Sociolingvistinis žvilgsnis į XVI–XVII a. Rytų Lietuvos antroponimiją

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA XLV (2001), 39–61 A Sociolinguistic View of the Anthroponymy of Eastern Lithuania in the 16th–17th Centuries Laima Grumadienė Lietuvių kalbos institutas, Vilnius On the basis of an analysis of personal names recorded in the 1554 and 1636 court rolls of Linkmenys (East Lithuania) it is suggested that at least from the 16th century onward a mechanism of Ruthenianisation could have operated in the lands of present-day Lithuania, similar to the process of Polonisation that operated later. Ruthenian, the spoken variety of the language of the Ducal Chancery, could have spread among the gentry as a status symbol. This process could also have affected part of the peasantry. The fact that shortened forms of Christian names may appear both in a Lithuanian and in a Slavic shape shows that both must have been in use: it cannot be attributed to scribal habit. This means that in the 16th century there may have been foci of Lithuanian-Ruthenian bilingualism far to the north of the Lithuanian-Ruthenian language border. If so, then our view of the mechanism of introduction of (part of the) Slavicisms in the Eastern Lithuanian dialects must be revised: they could have been introduced along with new features of everyday life, under the influence of the written (especially Church Slavonic) tradition, or as a result of bilingualism spreading from the 16th century onward. 1. ON THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION When discussing phonetic changes in the Lithuanian language or in its individual dialects, especially eastern ones, dating back several centuries, it is generally acknowledged that “the very close and long-standing contacts with the Eastern Slavs and all the intermingling could not but have influenced the development of the Lithuanian language” (Zinkevičius 1987: 68). The emergence of a considerable portion of Slavicisms in the lexicon is customarily explained by cultural interaction and the development of civilization, that is, as the naming of NOVELTIES with borrowed or calqued words. In such cases, exceptionally close and active contacts are not necessary; borrowings can spread through intermediaries: “[…] before the time of Mindaugas, Lithuanians had already become somewhat familiar with Christianity, apparently mostly through their Eastern Slavic neighbors: they knew and used terms for Christianity and the names of Christian feasts received from the Eastern Slavs, and some Christian personal names were not unfamiliar to them. The Lithuanians most likely acquired all this through ordinary interaction with their Christian neighbors, trading with them and exchanging cultural values, since we have no direct evidence of missionary activity in Lithuania at that time” (Zinkevičius 2000: 14). It is known that lexical borrowing through active contacts is also characterized by the adoption or replacement by foreign words of words already present in one’s own language, and by the assignment to a word of an additional meaning, not previously found in one’s language, borrowed from another language, even when another (native) word for that meaning is already available; that is, alongside simple, natural borrowing, there is also redundant borrowing. 40 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ It was precisely such borrowings that were avoided in compiling the great Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language. If we tried to assemble dictionaries of individual dialects or subdialects from it and compare them with the few written records already available, we would first of all find the borrowings of the type just discussed missing. However, studies of Slavicisms in dialects and their chronology (for more on the literature on this question and my own observations, see Kardelis 1999) certainly do not refute the hypothesis that some lexical Slavicisms may have entered certain subdialects of present-day southern and eastern Aukštaitian (primarily the Vilnius and Utena subdialects) long ago, and not solely as cultural borrowings, that is, along with new or newly construed realities. After all, the subdialects contain some old Slavicisms that simply displaced words that were undoubtedly used in the native language (in systems and subsystems of naming, both semantic and grammatical, there are peculiar “gaps” filled by Slavicisms). Thus, these are typical phenomena of bilingualism and active contacts. Such Slavicisms, used constantly and for a long time, were refined and changed, so it is not easy to establish when they emerged (cf. Urbutis 1992, 1993), but it may be assumed that some of them could have entered the language in the 16th–17th centuries. There are no surviving monuments of the spoken varieties of the pure dialects of Eastern Lithuania of that period, while the written record of the so-called eastern variant of the written language, based on the developing Vilnius interdialect, reflects a higher-level variety, that is, the language of written texts, which in turn was influenced by Slavic (and other) languages through interaction with the source languages from which a large part of that literature was translated. Various lists of inhabitants and place names compiled by administrative and church authorities provide some evidence of language use, albeit with considerable reservations. It is clear that relations between the Lithuanian and Ruthenian¹ languages are very old. Here I will discuss them on the basis of evidence from sources dating to the mid-16th and early 17th centuries. A newer idea would be that the spoken Ruthenian language of the time may have had a considerable influence on the dialects of present-day Eastern Lithuania, especially their vocabulary, through direct contact with the lowest social stratum of the population—the peasants—and possibly through active bilingualism in some areas during the period in question, NOT ONLY ON THE EASTERN EDGE OF ETHNIC LITHUANIA ITSELF (Zinkevičius 1987: 112) (cf. Vidugiris 1983: 53), BUT OVER A MUCH BROADER STRIP TO THE WEST. The assumption proposed here could also be formulated more cautiously: if the evidence confirmed that active contact between Lithuanian and Ruthenian and cases of bilingualism did indeed occur in the territory of present-day Eastern Lithuania in the 16th–17th centuries (perhaps only in particular localities), then perhaps some of the 1At present, the term Belarusian is more usual in Lithuanian linguistics, but it is generally associated with the name of the modern state, Belarus, and its inhabitants. Here, however, in considering issues from the mid-16th to the early 17th century, it is probably appropriate to use the ethnonym Ruthenians, which also has an old tradition in Lithuanian, and to call the language of this ethnic group the Ruthenian language (cf. Gudavičius 1999: 436). Lithuanians began calling Ruthenians the inhabitants of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania who spoke a Slavic language and lived in parts of so-called Black, White, and Red Rus’. The Russians of the Grand Principality of Moscow, the Muscovites, called them simply Lithuanians, Rus. литвины; they called themselves Russians, Rus. русские (Čekmonas 1988: 42), and, seeing themselves as subjects of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, simply Lithuanians. It is necessary to introduce an abbreviation unusual in Lithuanian linguistics, gu., meaning “Ruthenian language.” The 1554 source under examination mentions, incidentally, the Gudiškės manor (dworu jego Gudziśzek In₁₅₅₄ 121), which indicates that there were others who were not Ruthenians; there are personal names of ethnic origin: Szczepan Gudelis In₁₅₅₄ 84; Jezioru Tanu miedzy polu Mosią Nareykowicz, ktore zowią Gudziskiego In₁₅₅₄ 123; Janielis z Mosiem bratem Melancy, ludzi gudziskie In₁₅₅₄ 122, although the latter two may indicate affiliation with the Gudiškės manor. There is another personal name of ethnic origin, Andrzey Tatarzyn In₁₅₅₄ 86, while the personal name Lach In₁₅₅₄ 104 robi may be associated either with the ethnonym or with a shortened form of Alexius or Elijah, cf. Б II, 24, 71. J. Ochmański’s (1996: 66–7) discussion of the possible chronology and history of the emergence of such names is worth recalling. XVI–XVII a. Rytų Lietuvos antroponimija | 41 The emergence of Slavicisms in the dialects could perhaps be explained precisely by them, that is, in individual cases dated to earlier times? Searching for such Slavicisms is an entirely different subject. Here, the concern is to clarify whether there is evidence that circumstances conducive to the emergence of bilingualism could have arisen at that time. It should be added that no one denies interaction between Lithuanian and Belarusian (for more, see Zinkevičius 1987: 54–75), but the discussion usually concerns either active contacts in a later period—that is, after a larger number of Belarusians had moved into the depopulated eastern and southeastern outskirts of present-day Lithuania following the plague and wars that devastated Lithuania in the early XVIII century—or much more ancient times. Here, on the basis of anthroponymic data, an attempt will be made to show that active contacts with Belarusians may also have occurred in some localities of present-day eastern Lithuania in the mid-XVI and early XVII centuries. Zinkevičius (1977: 6–7) has written that many Belarusians lived in Vilnius in the early XVII century, but he examined a Catholic church document, and therefore the personal names of Orthodox people, who simply could not have appeared in it, were not examined (and at least some Belarusians, like Lithuanians, were probably Orthodox at the time, since there were 9 Orthodox churches in Vilnius alone). More generally, many Belarusians of that period—who, moreover, had become a people with their own language, developed from western Russian dialects, fairly recently (in the XIV–XV centuries)—lived in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and made up a considerable part of the population of the Vilnius Voivodeship at the time. There is no evidence as to whether they had all already been baptized according to the Byzantine rite (Orthodoxy was introduced in 988); it is thought that at the time the western boundary of Orthodoxy ran along the Polotsk–Minsk–Grodno line (Zinkevičius 2000: 13). Some Belarusians, like Orthodox Lithuanians, may later have converted to Catholicism. Little is known about Orthodox people living in more remote areas at the time, but it is nevertheless clear that, although their numbers were small in some places, they lived throughout the territory of present-day Lithuania, especially on the estates of the nobles (Gudavičius 1999: 68, 96, 358, 436–439, 452 et al.). And, of course, the farther east, the more numerous they were. However, it would be undesirable to equate Belarusians and Orthodox people: it is clear that this was not the case later, nor is it the case now; yet Catholic lands and Orthodox lands now border one another approximately where the principal areas inhabited by ethnic Lithuanians and Belarusians also meet. Incidentally, some inhabitants of this borderland became Uniates beginning in the XIV century (Gudavičius 1999: 318–321). The presence of canonical Orthodox names, their diminutives, and surnames that later developed from them raises suspicions of Orthodox influence. In Zinkevičius’s (1977: 89) view, “Since at that time baptisms generally adhered quite strictly to the forms of canonical Catholic baptismal names (written in Latin or Polish), their East Slavic variants could have entered documents only by chance, and specifically those that were widely used by people (Catholics) at the time.” Incidentally, on the same page the author lists 57 baptismal-name diminutives of East Slavic origin, preserved in patronymics in the early XVII century because the latter were not standardized. Maciejauskienė, discussing names recorded in XVI-century sources from almost the whole territory of present-day Lithuania, notes that not all of them were equally popular at the time, and gives the following examples of less common names: Асмафей, Ярмола, Калукстъ, Климентъ, Прокопъ, Владиславъ and others (1979: 86). She also observes that among approximately 10,000 records from the period examined, 70 different baptismal names can be identified, with a great many diminutive forms, whereas names of this type have almost none. Some of these names belong to the Orthodox nomenclature or are of ancient Slavic origin. It is nevertheless not entirely clear whether they spread among Catholics in the XVI century without any significant distinction being made. 42 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ Maciejauskienė (1991: 230) taip pat pažymi, kad „Reti XVI a. slaviškos bei germaniškos kilmės asmenvardžiai greičiausiai rodo lietuvių pavardžių atsiradimą skolinimo keliu. Be to, kai kurie iš slavų kalbų kilę antroponimai gali būti vertinami ir kaip lietuviškų asmenvardžių slavinimo rezultatas“. Bet pavardžių skolinimo sąvoka dabartinės Rytų Lietuvos teritorijoje komplikuotusi, jeigu būtų priimta prielaida, kad tame pačiame pavardžių formavimosi procese dalyvavo tiek lietuviai, tiek ir gudai, tiek vieniems, tiek kitiems buvo tiesiog prisegamos patroniminės -evič, -ovič priesagos, nes tokia buvo bendra Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos nuostata, kai oficialioji jos kalba iki 1696 m. buvo slavų kanceliarinė (šios nuostatos neatsisakyta ir vėliau). Taigi ir gudų arba sugudėjusių lietuvių, Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos gyventojų, pavardės galėjo tapti sunkiai beatidaloma ir todėl tik sąlygiškai vadintina skolinta lietuvių antroponimijos dalimi. The nomenclature of Christian names varies from country to country, although its core is largely shared. In Lithuania, when the names of saints began to be entered in calendars on their feast days from the late XVI century, a nomenclature very similar to the Polish one gradually became established (Kuzavinis, Savukynas 1994: 36–40). It would hardly follow that stricter rules had not been observed before then. Thus, the question of whether the considerably larger stratum of Slavic names, and consequently of later surnames derived from canonical Orthodox or ancient Slavic names, in the territory of present-day eastern Lithuania in the mid-XVI to early XVII centuries, compared with Lithuania as a whole (a comparison not invalidated by Zinkevičius’s (1977) study of the surnames of early XVII-century Vilnius residents), arose because more people associated with Orthodoxy lived there (Belarusians or Lithuanians—it is not yet known), or for other reasons, remains open. The article assumes that people who used Slavic diminutive forms of names characteristic of that period, especially those derived from ancient Slavic dithematic and canonical Orthodox names, probably spoke a non-Lithuanian language or were at least bilingual. In general, the use of spoken languages at the time raises many questions. Zinkevičius (1987: 144–146), perhaps the most thorough account of the linguistic situation and language use in the territory of present-day Lithuania in the mid-XVI to early XVII centuries, presents evidence that spoken Lithuanian was then used in public life not only by the common people but also by the nobility, alongside Polish and Russian. Before long, Lithuanian remained only the language of the lower classes. Polish, which arrived with Catholicism and the Grand Duke’s court and was promoted through schools and scribes, became increasingly prestigious and spread ever more widely. Russian, which had previously spread as the (Old) Slavic chancery language, and—in matters of Orthodoxy—as Old Church Slavonic, came to mean nothing other than Belarusian in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the beginning of the XVI century (Gudavičius 1999: 436–439). A fairly unified interdialectal written-language variety had already formed from the mixture of the Slavic chancery language used in official documents—which was also influenced by Old Church Slavonic—and the western Russian dialects that developed into Belarusian, a mixture considerably influenced by Lithuanian as well. This variety was also influenced by the language used in the chanceries of the Polotsk–Smolensk and Volhynia–Kyiv regions; texts in this language already had to be translated into the Muscovite language of the time. Chancery documents were produced in this language, and religious, legal, and secular literature was translated into it and written in it (one should recall the role of P. Skorina and the printing press he established in Vilnius in 1525). Certainly, such a language, also called Old Belarusian (see Čekmonas 1988: 44–45), already XVI–XVII a. Rytų Lietuvos antroponimija | 43 had not only a written but also a spoken variant, which was known to the Polish-speaking Lithuanian nobility and magnates, as well as officials and scribes. Some of them were monolingual, but some were undoubtedly bilingual. It is usually claimed that Polish spread through manor estates and exerted its influence. However, in the 16th century (and earlier), there may also have been an influence of Ruthenian through manor estates—if it was the language of the lords, it must also have influenced names. This could partly explain how surnames based on Ruthenian diminutives of Christian names came to be found so far west of Vilnius among noble (or wealthy) people, since not all of them need have been newcomers from the country’s eastern Slavic lands. Thus, cautiously, we may formulate an idea that has so far not been clearly expressed, at least in Lithuanian linguistics: in the 16th century (perhaps earlier, too), a mechanism similar to the later Polonization (and becoming Polish) may have operated in the territory of present-day Lithuania, namely, Ruthenization (and becoming Ruthenian). As a prestigious language, Ruthenian may have spread through manor estates (in the case of Polish, also through schools and the Church); it was used by the elite as a spoken variant of the Slavic chancery language2. Unfortunately, the data in this article are too sparse to substantiate such a hypothesis. The third variant of Ruthenian consisted of dialects. Ordinary peasants living in the Vilnius area who spoke them, finding themselves on the periphery, never became conscious of belonging to the wider Ruthenian (or Belarusian) area. Consequently, to this day they continue to call themselves—rejecting any other designation—by a term that reflected their position in the 14th–16th centuries: THE SIMPLE LANGUAGE, THOSE WHO SPEAK SIMPLY (in Ruthenian no-procmy). This term, used in the Middle Ages and in other parts of Europe, alongside the concept of local people serving as an ethnonym, gu-мутэйцы, implies a comparison with another, more prestigious variant of that language, perhaps used by the lords. It should be emphasized that this must have been a spoken form of the language, since the majority of peasants were certainly illiterate. The three-layered Ruthenian language also exerted a threefold influence on Lithuanian. Ruthenian dialects may have had the greatest influence on eastern Lithuanian dialects when their speakers interacted directly. Thus, loanwords at that time may also have been of a different nature—not only the many names for new or renamed realities, especially those associated with religion, that entered through the eastern Slavs (and which they themselves had often borrowed from other languages; for more, see Zinkevičius 1987: 68–75). This study examines part of the surviving copies of the inventory of the Vilnius district of the voivode’s jurisdiction—Nemenčinė and Linkmenys districts—prepared and published in 1934 through the efforts of Konstantinas Jablonskis. The inventory, a description of villages and their inhabitants, dates from 1554; unfortunately, the manuscript disappeared in the early 20th century3. The part examined concerns Linkmenys district (pages 83–131), alongside part of the 1636 inventory manuscript, comprising 43 sheets (86 pages), held at Vilnius University Library (IN1636), 2 Čekmonas mentions the spoken variant of the Slavic chancery language, but does not develop the idea that it was used in ethnic Lithuania: “Old Belarusian was primarily the main state language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL – L. G.), in which most legal documents were written (including in ethnic Lithuania). Because of this function, Old Belarusian is also called the chancery (or documentary) language of the GDL. However, it fulfilled many more functions. Many representatives of the feudal elite—both Orthodox and Catholic—SPOKE (emphasis mine – L. G.) Old Belarusian; chronicles and theological treatises were written in it, and works of belles-lettres were translated into it” (1988: 44, my translation – L. G.). In the same place, the author also recalls the Tatars who lived in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and their religious literature, kitabūs, written in Ruthenian but in Arabic script from the early 17th century. This naturally prompts the question: with whom did they speak Ruthenian, if not their neighbors? (See also Kričinskis 1993: 196 et seq.; Potasčenko, ed., 2001: 78–79 et seq.) 3 The history of all the transcripts is discussed in greater detail in K. Jablonskis’s book (IN1554: 30–31). 44 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ also concerns Linkmenys district (pages 15–31v). In tracing the development of the anthroponymy of eastern Lithuanian Lithuanians, information on name origins is drawn primarily from the Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames (LPŽ), since it is the product of a major collaborative undertaking. Other sources are used only when the facts need to be supplemented or a different view substantiated, most often the works of M. Biryla (БI, БII). 2. THE 1554 INVENTORY OF LINKMENYS DISTRICT In the mid-16th century, more precisely, from 1543 onward (Zinkevičius 1987: 137), administrative documents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania began to be written in Polish as well; before that, the Slavic chancery language had predominated. One of the first inventories written in Polish is the one examined here, concerning the districts of the Vilnius voivode’s jurisdiction—Nemenčinė and Linkmenys. It may be assumed that whoever wrote4 this inventory may not yet have had adequate skills, and may also have been influenced by the Slavic chancery language. It is true that no confusion of alphabets has been observed, but this may have disappeared when the original or copies made in earlier centuries were transcribed in the 20th century, since almost the entire original has been lost. The writer’s Polish is not faultless: rules are not applied consistently, the use of hard l varies considerably, and the spelling of other diacritical marks is not always consistent either. Therefore, the forms are presented here exactly as written in the original—or, more precisely, in the copies. Looking at the personal names recorded in Polish in the 1554 source, which at the time consisted either of a given name alone or a given name plus a second element of personal designation, one can assume that the inhabitants spoke at least two languages—Lithuanian and Ruthenian. What was often not yet a true surname was simply a patronymic, that is, a personal name formed with patronymic suffixes from any (not necessarily the first) element in the father’s name, or some other form of personal designation without patronymic suffixes, as well as appellatives. (Some authors, e.g. Vanagas and Zinkevičius, use the term FATHER’S NAME, but PATRONYMIC is now more common; see Maciejauskienė 1991: 16.) Lithuanian and Slavic Christian names, as well as old Slavic names—especially their short or diminutive forms—may serve as evidence. The very fact that short forms and patronymics derived from them were used indicates both Lithuanian and Slavic usage; they were not merely designations imposed by the scribes. A scribe might alter some details, e.g. omit an ending5, provide a Polish transcription of a personal name, such as Szczepan I1554 84, Andrzej I1554 123, translate a name, or add a Slavic patronymic suffix -evič or -ovič, etc.; but it is unlikely that they altered the root of a name’s short form, unless it was expanded to the full form. Researchers note that usage may be reflected more authentically in manor inventories and other administrative and legal documents than in church registers (Zinkevičius 1977: 67); not only Catholics were entered in them. Lithuanian Grand Duchy inhabitants who spoke Ruthenian participated in the same pro- 4 The title page of the inventory reads: “[…]niżej mianowanych przez mię, Jerzyka Zacharyaszewicza, dzierżawcę zoslienskiego […]“ I1554 31 (that is, from Zasliai, not a local person). 5 The same person is recorded in two different ways on the same page of the Linkmenys inventory: Petrelis Urbanowicz and Petrel Urbanowicz I1554 107. XVI–XVII a. Rytų Lietuvos antroponimija 45 in the process of recording names in writing (the formation of Lithuanian surnames had begun earlier and followed a different course), as among Lithuanian speakers, the tendency to “attach” the Slavic patronymic suffixes -evič, -ovič had already begun to emerge earlier and was particularly intensifying at that time when inhabitants were being registered; this tendency was influenced by the use of Slavic chancery languages. The process itself differed somewhat from the analogous process in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where only those of higher rank were allowed to add such suffixes, while those of lower rank received the shorter -ev, -ov (Zinkevičius 1987: 134). This article advances the assumption that the Slavic name diminutives were brought (or acquired without anyone having to go anywhere) by the people then living in the areas in question who spoke only Belarusian (or Belarusian as well), since some such diminutives are unlikely to have arisen in a Lithuanian-language environment. Zinkevičius’s (1977: 81; see also 82–88) observation merits attention: “On the basis of the recorded patronymics, we can reconstruct a considerable number of forms of baptismal names used by Lithuanians in the 16th–17th centuries, whose origins lay not in Slavic canonical baptismal names but in their popular variants. Some of these forms may also have been created by Lithuanians themselves from canonical names, especially those for which no equivalents are found in neighboring Slavic languages.” It should also be borne in mind that the inventory under examination is a document of the land-reform program carried out in the lands of the Grand Duke of Lithuania in 1547–1566. This 1554 document makes clear that the lands of Linkmenys district belonging to the Grand Duke of Lithuania6 had been measured out two or three years earlier, and that the peasants from villages consisting of 2–4 homesteads had been moved together into larger ones, since the primary aim was to organize the manor-farm lands efficiently (for a fuller account of the course of the land reform, see Ochmanskis 1996: 188 et seq.). The source does not mention the resettlement of peasants from farther afield, although the note in Polish, nowik ‘new settler’, beside some personal names, as well as the village name Nowosady In1554 87, do indicate a certain degree of alienness with respect to the locality. Incidentally, the personal names marked nowik are otherwise no more distinctive than the others. In Lithuanian historical anthroponymy, it is not customary to relate the degree of Lithuanian or Slavic character (or Germanic character) of recorded forms to the actual language use of the period, although the origin of a name or diminutive is indeed investigated7. This is understandable, since for many centuries records were made in non-Lithuanian languages, most often by scribes or church officials who were not Lithuanian, frequently with the intention of Slavizing or Germanizing. From a sociolinguistic perspective, however, it may be worth asking where, for example, in the mid-16th century, in those localities of present-day eastern Lithuania that were undoubtedly inhabited by Lithuanians8, such shortened forms of Christian names used in spoken language—and not characteristically formed in Lithuanian—came from. 6 The title page of the inventory under examination bears the following inscription: “Rejestr dworow jego k. mości ciwunstwa Wilenskiego [...]” In1554 31. 7 J. Dumčius (1957) has provided the most detailed account of the origins and chronology of the appearance of Christian names in Lithuania, but he did not consider HOW those names spread. 8 Some place names persist even after the language of the inhabitants changes, but the following place names, for example, also indicate that Lithuanians once lived in the localities mentioned: Sioto Mewranskie In1554 89, Sioto Minducze In1554 103, od sianożęci Czuyszek y Kudrolanek In1554 96, Jeziora Strawinoicia In1554 132, za rzeką Wirynta In1554 105, Jezioro Żusklinis In1554 130, W tey ziemi Ligotowkach In1554 99, niwa, ktorą zowią Wierzmieli In1554 123, and so on. 46 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ It should be noted that some Slavic names or their diminutives, as well as personal names derived from them with Slavic patronymic suffixes -evič, -ovič (no others were found), attested in the 1554 inventory of the Linkmenys district, in M. Biryla’s works⁹ (Б₁, БⅡ), in sixteenth- to eighteenth-century records of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, in other documents of the period from the territory of present-day Belarus, and/or in the usage of present-day Belarusian inhabitants, are old names canonical only among Orthodox Christians (abbreviated st.) or their diminutives, e.g.: Dosis, Dosia (Gen.) жонка In₁₅₅₄ 116, 127: gu. Дасⁱ⁰: st. Дасий¹¹ Б₁ 60; БⅡ 140 or st. Феодосий БⅡ 124; Micewicz In₁₅₅₄ 114: gu. Міц: st. Димитрий БⅡ 169; Micowicz In₁₅₅₄ 114: gu. Міц: st. Димитрий Б₁ 62; Procewicz In₁₅₅₄ 93: gu. Проц: st. Прокоп, Протас БⅡ 243; Szerg-ut-owicz¹² In₁₅₅₄ 108: gu. Сяргуля, Сяргуня, Серусь: st. Сергей БⅡ 115. Given the Lithuanian diminutive suffix -ut-, a cautious assumption may perhaps also be made about Sopowicz sopa¹³ In₁₅₅₄ 120:? cf. gu. Сафончык, Сахончык, Сапончык: gu. Сафон, Сахон, Сапон: st. Софония, Софоний Б₁ 153; БⅡ 209, 138, etc. The name Niestoya (Nom.) In₁₅₅₄ 119 may be associated with st. Нестор БⅡ 98. Clearly, most Slavic canonical names also have equivalents in the baptismal-name nomenclatures of other regions, especially Polish; moreover, over time they changed in Slavic usage itself or coincided with Catholic names—for example, Feliksas, Martynas, Motiejus, Petras, Silvestras, Simonas and others. Thus, some cannot be assigned definitively to one group or the other; this is usually done only on the basis of phonetic correspondences, for example: f and t (Orthodox Феодор, Фома and Polish Teodor, Tomasz), n and m (Orthodox Николай and Polish Mikołaj), l and v (Orthodox Лаврентий and Polish Wawrzyniec), v and b (Orthodox Василий and Polish Bazyli), or others. Therefore, the diminutive Chwiecko In₁₅₅₄ 104 seems more likely to derive from Belarusian Хведзька: 16th–18th-century Belarusian Хведор: Orthodox Феодор rather than Polish Teodor БⅡ 123; Josys In₁₅₅₄ 87: 16th–18th-century Belarusian Ецун: Orthodox Иосиф rather than Polish Józef (all diminutives with z) БⅡ 76; Matewicz In₁₅₅₄ 108: Belarusian Mam: Orthodox Матфей rather than Polish Maciej Б₁ 118, as is also the case with Matulewicz In₁₅₅₄ 117; Mosis In₁₅₅₄ 110, Moysis In₁₅₅₄ 104, z Mosiem (Instr.) In₁₅₅₄ 122, z Moyszeм (Instr.) In₁₅₅₄ 103, Mosiewicz In₁₅₅₄ 110: 16th–18th-century Belarusian Мосей, Моцей: Orthodox Моисей rather than Polish Maś: Polish Mateusz БⅡ 85, LPŽⅡ 172, except perhaps in the case of Masiem (Instr.) In₁₅₅₄ 89; Pieczulis 9 The comparison was deliberately made primarily with Belarusian anthroponymy, since the task set was specifically to find connections with it, although equivalents could also be found in other Slavic languages. It should not be forgotten that M. Biryla’s lists, though very rich, are not exhaustive. Account was taken of the fact that Orthodox names spread from the east, while Catholic names came via the Poles. 10 The fact that a is written here instead of the o found in Slavic languages may reflect the adaptation in Lithuanian of the East Slavic vowel o—Belarusian in this case—as a (usually half-long) vowel (for more detail, see Kardelis 1999: 39 et seq.). It should also be noted that Belarusian equivalents are usually given here only from the two sources by M. Biryla; a particular name or diminutive may not be recorded in them, in which case the closest equivalent with analogues in sources of the period is supplied (if it is found in sources written in the territory of present-day Belarus in the 16th–18th centuries, the century is indicated in Roman numerals; if no reference is given, the example is from present-day usage). 11 The transcription here and below follows the spelling used in the source being cited. 12 Transitional sounds, especially palatalized ones, between s and š, c and č, and z and ž are characteristic of present-day western Belarusian dialects as well; therefore, Sz- here may be a record of such pronunciation. 13 See footnote 10. 14 This form is not attested in M. Biryla’s works, but see his note on the 16th–18th-century tendency to change or drop a name ending in s, Slavic ending -uń, for example, Belarusian Іса(а): Orthodox Исаия БⅡ 158. In any case, patronymics were also formed from this name: Bolulis Niestajewicz In₁₅₅₄ 112 with Stanisławem bratem; Piotr Niestajewicz In₁₅₅₄ 112. XVI–XVII a. Rytų Lietuvos antroponimija | 47 In₁₅₅₄ 97, Pieczul¹⁵ In₁₅₅₄ 108 (with the Lithuanian diminutive suffix -ul⁻): Belarusian Пеш, Пецюля: Old Russian Петр БⅠ 137, БⅡ 101, rather than Polish Piotr, since Poles do not have this diminutive form. The diminutive Michnowicz In₁₅₅₄ 83, derived from the name Old Russian Михаил, Polish Michał БⅡ 232, used by all Slavs, is also more characteristic of East Slavs. The village name Sioto Miksztewiczow (Gen.) In₁₅₅₄ 113, derived from the diminutive Miksžta: Old Russian Николай, Belarusian Миколай in the 16th–18th centuries, Polish Mikołay БⅠ 129, БⅡ 88¹⁶, alternates in the copies (how it appeared in the original is unknown) with Niksztewiczow, which in turn is to be derived from East Slavic Николай; in other cases, forms with M- occur: z Mikszą (Instr.) In₁₅₅₄ 101; z Mi­xą (Instr.) In₁₅₅₄ 116; Mixtowicz In₁₅₅₄ 123. An example of the East Slavic use of the sounds (and letters) l and v (Polish ł and w) is found only in the long form of the name (and in corresponding patronymics) Ławryn In₁₅₅₄ 96; z Ławry­nem (Instr.) In₁₅₅₄ 87: Belarusian Лаврин in the 16th–18th centuries: Old Russian Лаврентий, although Belarusian Ваврын, associated with Polish Wawrzyniec БⅡ 82, was also used in the 16th–18th centuries. The use of fricative h instead of g is characteristic of Belarusians; alongside the diminutive Gryciem (Instr.) In₁₅₅₄ 88; z Gryczem¹⁷ (Instr.) In₁₅₅₄ 117, 118, the source also has Hryc In₁₅₅₄ 86, 102 or Hrycz In₁₅₅₄ 84; z Hryczem (Instr.) In₁₅₅₄ 98 (although forms with h are also noted in Polish sources, cf.: Belarusian Грыц, Polish Hryć: Old Russian Григорий, Polish Grzegorz БⅡ 107; LPŽⅠ 709). It is clear that h alternated with g in this position; moreover, forms with g may also reflect Lithuanian pronunciation. The spelling of the long form of the name Hryhora In₁₅₅₄ 102, as well as Bohdan In₁₅₅₄ 84, its diminutive Bohdiusz In₁₅₅₄ 96, and Bohdziewicz In₁₅₅₄ 97, which contains the patronymic suffix -ewicz, is also associated with fricative Belarusian h. More reliable evidence might be the presence of fricative h in the personal name Ihnatowicz In₁₅₅₄ 118: Old Russian Игнатий, Polish Ignacy БⅡ 70. Belarusian usage is also indicated by the consonant cluster ltr in the personal name Batromiey In₁₅₅₄ 119, recorded several times (canonical Балатромей in the 16th–18th centuries: Polish Bartłomiej БⅡ 132); however, alongside it, the source under examination also uses Barttomiey In₁₅₅₄ 96, Barth­omȯiey In₁₅₅₄ 129. The consonant sequence rt(l) has been preserved in the diminutives Bartko¹⁸ In₁₅₅₄ 83, Bortko In₁₅₅₄ 111 of this name. Sometimes it is impossible to determine, on the basis of phonetic correspondences, whether a form came from Belarusian or Polish; for example, Daniewicz In₁₅₅₄ 115, z Daniulem In₁₅₅₄ 110 can be associated both with Belarusian Данило, Данько in the 16th–18th centuries: Old Russian Даниил, and with Polish Daniel БⅡ 57, 202; Macko In₁₅₅₄ 83; Macieyko In₁₅₅₄ 99; z Maciulem (Instr.) In₁₅₅₄ 97; z Maczulem¹⁹ (Instr.) In₁₅₅₄ 100: Belarusian Мац, Матцей in the 16th–18th centuries: Old Russian Матфей, and Polish Maciej БⅡ 88; Mosis Mielewicz In₁₅₅₄ 119: Belarusian Мель: Old Russian Емельян, and Polish Melko: Polish Emilian БⅡ 62. The diminutive Misius In₁₅₅₄ 88: Belarusian Мись in the 16th–18th centuries: Old Russian Михаил coincides with Polish Miś: Polish Michał, since both have the common Old Slavic diminutive suffix -s БⅡ 92, 235. Both Belarusians in the 16th–18th centuries and Poles have the diminutive Belarusian Яша: Old Russian Иаков, Polish Jaksza: Polish Jakub БⅡ 129. The Linkmenys source contains three similar, but not identical, forms of this diminutive— 15 See footnote 12. 16 It provides a detailed overview of interpretations of the pronunciation of names beginning with N- and M- in Slavic languages, linking the use of the latter sound not only with Polish. 17 See footnote 12. 18 M. Biryla gives examples only with o—Bortko (I₁ 37), so once again see footnote 10. 19 See footnote 12. 48 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ [The opening is a continuation fragment:] Janulis Jurgiewicz z Jaxte(m (INSTR.) IN₁₅₅₄ 103 [Jurgiewiczem; ludzi dzisienskich Jkazkta (GEN.) IN₁₅₅₄ 122 y Stanka Rostaniewiczow ir Jakszta IN₁₅₅₄ 112 Piotraszkiewicz z Howienem Mikołajewiczem. Vanagas (1974: 115–116) associated jakšt-, jokšt- with German Jaxt: Jacobus, perhaps arriving through Latvian; he also noted that there are almost no personal-name derivatives from this root with Slavic suffixes, and that they occur in an area closer to Latvian or in Užnemunė, that is, where there had been contact with Germans. M. Biryla identifies only the short form of Jokūbas without -t- as Slavic. Thus, it is difficult to explain the origin of this short form of Jokūbas with -t- in the Linkmenys source. Vanagas cites Belarusian Mikša and Mikšta as a similar doublet, and, indeed, both are recorded in the 1554 Linkmenys inventory: z Mikszą synem IN₁₅₅₄ 101, but the village name Miksztewiczow (Niksżtewiczow) (GEN.) IN₁₅₅₄ 113. There are also Mixta IN₁₅₅₄ 123, Mixtowicz IN₁₅₅₄ 123. Several etymologies for names are possible, since it is sometimes unclear from which name a shortened form is derived, for example: Juchno IN₁₅₅₄ 88: Belarusian XVI c. Юхно, Polish Juchno: Old Russian Евфимий, but it may also derive from Polish Jurij БII 232, LPŽII 852; Milewicz IN₁₅₅₄ 103: Belarusian Миль: Old Russian Милай or Емельян, but also Polish Emilian БII 61, 141, 244; Pacz IN₁₅₅₄ 118: Belarusian Пац: Old Russian Игнатий БII 168, but it may also later be a shortened form of Bulgarian Па(ц): Павел, used in Belarusian, LPŽII 358; likewise, for example, With IN₁₅₅₄ 96 is primarily to be derived from Old Russian Bum Polish With, but associations with Old Russian Виталий, Polish Witalis, or canonical Виктор, Polish Wiktor БII 48–50, as well as with Lithuanian Vytautas, cannot be ruled out. Two names seem to have become fossilized in Lithuanian—Grigas and Jurgis. They came from Greek via neighboring Slavs, who themselves later altered them considerably. The Linkmenys inventory includes Grygis (Grygul) IN₁₅₅₄ 118; Gryg IN₁₅₅₄ 109; Grygalewicz IN₁₅₅₄ 108: Belarusian XVI–XVIII c. Григор: Old Russian Григорий, cf. Polish Grzegorz БII 108. The short forms Jurgis IN₁₅₅₄ 92; Jurgielis IN₁₅₅₄ 94; Jurgiel IN₁₅₅₄ 89; z Jurguciem (INSTR.) IN₁₅₅₄ 96: Old Church Slavonic Jurgъ, Jurgij (Kuzavinis, Savukynas 1994: 215). Thus, Grigas and Jurgis are very archaic forms, but it is impossible to state firmly from which direction they entered. The short form of the same name found in the personal name Jurewicz IN₁₅₅₄ 117 was used in Belarusian in the XVI–XVIII c. as Юр, Юри, more characteristic of the Eastern Slavs, and derived from Old Russian Юрий БII 129, 140. There are names undoubtedly shared by Belarusians and Poles, and by Orthodox and Catholics, whose Belarusian character in shortened forms is beyond doubt, for example: Alechnowicz IN₁₅₅₄ 89; z Olechnem (INSTR.) IN₁₅₅₄ 108: Belarusian XVI c. Олехно: canonical Александр, Polish Aleksand(e)r БII 20, 233; Lesis (Lesius) IN₁₅₅₄ 119: Belarusian Лесь: canonical Александр, Polish Aleksand(e)r БII 22; Pieleyko IN₁₅₅₄ 83: Belarusian Пилецка: Old Russian Филипп БII 197; and Puszkiewicz (Puskiewicz) IN₁₅₅₄ 115: from the contaminative formation Belarusian Пусь-, Пусик: Belarusian Пятрусь: Old Russian Петр БII 101, cf. Polish Piotr, etc. (other derivatives of this name, borne by only two people, are certainly not Belarusian: Petrelis IN₁₅₅₄ 107, Petrel IN₁₅₅₄ 107, Petrek IN₁₅₅₄ 108, the full form Piotr IN₁₅₅₄ 108; Piotraszkiewicz IN₁₅₅₄ 112 is more characteristic of Poles). Among names and short forms more characteristic of Poles, the following should be mentioned: Domaszewicz IN₁₅₅₄ 103: Belarusian XVI–XVIII c. Дамаш: Old Russian Дамиан, Доментиан, Polish Damasz: Polish Damijan БII 248; Heliasz IN₁₅₅₄ 112: Polish Eliasz, while the short form Belarusian Гелиаш, in turn derived from Polish Eliasz, comes from Old Church Slavonic Илья БII 71; Joc IN₁₅₅₄ 115; Jocz IN₁₅₅₄ 90: Polish Jakub LPŽII 782; Szczepanowicz IN₁₅₅₄ 117: Polish Stefan. Some shortened forms or names themselves, shared by Orthodox and Catholics, were used across very extensive territories in the XVI–XVIII c.; they were often Polish forms. For example, Лука, Лукиан have Polish counterparts Łukasz, XVI–XVII a. RYTŲ LIETUVOS ANTROPONIMIJA 49 Łucjan (Łukasz is considered a Polish form used in both languages, BII 84); it also occurs in the Linkmenys source—Łukasz IN₁₅₅₄ 116. The same happened with Szymko IN₁₅₅₄ 97: Polish Szymon (cf. Old Russian Cumeon) BII 114; T(h)omasz: Tomasz IN₁₅₅₄ 110; Thomasz IN₁₅₅₄ 114; z Tomkiem (INSTR.) IN₁₅₅₄ 100; Tomaszko IN₁₅₅₄ 122: Polish Tomasz (cf. Old Russian Фома BII 121). M. Biryla does not strictly restrict the name Jan (the Orthodox equivalent is Иоанн) and its short forms to the Polish baptismal name; he notes that Jan and its short forms were also widely used in Belarusian in the XVI–XVIII c. (BII 64–69). The source under examination contains only Jan and its short forms: Jan IN₁₅₅₄ 100; Janielis IN₁₅₅₄ 110; Janiel IN₁₅₅₄ 95; Janulis IN₁₅₅₄ 99; Janu(j)lis IN₁₅₅₄ 93; Janiul IN₁₅₅₄ 95; Jankus IN₁₅₅₄ 119 (Jankiewicz IN₁₅₅₄ 112; Jankowicz IN₁₅₅₄ 84); Januszko IN₁₅₅₄ 115; also Jasis IN₁₅₅₄ 92; Jasius IN₁₅₅₄ 94; Jasz²⁰ IN₁₅₅₄ 90. Some names and their short forms are derived from ancient Slavic dithematic names (abbreviated Old Church Slavonic), for example Богдан, Болеслав, Радислав, Станислав, Вячеслав, Войтех, etc. Sometimes they resemble (or are) calques from Greek or other languages, or their Latinized variants; for example, Old Church Slavonic Богдан, cf. Latin Theodotus, Old Russian Феодом ‘given by God’ (incidentally, BII 38 notes that this name was still considered pagan in the XVI–XVII c.). The source records Bohdan IN₁₅₅₄ 87, its short forms Bohdiusz IN₁₅₅₄ 96, Baniul IN₁₅₅₄ 112, Boniulis IN₁₅₅₄ 116 (the latter two may also be short forms of Boniface), and the patronymic Bohdziewicz IN₁₅₅₄ 97. For example, Радислав remained an uncanonized name, but the short form Rodzius IN₁₅₅₄ 96 is found in the source under examination; Radziewicz IN₁₅₅₄ 106 and Radoszewicz IN₁₅₅₄ 96, personal names with a patronymic suffix, may equally be associated with another Orthodox name, Родион BII 105, 170, 230, while Rotkiewicz IN₁₅₅₄ 112 may be related to Old Church Slavonic Радислав or to Kondrat, common to Old Russian and Polish, LPŽII 580. The source records the short form Woytko IN₁₅₅₄ 92; its full form, z Woyciechem (INSTR.), was used in Belarusian in the XVI–XVIII c., but the name was otherwise more popular among Poles (BII 51). There are ancient Slavic dithematic names canonized only by Catholics, for example Old Church Slavonic Болеслав—Polish Bolesław, but only from the XIX c. (BII 38); the source contains a short form of this name, Bolulis IN₁₅₅₄ 112: Belarusian Болесь, Боліс, Бол-юс. In the Linkmenys district inventory, perhaps the most popular name is the Old Church Slavonic Станислав and its short forms with the stems Stan- and Stas-²¹ (BII 112), which later became exclusively Catholic—Polish Stanisław, Lithuanian Stanislovas. Two personal names are very problematic, but it is probably possible to seek, as Zinkevičius does (1977: 49), connections between Szczęśny IN₁₅₅₄ 110 and Old Church Slavonic Вячеслав, which became Więcestaw in Polish; Maczuda IN₁₅₅₄ 128 may be associated with a short form of Motiejus furnished with ancient Slavic suffixes (cf. BII 241, 243). Thus, having discussed the origins of the names in the 1554 source, their heterogeneity becomes clear, as does the presence of Orthodox and ancient Slavic dithematic names or their short forms. Separately dis- 20 See footnote 12. 21 It occurs 18 times in the full form Stanisław IN₁₅₅₄ 83, 84 et seq., Stanisław IN₁₅₅₄ 112, 118 et seq., Stanisławiem (INSTR.) IN₁₅₅₄ 88, 95, 96, 112, 115, Stanisławowi (NOM. PL.) IN₁₅₅₄ 128, as well as in numerous short forms: Stas IN₁₅₅₄ 86, 87, 97, 108, Stasia (GEN.) IN₁₅₅₄ 121, Staszem (INSTR.) IN₁₅₅₄ 88, 96, 103, 111, 112, 118, Staś IN₁₅₅₄ 83, 84, 92, 94, 128, Stasis IN₁₅₅₄ 92, 100, 110, 113, Stasius IN₁₅₅₄ 95, Stasko IN₁₅₅₄ 120, Stasiel IN₁₅₅₄ 101, 122, Stasielem (INSTR.) IN₁₅₅₄ 121, Staszel IN₁₅₅₄ 101, 120, Stanis IN₁₅₅₄ 110, 112, 113, 114, Stanko IN₁₅₅₄ 106, 110, 113, 115, 116, Stanka IN₁₅₅₄ 122, Staniulis IN₁₅₅₄ 97, 103, 105, 106, Staniul IN₁₅₅₄ 92, 110, 115, z Staniułem (INSTR.) IN₁₅₅₄ 88, 100, 115, 118, Staniel IN₁₅₅₄ 98, 103. 50 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ …the formation of personal names is noteworthy. Lithuanian derivation is indicated by Lithuanian suffixes and endings. The latter indicator is unreliable, since endings were often simply dropped when personal names were written down. Below, the forms of Christian names considered Lithuanian are those that have both Lithuanian suffixes, usually diminutive -el-, -ul-, and endings (-is, -us), although the stems of the personal names themselves are most often Belarusian shortenings (and only occasionally Polish), for example: Bolulis In₁₅₅₄ 112 Niestajewicz z Stanisławem bratem²²; Boniulis In₁₅₅₄ 118 Piotrowicz z Grygiem bratem; Janielis In₁₅₅₄ 95 Witkowicz (Woytkowicz) z Janem²³ bratem; Janiulis In₁₅₅₄ 93 Procewicz; Janulis In₁₅₅₄ 104 Goyżewicz z Janem bratem; Jurgielis In₁₅₅₄ 113 Pietraszewicz; Pieczulis In₁₅₅₄ 117 Szczepanowicz z Piotrem synem; Petrelis In₁₅₅₄ 107 Urbanowicz; Staniulis In₁₅₅₄ 97 Misiewicz; Woyciech (Woyciulis) In₁₅₅₄ 108 Andrzejewicz z Walentym synem. Shortened forms with Lithuanian diminutive suffixes are often written in this source, as is customary, without endings, for example: Baniul In₁₅₅₄ 112 Piotrowicz; Grygis (Grygul) In₁₅₅₄ 118 Minciewicz; Janiel In₁₅₅₄ 84 Juniewicz z syniem; Janiul In₁₅₅₄ 95 Misiewicz; Janul In₁₅₅₄ 117 Kuniszkis z Bartłomiejem Marcinowiczem; Jurgiel In₁₅₅₄ 109 Konratowicz; Matel In₁₅₅₄ 98 Piktewicz z Piotrem bratem; Pieczul In₁₅₅₄ 108 Mateykowicz z Tomaszem bratem; Pietrel In₁₅₅₄ 119 Stani ewicz z Maciejem bratem; Staniel In₁₅₅₄ 103 Bernatowicz z Stasiem Mielewiczem; Staniul In₁₅₅₄ 115 Woytkowicz z Batromiejem bratem; Staśiel In₁₅₅₄ 122 Piotrowicz przysiężny z Woyciechem synem; Staszel In₁₅₅₄ 120 Piotraszewicz. Only four of them are not mentioned in the inventory and appear with endings: Baniul, Grygul, Matel, and Stašiel (Staszel). The forms of two names are attested only in the instrumental case: Marcin Ambrożewicz z Jurguciem In₁₅₅₄ 96 Stanowicz(em); Pieczulis Radoszewicz z Maczułem In₁₅₅₄ 100 Bohdanowicz(em). There are forms without Lithuanian diminutive suffixes but with the Lithuanian endings -is, -us, for example: Dosis In₁₅₅₄ 116 Woytkowicz z Niewiastą Janową; Grygis (Grygul) In₁₅₅₄ 118 Mincewicz; Janis In₁₅₅₄ 103 Butkiewicz, Jasis In₁₅₅₄ 92 Piotrowicz; Jasius In₁₅₅₄ 92, Staś Goyzetowicz; Josys In₁₅₅₄ 87 Piotrowicz z Pawłem synem; Jurgis In₁₅₅₄ 88 Klimontowicz; Lesis In₁₅₅₄ 92 Jankowicz; Misius In₁₅₅₄ 88 Janowicz; Mosis In₁₅₅₄ 112 Januszkowicz; Rodzius In₁₅₅₄ 96 Staniewicz z synem swym; Stanis In₁₅₅₄ 110 Janowicz z Szczepanem Pawłowicz(em); Stasis In₁₅₅₄ 100 Piotrowicz; Misius, Stasius In₁₅₅₄ 95 Symonowicz. There are quite many shortened forms without Lithuanian derivational elements. The variety of shortened forms considered Belarusian is not large: Bohdiusz In₁₅₅₄ 96 Migowicz; Chwiecko In₁₅₅₄ 104 Masiłowicz; Bohdan Stankowicz z Olechneм (INSTR.) In₁₅₅₄ 108 bratem; Pacz In₁₅₅₄ 118 Staniewicz z Piotrem synem; Pielęyko In₁₅₅₄ 83 Auxinowicz. There are somewhat more shortened forms common to both Belarusian and Polish. Recorded in the Linkmenys inventory without Lithuanian derivational elements: Bortko (Boreytko) In₁₅₅₄ 111 Woytkowicz; Stanisław Staniewicz z Grygiem (Grycem) (perhaps G- does indeed indicate specifically Lithuanian usage?) In₁₅₅₄ 88 Kasperowiczem; Hryc In₁₅₅₄ 102 Zagierdowicz z Piotrem synem; Hrycz In₁₅₅₄ 84 Maciejewicz; Juchno In₁₅₅₄ 88 Rutkowicz (Rackowicz); Macieyko In₁₅₅₄ 22 In discussing the formation of personal names, an excerpt with context is provided here and below, so family members are sometimes listed as well. An attempt was made to identify a relationship between the names of fathers and sons or brothers—for example, if one had a Lithuanian form, perhaps the others would too—but this is not the case. 23 The two brothers have the same names; perhaps this is why a diminutive form is given for one of them? XVI–XVII a. Rytų Lietuvos antroponimija | 51 99 with Marcinem Giernewiczy; Macko In₁₅₅₄ 83 Rymszewicz; Miś In₁₅₅₄ 96 Radoszewicz; Stanko In₁₅₅₄ 113 Talminowicz; Staś In₁₅₅₄ 83 Niekraszewicz; Stasko In₁₅₅₄ 120 Bohdanowicz. Some shortened forms without Lithuanian derivational elements should be considered Polish, but M. Biryla provides data on the spread of almost all of them in the sixteenth–eighteenth centuries considerably east or southeast of Vilnius. What they all have in common is that they are shortened forms of Catholic names with counterparts in the canonical Orthodox nomenclature, or are old Slavic dithematic names; thus, shortened forms from different periods may resemble one another or even coincide: Heliasz In₁₅₅₄ 112 Rotkiewicz; Janek In₁₅₅₄ 119 Łukaszewicz; Januszko In₁₅₅₄ 113 Jakubowicz; Greycius Stankowicz z Jasiem (Instr.) In₁₅₅₄ 89, Stasiem, synmi swemi; Jasz In₁₅₅₄ 90 Jocewicz; Jerzy In₁₅₅₄ 104 robi; Joc In₁₅₅₄ 115 Jakubowicz; Jocz In₁₅₅₄ 90 Maciewicz; Łukasz In₁₅₅₄ 116 MuraleWicz z Urbanem bratem; Petrek In₁₅₅₄ 108 Wraszowicz; Szymko In₁₅₅₄ 97 Bohdanowicz; Tomasz In₁₅₅₄ 110 [Juteykowicz] z Misiem, synem swym; Tomaszko In₁₅₅₄ 122 Pawłowicz, człowiek pana wojewoda bielskiego; Woytko In₁₅₅₄ 92 Daugutowicz. The long forms of names are written without endings, but the picture here is entirely different, since of the 24, only 3—Bohdan, Hregorya (Gen.), and Niestoia—are not from the usual Polish baptismal-name nomenclature: Bohdan In₁₅₅₄ 101 Pietkiewicz z Marcinem synem; Od ziem Hrehorya In₁₅₅₄ 101 Pukienia; perhaps Niestoia as well In₁₅₅₄ 119 Govlewicz. As already mentioned, from a phonetic perspective Baltromiej In₁₅₅₄ 88 Tomaszewicz and Ławryn In₁₅₅₄ 96 Radoszewicz z Marcinem synem belong to the Belarusian area. M. Biryla notes that With, recorded in sixteenth-century sources as a long form of the name, not merely as a shortened form (B₁₁ 148), also occurs in the Linkmenys inventory: With In₁₅₅₄ 96 Lesiewicz (Liesewicz) z Szczepanem synem. The remaining long forms of names are written as used in the Polish Catholic baptismal-name nomenclature, although the possibility cannot be ruled out that the scribe “corrected” some of them, especially since such a practice certainly existed: Adam In₁₅₅₄ 105 Bernatowicz z Maciejem synem; Ambrożey In₁₅₅₄ 120 Staskowicz; Ambroży In₁₅₅₄ 97 Staniulewicz z Andrzejem synem; Andrzej In₁₅₅₄ 123 Mixtowicz; Symon Taleykowicz z Bartłomiejem (Instr.) In₁₅₅₄ 99 Leszowie; Mażej (Błażej) Micowicz In₁₅₅₄ 114; Jakub In₁₅₅₄ 113 Talminowicz z Raginowa; Jan In₁₅₅₄ 96 Mikołajewicz z Piotrem pasynkiem; Kasper In₁₅₅₄ 96 Stankowicz; Maciej In₁₅₅₄ 83 Marcinowicz; Marcin In₁₅₅₄ 96 Ambrożewicz z Jurguciem Stanowicz(em); Mikołay In₁₅₅₄ 96 Ławrynowicz z Stanisławem synem; Paweł In₁₅₅₄ 84 Andrzejewicz; Piotr In₁₅₅₄ 87 Juriewicz z Maciejem Pawłowiczem; Symon In₁₅₅₄ 85, Piotr Michnowiczy (Michowiczy); Szczepan In₁₅₅₄ 100 Juchnowicz z Marcinem bratem; Stanisław In₁₅₅₄ 108 Grygalewicz z Subaczem Szergutowiczem; Urban In₁₅₅₄ 115 Janowicz z Staniulem Maciejewiczem; Woyciech (Woyciulis) Andrzejewicz z Walentym In₁₅₅₄ 108 synem; Wenstaw In₁₅₅₄ 120 Mikołajewicz. In the sixteenth century, surnames were still taking shape, so it is not always possible to say precisely when the second element in a person's designation may already have become a surname. The following is an overview of the personal names in the Linkmenys source under examination that are based on baptismal-name forms with patronymic suffixes. There are very few personal names derived from shortened forms containing Lithuanian derivational elements: [Jurgis] (Jurgi) Janielowicz In₁₅₅₄ 116; z Marcinem Jurgielewicz(em) In₁₅₅₄ 112; 52 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ Urban Jurgielowicz In₁₅₅₄ 108 z Janem synem; Maciej Maczulewicz In₁₅₅₄ 96; Janel Matulewicz z synmi dwiema In₁₅₅₄ 117; Paweł Pieczulewicz In₁₅₅₄ 117; z Subaczem Szergutowiczem (Instr.) In₁₅₅₄ 108; Stasis Stanielewicz In₁₅₅₄ 110; Łukasz Stasulewicz In₁₅₅₄ 122. Perhaps one personal name was formed from the name (with the ending -is) Jurgis, but perhaps also from the Slavic short form Jurgi: Janulis Jurgiewicz z Jaxtem [Jurg]iewiczem In₁₅₅₄ 103. Most personal names with patronymic suffixes are formed from short forms without Lithuanian derivational elements. Some of these short forms, as already discussed, may be considered Belarusian, e.g.: Andrzej Alechnowicz In₁₅₅₄ 89; Narusz (Narucz) Lesiewicz In₁₅₅₄ 114 z Jakubem Juchnowicz(em); Symon Michnowicz In₁₅₅₄ 83; Stanis Micewicz In₁₅₅₄ 114 z Marcinem bratem; Mažey (Błażey) Micowicz In₁₅₅₄ 114; Bohdan Pietkewicz In₁₅₅₄ 101; Janulis Procewicz In₁₅₅₄ 93; Urban Puszkiewicz (Puskiewicz) In₁₅₅₄ 115; Staniulis Radziewicz In₁₅₅₄ 106; Heliasz Rotkiewicz In₁₅₅₄ 112; Juchno Sopowicz sopa In₁₅₅₄ 120. The personal name Juciewicz In₁₅₅₄ 88 is probably also to be considered Belarusian (cf. LPŽ¹ 849), although this short form is not attested in M. Biryła’s works. It may be supposed that the origin of the personal name Minczewicz is probably associated with a hydronym or oikonyms²⁴, but one may cautiously suspect that the short form of Old Russian Muha, Минай was also present; cf. Мунчук БII 92, 224. The personal names derived from short forms common to Belarusians and Poles include: Piotr Daniewicz In₁₅₅₄ 115; Stanisław Juchnowicz In₁₅₅₄ 88; Goczutis Jurewicz In₁₅₅₄ 117; Jocz Maciewicz In₁₅₅₄ 90; Jan Mackiewicz In₁₅₅₄ 88; Piotr Mateykowicz In₁₅₅₄ 108 z Łukaszem; Mosis Mielewicz In₁₅₅₄ 119; Jan Milewicz In₁₅₅₄ 103; Janiul Misiewicz In₁₅₅₄ 95; Andrzej Mixtowicz In₁₅₅₄ 123; Lesis (Lesius) Mosiewicz In₁₅₅₄ 119; Jurgielis Pietraszewicz In₁₅₅₄ 112; Jakszta Piotraszkiewicz In₁₅₅₄ 112; Kasper Stankowicz In₁₅₅₄ 96; Ambrozey Staskowicz In₁₅₅₄ 120; Bortko (Boreytko) Woytkowicz In₁₅₅₄ 111. There are few personal names derived from typically Polish short forms: Piotr Domaszewicz In₁₅₅₄ 103; Stanis Jankiewicz In₁₅₅₄ 112; Bohdan Jankowicz In₁₅₅₄ 84; Mikołay Januszkowicz In₁₅₅₄ 88. Some personal names with patronymic suffixes are formed from long forms of names: Stanisław Adamowicz In₁₅₅₄ 108 z Maciejem a Janem synmi; Juchno Ambrożewicz In₁₅₅₄ 93; Stasko Bohdanowicz In₁₅₅₄ 120; Stanisław Grygalewicz In₁₅₅₄ 108; Maciej Ihnatowicz In₁₅₅₄ 118; Staniulis Jakubowicz In₁₅₅₄ 103; Piotr Janowicz In₁₅₅₄ 88; Jurgis Klimontowicz In₁₅₅₄ 88; z Jurgielem Konratowicz(em) In₁₅₅₄ 108; Jakub Ławrynowicz In₁₅₅₄ 83; Marcin Maciejewicz In₁₅₅₄ 84; Pawet Matewicz In₁₅₅₄ 108, z Misiem, wnukiem swym; Maciej Marcinowicz In₁₅₅₄ 83; Andrzej Mikołajewicz In₁₅₅₄ 88; Stas Pawłowicz In₁₅₅₄ 108 z synmi trzema; Jasis Piotrowicz In₁₅₅₄ 92; Maciej Rakowicz In₁₅₅₄ 96 z Jakubem pasynkiem; Maciej Szczepanowicz In₁₅₅₄ 117 z synmi dwiema; Piotr Symonowicz In₁₅₅₄ 92; Janiel Stanisławowicz In₁₅₅₄ 95; Maciey, Jakub Urbanowiczy In₁₅₅₄ 92. Although baptismal personal names predominate in the 1554 inventory of Linkmenys district, there are other kinds as well. They were not the subject of this article’s study, so a more detailed overview of them is not provided. They are briefly mentioned here simply to avoid giving the misleading impression that only one kind of personal name was used there. There are several ancient Baltic dithematic names, e.g.: Dawiat In₁₅₅₄ 111; Narbutha (Gen.) In₁₅₅₄ 128; Tharwid In₁₅₅₄ 101, etc.; as well as their short forms and derivatives with patronymic 24 In these areas, the villages of Minčia and Minčiakampis still exist, and the Minčia Forest rises nearby. Vanagas (1981: 216–217) derives the name of the river Minčia in the Salakas area from the Lithuanian words minti or mentė. XVI–XVII a. Rytų Lietuvos antroponimija | 53 with suffixes, e.g.: Butrymowicz In₁₅₅₄ 105; Mongierdowiczow (Gen. Pl.) In₁₅₅₄ 120; Nargielowicz In₁₅₅₄ 117; Talminowicz In₁₅₅₄ 113; Tarwidowiczem (Instr.) In₁₅₅₄ 101, etc. There are few personal names of Lithuanian appellative origin, e.g.: Botus In₁₅₅₄ 106; Goylis In₁₅₅₄ 83; Grevius In₁₅₅₄ 89; Goyzutis In₁₅₅₄ 110; Kuniszkis In₁₅₅₄ 117; Oszkinis In₁₅₅₄ 85; Pozeymis25 In₁₅₅₄ 113; Pukienia (Gen.) In₁₅₅₄ 101, etc. There are more personal names of this kind, some of which may also be shortenings of old Baltic two-stem names, with the Slavic patronymic suffixes -evič, -ovič, e.g.: Budrewicz In₁₅₅₄ 115; Daugutowicz In₁₅₅₄ 92; Doylewicz In₁₅₅₄ 88; Goyżewicz In₁₅₅₄ 104; Greycewicz In₁₅₅₄ 103; Kieylowicz In₁₅₅₄ 111; Pikłewicz In₁₅₅₄ 98; Rymeyszewicz In₁₅₅₄ 105; Rymoszewicz In₁₅₅₄ 96; Rymszowicz In₁₅₅₄ 85; Rostaniewiczow (Gen. Pl.) In₁₅₅₄ 122; Rukszewicz In₁₅₅₄ 94; Szyleykowicz In₁₅₅₄ 89; Taleykowicz In₁₅₅₄ 99; Wayszniewicz In₁₅₅₄ 106, etc. A review of the personal names in the 1554 inventory of Linkmenys district revealed that: 1) personal names of baptismal origin predominate; a small proportion of the baptismal names or their shortenings are also Orthodox or Old Slavic names, but most are names shared by Catholics and Orthodox; 2) a considerable proportion of the shortened baptismal names are characteristic of Belarusian, or are ancient Slavic shortenings that were widespread in the 16th century in both Belarusian and Polish (and other Slavic) languages; 3) names of baptismal origin contain two types of Lithuanian derivational elements: diminutive suffixes -el-, -ut- and endings -is, -us, which are not always written. The suffixes are retained in personal names with patronymic suffixes, but no Lithuanian patronymic suffixes were found: only the Slavic -evič, -ovič were used; 4) there is no correlation between the components of the same person’s multi-part (usually two-part) name that are of Lithuanian origin or contain Lithuanian derivational elements and components of Slavic origin and/or formation; the same applies to the names of members of the same family; the personal names of inhabitants of individual villages are not distinctive. 3. THE 1636 INVENTORY OF LINKMENYS DISTRICT The manuscript of the inventory of Linkmenys district, written nearly a hundred years later (more precisely, 82 years later), in 1636, has survived to this day. Comparing personal names of baptismal origin in it with those in the 1554 inventory of the same district makes it possible to test the hypotheses proposed concerning possible Belarusian influence in the Linkmenys area in the 16th–17th centuries. The manuscript was written by a single person26, in Polish; one surname is written in Cyrillic letters: Іоцевич In₁₆₃₆ 16v. As in the 1554 inventory, the writer’s command of Polish spelling is limited. Here, personal names are more often written with lowercase initial letters, although the 1554 inventory may have been corrected in this respect during its repeated transcription. More diacritical marks are used, e.g.: ÿ with two dots above, ù, ỳ with one dot above, ý, á with an acute accent, ý with a circumflex, ō, ū, ñ, ȳ, ž with a line above, ẹ with a dot above, etc. The spelling is not examined in greater detail in this article; the examples simply aim to reproduce it as authentically as possible. 25 The river Žeimena is mentioned (incidentally, it is written with Z- in every instance): w rzekę Zeymianę; a rzeką Zeymioną In₁₅₅₄ 132. 26 The title page bears the entry: “[...] przez mię Gerzega Kazimirza Jawgiela”. 54 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ The personal names in the 1636 inventory differ considerably from those in the earlier one (1554). First of all, they are more varied, include more derivatives from Lithuanian common nouns, and display a wider range of word-formation elements, since derivatives with Lithuanian patronymic suffixes are also found. Since among all the personal names in the 1554 inventory only those based on baptismal names that predominated there were surveyed, the personal names from the Linkmenys district in 1636 will be compared from the same perspective. There are few new baptismal names in terms of origin; all the innovations concern word formation. Perhaps the old Slavic dithematic name Гоццислав lies behind the personal name Gasiewicz In₁₆₃₆ 16v, LPŽ₂ I 628. There are Belarusian hypocoristics that may derive from very ancient Orthodox names, though their origins can also be interpreted differently; for example, maknienas In₁₆₃₆ 26v; makniunas In₁₆₃₆ 26: Belarusian, Ukrainian Махно: Old Russian Епимах БII 232, but it may also be associated with Polish Maciej LPŽII 139, or with Lithuanian maknys ‘one who mumbles and stutters while speaking’ (ibid.). One might tentatively look for a shortened form of Old Russian Мамон in the personal name Mamenas In₁₆₃₆ 27 as well; cf. БII 151. A similar observation can be made about the origin of the personal name Palanis In₁₆₃₆ 25v: its base may have been a Belarusian equivalent of the baptismal names Аполлон, Инполит or Полин, represented by hypocoristics such as Паланец БII 242, Поля БII 76, Пол БI 137, or similar forms, although a different interpretation of its origin is also possible. It is not known exactly which baptismal name was abbreviated in the base of the personal name Jodka In₁₆₃₆ 30v: it may have been Евдоким БI 64, or some other name. Allik In₁₆₃₆ 19 may derive from the canonical name Олег БII 19, but it may also derive from Polish Aleksander (ibid.), the canonical names Алексий БII 24, Илья БII 71, or Орест БII 37. The abbreviation gu. Baca, which became wasowicz in In₁₆₃₆ 16v, is derived from the baptismal-name form Василий used in Belarusian, not from the Polish equivalent Bazyli БII 43. The same applies to the abbreviation gu. Ильяш: Илия БII 71, found in the 1636 inventory of Linkmenys: Iliasz In₁₆₃₆ 26 is attributable to Belarusian usage, since the Polish equivalent is Eliasz БII 71. Although both Polish and Belarusian have equivalents of Leontijaus, Leono, the personal name łowczyś In₁₆₃₆ 26v is to be derived specifically from a Belarusian abbreviation; cf. Лейчанок, Лейчьк БI 107, БII 209. Likewise, Pilkiūnas In₁₆₃₆ 29 is to be derived from the Belarusian abbreviation Пилька: ст. Филипп, Pol. Filip БII 103, although a connection with Lith. pilkas ‘gray’ cannot be ruled out. The association of Wolan In₁₆₃₆ 17 with Belarusian Вален: Валентин БII 42, 168 is rather doubtful, but possible; an association with Валерий LPŽII 1154 is also possible. Incidentally, one might try to associate wiralunas In₁₆₃₆ 29v with the latter name (with Lithuanian diminutive and patronymic suffixes), since Belarusians had a blend hypocoristic of it, Вир БII 41. Equivalent forms of the same baptismal name in Polish and Belarusian are Gasper In₁₆₃₆ 19 and Kasper In₁₆₃₆ 18v (see БI 95). The same applies to the variant Bernardo Bernat In₁₆₃₆ 16v, since Pol. Biennat, Barnat and Bel. Бернат БI 34, as well as the dialectal form of Leonardo, cf. Pol. Lenart, Bel. Ленарт БI 107, cf. Lenart In₁₆₃₆ 19. The personal name Damišzys In₁₆₃₆ 28v derives from the abbreviation Damasz, Дамаш: Доментиан, Дамиан БII 248, used in both Polish and Belarusian, as does Bel. Гяніц, Pol. Genus, from Eugenijaus LPŽI 652, if we derive the personal name Gienalis In₁₆₃₆ 29 from them, since it may also be of appellative origin. A similar development has also occurred in the personal name miloszunas In₁₆₃₆ 27, which contains the abbreviation Pol. Milosz: le. Emilian, gu. Милош: Old. Милий БII 141, 248. Both languages use the abbreviation of the baptismal name Pol. Klemens, Bel. Климент(ий), Klim, Клим БI 98, БII 81; cf. Klimas In₁₆₃₆ 30v. XVI–XVII a. Rytų Lietuvos antroponimija 55 The long form of the name Krzyszto(ph) in In₁₆₃₆ 26v is the Polish spelling of Kristupas, although, incidentally, the Belarusians also recorded Криштоф Б₁ 104. Blažis In₁₆₃₆ 22 is also a Polish baptismal name (LPŽ₁ 274). Such are the new names or their diminutives mentioned in the 1636 inventory that were absent from the 1554 inventory of Linkmenys district, except for the reference to Valentingas. Other names or their diminutives already appeared in the 1554 source, but the spellings, diminutives, or derivatives not yet mentioned are listed below. The 1554 source contained only the Polish spelling Andrius of the name, Andrzej, whereas here there is the form Andrey, characteristic of the East Slavs, in In₁₆₃₆ 21, as well as its diminutive with a Slavic suffix corresponding to a Lithuanian ending—Andrus In₁₆₃₆ 27, Б₁₁ 31. Another long form of a name mentioned earlier, Walęty In₁₆₃₆ 16v, is not only spelled somewhat differently—that is, -ę- is written instead of -en-—but its Lithuanian dialectal pronunciation with -in- is also recorded: Walint In₁₆₃₆ 16v. The seventeenth-century source also contains hypocoristics of this name: the Slavic form with a diminutive suffix coinciding with a Lithuanian ending, Walis In₁₆₃₆ 19, and Waluk In₁₆₃₆ 18v, with the Lithuanian suffix -uk-. There are new hypocoristics of names already mentioned. A much larger share of them have hypocoristics more characteristic of Polish, for example: Brazulis In₁₆₃₆ 29: Polish Brozik, Brożek: Polish Ambroży LPŽ₁ 302; Czep In₁₆₃₆ 25v; Czepolis In₁₆₃₆ 28v: Polish Czep: Polish Szczepan LPŽ₁ 411; mitenas In₁₆₃₆ 22, cf. Polish Mita: Dywmit LPŽ₁₁ 258, but cf. also Belarusian Mimko: Димитрий Б₁ 61; Piotrokal In₁₆₃₆ 16v, but cf. Polish Piotrat: Polish Piotr, Belarusian Пятрок: Old Russian Петр Б₁₁ 101; Szym In₁₆₃₆ 16v: Polish Szym: Polish Szymon LPŽ₁₁ 930; Tumas In₁₆₃₆ 31, cf. Polish Tomasz, Old Russian Фома Б₁₁ 121. Some hypocoristics have equivalents in both Belarusian and Polish, for example: Alexa In₁₆₃₆ 29v: Polish Aleks, Old Russian Алексей LPŽ₁ 80; Jakutys In₁₆₃₆ 27v: Polish Jak: Polish Jakub, Belarusian Як, Якуma: Old Russian Яков Б₁₁ 129, 241; Joszko In₁₆₃₆ 16v, cf. Polish Jeszo: Polish Jan, Belarusian Яша: Old Russian Иаков LPŽ₁ 820; Jurka In₁₆₃₆ 26v; Jurko In₁₆₃₆ 22v: Polish Jurka, Belarusian Юрка: Old Russian Юрий LPŽ₁ 870; Marcel In₁₆₃₆ 16v, cf. sixteenth-century Belarusian Марцин, Polish Marcin Б₁₁ 87; Stakun In₁₆₃₆ 22v, cf. Polish Stach: Polish Stanisław, Belarusian Стах: Станислав Б₁₁ 110; wąsowicz In₁₆₃₆ 17, cf. its possible derivation from Old Russian Иоанн Б₁ 83 (for other etymologies, see LPŽ₁₁ 1159). Some hypocoristics are, nevertheless, more characteristic of Belarusian, although links with Polish cannot be ruled out; for example: Czasiuk Czasenas In₁₆₃₆ 22 – Belarusian Часок: Old Church Slavonic Вячеслав Б₁₁ 51; maciuta In₁₆₃₆ 16v: Belarusian Мацума: Old Russian Матфей, Мацей; Polish Mac: Polish Maciej Б₁₁ 240; the base of stepsalis In₁₆₃₆ 28v may be Steps, a hypocoristic of Polish Stefan or Old Russian Стефан, with the archaic Slavic diminutive suffix -s; cf. Б₁₁ 112, 235. In terms of word formation, personal names based on baptismal names are quite varied. Several personal names without patronymic suffixes have both Lithuanian diminutive suffixes -el-, -ul- and Lithuanian endings: Czepulis In₁₆₃₆ 22 Szymkunas; Borkunas Janelis In₁₆₃₆ 29v; Matulis In₁₆₃₆ 22 niekiszkis; Mikialis In₁₆₃₆ 20 maszkiozna; Stasulis niekisakis In₁₆₃₆ 22. The earlier source (1554) had no instances in which hypocoristics of baptismal names appeared as the second element in a person's name, whereas the 1636 inventory does contain such cases. In some, both elements are based on baptismal names, for example: Jurgis Jakutys In₁₆₃₆ 27v; Iliasz matulis In₁₆₃₆ 26; Czepolis stepsalis In₁₆₃₆ 28v. In other cases, the first element may derive from a common noun, for example: Duda woyčiulis In₁₆₃₆ 21; Kuta matulis In₁₆₃₆ 22, and others. There are somewhat more names with only diminutive suffixes, including the aforementioned ones as well as -uk- and -ut- (Petrokal may have -el-, but the spelling does not make this clear), but recorded without endings: Czasiuk 56 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ IN₁₆₃₆ 22 Czasenas; Januk IN₁₆₃₆ 21v Alksnianis; Jasul IN₁₆₃₆ 22v maciucenas; Jasiuk IN₁₆₃₆ 28 mikszan; Marcel Piotrokal IN₁₆₃₆ 16v; Matul IN₁₆₃₆ 22v Baltromieikis; Piatru IN₁₆₃₆ 22v Gaýžas; Stasiuk IN₁₆₃₆ 20 Stýmberelis; Stasul IN₁₆₃₆ 29v Berziulenas; Waluk IN₁₆₃₆ 18v Lepeta. Two such forms are the second elements in personal naming: Ławryn Staniul IN₁₆₃₆ 16v; Marcel Piotrokal IN₁₆₃₆ 16v. There are also diminutives with Lithuanian endings, sometimes having become long forms of baptismal names, for example: Baltrus IN₁₆₃₆ 27 molerunas; Jurgis Bernat IN₁₆₃₆ 16v; Szymaś IN₁₆₃₆ 27 Żýmonas; and likewise: Błażis IN₁₆₃₆ 18v Dwakinis; Czepas IN₁₆₃₆ 29v Czepulenas; Damusžys IN₁₆₃₆ 28v nowik; Jasus IN₁₆₃₆ 21 Grugalus; Klimas IN₁₆₃₆ 30v Baczenas; Tumas IN₁₆₃₆ 31 milenis. Jurgis is once recorded as the second element of a personal name as well – Woÿciech Jurgis IN₁₆₃₆ 26. Grýg IN₁₆₃₆ 16v Krzywopust and Grig IN₁₆₃₆ 28v wizelis also became long forms of names. Two diminutives can be interpreted in two ways, since the Lithuanian endings coincide with Slavic suffixes: Andrus IN₁₆₃₆ 27, B₁ 31 milūnas; Walis IN₁₆₃₆ 19, B₁ 36 Allik. Unlike in the 1554 inventory, there are not many diminutives without any Lithuanian derivational elements: Alexa IN₁₆₃₆ 29v Kiautenas; Czep IN₁₆₃₆ 25v Palanis; Iliasz IN₁₆₃₆ 26 matulis; Jodka IN₁₆₃₆ 30v Blażenas; Jurka IN₁₆₃₆ 26v Kimbar; Jurko IN₁₆₃₆ 22v Stakun; Luksza IN₁₆₃₆ 16v Kulewicz; Szym Joszko IN₁₆₃₆ 16v; Tomasz IN₁₆₃₆ 27 milošzunas. One diminutive became a long form in Polish: Jerze IN₁₆₃₆ 18v woÿciech; Jerzi IN₁₆₃₆ 22 kudenas. Personal names of baptismal-name origin without patronymic suffixes, which became second elements in personal naming, are recorded. Such forms are more likely to have endings resembling Lithuanian ones (perhaps due to the spelling) than genuine Lithuanian endings, for example: Piotr Joczes IN₁₆₃₆ 19; Kowal tołczyś IN₁₆₃₆ 26; Mikołay: Woÿciech maciuta IN₁₆₃₆ 16v; Rodzios IN₁₆₃₆ 21v; and forms without Lithuanian endings, for example: Walis Allik IN₁₆₃₆ 19; Szym Joszko IN₁₆₃₆ 16v; Jasiuk mikszan IN₁₆₃₆ 28; Kasper Tomasz IN₁₆₃₆ 18v. There are many long forms of names. Three of them are non-Polish, although they have equivalents: Andreÿ IN₁₆₃₆ 21 Ławnik; Baltromiei IN₁₆₃₆ 18v Niemonìun; Ławryn IN₁₆₃₆ 16v Staniul. One name form has undergone phonetic change – Czapan IN₁₆₃₆ 30v Jušenas (instead of the expected Polish Szcz-). One – Lenart IN₁₆₃₆ 19 Iaszkėnas – is a dialectal variant of Leonard, used in both Belarusian and Polish (see B₁ 107, LPŽ II 55). One Catholic name is recorded with a Lithuanian ending: Karolis IN₁₆₃₆ 29v Bezdenas; Karulis IN₁₆₃₆ 21v Karpis, while another has a Lithuanian diminutive suffix – steponalis IN₁₆₃₆ 28v. The rest are common Polish baptismal names, some also used in Belarusian: Adam IN₁₆₃₆ 21v Balinski; Ambrożey IN₁₆₃₆ 26v masenas; Błażey IN₁₆₃₆ 22v mtenas; Gasper IN₁₆₃₆ 19 Jakubowicz; Jakub IN₁₆₃₆ 19 Ambrozieiewicz; Jan IN₁₆₃₆ 16v Gasiewicz; Kasper IN₁₆₃₆ 18v Tomasz; Krzyszto ph IN₁₆₃₆ 26v Plenius; Marcin IN₁₆₃₆ 26 Podwoński; Mikołay IN₁₆₃₆ 21v Rodzios; Paweł IN₁₆₃₆ 22 Żesinas; Piotr IN₁₆₃₆ 17v Gaużutys; Stanisław IN₁₆₃₆ 16v woÿskun; Stephan IN₁₆₃₆ 16w Ioceвич; Szyman IN₁₆₃₆ 16v lach; Urban IN₁₆₃₆ 19v miteÿkis; Wałęty IN₁₆₃₆ 16v kowal; Walint IN₁₆₃₆ 16v kulewicz; Woÿciech IN₁₆₃₆ 16v maciuta; Wolan IN₁₆₃₆ 17 Kulewicz. Long forms can also become second elements in personal names, both with a Lithuanian ending, for example: Aszkinis Ambr as as IN₁₆₃₆ 22; Rukas Czapanas IN₁₆₃₆ 31, Jasus Grygalus IN₁₆₃₆ 21, and without an ending – Jurgis Bernat IN₁₆₃₆ 16v; Swidren Krýsz toph IN₁₆₃₆ 22; Jerze woÿciech IN₁₆₃₆ 16v. Women’s names are generally not given; instead, it is stated whose widow she is, for example: Wdowa Stasio-wa IN₁₆₃₆ 16v. There are two entries with women’s names that are clearly Slavic: Aksania Batt- XVI–XVII a. Rytų Lietuvos antroponimija | 57 romiejowa In1636 22, Milowa Uliana In1636 29. This latter form of the name (without J-) later spread in eastern and southeastern Lithuania (Kuzavin is, Savukynas 1994: 213). Most second elements in personal naming have patronymic suffixes. The difference is that the 1636 source contains derivatives of baptismal names with Lithuanian patronymic suffixes -ėn-, -ūn- and one derivative with -yn-. There is a compound formed from a diminutive with the Lithuanian suffix -ok- and the noun žentas: Grig mikszakzentis In1636 29. There are not very many personal names with several Lithuanian suffixes (diminutive and patronymic); these personal names also have Lithuanian endings: Poszenas Andrulenas In1636 29; Czepas Czepulenas In1636 29v; Jasul maciulenas In1636 22v; Adam Pečiulenas In1636 29v; such a personal name also occurs without an ending – Ławryn Staniulin27 In1636 17. Two personal names were found with a Lithuanian diminutive suffix and a Slavic patronymic suffix (there were more of these in the 1554 source): Szym Czepulewicz In1636 19; Januk manulewicz In1636 22. By contrast, a fairly large group consists of personal names based on diminutives of baptismal names without Lithuanian diminutive suffixes, but with Lithuanian patronymic suffixes (here -ait- is also added), for example, recorded with endings: Andrey Blažėnas In1636 25; Borkunas In1636 29v Janelis; Czasiuk Czasenas In1636 22; Szym Domaszunas In1636 30v (Lat 100); Sžyman Gryčiunas In1636 21v; Jurgis Jakavītis In1636 27; Jan Jaczunas In1636 26; Lenart Jas zkenas In1636 19; Jan Jociunas In1636 21; Czapan Jušėnas In1636 30v; Kržysz-toph maknienas In1636 26v; marcin makniunas In1636 26v; Sžyman marczenas In1636 29; Walulis masenas In1636 26v; Tomasz miłoszunas In1636 27; Blažis miten as In1636 22; Jan Sžymkienas In1636 21; Czepulis Sžymkunas In1636 22; in one person, both naming elements have a patronymic suffix – Poczenas In1636 29 Andrulenas. Personal names of this formation also occur without Lithuanian endings: Bogdžun nowik In1636 22; Marcin Domaszun In1636 19v; Jan Jaciun In1636 26v; Wojciech maňčiun In1636 18v; Jurko Stakun In1636 22v; Adam Stasun In1636 22v. The suffix -in- in one personal name derived from a diminutive is non-patronymic – Stanisław Sžymkinis In1636 21; it may be suspected that the stem of another personal name with the non-patronymic²⁸ suffix -išk- is also of baptismal-name origin – Ambrožey miližkis In1636 28v. Unlike in the 1554 inventory, there are several personal names based on diminutives without Lithuanian derivational elements but with Slavic patronymic suffixes; they are recorded without endings: Jan Gasiewicz In1636 16v; Stephan Joweyu In1636 16v; Marcin Łukaszewicz In1636 18v; Grýg wasowicz In1636 16v; Grýg wąsowicz In1636 17; Jan wołtkiewicz In1636 24v. There are only two personal names formed from long name forms with Lithuanian patronymic suffixes – Krzysztoph Karalunas In1636 24v; Andrus martynenas In1636 29v; the suffix of one other is non-patronymic – Matul Baltromieikis In1636 22v. Very few personal names with Slavic patronymic suffixes remain; they have no endings: Jan Alekseiewicz In1636 21v; Jakub Ambrozieiewicz In1636 19; Gasper Jakubowicz In1636 19; Stanisław Jozephowicz In1636 24v; Krzysztop marcinowicz In1636 19. 27 The same person as Ławryn Staniul In1636 16v. 28 Maciejauskienė (1991: 227–228) teigia priesagą -išk- turėjus patroniminę reikšmę, ypač kai asmenvardžiai buvo daromi iš krikšto vardų. 58 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ Overall, the personal names in the 1636 inventory are incomparably more Lithuanian than those in 1554, as is also shown by the abundance of personal names derived from Lithuanian appellatives. As in the overview of the 1554 inventory, these are not the object of the study; it is simply possible to mention some of them, e.g., without Lithuanian patronymic suffixes: Urban Auksla IN₁₆₃₆ 24; Jan Dewelis IN₁₆₃₆ 19; Piat­ruc Gaižas IN₁₆₃₆ 22v; Karulis Karpis IN₁₆₃₆ 21v; Waluk Lepeta IN₁₆₃₆ 18v; Jan Pilwialis IN₁₆₃₆ 29v; Piotr ragialis IN₁₆₃₆ 19; Stasiuk Stymbirelis IN₁₆₃₆ 20; Jan Szakalis IN₁₆₃₆ 24v; Mikotay wilkas IN₁₆₃₆ 27; Grig wizelis IN₁₆₃₆ 28v; Pawel Žešinas IN₁₆₃₆ 22; Grýg Žýburys IN₁₆₃₆ 20v, etc. There are also compounds, e.g.: Matulis Dzwiniakis IN₁₆₃₆ 24v; Stasulis niekisakis IN₁₆₃₆ 22, etc. A few personal names have non-patronymic Lithuanian suffixes, e.g.: Blažis Dwak inis IN₁₆₃₆ 18v; Jan Gaužutenis IN₁₆₃₆ 17v; Piotr Goyžut IN₁₆₃₆ 24; Jan kupietis IN₁₆₃₆ 28; Matulis niekizskis IN₁₆₃₆ 22, etc. It is difficult to say whether these personal names have already lost their patronymic suffixes or never acquired them: throughout Lithuania, the abundance of such personal names is characteristic of earlier, sixteenth-century sources (cf. Maciejauskienė 1991: 151 et seq.; 225), but this cannot be said of the 1554 Linkmenys source. A considerable number of personal names of Lithuanian appellative origin bearing the patronymic suffixes -ėn-, -on-, -ūn- are recorded with endings, e.g.: Januk Alksnianis IN₁₆₃₆ 21v; Stasiul Beržulenas IN₁₆₃₆ 29v; Jurgis Beždenas IN₁₆₃₆ 29v; Pawel Dikienas IN₁₆₃₆ 28; Pawel Dýkunas²⁹ IN₁₆₃₆ 28; Jasus Kauten as³⁰ IN₁₆₃₆ 29v; Alexa Kiautenas IN₁₆₃₆ 29v; Piotr Kupre-nas IN₁₆₃₆ 26; Marcin Purienenas IN₁₆₃₆ 29; Jan Rukszenas IN₁₆₃₆ 20v; Marcin Sžykszniūnas IN₁₆₃₆ 29; grig wizatanis IN₁₆₃₆ 28v; Piotr Žýtenas IN₁₆₃₆ 25; Žýtenas marcin IN₁₆₃₆ 25, etc. Some such personal names occur without endings, e.g.: Jan Szakutan IN₁₆₃₆ 24; Sžym Stulgian IN₁₆₃₆ 28, etc. Very few have Slavic patronymic suffixes, e.g.: Marcin Gribewicz IN₁₆₃₆ 16v; Jan Rugaýszewicz IN₁₆₃₆ 16v; Jurgis stemborowicz IN₁₆₃₆ 19v, etc. A few old Baltic compound personal names, e.g.: Jurka Kimbar IN₁₆₃₆ 26v; Stanisław minat IN₁₆₃₆ 22v; Jan woýsznaras IN₁₆₃₆ 22; Sžýmas Žýmonas IN₁₆₃₆ 27, etc. The spellings of nicknames and of personal names derived from them with Lithuanian patronymic suffixes also raise the possibility of alternating language use or bilingualism, e.g.: alongside Ławryn kalwis IN₁₆₃₆ 25 is Wałety kowal IN₁₆₃₆ 16v; alongside Battro-mieý kotwenas IN₁₆₆₃ 21 is Kawatenas IN₁₆₆₃ 24v, that is, Lith. kalvis ‘blacksmith’ and Slavic kowal, although the scribe may also have made an adjustment here. The presence of personal names containing the ethnonym gudas confirms the supposition of greater or lesser linguistic heterogeneity, e.g.: Gudas Sawicki IN₁₆₃₆ 26, Jurgis Gudunas IN₁₆₃₆ 21v. Personal names with the suffix -ski, more characteristic of Polish than Belarusian, appear only in the 1636 source, e.g.: Adam Balinski IN₁₆₃₆ 21v; matul Dirwanski, tenze Dýrwinski IN₁₆₃₆ 24v; Woýciech Grzybowski IN₁₆₃₆ 19v; Urban Łapaczinski IN₁₆₃₆ 30v; Marcin Podwoýski IN₁₆₃₆ 26; Adam Pokulewski IN₁₆₃₆ 26; Gudas Sawicki IN₁₆₃₆ 26; Woýciech Sopkowski IN₁₆₃₆ 21v; Swiderski IN₁₆₃₆ 16v; Andreý zawacki IN₁₆₃₆ 21, while one spelling indicates a certain degree of adaptation, since it has an ending: Ambrozeý Kilbowskis IN₁₆₃₆ 28v. 29 Here Dikienas and Dýkunas are the same person, which would suggest that in the seventeenth century, in the Linkmenys area, the Lithuanian patronymic suffixes -ėn- and -ūn- may have been used interchangeably. 30 Kiaulėnas also lived in the same village, so presumably the basis of the appellative surname here, too, is the word kiaulė ‘pig’. XVI–XVII a. Rytų Lietuvos antroponimija | 59 To sum up the review of baptismal-name personal names in the 1636 inventory of Linkmenys District, the following points should be noted: 1) although here, as in the 1554 inventory, personal names of baptismal-name origin predominate, and only a small proportion are baptismal names or their short forms derived from Orthodox or Old Slavic names, most are names shared by Catholics and Christians alike. The 1663 source contains more personal names associated with Lithuanian appellative vocabulary; 2) some short forms of baptismal names are characteristic of Belarusian, or are common archaic Slavic short forms that were widespread in the 17th century in both Belarusian and Polish (and other Slavic) languages; many of them, however, contain Lithuanian personal-name formation elements; 3) names of baptismal-name origin have two types of Lithuanian formation elements: diminutive suffixes -el-, -uk-, -ul-, -ut- and endings -is, -us, which are not always written. These suffixes are retained in personal names with patronymic suffixes; many personal names with Lithuanian patronymic suffixes -ėn-, -ūn-, among others, occur, while the Slavic suffixes -evič, -ovič, frequently used in the 1554 source, become less common. Personal names with the Polish patronymic suffix -ski also appear; 4) no correlation was found between members of the same person’s multi-part (usually two-part) designation that are of Lithuanian origin or contain Lithuanian formation elements and members of Slavic origin and/or formation; the same applies to the naming of members of the same family. The personal names of inhabitants of individual villages do not stand out. 4. IN PLACE OF CONCLUSIONS The personal names of baptismal-name origin examined in the 1554 and 1636 inventories of Linkmenys District differ somewhat from other personal names recorded in the territory of present-day Lithuania for that period. This applies above all to the 16th-century source: it is considerably more Slavic, contains few national names characteristic of other sources of the period, Christian name forms are adapted only to a small extent to Lithuanian word formation, there are no personal names with Lithuanian patronymic suffixes, and Slavic, especially Belarusian, short forms of names are used predominantly, some of them outside the Catholic nomenclature (cf. Maciejauskienė 1991: 33 et seq.). The personal names in the 1636 inventory are considerably more Lithuanian in terms of formation; not only Lithuanian diminutive suffixes are used extensively, but many personal names also have Lithuanian patronymic suffixes, so personal names with Slavic patronymic suffixes are used less frequently. In terms of origin, the personal names in the 17th-century source resemble those in the 16th-century source, but there are somewhat more name forms derived either solely from long Polish name forms or shared by Poles and Belarusians. It could cautiously be hypothesized that there may have been Belarusian-language influence in the Linkmenys region in the 16th century, which had already diminished considerably by the 17th century. Belarusian short forms of Christian names may often also have entered through direct contact with non-Lithuanian-speaking neighbors. 60 | LAIMA GRUMADIENĖ A B B R E V I A T I O N S B1 – M. V. BIRYLA, Беларуская антрапанімія 1. Уласныя імёны, імёны-мянушкі, імёны па бацьку, прозвішчы. Мінск: Навука і тэхніка, 1966. B11 – M. V. BIRYLA, Беларуская антрапанімія 3. Структура уласных мужчынскіх імён. Мінск: Навука і тэхніка, 1982. bulg. – Bulgarian GEN. – genitivus (genitive) gu. – Belarusian IN1554 – inventory of the Vilnius tiunija—Nemenčinė and Linkmenys districts—dated December 4, 1554. K. JABLONSKIS, ed., Historical Archive (16th c.), Kaunas, 1934, 30–131. IN1636 - Inwentarz Wszystkiego Ciwuństwa Wilenskiego ýy Miasteczek powierzonych Niemenczyńskiej Łyngmanskiej ýy kończąžyna Woytówstwa Przez ýy Poddanych z ich (…) przez mię Gęzega Kazimirza Jawgiela Dworzai (…) 1636. VUBRS, F 14. INSTR. – instrumentalis (instrumental case) kan. – canonical le. – Polish lie. – Lithuanian LPŽI, LPŽII – A. VANAGAS, ed., Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames (A-K), vol. 1; Dictionary of Lithuanian Surnames (L-Ž), vol. 2, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985, 1989. lo. – Latin NOM. – nominativus (nominative) PL. – pluralis (plural) Old Church Slavonic Orthodox Ukrainian German LITERATŪRA ČEKMONAS, V. 1988: Введение в славянскую филологию, Vilnius: Mokslas. DUMČIUS, J. 1957: Antikiniai vardai lietuvių liaudies kalboje. Vilniaus valstybinio V. Kapsuko universiteto Istorijos-filologijos fakulteto mokslo darbai 3, 178–183. GUDAVIČIUS, E. 1999: Lietuvos istorija 1. Nuo seniausių laikų iki 1569 metų, Vilnius: Akademinio skautų sąjūdžio Vydūno fondas Čikagoje, Lietuvos rašytojų sąjungos leidykla. KARDELIS, V. 1999: Fonetinės slavizmų ypatybės ir jų raida rytinėse lietuvių šnektose. Daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. KRIČINSKIS, S. 1993: Lietuvos totoriai. Istorinės ir etnografinės monografijos bandymas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. KUZAVINIS, K., SAVUKYNAS, B. 1994: Lietuvių vardų kilmės žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. MACIEJAUSKIENĖ, V. 1979: XVI a. lietuvių vardai. Kalbos kultūra 36, 84–89. MACIEJAUSKIENĖ, V. 1991: Lietuvių pavardžių susidarymas, Vilnius: Mokslas. MACIEJAUSKIENĖ, V. 2001: Dėl lietuvių pavardžių vertinimo darybos požiūriu. Acta linguistica Lithuanica 44, 167–188. OCHMANSKIS, J. 1996: Senojį Lietuva, Vilnius: Mintis. XVI–XVII a. RYTŲ LIETUVOS ANTROPONIMIJA 61 Potašenko, G., red., 2001: Lietuvos tautinės mažumos. Kultūros paveldas, Vilnius: Kronta. Urbutis, V. 1992: Senosios lietuvių kalbos slavizmai. Baltistica 27 (1), 4–14. Urbutis, V. 1993: Senųjų slavizmų kilmės įvairovė. Baltistica 28 (1), 91–101. Vanagas, A. 1974: Pavardės iš hebrajiškos kilmės vardų. Savukynas, B., red., Žodžiai ir žmonės, Vilnius: Mintis, 87–152. Vanagas, A. 1981: Lietuvių hidronimų etimologijos žodynas, Vilnius: Mokslas. Vidugiris, A. 1983: Dėl kalbų kontaktavimo pietryčių Lietuvoje. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 23, 46–60. Zinkevičius, Z. 1977: Lietuvių antroponimika. Vilniaus lietuvių asmenvardžiai XVII a. pradžioje, Vilnius: Mintis. Zinkevičius, Z. 1987: Lietuvių kalbos istorija 2. Iki pirmųjų raštų, Vilnius: Mokslas. Zinkevičius, Z. 2000: Lietuvių potėriai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Laima Gr umadienė Gauta 2001 12 12 Lietuvių kalbos institutas Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected]