The Radziwiłłs and Their Horses: Hipponyms in 17th- and 18th-Century Inventories of the Magnate Family’s Herds

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 2025, vol. 92, pp. 1–23 Contents link / Turinio nuoroda ISSN 2669-218X (online / elektroninis) Copyright © 2025 Kamil Frejlich. Published by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. // Išleido Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Šis straipsnis yra atviros prieigos, platinamas pagal „Creative Commons“ priskyrimo licencijos sąlygas, leidžiančias neribotai naudoti, platinti ir atkurti turinį bet kokioje laikmenoje, nurodant autorių ir šaltinį. Received: / Gauta: 2025-01-31. Accepted: / Priimta: 2025-04-18. 1 THE RADZIWIŁŁS AND THEIR HORSES: HIPPONYMS IN 17THAND 18TH-CENTURY INVENTORIES OF THE MAGNATE FAMILY’S HERDS Radvilos ir jų arkliai: XVII ir XVIII amžiaus žirgų vardai magnatų šeimos bandų inventoriuose KAMIL FREJLICH Royal Łazienki Museum in Warsaw E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9142-8886 Fields of research: History of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, human-animal relationships, social history, cultural history, methodology of history. https://doi.org/10.35321/all92-03 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ABSTRACT The article examines the hipponyms (proper names for horses) recorded in the inventories of the Radziwiłł family’s herds in the 17th and 18th centuries, predominantly located in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. A total of 434 lexical units were identified, consisting of 106 female and 328 male forms. Analysis of these names reveals that they were not arbitrary but part of a deliberate naming system. The names referred to various characteristics of the animals, including their appearance, behaviour, and possibly their places of origin. Some names were associated with “femininity” and beauty in the case of mares, while those for male horses often referred to fighting, courage, and offices. Greek and Roman mythology served as a significant source of inspiration for many hipponyms, while others were derived from the names of animal species. Many were also connected to the widely understood Muslim world. The languages most frequently represented among the names were Polish, Turkish, and Italian. The authors of the sources likely wrote only in Polish and were not well-educated, which may explain the distorted forms encountered. KEYWORDS: The Radziwiłłs, hipponyms, horses, zoonyms, inventories. 2 ANOTACIJA Straipsnyje nagrinėjami žirgų vardai, užrašyti XVII–XVIII a. Radvilų giminei priklausiusių, daugiausiai Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje buvusių bandų inventoriuose. Iš viso rasti 434 leksiniai vienetai (iš jų 106 moteriškos ir 328 vyriškos formos). Vardų analizė atskleidė, kad jie buvo suteikti neatsitiktinai, tačiau sudarė apgalvotos vardų sistemos dalį. Žirgų vardai reiškė įvairias gyvūnų ypatybes, įskaitant jų išvaizdą, elgseną ir galbūt kilmės vietą. Kai kurie patelių vardai buvo siejami su „moteriškumu“ ir grožiu, o žirgų patinų vardai – su kova, drąsa ir tarnyba. Graikų ir romėnų mitologija buvo svarbus daugelio žirgų vardų įkvėpimo šaltinis, kiti vardai kilę iš gyvūnų rūšių pavadinimų. Taip pat pasitaikė vardų, susijusių su plačiai suprantama musulmoniškojo pasaulio tikrove. Kalbos, iš kurių kilę vardai, dažniausiai lenkų, turkų ir italų. Sąrašų autoriams lenkų kalba buvo bene vienintelė, kuria šie galėjo rašyti, be to, jie nebuvo išsilavinę, todėl pasitaikė iškraipytai užrašytų vardų formų. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: Radvilos, žirgų vardai, arkliai, zoonimai, inventoriai. INTRODUCTION There are several species, other than humans, that use specific sound sequences to address their conspecifics, as observed, among others, in African bush elephants (Pardo et al. 2024). However, humans tend not only to name other humans but also members of other species, a practice that can be traced back to the Old Kingdom of Egypt. The functions of contemporary zoonyms were defined by Janusz Strutyński as: possessive (indicating ownership by the person who names the animals), differentiating (distinguishing one animal from another), and phatic-conative (used in some species to establish contact with animals, elicit responses, etc.) (Strutyński 1996: 104–106). I would also argue that they serve an emotive function. Although historical zoonyms cannot be ascribed the same functions in all contexts, they are undoubtedly an important element for understanding how people once treated, valued and perceived animals, thus serving as a source for the history of human-animal relationships. Moreover, they represent a layer of living language that reveals much about humans themselves, including cultural changes. For instance, in contemporary contexts, it is observed that zoonyms are influenced by popular culture and current events (Strutyński 1996: 90–102; Duszyk 2011: 276–280). Research on zoonyms in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth has not been well developed to date. A few articles have been published on the names of cattle in the Kingdom of Poland in the 17th–18th centuries (Mytlakowski 1889; Pawlik 1922; Zborowski 1922; Warchoł 1961; Bubak 1974–1977) and in the Duchy of Siewierz in the 18th century (Pluta 1988). The names of dogs used for hunting, recorded by the Voivode of Poznań, Jan Ostroróg (1565– 1622), have also been analysed (Ziembicki 1934; Smetona, Smetonienė 2017). Some data on dog names used in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 16th century, before the Lublin Union (Ragauskienė 2010: 34), and in the second half of the 18th century (Frejlich 2025), is also available. Although there is extensive research on contemporary hipponyms in Slavic languages (Warchoł 2007: 119–268), Early Modern examples are not well represented in the academic literature (see, for example, the three 18th-century horse names from the Duchy of Siewierz 3 in Pluta 1988). However, we can point to the article by Evgenija N. Varnikova, who analysed the hipponyms mainly recorded in the inventories of Vologda monasteries, with a total of 430 forms from the 16th–18th centuries (Varnikova 2020). Marina Castiglione, in turn, analysed 164 hipponyms related to the stables of the noble Moncada family in central Sicily at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries (Castiglione 2021). The generally poor state of research on historical hipponyms can be attributed to their scarcity in source materials. It has been observed, for instance, that they are absent from Late Medieval urban account books (Meiers 2019: 23). Bogdan Walczak concluded that they occur very rarely in Polish source materials (Walczak 1996: 149–150). Nevertheless, 18th-century sources from the territory of Poland contain examples not yet known to researchers (Charczowski I: 11; Charczowski II: 43). A true abundance of such names is found, however, in the materials pertaining to one of the most influential magnate families of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania – the Radziwiłłs. 1. SOURCES AND RESEARCH STRATEGIES The Central Archives of Historical Records in Warsaw houses a vast collection known as the Warsaw Archives of the Radziwiłłs, which was transported from Nyasvizh to Warsaw in 1919 and 1923 (Lewandowska 2008: 632–654). A significant part of the collection consists of various inventories, both of estates and belongings. It has already been argued that Radziwiłł inventories are a valuable and multifaceted corpus of sources that can be used to conduct research not only on the history of material culture (which seems obvious), but also on the history of everyday life, mentality, social and cultural history (Augustyniak 2003), as well as non-anthropocentric history, including animal history (Frejlich 2025). It needs to be noted that inventories of various estates belonging to the nobility have already been utilised in historical sociolinguistic research. For example, Zigmas Zinkevičius employed such documents to analyse anthroponymy and demography in selected settlements of 17th-century Lithuania, including Vokė, which belonged to Bogusław Radziwiłł. This led him to the conclusion that their population was predominantly ethnically Lithuanian (Zinkevičius 1997). Inventories of both estates and movable property provide a valuable foundation for sociolinguistic analyses, as they reflect the language in use, even though this was not the primary purpose for which they were recorded. In the analysed collection of Radziwiłł inventories, there are approximately 90 registers of various animals belonging to the family in the 17th–18th centuries, including dogs, cattle, sheep, and camels. However, the majority pertain to horses – about 70, of which only 10 contain any hipponyms. All of the manuscripts were written in Polish (see Illustration 1). The hipponyms date from 1612 to 1742. The herds in which these names were used belonged to three members of the Radziwiłł family: Krzysztof (1585–1640), Field (later Grand) Lithuanian Hetman and Voivode of Vilnius (Inv. XXVI-17; Inv. XXVI-39; Inv. XXIX-249); Bogusław (1620–1669), Grand Lithuanian Standard-Bearer and Grand 4 Lithuanian Equerry (Inv. XXVI-767); and Michał Kazimierz (1702–1762), who later became the Voivode of Vilnius and Grand Lithuanian Hetman (Inv. XXVI-192; Inv. XXVI-261; Inv. XXVI-277; Inv. XXVI-320; Inv. XXVI-809; Inv. XXVI-988). Most of the hipponyms found in the sources are associated with the first of these magnates. Horse names from 18th-century sources represent only about a tenth of the total. The data analysed originates from herds located primarily in the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Ageniškis, Astashyn, Belitsa, Berazavets, Dzyalyatsichy, Jašiūnai, Kapyl, Karelichy, Koydanava, Lyubcha, Naujamiestis, Nyasvizh, Papilys, Radviliškis, Slutsk, Usa, Vilnius, Vyžuonos, Zhuprany), but also in the regions of Volhynia (Olyka, Radyvyliv, Rokhmaniv, Tsuman) and Podlachia (Orla) that belonged to the Kingdom of Poland, and in the vassal Duchy of Courland and Semigallia (Kuldīga). It is justified to use the names of horses from the Radziwiłł herds across all of these territories, as the source material demonstrates that animals were transported between locations. This means that the recurring hipponyms may occasionally refer to the same animal. For example, in 1735, a stallion named Karaś was mentioned in Rokhmaniv, and the following year, he appeared in Tsuman, as well as being transported from Olyka to Nyasvizh (Inv. XXVI-261: 1; Inv. XXVI-277: 1; Inv. XXVI-988: 1). Later in the text, I list all of the horse names found, categorising them into female and male. This distinction is important because gender was usually used for characterising an animal, even in ambiguous cases. For example, in one of the later Radziwiłł inventories from 1765 (Inv. XXVI-883: 1), two “hermaphrodite” horses are mentioned, yet they are referred to as “stallions” (ogier <…> armofrodyt). However, in many cases, the gender of the animal is not specified in the analysed sources. In such instances, I have chosen the most probable gender based on the grammatical gender and meaning of the name. Some forms, however, are not immediately obvious. For instance, Katona – which appears to be a female name due to its grammatical form – turned out to be the name of a stallion. Not all of the hipponyms were easily legible, and in some cases, the writers distorted certain forms. Additionally, there were instances where it was unclear whether a particular word referred to a proper name or a characteristic feature of a horse, such as his or her appearance, disposition, or origin. This was especially challenging with female forms, as the authors of the inventories often characterised mares using adjectives, some of which could have been used as hipponyms. Nevertheless, I was able to identify 434 lexical units (106 female and 328 male forms) that were undoubtedly – or, in some cases, most likely – used as hipponyms. This article aims to establish the principles of the naming convention of horses in the Radziwiłł herds. While not disregarding the information about the horses contained within them (such as gender and characteristics), it is important to recognise that these names were created and used by humans. As such, I also reflect on the aspects of human history that they reveal. 5 To achieve these goals, all the forms are listed and subsequently analysed. My particular interests lie in their etymology, with a focus on determining the language of origin, and their semantics. I categorise them into semantic fields and attempt to infer the motivations behind the use of these particular forms as hipponyms. This leads to conclusions about the creators and users of the names – their mentality and intellectual horizons. In the text, I employ qualitative analysis. This approach is justified by an attempt to answer the questions of how the horses were named and why these names were chosen. The source material is likely incomplete (it is probable that many more horses had names, but these were not recorded), and some of the forms we encounter raise doubts, as mentioned above. Additionally, we cannot always be certain whether a recurring name refers to the same or different animals. For these reasons, I have refrained from determining the frequency of particular hipponyms or their groups, as the results would likely be highly questionable. 2. HIPPONYMS The names are listed below in alphabetical order in the nominative case. The original spelling is retained. Variants of hipponyms (including misspellings) are all included, separated by slash marks, with the most accurate form given first. All sources are cited in brackets and arranged chronologically. Different hipponyms are separated by semicolons. Female hipponyms: Aisie (Inv. XXIX-249: 3); Antea (Inv. XXIX-249: 3); Arachna (Inv. XXVI-261: 4) / Rachna (Inv. XXVI-809: 6, 8); Ariadna (Inv. XXIX-249: 3; Inv. XXVI-809: 8) / Aryiadna (Inv. XXVI-261: 4) / Aryanna (Inv. XXVI-809: 6); Armida (Inv. XXIX-249: 3); Artemissia (Inv. XXVI-261: 4) / Archamissa (Inv. XXVI-809: 6, 8); Aspra (Inv. XXIX-249: 3); Astrea (Inv. XXVI-809: 8); Atalanta (Inv. XXVI-17: 50, 83, 89, 94; Inv. XXIX-249: 3; Inv. XXVI192: 1) / Atalianta (Inv. XXVI-17: 75) / Athalanta (Inv. XXVI-17: 40) / Atalantas (Inv. XXVI-809: 8); Badessa (Inv. XXIX-249: 4); Baszanka (Inv. XXVI-17: 28, 31–32, 49, 63, 65, 67, 72– 75, 83, 94, 101, 107) / Baszantka (Inv. XXVI-17: 20, 23–24, 60); Beladona (Inv. XXVI-17: 22, 29, 48–49, 60, 66, 75, 97, 108) / Belladona (Inv. XXVI-17: 27, 31–32, 69, 83, 101; Inv. XXIX-249: 1, 4) / Bella donna (Inv. XXVI-17: 40) / Beliadona (Inv. XXVI-17: 75) / Belatona (Inv. XXVI-17: 14); Bekulsza (Inv. XXVI-17: 28, 30, 32, 48, 66–68, 71, 83, 87) / Biekulsza (Inv. XXVI-17: 60, 107); Bellona (Inv. XXVI-192: 1; Inv. XXVI-809: 8); Betta (Inv. XXIX249: 4); Białogrodka (Inv. XXVI-17: 23, 27, 29–30, 49, 53, 56, 60, 68, 72, 76, 82–83, 89, 94, 101, 105); Bisua (Inv. XXIX-249: 4); Blanka (Inv. XXVI-17: 102); Brodka (Inv. XXVI-17: 37, 84); Camilla (Inv. XXIX-249: 5); Ceres (Inv. XXVI-261: 4) / Cyrys (Inv. XXVI-809: 6, 8); Cicalina (Inv. XXIX-249: 5); Ciciliana (Inv. XXIX-249: 5); Ciciluzsa (Inv. XXIX-249: 5); 6 Ciciscatina (Inv. XXIX-249: 5); Cinthia (Inv. XXIX-249: 5); Corutea (Inv. XXIX-249: 5); Czeszka (Inv. XXVI-17: 63); Dama (Inv. XXVI-17: 21, 23, 48, 65, 89, 94, 105; Inv. XXIX-249: 6); Dąmzella (Inv. XXIX-249: 6); Deka (Inv. XXIX-249: 6); Diana (Inv. XXIX-249: 6) / Dianna (Inv. XXVI192: 1) / Dyanna (Inv. XXVI-809: 8) / Dyianna (Inv. XXVI-261: 4); Dido (Inv. XXVI-809: 8); Dolatyczka (Inv. XXVI-17: 27, 29, 54, 57, 82) / Dolaticzka (Inv. XXVI-17: 72–73, 82); Dorinda (Inv. XXIX-249: 6); Dropka (Inv. XXVI-17: 32, 49, 83, 89, 95, 102, 106); Dryada (Inv. XXVI-809: 6, 8) / Dryiada (Inv. XXVI-261: 4); Emne (Inv. XXIX-249: 7); Farfarella (Inv. XXIX-249: 8); Fatima (Inv. XXVI-17: 101, 104); Fatma (Inv. XXIX249: 8); Flora (Inv. XXVI-192: 1; Inv. XXVI-809: 6, 8); Fortuna (Inv. XXVI-17: 20, 23, 32, 50, 60, 67, 69, 75, 83, 87, 91, 102; Inv. XXIX-249: 8); Garbata (Inv. XXVI-17: 72–73, 76, 82, 101); Giul (Inv. XXIX-249: 9); Gwiazda (Inv. XXVI-17: 63; Inv. XXIX-249: 9); Hasanka (Inv. XXVI-17: 27, 29, 31–32, 53–54, 56, 69, 76, 82–83, 89, 95, 105– 106) / Hasantka (Inv. XXVI-17: 24, 60) / Asanka (Inv. XXVI-17: 72); Io (Inv. XXVI-261: 4) / Iwa (Inv. XXVI-809: 6, 8); Irys (Inv. XXVI-809: 8); Juno (Inv. XXVI-192: 1; Inv. XXVI-261: 4; Inv. XXVI-809: 6, 8); Kadyn (Inv. XXIX-249: 13); Katonka (Inv. XXVI-17: 29, 54, 57, 63, 73, 76, 82, 107); Kawka (Inv. XXIX-249: 13); Kierime (Inv. XXIX-249: 13); Klorys (Inv. XXVI-261: 4) / Florys (Inv. XXVI-809: 6); Kmarica (Inv. XXIX-249: 2); Kornice (Inv. XXIX-249: 13); Korona (Inv. XXIX-249: 13); Kosata (Inv. XXVI-17: 63, 102, 105); Kosminka (Inv. XXVI-17: 63); Kusiade (Inv. XXIX-249: 13); Laura (Inv. XXIX-249: 14); Lątka (Inv. XXVI-17: 63); Lucca (Inv. XXIX-249: 14); Lucina (Inv. XXVI-192: 1) / Lucyna (Inv. XXVI-809: 8); Luna (Inv. XXVI-17: 27, 29, 50, 67, 101); Lysica (Inv. XXVI-17: 63); Łachewka (Inv. XXVI-809: 8); Ładna (Inv. XXVI-809: 7; Inv. XXVI-320: 4); Mała (Inv. XXVI-809: 7); Mamka (Inv. XXVI-17: 63); Marszałkowna (Inv. XXVI-17: 102); Martica (Inv. XXIX-249: 15); Menica (Inv. XXIX-249: 15); Misurka (Inv. XXVI-17: 24, 27, 29, 31–32, 49, 55, 60, 65, 67, 69, 72–73, 77, 82, 87, 95, 101) / Mysurka (Inv. XXVI17: 83); Musulmanka (Inv. XXVI-17: 101); Narcissa (Inv. XXIX-249: 16); Niszczycha (Inv. XXVI-17: 65, 67, 72–73, 75, 82, 101); Nizka (Inv. XXIX-249: 16); Nozderka (30, 32, 48, 60, 63, 66, 68, 73, 87, 101, 108) / Nasderka (Inv. XXVI-17: 83) / Nozdorka (Inv. XXVI-17: 82); Nozka (Inv. XXVI-17: 63); Orlianka (Inv. XXVI-17: 63); Ortega (Inv. XXIX-249: 17); Oszmianka (Inv. XXVI-17: 63); Pallas (Inv. XXVI-809: 8); Pandora (Inv. XXVI-192: 1; Inv. XXVI-809: 8); Panna (Inv. XXVI-17: 40, 103; Inv. XXIX-249: 1, 18); Paraska (Inv. XXVI-17: 90); Persa (Inv. XXVI-17: 32, 52, 56, 60, 72, 76, 82, 85, 89, 94, 105); Piękna (Inv. XXVI-809: 7; Inv. XXVI- 7 320: 4); Podlaszanka (Inv. XXVI-17: 63); Pomona (Inv. XXVI-192: 1; Inv. XXVI-809: 6, 8); Ponczoska (Inv. XXVI-17: 41); Prozerpina (Inv. XXVI-192: 1; Inv. XXVI-261: 4); Illustration 1. Inv. XXVI-39: 1 8 Illustration 2. Inv. XXVI-192: 1 9 Illustration 3. Inv. XXVI-277: 1 16 It is worth noting that the Russian examples analysed by E. Varnikova to a certain extent referred to the same semantic fields: the appearance of the animals, ethnonyms, toponyms, offices, anthroponyms, other animal species. They were, however, not loaned from other languages (Varnikova 2020). Similar were the motivations behind the names of the horses of the Moncadas in Sicily, that were also based almost exclusively on the local language, with one Latin exception (Castiglione 2021). Illustration 4. Inv. XXIX-249: 23 17 It remains unclear exactly how the process of creating hipponyms in the Radziwiłł herds operated. The source material indicates only that, at times, daughters were named after their mothers (Inv. XXVI-17: 27, 32). As discussed throughout the analysis, the hipponyms were derived from words in various languages, with Polish, Turkish, and Italian being the most commonly used. There are also examples from Latin and Ancient Greek (likely through Latin) in the case of mythological figures. Instances of names stemming directly from Latin are rare. A few examples can be traced to Spanish words – to the forms mentioned above we may add Chidalgo (← hidalgo ‘nobleman’) and Ortega (a surname). Only one name appears to have originated directly from German. A Lithuanian example is Brolis (‘brother’). CONCLUSIONS The hipponyms used in the Radziwiłł herds constitute a rich and varied group of lexical units. As demonstrated, these names form a deliberate naming system that can also be understood in the context of broader historical and cultural phenomena. The presence of horse names referring to the Muslim world only in the 17th-century inventories may be connected to the political and military history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, particularly the conflicts with the Ottoman Empire and Tatar invasions. After the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699), these concerns largely faded from the historical landscape, although they had previously been significant for the inhabitants of the state. Regardless of their linguistic origins, all the hipponyms were filtered through the system of the Polish language. A notable example of this is the inflected form Arachna instead of the original indeclinable Arachne. It is important to remember that all the inventories were written in Polish, which was likely the only language the authors could write in. The fact that some foreign names were translated into Polish in Inv. XXIX-249 further supports the idea that the Polish language played a key role. It is plausible that the authors were not familiar with the foreign languages from which the hipponyms originated, which may explain why some of them are distorted. The writers of the inventories were likely not well-educated. For instance, Inv. XXVI809 was probably written by someone with little or no knowledge of mythology, who recorded the names of mythological figures as he heard them. That helps explain the presence of distorted forms such as Iwa, Rachna, and Cyrys instead of Io, Arachne, and Ceres. Most of the mythological names can be attributed to the time of Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł who was taught classical literature and art (Kucharski 2022: 82–83, 92), and who may have played a role in the creation of these hipponyms. It is clear that some of the names were used for different horses over time. For example, Skoczek was recorded in both 1620–1621 and 1735–1736. Even horses living at the same time 18 could share the same name, as evidenced, for instance, in 1629, when two animals were named Wezir, one of which was characterised as “old” (Inv. XXVI-39: 1–2). Research suggests that horses can respond to single words, provided they are used consistently. This can apply to their names (Stachurska et al. 2024). However, it remains unclear how – and if – the analysed hipponyms were used in practice in the Radziwiłł herds. Some names, due to their length or difficult phonetics (e.g., Karakaszbasza), appear highly impractical for regular use. It should also be noted that not all horses belonging to the Radziwiłłs were recorded with names. In fact, more animals were simply described by their physical traits, such as “one bay horse” (Inv. XXVI-310: 2), or were merely counted (e.g., Inv. XXVI-445). This suggests that the horses whose names are recorded were considered more valuable by their owners. This is further evidenced by the inventories that emphasise the genealogies of the animals and the reproductive strategies employed (most clearly illustrated in Inv. XXVI-17 – see also Illustrations 2 and 3). Such animals were likely viewed as signs of prestige rather than mere working force. Given the sophisticated nature of many of the hipponyms, it is reasonable to assume that these names served a similar symbolic role. Due to their sophistication and foreign etymology, they were likely less practical than the Russian and Italian examples analysed by respectively E. Varnikova and M. Castiglione (Varnikova 2020; Castiglione 2021), although in all three cases, the hipponyms were similarly motivated. However, the question remains open for comparative research, which would require further exploration of archival resources for yet unknown examples. Moreover, it would be valuable to compare hipponyms with other zoonyms. For instance, although the paper by Kamil Frejlich (2025) does not primarily focus on zoonyms, it offers insight into the names of dogs owned by the Radziwiłłs. As with the horse names, these were also based on the characteristics of the animals. However, in contrast to hipponyms, they also referred to hunting, for which the dogs were used, and to sounds and musical instruments, which alluded to barking and howling. The abundance of Early Modern dog names in the Warsaw Archives of the Radziwiłłs, and potentially other zoonymic forms in different archival collections from the period, remains a promising area for further research. As demonstrated above, analysis of hipponyms from the Radziwiłł herds can lead to conclusions about the mentality and intellectual horizons of the magnates, and possibly their entourage: their fascination with the Muslim world (albeit at least partly fuelled by military threat), their interest in classical mythology, a somewhat eccentric attraction to foreign languages, their belonging to the Polish-speaking cultural circle, and the level of esteem they bestowed upon the horses in their stables, most likely representative ones. Distortions in language forms, in turn, allow for inferring a limited level of cultural competence among the lower, yet literate, servants of the Radziwiłłs. Undoubtedly, analogous research, shedding light on different aspects of social and cultural history, could also be conducted using other examples. 19 SOURCES Charczowski I: Regestr porządku stajennego i rekwizytów różnych, tudzież koni stajennych <…> Pana Charczo[w]skiego, kasztelanica słońskiego, June 1774, Archiwum Państwowe w Przemyślu [further: AP Przemyśl], Archiwum Zamku Leskiego Krasickich [further: AZLK], no. 7. Charczowski II: Inwentarz, czyli zbiór rzeczy ruchomych <…> sukcessorów <…> Pana Władysława Charczowskiego, kasztelana słońskiego, 15 May 1775, AP Przemyśl, AZLK, no. 27. Inv. XXVI-17: [Registers of horses of Krzysztof Radziwiłł], 1612–1621, Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych w Warszawie [further: AGAD], Archiwum Warszawskie Radziwiłłów [further: AR], dz. XXVI, no. 17. Inv. XXVI-39: Rejestry koni jeznych, parep i cugów Je[g]o Ks[iążęcej] M[ości], które zostały przy mnie po odjeździe z Słucka Je[go] Ks[iążęcej] M[ości], 21 September 1629, AGAD, AR, dz. XXVI, no. 39. Inv. XXVI-192: Regestr klacz stanowionych i zrzebięta pod sobą mających, 1726, AGAD, AR, dz. XXVI, no. 192. Inv. XXVI-261: [Registers of herds], 1735, AGAD, AR, dz. XXVI, no. 261. Inv. XXVI-277: Rejestr koni, które są odprowadzone z Ołyki do Nieświeża, 7 August 1736, AGAD, AR, dz. XXVI, no. 277. Inv. XXVI-310: Opisanie stajni tudzież i ekwipażu J.O. Książęcia Imci, Olyka, 18 April 1741, AGAD, AR, dz. XXVI, no. 310. Inv. XXVI-320: Szczepkowski Jan, Regestr specyfikowanych klacz w stadach trzech, źrzebiąt i źrzebców, after 28 June 1742, AGAD, AR, dz. XXVI, no. 320. Inv. XXVI-445: Durucki Bereyter Aleksander, Tabella stad J.O. Ks[ię]cia Radziwiłła wojewody wileńskiego, hetmana wielkiego, 8 June 1755, AGAD, AR, dz. XXVI, no. 445. Inv. XXVI-767: Regestr koni, które posłane są do Ks[ię]cia Je[g]o M[o]ś[c]i do Prus, 15 March 1658, AGAD, AR, dz. XXVI, no. 767. Inv. XXVI-809: [Registers of mares], 1741, AGAD, AR, dz. XXVI, no. 809. Inv. XXVI-883: Regestr stada klacz i ogierów oraz bydła rogatego i nierogatego z klucza pohoskiego przypędzonych, May–June 1765, AGAD, AR, dz. XXVI, no. 883. Inv. XXVI-988: Regestr stanowionych klaczy w folwarku cumańskim za wolą J.O. Książęcia Imci Dobrodzieja, 1736, AGAD, AR, dz. XXVI, no. 988. Inv. XXIX-249: Regestr koni, jako teraz w kopylskiej stajni stoją, 12 September 1634, AGAD, AR, dz. XXIX, no. 249. 20 REFERENCES Augustyniak Urszula 2003: Inwentarze mienia radziwiłłowskiego z XVI–XVII wieku jako źródło do historii mentalności i życia codziennego – możliwości badań [The Inventories of Radziwiłł Property from the 16th–17th Centuries as a Source for the History of Mentality and Everyday Life – Research Perspectives]. – Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialnej 51(2), 231–248. Bubak Józef 1974–1977: Nazwy zwierząt domowych z terenu Sądeczyzny w dokumencie z końca XVII wieku [The Names of Domestic Animals from the Sądeczyzna Region in a Document from the Late 17th Century]. – Rocznik Sądecki 15/16, 391–403. Castiglione Marina 2021: I cavalli di casa Moncada: un repertorio “di razza” di inizio Seicento [The Horses of the Moncada Family: A “Pedigree” Collection from the Early 17th Century]. – Rivista Italiana di Onomastica 27(2), 609–643. Duszyk Kinga 2011: Tendencje w kreowaniu współczesnych imion zwierząt na tle polskiej tradycji zoonimicznej [Trends in Creation of Contemporary Animal Names Against the Backdrop of Polish Zoonymic Tradition]. – Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Linguistica 6, 273–282. Internet Access: https://studialinguistica.uken.krakow.pl/article/view/5080. Frejlich Kamil 2025: Zwierzęta Radziwiłłów: Anny Luizy z Mycielskich i Michała Kazimierza „Rybeńki” (1754–1762) [Animals of the Radziwiłłs: Anna Luiza née Mycielska and Michał Kazimierz “Rybeńko” (1754–1762)]. – Miasto – społeczeństwo – kultura: studia ofiarowane prof. dr. hab. Andrzejowi Karpińskiemu w 75. rocznicę urodzin, eds. K. Frejlich, E. Kalinowski, E. Nowosielska, Warszawa: Instytut Historii PAN [in print]. Kucharski Adam 2022: Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł „Rybeńko” jako uczeń [Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł “Rybeńko” as a Student]. – Biuletyn Historii Wychowania 47, 79–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/bhw.2022.47.5. Lewandowska Dorota, ed., 2008: Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych w Warszawie. Informator o zasobie archiwalnym [The Central Archives of Historical Records in Warsaw. Guide to the Archival Holdings], Warszawa: Naczelna Dyrekcja Archiwów Państwowych, Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych. Meiers Fabienne 2019: Equestrian Cities: The Use of Riding Horses and Characteristics of Horse Husbandry in Late Medieval Urban Agglomerations. – The Horse in Premodern European Culture, eds. A. Ropa, T. Dawson, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 13–26. Mytlakowski Władysław 1889: O nazwach krów na podstawie rękopisu z zeszłego wieku [On the Names of Cows Based on the Manuscript from the Last Century]. – Wisła 3(4), 901–906. Pardo Michael A., Fristrup Kurt, Lolchuragi David S., Poole Joyce H., Granli Petter, Moss Cynthia, Douglas-Hamilton Iain, Wittemyer George 2024: African Elephants Address 21 One Another with Individually Specific Name-Like Calls. – Nature Ecology & Evolution 8, 1353–1364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02420-w. Pawlik Stefan 1922: Nazwy krów w początkach XVIII wieku [The Names of Cows in the Early 18th Century]. – Lud 1(3–4), 203–209. Pluta Feliks 1988: Nazwy zwierząt domowych z XVIII wieku [The Names of Domestic Animals from the 18th Century]. – Wokół języka: rozprawy i studia poświęcone pamięci profesora Mieczysława Szymczaka, eds. M. Basaj, H. Borek, D. Buttler, B. Kreja, W. Lubaś, F. Pluta, S. Skorupka, T. Skubalanka, W. Śmiech, S. Urbańczyk, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk, Łódź: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 325–328. Ragauskienė Raimonda 2010: „Cave canem“: žmogus ir šuo Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje XVI a. [“Beware of the Dog”: The Man and the Dog in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 16th Century]. – Istorija 80(4), 21–49. Internet Access: https://www.vdu.lt/cris/entities/publication/6fb3ad32-719b-4f52-8b77-89afe5ea08c6. Smetona Marius, Smetonienė Anželika 2017: XVI–XVII a. šunų vardų motyvacija (remiantis J. Ostrorugo Nomenklatura ogarów) [The Motivation Behind Dog Names in the 16th– 17th Centuries (Based on J. Ostroróg’s Nomenclature of Hounds)]. – Lituanistica 63(3), 149–167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6001/lituanistica.v63i3.3571. Stachurska Anna, Skowerska-Wiśniewska Anna, Kędzierski Witold, Tkaczyk Ewelina, Janicka Wiktoria, Łuszczyński Jarosław, Janczarek Iwona 2024: How Important is the Familiarity of a Human’s Voice in Teaching Horses a Novel Word? – Applied Animal Behaviour Science 273, 106231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106231. Strutyński Janusz 1996: Urbozoonimia polska [Polish Urban Zoonymy], Kraków: Wydawnictwo Tomasz Strutyński. Varnikova Evgenija N. 2020: Semantičeskie i slovoobrazovatelnye osobennosti kliček lošadej v istorii russkogo jazyka (po dannym perepisnych knig vologodskich monastyrej XVI – načala XVIII v.) [Semantic and Word-Formation Features of Horse Names in the History of the Russian Language (Based on the Data from the Inventories of Vologda Monasteries from the 16th to the Early 18th Century)]. – Voprosy onomastiki 17(1), 47– 83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15826/vopr_onom.2020.17.1.003. Walczak Bogdan 1996: Polskie zoonimy historyczne [Polish Historical Zoonyms]. – Systemy zoonimiczne w językach słowiańskich, ed. S. Warchoł, Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 147–158. Warchoł Stefan 1961: Nazwy własne krów w kilku zabytkach rękopiśmiennych małopolskich z końca XVII i XVIII wieku [Proper Names of Cows in Several Manuscript Monuments from Lesser Poland from the End of the 17th and 18th Centuries]. – Onomastica 7, 327– 351. 22 Warchoł Stefan 2007: Słownik etymologiczno-motywacyjny słowiańskiej zoonimii ludowej. Słowiańskie nazwy własne zwierząt domowych i udomowionych zwierząt dzikich w środowiskach wiejskich [Etymological and Motivational Dictionary of Slavic Folk Zoonymy. Slavic Proper Names of Domestic Animals and Tame Wild Animals in Rural Environments] 1: Bawoły. Byki. Konie. Woły [Buffaloes. Bulls. Horses. Oxen], Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. Zborowski Juliusz 1922: Nazwy krów w XVIII wieku [The Names of Cows in the 18th Century]. – Lud 1(1), 56–60. Ziembicki Witołd 1934: Jana Ostroroga „Nomenklatura ogarów” [Jan Ostroróg’s “Nomenclature of Hounds”], Lwów: Drukarnia Księgarni Polskiej B. Połonieckiego. Internet Access: https://www.wbc.poznan.pl/dlibra/showcontent/publication/edition/236265?id=236265. Zinkevičius Zigmas 1997: XVII a. dvarų inventoriai – Rytų Lietuvos antroponimikos ir demografijos šaltinis [17th-Century Manor Inventories – A Source for Eastern Lithuania’s Anthroponymy and Demography]. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 38, 63– 80. Internet Access: https://journals.lki.lt/actalinguisticalithuanica/article/view/1344. Radvilos ir jų arkliai: XVII ir XVIII amžiaus žirgų vardai magnatų šeimos bandų inventoriuose SANTRAUKA Straipsnyje analizuojami 1612–1742 m. inventoriuose užfiksuoti žirgų vardai, vartoti trijų Radvilų giminės magnatų Kristupo, Boguslavo ir Mykolo Kazimiero bandose. Pirmiausia šios bandos buvo laikomos Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje, taip pat Palenkėje, Voluinėje, Kuršo ir Žiemgalos kunigaikštystėje. Iš viso išaiškinti 434 vardai, iš kurių 106 moteriškos ir 328 vyriškos formos. Straipsnyje šie vardai išvardyti, atlikta kokybinė jų analizė. Analizės rezultatai atskleidžia apgalvotą įvardijimo sistemą. Žirgų vardai dažnai nurodo gyvūnų ypatybes, įskaitant jų išvaizdą, elgesį ir greičiausiai kilmės vietą. Be to, keletas vardų, suteiktų kumelėms, buvo siejama su „moteriškumo“ ir grožio sąvokomis, o žirgų patinams – su kova, drąsa ir tarnyba. Graikų ir romėnų mitologija – reikšmingas vardų įkvėpimo šaltinis, ypač moteriškos giminės žirgų vardų. Kiti vardai kilę iš bendrųjų įvairių gyvūnų rūšių, ypač žinduolių ir paukščių, pavadinimų. Daugelis vardų taip pat susiję su musulmonų pasauliu, parenkant vardus remtasi pareigybėmis, titulais, etnonimais, religija, istorinių asmenybių ir žmonių asmenvardžiais. Šias įvardijimo aplinkybes greičiausiai lėmė politiniai ir kariniai santykiai tarp Abiejų Tautų Respublikos ir Osmanų imperijos bei jos santykiai su totoriais. Dauguma žirgų vardų 23 grindžiami lenkiškais, turkiškais, itališkais žodžiais, nors pasitaikė ir lietuvių bei kitų kalbų žodžių. Daugelis inventorinių vardų yra iškraipytai užrašyti, o tai gali būti susiję su tuo, kad autoriai, be lenkų kalbos, užsienio kalbų greičiausiai nemokėjo ar neišmanė klasikinės mitologijos. Galiausiai šių žirgų vardų tyrimas suteikia vertingos informacijos apie Radvilų šeimos mentalitetą ir intelektualinius horizontus.