Teisės terminijos padėtis Lietuvoje 1918–1940 metais

Alvydas UMBRASAS Lietuvių kalbos institutas TEISĖS TERMINIJOS PADĖTIS LIETUVOJE 1918-1940 METAIS Tiek Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje, kuri kaip valstybė nustojo egzistuoti XVIII a. pabaigoje, tiek vėlesnėje dabartinės Lietuvos teritorijoje, kurią daugiau kaip šimtmetį buvo pasidaliję galingos kaimyninės šalys, lietuvių kalbai valstybės teisiniame gyvenime vietos beveik nebuvo. Neither the famous Statute of Lithuania of 1588 (written in Latin, Chancellor Slavic and Polish languages), nor the later Russian laws of the Russian Empire, which operated in most of present-- day Lithuania, made it possible for Lithuanian legal language to emerge, for Lithuanian legal terminology to develop. After Lithuania declared independence in 1918, Lithuanian language was used for the first time in state administration and other areas of public life. Of course, the young state, in order to preserve the stability of social relations, inevitably had to adopt most of the laws of the Russian Empire. This was legalized in Article 24 of the Basic Laws of the Provisional Constitution of Lithuania adopted by the Council of State on 2 November 1918 — until new laws are adopted, the laws that existed before the First World War remain in force temporarily (this abolished the short-lived wartime laws introduced during the imperial occupation). In the same year, the State Council was concerned with the translation of Russian laws into Lithuanian (Maksimaitis 2001: 46-48). And soon (31.07.1920) The Supreme Tribunal established in Article 16 of the Provisional Law on Lithuanian Courts and their Organization that the work of the courts must be carried out in the state language Lithuanian (LLTĮ: 47). The start was not easy. According to the lawyer, the great champion of Lithuanianness Boleslovas Masiulis, there were only a handful of Lithuanian lawyers, some of whom had not yet returned from Russia. Already in the first years of independence, Lithuanian legal terms were actively created. There were mostly few people who knew the Lithuanian language well. 1919. 76 B. Masiulis and Konstantinas Jablonskis (John Jablonskis' son) in the Ministry of Justice, commissioned by Minister Liudas Noreika, created legal terms in various fields. Later, in consultation with B. Masiulis, K. Jablonskis translated the Russian Criminal Code and the Bills of Exchange Code. Antanas Kriščiukaitis (Aišbė), the President of the Supreme Tribunal, took care of the terms of the trials (the term teisenos was then used). In a word, the minimum criminal and civil law terms for courts were established already in 1919—1920 (Masiulis 1954 6: 2). At the beginning of independence, a dictionary of legal terms was also prepared. A 120-page, relatively large-format (slightly larger than A4) manuscript of the Russian-Lithuanian “Draft Dictionary of Legal Terms and Other Words Necessary for Courts” has survived (Figure 1). Until now, it has not only not been studied, but it is also generally, one could say, unknown, mentioned in the literature only once (Andriulis 1998: 12). A hectographed copy of this dictionary (loose arcs) is preserved in the K. Jablonskis manuscript collection of the Central Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (F 256551). Two identical copies are owned by Vytautas Vaidelys, grandson of A. Kriščiukaitis. The lawyer Vytautas Andriulis also holds a hardcover copy. V. Vaidelys also has another version of the same dictionary — it is the original written by another hand (the hectographed copies were probably rewritten by a clerk). Neither the author nor the year of preparation are written on any of the copies of the dictionary (only on the first page of V. Andriulis’s copy it is not clear for what purpose the date of 13 June 1923 is entered between the terms). The time of writing of the dictionary can be determined from additional sources. On November 3, 1919, in the “Valdžios žinios” section of “Lietuvoje” it was reported that the II Department of the Ministry of Justice was preparing for the press “a dictionary of legal terms and words most needed by judges, investigators, notaries, etc.” (DJTŽ: 2). As written, the information was provided by the Director of Department II Al. Milčinskis and K. Jablonskis, head of affairs. People to whom the dictionary is intended are asked to send within three weeks lists of their used terms and terms in Russian which! I thank V. Andriulis and V. Vaidelis for the information provided and for the opportunity to use the dictionary. 77 flare wears: otemuti-- antyvas bugrome abancosncots anno MHupia -avaripy , averyė, (enivani Alistnų alle. 2 Ar akimojicxoc npato-, auleriana Lege. akryenmotame - kkeanta. t akumnmoae Kenunmēpnragenlives Joan. teres, agent Aanloenr. akbeneim sparstaliymai priemė atbsumanie - cgitacya, #vero lyrics. abegasmad -aniyios yRes, | acčydime; Good 000604 Aki -abchyshis antiiūna. akžunnempamuknad-aelvnis soldier. t agnuniompamušnam Cor atypienyauikrininnas, lalininnas. adrumstiacaris Kali. Goode sect a. gi _olesporgursci -cibocsieinncn, Open; Actinomyces -lelmierita ‘do i RAH 10 prrioR Kana -Uneinnicų Ecnclhon, treated agiurtniempasio pe dom amneaeni. bendoone:. Hecoonasmatinene Possena ne - (stbbli acmincetiaca nusegtyrenneie Monin - Acari. Eaokirnen KC Vina lets acorn . - at ‘nelat rekevimy hums OLY —crethecine; sAenutire = £Elienlentė aškapmnas wyta ažaielinis salmois = You 6 know, well. ~alfobelons, vainy nes. 1 Figure 1. The first page of the draft hand-written legal glossary should be 78 translated (with suggested translations). V. Vaidelys has letters from the Ministry of Justice (signed by the Minister of Justice Vincas Karoblis and others), which show that two sheets of the spoken dictionary were sent to the famous linguist J. Jablonski on 1 September 1920 (the other two sheets were sent on 21 September and 1 October of the same year). Mr. Jablonski is requested to familiarize himself with the dictionary as soon as possible and to submit comments on the translations of existing terms and suggestions on how to supplement the dictionary and how to translate untranslated terms. It is planned to convene a consultation of lawyers and linguists in the near future to finalise the legal terms. It is likely that Jablonski was sent the same copy as the ones that have survived. Unfortunately, no data has been found on whether he submitted any proposals. It is not known how this dictionary was discussed (probably the participants received the same copies), but one of Vaidelio copies contains a large number of entries — various proposals for terms, along with the author’s name. Here you can find the names of Ciplijauskas, Leonas, Linartas, Mačius, Samajauskas?, Šaulis and others or their abbreviations (e.g.: Braz., Bugail., Stark., Šalk.). Who is the author of this dictionary — it is difficult to say exactly, but it is probably K. Jablonski (at least one of the authors). The aforementioned K. Jablonski’s manuscript collection contains a draft of this dictionary (F 256-550), as well as a number of finely annoted sheets of various sizes (F 256-546, 547, 552), which show the process of creating the dictionary. Since the work was carried out in the Ministry of Justice, it is apparent that K. Jablonskis also had accomplices. It is very likely that he consulted (or even cooperated) with A. Kriščiukaitis. It is not known how, but he found the surviving original (written, apparently, by K. Jablonski; now, as mentioned, it is in the possession of V. Vaidelys). Understandably, for A. Kriščiukaitis, as the President of the Supreme Court, the most relevant were the terms required by the courts. Sources state that A. Kriščiukaitis actively worked on the creation of legal terminology. According to Liudas Šmulkštys, he “composed the entire terminology of the Lithuanian language in the field of justice and showed how simply and clearly legal ideas can be expressed” (Šmulkštys 1958: 153). ? He signed as such, but in the Lithuanian encyclopedia there is Samajauskas (XXVI, South Boston, 1961, 379.) 79 The project of the oral dictionary of legal terms is the only known work of this kind from the time of independence. It is not known whether it was further developed or made available to lawyers of the time. It is possible that it was distributed in hectographed form. Considering that the dictionary was prepared in the first years of the Republic of Lithuania’s freedom (1919-1920- ), in the absence of suitable Lithuanian sources, its volume is quite impressive. According to approximate calculations, the dictionary contains nearly 3000 term slots, containing about 4000 Russian compound and single-word terms or other words. Of these, only a little over 200 have not been translated into Lithuanian. Russian terms were not easy to translate, so we usually give a few Lithuanian equivalents. The total number of Lithuanian equivalents in the dictionary is about 5500. As the name suggests, the dictionary contains not only legal terms. Approximately a fifth of the terms in this dictionary are considered to be non-legal terms or not terms at all. However, the dictionary could have had a great influence on the legal language, unfortunately, its fate is unknown. It is possible that for unknown reasons it was not further edited and went into disrepair. The content of the dictionary is definitely worth a separate study. The creation and stability of legal terms was influenced by the Terminology Commission established by the Cabinet of Ministers on 29 March 1921. This order also provided that the interested state bodies should establish auxiliary commissions in various fields, including law, for the collection of terms (TKSĮ: 4). Whether such a legal terms commission has been created, data has not been found so far. As the minutes of the Terminology Commission show, already on 6 October 1921, the then chairman of the commission, A. Smetona, was tasked with forming a “commission on legal terms” (usually consisting of three persons) to prepare terms in this field. Specific data on the composition and activities of this commission were not found, but already at the meeting of November 11 of the same year a small list of legal terms with examples of use was discussed, the author of which was A. Kriščiukaitis (he participated in the meeting and could also be a member of the said commission). Some more legal terms were discussed at the meeting on 1 December. All terms published in „Lietuvoje“ (TTP: 2) for public criticism. As can be seen from the minutes, several comments were received (Bendo80 rio and Bulotos). Apparently, the commission itself has rethought some things, because the rather chaotic list has been slightly rearranged, examples of use have been placed in a separate section, terms have been edited. The Lithuanian equivalents of defendant (atsakovas) —omekmuukxs, plaintiff —ucmeys (epancdancruii) appeared in the list. The third person in the case is "the third party". The originally accepted terms “klaiudis” (yauka), “įkliaudinti” (yauuams, yauuums) have been abandoned, and the use of “įkaltis”, “įkaltinti” and others is proposed. The final revised list of legal terms was approved at the meeting of the Terminology Commission on March 9, 1922 and published by the resolution of the Commission in “Lietuvoje” and “Švietimo darbe” (TT,:3; TTR,;:77-81): The specialized journal “Teisės”, which the Lithuanian Society of Lawyers began publishing in 1922, also included the same list of terms in its first issue (TT,: 53— 56). Such a distribution could not go unnoticed by lawyers or the general public. He helped establish such important terms as case, court case —cyde6noe dbao, indictment —o66unenue, accuser —o66unumeno, defendant —o66unsemboiū, trial —noocyJumbiū, statement —3asenenie, etc. At the same time, a number of alternative terms were proposed: criminal (kriminalinė, kriminalé) case —yeonoenoe obo; civil (civil) case —epaxcoanckoe 0bao; action (request), complaint —ucks (epaxcoanckull u yeonoenbiū), »xano06a; defendant, appellant, plaintiff —omebmuuks, witness (witness) presentation, presentation, testimony (deposition) —ceudbmensckoe nokasatie, etc. As can be seen from the terminology of these days, over time the most appropriate option was chosen. Since at that time it was important to translate not only individual terms from Russian, but also entire constructions, a number of examples of usage of terms were also provided. Moreover, some of the terms in that list, based on today's concept of terminology, we would consider to be certain combinations of terms rather than terms. In total, 22 examples and 46 (by numbers) terms were presented. Including all variants, there were actually considerably more Lithuanian terms. A couple of years later, Antanas Vireliūnas, the secretary of the Terminology Commission, compiled a booklet entitled „Įvardžiai, arba terminai, priimti Terminologijos komisijos“ (Pronouns, or terms, adopted by the Terminology Commission). Here, among the terms of other fields, the same “Terms for Legal Matters” were published again, rearranged in alphabetical order and with a dozen additional references (TTR: 13-23). Although J. Jablonskis criticized this publication for its errors and did not even recommend reading 81 | it (Rygiškių Jonas 1925: 347-348), it did not go unnoticed by the readers. The relevance and importance of colloquial terms is also shown by the fact that a few years later A. Vireliūnas’s revised list of legal terms with several changes was printed in the popular among lawyers at the time “Lawyer’s Calendar” (TTR,: 272-277), published by the Lithuanian Lawyers’ Society (chairman A. Kriščiukaitis). Perhaps on the initiative of the Society or the compiler Zigmantas Toliušis, some errors were corrected, several terms were changed, one other variant was abandoned. Apparently, the years since the first publication had already adjusted the usage, so that there was no need for a defendant, appellant, appealed next to the defendant; witness next to the witness. Distinguish the claims, claim (uck) from complaint (»xano6a), plaintiff (ucmey) from complainant (xcano6wmuxr) and so on. Thus, this list of terms adopted by the Terminology Commission, which was published at least five times, undoubtedly had a great impact on the formation and stability of the terminology of law at that time (and today). It should be mentioned that some legal terms were also included in other lists of terms published by the Terminology Commission. They can be found in the sections “Terms for excise matters” (p. 5-13), “Terms for political economy matters” (p. 139-144) of the aforementioned booklet by A. Vireliūnas. The terminology commission, which existed until 1926, did not consider legal terms in particular. After the commission was released, the terminology work was entrusted to the university, but it stopped there altogether. Without the Terminology Commission, neither the law nor other terms were taken care of at the state level for some time. Although there was talk about the reasons for the dissolution of the commission (mainly internal disagreements, different views on the Lithuanianization of terms) and the idea of reviving the terminology work and returning it to the Ministry of Education (Laurinaitis 1928: 4—5, Laurinaitis 1930: 27-31), neither the public nor the educational leadership heard it. Only in 1935® was the Lithuanian 3 Commission established. Until that year, there was no commission managing terms in various fields, and a special Commission on Legal Terminology was active in the State Council from about 1930-1933. There is little information about her, see below in the article. 82 The terminology section of the Lithuanian Language Society, but since there were only five people working there, and it was also decided to consider only those terms that would be needed first by the society itself (LKDK 1936: 164), the work was not very abundant and varied. As can be seen from the book of the minutes of the general meetings of the Society (F 63-3) preserved in the manuscripts of the Central Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences, on 13 May 1935, a member of the Society, B. Masiulis, was tasked with writing a draft of legal terms, but there is no data about him. This is not mentioned by B. Masiulis himself (Masiulis 1954). Since neither the minutes of the Terminology Section nor other documents were found (apparently, they have not survived) and knowing that this section had decided to publish the adopted terms in the press most accessible to interested persons (LKDK 1935: 95), and was not published, it is likely that the section did not discuss legal terms at all. Apparently, there was a lack of private initiative, since in 1939 Petras Jonikas still urged lawyers to take care of their language culture themselves, to coordinate controversial legal terms with specialist linguists and to seek help from the LKD Terminology Section (Jonikas 1939: 99-100). And in the journal Teisės, after the article by Jon Mičiulis (Mičiulis 1937: 326-328), in which help was also expected from the Terminology section, the journal’s editorial staff added a note (pp. 328-329) in which, in support of the ideas set out, it urged readers to provide the necessary material themselves. There it is written that Pranas Skardžius and Antanas Salys agreed to help the lawyers if they provide drafts of terms with interpretations and translations into other languages. The terms established by the Lithuanian Language Society with their interpretations would have been published in Teisės. Unfortunately, this call, it seems, was not answered, although there appeared support in the press (Stravinskas 1937: 4), and some time later hints that some members of the Law Society were preparing to undertake this work, and that a group of linguists was being assembled at the editorial office of Teisės (Stravinskas 1938: 98). At the same time, it was suggested that the work of managing legal terminology would be more appropriate to be entrusted to an authority that would form a competent commission to review the terms used and create new ones. The terms published by such a commission would have been official, binding on all, and thus easier to implement in practice (see ibid.). At the end of the 1930s, it became increasingly important to solve the problems of legal terminology, also because the Lithuanian Encyclopedia was being published at that time. Delays in the preparation and creation of the necessary terminology could have left important legal concepts unaccounted for in the encyclopedia and could have resulted in the use of inappropriate legal terminology. After two decades of 83 independence, the legal terminology has still not been formally codified. There was a lot of inconsistency in the laws and in the theoretical and practical writings of the law. This disrupted not only the work of legislation, but also legal practice. Although the old generation of lawyers, who had graduated from Russian, German and other law schools, which had a great influence on their language, had gradually given way to lawyers with Lithuanian education and the legal language had made great progress, there was a great lack of a vocabulary of legal terms. In such circumstances, there is a greater concern about the terminology of the field in question. In order to evaluate and supplement the new legal terms already in use, a Terminology Commission was formed in the State Council, which began its work on 13 February 1939. The Commission was chaired by the Chairman of the State Council B. Masiulis, and the members were invited by the State Council member K. Jablonskis, the collaborator of this Council A. Salys and the Council rapporteur P. Stravinskas. If necessary, other council collaborators, members of commissions preparing laws were also invited to the meetings. As B. Masiulis writes, the State Council has taken care of language matters since its establishment (1928). President Antanas Smetona had determined that there should be at least one person in the council who knew the Lithuanian language well. The aim was to ensure that draft laws and other documents were written in an exemplary correct language. Therefore, already in the second year after the Council was established, the linguist A. Salys was invited to cooperate with it. With breaks, he worked for several years. After he retired, the Lithuanian poet Juozas Bukota came to his aid for some time. In addition, a drafting committee, whose permanent members were B. Masiulis, Juozas Papečkys and Zigmas Starkus, worked in the State Council almost all the time to edit draft laws. He also played for the 1954–55 season with the New York Mets (1954–55, 1958–59). B. Masiulio texts show that already at the beginning of the existence of the State Council, the Terminology Commission, to which belonged pečkys, the former rapporteur of the Council P. Stravinskas and the linguist Stasys 84 Dabušis (Masiulis 1957: 34). It is very likely that these people are the organizers of the first part of the list of talks or at least contributed to it. This list can be considered a hint of A. Žiurlio dictionary (more than three times larger). Based on the aforementioned review, but with incorrect reference to the source of the dictionary, the literature has already mentioned the concealment of some of the authors of the “Dictionary of Legal Terms” (Andriulis 1998: 12-13). The list of terms in question is relatively considerable. The main part (47 p.) contains about 1100 term slots containing about 1500 terms. The attached supplementary list (p. 14) contains about 500 terms. Part of the terms are repeated in the second part, there is a different presentation structure. It is almost certain that it was prepared by another person (s), most likely a little later. There are also some Soviet realities in this part (e.g., the Executive Committee — Ispolkom; the participant in the collective farm — kolkhoznik; the collective farm — kolkhoz). Some terms also show the very negative influence of the Russian language: poor-quality products —niedobrokačestviennaja produkcija; draugdalyvis — a co-participant; ydprekės Jydingos prekės/—bračnyj tovar; pre-call — doprizyvnik; manmonth — manmonth. There are also interesting terms for today’s eyes: drauslys /draudininkas/—strachovicik; a recreation establishment/vytrezvitel; kuopūkis — kolchoz; peasant — kolchoznik. In general, the second part of the list is not very valuable from a scientific point of view. The first is different. It should reflect the legal terminology of the last years of independence. B. Masiulis has said in the mentioned review of A. Žiurlio dictionary that “terms, wherever you look, are still old — from the times of independent Lithuania” (Masiulis 1957: 34-35), although in the preface of the dictionary it is written: “Under the rule of the bourgeoisie, the question of legal terminology in Lithuania was completely neglected: the bourgeoisie not only did not care to create a clear and precise legal terminology, but, on the contrary, the bourgeoisie was interested in the ambiguity and confusion of this terminology, because this enabled it to oppress and exploit working people, unable to find their way in bourgeois laws, even more” (3). Instead of a comment, the words of the quoted review are appropriate: “Oh, comedians- !” (35). The list of legal terms is not exhaustive. There are two empty columns for terms in German and French (there is no term 91 mine, but the desires, apparently, were great). The section of Russian equivalents is also incomplete. Only header nest terms are translated, and compound terms are usually not translated. At the same time, this shows the welcome nature of the work of the compilers — Lithuanian terms were collected, not looking for Russian equivalents. Although the terms adopted by the Terminology Commission of the State Council were undoubtedly used in the list, the question arises why some of these terms were omitted. It seems that the necessary terms do not add more to the theory of law than to practice. This could also indicate the practical purpose of the list. In terms of terminology, the list is quite qualitative. The authors could not create terms, but collect already used, more or less considered, time-tested ones. Many of them, completely identical or slightly modified, can be found in the “Glossary of Legal Terms”. Some of the terms, of course, were unnecessary due to the legal framework. On the other hand, in today’s eyes, many of the terms in A. Žiurlio dictionary, not to mention Sovietisms, have lost their relevance or need to be significantly edited, but that is a separate topic. That the terms of the list are quite good, can be illustrated by the following examples: acquittal (14), instrument of crime (15), legalization of the child (15), accusatory language of the prosecutor (18), false testimony (22), provisions of the law (24), probation (26), consultative vote (31), precautionary measure (35), aggravating circumstance (40), settlement (42), preliminary examination (43). They have stood the test of time and reached these days. There are also unfamiliar terms, e.g.: drinking —pacnueouno, selling beer drinking (13), jlaikus —cpounviū, timely writing, jlaikus darbas (17), prisoners’ house —mecmozarxnrouenus (40), next to the more usual term pasauga —nokaaxca are proposed now as unknowns the security provider —saugintojas, the security prime —sauguotojas (29). Such terms of service provider and recipient are not easily created for all fields, although the terms insurer — cmpaxoeamens (18), insurer — cmpaxoewux (18) were already quite successfully developed and established. In conclusion, it should be said that although there was talk of a disorder in the field of legal terminology, a lot was done in the years 1918-1940. The rapidly emerging Lithuanian legal terminology improved all the time, little by little it was attempted to standardize or at least uniformize it. Already then, we could see a dictionary of legal terms, only that, apparently, lacked initiative, 0 eventually prevented by political circumstances. Nevertheless, the work of that time did not go to waste, although in the Soviet era it was emphasized that the legal terminology began to be taken care 92 of only after the “liberation” of Lithuania. In fact, it was precisely in the years 1918-1940 that the foundations were laid on which today’s building of legal terminology stands. LITTERACY Andriulis V. 1998: The Legal System of the First Republic of Lithuania (1918 II 16-1940 VI 15), Vilnius. Dargis L. 1938: Commercial correspondence: a textbook for school and life, Kaunas. DLGT - Dictionary of Legal Terms. —Lithuania. 1919. November 3. 1939. pp. 39. "Legal Terms". —Native language 7. 1928. pp. 28. "Terminology". —The Echo of Lithuania. March 16. Laurinaitis J. M. 1930: Revitalization of the work of terminology. —Language 1 (1). 1935. pp. Chronicle. —Native language 6. 1936. pp. Chronicle. —Native language 12. LLT1Į — Laikas. Law on the Courts and their Organization. —Law 1, 1922. Maksimaitis M. 2001: Sources of Lithuanian Law 1918-1940, Vilnius. 1954. pp. 14. "Law and Lawyers- ". —Lawyers’ Knowledge 6, 7. 1957. pp. 197. "Dictionary of Legal Terms". —Lawyer- 's Knowledge 21-22. 1958. pp. 19. "State Council". 25–26. 1965. pp. 65. "State Council". —Lietuvių enciklopedija 33, South Boston. Mičiulis J. 1937: Lawyers and Lithuanian language. —Article 39. 1925: The Pronouns, or Terms, adopted by the Terminology Commission (review). —Educational work 4. Salys A. 1937: Mūsų gentivardžiai. —Native language 1, 2, 3, 5. Salys A. 1979: Raštai 1, Roma. 1934: The Court of Justice. —Rule 25. Skardžius P. 1958: Teisingas ir veiksmingas. —Mother tongue 1. Stravinskis P. 1937: About Legal Terminology. —The Echo of Lithuania. October 26. Stravinskas P. 1938: On the question of Lithuanian legal terminology. —7I was 41. Stravinskis P. 1939: Projektas teisinės terminologijos. —Article 48. Stravinskis P. 1954: Our legal terminology. —Lawyer- ’s knowledge 9. Stravinskas P. 1958: How we prepared the Civil Code of Lithuania. 1958: Antanas Kriščiukaitis. —Lietuvių enciklop25-26. edija 13, South Boston. 93 "Terminology Commission Order". —Government News 60, 1921. TT, —Legal terms. —Lithuania. 1922. March 26. TT, —permission periods. —Law 1, 1922. TTP - Legal Terms (project- ). —Lithuania. 1921. December 23. TTR, —Terms for legal matters. —Educational Work 7, 1922. TTR, —Terms for legal matters. —Substantives, or terms, adopted by the Terminology Commission. South. A. Vireliūnas. Kaunas, 1924. TTR, —Terms for legal matters. —Calendar of Lawyers for 1928. South. Mr. Toliušis. TZ -Dictionary of Legal Terms. South. A. Ziurlys. Vilnius, 1954. 1933: A number of proposals for lawyers regarding terminology. — Mother tongue 3. THE STATE OF THE TERMINOLOGY OF LAW IN LITHUANIA IN 1918-1940 Summary After the declaration of independence in 1918 Lithuanian language for the first time got into the fields of government of state and other fields of the public life. The need for the Lithuanian terminology of law arose and terms were created. This article gives an overview of various works (1918-1940) which dealt with the creation and standardisation of the terminology of law. Probably for the first time the manuscript of the dictionary of law (1920) is more widely introduced. Quite a lot of attention is given to activities of the standardisation of the terminology of law which was performed in an organised way —merits of the Terminological commission at the Ministry of Education (1921-1926) and Terminological commission of the State Council (1939-1940) are described. Various data about terminology of law from the press of that time is presented. This article also introduces with the typewriting copy of the list of terms of law which is kept in the Department of manuscripts of the Martynas Mazvydas National Library. Possible authors and sources of the first published dictionary of law („Teisinių terminų žodynas“ compiled by A. Ziurlys. Vilnius, 1954), which could have been concealed are mentioned. The aim of this article is to emphasize that the foundations of the Lithuanian terminology of law were laid in 1918-1940. Alvydas UMBRASAS Received 2001 10 01 Lithuanian Language Institute Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius E-mail [email protected] 94