Iš etnolingvistinių santykių raidos Pelesos ir gretimose apylinkėse

LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE AND BILINGVISM ALOYZAS VIDUGIRIS DEVELOPMENT OF ETHNOLINGUISTICAL RELATIONS IN PELESOS AND NEIGHBOURHOOD REGIONS The present linguistic situation on the Lithuanian-Belarusian border is the result of the development of many centuries of ethnolinguistic contacts between Lithuanians and Belarusians. Both the north-western borders of the Belarusian SSR and the south-eastern borders of the Lithuanian SSR, apart from the differences caused by the present borders of those republics, have a lot in common. One of the essential common characteristics of this border zone is the similar ethnic and linguistic composition of the population. Their similarity was determined by the common past of this region, common historical-political, economic and cultural-ideological conditions. And now, on both sides of the border, in the wide border zone, Lithuanian, Belarusian dialects, their literary variants, as well as Russian, are in close and intensive contact, not to mention the people or groups of other nations that sometimes still occur here. A similar ethnolinguistic situation in South-Eastern Lithuania has already been discussed (Vidugiris, 1983, pp. 46—61). Now we want to discuss in more detail the development of ethnolinguistic relations on the edge of the Lithuanian SSR, which almost extends between the promontories of Dubici and Dievcniki. This is the present Varenavo district of the north-western Gafdino oblast of the Belarusian SSR, of particular interest to linguists in the south-western part — Pelesds and Rėdūnia neighborhoods. Until the Second World War, most of the present Varenavo district — such old-known neighborhoods as Asava (sometimes named after the former famous Aradnds manor, cf. Sinodus, 1744, p. 63), Benekainys, Nočia, Pelesa, Rėdūnia, Varendvas (formerly Balatna, -0s) — entered Lydds, and the smaller part —Armėniškių and Kaulčėliškių neighborhoods. —to the Blade District. Until the First World War, it belonged to Vilnius Governorate, and in the interwar years to Naugardūkas Voivodeship. According to the ecclesiastical administrative division, the parishes named by these names belonged to the Rėdūniai deanery (Sinodus, 1744, pp. 42—64). Pelesa, which for a long time was part of R6dūniai village and parish, was known as a village centre since 1637. However, it became the cultural centre of the area only at the beginning of the 20th century, when the school was moved here from Piliūnai village in 1908. The church of Pelesds mentioned in 1553 (Ochmanski, 1972, p. 70) was probably built in Sendsia Pelesa manor and later decayed together with the manor, because the present (New) village of Pelesds became the parish center only in 1917. o 1924 m. a stone church was built here. The uniqueness and geographical location of these dialects attracted early attention of many researchers from different countries. Already more than a century ago (first time in 1886 and again in 1893) the surroundings of Armoniškiai, Benekdiniy and Kaulčėliškiai were visited by Eduardas Volteris, who recorded more characteristic phonetic morphological features, rarer words (Wolter, 1895, ir pp. 173—187). In 1895, the 21 famous Norwegian Slavist Olaf Brok collected material in the surroundings of Asava and Zirmfiny (from Aradnė, Grubėnai, Lapėtiškiai, Paaradnis, Puodžiai, Zanifiny and other villages). Having a sensitive ear, he described vocalism, consonantism, morphology of the Lithuanian dialects of these areas, and provided a considerable number of dialect texts (Broch, 1958, pp. 1—71). However, it should be said that O. Brokas first went here to study the local Belarusian dialect (Broch, 1957) and only later, when he heard that the people of the villages spoke Lithuanian, he began to write down facts about the Lithuanian language. This was a very innovative way of research, and the published works are still of full value today. In 1906, Jonas Jablonskis came to the Benekainiai area, where he wrote down various words and sayings (Jablonskis, 1906). In the interwar years, a number of valuable folklore texts were recorded from the above-mentioned areas (Tautosakos darbai, 1938, vol. 4, pp. 1—301). Especially well and a lot of folklore was recorded by Juozas Aidulis, who came from the village of Sklodonii} in the district of Rėdūnai. After Poland established diplomatic relations with Lithuania, in the summer of 1938, Zodynininkai Napalys Grigas and Juozas Senkus, assisted by Elena Samaniūtė-Otrembskienė from Vilnius, came here to collect words (Grigas, 1938, pp. 404—406). In the post-war years, the first dialectological expedition led by J. Senkau arrived here in 1952. The dialects of the Armėniškiai, Asavė, Benekainiai, Kaulėliškiai and Varenavo neighborhoods were studied by linguists J. Senkus, N. Grigas, Monika Sapijanskaitė-Kuosienė, Jonas Paulauskas, Adelė Laigonaitė and folklorist Jurgis Dovydaitis in accordance with the “Lithuanian Language Atlas Material Collection Program- ”. Especially the study of these dialects was taken care of by Prof. Juozas Balčikonis. With various helpers, he travelled around many Lithuanian villages in Varena district several times. By collecting words and place names, he tried to involve more linguists in this work. After crossing Brok’s roads, he collected a few facts and texts and sent them to Christian Stange in Oslo, who published them (Stang, 1960, pp. 337—339). The true patron of Lithuanians in this region was Prof. Tadas Ivanauskas. The longest (about 3 weeks) dialectological expedition was conducted in 1959, during which the dialects of Armėniškiai (repeatedly), Nočia, Peless, Rodūniai were studied according to the aforementioned program. In addition, in 1957, 1958, 1963 material was collected in Asavds, Benekainiai, Pelesė, Rėdunė and Žirmūnai. The dialect material was collected by Dalia Gargasaitė, Aldona Jonaitytė, Bronys Savukynas, Jonas Šukys, Aloyzas Vidugiris and Vytautas Vitkauskas. The most valuable of the published works is J. Šukis’s description of the Ramaškoniai schnet (Armėniškiai district) (Šukys, 1960, pp. 177—189) and a series of dialectal texts (Chrestomatija, 1970, pp. 177—189). 396—402). There is also some published knowledge about the use of Lithuanian language in these areas (Vidugiris, 1959, pp. 242—245) and about the results of the 1959 expedition (Grinaveckienė, 1960, pp. 191-194). In 1971, a complex expedition of Lithuanian dialectologists, zodynininky, toponimiky and folklorists worked here, in which participated: zodyninki Antanas Balašaitis, Kazys Eigminas, Irena Ermanytė, Kazys Pakalka, toponymists Aleksandras Vanagas, Marytė Razmukaitė, 22 Vitalija Maciejauskienė, dialectologists Jonina Lipskienė and Aloyzas Vidugiris, folklorists Juozas Aidulis, Kazys Grigas, Bronė Kerbelytė, Vanda Misevičienė, Leonardas Sauka, Norbertas Vėlius and others. In 1974—1976, a complex expedition of Moscow, Vilnius and Minsk linguists took place in the surroundings of Rodūnia and Pelesa, in which participated Moscow residents Vladimiras Toporovas, Tamara Sudnik (organizer and leader), Lida Nevskaja, Tania Civjan, Vilnius resident Aldona Jonaitytė, former Minsk resident Valerijus Čekmonas and others. A whole publication was dedicated to ethnolinguistic contacts in these areas: „Baltų-slavų etnolingviniai kontaktai“ (1980). In this publication are mentioned works dedicated to Pelesas and Rodūnios neighborhoods: T. Sudnik about Pelesas neighborhood. 181—191), A. Vanagas on the hydronyms of those neighbourhoods (Banarac, 1980, c. 192—201), V. Vitkauskas on some features of the Rodūnia dialect (Butkayckac, 1980, c. 202—205), V. Čekmonas on the problem of phonetic interference between Pelesa Lithuanian and Belarusian (Yexman, 1980, c. 206—226), A. Jonaitytė on the names of cultural plants in the Pelesa dialect (MoxaitruTe, 1980, c. 227—244), L. Nevskaja on the Pelesa dialect. burial customs (HeBcxras, 1980, c. 245—254) ir kt Recently, Laima Grumadiené and Kazimieras Garšva have been involved in the study of Lithuanian speakers of this region, as well as the linguistic situation and its dynamics. The so-called frontal dialectological researches are actively continued by V. Chekmon. In 1986, a group of philologists from the Lithuanian Language and Literature Institute (K. Eigminas, K. Garšva, L. Grumadienė, N. Laurinkienė, A. Romančiuk and A. Vidugiris. “With the growing interest in the problem of Baltic and Slavic linguistic relations, more sociolinguistic research is needed. In addition to the social factors that usually determine the development of linguistic and ethnolinguistic relations, no more serious study of linguistic contacts can now be done without discussing them. Such studies are needed as many and as detailed as possible, because the ethnolinguistic relations of the Lithuanian—Belarusian border change by seven miles per Zingsnis. Many supporters of the study of synchronous linguistic connections now, having visited these areas, find it difficult to imagine that many things could have been quite different here in the past. Not a single Lithuanian linguist can look at the linguistic situation of this region from a distance of more than 30 years. During this time (the author of the article had the opportunity to visit this place in 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1984, 1986) the mosaic of ethnolinguistic relations in this region underwent huge changes not only of a quantitative but also of a qualitative nature. ji The Pelesa area is now treated as an island of Lithuanian-Belarusian ir bilingualism, surrounded by Belarusians (Cyauuk, 1980, c. 181). From the tradition of Peleseės apylinkės. The following villages are considered to be villages: Dubiniai, Drūskininkai (Old and New), Leliūšiai, Leliėnys, Lipkūnai, Paditvys (Padzitvys || Padzvicys), Pamedė, Pavalakč (sometimes Paulakė), Pelesa (Pelasa) — the largest (in 1976 there were 195 farms) village, Piliūnai, Senieji Smilginiai, Slabada, Surkantai, Varliai, Anksčiau į šią apylinkę dar priklausė kiti artimesni kaimai; ir Bartašiūnai, Kargaudai, Klaišiai, Kūrkės, Lūnkiai, Navikai, Vigénys (Stownik, 1886, p. 935). 23 According to T. Sudnik, in the small Pelesds neighborhood, various stages of the once unified linguistic situation, which have changed over time, seem to come together: from the complete extinction of the Lithuanian language (Smilginiai, Leliūšiai and especially Pamedė), when the Lithuanian language and thus bilingualism were preserved only by the old inhabitants themselves, through the qualitative and quantitative balance of bilingualism (Pelesa, Pilifinai, Dubiniai) to the true, almost untouched predominance of the Lithuanian language (Pavalakė, Senieji Drūskininkai). Only recently (about 15-20 years ago) it was possible to describe the linguistic situation of the whole Varnavo district according to this scheme. The formation of the current linguistic situation in Varenai district needs to be reviewed in more detail not only for those who study the dialects, but also for readers who have been interested in the fate of these Lithuanians in the past. All the more so because, despite the contrasts and changes that have taken place, in the memory of many of them the former linguistic situation seems to remain alive and healthy, often bringing a painful lunch to the past and traditions. Lithuanian and Belarusian contacts. without doubt, are very old and date back to the times when both these languages were not yet crystallized from the Baltic and East Slavic language groups respectively. In general, the southeastern border of Lithuanian ethnic areas was never clear and constant, because Lithuanians and Belarusians lived here in many places in a mixed way. Therefore, due to the mixing and assimilation of the population, the border was moved to the detriment of another Lithuanian ethnic element (Jakubovskis, 1921, pp. 4—5). However, in the Pelesa stretch, the boundary has been preserved and has changed little since the 14th—16th centuries (3xukrsBuutoc, IT'ayuac, 1985, c. 174—176). Intensive contacts between Lithuanian and Slavic languages are also reflected in the hydronymy of Pelesas and Rodūnios neighbourhoods. As the results of the research (Bararac, 1980, c. 192—201) show, the oldest layer consists of Baltic hydronymy, while the Slavic layer is much newer, part of it — quite recent. Furthermore, there are serious historical (Ochmanski, 1972, pp. 83—89) and linguistic (Cynuuk, 1980, c. 184—189) arguments that around Rēdūnija and Pelėda Prussians or closely related emigrants from the regions of Barta, Skalva and possibly Pamedė were settled. The latter circumstance may have contributed to the fact that a compact group of Lithuanian villages remained around Pelėsa longer than elsewhere. Natural conditions may also have influenced: from the south-east, south and south-west sides of the Peleseės hill. from the Belarusian villages were separated by wide swamps and Ditvds, Pelesds —rivers, formerly. Pelesds Lake, etc. Unfortunately, the conditions and time did their thing. Gradually, especially after the Union of Lublin (1569), the local Belarusian dialect, being similar to Polish, became not only the language of external but also internal contacts. For Lithuanian peasants, whose language was considered degrading, it was too difficult to learn Polish from representatives of the upper classes. In addition, after the wars and plague epidemics of the 17th and 18th centuries, the extinct Lithuanians could have been replaced by more or less inhabitants from the eastern Slavic lands. The non-Lithuanian part of them may have served as a catalyst for the later assimilation of the local population. Since the middle of the 19th century, the Lithuanian language began to disappear very rapidly in the southeastern outskirts. This wave first encompassed the eastern edge with the Lithuanian capital Vilnius and from Vilnius began to spread in all directions with extraordinary speed, encompassing various cities, towns and their surroundings. Lithuanian language almost immediately became only the language of the old generation, while the young people took up Slavic languages. This coincided with the activation of the Polish national movement and in connection with this the czar officials started an extremely intensive campaign to strengthen the Russian language and Orthodoxy. The fierce struggle for influence between the tsarist officials and the Polish-oriented nobles and clergy oppressed the Lithuanian peasants with a double yoke. The natural assimilation was accompanied by forced assimilation driven by the state, church, estate, school. Using their unlimited influence, the clergy were always subordinated to the Polish ecclesiastical hierarchy, whose centre was in Poland, Gniezno (the bishopric of Vilnius later became, in fact until now, part of the archdiocese of Lomza). The most important task of the Polish-run church was to spread not so much the faith as the Polishness. In contrast to Eastern Slavic Orthodoxy, Catholicism was called the Polish religion (polska viara) and Catholics were regarded as Poles. As a result, many inhabitants, who spoke only Lithuanian in their families, sometimes not even Slavic, began to consider themselves Poles. During the uprisings of 1831 and 1863-1864, the largest forces of Lithuanian national intelligentsia 24 were dispersed or destroyed. The prohibition of the press in Latin alphabet was equivalent to the general ban on Lithuanian press. Therefore, the Lithuanian national movement, which could have supported the Lithuanians with a fluctuating self-consciousness in time, was significantly delayed. The rate at which the Lithuanian language of this region has decreased and disappeared can be seen by comparing Data from the first half of the 19th century with data from the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. In 1827 P. Kepenas (Kenmen, 1827, c. 94), based on data collected by Vilnius University professor A. V. Pelikan and Lithuanian writer D. Poška, indicated that in Lyda district Lithuanian language is used from the border of Vilnius district to Žirmūnai. This information is also confirmed by historians M. Balinskis and T. Lipinskis, who were well acquainted with this region (Balinski M., Lipinski T., 1846, 251, 264): in Lyda County Lithuanian is spoken along the Ditvė river, about Zirmfinus, Benek4inis (at that time the Benekainiai villages included not only Varendvo but also the present Butrimoniai district, which is in the Lithuanian SSR), Balčininkiai, Eišiškes (Eišiškių district with Kalesniūkai at that time was part of Lydds district) and even beyond Lyda to the Nemunas river. The fact that Lithuanians lived beyond Lydds is confirmed by recent research (l'ayuac, Bmayrmpuc, 1983, c. 39, 41; 3unksBuyroc, 'ayyac, 1985, c. 175). In 1867, in Lydds County, according to A. Ritich (PurTHX, 1875), Lithuanians made up 21.3 9% of the total population, i.e. about 26,000, although according to his map Pelesa district was assigned to the Belarusian area (also cf. Tayuac, Bunyraupauec, 1983, c. 44). In the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the Peleses river was considered to be the Lithuanian-Belarusian boundary at least at Pelesa (up to Pelesds manor), further east the boundary of the parishes of R6dūnia and Zdbalatė (Užūbalis) to the Ditvds river, then up the Ditva, further east the Asavds river (in fact further south from it — A. V.) to the Geranainiai side. (Kupkop, 1858, c. 120—121; Kopesa, 1861, c. 287; Bieliūski, 1893, p. 528; Kapckwuii, 1962, c. 385-386). In the 19th century, with the relatively rapid Slavification of the nearby Vilnius area, the Lithuanianness of the northern part of Lyda County was emphasized. One of the authors of the “Geographical Dictionary” (Slownik, 1882, p. 142), writing about the Aradnds manor, which became part of the Asave parish, notes that all the inhabitants of the parish 25 Those of origin iš are pure Lithuanians, who still speak Lithuanian to each other. However, such reports have been scarce. At the end of a. the 19th ir XX a. century, the Lithuanian press was mostly concerned with protests ir against violence. Lithuanian glorification. O there iš was nothing to fear. Once a relatively compact southeastern Lithuanian-speaking area, the uneven rate of Slavification of the villages, severely eroded. This is obviously seen iš 1890 m. Plater assembled ir Anonymously processed statistics 1898, p. 62—67), (Anonim, based on J. Rozvadovskis (Rozwadowski, 1904, p. 93) The map was rather approximate, because the data on the use of Lithuanian language in many of the surrounding villages of Benekainiai, iš Šalčininkai, Varenavo were not collected or were incomplete. Since on the plateau of the Lithuanian-Belarusian border belt a considera- — ble number of local inhabitants were bilingual or trilingual (manor houses and, in the vicinity of palivarki were hidden villages), which were characterized by an undefined, usually fluctuating national self-consciousness, it ir J. The limits of the use of Lithuanian language drawn by Rozvadovskis should be considered only approximate, conditional. In Lyda county in the continuous Lithuanian-speaking territory a stretch of about Eišiškes ir Pzbarę, as well as some villages from Eišiškių to Nočiės ir Saltoniškių, kur In the second a. half of the 19th century, the Belarusian language spread J. rapidly, and Rozvadovskij assigned it to the Belarusian area. It separated the large Lithuanian-- speaking peninsula from the main Lithuanian territory. Therefore, tą some researchers represent the massif on the map as a peninsula (Kapcknit, 1903; Verbickis, 1911), others as — the island (Rozwadowski, 1914; Marynsune, 1902, c. 45—46). That the Lithuanian language was not prevalent in all villages of the peninsula, the young people had begun to — speak Belarusian in many places, it is already seen in the notes attached to — the iš Plater collected material that the southeast Armenians. Part 1 “the young speak Lithuanian, the young — speak Belarusian” (Anonymous, 1898, p. 62). In the parish of Rėdūnai, other languages are spoken besides ir Lithuanian. By the report of one correspondent, already End of a. 19th century In the parish of Rėdūniai, "people speak Lithuanian, but they — hate Polish, calling themselves Lithuanians. Some of the ne Lithuanians have tanned, speak a kind of jargon half Russian, half Polish or, as they say, "normally" (simply), i.e. 'mužikiškai'. Lithuanians speak Lithuanian only at home, o elsewhere — or Polish, or ‘po-prostu’ (Bc, 1895, c. 497). Value E. Voltaire's remark: "In Lyda county, despite the bent and disgusting mocking of Lithuanians, Lithuanian iš songs are still heard in Lithuanian as the home language. ir Lithuanians (maybe the (0 old jotvingiai) speak three languages: Russian to superiors or — ‘simply’, i.e. in Belarusian, to the priest — in Polish, to o each other in — Lithuanian ir loudly, when no one laughs. Even in public gatherings you can hear people speaking Lithuanian." (Boxing rope, c. 66). A. Platerium — Anonymous but ir incomplete statistics In the Lyda district Lithuanians 16634, recorded t.y. 12,1 9% iš of the (137025) total population. How many more Lithuanians were recorded during the 1897 m. general census — 17702, but the jų percentage is lower — 9 % iš than the 196444 total rural population. Zatai ko ne four times (from 1,2 % to 4,2 %) increased the percentage of Poles. ir Apparently, Lithuanian26 -Belarusian bilinguals and Lithuanian- -Belarusian-Polish trilinguals were classified as Slavs, especially Poles, during the 1897 census. | After the abolition of punishment, the villages of free peasants probably began to flourish in the Pelesai area: ir Bartašiūnai, Slabada, Surkantai, etc. ir Therefore, already In 1890, out of the 1723 inhabitants of the area, 1421 were Lithuanians and 302 Belarusians and Poles (Anonim, 1898,, pp. 64—66). At that time, the process of Slavification of local inhabitants, as well as Slavificatiir on in general, took place very violently and vigorously in all the southeastern edges of Lithuanian language. Sometimes, the bilingual stage of language change was rather short. According to H. Turska (Turska, 1939, pp. 33—34), Lithuanians of the older generation often learned the Slavic (Polish Belarusian) language and ar started to use it only ir when they were ją adults. On the other hand, at the same time In Lithuania, Lithuaniir an national self-consciousness rose sharply. That process began in the western part of Lithuania, where more illegally spread In Lithuania, books are printed in newspapers. ir Be to, 1904 m. The administration of Tsarist Russia, afraid of the revolutionary movement, was forced to lift the ban on ti printing books and newspapers in ir Latin-Lithuanian letters, to allow teaching o 1906 m. — Lithuanian as a separate subject in schools. Since then, to the Lithuanian press has been able to legally help its compatriots. More Lithuanian intelligentsia appeared, whose activities helped to strengthen Lithuanian national consciousness. Increasingly, church services began to be held in Lithuanian. The rise of the Lithuanian national movement influenced the ir course of ethnolinguistic processes. However, until The rise of the First World War more encompassed Suvalki, the larger part of Kaunas governorate only partially ir iš Vilnius Governorate. In connection su with the rise of the Lithuanian national movement, the local nobility, the intelligentsia, the leadership of the Vilnius bishopric, — and some of the clergy, who were supported by a large local Polish press (Gintautas, 1910, p. 197—206). Since the influence of the church on the course of ethnolinguistic processes was decisive, they in any way hindered the activities of Lithuanian clergy, Lithuanian (1905, 1910, 1913, 1915 ir kt in 2009, jų local residents who were overtaken by supported Lithuanians raised a fight during Lithuanian services In Asavojė, Benekainys, Nočiojė, Rėdunė, Varenavė, ir etc.), į Lithuanian parishes appointed Polish-oriented priests, more active o Lithuanian priests were persecuted and expelled ir from purely į Slavic parishes. Admission of Lithuanians was sharply reduced į Vilnius Spiritual Seminary (Viltis, 1908, p. 130). At the same time, the polonizers slandered the Lithuanian language, ją calling it pagan, and tried to establish the idea that Lithuanian language was not suitable for an educated person. Only Lithuanians, but ne Belarusian-speaking Catholics, ir were bending. The latter were particularly easily taken over by Polish self-concept. Therefore, among Lithuanians, the use of Polish was encouraged, ne but not Belarusian. ir « For the study of the ethnolinguistic XX a. processes that took place at the beginning, local census data are important, which 1909 m. local administration collected iš 9 so-called Western Russian provinces (Hope, 1909, p. 90, 92,94 96). The following is a list of the main nationalities: Lithuanian, Polish, Jewish Russian. ir Į of the latter (i.e. Russian) number includes Russians, Ukrainians ir and Belarusians together, but separated by religion. 1909 m. data were collected by ne language used as 27 1897, but according to national consciousness, so these data cannot be compared with each other. However, their comparison is interesting in another aspect, because it shows how the Polish national consciousness spread across the Lithuanian- -Belarusian borders, both among Lithuanian- -speaking and Belarusian- -speaking Catholics. In Lyda county, the number of people who registered as Lithuanians is very small, only 4238, or 294 (out of 211839 rural inhabitants). Apparently, for many of them it was more honorable to call themselves Poles, whose number increased rapidly (in 1890 — 1580, or 1.2%, in 1897 — 8298, or 4.2%, in 1909 — 12462, or 5.99%). However, many bilingual Lithuanians, whose mother tongue and nationality were constantly compromised, were nationally undecided and were assigned by the censusmen to the Russian (i.e. Belarusian) state. The Lydds region, which was still relatively Lithuanian, had already begun to become strongly Belarusian on the eve of the First World War. According to approximate reports of the Lithuanian periodical press of the time, in the parishes of Armėniškiai, Asavė, Butrimoniai, Nocids, Rėdūniai and Varenai Lithuanian was spoken by about 2/3—3/4 of the local population, Kalesniūkai — 1/2, Benekdiniy, Eišiškiai — 1/3—1/2, Geranainiai, Kaulžliškiai — 1/3 (other data up to 1/2), Trakéliy, Žirmūnai, Zėbalatės — 1/4—1/3, Lydos — 1/5. In the churches of these parishes Lithuanian language was either never used at all or was removed, only occasionally Lithuanian sermons were still given. There were very few Lithuanian newspapers here. It seems that the echoes of the Lithuanian national movement did not reach many villages here. And where this rise was, it took place very late and covered only the more Lithuanian and more compactly preserved villages (e.g., about Pelėsas, Ramaškėnis, as well as individual — Plikių, Sklodoniū and others), and their inhabitants probably not all, but only a larger or smaller part of them, elsewhere — perhaps only individual families. However, this was enough for the Lithuanian language to continue its existence here and there until our days. The fact that the glorification was not carried out everywhere at the same rate may have been contributed by Lithuanian cultural figures who had worked there for a short time — teachers, more progressive priests (Ziminskas, 1931, no. 80, 105—106; 1944, no. 51, 68, 119; Gustaitis, 1942, no. 178). The restoration of the Lithuanian state also played a role, of course. After occupying all the south-eastern Lithuanian lands in 1920—1939, bourgeois Poland began to carry out a systematic policy of denationalization: it demanded the use of the Polish language everywhere, suppressed Lithuanian press and self-help groups, and closed down Lithuanian schools that had been established with great effort. By 1931-1932, all 37 private Lithuanian schools operating in the territory of the current Varnavo district were closed, and by 1936, all reading rooms established in their place were also closed. In addition, three new Lithuanian schools were demanded in Asavė district, but they were not allowed to be established. Peasants who held Lithuanian schools were often punished with prisons and other fines, and teachers were persecuted. Lithuanian children were encouraged to attend Polish schools, and those who did not were punished. Lithuanian services were no longer allowed in the churches of Armėniškiai, Asavds, Benekainiai, Rėdūniai, and Lithuanian clergymen were terrorized. Until 1947, only the people of Peles maintained Lithuanian worship, having built a separate church. 28 Until the end of the first quarter of the 20th century, Rėdūnai village was still considered "fairly Lithuanian. According to many local representatives, about 75-9% of the inhabitants were still able to speak Lithuanian, but most of them, being indifferent, apparently very quickly took on Polish identity. | —An interesting data for tracking the evolution of ethnolinguistic relations is the map drawn by O. Chominski in 1928-1933. In the territory of the present Varenavo district alone, there are mentioned another hundred villages, in which at that time from 100% to 10 9, Lithuanian was spoken. -Therefore, villages where Lithuanian was spoken by individual families or individuals were not included in the map. The total number of Lithuanian speakers according to that map is about 6000 (in our opinion, it should have been at least a third, if not twice as much). However, this also shows that the local Lithuanians, who used to praise more according to self-consciousness, now began to praise according to language. The younger generation, apparently, was mostly already taught to speak Slavic. Polish schools played a decisive role. There was also a significant increase in the number of single-family homes. In the past, the street village was a good Lithuanian language school for both locals and children from mixed families, who did not have time to learn Lithuanian at home. Thus, most of the older generation began to stop passing on their native language to the younger generation. This was the case until 1939, when the region was incorporated into the Belarusian SSR. During the war and post-war years, many Lithuanians, often entire families, were murdered here by Belarusian gangs (armija krajowa), especially terrorizing the more conscious Lithuanians. Since then, many Lithuanians have started to speak Polish or with each other. at least in Belarusian. It has become a tradition in Lithuanian families to write in Polish for at least one person. For these and other reasons, a considerable number of Lithuanian-speaking people emigrated to Poland between 1945 and 1958. * Despite all those events, which had a decisive effect on the further development of ethnolinguistic relations in this region, in the post-war years, especially in the older and middle generation, Lithuanian-speaking representatives could still be found quite widely in almost the entire Varenai district. Local people speaking Lithuanian from the old times were found in villages that Anonim and O. Chominski described as purely Slavic. And this is not surprising, because to speak Lithuanian at that time was more of a misfortune than a happiness. The following list shows the villages, according to the neighbourhood and the level of knowledge, in which more or less Lithuanian-speaking or able-bodied people were found during the trips and expeditions in 1955—1963. It is a pity that more attention was paid to the surroundings and their parts, where there were compactly more Lithuanian villages (e.g. Pelesa, Rodūnia, Asava, partly Benekainys, Varenavas, Armėniškės) and there was a lack of time and opportunities to better explore the Slavicized or completely Slavicized villages around Geranainis, Kaulėliškes, Nėčia, Trakeliūs and others. The most Lithuanian was Pelesa district with Senūji Druskininky, Dubiniai, Paditvio, Pavalakės, Pelesės, Piliūnai villages, where Lithuanian was mostly spoken in the families. Only the village of Naujiuju Drūskininkų was mixed. The older and middle generation spoke Lithuanian in Kargaudai, Klaišiai, especially; In the villages of Vigoniai, partly in the villages of Senūji Smilginiai. Only the older generation knew Lithuanian in the villages of Balčiškiai, Leliūšiai, Pamedė, Naujieji Smilginiai, Varliai. One after another grandfather speaking Lithuanian met, 29