archivum lithuanicum 2 (4,26 mb) - Lietuvių kalbos institutas

title the words “integrity in Europe” should be replaced by “integration into Europe”
which seems to be the subject of the paper.
The author of the second article, “The first Lithuanian book and the period of
formation of the new culture trait-complex” (pp. 31-57) Ingë Lukðaitë examines the
cultural context of printing in Lithuania. Possibly only persons with a feeling for
contemporary English style will find the title of the third article, “The road of the
book to Lithuania” (pp. 59-99) awkward. In this article Edvardas Gudavièius discusses
the writing and printing of books in Lithuania and notes that Lithuanian
books were in the minority among books published in l6th century Lithuania.
Americans are notorious for their inability to distinguish transitive and intransitive
verbs, but still the following sentence (p. 63) will evoke at least a smile from most
Americans: “[...] it [i.e., published books—W. R. S] increased the amount of knowledge
received by the elite strata and rose [sic!] its level [...]” As Gertrude Stein
wrote: “A rose is a rose is a rose,” but this one should have been raised. On p. 66
we read: “The earliest arengas of acts, adopted from Polish formulars, define good
deeds as an action rewarded by God.” I had never heard the English word arenga
before so I looked it up in Webster’s Third International Dictionary where I found the
single definition (p. 116): “a genus of tropical Asiatic and Malaysian palms having
pendent spadices and berrylike fruits.” In the Lithuanian Academy Dictionary (LKÞ
I 297) the closest to arenga was arendà ‘rent.’ I could not find arenga either in Lewis
and Short’s A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1975). I doubt that the author of the article
had in mind “Asiatic and Malaysian palms.” From the sentence it seems that the
author intended some kind of document, but exactly what kind of document is
unclear to me.
For me Zigmas Zinkevièius’ article, “Linguistic sources of Martynas Maþvydas’
writings, and manuscript texts before Maþvydas” (pp. 101-123) seems, for some
reason or other, to be in somewhat better English and therefore easier to understand.
Of course, I am familiar with Zinkevièius’ views from other sources and this
may have aided in understanding his views on the origin of Maþvydas language
and the other sources for the origin of Lithuanian writing.
Albinas Jovaiðas’ article, “Martynas Maþvydas’ catechetical activities” (pp. 125-
139) discusses Maþvydas’ work as a teacher of the catechism, but Jovaiðas also
notes that Maþvydas served not only God, but the “native word,” i.e., the Lithuanian
nation (p. 139). In her article “Martynas Maþvydas’ Catechism: Tradition and
signs of a new consciousness” (pp. 141-157) Dainora Pociûtë-Abukevièienë writes
(p. 143) that the early Lithuanian and Protestant works of literature were not copies
of analogous Western books, but where rather “oriented towards solutions of culture-specific
problems.”
Juozas Karaciejus in his article, “The first book and its addressee” (pp. 159-172)
discusses again the vexed question of the month of publication of Maþvydas’
Catechism and concludes (p. 164): “[...] it is possible to draw the conclusion that the
printing of Maþvydas’ Catechism, which was finished late in 1547, was started
220 Archivum Lithuanicum 2