LIETUVIŲ ONOMASTIKOS TYRINĖJIMAI LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXI (1981)

VITALIJA MACIEJAUSKIENĖ

THE LITHUANIAN ANTHROPONYMIC SYSTEM IN THE 16TH CENTURY

The Lithuanian anthroponymic system took shape over several centuries. The practice of identifying people by a single name was replaced by recording them with a name and a descriptive or otherwise appellative byname, and later with two or three personal names. One of these personal names became fixed and hereditary, shared by all family members—that is, it became a surname. The outcome of the development of the Lithuanian anthroponymic system was the identification of people by a first name and surname.

By the 16th century, all the main ways of recording people that also occur in later centuries had become established (people could be identified by one, two, or three different personal names). It has been observed that as early as the second half of the 15th century, identifying people by two personal names was the most productive practice. This indicates the formation of a two-part Lithuanian anthroponymic system.

An analysis of the ways people were recorded in various 16th-century documents clearly attests to the establishment of a two-part Lithuanian anthroponymic system. For example, of 4,000 different records of people from the second half of the 16th century, only 3.4% consist of records using one personal name and 3% of those using three different personal names. All other cases identify people by two personal names. A similar proportion is characteristic of the entire 16th century. In the 16th century, the two-part method of identifying people was used for representatives of all social estates (peasants, the unfree household servants of the manor, and servants were most often recorded with one personal name, while members of the noble estates were recorded with three).

However, there were still many variations and inconsistencies in how people were identified in the 16th century. First and foremost were the aforementioned ways of recording a person with one or three personal names. There are even instances of records with four different anthroponyms. Identifying people by a name and a descriptive or otherwise appellative byname was still relatively common during this period. In addition, there are cases in which the same person may be recorded differently—with one personal name, with a name and a descriptive byname, or with two anthroponyms, and so on.

The article examines all the methods of recording people used in the 16th century, discusses the origins and formation of the personal names that make up various models of personal identification, and draws conclusions about the formation of Lithuanian surnames during this period.

All the article’s assertions are illustrated with numerous examples excerpted from various published and manuscript sources of the 16th century, an alphabetical list of which is provided at the end of the article. After each example, parentheses give the source number in the aforementioned list and the page or folio number.

154

1. Naming persons with a single personal name

This may be a native Lithuanian personal name, for example: Бернатъ (6,18), Будорис (27,203), Бутвил (27,206), Доркежъ (15,62), Кгалминъ (24,227), Кгедкогвтъ (24,51), Кгетовт (27,13), Кгедутис (27,176), Кгоилюс (27,34), Ягкемин (27,67), Ясвил (27,217), Кинтовт (27,199), Кловзкойлелис (27,44), Кушилутис (27,67), Монивидъ (22,806), Мопейко (2, 216), Монтвилъ (13,18), Monwil (2,215), Можецко (2,21), Можис (27,167), Нарбuta (K case; 6,20), Нареищь (2,157), Нармонть (27,176), Pukienis (2,74), Радвил (27,210), Равдонисъ (2,414), Рымъккайло (24,202), Ромейко (2,27), Рустейко (27,64), Саръккус (27,210), Скирелис (27,84), Skodeila (2,469), Стягвил (2,11), Сунькоилъ (27,106), Галицом (N case; 26,888), Тортовидъ (24,49), Вобол (2,133), Жабмис (27,35), Жездрыс (27,231).

More often, various forms of baptismal names occur, for example: Адамъ (15,62), Ангъдреu (2,314), Бартломей (13,500), Богданъ (15,59), Болътрутис (2,165), Борътко (27,208), Доменикъ (24,41), Кабрялъ (15,62), Грицъ (24,213), Кгерикгас (2,540), Ггигоръ (27,232), Грин (2,26), Яъкъ (2,18), Янол (2,154), Jesiulis (13,487), Jonis (16,382), Юркгелисъ (2,443), Юргисъ (24,57), Юркгутис (2,217), Юри (27,115), Каспоръ (15,52), Криштофъ (24,39), Лаврун (2,568), Лукаш (2,12), Мацелъ (2,217), Мартин (27,210), Мартинел (2,27), Martinelis (2,214), Матей (2,218), Matelis (13,282), Мицко (27,232), Мик (27,232), Микелисъ (13,14), Миколай (27,216), Микут (2,23), Микутис (27,127), Миселисъ (21,184), Павел (27,16), Павлук (2,218), Петкус (27,160), Петръ (2,23), Петралисъ (13,78), Петрашъ (24,210), Petrel (2,191), Пилипъ (24,227), Symona (K case; 2,82), Стан (27,159), Станел (2,18), Станкелис (2,291), Stankus (13,380), Станиславъ (24,203), Stasis (2,37), Стасюк (2,371), Степан (2,17), Шымко (15,61), Шымонъ (15,67), Szymtis (2,213), Szymunel (2,214), Томашъ (15,63), Тумелисъ (2,416), Вацус (2,223), Валис (2,234), Венъцлавъ (15,52), Воитех (2,409), Воиткелис (2,291).

In the 16th century, when recording a person by two anthroponyms seems to become the norm, a single personal name cannot provide sufficient information about the person being referred to. Therefore, nobles are very rarely recorded under a single name. And when such cases do occur (for example, when the same person is mentioned again or a noble is recorded in a document of little significance), the long form of the Christian name is usually used, for example: pana Symona (K case; 2,83), pana Onikieja (K case; 2,79), and so on.

Generally, in 16th-century documents, it is most often unfree peasants, the manor household, and servants who are recorded by a single personal name. They owned no substantial property and took little direct part in public life; consequently, changes arising as the anthroponymic system developed had the least effect on how they were named in documents. When necessary, they were recorded by their given name alone, often in its short or diminutive form, perhaps

155

in the way they were commonly called. This is also borne out by the frequent diminutive forms of Christian names in this period¹.

However, in the 16th century, when the most productive way of identifying people was by two names, which provided more information about the person being referred to, identifying someone with a single anthroponym may have sufficed only within a very small circle of acquaintances. Thus, when a person had only a given name and lacked the second personal name customary in this period (or it was unknown to the person making the record), various appellative bynames were written alongside the given name. These provided additional information about the person and helped distinguish them from others with the same name.

2. Appellative bynames and their development into personal names

These bynames were highly varied in the 16th century. Most often, a person’s occupation or profession was recorded after the given name, for example: Балчюс коваль (2,415), Bartłomiej kowal (13,283), Григор ковал (27,172), Jakst kowal (16,398), Ян ковал (27,47), Юръкгис ковал (27,26), Kasper kowal (2,533), Maciej kowal (2,506), Marcin kowal (16,401), Межис ковал (27,136), Наркейло ковал (6,39), Stanisław kowal (2,469), Степан ковал (6,39), Симонъ беднар (2,416), Казюлис чоботар (2,414), Миколай чоботарь (13,299), Olexi czobotarz (2,194), Стагь чоботарь (2,332), Чепутис долида (2,316), Więcko doilida (2,215), Янь, кравецъ (14,198), Митко кравец (27,217), Урбанъ кухар (2,334), Grygalus, ławnik (16,426), Petryk, ławnik (16,416), Станисъ лавникъ (3,94), Stanisław ławnik (2,397), Woyciech ławnik (2,536), Богдан мельник (2,13), Грышко мельникъ (2,244), Piotrz młynarz (2,469), Иванец огородникъ (2,234), Naruczys ogrodnik (13,282), Tomas ogrodnik (2,536), Шымко пастухъ (2,234), Павел пивовар (2,339), Stas piwowar (2,505), Янелис резникъ (3,94), Богдан рыболов (6,39), Томашъ рыбаловъ (2,335), Бонис стрыхар (2,281), Микелъ слесарь (13,299), Павел ткач (2,314), Довгейнътъ токар (2,281).

An office or position held could also be specified, for example: Якуб попристав (6,39), Янис попристав (6,39), Павел попристав (27,133), Петръ попристав (6, 39), Воитко, перевозник (27, 64), Ян стрелец (27, 205), Валюлис тивунъ (3, 94), Петр, воит (27, 160), Stasiul, voit (13, 250), noting that a person had recently moved in and was a newcomer, for example: Jan novik (9, 8), Юръкгис, новосед (27, 121), Матей новосед (27, 131), Мелвид новосед (27, 10), Mikuc nowosiad (2, 196), Станис новосед (27, 131), or the person’s social estate could be recorded—Bartłomiej, boyarzyn (13, 290), Венцлавъ боярынъ (15, 67). Some other characteristic of the person being recorded was mentioned only rarely, for example: Миколая погорелого (K case; 2, 218), Станеля хромого (K case; 2, 218), and so on.

¹V. Tagunova argues that the emergence of diminutive forms of personal names was driven by social needs. Until the 18th century, these forms were used in spoken language and documents to refer to members of the non-privileged estates, specifically to emphasize social distinctions. See: Тагунова В. И. Категория уменьшительности и ласкательности в диалектной антропонимии. – В кн.: Ономастика Поволжья. Горький, 1971, с. 82.

156

Additional information about the person being recorded is also provided by other kinds of bynames—indications that the person is a son-in-law living in his wife’s household (užkūrys) or a son-in-law living in his wife’s household while serving as a tenant farmer (preikuras), for example: Болтрутис прикуруис (27, 130), Ченута пренкура (K case; 3, 182), Кгрикегута пренкура (K case; 3, 182), Ендрулис унюжкур (3, 94), z Jurgiem uzkurem (Įn case; 2, 179), Юри унюжкурис (3, 243), Лаврину ушкуру (N case; 3,243), Мартин унюжкурис (3, 243). It may be specified whose son-in-law living in his wife’s household or son-in-law tenant farmer the person is; that is, an appellative byname may be further expanded with a personal name, for example: Andrzej, przeykur Mikołajowej (3, 182); Jakub, prey kur Ożakowey (3, 182), Szymos, uszkuris Bernatow (3, 243), Шымъко, Нароштове пренкур (3, 182), etc. After a person’s given name, it may be recorded whose son-in-law he is: Janko, Montrynow zięc (2, 183); Янутыс, Юрковец зеньть (2, 335); Мацъ Вошайтовъ зять (13, 12); Maciej, Iaciow zienc (2, 537); Macziei, Napsow zięcz (2, 644); Paweł, zięć Goyzutow (2, 117); Zygmunt, Pawlow zięc (2, 194), or other kinship relations may be indicated—Adam, syn Wojciechow (2, 535); Кгрикзъ, сын небожчицы Зофии (3, 195); Яс, Кагавсапин муж (2, 223); Kasper, Andrzeiow pasynek (2, 567); Marcin, syn woytow (2, 67); Petruć, Szczepuciowei mąż (2, 214), and so on.

All the recording examples presented here, consisting of a given name and an appellative or otherwise descriptive byname, are not taken from any single source. They occur in various documents from the period under consideration, alongside records using two personal names. Thus, in the 16th century these bynames were on a par with patronymics, nickname-type personal names, or even surnames written after a person’s given name. They performed the latter’s primary function—that of distinguishing individuals. This is also evidenced by cases in which different ways of naming people appear side by side, for example: Кгрикгос ушкурыс а Симон Якубович (3, 243); Кгрикегута Кагавчаня а другого Кгрикегута пренкура (K case; 3, 182); Матею Яцковичу, Лаврину ушкуру, Якубу Пацовичу, Петрыку ушкуру (N case; 3, 243), and so on.

Some of the appellative and descriptive bynames mentioned above become personal names. In the 16th century, especially in its second half, many anthroponyms arose from names of professions and trades, for example: Urban Bartnik (13, 169), Adoms Czobotoro (2, 390), Миколай Чоботарь (13, 300), Lawryn Czobotarz (13, 380), Peczu-lis Czobotarz (2, 631), Wolonczus Czobotarus (13, 107), Филипъ Дойлида (13, 299), Mikucz Doylida (2, 191), Woyciel Doylida (13, 293), Амброзъ Коваль (13, 501), Bartłomiej Kowal (13, 283), Bolcius Kowal (13,175), Czeputis Kalwis (2,523), Юрк-ецъ Кальвицъ (13, 311), Каспор Ковал (2, 309), z Petkyem Kalwiem (Įn case; 13, 130), Stanisław Kowal (13, 532), Banis Krawiec (2, 567), Якубъ Кравецъ (14, 219), Jan Krawiec (13, 139), Joachym Krawiec (2, 567), Андрей Кубилъ (13, 17), Jan Kubil (13, 277), Янунис Кубилис (27, 26), Мартинъ Кубилюсъ (13, 524), Галвоши Кубилис (27, 28), Paweł Ławnik (13, 166), Ambros Melnik (2, 185), Wojtekus Miesnik (13, 129), Jan Piwowar (2, 552), Pietryk Podzius (2, 185).

The transformation of appellative and descriptive bynames into personal names in the 16th century is also attested by records such as: Яна Боярина (K case; 21, 345), Матей Бо-ярынъ (24, 85); Андрей Новикъ (2, 452), Андрей Новосѣдъ (13, 526), Янь Новосель (13, 78), Janel Nowosied (13, 250), Jendrzej Nowik (2, 505), Jozef Nowosiad (2, 182), Moneiko Nowosed (2, 216), Petrik Nowosed (2, 216), Stas Nowosiad

157

(2, 182), Wojciech Nowosied (13, 250), Андрей Прейкишас (2, 413), z Andrejem Preykurem (In case; 13, 126), Кергикъ Прейкишас (2, 413), Янъ Прейкишас (3, 321), Янел Прейкирис (27, 105), Janis Preikuris (2, 215), Янутъ Прейкишис (13, 525), Jas Preykurys (13, 384), Pawilus Preykurys (13, 116), Stanisław Preykuris (2, 607), s Tomaszem Preikurem (In case; 2, 237), Кергикъ Ушкурисъ (13, 603), Yęndrzej Uszkuris (2, 471), Юркейсъ Ушкуръ (13, 528), Мачулисъ Ушкурисъ (13, 604), Матушъ Ушкуръ (13, 527), Paweł Uszkuris (13, 285), Петрос Ушкурис (2, 146), Станюлис Ушкурисъ (2, 321); Stasiul Woit (13, 250), or Gryg Balžentis (2, 398), Матеи Бирутженгентис (2, 428), Szimko Dundulžentis (2, 626), Stanis Kibeikozentis (2, 638), Станисълав Котинженгентисъ (2, 417), Миколаи Кунигенгентис (2, 310), Macellis Lolzentis (13, 482), Войцусъ Петржентисъ (13, 604), Banis Urbzentis (2, 252), Pecžulis Dowkssobrolis (2, 650), Можан Кушультбралис (27, 42), Яна Петрутпрейкиша (K case; 3, 321), and so on.

There is no doubt that some of the recording examples presented here may have arisen from inconsistent spelling. In the sources of the period, writing with uppercase or lowercase letters, and writing words together or separately, varied considerably (for example, in the 1561 inventory of the town of Virbalis, the same person is recorded in three different ways—Macziei, Napssow zięcz; Macziei Napssowzięcz ir Macziei Napszęzentis).

However, most of the records mentioned above point to appellative and descriptive nicknames becoming personal names, a further stage of which is the formation of derivatives with various patronymic suffixes from the personal names discussed, for example: Якѹб Калваитис (2, 291), Janelis Pudzunas (2, 644), Томашъ Пивоварайтисъ (13, 299), and so on. Furthermore, as the anthroponymic system developed, some of these personal names became surnames. This is evidenced by present-day surnames such as Čebatōrius, Čebatoriūnas, Dailidė, Dailidōnis, Kálvis, Malináitis, Puodžiūnas, Puodžius, Preikšā, Preikšas, Uškurys, Užkuráitis, as well as the less common Juōdžentis, Lāpžentis, Simonžentis, Viktažentis, Vitāžentis², etc.

3. Naming people with two personal names

This was the most productive way of naming people in the 16th century, attesting to the establishment of a binary Lithuanian anthroponymic system.

3. 1. The first element in this way of naming people is an ethnic or Christian personal name. In the 16th century, most Lithuanian given names were baptismal names, although ethnic names were also often used (especially in the first half of the 16th century). It is true that in various ecclesiastical documents, register books, and the like, these names had already been completely displaced by Christian names in the 16th century (they survived there only in patronymics), but administrative and legal documents from this period still contain many ethnic names. For example, the 1537 list of obligations of Samogitian peasants³ includes about 3,300 peasants belonging to the Grand Duke, recorded with two personal names; of these, approximately 31% have an ethnic name. These are mostly old two-stem Lithuanian personal names,

² See the Surname Card Index of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Literature of the Lithuanian SSR Academy of Sciences.

³ See source 27.

158

e.g.: Буйвид Контовтович (171)⁴, Бутнар Рукотайтис (33), Бутримъ Пупо-итис (101), Бутвил Спукайтис (182), Дамонт Мечунос (11), Довкил Довмена йтис (135), Эинаръ Буйвидатис (24), Кегдимин Пацович (29ª), Кегд-кавят Минишайтис (22), Кегдвил Контримович (66), Кегестовт Павлович (90), Кгетовт Дидекайтис (217), Кгинвил Кентрайтис (46), Кеголмин Пикелович (43), Ягмин Бутайтис (188), Ясвил Доркгелайтис (78), Кестовт Пиктайтис (58), Контмин Жалакис (78), Контрим Скетрис (91), Контвил Довкишайтис (194), Милконт Куборайтис (44), Минбит Петрович (23), Минкеел Милякович (23), Минггол Лутис (41), Минтовт Доркгович (32), Монтаргт Кголминович (50), Монтовт Кгедвилайтис (28), Монгрим Римутович (47), Монтвил Пиктайтис (84), Монтвил Кентрайтис (86), Монвид Довкишайтис (208), Моствил Кушлейкович (52), Можрим Домейко-вич (125), Нарбут Липаитис (98), Нармонгт Микайтис (166), Наргвид Кенчейкайтис (27), Нарвил Монтвилайтис (162), Нарвоши Белевич (11), Римкгойл Минейкович (75), Родвил Контовтович (216), Сюнгтовт Якубович (86), Сингкал Монтовтович (117), Сурзмин Талвошайтис (24), Талмин Мож-римович (191), Талвоши Юшкович (197), Товтвил Царкайтис (195), Вак-гирд Варкунович (85), Видкиент Ровжетайтис (193), Вилбуг Петрашай-тис (208), Вислин Сумонтович (49), Висмонт Жубрис (44), Войдмин Кон-тейкович (78), Войнар Пиктужович (96), Войшнар Кушлейкович (52), Вош-вид Ябутович (16), Вошвил Нарволович (31), Жадовин Доркгелайтис (80).

There are also various other national personal names, sometimes perhaps somewhat unfamiliar today, written in place of a given name, e.g.: Бокшис Петрович (40), Балучис Нарей-кович (156), Билюс Толейтович (122), Будрел Шедвилович (43), Будрис Пелодитайтис (180), Букнюс Ворайтис (85), Бутикис Минжайттис (34), Дартокейс Юшкайтис (227), Добил Кернесис (44), Доркгунжис Кентрай-тис (79), Довкис Гулкинтович (38), Кгойлюс Спонкелис (65), Кгогнелис Ренштайтис (28), Кгойнис Волейко (29), Кентрус Витартайтис (46), Кес-тис Айримович (177), Кловсут Минжайттис (58), Кушлейко Бучайтис (42), Кушлис Уръбайтис (66), Кутурис Можримайтис (189), Локутис Скокон-тович (42), Мажус Петрович (71), Мажунтис Пиктуйжайтис (70), Мик-нюс Марьтинович (131), Можутел Контримайтис (102), Нарутс Лютко-вич (52), Пиктели Скобтайтис (41), Пиктутс Висмонович (40), Пиктужис Толутайтис (22), Рудели Миткович (116), Спиклис Можайттис (65), Спу-дейко Дрокенайтис (68), Стирбис Толутайтис (134), Талюс Руслай-тис (115), Талюшис Скралис (29), Товткус Янкович (12), Виркуттис Жо-карис (67), Войнюс Совойнович (104), Жадейко Кголминайтис (29), Жвирб-лис Петрович (77). Most of these personal names are not known as given names today, but have survived in our surnames.

The dithematic and various other Lithuanian personal names presented here, recorded in the first position in two-part personal naming, are not specific only to the aforementioned source. They are also common in other sixteenth-century documents, especially those from its first half.

⁴ Since all the examples are taken from the aforementioned source 27, only the page number is given in parentheses.

159

In the second half of the sixteenth century, the use of Lithuanian names, especially bynames, declined considerably; Christian names displaced them from usage. However, the inventory of baptismal names in the sixteenth century was not large. A review of approximately 10,000 cases of personal names recorded yielded about 70 different baptismal names, which appear in the documents in highly varied forms. Most variants arose because the sources were written in more than one language (in the first half of the sixteenth century, mostly Russian, and in the second half, Polish). Some variations, however, reflect the evolution of baptismal-name forms and a certain process of their adaptation to the rules of the Lithuanian language. In the sixteenth-century two-part personal naming model, the following baptismal names are recorded in the first position⁵: Adam Janauicz (2, 532), Александръ Богдановичъ (15, 52), Амброжей Андруиковичъ (24, 230), Ambrozey⁶ Staskowicz (2, 120), Андрей Андруиковичъ (15, 60), Андре-юс Милюнос (2, 272), Андриянъ Войшвидовичъ (24, 207), Анкудъ Куприяно-вич (2, 26), Антон Бояринович (2, 26), Астафей Яцыничъ (24, 39), Авкгуштын Деволайтис (2, 328), Augustyn Towtkaytis (16, 430), Балътромей Любортовичъ (24, 209), Battromiejus Gaytaytis (11, 13), Bartłomiey Czapaytys (13, 385), Bartłomieius Zyndaitis (2, 435), Benedykt Iodkavyćis (2, 606), Блажей Станьковичъ (24, 79), Богданъ Берънатовичъ (24, 201), Давыдъ Мацевичъ (24, 105), Dominik Andrusaytis (16, 400), Erasmuss Rymkaitis (2, 237), Езофъ Матее-вичъ (13, 299), Филипъ Концевичъ (24, 40), Пилип Кондолович (27, 147), Флерьянъ Барътшоевичъ (15, 58), Кгабриалъ Андруиковичъ (24, 61), Григоря Яне-лотия (K linksnis; 3, 181), Grygalis Tuscaytis (16, 385), Grygalus Gindaytis (16, 405), Grigalius Ianussaitis (2, 643), Игнат Данилович (2, 24), Яким Тубелис (27, 141), Якубъ Бридаитис (3, 94), Iakubus Stanislawaitis (13, 105), Ian Bortkayćis (2, 584), Jonas Atsaycis (2, 533), Jozefh Diwozaic (2, 188), Ермола Слотовичъ (18, 101), Яронимъ Якубовичъ (24, 222), Каликстъ Юшковичъ (24, 28), Карпъ Спяцевич (2, 24), Каспаръ Адамовичъ (24, 40), Kasper Ambrosaic (2, 518), Климентъ Михайловичъ (24, 53), Krzysztof Mikolaiewicz (13, 486), Лавринъ Бер-натовичъ (24, 53), Lauryn Piotrowicz (2, 53), Lawrynas Jonaytis (13, 485), Лазаръ Миколаевичъ (24, 76), Luk Steponaitis (2, 462), Лукашь Бернатовитисъ (13, 239), Лукан Левонович (2, 24), Мальхерович Матееевичу (N linksnis; 17,10), Марко Яновичъ (24, 210), Марътингъ Авкгуштыновичъ (24, 109), Martinas Kibu-taytus (13, 383), Матей Балчунаитис (2, 327), Matiews Giedutaytis (8, 2), Motie-ius Mikolaiatitys (13,114), Mikolay Andrzeiaytis (13,489), Mikolayus Dargaitis (13,107), Онзельма Богдановичъ (24,76), Оведи Муринович (2, 26), Paulus Ri-muidowyez (2, 179), Pawilus Iuczaitis (13, 111), Петръ Бирбилаитисъ (2, 238), Piotr Boburnaitis (2, 527), Петрас Кедминаитис (2, 320), Petras Grigowycz (2, 178), Прокон Оилевич (2, 26), Романъ Бернатовичъ (24, 231), Серафинъ Ми-хайловичъ (24,49), Сельвестръ Добрынановичъ (15,62), Sylwestra Michałowicza (K linksnis; 16, 392), Себастьянъ Мисевичъ (K linksnis; 12,407), Sebestiian Stanay-tis (2,397), Симеонъ Григорьевичъ (12,31), Symon Ambrosaytis (16,405), Stanis-

⁵ There is no doubt that material from other sixteenth-century sources that have not been examined would expand the inventory of baptismal names.

⁶ Several more characteristic and widely used variants of some baptismal names are presented here.

160

taw Bartkavtys (13, 382), Stefanus Kumžaytis (11, 12), Сменань Бортьковичь (24, 105), Stephonas Rimuidowycz (2,179), Томасъ Якубовичь (24,39), Tomaszus Giedraitys (13,107), Urban Gawrayć (13,380), Urbanas Juszkaitys (13,382), Waclaw laykowski (2,568), Валентинъ Янелаитис (2,340), Valentinus Januszewicz (2,178), Węcław Jotaytys (13,381), Войтехъ Александровичь (24,50), Woytekus Mildwagytys (13,110).

Not all baptismal names in the 16th century are equally common. Some are recorded only once or a few times, namely: Ангдриань, Анкудъ, Астафей, Блажей, Езофъ, Флерьян, Якимъ, Ярмола, Каликсть, Карпъ, Климентъ, Лазарь, Лукан, Малхеръ, Прокопъ, Овдей, Романъ, Сарафинъ, Sebastian, Сельвестръ, and so on. Such names generally have neither short forms nor any other related variants. More common names, meanwhile, have grown profusely surrounded by them. For example, the following forms of the name Jonas and its derivatives are recorded in 16th-century sources: Jan Bortkavyčis, Янен Будраштис, Янелис Андреятис, Janik Budginavyčis, Janikas Giedcszaytys, Janikus Anksztokaithys, Janczus Jurgavtis, Janusz Auzaytis, Янушюс Бушаутис, Januszy s Giniwilayčis, Januszko Drusaytis, Janutis Bruzaitis, Janos Eykintaytys, Janus Kwiezczaitys, Janusis Janaytis, Janko Gryczaytis, Ясь Бутюшайтис, Jasas Bukontaytis, Ясюлис Янелаутис, Jasulis Iakaytis, Ясупсь Барткайтис, Jasius Ianaitis, Jonas Atsaycis, Ionelis Gadeykaytis, Hanns Butrymaičis, Hannus Kibortaitis, Iwan Krowitaitis (2,584), (2,443), (2,314), (2,613), (13,487), (13,127), (16,397), (16,419), (2,166), (2,617), (11,12), (2,546), (13,382), (13,114), (16,406), (16,389), (13,14), (13,483), (2,340), (5,1), (2,221), (2,639), (2,533), (8,2), (2,590), (2,658), (2,631), and so on.

Other more popular baptismal names also had no fewer forms, derivatives, and various graphic, phonetic, and other variants. Most of them entered Lithuania from Russian, Polish, Belarusian, German, and other languages, and today have survived only in our surnames⁷.

In spoken language, various forms and variants of Christian names probably began to appear soon after baptism, when Lithuanians encountered these names. The diversity of baptismal-name forms could be reflected in written sources only after a longer interval, once they had become widespread in spoken language. In 16th-century sources, the short variants of baptismal names familiar and widely used today are already common; they arose within the Lithuanian language or came from other languages, for example: Alexy Ludkunos, Ambras Jakstaytis, Ambros Giedminaytis, Brazis Węcławowicz, Brazus pawilaytis, Андрусъ Радивоновичь, Baltrus Marcinowicz, Банис Бушзкаитис, Grig Duliebaitis, Керикас Якубаитис, Gust Woidotait, Jakas Dawgiedaytis, Jozis Misowicz, Juras Bruzaytis, Jurgis Butkaytis, Климъ Миколаевичъ, Matius Бутвилаитисъ, Mik Bernotayčis, Mikas Giedwoszaycis, Пронисъ Якубовичь, Размусь Яновичь, Sak Lawrzinowicz, Симос Миколаевич, Stanis Gieneraytis, Стась Бертькаитис, Stasius Giedwilaytis, Stapus Laygaytis, Urbas Pet-

⁷ Vanagas A. Mūsų pavardės. I. – Kn.: Žodžiai ir žmonės. V, 1974, p. 87–152; Vanagas A. Mūsų pavardės. II. – Kn.: Žmonės ir kalba. V., 1977, p. 49–92.

11. 91

161

kaytis (16,386), Woytkus Janikaytis (16,404), Венцус Сонтовтовичъ (21,172), and so on.

Very often in 16th-century two-member naming of persons, diminutive derivatives of baptismal names are written in the first position. Diminutive forms are rarely formed from long forms of baptismal names, for example: Jakubelis Petkavys (8,2), Martinelis Łowcaytis (3,6), and the like. There are many diminutive forms made from shortened baptismal names and two-syllable names (Jonas, Petras, Tomas) in the period under discussion, for example: Andrik Mazaytis (2,194), Андрюло Быковичъ (13,478), Andruc Jonetaytis (13,461), Baltruc Diburaytis (13,459), Bolulis Niestajewicz (2,112), Grigiel Butkaitis (2,214), Grygul Janowicz (13,380), Grygutis Bruzaytis (13,483), Iakiel Glabaitis (2,634), Iakucis Boiaraycis (2,569), Jakutis Giedwĩaitis (2,524), Janutis Bruzaitis (2,546), Jurgielis Borzdaycis (2,604), Jurguc Budkaytis (2,189), Юркейтусъ Мурзовичъ (2,415), Matulis Eykintaytys (13,382), Мамутусъ Баболантис (2,313), Mikielis Dziugaitis (13,111), Микутъ Талюшовичъ (24,228), Mikatis Jagminaytis (16,419), Petrelis Janowicz (2,66), Petruk Mineykaytis (16,409), Petrutis Butkaytis (16,422), Symiel Daszkowicz (13,293), Елмулис Миколаевич (27,105), Szimutys Budraytis (2,393), Stanel Eitminaitis (2,214), Stasiulis Petkaitis (2,533), Stasiul Dopultaytis (2,393), Sczepuc Giedminaytis (2,183), Тамул Добковичъ (2,156), Tomiel Stanisławowicz (2,323), Urbutis Powłtaytis (5,8), Walulis Janikaytys (13,384).

The abundance of diminutive forms of baptismal names in written records of various kinds is a characteristic feature of the period under discussion. Today, diminutive forms of traditional baptismal names are used only within a narrow circle of family or friends. In official documents (passports, civil registers), by contrast, it is customary to write their full forms or short variants, which have become almost independent names.

3.2. The second elements in two-member personal names can be divided into two main groups: 1) anthroponyms of patronymic origin (patronymics); 2) non-patronymic personal names (old Lithuanian compound names, nicknames, and other anthroponyms). The first group is considerably larger. For example, of 4,000 cases of two-member personal naming in the second half of the 16th century, about 21% are recorded as a given name plus a personal name of non-patronymic origin, while this percentage is even lower in the first half of the 16th century.

Thus, the most productive two-member personal naming pattern in the 16th century is given name + patronymic.

3.2.1. During the period under discussion, patronymics were formed with the Lithuanian patronymic suffixes -aitis, -onis, -ūnas, -ėnas and the Slavic suffixes -ovič, -evič, etc. These suffixes differ in productivity. For example, in the first half of the 16th century, patronymics formed with the Slavic patronymic suffix -ovič were the most numerous. The other suffixes can be ranked by productivity as follows: -aitis, -evič, -ūnas, -onis. In the second half of the 16th century, however, patronymics with the Lithuanian suffix -aitis predominate. They are followed by derivatives with the suffix -ovič, while the remaining suffixes rank in this order of productivity: -evič, -onis, -ūnas, -ėnas. Thus, a certain tendency toward the Lithuanization of patronymic formation is observable, and it becomes even more pronounced in later centuries.

It has been observed that in the 15th century almost all patronymics were formed with the Slavic patronymic suffixes -ovič and -evič, which over time became the privileges of the Russian nobility...

162

legion. Since in 15th-century documents representatives of the noble estates are most often recorded with two personal names, it is logical that their patronymics were formed with the suffixes -ovič, -evič. On the other hand, for foreign scribes writing in a language other than Lithuanian, the simplest approach was to form patronymics according to the established pattern of Russian patronymic formation.

Meanwhile, Lithuanian had its own morphological means for this purpose. In the 16th century, when the two-part naming of persons became established—that is, when patronymics began to be recorded for members of the lower estates as well—Lithuanian forms appeared in documents alongside the usual Slavic patronymic suffixes. Some of them (e.g., -aitis) were already more frequent than Slavic patronymic suffixes in the second half of the 16th century⁸.

It is difficult to discuss the dependence of 16th-century patronymic suffixes on the estate distinctions of the people recorded, since in inventories from this period the patronymics of peasants may be formed with Lithuanian as well as Slavic patronymic suffixes. For example, in the 1561 inventory (2,576) of Sudargo village in Jurbarkas district, peasants owning one valakas or less of land are recorded as follows: Piotr Hrynūnas, Woyčis Pietraszayčis, Roman Pietraszayčis, Paweł Stegwilayčis, Piotr Iurszayčis, Maciey, Michaiło Ianowicz, Maczys Maczkayčis, Jurgi Maczkayčis, Piotr Maczkayčis, Bartłomiej Bohdanowicz, Więcko Andrzejewicz, Miczkus Pietrykayčis, Bartłomiej Macieiewicz, Simon Marćinowicz, Rymko Nareykowicz, Więcko Nareykowicz, Maczys Iurszayčis, Jakiel Miczkayčis, Niekrasz Ianowicz, Ian Iuriewicz, Iurgi Kieturokis, Ianik Woitkowicz, Woyćiech Guczaytis, Iankus Woitkayćis, Paweł Sargun, Roman Iagminowicz, Maczys Maczkowicz, Mikolay a Ludko Miczkowiczy a Woyčis Giedrayćis, Jakiel Marćinowicz, Iurgi Bildeniewicz, Kasper Trzećiakowicz a Ienis Maczonis⁹, and so on.

3.2.2. The most productive patronymic suffix in 16th-century personal names is -ovič (although in the second half of the 16th century patronymics with the suffix -aitis are more frequent, analysis of all 16th-century patronymics shows the predominance of the suffix -ovič, which was especially productive in the first half of the 16th century).

⁸ This claim, like other reasoning of a similar kind, is based solely on analysis of the material collected for this study (the system of Lithuanian personal names in the 16th century is examined on the basis of approximately 12,000 examples). The use of Lithuanian or Slavic patronymic suffixes may have been determined in part by the nature of the documents, the language in which a document was written, and the person writing it. The 16th-century material was collected mainly from estate inventories. However, the formation of patronymics excerpted from other kinds of sources does not, in essence, contradict the claims made here.

⁹ Whether the patronymics of nobles and other members of the gentry were more often formed with Slavic patronymic suffixes could be established through specialized research. However, while selecting examples to illustrate various forms of baptismal names (short forms and diminutive derivatives), an interesting fact was observed. When the first position in a two-part personal name contains the full form of a baptismal name or its short form, the patronymic is formed with any of the patronymic suffixes used during this period. Diminutive forms of baptismal names, by contrast, occur relatively rarely alongside patronymics with the suffixes -ovič, -evič, and are followed much more often by a patronymic with the suffix -aitis. Since diminutive and affectionate forms of names were more widespread among members of the lower estates (see the names recorded for individuals under a single personal name), one may hypothesize that Slavic patronymic suffixes were more characteristic of the patronymics of the noble estates in the 16th century.

11*

163

Patronymics with the suffix -ovič are most often formed from baptismal names, e.g.: Каспаръ Адамовичъ (24,40), Mikolai Adamowicz (2,636), Мартынъ Аввакумовичъ (24,109), Войтко Богдановичъ (15,43), Stasius Boniulowicz (2,53), Станисъ Даниловичъ (24,207), Андрей Давидовичъ (15,43), Ian Filipowicz (10,1), Янъ Кабриаловичъ (24,56), Urban gricowicz (10,5), Mis Grygowicz (1,2), Андрей Ивановичъ (12,31), Касперь Яцковичъ (13,7), Монтонтъ Ивашковичъ (27,203), Кгиль Ивашковичъ (24,213), Юргисъ Яковичъ (15,61), Lawryn iakubowicz (9,5), Maciey Janielowicz (2,47), Peikiel Jankowicz (1,3), Товткус Янковичъ (27,12), Довкнъ Яновичъ (2,15), Kieszort Januszkowicz (2,113), Миколай Ясовичъ (13,240), Матей Юръгкеловичъ (24,80), Pawel Jurgowicz (13,282), Jasiul Kasporowicz (13,380), Лаврень Константиновичъ (12,29), Павелъ Лавриновичъ (24,69), Stanislaw Lawrynowicz (2,95), Венцлавъ Луковичъ (3,246), Lawrin Macieiowicz (2,486), Кагбриалъ Мацковичъ (24,40), Marcin Mackowicz (2,92), Якуб Мацович (27,201), Stassys Maczieiowicz (2,659), Baltrus Marcinowicz (10,1), Балътромей Мартыновичъ (15,43), Szczepan Mickowicz (2,143), Товтвилдъ Михайловичъ (15,33), Piotr Mikolaiowicz (10,2), Iakub Mikowicz (2,594), Stas Mikutowicz (10,1), Witko Olechnowicz (2,595), Банис Павилович (2,21), Jakub Pawlowicz (2,36), Нарвоши Петкович (27,33), Стась Петрашковичъ (15,67), Минбут Петорович (27,23), Мацко Проньковичъ (21,916), Jurgis Romanowicz (2,89), Marcin Symonowicz (2,99), Petr Stanislawowicz (25,5), Радивилъ Станьковичъ (24,76), Anton Stasiowicz (2,481), Миколаи Степанович (2,133), Michailo Tomkowicz (10,3), Jan Tomowicz (2,466), Марко Урбановичъ (17,10), Lawryn więckowicz (10,5), Jasis Woyciechowicz (2,47), Янъ Войтеховичъ (24,52), Macieyko Wincowicz (2,65).

As can be seen from the examples given, patronymics with the suffix -ovič are most often formed from full baptismal names or their short forms, and much less often from diminutive derivatives of these names.

During the period under discussion, many patronymics with the suffix -ovič were formed from old two-stem Lithuanian personal names (in the first half of the 16th century, there were even more of these than patronymics derived from Christian names), e.g.: Кесмус Айрумович (27,177), Балътромей Бейнарович (24,106), Малко Будиводович (15,62), Ян Буциводович (27,53), Станиславъ Бутовтовичъ (24,229), Богданъ Бутримовичъ (15,36), Стась Бутвиловичъ (15,57), Кагбриалъ Довьятловичъ (24,228), Mateius Daugwiłowicz (2,179), Jurgi Dowgialowicz (2,631), Матвяксъ Довгкиштовичъ (24,85), Станисъ Довконтович (2,13), Станисъ Довьмонтовичъ (15,46), Jan Doinagowicz (20), Bucбym Еиксинтович (2,7), Войтко Еймонтовичъ (15,59), Maczys Eynarowicz (2,599), Miczus Gintowtowicz (2,575), Стасис Кешвилович (3,343), Jurgis Jagminowicz (13,290), Якубъ Ямонтовичъ (24,211), Шымко Ясвидовичъ (24,51), Павел Ясвилович (27,13), Лавринъ Ятовтовичъ (24,40), Петръ Кантримовичъ (24,224), Янъ Кеггайловичъ (15,70), Шимко Кибортовичъ (21,525), Petrel Mielwydowicz (2,39), Петръ Милконтовичъ (24,213), Шимко Минбутович (27,37), Степанъ Монтововичъ (24,202), Янъ Мон-тримовичъ (15,61), Шылейко Монвиловичъ (2,2), Юце Моствилович (27,141), Ian narbutowicz (10,5), Станис Наркеилович (2,14), Контин Нармонтович

164

(27,78), Вошивил Нарвилович (27,31), Янъ Радвиловичъ (24,68), Jonas Rymgailowycz (2,179), Миколай Римтовтовичъ (21,349), Ян Сиртовтович (27,22), Станиславъ Скирвойновичъ (15,67), Матей Стекевиловичъ (24,230), Наркагъ Судмонтовичъ (24,223), Миколай Тарвидович (27,152), Hrehory Towdyginowicz (1,5), Богушъ Товтиловичъ (15,69), Романъ Витортовичъ (24,102), Banis Wyzgirdowycz (2,179), Богданъ Визгирдовичъ (24,211), Бутнюс Вошюнович (27,9), Андрѣй Войшиводовичъ (15,43), Миколай Войшвиловичъ (15,66), Машко Ждавилович (2,20). Patronymics with the suffix -ovič were also formed during the period under discussion from other Lithuanian ethnic personal names, e.g.: Юрьи Бружович (27,123), Станислав Будрович (27,152), Павел Бурбович (27,113), Jana Butowicza (K case; 16,437), Кедемилъ Даркегулович (15,62), Woytko Daugutowicz (2,92), Andrey Diedowicz (2,324), Тирвилдъ Довъкковичъ (15,45), Стирбис Кедутович (27,147), Буткус Кентрович (27,112), Янко Кловосич (27,32), Шепан Корейвович (27,154), Петръ Кушелейкович (24,227), Янкис Локутович (27,143), Миллейко Можейкович (27,191), Нарвил Можович (27,36), Пац Пиктович (27,33), Юрькайс Пиктурновичъ (15,58), Янушис Пилипрович (27,48), Богданъ Ракевичъ (24,209), Maciej Rudielowicz (2,469), Мицко Страздович (2,22), Балтуш Шилекович (2,17), Андрѣи Шовклович (27,127), Юри Талутович (27,96), Матей Трумпович (2,7), Петръ Вяжсович (27,119), Павел Виркутович (27,40), Димкол Воболович (27,52), Минейко Жадейкович (27,24), Юшко Жвирблович (27,145), Jozeph Zuikowicz (2,47).

3.2.3. In the 16th century, patronymics with the Lithuanian suffix -aitis were formed:

a) from various forms of baptismal names, e.g.: Tanelis Adamaitis (2,630), Symon Ambrosaytis (16,405), Якос Андрайтис (27,160), Mikiel Andreatitis (2,520), Blazukas Andruszaicis (2,535), Мартинъ Андрушкайтисъ (15,66), Петръ Балтрушкайтисъ (2,548), Maciey Bartłomieiaytis (16,404), Czeputis Beniuszaitis (2,214), Юхно Богданойтисъ (24,224), Jonas Brazaicis (2,535), Stanisław Czepaytis (13,459), Woyciech Czepuyaitis (16,388), Stanisław Domikaytis (2,183), Богдан Доминикайтис (27,204), Станиславъ Керциотитисъ (3,94), Щепут Кгрикайтис (2,218), Jurgiel Grygalait (13,251), Петръ Якайтисъ (24,223), Петрик Якубайтис (27,74), Stanislaw Iakutaitis (2,530), Mik Ianayćis (2,583), Piotr Janelaytis (2,182), Pawilus Janikait ys (13,114), Petryk Janulaytis (16,387), Witkus Januszaytis (16,417), Jaczus Jasaytis (16,390), Łukasz Jasielaytys (13,385), Lawrynas Jonaitis (13,485), Mateius Jonelaytis (8,2), Лавринъ Юркгайтис (2,540), Юрий Юркгелайтисъ (17,54), Юркгелисъ Юркгужайтисъ (13,18), Baltutis Kasparaytis (13,461), Maczulis Ławrynaycis (2,569), Янъ Мацкайтисъ (15,65), Александро Мартинaitis (15,103), Janik Mataytis (2,183), Станюль Матейтис (2,405), Петкус Матукатис (27,137), Нармонть Микайтис (27,166), Kasper Mikatojaytis (2,183), Janus Mikielait ys (13,114), Монтвил Микутайтис (27,35), Czeputis Moteiaytis (13,489), Jurgi Narkaytis (2,189), Macius Olech naytis (13,459), Томаш Павилайтис (27,105), Iakutis petraytis (8,2), Mikolay Petrutaytis (13,461), Urbutis Powilaytis (5,8), Янушъ Проникойтисъ (24,211), Andre yus Romanaity s (13,110), Мартин Семенайтис (27,187), Pawel Symonaytis (13,459), Матей Станайтисъ (13,14), Urban

165

Stanielaytis (13,461), Jakubus Stanisławaitis (13,105), Петръ Станюкайтисъ (24,228), Paweł Staniulaitis (2,553), Шимко Станкайтисъ (15,104), Ян Стасаитис (2,437), Micius Steponaytis (11,13), Mikielis Szymkaytis (13,482), Янь Тамоцайтисъ (24,208), Łukasz Tomaycis (2,140), Ławryn Urbanaytis (13,482), Стасюлис Бауме-каутис (2,409), Walentyn Walentynaytys (13,381), Tomulis Węntławaytis (2,552), Gawdutis Wienckaytis (11,14), Jakutis Wojtekaytis (13,481), Jurgis Woytkaytis (16,424);

b) from old Lithuanian dithematic personal names, e.g.: Толосъ Баревдайтис (27,204), Нарвилъ Барвондайтис (13,12), Janik Budginaytis (2,613), Грыгоръ Будвидоитис (15,58), Якубъ Бувилатис (2,146), Юркгисъ Бугиодайтисъ (24,209), Tomasz Butrymajtis (16,429), Матис Бутелайтисъ (2,145), Jurgiel Dargwilaitis (2,216), Jakas Dawgiedaytis (13,491), Stasko Dawgielaytis (16,397), Петръ Довкгелайтис (24,225), Матей Довкенитайтис (15,63), Mikolay Eydminaycis (2,579), Piotr Eygirdaycis (2,579), Matulis Eykintaytys (13,382), Stanel Eitminaitis (2,214), Мартинъ Келминайтисъ (24,222), Стан Кедминайтис (27,26), Petryk Gedwidaytis (16,415), Юргъелс Кгинтовмайтис (27,214), Andrzej Girdwilaytis (2,397), Pawlik Girdwonaytis (16,409), Piotr Jagminaytis (16,385), Marcin Jaswilaytis (2,185), Кгогиль Ятвилойтисъ (24,204), Łukasz Jawłontaytis (16,405), Jurgi Kibortaitis (2,658), Микуту Контминайтис (27,170), Razmus Kontrymaytis (16,427), Нарвил Контвейнайтис (27,180), Jankus Manwilaytys (13,382), Букишус Манжбутайтис (27,193), Ian Milkintaitis (2,639), Миколай Милконтаитис (27,73), Юрги Минмонтоитисъ (24,226), Буткус Монтвидайтис (27,194), Grigiel Monwilaitis (2,215), Юркгел Моствилойтис (27,181), Якуб Можримоитис (27,103), Минкусъ Можвидайти (13,14), Walis Narbutaytis (2,552), Лукаши Нармонтаитис (27,166), Pawlik Narwilaytis (16,407), Kasper Norwidaic (2,198), Станиславъ Радивилайтис (24,226), Woytko Radwilaytis (16,394), Богданъ Скиврийнойтисъ (24,211), Pawel Stegwilaycis (2,576), Thomas Sudwilaycis (2,594), Петръ Галвошшоттис (27,105), Можейко Таргвидайтис (27,91), Болишус Товтримайтис (27,157), Петко Товтвилайтис (15,66), Милюс Твирбутайтис (27,207), Bogusz Widminaytis (5,4), Петръ Видмонтайтис (27,185), Piotr Wiskuntaitis (2,248), Юркгис Висмилайтис (2,166), Довкоил Висминайтис (27,159), Юркгис Висмонтайтис (2,456), Якуб Висвидайтис (27,26), Jakub Wizbutaytis (2,198), Piotr Woysznaraytis (16,397), Gryg Woyszwilaytis (2,553), Maciej Zadminaytys (2,532), Andrusys Żadwanaytis (16,400);

c) from various personal names of ethnic nickname or other origin, e.g.: Mamen Alcaūmuc (27,65), Jan Alsutaytis (2,191), Петюл Арелаŭмuc (27,111), Матеу Балчунaitис (2,327), Grigutis Balsaitis (2,249), Mikielys Barzdilaitis (2,392), Миколай Билайтисъ (15,64), Jurgi Barzdayčis (2,572), Андрушко Будрайтисъ (24,222), Petryk Burbaytis (13,380), Ягемин Бутаŭтис (27,189), Pasius Dagaytis (11,14), Кгедмин Даркгайтис (27,189), Миколай Довкшайтисъ (15,63), Stas Drasutaitis (2,364), Сгерис Gaidaitis (13,250), Мацко Кгайлайтис (27,92), Tomaszus Giedraitÿs (13,107), Ян Кеелутийтис (27,88), Slapris Iodkayčis (2,606), Можан Кестайтис (27,87), Филипъ Кетурнокаŭтисъ

166

(13,299), Martinas Kibutaytys (13,383), Ян Крепшайтис (27,158), Можутис Крутилайтис (27,158), Кинчис Кирмайтис (27,191), Яна Кушлейкойтя (k inflection; 6, 21), Czepulis Lagaitis (2,524), Юркис Локайтис (27,154), Шим Мажавтис (2,314), Евноль Минайтис (13,13), Войдвин Минтайтис (27,75), Станис Мостайтис (15,63), Павлик Можантис (27,119), Андрей Можелайтис (27,154), Лаврык Носалтис (2,473), Urban Perkunaitis (2,533), Станис Пиктурноитис (3,208), Янелис Повкиштайтис (27,137), Stanislaw Pingulwaitis (2,545), Kasper Pupaytis (16,384), Яник Пупелаитис (27,142), Gryczus Puplesaytis (16,417), Marczin Purwaitis (2,649), Gaylus Rudaytis (11,14), Grigutis Sakalaitis (2,524), Матеŭ Сорбкайтис (15,58), Urban Szarkaytis (16,388), Янъ Талошайтис (15,57), Довкел Толайтис (27,90), Ян Трумпайтис (27,84), Szymko Wegaytis (13,482), Grygos Wilkait (2,518), Нарвил Боболайтис (27,111), Лукаш Воверавтис (27,134), Владиславъ Жалойтис (24,233), Войтко Жилайтис (27,181), Кедвил Жвирблайтис (27,64), Woyciech Žagaraytis (16,401).

3.2.4. In the 16th century, patronymics with the Slavic suffix -evič are considerably rarer than those with the previously mentioned suffixes -ovič and -aitis. Most are patronymics derived from Christian names, for example: Marcin Ambrożewicz (2,96), Адамъ Андреевич (24,60), Григоръ Балтомеевич (15,62), Janel Bartłomiejewicz (2,466), Станиславъ Болтромеевич (24,107), Jurgis Bortkiewicz (2,149), Piotr Daniewicz (2,115), Piotr Domaszewicz (2,103), Stanislaw Grygalewicz (2,108), Maciej Jakiewicz (2,112), Stanis Ianelewicz (1,2), Мартин Янушевич (2,17), Maciej Yurgiewicz (2,480), Maciej Łukaszewicz (2,33), Marcin Maciejewicz (2,85), Якубъ Мацевевич (24,53), Богданъ Мартишевич (15,65), Станюл Матеевич (6,54), Юръгел Матвеевич (27,118), Janel Matulewicz (2,117), Pikčius Mikiewicz (2,455), Матей Миколаевич (15,45), Ясь Микутевичъ (24,228), Миколай Петрошевич (27,157), Bohdan Pietkiewicz (2,101), Paweł Pietraszewicz (2,484), Мартинъ Проневичъ (13,7), Балтомей Станевичъ (24,230), Woyciech Staniuliewicz (2,148), Довкагилъ Станькевичъ (24,213), Ambros stasiewicz (10,2), Łukasz Stasulewicz (2,122), Балтомей Томашевичъ (15,65), Stanislaw Wincewicz (2,65), Петръ Витевичъ (24,58), Нарбутъ Войтюлевичъ (24,61), Мартинъ Войткевичъ (13,7).

Fewer patronymics with this suffix were formed from Lithuanian personal names of nickname or other origin, for example: Stanis Baltniewicz (2,608), Piotr Botłukiewicz (10,5), Якубъ Будревичъ (15,66), Янъ Даръкесевичъ (24,222), Бернантъ Дребулевичъ (24,204), Станиславъ Кегиревичъ (24,69), Петръ Кеглежевичъ (2,417), Нарбутъ Когйлевичъ (15,45), Paweł Greycewicz (2,113), Богданъ Кестуцевичъ (24,104), Ян Купревич (27,229), Jorgi Kurkliewicz (9,2), Якубъ Кушлевич (2,23), Jurgi moliniewicz (10,1), Кегйлос Можевич (27,101), Marcin Mozulewicz (2,65), Янъ Можутевичъ (15,61), Matel Piktewicz (2,98), Юри Пилкевич (27,111), Петръ Рудевичъ (24,208), Ян Саркуевич (2,20), Матей Смолевичъ (21,102), Микуть Талошевичъ (15,66), Ночис Трумпелевич (2,22), Миколай Вяжевичъ, and from old two-stem Lithuanian anthroponyms,

167

for example: Станиславъ Медвошиевичъ (2,23), Михайло Мельвошевичъ (24,70), Войтко Минкелевичъ (15,62), Лаврынъ Толговошевичъ (15,51).

3.2.5. In the first half of the 16th century, patronymics with the Lithuanian patronymic suffix -onis are rare. In the second half of the century, however, derivatives with the suffix -onis formed from Christian names, old two-stem Lithuanian personal names, and anthroponyms of nickname or other origin are often recorded alongside the name of the person in question, for example: Stanis Andruszanis (2,499), Jakub banonis (9,9), Maciey Bartkonis (2,180), Станюлисъ Чепанонисъ (13,530), Банисъ Григанисъ (13,78), Maciejos Yakubanís (2,483), Петръ Якубонисъ (13,527), Kasper Jananis (13,282), Grigas Janonis (2,180), Szczepan Janulanis (13,282), Скудумисъ Янюшонисъ (13,529), Maciey Jasanis (13,286), Германъ Ясюлонисъ (13,528), Банисъ Ясонисъ (13,529), Szimko Jokubonis (2,180), Andrejus Jononis (2,179), Staniulis Jurganis (13,288), Matas Yurgionis (2,484), Grygas Lawrynanis (13,286), Tomasz Lawrinonis (2,484), Павелъ Мачулонисъ (13,530), Jan Marthinanis (2,302), Янъ Мартиновнисъ (13,530), Wulus Matonis (2,481), Czap Matulianis (2,483), Мартинъ Миконисъ (13,528), Микъ Павилонисъ (13,528), Gryg Pawłonis (2,483), Якубъ Петронисъ (13,529), Матюлис Романанис (2,271), Lawryn Stananis (13,287), Marcin Stanionis (2,399), Paweł Stanulanis (13,282), Lawryn Stasionis (13,277), Шимастъ Степанонисъ (13,527), Андрей Шимонисъ (13,527), Jurgis Thamuszonis (2,179), Янъ Войтконисъ (13, 528); Герман Бейнаронисъ (13,529), Шимастъ Бутвилонисъ (13,530), Iurgi Dowboronis (2,637), Michno Dowtortonis (2,180), Brazis Jatowtonis (2,149), Mikotay Jawgilanis (13,287), Юхно Нарбутonisъ (13,530), Batruszis Narwidonis (2,180), Janusz Rimgieylionis (2,180), Szczephan Rimwidonis (2,180), Banis Wizgirdonis (2, 180); Paweł Batłkonis (2,639), Кголмин Бовжанис (27,28), Piotr Dowkssonis (2,637), Керишс Кгаикгалонис (2,270), Jan Gawenonis (13,286), Marcin Iodanis (10,1), Буткус Кивонис (27,12), Lawryn Kunigonis (9,4), Narbut Mazulianis (2,500), Jedrzej Meylonis (13,285), Юръкеис Совсонис (27,120), Jan Styrnionis (2,552), Станелис Жалчонис (2,293).

3.2.6. During the period under consideration, patronymics with the Lithuanian patronymic suffix -ūnas are formed from Christian names, for example: Piotr Ambrasūnas (2,150), Щефан Андреюн (2,307), Thomasz Andrunas (2,443), Янушко Яндрушунос (27,223), Staszko Batromiełunas (2,498), Юхно Бенюнос (27,227), Jusius Grygalunas (13,291), Ботмехъ Янигунъ (13,528), Piotr Iankunas (2,645), Stasius Łukasgunas (4,303), Jurgis Maciunas (2,150), Andrzej Maczieiunoss (2,302), Bartłomiej Mateiunas (13,289), Stasis Matucūnas (2,148), Janis Mickunas (2,366), Maciey Mikotaiunas (2,180), Wolus Motieūnas (2,180), Stanis Petkunas (2,149), Jurgis Pietraszunas (13,284), Stanius Pronckunas (2,150), Jasius Staniunas (2,147), Janelis Stankunas (13, 283), Urban Stasiunas (13, 282), Юнасъ Шимкунасъ (13,527), Банисъ Томашунъ (13, 528), Jakutis Tomaszunas (2,552), Петръ Томкунасъ (13,529), Pawełł Waytkunas (2,150), Tomasz Wenckunas, and Lithuanian anthroponyms of nickname origin, for example: Andrus Añczunas (2,628), Павел Авшун (6,64), Piotr Batczunas (2,400), Staniulis Berniunas (13,288), Ян Благодзонис (2,269), Миксъ Блодюнас (2,272), Maciey Borzdžiunas (2,604), Yonas Dydzunas (2,400), Stasis Gaylunas (13,282),

168

Jendrzej Yodziun (2,494), Мацце Кинкунос (27, 16), Петръ Клонюнасъ (13,527), Стас Кветкунос (27,227), Andrzej Medziunas (2,203), Матук Пикчионос (2,405), Mik Pikciun (2,255), Jurgi Podziunas (2,653), Łukasz Styrniunas (2,552), Jakub Szer­niunas (2,604), Мацулисъ Тауткунасъ (13,604).

3.2.7. The Lithuanian patronymic suffix -ėnas was unproductive in the 16th century. Patronymics with this suffix are very rare in documents from the period under discussion, e.g.: Piotrass Bat­tupenas (2,659), Янасъ Бавкенисъ (13,528), Янушко Ютенасъ (13,527), Банюлис Микенос (7,54), Юркелисъ Минкененасъ (13,528), Titas Tarutenas (2,499), Чепась Петпенасъ (13,527).

3.2.8. A separate small group of second personal names consists of anthroponyms with so-called diminutive and endearing suffixes, which are rare in the period under discussion. Derivatives with the suffixes -ėlis, -ėlė, -ėlis, -ėlė are more common (because of the way they are recorded in the sources, it is impossible to distinguish these suffixes). The personal-name suffixes discussed above for the 16th century were patronymic. With regard to the suffixes -ėlis, -ėlė, -ėlis, -ėlė, it is difficult to determine where they have the meaning of a patronymic suffix—that is, when a personal name with these suffixes is derived from the father's name or from the father's second anthroponym, recorded after the given name. Material from the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language shows that, in our dialects today, the surnames of children (boys, adolescents, and young men) are formed from the father's surname with the suffixes -ėlis, -ėlės. Therefore, in personal names formed from one or another form of a baptismal name with these suffixes, the latter may sometimes also have a patronymic meaning, e.g., Якуб Мацелис (27,84).

Other personal names with these suffixes are generally nickname-derived, e.g.: Павла Авинеля (genitive case; 17,33), Janel Budrel (2,457), Tomko Gaydel (13,293), Maciej Gražel (2,505), Marczyn Gudelis (2,398), Лукашь Каурель (3,94), Jan Meszkele (2,364), Iakub Mitelis (2,506), Станиславъ Руделисъ (2,414), Станис­лав Сенелис (6,59), Maciej Szerelis (2,471), Амбросъ Вилкелис (2,322), etc.

In some cases, the suffixes in these personal names may be patronymic (as will be seen later, during the period under discussion a non-suffixed nickname anthroponym of a similar type was also recorded fairly often after a person's given name). In most cases, however, it is entirely impossible to determine whether personal names with the suffixes -ėlis, -ėlė, -ėlis, -ėlė derive from other, non-derived anthroponyms (in which case these suffixes could often have a patronymic meaning), or whether diminutive forms of common nouns have become nickname personal names.

Other diminutive suffixes (-ulis, -ukas, -utis) are very rare in the 16th century, e.g.: Grygas Stanulis (13,286), Grygalus Janutis (13, 489), Янъ Петрутисъ (15, 62), Юшко Довкутис (2,18), Павелъ Даргентусъ (2,336), Maciej Goyzutis (2, 110), Iurgi Gierulis (2,638), Yan Sildziuk (2,255).

3.2.9. The Lithuanian suffix -iškis can also often have a patronymic meaning. In the 16th century, personal names with this suffix were formed from Christian names, e.g.: Iakub Ch­wiedkíškis (2,639), Mikotai Grygiškis (2,365), Балтърпишъ Лавришкисъ (2,332), Petrazs Michailiškis (2,255), Jan Mikutyszskis (2,183), Ianik Simoniskis (2,579), Iurgi Woyčiskis; from two-stem Lithuanian anthroponyms, e.g.: Maciej Dawnaryszkysz (2,188), Ян Нарвидишкис (27,207), or from nickname-derived personal names, e.g.: Павелъ Бискупишкисъ (13,311), Kasper Czypiszkis, An-

169

drzej Doyniskis (2,581), Груин Вилкишкис (27,201), Macziej Zydziskis (2,497), etc.

Other derivatives of this suffix, especially place-name derivatives, do not have a patronymic meaning, e.g.: Петр Керновшкис (27,168), Thomas Eiragolisskis (2,641), Jurgi Jurbarkisskis (2,659), Юпи Кедайнишкис (2,322), Ian Moissagolisskis (2,649), Iurgis Punisskis (2,639), Marczin Upitisskis (2,649), Piotr Wielionisskis (2,643), Dobko Wilkiiskis (2,649), etc.

3. 2. 10. In addition to the patronymic suffixes -ovič and -evič mentioned earlier, other Slavic suffixes also occur in the 16th century, e.g.: -ovskis, -ickis, -inskis, -ackis, etc. Personal names with these suffixes are rare in the 16th century. Derivatives with the suffix -ovskis are somewhat more common, e.g.: Станислав Бердовский (24,50), Iadarn Grzegorzowski, Василей Калусовский (24,203), Миколай Мировский (15,33), Iarmoda Sakowski (2, 636), Петра Скрибовского (genitive case; 12, 15), Кедтин Шилов'ски (27,49), Krysztoph Woytkowski (2,568). Only one or two personal names formed with the other suffixes have been recorded, e.g.: Pawel Kownacky (2,181), Janes Pokrywnicki (13, 380), Andrzey Wyszyński (2,568), and the like.

One or another personal name with these suffixes may belong to a foreigner or someone who migrated from elsewhere. Most of them, however (like personal names with the suffixes -ovič and -evič), were introduced and spread through official documents.

3. 3. All personal names of non-patronymic origin that are recorded after a person's given name in the 16th century can be divided into several groups.

3. 3. 1. The largest group consists of various nickname-derived personal names originating from animal and plant names and from various common nouns or adjectives, e.g.: Мартина Алсня (genitive case; 2,416), Янушис Авижис (2,377), Янушко Барздюс (2,411), Iurgi Bildenis (2,579), Staniul Bredis (2,529), Ясъ Бубисъ (13,240), Jakst Budras (16,417), Mikolay Buyna (2,111), Jan Burba (13,386), Benedyk Dyrrda (15,145), Стасюл Докгил (2,339), Юркгел Дуда (27,36), Стас Ерелис (2,410), Janel Gaidis (2,184), Bernat Garnis (2,194), Петръ Кгекгжис (2,292), Петрыкъ Кгележисъ (21,249), Grycius Gierwis (13,487), Юри Кгожлюс (2,283), Станис Кгожьис (2,163), Maczus Gruzdys (16,417), Marczin Iodis (2,657), Marczin Kailis (2,643), Marcin Kisiel (2,487), Iurgis Kiszkis (2,499), Maciey Kleywa (1,1), Stanis Klisz (16,384), Юри Кнапцис (2,291), Matis Kodzis (2,570), Maciey Koyris (2,569), Janus Metagis (13,107), Петраш Мишкинис (6,39), Pawlik Pauxtis (16,401), Петрик Пилпис (27,112), Керикгъ Плинисъ (3,264), Tomasz Pukis (13,381), Marcin Ragayszus (2,498), Масолис Рашнис (2,406), pawil Rydik (9,2), Юркгел Ровклюс (2,315), Marko Rudis (1,1), Thomas Šėybus (2,567), Mikolai Sidobr (2,213), Jury Skiersis (2,466), Петръ Скилусъ (2,452), Ян Скилоновисъ (2,335), Peczulis Smilgis (2,365), Нарвоши Шолтис (27,47), Maczys Schernas (2,630), Матеу Швельнисъ (2,378), Jorgi teterwin (9,2), Stas Trumpa (2,215), Станюлис Вашкисъ (2,415), Iurgi Wewersis (2,649), Marczin Wilk (2,463), Петрик Жоденис (27,112).

Two-stem personal names of nickname type are much rarer, e.g.: Миколай Дидекольвисъ (17,35), Jakub Rudgolwic (16,417), Мисъ Шолгтоборвицъ

170

(15,47), Керикга Швинтадопя (K case; 12,553), Юри Венорокис (27,32), Контмин Жалакус (27,78), and so on.

Personal names derived from various appellative bynames should also be assigned to this group. These are anthroponyms derived from the names of occupations or crafts, e.g.: Станислав Балнюс (2,421), Paweł Bartnik (2,393), Paweł Czobotar (1,1), Mikucz Doylida (2,191), Czeputis Kalwis (2,523), Jan Kotylus (2,570), Ambras Kowal (16,383), Munkowau Кубилис (3,94), Paweł Kubilius (9,8), Ambros Melnik (2,185), Pietryk Podzius (2,185); from names of ethnic groups, e.g.: Янелис Keydac (2,335), Малхъ Литвинъ (24,222), Tomasz Lotwin (2,462), Iwanko Rusin (2,567), Andrzej Tatarzyn (2,85), Szymon Węgrzyn; personal names derived from the appellative bynames užkūrys, preikuras, and so on, e.g.: Янъ Прейкъшас (3,321), Керикгъ Прейкшас (2,413), Stanislaw Preykuris (2,607), Миколай Ушкурис (15,16), and so on.

3. 3. 2. The second group consists of old two-stem Lithuanian personal names, e.g.: Jędrzej Buiwid (2,462), Мартинъ Бутрымъ (15,49), Балътромея Бутовилъ (3,96), Szeputis Dawkontis (11,14), Jan Ebartis (2,525), Jurgis Eytowtys (13,114), Юри Кегдойнис (27,97), Наръкели Кеглбут (27,129), Матеј Кегтовт (3,10), Walentij Jagiel (9,7), Paweł Kibarth (2,639), Ambrus Kibartis (16,412), Jan Kiesmin (2,213), Янъ Контминъ (2,223), Jurgis Mindawgis (13,111), Станиславъ Монкгойло (17,52), Andrey Montwil (2,532), Кинелъ Можримас (27,198), Piotra Narbuta (K case; 3,46), Petruk Normantis (2,392), Криштофа Радивила (K case; 12, 232), Яна Сантовта (K case; 12, 15), Terzy Seybut (1, 4), Piotr Skirmant (16, 431), Валюлис Стегвил (2, 540), Миколай Тальвошъ (12, 253), Янъ Виторть (24, 43), Павелъ Визгинъ (2, 378), Воитеху Вожжкиру (N case; 3, 99).

3. 3. 3. Very rare are cases in which the second personal name recorded for a person is a Christian name, e.g.: Baltromiey Andrzej (2, 75), Рачко Августинъ (12, 469), Мацукелисъ Кегикголъ (13, 241), Czep Mikołai (2, 213), Станиславъ Петръ (15, 61), Walenty Szczepan (16, 406), Walenty Urban (16, 386), Тумис Виткус (27, 172).

3. 3. 4. A separate, albeit small, group of personal names that occur as the second element in identifying a person consists of Slavic appellative anthroponyms, e.g.: Iussko Balamuth (2, 629), Банис Баранъ (2, 540), Ian Beručkis (2, 639), Павелъ Быко (13, 478), Юрей Богоматичичъ (24,76), Ян Кривожиевис (2,13), Янъ Круповесь (24,78), Stanisław Miaki (2, 324), Янъ Ручка (24, 201), Тимофеи Сицогол (2, 174).

Perhaps the documents from the period under consideration record people of other ethnicities under these personal names. However, their presence may often have been due to the specific nature of the records and other circumstances¹⁰.

Isolated second personal names of foreign origin, e.g.: Jan Ermal (2, 462), Sebestian Stimer (2, 636), Piotr Tidman (2, 636), and so on, most likely identified people of other ethnicities.

¹⁰ For example, in documents from the period under consideration written in non-Lithuanian languages, Lithuanian personal names might have been translated into the language in which the document was written, or otherwise distorted in various ways. Therefore, it is often difficult to explain their origin.

171

4. Naming persons with three personal names

This way of naming, like recording persons with a single personal name, was not common in the 16th century. The available material shows that during the period in question, three personal names were most often recorded for members of the nobility, and much less often for people from lower social strata.

4. 1. The first element in the three-part naming of persons is a given name. Most often these are various forms of baptismal names—long and short variants, diminutive derivatives, for example: Grygalus Mikotaytis Juszkaycia (13, 488), Якубъ Мисевило Брашкайтис (13, 604), Marcin Arbanaytis Pudlaytis (13, 484), Woyciech Rymkaytis Szyntowkaytis (13, 484); Керикъ Романайтисъ Манулъ (2, 315), Матома Криштофовича Вишторта (K case; 12, 412), Stanis Lawrinowicz Dermina (2, 487), Stasius Stonaytis Eydynt (13, 485); Янело Петроичъ Пликевича (13, 78), Janulis Czepaytis Szyłaukaytis (13, 484), Petrutis Jonaytis Skirudaytis (13, 483), Щепутысъ Яноулисъ Контминовичъ (2, 223).

Much less often, a native name is recorded first in three-part personal naming, for example: Baltutis Mikutaitis Knipaitis (2, 546), Будра Наркевича Блудя (K case; 3, 2), Кедминъ Станайтисъ Кивайтя (13, 12), Piktus Pekitaytis Petraytis (13, 485), and so on.

4. 2. The second elements in this naming of persons are almost always personal names of patronymic origin. Most often, they are formed from various forms of baptismal names using Lithuanian and Slavic patronymic suffixes, for example: Щефанъ Андреевичъ Луткунъ (4, 89), Каспоръ Августиновичъ Келишъ (17, 5), Янъ Балтромеевичъ Войнятовичъ (13, 238), Lawryn Bartkaytis Preykaytis (13, 489), Федоръ Богдановичъ Сонега (24, 69), Janulis Czepaytis Szyłaukaytis (13, 484), Юхно Якубовичъ Волчкевича (24, 41), Urban Janaytis Waydalaytis (13, 486), Piotr Januszaytis Nasztaytis (13, 484), Łukasz Lawrynwicz Doroyczunas (2, 443), Bendikus Macaitis Kobeklis (13, 111), Jan Macieiewicz Wilmątaitis (13, 491), Macis Martynkaytis Loyzentis (13, 481), Urban Matieiaitis Miraytis (13, 485), Stanislaw Mikalaiaitis Bernotaytis (13, 488), Jas Mikienas Siraitis (2, 366), Urban Mikutaytis Pudaycis (13, 483), Пепра Павилонта Августайта (K case; 3, 32), Jan Petrykaytis Pawlisztys (13, 487), Paweł Stanaytis Wilmątaitis (13, 486), Валентинъ Станиславовичъ Наркаутис (2, 547), Szymas Stasiutaytis Giedgowdaytis (13, 490), Stas Urbanaytis Murza (13, 482), Матей Войтеховичъ Яновича (6, 21).

Only in rare cases is a personal name of patronymic origin recorded in second place formed from a Lithuanian dithematic or other anthroponym, for example: Micius Dawgintaytis Manwitaycia (13, 489), Urban Mazrymaitis Pogankstys (13, 106), Гре-ори Скеревдоитис Вичоитис (2, 222), Jan Gaytaytis Szankis (13, 485), Juchno Łabutaytis Eydynikas (13, 483), Ian Podžunas Dowkssys (2, 651).

Very rarely, in three-part naming of persons, a personal name of non-patronymic origin is recorded after the given name, for example, another Christian name: Керыкгос Крыкгалюс Кекъ (2, 272), Гансис Миц Попенжемтникос (2, 272), Янели Петръ При-

172

шмонтис (15, 9), Стась Янъ Мицевичъ (15, 36)¹¹, or an anthroponym of nickname origin, for example: Томашъ Блюцкисъ Плавъска (2, 237), Jurian Kayrys Prey- karys (13, 117), Петръ Машкела Кухтикъ (2, 281), Pawel Pogonksztys Kie- turaitis (13, 106).

4.3. It was already apparent from the examples of three-part recording of persons presented earlier that the third elements in this type of naming can be divided into two main groups, approximately equal in frequency: a) personal names of patronymic origin, b) anthroponyms without patronymic suffixes.

It is interesting that personal names of patronymic origin recorded last in three-part naming are relatively rarely derived from Christian names, for example: Щепан Мацкович Андрушкович (2, 134), Petros Petkaitýs Augústáytis (2, 532), Якуба Томашевича Бортковича (K case; 3, 10), Marcin a Andrzej Stasiewi- czy Janaycie (13,487,, Мартина Войтеховича Михновича (K case; 17, 3), Валентинъ Станиславовичъ Наркаутис (2, 547), Петръ Яновичъ Петкелевичъ (12, 413), Piktius Pekitaytis Petraytis (13, 485), Юрий Щефановичъ Саковича (17, 3), Pawel Grygutis Szymkaytis (13, 487), Stanis Ianuszewicz Walenthynowicz (2, 443). By contrast, the second personal names of patronymic origin, recorded after a person's given name, are most often derived from Christian names.

Often, the last element in three-part naming may be a derivative with a patronymic suffix from old Lithuanian dithematic personal names, for example: Щефан Балатро-мевецъ Енораутис (2, 548), Woyciech Stasiulaytis Giedgawdaytis (13, 490), Шенутыс Яноутис Контминоутис (2, 223), Micius Dawgintaytis Manwilay- cia (13, 489), Миколай Миколаевичъ Радзивиловича (26, XXIII), Андрей Станюловичъ Сервадайтис (13, 550), Jan Maciewicz Wilmataytis (13, 491), Миколая Андрейтица Витарнайти (K case; 15, 157), Стась Якушонисъ Жадвонантисъ (2, 368), and most often from various other (frequently nickname-derived) native anthroponyms, for example: Петра Павилоня Авкегутая (K case; 3, 32), Jan Petraytis Budraytis (13, 484), Andrzej Janutis Dziugaytis (13, 490), Павелъ Шимковичъ Кедромотъ (15, 43), Pawel Pogonksztys Kiefturaitis (13, 106), Baltutis Mikutaitis Knipaitis (2, 546), Станислава Юрьевича Коелевича (K case; 17, 9), Юрья Миколаевича Корейбовича (K case; 17, 20), Матея Миколай-тиц Косанта (2,476), Stanisław Matienaytis Mažaytis (13,485), Матея Венич-коитя Минекоитя (K case; 3,253), Павла Воитеховича Нарушевича (K case; 18,219), Piotr Januszaytis Nasztaytis (13,484), Jurgucis Drabacis Perkmai- cis (2,536), Янел Петровичъ Пликеича (2,155), Maciey Piotrowicz Pungalwaitis (2,545), Каспер Адамовичъ Рустейковичъ (3,95), Janusis Jakubaytis Skirulaytis (13,482), Станислава Юшкевича Стебулайта (K case; 15,243), Woyciech Rymkaytis Szyntowkaytis (13,484), Thomasz Jumaytis Tataraytis (13,483).

Some of the personal names that appear last in three-part recording of persons are derivatives with patronymic suffixes from anthroponyms of Slavic origin, for example: Войтеха

¹¹ In cases where a diminutive derivative of a baptismal name is recorded after the given name, it may also be of patronymic origin, for example: Pawel Grygutis Szymkaytis (13, 484), Andrzej Janutis Dziugaynis (13, 490), Анд-peu Янотисъ Случысъ (2, 377), Marcin Jurgutis Wilmonaytis (13, 486).

173

Петровича Грибовича (genitive case; 12,412), Каспор Петровичъ Белевича (6,23), Юрьи Миколаевичъ Солобубовичъ (24,207), and so on. Personal names of this type may also have other Slavic suffixes, e.g.: Яня Яновичъ Краговский (3,96), Романъ Якубовичъ Квятковский (13,18), Бартломей Бартошевичъ Поезерский (17,15), Станиславъ Яновичъ Заберезенский (26,XXIII), etc.

The final members of three-part personal names that are not patronymic in origin are most often various ethnic anthroponyms (old two-stem names, names of nickname origin, and the like), e.g.: Jan Minelaitis Battkarcis (13,486), Будра Нарковна Блудя (genitive case; 3,2), Юрья Балтомеевича Блуся (genitive case; 17,2), Станиславъ Балтомомеевичъ Довгиша (4,134), Juchno Labutaytis Eydynikas (13,483), Ławrin Stanisławowicz Guz (2,252), Thomasz Maleraytis Jurgzentis (13,481), Каспоръ Авкгештыновичъ Келишъ (17,5), Bendikus Macaitis Kobeklis (13,111), Macis Martynkaytis Loyzentis (13,481), Petruys Jurgaitis Metagis (13,107), Juria Jakubowicza Meszkia (genitive case; 20), Urban Mazrymaitys Pogankstys (13,106), Jakub Mikaytis Preykšys (13,483), Якубъ Щепутаитисъ Прейкуръ (13,535), Янели Петръ Пришмонтисъ (13,9), Миколай Криштофовичъ Радивилъ (12,254), Миколая Щефановичу Скурвиду (dative case; 3,321), Наумъ Даниловичъ Скребня (12,31), Петръ Керщюитис Слимпис (3,258), Томашъ Бакайтисъ Ушкурисъ (13,604), Олехно Мацулевичъ Верышъ (3,329), Janel Jasiutaytis Wilkielis (13,484), Матей Андреяитисъ Жвирблис (2,547).

During the period under discussion, the final member of a three-part personal name may also be a non-patronymic personal name of Slavic origin, e.g.: Яна Миколаевна Гашка (genitive case; 2,151), Михаило Ивановичъ Головинъ (3,7), Юрий Станьковичъ Лецъ (24,52), Piotr Jaksztowicz Żuk (2,47), etc.

4.4. Some instances of three-part naming, unusual in our two-part anthroponymic system (especially those whose elements are personal names of Slavic origin), may be associated with non-Lithuanian individuals, the influence of scribes, and the like.

There is no doubt that this practice arose following the model of the Russian anthroponymic system. However, a closer analysis of such naming instances supports the existence of this naming practice and allows some conclusions to be drawn about the development of the Lithuanian anthroponymic system and the emergence of surnames.

In the 16th century, the most productive way of recording individuals was given name + patronymic. When hereditary personal names—surnames—began to emerge, the patronymic was still written after the individual's given name, and some two-part naming instances grew longer, becoming three-part names.

As the examples given above show, two main ways of recording individuals in three parts were widespread in the 16th century: 1) given name + I personal name of patronymic origin + II personal name of patronymic origin; 2) given name + personal name of patronymic origin + anthroponym of non-patronymic origin. Thus, the second element in such a name is almost always a personal name of patronymic origin and is most often formed from a baptismal name. It is probably a patronymic (since in the second half of the 16th century, ethnic names were gradually disappearing from official usage). By contrast, the third element—

174

the personal name of patronymic origin—is most often derived from an ethnic name. This indicates that it is relatively old and suggests that it may be a surname (it may have been formed when ethnic names were still widely used, and the person recorded may have inherited it from their father or the like). Furthermore, some records show that the third element in this naming pattern is more important than the second. When the same person is mentioned repeatedly, the second element (probably a patronymic) may be omitted, e.g.: Юс Янович Працевич, elsewhere Юс Працевич (2,475); Яроним Миколаевич Виконевич, elsewhere Ероним Виконевич (2,475); Pawel Jonatytis Skirutaytis, elsewhere Pawła Skirutaycia (genitive case; 13,483); Павла Яновича Виржовича (genitive case), elsewhere Павель Виржовичь (17,27), etc.

The hypothesis that the two personal names of patronymic origin in three-part naming arose at different times and serve different functions (the first is a patronymic, while the second is probably a surname) is partly supported by instances in which these personal names are formed with different patronymic suffixes, e.g.: Андрей Станюловичь Сервадайтис (13,550), Якубъ Мисевичъ Брашкайтис (13,604), Урбана а Якуба Мартиновичов Будраитев (genitive case; 3,253), Jan Maciewicz Wilmątaytis (13,491), Jas Mikienas Siraitis (2,366), Юркя Яновича Миткайтиса (genitive case; 13,157), Kasper Szczefanowicz Naruszaytis (2,445), Łukasz Ławrynowicz Doroyczunas (2,443), Петръ Томашевичъ Бирукаутис (2,547), Стася Яновичь Рокгойтис (13,239), and so on.

If both personal names of patronymic origin had arisen at the same time, they would most likely have the same patronymic suffixes.

Thus, most cases of 16th-century naming with three personal names may, in one way or another, also attest to the emergence of Lithuanian surnames.

5. The Formation of Lithuanian Surnames in the 16th Century

All the forms of naming individuals in the 16th century discussed above clearly attest to the development and consolidation of the two-part Lithuanian anthroponymic system. The second element in the two-part recording of a person’s name—a patronymic, an old dithematic personal name, an anthroponym derived from a nickname, or a baptismal name—was precisely the material from which most of our surnames originated. The many examples presented above showed that the anthroponyms recorded after a person’s given name do not differ in form from many of our surnames today. The very impetus for the emergence of these personal names—to provide additional information about the person being recorded and distinguish that person from others with the same name—meant that they also performed the principal, distinguishing function of a surname. However, it is difficult to say how many of them, and which ones, had already become surnames—that is, had become inherited anthroponyms shared by all members of a family. Studies of the names of several members of one family, or even of representatives of two or three generations of one lineage, help resolve this question. Since such instances of recording are rare in documents, they do not provide specific information about each personal name’s transition into a surname, but do help trace the main trends in the formation of Lithuanian surnames in the 16th century.

175

5.1. The process by which surnames emerged is especially clear in genealogical accounts of lineages, for example ¹²: the founder of the lineage, Narbut, had sons recorded as follows—Dobrohost Narbutowicz (1501), Stanisław Narbutowicz (1495), Mikołaj Narbutowicz (1503), Wojciech Narbutowicz (1506). The latter left three sons, recorded as Jan Wojciechowicz Narbutowicz (1536), Wojciechowi Wojciechowiczowi Narbutowiczowi (N case; 1529), Mikołajowi Wojciechowiczowi Narbutowiczowi (N case; 1551)¹³. Representatives of later generations also inherit the anthroponym of patronymic origin Narbutowicz, which testifies to its transformation into a surname.

The founder of another lineage is recorded with two personal names—Wojciech Naruszewicz (1499). The second element of this name is most likely a patronymic. His son, Paweł Wojciechowicz Naruszewicz (1541), inherits his father’s patronymic and passes it on to his children, who are recorded as Mikołaj Pawłowicz Naruszewicz (1566) and Stanisław Pawłowicz Naruszewicz (1569)¹⁴. Thus, the anthroponym of patronymic origin Naruszewicz becomes inherited, that is, turns into a surname.

The same process of surname formation is attested by a case found in another source: the founder of the lineage, Бизгиньъ, his son Янъ Бизгинтайтисъ¹⁵, the latter’s son Гинятъ Юргонтисъ, and his son Мартинъ Гинятайтисъ Бизгинтайтисъ (15, 89). As can be seen, the anthroponym of patronymic origin derived from the lineage founder’s name has become a surname.

A somewhat different process of surname formation is reflected in the following record. The founder of the lineage is Ruszlis. His two sons are Ginthyta (K case) and Skaywatha (K case). The first son, Ginthyt Ruszkaytis¹⁶, had two sons, recorded as Swirbutis Ginthytaytis and Sugawdis Ginthytaytis. The latter’s sons were Woytkus Sugawdis, Piktonas Sugaudis, Beniaz Sugaudis (15, 327). In this case, it is the anthroponym of non-patronymic origin that tends to become a surname; in the father’s two-part name, it was written as the first element.

The records of later generations of the other son, named Skaiwathos Ruszlaytis, do not reflect the emergence of an inherited anthroponym: Skaiwathos Ruszlaytis had three sons—Derkinta, Wismuntha, Rupeyka (G case). The first son, Derkintos Skaywaytaytis, had four sons, named Andruszko Derkintaytis, Możeyko Derkintaytis, Dargis Derkintaytis ir Miknius Derkintaitis. The latter in turn had three sons—Maciey Miknaytis, Petkus Miknaitis, Jurgis Miknaytis (15, 327).

¹² Two examples presented here are taken from A. Bonecki’s book “Poczet rodów w Wielkiem Księstwie Litewskiem w XV i XVI wieku”. – Warszawa, 1887. Admittedly, this is no longer a primary source, since the author extracted the mentioned representatives of prominent lineages from various collections of documents. It is unclear whether he reproduces the source’s recording practices accurately. Nevertheless, allowing for a certain possible margin of error, some conclusions can be drawn from the material presented in the book.

¹³ See: Boniecki A. cited work, pp. 196–198.

¹⁴ See: Boniecki A. cited work, pp. 199–200.

¹⁵ It is unclear what circumstances led to the recording error here. The patronymic of a representative of a later generation indicates that the name should be Jurgis Visgintaitis. This is indeed the form found later in an account of the generations of the same lineage: “Wizgint… miał trzech synow — Jurgia, Bartulia a Petska. Bartulis Wizgintaytis nie miał potomstwa, także y Petkus Wizgintaytis; Jurgis zostawił dwu synow — Giniata a Petska…” (15, 324).

¹⁶ The letter k instead of l most likely arose through the scribe’s error or some other similar cause.

176

Wysmunth Skaywaytaytis (the second person, son of the person recorded as Skaywathos Ruszlaytis) had a son named Ginthkus Wysmunthaytis, whose son was Jakub Ginhkaytis…(15,327). As can be seen, new members of the same family are recorded by a given name and patronymic, but do not have a fixed anthroponym common to the whole family or kin group.

5.2. From the examples presented here, although they are few, it is already possible to draw some of the broadest conclusions about the formation of Lithuanian surnames in the 16th century: 1) surnames had already become established during the period under discussion; 2) some individuals mentioned in documents from this period did not yet have surnames; 3) Lithuanian surnames were undergoing intensive formation in the 16th century. Other material we have collected substantiates and supports the claims made here.

5.2.1. Cases in which a father and son (or daughters) are mentioned together provide much information about the emergence of surnames. Some attest to the existence of surnames in the 16th century. These are cases in which the father and son (or daughter) are designated by the same personal name, inherited by the children from their father, and which can safely be called a surname, for example¹⁷: father Петръ Боревичъ, his son Миколая Петровича Боревича (accusative case; 15,423); … on the lord’s landholders of the same Kovno district, against Томаша Бортковича and his son Якуба Томашевича Бортковича (accusative case; 3,10); Гелияшъ Бурба and with his son Сымономъ Бурбою (instrumental case; 15,71); Jurgis Dytaythys with his son… Lukaszем Dytayciem (13,145); … lord’s landholders of the Upytė district, Мартину, Томашу, Станиславу Матеевичомъ Фронцкевича… their father Матея Фронцкевича (17,9); … lord’s landholder of the Upytė district, Юрья Станиславовича Януковича… and his father … Станислава Януковича (17,4); Яна Ликоитя and (with) his son Урбаном Яновичом Ликаитем (3,30); father Венцлавъ Лукович, daughter Ганны Венцлавовны Луковича (accusative case; 3,246); Мисюлистъ Мику тайтисъ… three sons, Войтехъ, Шимкусъ, Станиславъ Мисюлевичи Мику тайтове (13,488); Петрулъ Микутайтисъ, his sons Павелъ, Михалъ, Амброжий, Томашъ, Юргисъ, Венцко Микутайтееве (13,502); Станиславъ Можейко, his son Петръ Станиславовичъ Можейко (15,416); … lord’s landholder of the Upytė district, Янъ Петровичъ… with his son Малхеромъ Яновичомъ Петровича… (17,40); Петръ а Григорь Юревичи (elsewhere—in the accusative case—Юревичовъ Пупшитайтевъ), their father (accusative case) Юря Пупшты (15,103); father Адаму Рустецковичу (dative case), his son Каспер Адамович Рустецкович or Каспер Рустецковичъ (3,95); … lord’s landholder… Миколаю Шефановичу Скурвиду (dative case), his son Янъ Миколаевич Щефанович Скурвид (3,321); Матей Стукаисъ with his sons Юрий, Криштофъ, Миколай, Керигъ Стукаисъ (13,547); … with another son of that Миколая Тримпатя and his full brother Петровым Мартином, and with his sister Алжбетою Миколаевнами Тримпатями (3,182); … boyars of the Trakai district, Янъ, Юрка, Петръ Богдановичи Вазгирдовичи, their father (accusative case)—

17 In most of these examples, the personal names are presented in context where possible. This often reveals the kinship ties of the individuals mentioned, their social estate, and so on.

12. 91

177

Богдана Вазгировича (15,18); armored boyar Езофъ Волницъ, two sons, Стасько а Ясько Волницсы (13,622).

Whether a father’s second personal name is inherited by his sons, that is, whether it becomes a surname, can also be traced by comparing inventories of the same places (manors, villages) compiled at different times. For example, the 1580 inventory of the Vilkija district records: Андреи Ретович, жена его Дорота, а сын его старший Мачулис, други Марцин, третий Миколаи, четвертый Щасны, пятый Стасюлис… (2,225), whereas the 1594 inventory records only the sons: Мачул Рэтович, Миколаи Рэтович, Щасны Рэтович, Станислав Рэтович (2,367). As can be seen, the patronymic personal name Ретович becomes a surname.

Another analogous case is the 1596 inventory of the Šilėnai manor, which records Юр’и Скалышютис… с сынъми своими Стасюлем, Петрушем… (2,429), while in 1599 it is recorded as Stanisław s Pietruciem Skaliszayciowie, full brothers… (2,529).

Thus, Lithuanian surnames were already established in the 16th century. A Christian or nickname-derived patronymic often passed down from one generation to the next becomes hereditary, that is, turns into a surname¹⁸. There are also surnames that originated from non-patronymic personal names.

The context of the examples also showed that hereditary personal names were most often borne by members of the nobility.

Studies of the Lithuanian anthroponymic system in earlier centuries have shown that Lithuanian dukes and nobles may already have had, in the 15th century, a hereditary anthroponym common to all members of a family or kin group. Thus, having begun to emerge in the 15th century, surnames among members of the noble estates continued to form and become established in the 16th century.

5.2.2. The last two examples (§ 5.2.1), drawn from inventories compiled at different times, along with a few presented earlier, attest that peasant surnames also began to appear sporadically in the 16th century. However, it would be inaccurate to conclude that peasant surnames were forming universally during this period, primarily because very few such instances of recorded names have been found. Second, numerous examples from various inventories of the period under discussion show that peasants did not have a stable, hereditary anthroponym, for example: Матей Датуновичъ и сыны его Петръ а дѣнь Матевии (17,17), Bartosz Daugolowicz, сынъ – Alexy, Marcin, Ambrozy a Czep Barthoszowiczowie (2,351); Janikas Giedgawdaytis, his son (accusative case) – Macieja Janikaycia (13,490); Мартин а Банис Керишевичъ, … у Баниса сыны два Щепанъ а Павелъ Баневичы (2,225); father Banis Yakubaitis, son – Masiul a Jakub Banewiczy, daughters – Baniowny (2,252); Wileyko Jakubaytis, his son – Jasiulis Wiley kaytis (13,489); Миколаи Якумаитис … зь сынъми Керикаутем, Шымем, Адамем Миколаевичами (2,406); Urban Yanaitis, his son – Staniul a Stasiul Urbanowiczy, daughter – Zania Urbanowna (2,252); Матѣя Янаитя (accusative case) и сына его Урбана Матее- вича (accusative case; 3,32); Станислав Ясович зь сынъми своими Лукащомъ а Ленартомъ Станиславовичами (2,341); Павел Ясович зь сынъми… Томашомъ,

¹⁸ A. Seliš”evas also notes the same path of surname formation. See: Селищев А. М. Происхождение русских фамилий, личных имен и прозвищ. – В кн.: Избранные труды. М., 1968, с. 105.

178

Станиславом, Адамомъ, Юрем, Миколаемъ Павловичами (2,341); Банис Куденисъ... у Баниса сынъ Шымко Баневичи (2,225); Яса Мартиновича зь сынами его Валентыномъ а Венцлавомъ Ясовичи (17,9); Petrukas Micaytis, his son (accusative case) – Stanisława Petrikaycia (13,484); Mikolay Petroszuytis, his son (accusative case) – Stanisława Mikolaiaycia (13,488); Петръ Потановичъ, his son – Чепуисъ Петраитисъ (13,274); Maciej, Jakub, Bartłomiej… Rukiani bracia, a synowie ich Paweł Maciejewicz, Andrzej Jakubobowicz, Urban y Krzysztof Bartłomiejewiczowie… (13,291); Яна Станковича (accusative case), his son (accusative case) – Станислава Яновича (17,15); Яно Стефанкевичъ, сынъ его Станиславъ Яновичъ (17,16); Кедутись Сукгойлись, зь сынми Лукашємъ Кедутайтемъ (13,548); Мартинъ Шаркайтисъ, зь сынми три Балатромей, Адамъ а Симонъ Мартыновичи (13,548); Венцлав Шаркутіѕ, jo dukros (genitive case) – Аленою а Зофиею Венцлавовнами (2,371); Петръ Щепутайтисъ … съ сынми Яномъ а Валентыномъ, зь дочками Полониею а Аленою Петровичи (13,550); Banis Urbzentis, his daughter – Dorota Banewna (2,252); Yanel Zomaitis, his son Krisztof, Jurgiel a Waliul Ianielowiczy (2,254).

These examples show that a father and son (or daughter) do not share a common, inherited personal name. Children are recorded by a given name and a patronymic.

By the time the two-part anthroponymic system becomes established—that is, when identifying people by two personal names becomes most productive—objective preconditions for the formation of surnames have already emerged. When surnames appear depends on various circumstances, most often on the need for surnames itself.

Treating the surname as a personal name that unites all members of one family, V. Nikonov considers the growing role of the family at a certain stage of social development to be the decisive cause of the emergence of surnames¹⁹. Earlier scholars of Russian anthroponymy likewise, in one way or another, emphasize the inseparable connection between the emergence of surnames and the importance of the family in social life, noting that a surname—a personal name shared by the whole family, capable of expressing family membership, property ownership, and inheritance—was needed above all by members of the noble estates, who owned such property²⁰. Thus, the principal cause of the emergence of surnames also determined why they first appeared among members of the privileged estates.

Peasants, lacking extensive civil rights and substantial private property whose inheritance needed to be safeguarded, and not actively participating in public life, could do without surnames for a long time. Probably for the same reasons, the ways they were recorded in documents also varied for longer: even in later centuries they might be recorded by a single personal name, by a given name and an appellative byname, or in some other way.

G. Simina, a Russian scholar of anthroponymy, defines a surname as an official, inheritable part of a person’s name recorded in state documents, and offers valuable reflections on the formation of surnames. Linking the emergence of surnames

¹⁹ Никонов В. А. Триумфальное шествие фамилий. – В кн.: Имя и общество. М., 1974, с. 184.

²⁰ Морошкин М. Я. О фамильных именах у нынешних европейских народов. — Из журнала Министерства народного просвещения. 1834, с. 29; Карнович Е. П. Родовые прозвания. — СПб., 1886, с. 11.

12*

179

with the development of statehood, the author argues that surnames were needed to carry out various state functions (taking censuses, determining taxes, recruiting soldiers, and so on)²¹. In such cases it was difficult to manage without surnames. This was probably also the main reason for the emergence of surnames among the lower social estates.

However, as the material gathered for the analysis of the sixteenth-century anthroponymic system shows, the bulk of Lithuanian peasants in the period under discussion did not yet have surnames.

5.2.3. The material examined in the preceding sections, which attests to the presence or absence of surnames in the sixteenth century, does not reflect the full range of ways people were recorded during the period under discussion; consequently, it may create an oversimplified impression of surname formation at that time. It is difficult to speak of the regular inheritance of a particular personal name and its transformation into a surname, primarily because people—even the same individuals—could be recorded in different ways and, secondly, because records listing all family members together are very rare.

As already mentioned, the same person could be recorded with two or three personal names, e.g.:... на земенина господарского повету Упитского на Матея Авгулимтиновича Давейка..., elsewhere – Матей Довейко (17,15);... Олбрахту Мартиновичу Кгаштолту (dative case), elsewhere – пана Олбрахта Кгаштолта (26, LIV);... земенинъ господарский повету Виленского пань Миколай Яновичъ Кгинтовтъ, elsewhere – Миколай Кгинтовтъ (12,483, 486); Stas Stanaytis Greytis, elsewhere – Stas Greytis (13, 481); Миколай Радивилъ, elsewhere – Миколай Юрьевичъ Радивилъ (12,405), and so forth.

This variation in recording often makes it difficult to draw conclusions about whether an inherited personal name was present or absent. For example, when people are recorded with three personal names, we might expect one of them already to be a surname. Yet sons are recorded with two personal names—a given name and a patronymic—and have not inherited their father’s third anthroponym, e.g.: Станислав Григорович Яновича, a landholder of the ruler in the land of Samogitia, his children (accusative case) – Яна, Станислава а Миколая Станиславовичов (sons), Ганну, Ядвигу а Зузанну Станиславовнъ (genitive case; daughters) (3,100); Czapas Petraytis Szynlowkaytis, his sons (accusative case) – Andrzeia Czepaycia, Urbana Czepaycia, Jana Czepaycia (13,483). In such cases it is difficult to say whether the sons truly did not inherit their father’s third personal name (in which case it had not yet become a surname), or whether, because the way people were recorded was not standardized, it was simply omitted from the sons’ entries.

There are further cases in which the way people are recorded is unclear, e.g.: пана Станислава Яновича Рекутя Кезкала и за сына его Станислава Станиславовича (23, 583), or: Воитех Воитехович Стечкевич Воцкер, a landholder of the ruler, his father (dative case) – Воитеху Воцкеру, and his brothers (accusative case) – Балтромея а Яронима Воитеховичов (3,99). It is difficult to say what function each of the four personal names serves in identifying these individuals, or which is the most important. This mode of naming should probably be viewed as one (but not the only) irregularity that arose as the anthroponymic system developed and Lithuanian surnames took shape.

²¹ Смина Г. Я. Фамилия и прозвище. — В кн.: Ономастика. М., 1969, с. 31.

180

There are also other such irregularities and cases that are difficult to explain. For example, brothers are usually recorded with identical second personal names. When the latter are not patronymic in origin, one may even suspect that they are already surnames, e.g.: Малко Скевец 3 братом... Виткомъ Скевенемъ (2,223). Identical patronymics among brothers indicate that they belong to the same family, e.g.: Щефан Андрутаитисъ 3 братом Янутем Андрутаитем (2,387); Olbrycht Jankaytis z bratem swoim Macieiem Jankaytiem (15,455); ...на Петра Мейлутевича и братью его рожоную Мейлутю, Чена а Валя Мейлутевичовъ (17,18); Есъ Сировичъ, his brothers (accusative case) – Стался а Каспора Сировичовъ (15,10), and so on. However, there are cases in which brothers are recorded with different second personal names, e.g.: Peterys Anksztokaitýs z bratem Macieiem Kumpinasem (13,126); Янгъ Довгердовичъ з братею Юрьем Совмайтемъ а Яномъ Милайтемъ (15,72); Станислава Герубайтя and his brother Юрга Виткайтя (15,159); Рымко Олгъкишайтисъ зъ братомъ своимъ Павломъ Санъкутаитемъ (15,84), Jury Rymkowicz z bratem Pawłem Moczul iem (13,279).

All the cases mentioned here of persons being recorded inconsistently or in ways that are difficult to explain attest to the complexity of the process by which the entire Lithuanian anthroponymic system, and one of its elements—the surname—took shape. Alongside clearly discernible regularities, an element of chance, or even a certain degree of randomness, is also evident and should not be overlooked.

At the beginning of this subsection, it was already noted that records listing all family members together are rare. In the examples presented so far, the father and children were most often recorded together, making it possible to determine whether the father and his sons (or daughters) shared a personal name—a surname. Yet the surname is the anthroponym that connects all members of a family. Thus, records listing other family members together, for example husband and wife or mother and children, could also provide much information about its emergence.

Such cases are even rarer, so they cannot serve as a basis for broader generalizations. We can only note that examples in which husband and wife are mentioned together do not, in general, contradict the earlier conclusions about the formation of surnames in the 16th century. Some of them, for instance, indicate the emergence of a surname. These are cases in which the naming pattern for husband and wife contains one identical personal name each (sometimes even two or more), e.g.: именемъ малжонки своей паней Зофии Яновны Давидовича, панъ Андрей Яновичъ Давидовичъ... (12,482); земянки господарьской повету Упитского Катерыны Шимъковны Жижморевича Станиславовой Яновича Яковича and her husband Станислава Яновича (17,43); панъ Лаврынъ Станиславовичъ Келпигъ, his wife – Барбара Станиславовна Лаврынова Станиславовича Келпигова... (17,28);... мещанка господарьская Поневежская Матеевая Вайшторовоя Ягенешка Петровна, her husband (genitive case) – Матею Петкевичу Войштору... (17,11); пана Миколая Станиславовича Белозора and his wife, the lady Малгореты Миколаевны Белозоровны... (17,33).

Some examples show that mother and son share personal names, e.g.: Алжбета Марковна Лавринова Яновича, her son (accusative case) – Яна Лавриновича... (17, 33); Andrzejowa Juszkayciowa Magreta, widow, (with) son

181

swoim Pawłem Andrzejaytiem… (13, 488); Anna Juriowa Maciewiczowa, her son – Matutis Jurgielaytis (13, 483);...... пожаловала намъ Скилондинная пани Катерина на сына своего дворянина нашего Добка Скилондеевича... (21, 838). Other recording practices show that husband and wife did not share an anthroponym, e.g.: Янъ Миколаевичзъ жоною Лучиею Томашовною (2,342); панъ Янъ Станиславовичъ Лойба и малъжонка его пани Дружьяна Якубовна... (17,8); Лаврынъ Мартиновичъ з жоною Настасиею Миколаевною... (17,3);... отъ земенина господарьского повету Упитского Матея Тишка, отъ жоны его Зофии Пашковны... (17,11); Матей Войшторъ и жона его Янешика Петровна... (17,13), and so on.

Thus, some records listing husband and wife or mother and son together show that a shared family anthroponym—a surname—was taking shape in the 16th century. Various inconsistencies in recording or ways of naming persons that are difficult to explain, like examples attesting to the absence of a surname, show that the 16th century was one stage in the process by which Lithuanian surnames developed, while the later centuries represent subsequent stages in that process.

6. Concluding remarks

6. 1. The most productive form of personal naming in the 16th century—using two personal names—attests to the development and establishment of a two-part Lithuanian anthroponymic system.

6. 2. Alongside the use of two anthroponyms to name persons, documents from the 16th century may record persons by a single personal name, a name and an appellative or otherwise descriptive byname, or three (or more) different personal names.

6. 3. The first member of a two-part personal name is a Christian or native name.

6. 4. The second members may be personal names of patronymic origin (patronymics) or anthroponyms of non-patronymic origin.

6. 5. In the 16th century, patronymics were formed with Slavic and Lithuanian patronymic suffixes (-ovič, -evič, -aitis, -onis, -ūnas, etc.) from various baptismal names and their forms, old two-stem Lithuanian personal names, and native anthroponyms of nickname origin.

6. 6. The second members of two-part personal names—patronymics, anthroponyms of nickname origin, and old two-stem Lithuanian personal names—provided the material from which most of our surnames arose.

6. 7. Once two-part personal naming becomes established, objective preconditions for the emergence of surnames are created. The timing of their emergence in different social strata is determined primarily by the need for surnames itself.

6. 8. As a permanent, hereditary anthroponym shared by all family members, the surname was needed first and foremost by members of the nobility. It indicated belonging to a family or lineage, helped formalize the inheritance of property, and so on. Thus, surnames among members of the nobility, which began to emerge in the 15th century, continued to develop and become established in the 16th century.

6. 9. Surnames appeared later among the lower social classes. The collected material shows that most peasants in the 16th century still had no surnames. More

182

varied was the way they were recorded in documents from the period under discussion—they could be recorded with a single personal name, a given name and an appellative or descriptive byname, and so on.

6. 10. The 16th century represents one stage in the process of Lithuanian surname formation. This process continued in later centuries. It is probably precisely there that the widespread formation of peasant surnames should be sought.

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF SOURCES

1. Inwentarz starostwa Bolnickiego czyli akt rewizji ograniczenia ziem tegoż starostwa. MACBRS, F. 20–65.

2. Jablonskis K. Historical Archive (16th century). – K., 1934.

3. Jablonskis K. Lithuanian Words in the Chancery Language of Old Lithuania. – K., 1941.

4. Jablonskis K. Lithuanian Culture and Its Figures. – V., 1973.

5. Kopia exerpem wypisana co do wsiów Kielmienskich Wikrayciow, Petrykayciow – Widminayciow – Skilwayciow y Bityk z inwentarza poprawy pomiery Kielmienskiej w roku 1595 poczętego a 1598 skonczenego. (Ištrauka iš 1595–1598 m. Kelmės dvaro inventoriaus.) MACBRS, F. 37–10541.

6. Disputes between Lithuanian peasants and townspeople and estate managers. – V., 1959, vol. 1.

7. Lithuanian disputes between peasants and townspeople and estate managers. – V., 1961, vol. 2.

8. Register of Gruszszewski… the Tyrkszle estate… (Inventory of the town of Tirkšliai). MACBRS, F. 37–507.

9. Register of the collection of rents from the subjects… of the Vilnius Chapter’s Pasvalys parish… (1589 census of the inhabitants of the town and villages of Pasvalys and the taxes they paid). MACBRS, F. 43–14750.

10. Register of outstanding payments or arrears from the Mierecz estate for the year 1589… (List of peasants’ unpaid taxes in the Merkinė district). MACBRS, F. 21–1126.

11. The Žemelanskie bailiff’s office… (Documents of the Žemelėnai estate). MACBRS, F. 37–525.

12. Acts published by the Vilnius Archaeographic Commission. Acts of the Vilnius City Court. – Vilna, 1875, vol. 8.

13. Acts issued by the Vilna Archaeographic Commission. Inventories of estates of the sixteenth century. – Vilna, 1888, vol. 14.

14. Acts issued by the Vilna Archaeographic Commission. Acts of the Grodno land court. – Vilna, 1890, vol. 17.

15. Acts issued by the Vilna Commission for the Examination of Ancient Acts. Acts concerning boyars. – Vilna, 1897, vol. 24.

16. Acts issued by the Vilna Commission for the Examination of Ancient Acts. Inventories and boundary demarcation acts. – Vilna, 1898, vol. 25.

17. Acts issued by the Vilna Commission for the Examination of Ancient Acts. Acts of the Upytė town court. – Vilna, 1899, vol. 26.

18. Acts relating to the history of western Russia, collected and published by the Archaeographic Commission. – St. Petersburg, 1848, vol. 2.

19. The estate of His Grace Pan… Stanisław Andrzejewicz Powoyna… Dekriptiškės… (Daugirdiškės estate documents: Daugirdiškės inventory, 1552). MACBRS, F. 138–1381.

20. Samogitian land court. CVIA, SA 19518ª.

21. Lithuanian Metrica. – St. Petersburg, 1903, vol. 1.

22. Lithuanian Metrica. Part 1: Books of Records. – St. Petersburg, 1910, vol. 1.

23. Lithuanian Metrica. Part 3: Books of Public Affairs. – Yuryev, 1914, vol. 1.

24. Lithuanian Metrica. Part 3: Books of Public Affairs. Lithuanian Army Censuses. – Petrograd, 1915.

183

25. In memory of me, Bogush Yakubovich Bychok… (Documents of the Daugirdiškės manor: Inventory of Daugirdiškės, 1569), MACBRS, F. 138—1382.

26. The territorial division and local administration of the Lithuanian-Ruthenian state at the time of the publication of the First Lithuanian Statute. Historical Essays by Matvey Lyubavsky. — Moscow, 1892.

27. Register of all taxes and revenues of the grand duke from the land of Samogitia, compiled by Andrey Matskovich [and later supplemented by] Nikolay Shimkovich. — N.p., 1537. MACBRS, F. 16—12. — Manuscript.

THE SYSTEM OF LITHUANIAN ANTHROPONYMY IN THE 16TH CENTURY

Abstract

On the basis of an analysis of approximately 12,000 anthroponyms extracted from various published and manuscript historical sources of the 16th century, the system of Lithuanian anthroponymy of this period is reconstructed.

It is established that during the period under study there was not yet a single model for naming a person (single-, double-, and triple-part personal designations are distinguished). However, the double-part designation was the most productive in the 16th century, indicating a trend toward the development of a two-part anthroponymic system among Lithuanians.

Most often, a Christian name appears in the first position in designations of this type. However, in the first half of the 16th century, anthroponyms of Lithuanian origin are also frequently found in this position.

The second element of a two-part personal designation may be: 1) patronymic forms of personal names with derivative suffixes of Lithuanian or Slavic origin (most often -ovič, -aitis, -evič, less often -onis, -ūnas, and others); 2) other anthroponyms, many of which are based on a nickname or indicate the named person’s profession, occupation, family or social status, etc.

All these personal names resemble Lithuanian surnames. However, only some of them became hereditary in the 16th century. Others were not passed down by inheritance, but changed from one generation to the next.

It is concluded that by the 16th century many Lithuanian surnames already existed, belonging mainly to members of the privileged strata of society. Peasant surnames were very rare in this period, since the process of their emergence had only just begun.