the findings of later studies show, at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, in this district, and partly also in

⁵ Gintautas J. Vilniaus gubern. lietuviai // “Švyturys”: Metraštis-almanachas 1912 m. V., 1910. P. 199.

16

In Riešė rural district, Polish is also beginning to spread among young people in the Belarusian-speaking villages (most of them bilingual), alongside Belarusian (“ordinary” language). Lithuanian-speaking communities are identified only in the Barskūnai and Zabelinė subdistricts in the northern part, and in the western part of the Geisiškės subdistrict. According to later research, Lithuanian predominated in this part of the rural district, while in its south (around Sudervė) it was used only sporadically. In the entire Maišiagala rural district, according to Anonim, Lithuanian speakers (undoubtedly, with figures reduced) made up 28% of the total population.

In Paberžė rural district, where Polish spread in the second half of the 19th century without the mediation of the “ordinary” language, Anonim recorded both Lithuanian and Polish speakers in almost every village. Only as one goes north (i.e., farther from Vilnius) do Lithuanian speakers become increasingly numerous. In the entire rural district, 44% of the population spoke Lithuanian.

The inhabitants of the southern part of Nemenčinė rural district (Pakryžė subdistrict, as well as the southern parts of Nemenčinė and Puodžiūnai subdistricts), where Polish was also spreading among Lithuanian peasants, were classified as Polish-speaking (logically—the language shift process began in the south, i.e., from Vilnius); those in the central part (in the north of the aforementioned Nemenčinė and Puodžiūnai subdistricts) as Lithuanian-speaking; and those in the northern part (in Troškūnai subdistrict), where Polish had only just begun to emerge, were also classified as Polish-speaking.

Anonim and Rozwadowski classified the rural districts of Šalčininkai, Bistryčia, and Varnionys—where Lithuanian was still partly used alongside Belarusian (primarily by members of the older generation, though no longer in every village)—as predominantly Belarusian-speaking. Anonim identified as Lithuanian-speaking only the inhabitants of the western part of Šalčininkai rural district, west of the Vilnius–Lida railway line and bordering Lithuanian-speaking localities in the northern part of Lida county (Karalina subdistrict), as well as those in the eastern part of Varnionys rural district, in the lower reaches of the Ašmena River (the Gervėčiai, Galčiūnai, and Rimdžiūnai subdistricts). He assigned Bistryčia rural district, like all the other rural districts, entirely to the Belarusian-speaking population.

The data provided by Anonim show that the process of Polonization had already begun in rural districts where Lithuanian still predominated: in the central part of Širvintos rural district, around Širvintos itself (the inhabitants of Širvintos and Paširvintis subdistricts were classified by Anonim as Polish-speaking); in the southern part of Giedraičiai rural district (the villages of Akmena, Martyniškiai, and Dubingiai and some villages in other subdistricts, as well as in neighboring Paberžė rural district, were identified as mixed); and to a lesser extent in the southeast of Joniškis rural district.

In Trakai county, according to Anonim, Lithuanian-speaking inhabitants lived in fourteen of the 17 rural districts; in two (Vievis and Tarpupis) they formed a minority. No Lithuanians were recorded in Trakai rural district. In the data collected by A. Pliateris, the languages used in Tarpupis rural district are identified only by subdistrict, and no numbers are given for speakers of individual languages. It is noted that almost all the inhabitants of the rural district are ethnically Lithuanian. However, Lithuanian, along with

17

Belarusian (identified as predominant) and, in part, Polish, was used only in the southern subdistricts—Tarpupis, Turnėnai, and Rūdninkai.

Anonim recorded Lithuanian-speaking inhabitants only in the western and southern parts of Vievis rural district—in the Abromiškės and Jarmališkės subdistricts and, in part, the Aleksandriškės subdistrict—but even there the Lithuanian-speaking villages were identified as mixed, with Belarusian-speaking inhabitants (later sources show that at the end of the 19th century, west of Lake Vievis, the gradual Belarusianization of Lithuanians gave way to Polonization). In fact, however, Lithuanian was spoken in everyday life not only in the central but also in the eastern part of this rural district, and in some places in Trakai rural district as well. Judging from the 1905 report by Rev. S. Stakelė, in the vicinity of Vievis, which Anonim assigned to the Belarusian-speaking area, most inhabitants were still speaking Lithuanian at that time.

Anonim also assigned the eastern part of Semeliškės rural district—the Daugirdiškės and Bagdononys subdistricts, and the eastern part of Musteniai subdistrict—to the Belarusian-speaking area. In fact, Belarusian was only beginning to emerge there at the time. Moreover, in the villages west of Daugirdiškės and Bagdononys, Polish in turn began to replace the Belarusian that had started to spread.

As Anonim’s data show, Polish was already used in some rural districts in the western part of Trakai county. It was spoken not only by inhabitants of estates and granges, but in some places also by peasants—in Butrimonys and Žasliai rural districts and, according to other sources, especially widely in Aukštadvaris rural district. Although Anonim recorded Polish-speaking inhabitants with great care in his work, he nevertheless classified almost all the inhabitants of the latter rural district as Lithuanian-speaking.

Of the 21 rural districts in Švenčionys county, nine northern and northwestern districts were almost entirely Lithuanian: Mielagėnai, Linkmenys, Daugėliškis, Zablatiškė, Kuktiškės, Tverečius, Švenčionys (except for the Simaniškė subdistrict, which had become Belarusianized), Mikalavas (Michałow), and Adutiškis. Lithuanian speakers were found in the northern part of Kamojys rural district (the Kowalewce and Jarzew (Jūravas) subdistricts). Moreover, as various sources from the early 20th century show, Lithuanian was used alongside Belarusian farther south and east of the Lithuanian-speaking area identified by Anonim, especially around Kamojis, Lentupis, Kliuščionys, and Kiemeliškės. At that time, however, it was rapidly disappearing there, giving way to Belarusian. On the other hand, other sources show that on the edges of the Lithuanian-speaking area identified by Anonim, some inhabitants had already acquired a knowledge of Belarusian, especially in the Lithuanian-speaking part of Kamojys rural district, in the southern and eastern parts of Adutiškis rural district (in Rakitai subdistrict, situated on the western bank of the Medila River, as well as in Jankiškė subdistrict), and in some villages in the eastern part of Švenčionys rural district.

As dialectological expedition data show, at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, Polish was already making inroads into villages around Pabradė, Pavoverė, Karkažiškė, and Magūnai (the southwestern part of Švenčionys county) that had become Belarusianized in the second half of the 19th century and that Anonim had classified as Belarusian-speaking.

In the northwest of Lida county—around Eišiškės, Pabarė (Eišiškės

18

the district) and the Nočia eldership (the eastern part of Kaniava district), — where in the second half of the 19th century the Belarusian language spread and many inhabitants were bilingual, Anonymous assigned them to the Belarusian-language area. These surrounding areas, which had begun to become Slavicized, separated a large Lithuanian-language mass from the continuous Lithuanian-language area. At that time, the Lithuanian-speaking mass consisted of: in Lida County — the Aleksandravas and Rodūnia districts and the northern part of Žirmūnai district (the Gorodenka and, in part, Žirmūnai elderships); in Ašmena County — Dieveniškės district and the northern half of Sedliskas district (the Armoniškės and Pašeliai elderships and the northern part of Palipnica eldership); in Vilnius County — the western part of Šalčininkai district (Karalina eldership).

In this Lithuanian-speaking mass, Lithuanian was often no longer the only language — in some villages, the shift to Belarusian had begun. A. Plateris himself noted this, describing the Pašeliai eldership of Sedliskas district: "the old people speak Lithuanian, the young people Belarusian". In this large Lithuanian-language area, Lithuanian was holding out most firmly at that time in the east (around Dieveniškės) and in the west (around Pelesa and Rodūnia).

According to periodicals and other sources, south of the Lithuanian-language area described here, in the Užubalis, Vosyliškės, Žirmūnai and other districts, Lithuanian-speaking enclaves, most often bilingual, still existed. But even there the Lithuanian language was dying out: they had survived in the southern part of Lida County, around Ščiūčinas and Žoludka. Anonymous no longer recorded these places as Lithuanian-speaking.

In Ašmena County, in addition to the aforementioned Dieveniškės and Sedliskas districts, farther to the southeast there also remained the Lithuanian-speaking enclave of Lazūnai (Lazduny), nestled along the western edge of the Naliboki Forest, on the right bank of the lower Beržuona. According to the information provided by Anonymous, it encompassed parts of three districts: Lūgamėnai (Ługomowicze; in the Lazūnai and Gudenionys elderships), Bokštas (in the Grabovo and Dervagiai elderships), and Jūrotiškės (in the Takoriškės eldership). About 3,600 people here spoke Lithuanian.

In this county, in other places within the peninsula that had formerly been Lithuanian-speaking — the environs of Vija, Trobai, Lipiniškės, Geranainys, Subatninkai, and Grauž iškiai — Lithuanian was already dying out completely at that time and was no longer recorded by Anonymous.

In addition, Anonymous indicated that Lithuanian predominated in the Ažubalis (Zabłocie) eldership, located in the northern part of Ašmena County around Salos and adjoining the Lithuanian-speaking environs of Gervėčiai (around Jokintonis).

In Dysna County, Anonymous identified Lithuanian-speaking inhabitants only in Bogino district (Damošiai eldership), which bordered the Apso area of Kaunas Governorate; in Vileika County, they were found in Viazynė district (Latygala eldership). Anonymous did not mention Lithuanians who had not yet forgotten their ancestral language around Ikaznė, Juodžiai (Jody), Drūja, or even Dysna and elsewhere.

A. Plateris’s data — 100 years on. Since Anonymous provided the data in many cases by individual villages, they can be compared, at least approximately, with the data from the latter census, conducted in 1989. This comparison shows what changes took place in the most thoroughly denationalized areas of Southeastern Lithuania

19

in the districts over the past 99 years (see Table 2). In the present-day Švenčionys District (excluding the town of Švenčionys), nearly 72% spoke Lithuanian in 1890, while in 1989 only 47.4% of the population registered as Lithuanians. Thus, the proportion of Lithuanians declined by 25 percentage points. The same decline occurred in Šalčininkai District (from 34 to 9.4%). In Vilnius District, where Slavic languages (Belarusian and Polish) were already widely used at the end of the 19th century, the proportion of Lithuanians increased (from 11 to 20.8%), since after the most recent war many Lithuanians settled in the suburbs of Vilnius. In Trakai District, the number of Lithuanian speakers in 1890 was approximately the same as in Šalčininkai District—about 38% (excluding the town of Trakai). Over the past 99 years, their proportion increased to 57.6%: the western part of the district, which had been incorporated into independent Lithuania during the interwar years, became considerably more Lithuanian; in addition, after the war many Lithuanians moved to the district’s towns.

According to Anonimo, 25.8 thousand Lithuanian speakers lived in the part of Vilnius Governorate that went to Belarus (i.e., three times more than the 7.6 thousand Lithuanians currently living throughout Belarus): 12.1 thousand in Varenava District (more than half the population), 5.5 thousand in Pastovys District, 3.6 thousand in Vijos District (in the Lazūnai area), 3.5 thousand in Astravas District (in the Gervėčiai area), 0.6 thousand in Smurgainys District, 0.5 thousand in Breslauja District (in addition, many Lithuanian speakers lived in the western part of this district, which at the time belonged to Kaunas Governorate), and 23 people in Vileika District (in the Viazynė area).

The Belarusian-Polish balance in terms of ethnic identity changed even more. Almost all residents of areas where Belarusian (“simple”) was predominant at the end of the 19th century now identify as Polish. “Simple” itself is even regarded as a dialect of Polish—in postwar censuses, residents of Lithuania who spoke this language had Polish recorded as their mother tongue. Almost only people who arrived from Belarus after the Second World War identify as Belarusians. And even then, only some of them: many arrivals, especially from western (Catholic) Belarus, quickly change their nationality and often register as Polish in censuses.

A. Pliateris–Anonimo’s statistical data are the first data of this kind to describe in such detail the linguistic situation in the Lithuanian-Belarusian borderland. Therefore, despite some of the shortcomings we have noted, they are highly valuable both geographically and statistically for the study of language change in the region described.

20

Population and linguistic composition of the counties and Lithuanian-speaking rural districts of Vilnius Governorate in 1890 (according to Anoringas)

rural districts | total population | Lithuanian language | Polish language | Belarusian language | Russian language | Jewish language | other language | T.Gervonys | 8303 | 7121 | 294 | — | 276 | 612 | — | 2.Širvintos% | 100,0 | 85,8 | 3,5 | — | 3,3 | 7,4 | 59 | 3.Musninkai% | 1316 | 8491 | 2179 | — | 363 | 1514 | 0,4 | 4.Molėtai% | 100,0 | 64,1 | 20,7 | — | 2,8 | 11,5 | — | 5.Giedraičiai% | 6423 | 6199 | 24 | — | 78 | 122 | — | 6.Maišiagala% | 100,0 | 96,5 | 0,4 | — | 1,2 | 1,9 | — | 7.Paberžė% | 12687 | 9782? | 800? | — | 600? | 1500? | — | 8.Nemenčinė% | 100,0 | 77,2 | 6,3 | — | 4,7 | 11,8 | — | 9.Joniškis% | 10605 | 7033 | 2727 | — | 197 | 648 | — | 10.Šalčininkai% | 100,0 | 66,3 | 25,7 | — | 1,9 | 6,1 | — | 11.Varnionys% | 785 | 2207 | 383 | 5038 | 32 | 225 | — | 100,0 | 28,0 | 4,9 | 63,9 | 0,4 | 2,8 | — | 6060 | 2645 | 2377 | 283 | 150 | 605 | — | 100,0 | 43,6 | 39,2 | 4,7 | 2,5 | 10,0 | — | 8759 | 1284? | 6477? | — | 263? | 728? | 77? | 100,0 | 14,7 | 73,9 | — | 3,0 | 8,3 | 0,1 | 6245 | 5078 | 787 | — | 100 | 280 | — | 100,0 | 81,3 | 12,6 | — | 1,6 | 4,5 | — | 5761 | 489 | 427 | 4292 | 88 | 465 | — | 100,0 | 8,5 | 7,4 | 74,5 | 1,5 | 8,1 | 2 | 16269 | 3470 | 165 | 11208 | 36 | 1388 | — | 100,0 | 21,3 | 1,0 | 68,9 | 0,2 | 8,6 | 0,0

21

T2-18. Slavski rural districts | Ts total:% | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 1. Lovės | 9995 | 8758 | 230 | — | 295 | 712 | — | 2. Nedingės | 5017 | 4112 | 693 | 10 | 11 | 191 | — | 3. Butrimonys | 12195 | 8837 | 1266 | 625 | 72 | 1359 | 36 | 4. Onuškis | 5429 | 4649 | 10,4 | 5,1 | 0,6 | 11,1 | 0,3 | 5. Aukštadvaris | 6095 | 5374 | 77 | — | 102 | 514 | 28 | 6. Merkinė | 10560 | 8624 | — | — | 48 | 1888 | 0,4 | 7. Varėna | 7678 | 6606 | 46 | — | 53 | 972 | 1 | 8. Jiezo | 14808 | 13108 | 219 | — | — | 1475 | 0,0 | 9. Žiežmariai | 2587 | 1457 | 207 | 2 | 187 | 720 | 14 | 10. Žasliai | 14115 | 9569 | 1252 | 842 | 260 | 2192 | 0,6 | 11. Kruonis | 9235 | 7650 | 638 | 6,2 | 1,8 | 15,5 | — | 12. Vievis | 6669 | 1303 | 157 | 4825 | 318 | 373 | 6 | 13. Semeliškės | 7733 | 4262 | 499 | 72,3 | 4,8 | 4,0 | 0,1 | 14. Valkininkai | 7028 | 6615 | 6,5 | 25,8 | 7,3 | 413 | —

22

1. Mielagėnai% 2. Linkmenys% 3. Daugėliškis% 4. Zabališkė% 5. Kuktiškės% 6. Tverečius% 7. Švenčionys% 8. Mikalavas% 9. Kamojis% 10. Adutiškis% 11-12. Slavish rural districts% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 100,0 8033 100,0 7195 100,0 134372 100,0 628? 7,8 — — 92176 68,6 94,1 628? 7,8 — — 2575? 32,0 231 3,2 7790 6,0 — 4716? 58,7 6381 83,7 20157 15,0 — 8 0,1 502 7,0 2600 1,9 5,9 61 0,8 55 0,8 13338 8,4 45 0,6 26 0,3 171 0,1 5249 100,0 7687 100,0 10675 100,0 6924 100,0 5543 100,0 6578 100,0 8152 100,0 6021 100,0 5548 100,0 9283 100,0 67980 100,0 3895 74,2 7076 92,0 918 85,4 5561 80,3 4854 87,6 6999 92,8 6276 77,0 4400 73,1 954 17,2 8692 93,6 51* 31 0,6 43 0,6 159 1,5 669 9,7 294 5,3 10 0,1 21 0,2 68 1,1 530 9,5 223 4,0 — — 1511 2,4 520 9,9 — — 10 0,1 — — — 10 0,1 941 11,5 1267 21,0 3716 67,1 67 1,0 2,4 63006 49,9 564 10,8 5 0,1 694 6,5 448 6,5 94 1,7 330 5,0 521 6,4 233 3,9 206 3,7 318 3,4 1267 3,4 4680 3,4 169 3,2 563 7,3 671 6,3 246 3,5 293 5,3 123 1,9 388 4,8 43 0,7 117 2,0 50 0,6 2144 3,4 70 1,3 — 123 0,2 — 8 0,1 6 0,1 5 0,1 10 0,2 — 1 0,1 0,0 — 1 154 0,1 * Lentpjo rural district.

23

1 | T. Dieveniškės | 8487 | 7108 | 90 | 94 | T195 | — | 8% | 100.0 | 83.8 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 14.1 | — | — 2. Sėdisko | 4669 | 2570 | 2099 | — | — | — | —% | 100.0 | 55.0 | 45.0 | — | — | — | — 3. Jurotiškės | 5264 | 312 | 4783 | 4 | 161 | — | —% | 100.0 | 5.9 | 90.9 | 0.1 | 3.0 | — | — 4. Lugamėnai | 9423 | 2298 | 7125 | 0.1 | — | — | 1% | 100.0 | 24.4 | 75.6 | — | — | — | — 5. Bokštas | 5483 | 959 | 4168 | — | 356 | — | —% | 100.0 | 17.5 | 76.0 | — | 6.5 | — | — 6. Salos | 5708 | 601 | 5107 | — | — | — | —% | 100.0 | 10.5 | 89.5 | — | — | — | — 7–23. Slaviškiai rural districts | 108846 | — | 93842 | 156 | 12727 | — | 164 Ašmena County | 147860 | 13848 | 2145 | 117026 | 254 | 4439 | 168% | 100.0 | 9.4 | 1.4 | 79.1 | 0.2 | 9.8 | 0.1 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 1. Aleksandravas | 4982 | 4982 | 4982 | — | — | — | —% | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | — | — | — | — 2. Kaniava | 5427 | 1774 | 653 | — | — | — | —% | 100.0 | 88.4 | 12.0 | — | — | — | — 3. Rodūnia | 6330 | 4490 | 1652 | — | — | 188 | —% | 100.0 | 70.9 | 26.1 | — | — | 3.0 | — 4. Eišiškės | 7774 | 1322 | 5214 | 20 | 1218 | — | —% | 100.0 | 17.0 | 67.1 | 0.2 | 15.7 | — | — 5. Žirmūnai | 6804 | 985 | 5483 | 8 | 324 | 4 | — Lida County

24

25

2 lentelė

Pietrytinių Lietuvos rajonų etnolingvistinė gyventojų sudėtis 1890m. (pagal kalbą) ir 1989m. (pagal tautybę) procentais

in percentages

Lithuanians | Russians | Poles | Belarusians | Jews | Other

Vilnius District 1890 1989 | 11 20.8 | 1 9.1 | 16 63.5 | 67 4.7 | 5 0.1 | 0 1.8

Šalčininkai District 1890 1989 | 34 9.4 | 1 5.8 | 2 79.6 | 51 3.8 | 12 0.0 | 0 1.4

Trakai District 1890 (excluding Trakai town) 1989 | 38 57.6 | 4 11.9 | 6 23.8 | 49 4.1 | 3 0.1 | 0 2.5

Švenčionys District 1890 (excluding Švenčionys town) 1989 | 72 47.4 | 4 16.2 | 2 28.8 | 19 5.5 | 3 0.1 | 0 2.0

26

THE 100^th ANNIVERSARY OF A. PLIATERIS ETHNOLINGUISTIC STATISTICS OF VILNIUS PROVINCE

Summary

The article presents, analyses and compares the data on the ethnolinguistic structure of the 19th century Eastern Lithuanians. The data were collected by A. Pliateris in 1890 and published by Anonimas in 1898. The material for comparison has been drawn from the press published after the abolishment of the Press Ban in Lithuania and the data of the census of the population taken in 1989. The conclusion is drawn that Anonimas’ material in rather reliable. However, its main drawback is that Anonimas chose from A. Pliateris’ questionnaire chose only one language of several spoken in certain villages.

27