Л И Е Т У В И Ų K A L B O T Y R O S K L A U S I M A I, III

L I E T U V O S T S R M O K S L Ų A K A D E M I J A

OLD BELARUSIAN LEGAL VOCABULARY OF LITHUANIAN ORIGIN

A. A. VERZHBOVSKY

For a long time it was taken a priori that, since the Old Russian state had arisen considerably earlier than the first attempts at political unification in Lithuania, since there was a “Russkaya Pravda” and the first Lithuanian princes in the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had established as law the Old Belarusian literary language, which had developed on the basis of Old Russian literary norms, only Old Russian law could have had a significant influence on the formation of legal norms in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Reference was usually made to the preservation of Old Russian legal norms and the use of Old Russian legal terms in the legislative acts of the GDL.² This, however, is far from the case. Cultural influences are never one-sided. The general legislation of political unions that were conglomerates of peoples, as was the case with the GDL, absorbed local traditions from different regions to a considerable extent. The Slavic element must have predominated because there were more Slavic regions, and the population for whom legislation was established was considerably larger in the Slavic regions. Yet it was not only the Lithuanians who adopted the customs of the Slavs (Poles and speakers of Old Russian culture—the future Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians) and reflected them in their legislation in one of the Slavic languages; the Slavs, too, adopted Lithuanian customs and, living with them in one state, could not but use distinctly Lithuanian legal terminology.

It should be noted that only a small portion of the enormous number of West Russian written monuments has been studied. Even so, this has yielded a considerable number of legal terms of Lithuanian origin:

1. Kreny devo(t)chiye, or wianowne pieniądze, from the word wiano, of common Slavic origin. In addition, synonymous terms were widely used at that time in neighboring Slavic lands: kunitsa (1494–1796)—in the eastern part of Belarus and throughout Ukraine; kunitsy and sorochki poimnye (1588) in Vladimir County. Thus, the term kreny devotchiye is localized in the west and must therefore go back

269

to Lith. krienai (the word is recorded in the oldest Lith. and Latv. written monuments): indeed, it is no coincidence that this term, foreign to Slavic systems, was replaced by the term khreny devotchiye (a folk-etymological criterion; it was associated with the word khren, “horseradish”). Further evidence of borrowing comes from the criterion of linguistic geography, the phonetic-morphological criterion (Old Lith. krienai in: quod Kriens a Samagitis vocatur... etc. 1550>Old Bel. kreny, with ierendered by e and aiby y), and the semantic-group criterion (the borrowing of numerous terms denoting tax levies).

2. mezleva, mezleshchina, mezlevoye³ (1447–1537)<Old Lith. mēzliava (“contribution,” Hveidany, or mēsliava, Olsyady)<*mestliava: pass. mez-d-inu (Būga, RR. 1, 287), from mėsti, “to throw money together for something.”

Mezleva³originally arose during the feudal lords’ visits to their villages. With the money collected, or mezleva (a communal contribution), animals for meat and other refreshments for the feudal lord were purchased. But already in the first half of the 16th century, the feudal lord gave up the annual feasts on his estates and instead demanded monetary compensation—iš sumestų pinigų.

Sumesti pinigaigiven to the newlyweds at a wedding were therefore also called mezleva (not yet attested in Belarusian written monuments).

3. Old Bel. rinkleva³, rinklevoe (:mezleva, mezlevoye) and possibly rinklevshchina (like mezlevshchina and svirenshchina); Polish rynklaw (M.) rynklowe (pieniądze)—a noun formed from an adjective (1691–1795)—go back to Lith. rińkliava, “a specified tax levy” (which arose from the custom of collecting money for public needs), from rińkti (the name used by those collecting it, as opposed to mezleva—the term used by those paying).

4. svironshchina³or svirnovshchina(Polotsk, 1533), “a specified levy.” The word is formed from the Lithuanianism sviren, from Old Lith. *sverinė (F.), just as Old Russian ov in, ovina derive from East Baltic *javinė>Bel. yovnya, yownya, with ja rendered by yo, as a by o, and the reduced vowel dropped from i. There are very many such Lithuanianisms—nouns formed from adjectives—in Old Belarusian written monuments. They also occur in Polish texts and in the modern Polish dialect of the Vilnius region. In turn, *sverinė (troba)is formed from the verb sveŕ-ti, “to weigh,” and is identical to the word šalinė, “side storeroom”>Slav. szalinia, as Polish szw iernia³: Lith. svirmā(F.), “granary, storehouse.”

Lith. *sverinė>Polish szw ierniawas in turn influenced by Bel. svírnya (Novogrudok) and svíren, gen. svírna, on the one hand, and, on the other, was subject to the loss of unstressed i in certain positions, as in šul-in-ýš>šulnýš, “well.” Thus, in modern Lithuanian we find the forms svirnà and svir̃nas, following the pattern of the oldest formations in -mā/-no-: vaĩ-na-s, “raven,” and vār-na, “crow.”

5. Pentenykie penesi³were also called in 1516–1593 by the Eastern Slavs of the GDL posekershchina or mostovnichim; that is, this was a tax levied for each poll or blade of an axe or hatchet—a levy for the construction and repair of bridges. The collected posekershchina was also called pentyniki <Lith. pentininkai: péntis, “axe poll, heel.”

270

6. daklo (1350–1450), ³ and ⁵ or дзякло can structurally derive only from Lithuanian *dėklas. In that case it is a masculine derivative form from the feminine form *dėkla, which (according to Prof. K. Jablonskis) denoted saikas (6 garnets), later always the same quantity of grain poured out (for the benefit of the feudal lord). In Samogitia, not дзякло but soikt < *saiktas³ was collected. Thus Lithuanian dė-ti “to put, place, lay down” > dėkla > *dėklas. The form дак-ло is a folk etymology for даковати “to thank, give thanks.” The form dúo-klė from dúoti referred to a substantial tribute in kind (usually grain and hay), only later replaced by a monetary levy; the similarity of their phonetic forms encouraged the convergence of the words *dėklas and dúoklė.

7. поседь (посадь or посад)³ was a specific levy in kind during the period of Lithuanian princes’ rule. It consisted in the residents of a particular settlement (mainly its wealthiest members) gathering everything needed for the grand duke, magnate, or their high-ranking officials and their retinue by the time of their arrival. Since visits were infrequent, поседь was collected rarely, sometimes once a year. But at the end of the 15th century, Polish kings legalized this custom as a special tax, because some officials had begun stopping for поседь at the same place far too often and plundering the residents, prompting many complaints³. From the standpoint of word formation, поседь (like ДАКЛО) could have arisen from purely Slavic constituent elements, but as a result of the influence of Lithuanian customs. Therefore, a corresponding Lithuanian word formed from the same morphemes of Indo-European origin must also have existed among the Lithuanian population, namely *pā-sēd-is and *pā-sod-is: modern Lithuanian pa-sėd-as “seat” (compare Old Russian посад). The term is related to Lithuanian sėdyba (homestead), or sodūba, sodà etc., sėd-ė-ti “to sit.”

8. илгки or гилкги³ (1592–1687) derives from Old Lithuanian ilgės < Ilgių šventės (probably the day commemorating the dead—November 2), a levy for the benefit of the feudal lord collected according to the custom of caroling: Lithuanian ilgas “long” and Lithuanian ilgėtis “to yearn, etc.”.

9. Polish osiowe³ (N.) is a calque of Samogitian ašies pinigai, that is, money paid to the feudal lord in place of the natural delivery of an axle-load of firewood from a volok of land < Samogitian ašis “axle” ≈ kūbinis sieksnis malkų, that is, 2.13 m³.

10. Polish łażowe < Lithuanian lȧżu... from lažas “corvée, serfdom,” Polish łaża. In its formation type, it belongs with osiowe, rinklowe pieniądze.

11. Polish jesienina (a calque) and rudonaje³ < rudenoju (in Latvia and Lithuania), together with lnowaniem, were forms of extortion by local authorities from peasants in autumn (rudens laike), after the harvest. There is no doubt that a phenomenon common to all inhabitants of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania must have generated words to designate it with identical semantic content (whether sharing a root or not)—calqued terms.

12. iszymtynia or ишымтыня³ “a share of income for parents from a farm transferred to their children”: Lithuanian iš-imt-inė from iš-imti “to take out.”

13. палукно or palukno³ “interest money”: Lithuanian palūkanos, palūkos, archaic, from palūketi “kiek palaukti.”

271

14. kopa “feudal, so-called communal court in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania” (1460–1754³) < Lith. kùopa. The following criteria point to borrowing: 1) semantic and morphological systems (kaũptis and kūõrtis, kūõpinis); 2) phonetic (: klūnya and klūnya³ from klūonas, orud and orod³ from arúodas); 3) morphological (: pogan kopishcha, Sreznevsky, Materials 1, 1281; 14th c.), since Old Russian nowhere attests the word kopa in the sense “gathering of people”; 4) linguistic-geographical (: absence of communal courts in the Russian state during the period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, i.e., the Russian state, with its distinctive characteristics, also had distinctive legislation and terms reflecting it); 5) cultural-historical (: the formation in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania of its own legal norms reflecting ancient local customs); 6) semantic-group criterion (see the Lithuanianisms torposta and liudnik)—Lithuanianisms, that is, judicial terms, are known.

The term kopa is known neither in Russian nor in Ukrainian records in Galicia (according to Prof. K. Jablonskis).

15. liudnik “witness” (Chr. Stang, Die altrussische Urkundensprache der Stadt Polotzk, 141—145, Oslo, 1939, doc. No. 156 and No. 293) < Lith. liūdi-ninkas: liudyti “to testify”: liáudis “people” (alternation iu: iau).

16. torpostai < torposta³ “a person present when a witness-informer reported information about someone who had committed a crime” (1389–1529) derives directly from Old Lith. tarpūstojas: tárpininkas, tarpinininkauti “intermediary,” “to act as an intermediary,” from the root tãrp “between”): Belarusian torp snapou u gumne <Lith. tárpas (+ “connecting vowel,” as in the word tarp-ī-pēdē (=Old Belarusian torpedya in the sense of torp) + a second root, the same as in the verb stó-ti “to stand” + the suffix -oj(as) in place of modern -ininkas in tarpininkas. The suffix -oj- is also attested in the Lithuanianism órtai, alongside Old Russian ratay and Belarusian araty. The form torposta was formed under the influence of Slavic forms such as starosta or Polish starosta.

17. garmena “diary, journal, notes, copies of oral orders issued by a high-ranking person in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania” (according to the Diary of Kmita of Chernobyl, 1574; it has nothing in common with the Polonism termin(k)a “little note” (according to Nosovich), which is of Latin origin)<Old Lith. *tar-m-enā from tar̃ti “to say orally” (many contexts show concern that the report might fall into enemy hands; the diary, however, was kept by a scribe), by analogy with staig-m-enà=staigmūō (: tarmuō) alongside staig-ùs.

18. konigista³ “serf labor, corvée” < Lith. kunigýstė: kùnigas “obsolete: lord, master; Latvian kungs (ponas)” (Būga, R. R., 1, 545—546), cf. Belarusian, Vitebsk dialect, kunega “sissy” (1927) < Latvian, Vitebsk dialect, *kipeda.

19. pawarýmas “a forced communal work party, or toloka (forced, from the original teĩkti > talkà “voluntary mutual assistance of a certain kind”)—an unassimilated Lithuanianism from varýti “to drive, herd”; toloka is an early Baltic borrowing.

20. leit, plural leiti, -eve, leitsy “workers in a feudal lord’s stable” (15th–16th cc.)³ < Old Lith. *leistis /laitis (Zaičiškių kaimai), possibly from German: cumleutey, 1407 (Ateneum Wileńskie 1, 257): Leute.

272

21. tekun³ (1510—1580) < Old Lithuanian — Lithuanian tekūnas “village elder; before the land-reform established the office of lavnik, the senior person in the village,” (motivated by running to announce the feudal lord’s wishes; cf. the meaning “messenger, runner” and tėkūnas, DZKŽ 848—9).

22. Slavic lavnik > Lithuanian lavnikas (> lavininkas) > Polish (in historical records) lawnikaitis, -ciowi (dative) “son of a lavnik” > lawnikaič — with the Lithuanian suffix — ait —.

23. (s)kerd or skierdž (preserved dialectally in the Slavic dialects of the Vilnius region) < Lithuanian sker̃džius = (1748—1765) viršininkas > Polish virszynik “head shepherd”; Lithuanian viršininkystė > Polish wirs zyni-ko(w)stwo “period of holding the office of w.”

24. рыкунья or рыкуния³ (and other forms), “a female steward responsible for the growth of a feudal lord’s livestock herd; a housekeeper; a domestic manager” (1544—1773), подрыкунья and подрыкунянка “the daughter of a подрыкуньи, an assistant to a рыкуньи,” рыкунич and порыкунич or рыкуноитис (the son of a рыкуньи or, respectively, a подрыкуньи) derive from Lithuanian rykūnė, rykūnaitis from rikiuoti “to put in order, manage a household, etc.” The form річка “milkmaid (Poltava region)” was recorded at the end of the 19th century.

25. oshvinnik (plural oshvinniki)³ “peasant overseer of the grand duke’s mare (the office lasted until the land reform) < Old Lithuanian ašvininkas: ašva “mare.”

26. roitnik (plural roitniki)³ “mounted retainer of the grand duke (on a mission)” (1510—1703) < Lithuanian raitininkas messenger delivering letters (of the Grand Duke); official serving the prince with a horse.”

27. žibentiai³ (plural žibentiai) or žibentai “fire tender and person responsible for lighting the grand-ducal chambers and performing other court services” (1519—1530, Vitebsk region; see the village of Žibentiai in J. Trusman’s book⁶) goes back to Old Lithuanian žibin-t-ėjas or žibin-t-ojas: žibinti “to kindle a light.”

It should be noted that the oshvinniki, roitniki, and žibentiai were free peasants and were granted land in return for service to the grand duke, gradually growing wealthy and entering the Lithuanian boyar estate.

28. koiminnik or koiminets (plural koimintsy) “people who are alike,” initially landless free peasants, neighbors of a magnate, who lived on his lands under certain conditions (1514—1463) < Lithuanian kaimininkas: kaimynas = Old Belarusian koimin, “neighbor.” The koimintsy (or people who are alike) played a major role in settling the vacant lands of feudal lords in Belarus and Lithuania and other territories of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, because they were exempted from taxes (by kings for up to 12 years, by magnates for up to 4 years), with the expectation of their eventual complete enserfment: the village of Koimino near Bobruisk (Atlas of the BSSR 111—112).

29. Polish werg “slave,” “bondsman, serf” (1695—1766); Lithuanian vér-gas; wergowstwo (neuter) “serfdom, etc.; see the village of Werguly in Bielsk County (Acts of the Vilnius Archaeographic Commission, vol. 3, index).”

30. antrýnik, ontrýnik³ (and many other forms), masculine, antrýnica feminine, “the second worker from a given peasant household (usually the wife).”

18. Kalbotyros klausimai, III

273

(1620 — 1794) < Lithuanian antrininkas, -ė: antra “second”; untrynnik >unter-nictvo³: dialectal untrininkas, “a second, non-primary worker.”

31. бѐндр or бѐндра³ “sebr(a), i.e. a companion, a participant in work on a given farm, etc.” < Lithuanian bendras (M.): bendras adjective “common,” bendráuti “to work together, be friends”; бендровство or бяндровство, Polish bendro(w)stwo “friendship” (1571–1665).

32. Old Belarusian bityul, Polish bičiul³, “one who shares bees with someone = who has shared bees in common or bees jointly: (1553 — 1767) < Lithuanian bičiulis: bitė ‘bee’. Let us note the following Lithuanian-origin phraseological expressions, often found in court documents: a) hives or bees shared or held in partnership; “bees shared in common”; b) to give bees into partnership, with half shares; to distribute bees at half shares in partnership; to take bees at half shares into partnership; to keep bees at half shares in partnership; to keep bees in common in partnership; bees shared at half; d) Polish w barciach siabrować; e) to take honey according to the partnership; to share bees at half; g) miód połowiczny.

All these phraseological expressions derive from: a) the adjective shared, a calque of Lithuanian bičiulinis; b) bičiuliškai bites duoti, gauti, imti, prašyti, and so on. It is now difficult to reconstruct Lithuanian proto-forms from the Slavic phraseological expressions. However, to share bees at half is a calque of Lithuanian turėti bičiulystę, while the term partnership in bees is a calque of the Lithuanian bičiulystė,

The principal criterion for identifying a borrowing is the criterion of linguistic geography (see Russian legal documents of that period). The point is that among the ancient Lithuanians and other neighboring Baltic peoples it was customary to give bees to friends and neighbors, with the honey divided equally. But feudal lords soon turned this custom into an obligation to give the landlord half the honey collected from one’s own bees or partnership bees (received from the landlord). In many respects, it is interesting to note that in the oldest court documents there are cases in which the so-called partnership of bees was usually held by a Pole and a Lithuanian, or a Pole, a Belarusian, and a Tatar, as can be seen from the surnames: Kurpesha and Mikel Rimdzevich with Shimko Torkats (a Tatar), 1553, Kaunas powiat³.

33. Finally, let us note four synonymous terms for the concept “primak” (a man taken into another’s household, the husband of a widow or an unmarried woman): 1) Old Belarusian uzkur or ushkur < Lithuanian už-kurys; 2) Old Belarusian preiksh < Lithuanian preikšas (cf. prei-kurys); 3) Old Belarusian ulaz (only in Lithuania)—a calque of Lithuanian už-kur-ys: už-si-kur-ti and Belarusian ulazits “to climb into (someone else’s) house, etc.” 4) Old Belarusian preikur.

* * *

We have noted only the small portion of Lithuanianisms extracted from archival documents of the 14th–18th centuries by the Lithuanian scholar Prof. K. Jablonskis. Yet even among these borrowings we find direct borrowings, words that passed several times from one language to another, calques, and phraseological expressions. The corresponding terms were borrowed not only because the Slavic population lacked its own terms for the Lithuanian

274

custom, but also because a process of mutual assimilation was underway, as a result of which the Slavs prevailed over more than two thousand years. This accounts for the greater number of Slavicisms in Lithuanian compared with the number of Baltisms in neighboring Slavic languages. While Slavicisms became established in Lithuanian under the influence of the Church and education, owing to the dominance of Slavic languages in these spheres, Baltisms gradually disappeared from neighboring languages because they lacked a foothold in those languages’ systems. Yet in their time Baltisms were numerous in each of the neighboring Slavic languages, and the same Baltisms are attested both in Old Belarusian and in Polish written sources.

Most Important Literature Used:

1. E. Karski, Belarusians, 1, Vilna, 1904.

2. V. Kostelnitsky, Russian-Lithuanian Linguistic Relations Based on Dictionary Materials of the Lithuanian Language, dissertation, Vilnius, 1954.

3. K. Jablonskis, Lithuanian Words in the Language of the Chanceries of Old Lithuania, Kaunas, 1941, and manuscript materials.

4. J. Endzelьnas, Sounds and Forms of the Baltic Languages, § 115, 73, Vilnius, 1957.

5. Chr. Stang, The West Russian Chancery Language, Oslo, 1935.

6. Yu. Trusman, Etymology of the Place Names of Vitebsk Governorate, Revel, 1897.

7. A. Dembovsky, An Essay on the Description of Mogilev Governorate.... Mogilev 1882, 1, 471 et al.; 2, 57, 191, 189 (see people alike).

8. K. Būga, Selected Writings, 1, Vilnius, 1958.

9. A. Viarzhbouski, “Belarusian–Lithuanian Lexical Interrelations,” Minsk, 1960 (monograph in two volumes): “Baltic Elements in the Belarusian Language,” Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the BSSR, 2, 117–134, 1959 (research methodology).