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

eplace the official Slavic (Russian or Belorussian) language in the legal system of
the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, in clerical work and in the chancellery of the king.
Rotundas maintains that Latin is the native and primary language of the Lithuanians
and that there is a tradition of legal Latin. (Curiously enough the legend of
the Roman origin of the Lithuanians still persists. Recently a local artist of considerable
repute, who spends part of the year in Paris, told me that he had known
Lithuanians in Paris and that the Lithuanians were originally Romans. Unfortunately
our group was just breaking up at this moment and I did not have the chance
to inform him otherwise.) Naturally Ulèinaitë also discusses Maþvydas’ letters,
which give us a picture of his living conditions. She concludes (p. 232) that “[...] in
16th century Lithuania the forms of the epistolary genre were known, fostered and
supplemented by actual European and Lithuanian realia.”
“Book publishing activities of the Prussian authorities in the 16th-18th centuries”
(pp. 235-265) is the title of the article by Domas Kaunas who discusses (1) the
organization and funding of book publishing, (2) remuneration for authors, (3) the
size of the various editions and (4) censorship. The publication of Maþvydas’
Catechism and the Old Prussian catechisms by Hans Weinreich in Königsberg was
funded by the state. The printers were paid two marks and three shillings for the
first Old Prussian catechism and only two marks for the second corrected edition
(p. 236). The publication of Maþvydas’ second book, Giesmë ð. Ambrazeijaus bei ð.
Augustina (The Hymn of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, 1549) was, however, apparently
financed by Sebastian Perbanth, the commander of Ragnit (p. 237). According
to Kaunas (p. 246) in the dedication of Vilentas’ Euangelijos bei epistolos (1579)
the latter mentions that the translation was approved by experts in theology and
the Lithuanian language. Thus we can assume that authors of the works published
in early Lithuania submitted their works to others before publication (p. 247). Later
for the 17th century there is documentary evidence of the appointment of experts
to study the manuscripts of proposed publications (p. 249). Thus a group of seven
experts in the Lithuanian language was appointed to evaluate “The Psalms of
David” prepared by Johann Rhesa (1625). A board of editors was appointed to
evaluate Daniel Klein’s grammar and hymn book which were then discussed at
informal meetings at Klein’s home in Tilsit.
We know that Maþvydas received 70 marks annually for his work in Ragnit and
this amount was sufficient to buy 350 kg of butter, 150 kg of good wool, 140 sheep
and two good or eight old horses (p. 254). Although Vilentas’ royalties were at first
rather modest, later having worked on the translation of the Euangelijos bei epistolos
initially received 70 marks and from 1563 on 90 marks. Of course, as Kaunas
remarks: “[...] it was the moral remuneration—the opportunity to realize creative
potential, and public recognition of the intellectual part of society—that was most
significant to many an author of the feudal epoch” (p. 256). In this sentence the of
is rather tricky. It is not immediately clear whether the authors get public recognition
from the “intellectual part of society” or whether the public is giving recogni-
222 Archivum Lithuanicum 2