Religijos terminijos tvarkyba „Draugijoje“

The Ordering of Religious Terminology in Draugijoje AUŠRA RIMKUTĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language For the 100th Anniversary of Draugija Draugija – a literary, scientific, political, and religious journal published in Kaunas by the St. Casimir Society1, issued intermittently—1907–1914 (monthly, 96 issues), 1919–1923 (monthly, 60 issues), and 1937–1940 (fortnightly, 57 issues). A total of 213 issues were published. It was printed with supplements: Ateitis (1911–1912), Mokytojas (1914), and In the Service of the Living Word (1939–1940). The St. Casimir Society may be regarded as the “center of intellectual life of the Catholic orientation” of that time (KLI 2006: 391), and its Draugija as the only cultural journal of such a high standard in Lithuania before the First World War (for more, see KLI 2006: 391–392). Since this publication is considered one of the more significant cultural journals published after the lifting of the press ban (VLE V 2004: 129), and devoted considerable attention both to the language of religious writings and to language more generally (including that of the Church), this review article briefly discusses how the regulation and standardization of religious terminology was proposed, and which issues of language standardization and regulation were most often raised and explored in Draugija2. 1 After the ban on Lithuanian publications in Latin script was lifted in the spring of 1904, the St. Casimir Society was established in Kaunas in 1905 at the initiative of priests; it published books and newspapers. The Society concerned itself not only with publishing but also with cultural activities (KLI 2006: 391). 2 Christian terminology from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has so far received relatively little scholarly attention. Only a handful of separate articles and notes address the religious terms of that period. The journal Terminologija (no. 12) published A. Rimkutė’s article Non-Lithuanian Terms in Catholic Catechisms of the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries, which examines the origins of non-Lithuanian one-word religious terms used in the catechisms Mokslas Rimo Katali(k)a (1879), Trumpasis Kun. Filochowskio katekizmas (1901), Katekizmai katalikiški (1903), and Kazimieras Paltarokas’s Tikybos moksle (1916) (Rimkutė 2005: 42–66). The catechisms published during the press-ban period abound in foreignisms—slightly more than half of their non-Lithuanian one-word religious terms (50.4%); K. Paltarokas, however, no longer uses foreignisms (there is only one, podžia). The journal Draugija was chosen for a reason: as early as 1907, it published articles proposing that language-corrupting foreignisms be avoided in prayer books, hymnals, catechisms, books of sermons, and other Church literature. Thus, well before K. Paltarokas’s aforementioned Tikybos moksle, prayer texts translated into beautiful Lithuanian were being offered to the public, along with suggestions about what to use instead of foreignisms. Terminologija | 2006 | 13 149 Articles urging the standardization of prayers had appeared earlier as well. In the nineteenth century, with the rise of the national revival movement, the great purification of the Lithuanian language from foreignisms began. As is well known, discussion of language purification began in the press: it was written about in Aušra (1883–1886), Varpas (1889–1906), Tėvynės sargas (1896–1904), Žinyčia (1900–1902), Vilniaus žinios (1904–1909), and others. The language of the Church and of religious texts did not satisfy the intelligentsia of the time. On June 1 (14), 1905, Jonas Gerutis (Jonas Balvočius) wrote extensively about religious terminology in the article Errors in Ecclesiastical Terminology3, published in Vilniaus žiniose (no. 134). On July 23 (August 5) of the same year, in issue 178 of Vilniaus žinių, Jonas Laukaitis4 wrote in the article Our Ecclesiastical Language that “our ecclesiastical terminology is still poorly developed,” and that it was therefore necessary to introduce “the changes needed in ecclesiastical terminology or to create entirely new terms,” since “it is even repugnant for an educated Lithuanian to pray” (Laukaitis 1905: 4)5. Draugija was a Catholic-oriented journal, edited until 1938 by the priest Adomas Jakštas-Dambrauskas6 and from 1938 to 1940 by the priest Nikodemas Raštutis7. Draugija played a significant role during its first period, 1907–1914, when the journal’s contributors included the most prominent Church, public, and cultural figures of the time: Jonas Basanavičius, Romanas Bytautas, Pranas Dovydaitis, Mykolas Krupavičius, Jonas Mačiulis-Maironis, Vincas Mykolaitis-Putinas, Mykolas Vaitkus, Kazimieras Būga, Kazys Puida, Mečislovas Reinys, Juozapas Skvireckas, Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas, Vydūnas, Eduardas Volteris, and others. The journal published articles on philosophy, history, theology, literature, art theory, and language, as well as literary works, and reviewed books. This article discusses only Draugija of this period, bearing in mind that the present-day standard Lithuanian language was taking shape in the first decades of the twentieth century, while religious terminology, though already established, remained far from pure. 3 Apie kanauninką J. Balvočių (1842–1915) plačiau žr. Gerutis 1994: 49–51; LE VII 1956: 188. 4 J. Laukaitis (1873–1952) – kunigas, visuomenės veikėjas ir spaudos darbuotojas. Vienas žymiausių lietuvių Bažnyčios kalbos puoselėtojų (plačiau žr. Zinkevičius 2000: 178–179). 5 Nothing has been changed or corrected in the quotations. 6 A. Jakštas-Dambrauskas (1860–1938) – lietuvių kultūros veikėjas, kunigas, filosofas, filologas, literatūros kritikas ir poetas. Jis buvo žymus tautinio atgimimo veikėjas, labai veiklus Jono Jablonskio amžininkas, dažniau minimas Adomo Jakšto vardu, pasirašinėjo ir kitais slapyvardžiais, Draugijoje dažniausiai – Druskiaus (Salys 1938: 2; LKE 1999; LLE 2001; Keinys 2000: 32; VLE VIII 2005: 483). 7 N. Raštutis (1881–1947) – kunigas, aktyvus Vilniaus krašto veikėjas. Su pertraukomis dirbo Šv. Kazimiero draugijoje. Bendradarbiavo su Ryto, Blaivybės ir kitomis organizacijomis, buvo jų narys. Steigė skaityklas, knygynėlius, organizavo vaikų darželius, mokyklas, kursus. Buvo nuolat valdžios persekiojamas (LE XXIV 1961: 530). 150 Aušra Rimkutė | Religijos terminijos tvarkyba Draugijoje The article titles show that much was written in Draugijoje about the language of the Church: Rev. J. Krokinikas, The Purity of the Language of the Catechism (Drg 1907 12: 105–107) and Lithuanian Prayer Books and Prayers (Drg 1908 13: 103–107); A. Jakštas, Truth and the Language Question in Lithuanian Churches (Drg 1909 33: 25–43); Rev. A. Alekna, Matters of Church Language (Drg 1909 30: 214–217); Rev. F. Sragys8, Notes on Several Matters of Our Language and Catechetical Terminology (Drg 1909 27: 243–249); Rev. P. Turauskis, On the Publication of the Holy Scripture (Drg 1910 47: 319–325), and others. Much attention was given to reforming prayers: Rev. J. Laukaitis, On the Uniformity of Prayers (Drg 1907 4: 417–420); Rev. P. Siaurusaitis, On the Uniformity of Prayers (Drg 1907 6: 197–198); Rev. J. Srio-ginys, On the Nonuniformity of Prayers (Drg 1907 7: 288–289); Rev. M. Jurgaitis, On Language Purification and Prayer Reform (Drg 1907 8: 386–389); M. Pakalniškis, Further on Language Purification and Prayer Reform (Drg 1907 9: 105–108), and others. In many issues, sections titled Letters to the Editor, Responses, Matters of Language9 were printed; the contents of the Lithuanian press were described, “foreign-language newspapers” were reviewed, reviews of new books were provided, and lists of new books and publications sent to the editorial office were presented. PRAYER REFORM Articles on the need to renew prayers and, more broadly, the language and terminology of the Church were already being published in the earliest issues of Draugijos. Issue 4 of 1907 contains an important article by Rev. J. Laukaitis, On the Uniformity of Prayers (Drg 1907 4: 415–420), which prompted various assessments published in other issues of Draugijos or in the journal Vadovas (1908–1914), intended for Catholic priests. The article raises the important problem of making Catholic prayers uniform. According to the author, “now would be the most convenient time to revise the prayers radically, adapting the translation to the spirit of the Lithuanian language. Postponing it to a later time only hinders and obstructs the publication of good catechisms, prayer books, and other works of a spiritual nature” (Drg 1907 8 F. Sragys (1860–1951) – kunigas, knygnešys. Bendradarbiavo Vienybėje, Viltyje, Draugijoje. Vadove (kai kada pasirašydamas Skambaliuku, Skambaliūnu). Būdamas kalbininkas savamokslis daugiausia nagrinėjo lietuvių kalbos klausimus. Rinko žodžius Lietuvių kalbos žodynui (LE XXVIII 1963: 388–389). 9 On questions of language, Draugijoje featured contributions by the linguist K. Būga, Rev. A. Dambranskas-Jakštas, J. Spudulis, M. Venclovas, teacher J. Burba, and other public figures. The journal also published K. Būga’s strictly linguistic articles; questions of language practice and the purification and enrichment of general vocabulary were therefore addressed on a scholarly basis. Particular attention was paid to spelling, which had not yet become established or consistent—for example: darpštus or darbštus, filosofiýa or philosophija (Drg 1908 22: 178–179), įpata or ypata, knyga or kninga, latiškas or lotyniškas, idėa or idėja (Drg 1908 21: 59–60), and so on. Terminologija | 2006 | 13 151 4: 419). In response to public criticism, J. Laukaitis provided a new translation of the prayers Our Father and Hail Mary (Drg 1907 4: 420)10. Various responses to the question of prayer reform were published in Draugijoje: some supported it, while others urged caution. “That uniformity is desirable not only in prayers but also in the terminology of religious doctrine in general seems to be beyond doubt—and there are no opponents of it here. Differences of opinion arise only over how this uniformity should be achieved,” wrote the editorial staff of Draugijos, asking readers to send the editorial office all non-Lithuanian words used in Church literature, together with suggestions for Lithuanian words that could be used in their place (Drg 1907 9: 105). In Rev. Jonas Eidymtas’s letter On Forming a Society to Prepare a Lithuanian Catechism, he urges the formation of a society “to revise uniformly and in pure Lithuanian not only the entire prayers but also some short catechism, so that a truly Lithuanian terminology might be developed” (Drg 1907 5: 87). Rev. P. Siaurusaitis also advocated making the prayers uniform: “<...> priests ought to devote all their strength to this most important task” (Drg 1907 6: 197). In his article Further on Language Purification and Prayer Reform, M. Pakalniškis likewise wrote that uniformity in “the terminology of religious doctrine” was desirable (Drg 1907 9: 105). Rev. J. Sriuoginys, however, urged waiting until “the language has found firm foundations and has developed as much as every living language” (Drg 1907 7: 288). Rev. M. Jurgaitis also agreed that a language sullied by foreign words needed to be purified (Drg 1907 8: 386–389), but proposed not to rush and to “leave untouched those forms that have been used for five hundred years” (Drg 1907 8: 388–389). In Rev. A. Alekna’s view, haste must be avoided when revising the prayers (Drg 1909 30: 217). First, it was proposed that foreign words be removed from prayer texts. M. Pakal- 10 The following are translations by Rev. J. Laukaitis: The Lord’s Prayer Our Father, who art in heaven! Hallowed be Thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen. The Angelic Salutation Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee! Blessed art thou among women. And blessed is the fruit of thy womb—Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. As Z. Zinkevičius writes, the hymns, prayers, and litanies translated by J. Laukaitis are characterized by correct language and are still used to this day (Zinkevičius 2000: 178). The translations of the prayers presented show that almost all foreignisms have been removed from them; only one Polishism remains, aniolas, whose original source is Greek (Pol. anioł < Lat. < angelus < Gr. angelos). Foreign syntactic constructions alien to Lithuanian are no longer used; only here and there does word order need adjustment. It is also evident that spelling had not yet become standardized. 152 Aušra Rimkutė | Religijos terminijos tvarkyba Draugijoje niškis11, in the article Barbarisms or Non-Lithuanian Words in Ecclesiastical Lithuanian That Should Be Replaced with Lithuanian Ones, provides a list of foreignisms and their Lithuanian equivalents: Traicė – Trinity; asaba – person; pakuta – penance; griekas – sin, guilt; griešninkas – sinner; spaviednė – confession; spaviednyčia – confessional; spaviedninkas – confessor; ambona – pulpit; neprietelis – enemy, adversary; pekla – hell; smertis – death; nevalia – slavery, captivity; sienavoti – to console; dušia (of the dead) – soul; dušia (of the living) – soul; sūdas – court, judgment: sudžia – judge; sūdyti – to judge; koroti, koronė – to punish, punishment; syla – strength, force, power, might; veselijos – marriage, wedding; almužna – alms; muka – suffering; pakajus – peace, tranquility; loska – mylista12, grace; živatas – life; cnata – morality, virtue; doskonalas, -astė – perfect, perfection; stalyčia – capital; čystas (in the moral sense) – pure; čystata (castitas) – purity; čystybė (puritas) – chastity; čyščius – purgatory; panystė – maidenhood, virginity; nečystata – fornication; pana – girl, young woman; viernas – faithful; ubagas – beggar, pauper; apieka – care, refuge; apiekunas – guardian; apiera – offering, sacrifice; mislis – thought; mislyti – to think, consider, reflect; kliestorius – monastery; zokoninkas, -ė – monk, nun; Šventė Apčystijimo M. P. – Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary; mučelninkas – martyr; Auvinėli Dievo, kursai naikini griekus svieto – Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world (Drg 1907 11: 346–347)13. Draugijoje also published Stasys Tijūnaitis’s14 list of foreignisms and their Lithuanian equivalents. The foreignisms were selected from the prayer book Šaltinis. This list includes foreignisms not found in M. Pakalniškis’s article, for example: skarbus – wealth, treasure; pateka – consolation; rona, ronyti – wound, to wound; piera – faith, religion; lenciugas – chain; pagonas – idolater; abrozas – image; stacija – station; pakara – humility, submissiveness; karunka – little crown; paprova – correction; nesmertelnas – immortal; nodieja – hope; broma – gate; gadnaste – value; cūdas – miracle, 11 M. Pakalniškis – tai turbūt kunigas, rašytojas Kazimieras Pakalniškis (1866–1933), pasirašinėjęs Dėdės Atanazo, Jurgio Šermuonėlio, Petro Zuikio, Mikės Katinėlio slapyvardžiais (LE XXI 1960: 366–367). 12 Instead of the Polishism loska (Pol. łaska), it is proposed to use not only the Lithuanian word malonė, but also the Slavic loanword mylista (Pol. miłość, Bel. милость). 13 Katalikų katekizmuose Mokslas Rimo Katalikų (1879), Trumpasis Kun. Filochowskio katekizmas (1901), Katalikų katekizmas (1903) yra vartojamos praktiškai visos M. Pakalniškio minimos svetimybės, kurių K. Paltaroko Tikybos mokslė (1916) jau nebėra. 14 S. Tijūnaitis (1888–1966) – tai, kaip rašoma Lietuviškojoje tarybinėje enciklopedijoje, lietuvių švietimo darbuotojas, žurnalistas. Redagavo klerikalinius laikraščius Tėvynės sargas, Lietuvos mokykla ir kt. (LTE XI 1983: 303). Terminologija | 2006 | 13 153 stebalas; koznadėja – preacher; pava(n)istas – duty, obligation; bliuznierstva – blasphemy, profanity; grabas – coffin¹⁵; kielikas – chalice, etc. (Drg 1908 13: 108–111). As the Lithuanian equivalents show, not all of them are apt or have caught on; for example, cūdą was proposed for replacement with stebuklu, or stebalu, lenciūgą – grandine, arba retežiumi. Interestingly, S. Tijūnaitis considers the words groti, grajinti barbarisms and replaces them with the Lithuanian words lošti, griežti, vaidinti (see also Drg 1908 13: 110). In addition, he regards as foreignisms words originating in classical (Greek or Latin) languages but acquired not directly, rather through Polish, altorius, ceremonija, parapija, pagonis, stacija, and proposes replacing them as follows: aukkuras, apeigos, apkaimija, stabmeldis, stotis. In the opinion of Rev. Danielius Jašinskas, “purely Lithuanian and uniform prayers are an urgent necessity” (Drg 1907 11: 349). According to him, only the theologian and philologist K. Jaunius could prepare such prayers. “Apart from that, it would be highly desirable for Professor Rev. Jaunius to write a short Lithuanian catechism, in which he would develop purely Lithuanian theological terms in place of the terms of the language of the common people currently in use, <...>” (Drg 1907 11: 349). Thus, religious texts could be properly prepared only by someone who knows the subject well and has a philological education. Rev. J. Krokinikas urged the formation of a special commission to carry out a reform of the prayers, pointing out that correcting their language was not a task for one person alone. The priest also noted that the language “must be as pure as possible, but when purging barbarisms and foreign words one must take great care not to cure the friends and our own [words] as well” (Drg 108 13: 106). Moreover, he proposed that “on more complicated questions one should appeal to the public through newspapers, for experience teaches that sometimes even a dwarf helps greatly—or, to put it plainly, even a simpleton can set a thinker on the right path when he is wandering in a labyrinth of thoughts” (Drg 108 13: 107). Thus, the journal raised various problems in the language of the Church, opposed the use of foreignisms, and published lists of them with Lithuanian equivalents. J. Laukaitis asked that pages be set aside where proposals and ideas for correcting the prayers could be made public: “<...> I sincerely beg the editors of ‘Draugija’ to be so kind as to open the columns of this newspaper for resolving this very important question of the prayers” (Drg 1907 4: 419). J. Laukaitis seems to have been one of the most important advocates of the Lithuanian language in the Church at that time. He was the first to take the reform of the prayers seriously—in 1909, at the Seimai, he brought together the so-called Prayer Commission, which consisted of priests 15 The old loanword grubas, borrowed from Slavic languages (Belarusian эпоб, Polish grób), is corrected to another ancient loanword, kars-tas, borrowed from Belarusian (Belarusian корста). Apparently, it was not felt to be foreign (Rimkutė 2005: 51, 55). 154 Aušra Rimkutė | Religijos terminijos tvarkyba Draugijoje A. Dambrauskas-Jakštas, A. Petrulis, and the linguists J. Jablonskis, K. Būga, J. Balčikonis, and J. Šlapelis16. The Commission convened and set about standardizing the language of the more important prayers, including the Lord’s Prayer, and established the essential religious terminology. For the public’s information, two versions of the prayers were published in the ninth issue of Vadovas. One version of the revisions was proposed by linguists. In essence, this version was almost a new translation of the prayers. The second version was a compromise, proposed so that conservative clergy who opposed any innovations would not be alarmed. Although the prayers revised by the Commission were not published in Draugija, texts of supplications appeared in the journal, and their language provoked considerable debate and criticism (Drg 1908 22: 205–206). Their translation was criticized by Rev. F. Sragys and others (Drg 1908 23: 275–276). The journal’s editors also expressed their opinion about the supplication texts—The New Text of the Supplications and the Public’s Responses to It (Drg 1908 24: 414–418). In addition, a translation of the litany revised by Kazimieras Jaunius was published (Drg 1908 16: 397–406). Thus, the reform of the prayers—the establishment of the Prayer Commission and the revision and replacement of the prayers—was an important step in purifying the language of religious writing, because it was not only the prayers that were corrected at that time: the entire language of religion, and therefore of the Church, was revised. TERMINOLOGY MATTERS Draugijoje, as in other publications of the period, there were almost no articles on the correction of terms. Only rarely did an occasional short article appear (most often, a section within one), discussing some more topical correction, especially if there was disagreement about it. R. Bytautas wrote that efforts to purify the language could be observed in written language: “Writers carefully avoid foreignisms (barbarisms) that have intruded into the Lithuanian language, revive old words, and forge new ones” (Drg 1908 17: 62). Draugijoje contains the most corrections of foreignisms, for example: žyvatas, griešnas, griekas, according to J. Laukaitis, are of the same value as abliubenyčia, tajemnyčia, bliuznierstva, loska (Drg 1907 4: 418), and should therefore be replaced with the Lithuanian words viduriai (or iščia), nuodėmėtas, nusidėjimas, nuodėmė. For instance, in the “Language Matters” section, most often prepared by K. Būga and Druskius, the terms dušia and siela, vėlė, velionis and nabašnykas (Drg 1907 5: 61–68), griekas and nuodėmė, pakuta, atgaila and apgaila (Drg 1908 23: 277–278), pana are discussed. 16 There are no linguists’ articles in the journal Draugijos about the reform of prayers or the work of the Prayer Commission. As already mentioned, the publication printed articles on individual language issues only (mostly by K. Būga). Terminologija | 2006 | 13 155 and mergelė (Drg 1910 46: 190–191), as well as the origins and usage of other terms. In his article, Fr. F. Sragys examines which term should be used: pirmapradė nuodėmė or kiltinė nuodėmė, daromoji nuodėmė or veiktinė nuodėmė, mirštamoji nuodėmė or marioji nuodėmė, atleistinoji nuodėmė or atlaidžioji nuodėmė, pašvenčiamoji malonė or pašvenčiančioji malonė (Drg 1909 27: 244–248). Fr. S. SnaPštis also advises which terms should be used. In his view, “one should speak understandably and in Lithuanian”: prigimtinė and papildytoji nuodėmė, not veiktinė nuodėmė; mirtis, not smertis; mirtiniai rūbai, marškiniai, mirtinis kambarys, mirtinė nuodėmė, mirtinė liga, not mirštamieji rūbai, marškiniai, mirštamasis kambarys, marioji nuodėmė, smertinė (Drg 1909 29: 37–38). Kiltinė nuodėmė, writes Fr. SnaPštis, is unsuitable, while pirmapradė is a truly illogical term, “although in living speech, perhaps for the sake of greater emphasis, ‘pir-mo ji pradžia’ is used (of farming, life, learning; if one follows logic, then other similar epithets, such as ‘pati¹⁷ pradžia,’ must also be removed from ‘pradžia’). The epithets pirmgimtinė (arising at the first birth) and įgimtinė (in Latvian, ecdsimts grehks) describe this sin very well. In place of kiltinė, ‘prigimtinė’ (inseparable from our nature) would already be better. When we have good terms, already accepted by everyone, why forge new ones!” (Drg 1909 29: 37). Thus, logic was also taken into account when correcting terms. Articles on the language of religion offer clues as to what the terms should be. First of all, both religious terms and scholarly terms in general must be Lithuanian and clear. As R. Bytautas wrote, it is necessary to “create a national Lithuanian scientific terminology. This is desirable <...> in view of the need for clarity of thought. Latin and Greek words, which variegate the language, are always obscure and incomprehensible, as if shrouded in mist to people who do not know the classical languages” (Drg 1908 17: 65–66). In the article author’s opinion, creating a national Lithuanian scientific terminology requires working together: “let every writer translate into Lithuanian the terms that occur in his writing, and alongside the Lithuanian word let him write the classical one being translated. Even if the translation should turn out to be incorrect, the writer’s thought will remain clear, and it will provide others with material for considering the matter. In this way, a national Lithuanian scientific terminology can gradually be developed. Lithuanian written language will truly be Lithuanian” (Drg 1908 17: 66). As already mentioned, reviews of various publications appeared in the journal. Reviews of prayer books, catechisms, hymnals, and other religious writings abound in 17 Emphasis added by the author, Fr. SnaPštis. 18 All emphasis added by the author, R. Bytautas. 156 Aušra Rimkutė | Religijos terminijos tvarkyba Draugijoje remarks about language. Remarks can also be found concerning terms used in reviewed publications. For instance, in a review of Rymo Katalikų Mokslo, Striuopiškis writes that the booklet’s author was concerned that the language be pure, but “whether he succeeded is doubtful. The author included the prayers corrected by the commission, so that here the language is already pure, but in other matters he does not adhere to that language. Thus, for example, in the corrected prayers there are ‘Trejybė’ [Trinity], ‘įsakymas’ [commandment], ‘Sutvėrėjas’ [Creator], whereas the author uses ‘Trejyba’, ‘prisakymas’, ‘Sutvertojas’ (Drg 1913 73: 79).” Reviews contain corrections not only to religious terminology. For example, A. Dambrauskas-Jakštas, reviewing the publication Sveikata or a straight and short road to health. Basic knowledge of anatomy, physiology and hygiene. A handbook for primary schools and the general public (Prepared by Dr. A. L. Graičūnas. Chicago III. 1911, in – 8. 339 pp. Printed by “Katalikas”), writes: “The scientific terms used are not always good either. For example, the author speaks of the ‘functions’ of nerves, brains, kidneys, and skin, of the ‘condition’ of muscles, and of the ‘condition’ when speaking and reading, etc. In the captions beneath the illustrations, the word ‘narys’ is correctly used to designate the places where parts of the body join, whereas in the text the same thing is incorrectly called ‘sunnarys’. The names of parasites are left in Latin. The author evidently did not know how to name them in Lithuanian. This should not be so in a textbook intended for schools” (Drg 1912 61: 88). It was probably largely thanks to the efforts of priest J. Laukaitis and Draugijos editor, priest A. Dambrauskas-Jakštas, that Lithuanian terminology was introduced into the prayers. The editorial remarks show that the language of religious writings and of the Church was to be purified. In addition, efforts were made to raise questions concerning the Lithuanian character and international scope of religious terms, their stability, uniformity and variation, as well as their Lithuanianization. CONCLUSION The journal Draugija, published from 1907 to 1914, was a broad cultural publication of the early twentieth century, intended for the intelligentsia, especially priests. It published articles on the renewal of the Church’s language and terminology. The language of religious texts received particular attention: the use of foreign words was rejected, lists of such words with Lithuanian substitutes were published, and the language was regularized and standardized. In 1909, the so-called Prayer Commission began revising the language of the most important prayers, including the Lord’s Prayer, and established essential religious terminology. Thus, in the first decades of the twentieth century, through the sustained and purposeful work of priests and linguists, the language of the Church was regularized and standardized. The articles discussed in Draugijoje show that this was difficult work, demanding considerable effort and receiving mixed evaluations. Terminologija | 2006 | 13 157 ŠALTINIAI Drg – Draugija. Literatūros, mokslo ir politikos mėnesinis laikraštis, 1–96, 1907–1914. Kaunas. LITERATŪRA Gerutis J. 1994: Dvasiškos terminologijos klaidos. – Terminologijos vagos, 49–51. Gudaitis L. 1977: Platėjantys akiračiai, Vilnius. Keinys St. 2000: Iš A. Dambrausko kalbos ir terminologijos veiklos. – Terminologija 7, 32–47. KEŽ 1997: Knygotyra. Enciklopedinis žodynas, Vilnius. Kl.I 2006: Baronas A., Černius R., Jovaiša L., Paknys M., Raila E., Streikus A., Subačius P. Krikščionybės Lietuvoje istorija, Vilnius. Laukaitis J. 1905: Mūsų bažnytinė kalba. – Vilniaus žinios 178, 4. LE III 1954: Lietuvių enciklopedija 3, Bostonas. LE VI 1956: Lietuvių enciklopedija 7, Bostonas. LE XXI 1960: Lietuvių enciklopedija 21, Bostonas. LE XXIV 1961: Lietuvių enciklopedija 24, Bostonas. LE XXVIII 1963: Lietuvių enciklopedija 28, Bostonas. Lebedys J., Palionis J. 1964: Seniausias lietuviškas rankraštinis tekstas. – Bibliotekininkystės ir bibliografijos klausimai 3, Vilnius, 109–135. LKE 1999: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius. LLE 2001: Lietuvių literatūros enciklopedija, Vilnius. LTE III 1978: Lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija 3, Vilnius. LTE XI 1983: Lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija 11, Vilnius. MLTE I 1966: Mažoji lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija 1, Vilnius. Rimkutė A. 2005: Nelietuviški XIX a. galo – XX a. pradžios katalikų katekizmų terminai. – Terminologija 12, 42–66. Salys P. 1938: A. Dambrauskas-Jakštas. – Gimtoji kalba 2 (52), 17–18. TLE I 1985: Tarybų Lietuvos enciklopedija 1, Vilnius. VLE V 2004: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 5, Vilnius. VLE VIII 2005: Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija 8, Vilnius. Zinkevičius Z. 2000: Lietuvių poteriai, Vilnius. ORDERING OF RELIGION TERMINOLOGY IN DRAUGIJA For 100th anniversary of Draugija Draugija was a literary, scientific, political and religious magazine, published by the St. Casimir society in Kaunas with breaks during 1907–1914, 1919–1923 and 1937–1940. In total there were 213 issues published. Until 1938 the editor of the magazine was priest Adomas Jakštas-Dambrauskas and between 1938–1940 it was edited by another priest, Nikodemas Raštutis. Draugija was one of the most important cultural magazines after the abolition of the ban on Lithuanian press in Latin script, in which much of attention was given to the language of religious writings in particular and to language matters in general. Thus this paper gives a brief overview of attempts to order and normalize religious terminology and issues of language standardization and ordering, which were most frequently discussed in this Catholic magazine. In 1907–1914 Draugija was the universal cultural magazine, aimed at intellectuals and priests in particular. It published articles on the language of Church and updates of terminology. Much attention was paid to the language of religious texts – the magazine disapproved of the usage of barbarisms and published lists of barbarisms 158 Aušra Rimkutė | Religijos terminijos tvarkyba Draugijoje and their Lithuanian equivalents, for instance, asaba – asmuo (person); pakuta – atgaila (penance); griekas – nuodėmė, kaltė (sin, fault); griešninkas – nuosidėjėlis (sinner); spavednė – išpažintis (confession); spavednyčia – klausykla (confessional); spavedninkas – nuodėmklausais (confessor); ambona – sakykla (pulpit); neprietelis – priešas, priešininkas (enemy); pekla – pragaras (hell); smertis – mirtis (death); nevalia – vergija, nelaisvė (slavery, captivity); šienavoti – guodoti (to respect, to esteem); dušia (mirusio) – vėlė (soul); dušia (gyvo) – siela (spirit); sūdas – teismas (judgement); sūdžia – teisėjas, teis darys (judge); sūdyti – teisti (to judge); koroti, koronė – bausti, bausmė (to punish, punishment), et al. (Drg 1907 11: 346–347). In 1909 so called Commission of Prayers was established. It started to regulate the language of prayers and established basic religious terminology. During the first decades of the 20th century with the consistent and purposeful work of priests and linguists, the language of the Church was regularized and normalized. Articles in Draugija show that it was difficult, demanding and differently valued work. Gauta 2006-11-20 Aušra Rimkutė Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius E. paštas [email protected] Terminologija | 2006 | 13 159