Lietuvos Respublikoje (1918–1940) veikusio „Baudžiamojo statuto“ vertimų teisės terminijos skirtybės

Alvydas UMBRASAS Institute of the Lithuanian Language LEGAL-TERMINOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES IN TRANSLATIONS OF THE CRIMINAL STATUTE IN FORCE IN THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (1918–1940) In the independent Lithuanian state established in 1918, it was impossible to create its own legal system in a short time, and the state could not remain without law; therefore, most of the Russian laws that had hitherto been in force here had to be adopted. An exception was made only in the field of criminal law. For half a century, Lithuania had been subject to the 1864 Penal Regulations and the 1866 Penal Code imposed by the tsarist authorities. In Russia, following more than two decades of work, a new Criminal Statute (Уголовное уложение) was approved in 1903, but its entry into force was postponed indefinitely. It was this statute that the German occupying authorities introduced in Lithuania in 1914, because it was close to German criminal law and had already been translated into German. In 1918, Lithuania decided not to return to the outdated earlier Russian criminal laws. This created an interesting situation: the Russian Criminal Statute was in force in Lithuania, although it had not entered into force in Russia itself, with the exception of certain articles. It must be acknowledged, however, that Lithuania benefited from this: the new statute had been drafted on the model of the criminal codes in force in Western Europe, and in some respects was even superior to them. It is said to have accorded with the spirit of the times, to have had a rational system and precise terminology (for more, see Stankevičius 1925: 10–15; Andriulis 1996: XXVII; Maksimaitis 2001: 55–56). Since, as early as the second year of Lithuania’s independence, the Provisional Law on the Organization of Lithuanian Courts and Their Work (LLTS 1919: 7) stipulated that the state language, Lithuanian, was to be used in courts, neither the Russian nor, still less, the German text of the 1903 Criminal Statute met the need. A Lithuanian translation was required. Translation began in the spring of 1918. The legal commission established for this purpose by the Council of Lithuania included Petras Klimas, Liudas Noreika, and Antanas Sugintas (1958: 27). There are indications that by the end of 1918 the translation 78 had already been completed (M. Maksimaitis notes this on the basis of the minutes of the State Council meetings (2001: 169)). However, evidence is lacking: the translation was never published, and, if manuscripts did exist, apparently few people could have used them. Incidentally, this commission had also planned terminological work. The estimate of the work of the aforementioned Commission on Legal Affairs, dated 20 August 1918, is appended to the document “Program of the Commission on Legal Affairs,” signed by the commission’s acting chair, Stasys Šilingas. It contains a section entitled “Collection of Materials,” which states that A. Janulaitis was assigned to work on a terminological dictionary, while P. Klimas and L. Noreika were assigned legal terminology (Šilingas 1918: 10 doc.). Soon (in 1919), the Ministry of Justice undertook the translation of the Criminal Statute. Work apparently proceeded more quickly there, since the ministry published the translation at the end of 1919 (Criminal Statute, K., 1919). In the foreword, Minister of Justice L. Noreika says nothing about the translator or the course of the translation. Legal scholars generally attribute the statute simply to the Ministry of Justice. Judging from the scant press reports, Konstantinas Jablonskis translated the text in question with the assistance of Boleslovas Masiulis (Masiulis 1954 6: 2). He was a young lawyer who had only just begun working as a referent at the Ministry of Justice. Surviving documents indicate that K. Jablonskis may also have contributed to the translators’ work of the Commission on Legal Affairs. In the appendix to the commission’s aforementioned estimate, K. Jablonskis’s surname is added alongside P. Klimas, who was working on the translation of Russian criminal laws (Šilingas 1918: 10 doc.). Incidentally, it is unclear why the same translation appeared under two titles. Libraries hold the aforementioned book Criminal Statute and an entirely identical edition entitled Criminal Laws (K., 1919). It is not known which version had the larger print run. It is worth noting an interesting point observed by researchers: from the appearance of this translation onward, the term statute became established for this purpose. The Criminal Code mentioned in laws published in Lithuania before then was later called the Criminal Statute¹ (Maksimaitis 2001: 172). 1 It is also referred to by this name in the present article, although the term code is customary in present-day Lithuanian law. 79 The translation in question was not recognized as official. Nor was it adapted to Lithuanian realities: it was a translation of the 1903 Russian Code that had not been adapted, mentioning Russia, its regions (e.g., Altai, Transbaikalia), gold mines, and the Sacred Person of the Reigning Emperor. Although codification efforts were lacking and people began writing about the translation’s obscurities, inaccuracies, and errors, contemporaries acknowledged its value for legal scholarship and practice (Stankevičius 1925: 15). Undoubtedly, this translation was also of great significance to the subsequent development of criminal-law terminology. It should be noted that on 3 November 1919—shortly before the publication of the Baudžiamojo statuto (the preface was written on 12 November)—a report appeared in the press about the Ministry of Justice’s preparation of a “dictionary of legal terms and words most needed by judges, interrogators, notaries, etc.” (DJTŽ 1919: 2). One of the people who signed the report was K. Jablonskis, who was also the principal compiler of this dictionary2. It is very likely that he coordinated the translation of the Baudžiamasis statutas with the preparation of material for the dictionary. The 1919 translation of the Baudžiamasis statutas remained the only one for the entire decade. Only in 1930 did K. Jablonskis, apparently on his own initiative, publish another translation of the Baudžiamasis statutas (Baudžiamasis statutas: with amendments. K. Jablonskis, K., 1930). Here, the word Russia was replaced by Lithuania, and articles that had been repealed or were irrelevant to Lithuania were omitted. An appendix of newly issued laws, arranged by J. Byla, was added at the end, along with an index compiled by Viskanta. The second edition of this book also appeared the following year3. In the second edition, the text of the Code was not substantially changed; only more appendices were added. The surname K. Jablonskis printed on the covers of these books does not clearly describe the work he performed—whether he considered himself a translator, compiler, or editor. In terms of subject matter, the book’s structure differed from that of the 1919 translation, but in terms of language style and terminology (if we compare the translations of the Code’s articles rather than the appendices), 2 Plačiau apie minimą žodyną žr. Umbrasas 2001: 77–80. 3 The preface to the first edition is dated 8 April 1930, and that of the second, 31 December. Judging by the date, the second edition should have appeared in 1931, but libraries hold copies of the second edition dated 1930; there are also copies whose covers bear the date 1931, while the title page gives 1930. 80 (the changes to the translations) were few (see below), and the 1919 text is reproduced almost in its entirety. The 1934 edition prepared for publication by M. Kavolis and S. Bieliaickinas, “Baudžiamajame statute with supplementary criminal laws and commentaries compiled from decisions of the Russian Senate and the Lithuanian Supreme Tribunal, as well as other interpretations” (K., 1934), departed further from the 1919 translation. It is the most comprehensive collection of criminal laws of that period, complete with an index. Compared with earlier translations, the language was also edited more thoroughly (it was revised by Juozas Sužiedėlis). The changes in the language of the translations can be seen by comparing one article across the translations (the differences are set in italics): 391. A ship’s pilot or another head of a port or coastal area who commits an offense by failing to perform the duty of piloting ships, and likewise a person without the title of ship’s pilot who commits an offense by undertaking that duty without proper authorization or without an express need to do so, shall be punished by arrest for no more than two weeks or by a fine of no more than fifty rubles (two hundred and fifty litas—BS30, BS31). If, through the fault of (through the fault of—BS31) a ship’s pilot or a person who undertook to perform the duties of a ship’s pilot, the ship under his command ran aground or struck a rock, or navigation by ships was obstructed (navigation—BS31), the offender shall be punished by arrest for no more than three months or by a fine of no more than three hundred rubles (one thousand five hundred litas—BS30, BS31) (BS19, BS30, BS31). 391. A ship’s pilot or another head of a port or coastal area who commits an offense by failing to perform the duty of piloting ships, and likewise a person without the rank of ship’s pilot who commits an offense by undertaking that duty without proper authorization or without an express need to do so, shall be punished by arrest for no more than two weeks or by a fine of no more than two hundred and fifty litas. If, through the fault of a ship’s pilot or a person who undertook to perform the duties of a ship’s pilot, the ship under his command ran aground or struck a rock, or if navigation by ships was obstructed, the offender shall be punished by arrest for no more than three months or by a fine of no more than one thousand five hundred litas (BS34). 81 As can be seen, the language of the Ministry of Justice publication and K. Jablonskis’s later translation is essentially the same. The 1934 translation has already undergone more changes and is somewhat more modern, but overall no major changes were made. On the other hand, a change such as punished by arrest → punished by arrest may also be regarded as a regression. * * * This study next aims to review, from a comparative perspective, differences in legal terminology in the aforementioned translations of the Criminal Statute (hereinafter BS). Since, as noted, the 1930 and 1931 editions differ only in the number of appendices and not in the text of the statute itself, only the later edition is included in the comparison. Thus, the aim is to compare the BS translations published in 1919, 1931, and 1934. Various appendices, article commentaries, and the like are not compared, as doing so would be too complicated—akin to comparing different books. Only the 1903 Russian BS text, comprising 687 articles, is compared (some articles not relevant to the translations have been omitted). The principle of comparison is as follows: to examine whether legal terms differ in the same articles across the different translations4. The first translation (1919) serves as the point of reference. A total of about 200 terminological differences5 were found in the study. Since the terms being compared are those found in the same place in the article across three translations, several combinations are possible: the term is translated in the same way in all translations (in which case there is no difference), or a different term is used in at least one translation. All the terms may also differ. In other words, if identical terms were assigned the same letter, the following differences could occur in the three translations: aab, abb, aba, abc. The proportions of these differences across the translations are shown in the diagram. 4 Therefore, the article number is given alongside the term. This is more convenient than specifying page numbers, which differ between the translations. 5 One instance is counted for each replacement of a given term with another, usually the first such instance; if a term is replaced in the same way in different articles, this is treated as a single difference. 82 Diagram Proportions of differences in legal terms across the BS translations 1. BS19 and BS31 agree, while BS34 differs (aab); 2. BS31 and BS34 agree, while BS19 differs (abb); 3. All BS translations differ (abc); 4. BS19 and BS34 differ, while BS31 has no such articles (a-b); 5. BS19 and BS34 agree, while BS31 differs (aba). As can be seen, the fewest differences in legal terminology occur between the 1919 and 1931 translations: in about 72 percent of the material, only the terms in the 1934 translation differ (e.g., 161 documentary mark BS19, BS31 – designation BS34; 593 immovable property BS19, BS31 – immovable property BS34). Considerably fewer cases involve a term changed in 1931 being adopted in 1934—about 13 percent (e.g., 158 claimant BS19 – witness BS31, BS34; 265 official BS19 – citizen BS31, BS34). Fewer still are cases in which different terms are used in all BS translations—about 10 percent (e.g., 157 prosecutorial investigation BS19 – criminal investigation BS31 – criminal prosecution BS34; 158 statement BS19 – testimony BS31 – evidence BS34). About 3 percent of the material presents an unanticipated situation: because some articles are omitted from the BS31, the differences here are only between BS19 and BS34 (e.g., 29 decision BS19 – decision BS34; 659 court sittings BS19 – court session BS34). Only about 2 percent of the differences are cases in which a term was changed in 1931, but the old term from the 1919 translation was restored in 1934 (e.g., 30 claimant BS19, BS34 – witness BS31; 117 proof BS19, 83 BS34 – evidence BS31). It can be seen that there were also irregular changes (see the twice-cited plaintiff – witness), that is, in one place (BS34) plaintiff was replaced by witness, whereas elsewhere it was not. From these figures, it can be concluded that, in terms of legal terminology, BS19 and BS34 are the least similar. BS31 lies between them, as it borrowed some terms from BS34. It is also evident that relatively few changes were made in the 1931 translation compared with BS19. This fact may partly support the idea that the translator was the same person. Now to the differences in more detail. About 85% of the differences collected involve changes to terms in the form of nouns or noun phrases. Of these, about 89% involve terms whose number of components is changed to an equivalent with the same number of components: one-word terms are replaced by one-word terms, two-word terms by two-word terms, and so on. Only about 11% involve a change to a term with fewer or more components; that is, certain legal terms in the 1919 translation are rendered in later translations by equivalents that are shorter or longer in terms of their components (e.g., a one-word term is replaced by a two-word term: 409 unconsciousness BS19, BS31 – loss of consciousness BS34). First, changes involving noun terms (i.e., terms in the form of a noun or noun phrase) with the same number of components. In terminology, it is generally the case that the more components terms have, the less frequent they are. The same tendencies are evident in the differences between legal terms in the BS. The most numerous cases were replacements of a one-word term with a one-word term (about 40%) and a two-word term with a two-word term (about 46%). The remaining 14% comprise all replacements found in the material under study in which multiword (more than two components) noun-phrase terms were replaced by terms of corresponding length. The material under study contains 60 replaced one-word terms. Of these, about 40% were substantially changed and about 60% partially changed. Substantial changes here refer to cases in which a term is replaced by a formally unrelated word with a different root; that is, BS31 or BS34 use entirely different (dissimilar) terms compared with BS19, for example: 479 prisoner BS19, BS31 – arrestee BS34; 684 prerequisite BS19, BS31 – condition BS34; 158 expression BS19 – demonstration BS31 – testimony BS34; 124 union BS19, BS31 – association BS34; 265 official BS19 – citizen BS31, BS34; 532 traveller BS19 – passenger BS31, BS34; 410 conduct BS19, BS31 – 84 marriage BS34; 627 company BS19 – fine BS31, BS34. An interesting pair of terms also belongs here: 161 leader BS19, BS31 – pimp BS34; and the change 526 whore BS19 – prostitute BS31, BS34, can most likely be considered euphemistic. As noted, there are slightly more terms that were partially changed. In cases of partial change, the term remains formally similar—the same root is preserved, while affixes and the like are changed (some replacements can be regarded as variants). This is most evident where the difference is minimal—only one morphological part of the word is changed, for example: • prefix: 117 evidence BS19, BS34 – evidence BS31; 10 condemned person BS19, BS31 – doomed person BS34; 29 decision BS19 – decision BS34; 2 deportation BS19, BS31 – expulsion BS34; 68 aging BS19, BS31 – senescence BS34; • suffix: 160 respondent BS₁₉ – defendant BS₃₁, BS₃₄; 167 punishment BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – penalty BS₃₄; 160 claimant BS₁₉ – plaintiff BS₃₁, BS₃₄; 479 traveller BS₁₉ – passenger BS₃₁, BS₃₄; 606 lender BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – lender BS₃₄; 457 sugar-maker BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – sugar producer BS₃₄; • ending: 264 stock exchange BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – exchange BS₃₄; 351 probation BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – probationary term BS₃₄; 524 prank BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – pranka BS₃₄; 363 akčyžė BS₁₉ – akc yžė BS₃₁ – akcyzė BS₃₄ (in the latter case there are also phonetic differences). Sometimes two affixes are changed at once (e.g.: 639 damage BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – harm BS₃₄; 660 bribery BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – corruption BS₃₄), or the word-formation method is changed altogether, for example: 25 surname BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – name BS₃₄; 42 guilt BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – fault BS₃₄; 30 duties BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – obligations BS₃₄; 662 value BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – forces BS₃₄. There are also other partial differences. Some may be considered morphonological, for example, 490 assistance BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – aid BS₃₄; 611 contract BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – transaction BS₃₄; others involve phonetic (or spelling) differences, for example: 34sk⁶ bankruptcy BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – bankruptcy BS₃₄; 262 police BS₁₉ – police BS₃₁, BS₃₄; 279 smuggling BS₁₉, BS₃₁ – contraband BS₃₄. In the statutes examined, 68 changes were found involving two-word legal terms in the form of noun phrases. Most often, one or another 6 Used not in a BS article, but in a chapter heading. This notation is used below as well. 85 the component of the term (80%). Both components were changed four times less often (20%). Among the terms in which one component differs, the dependent component and the head component were changed with almost equal frequency (about 53% and 47%, respectively). When a term is changed, the same syntactic structure is generally retained (about 86%); that is, the relation between the components is unchanged—agreement remains agreement (a), government remains government (b), and adjunction remains adjunction (c), for example: a) 433 marked mark BS19 – marking mark BS31 – marking sign BS34; b) 4sk imputation of acts BS19, BS31 – imputation of actions BS34; c) 198 right to trade BS19, BS31 – right to trade BS34. Only about 14% of legal terms in later (than 1919) BS translations were rendered using terms with a different syntactic structure: agreement was replaced by government (a), government by agreement (b), or the governed case was changed (c), for example: a) 175 place of exile BS19, BS31 – place of deportation BS34; b) 142 assembly of evildoers BS19, BS31 – criminal association BS34; c) 2sk transgression of laws BS19, BS31 – crimes against the laws BS34. About 62% of cases involving a change to the head component of a term (whether or not the dependent component was also changed) are substantive; that is, rather than modifying the form of the term, a different, formally unrelated word was sought. For example: 5 boundaries of the laws BS19, BS31 – limits of the laws BS34; 30 trusted representative for cases BS19, BS31 – authorized representative for cases BS34; 129 coercive decree BS19, BS31 – coercive resolution BS34; 382 person's harmlessness BS19, BS31 – person's safety BS34; 545 trade secret BS19, BS31 – trade secret BS34. In cases where the dependent component of a two-word legal term was changed in at least one of the two later BS versions, the proportion of substantive changes is slightly lower—about 43% (regardless of whether the head component was changed). For example: 64 composition rule BS19, BS31 – rules of the whole BS34; 127 member of the union BS19, BS31 – member of the association BS34; 375 covenant document BS19 – contract document BS34; 411 degree of affinity by marriage BS19 – degree of kinship BS31, BS34; 655 sealed statement BS19, BS31 – closed statement BS34. Thus, in the 1931 and 1934 BS translations, the head components of these terms were somewhat more often changed substantively than the dependent components of the same terms. Why is this so? One possible explanation is that the head component of a term carries a greater semantic load. 86 However, this is debatable, and such a distribution of the relationships may be entirely coincidental. The percentages cited above show that the dependent components of terms were changed partially rather than substantively more often (about 57%). Partial changes to head components were correspondingly less frequent (about 38%). As with single-word terms, partial changes were most often made by choosing different affixes or changing the word-formation method altogether, for example: • head component: 44 service order BS19, BS31 – service order BS34; 8sk transgression of laws BS19, BS31 – violations of the laws BS34; 125 coercive order BS19, BS31 – mandatory order BS34; 161 court fee BS19, BS31 – court fee BS34; 374 conditional value BS19, BS31 – conditional value BS34. • dependent component: 39 accountable supervision BS19, BS31 – responsible supervision BS34; 165 rightful claim BS19, BS31 – lawful claim BS34; 280 act of dishonesty BS19 – act of wickedness BS31, BS34; 454 father by law BS19, BS31 – legal father BS34. • both components: 159 false evidence BS19 – false evidence BS31 – fraudulent evidence BS34; 234 intoxicating drinks BS19, BS31 – intoxicating beverages BS34. Incidentally, variation between simple and definite forms was scarcely observed (definite forms are very popular in contemporary terminology, sometimes even excessively so); only a couple of cases occurred: 16 general hammer BS19, BS31 – common hammer BS34; 574 movable property BS19 – movable property BS31 – movable property BS34. Only one partial change to two-word legal terms unrelated to word formation was found: 445 mortgage acts BS19, BS31 – mortgage acts BS34. It belongs to the field of phonetics. In the research material, only 19 changes involving legal terms longer than two words and replacements with terms of the same word count were found. Most are three-word terms, although there are also longer ones, for example: • three-word terms: 1-8sk circumstances excluding punishment BS19, BS31 – circumstances excluding penalty BS34; 43 circumstance increasing liability BS19, BS31 – circumstance aggravating liability BS34; 87 161 the mark of legal incapacity BS19, BS31 – certificate of legal incapacity BS34; 417 full years of service BS19, BS31 – full years in service BS34; 602 payment from a pledge BS19 – payment from a promise BS31 – fee under a promise BS34. • four-word terms: 55 imprisonment with hard labor for a fixed term BS19, BS31 – fixed-term imprisonment with hard labor BS34; 111 external threat to the state BS19, BS31 – external security of the state BS34. • five-word terms: 373 fixed-term contract of employment by deed of agreement BS19, BS31 – fixed-term contract of employment by transaction deed BS34. Since there are very few of these terms, it is not worth making more detailed generalizations. The principles for changing terms are, one might say, the same as those described earlier. Finally, changes in the number of components in terms should be mentioned. It has already been noted that few such cases were found—19 (about 11 percent of all terms in the form of a noun or noun phrase). There are two possible types of change: in later (than 1919) translations of the BS, the corresponding terms were translated using terms with fewer or more components. The two types of change occur in approximately equal numbers (10 and 9, respectively). For example: • components reduced: 166 subject matter of proof BS19 – proof BS31 – evidence BS34 (2→1); 61 punishment by accumulation BS19, BS31 – aggregate punishment BS34 (3→2); 405 carrier of one's own goods BS19 – private carrier BS34 (3→2); 61 deprivation of liberty for a fixed term BS19, BS31 – fixed-term deprivation of liberty BS34 (4→3); 66 fixed-term penalty involving deprivation of liberty BS19, BS31 – fixed-term penalty of deprivation of liberty (5→4); • components added: 409 incompetence BS19, BS31 – loss of consciousness BS34 (1→2); 608 the entire amount BS19, BS31 – the total amount of the debt BS34 (1→3); 2 imprisonment with hard labor BS19, BS31 – imprisonment with hard labor BS34 (2→3); 54 time spent in custody pending trial BS19, BS31 – time served before sentencing BS34 (2→4); 427 token of less than full value (billon) BS19, BS31 – token not worth its full face value BS34 (2→4). Some of the examples presented here could perhaps not be classified as terminology at all. For example, the replacements for the terms the entire amount (608) and time spent in custody pending trial (54), namely the total amount of the debt, time served before sentencing, may be regarded not as terms but as their explanations. Apparently, these terms in the 1919 translation were not very clear, and therefore were replaced in later translations by descriptive phrases. 88 Traditionally, there is no disagreement in terminology only about classifying nouns and nominal phrases as terms. There is no consensus on treating other parts of speech as terms, so this question is often deliberately set aside. This article follows V. P. Danilenko’s view that the domains of term recording and term functioning should be distinguished (Danilenko 1977: 38–39). For terminological dictionaries and standards, in which terms are recorded and standardized, the nominal form is, of course, the most suitable; however, it is not sufficient in the language of scholarship and practice, where terms function: first and foremost, one cannot do without verbs with specialized meanings. Although legal dictionaries sometimes give only the term bausmė, in the language of this field one is probably more likely to find forms such as bausti, baudžiamas, nubaustas, and so on. Some legal dictionaries also include the verb bausti. At the same time, some legal dictionaries give skirti bausmę (impose a punishment), while others give bausmės skyrimas (imposition of punishment)—expressions that can be transformed into one another. Both forms are used, so they cannot be treated as wholly identical, especially in this study, which seeks to identify terminological differences in a specific text. The prewar translations of the BS were examined for terminological differences not only in the traditionally understood nominal terms, but also in terms of other kinds7. There are not many of them. As noted at the outset, about 15 percent of the differences identified are not in the form of a noun or nominal phrase. These differences might not be classified as terms, but they can readily be transformed into nouns. What is meant here is chiefly verbs and their combinations. In later translations, the terminology of the 1919 BS was most often substantially revised. Gradually, one or both components were replaced, for example (408 susivesti BS19, BS31 – susituokti BS34 [to marry]; 143 apdėti ančdėliu BS19 – apdėti mokesniu BS31 – apkrauti mokesčiu BS34 [to levy a tax]), or at least one component was replaced: 147 atimti nuovoką BS19, BS31 – atimti sąmonę BS34 (to deprive of reason – to deprive of consciousness); 65 atstatyti iš tarnybos BS19, BS31 – atleisdinti iš tarnybos BS34 (to remove from office – to dismiss from service); 71 nubyloti bylą BS19, BS31 – išspręsti bylą BS34 (to bring a case to judgment – to decide a case); 167 pašaukti tieson BS19, BS31 – pašaukti teisman BS34 (to summon to court). 7 The form is usually replaced by a more general one—for example, the verb is given in the infinitive. 89 One component is sometimes replaced by a construction: 515 to rent BS19, – to violate the hymen BS31, BS34; 527 to engage in prostitution BS19, – to practice prostitution BS31, BS34. Partial changes are most often associated with prepositional constructions (e.g.: 304 sustabdyti ligi laiko BS19, BS31 – laikinai sustabdyti BS34 (to suspend until a time – to suspend temporarily); 317 mokėti iš įžadų BS19 – mokėti iš pasižadėjimų BS31 – mokėti pagal pasižadėjimus BS34 (to pay from vows/promises – to pay according to promises); 317 pardavinėti skolintinai BS19, BS31 – pardavinėti į skolą BS34 (to sell on credit); 346 paleisti apyvarton BS19, BS31 – paleisti į apyvartą BS34 (to put into circulation), but there are also other kinds: 317 paimti įkaitui BS19, BS31 – paimti įkeistinai BS34 (to take as security – to take as a pledge); 317 laikyti negalingu BS19, BS31 – laikyti negaliojam(u) BS34 (to consider ineffective/invalid). Occasionally, partial changes were combined with substantial ones: 459 peržengti reikalingo gynimosi apybrėžas BS19 – peržengti reikalingo apsiginimo apybrėžas BS31 – peržengti reikalingo gynimosi ribas BS34 (to exceed the bounds of necessary defense). Among the terminological differences not expressed as nouns, one might also include differences between verb-based combinations such as: 14 draudžiamas bausme BS19, BS31 – baustinai draudžiamas BS34 (punishable by a penalty); 40 nepakaltinamas nusikalstamuoju darbu BS19, BS31 – nekaltintinas už nusikalstamąjį darbą BS34 (not culpable for a criminal act – not to be charged for a criminal act); 55 nukaltintas padaręs didijį nusikaltimą BS19, BS31 – pripažintas padaręs didijį nusikaltimą BS34 (convicted of committing a serious crime – found to have committed a serious crime). Here one can also speak of differences between adjectival terms, for example, 210 netikrasis BS19, BS31 – falsifikuotas BS34 (false – falsified); 307 atsakomingas BS19, BS31 – atsakingas BS34 (responsible), or even adverbs, for example, 146 neteisiai BS19, BS31 – neteisėtai BS34 (unlawfully). Although all these are problematic cases in terms of their terminological status, their terminological character is at least clearly perceptible. Since differences are under discussion, it is worth mentioning them. Summarizing all the differences in the BS, it should be noted that legal terms were not always changed consistently throughout the text. For example, the term claimant that appeared in the BS19 was changed to witness in the BS31, but in the BS34 it is changed to witness in one place (158), while elsewhere claimant is retained (30); the term certificate, which appeared in both the BS19 and the BS31, was replaced in the BS34 by both testimony (161) and attestation (161); similarly, compulsory order was changed to mandatory order (125) and compulsory resolution (129), a deed of agreement—a written contract (375) and in writing of the transaction (376). Of the changes mentioned here, only the replacement of certificate with testimony and attestation is justified, since the Russian original indeed uses two terms, удостоверение and 90 свидетельство (UU). In general, most such inconsistencies (of which there are not many) arose from insufficient care in changing and standardizing terms and should therefore be considered translation shortcomings. More broadly, differences in legal terminology across translations of the statutes arose not only because the terminology was improved, but also because questionable elements and clear errors in the 1919 translation were corrected. Looking at these translations more than half a century after their appearance, it is difficult to assess the motivation behind the changes. In terms of correctness, most terms in the 1919 translation, as well as the replacements for them in later translations, are not poor. Some may seem odd or unusual from today’s perspective, but they are not incorrect. Only a few replacements can be considered more correct in terms of grammar, word formation, or linguistic purity, for example: 43 atsakomybę didinamoji aplinkybė BS19, BS31 – atsakomybę didinanti aplinkybė BS34 (an aggravating circumstance); 577 globiamasis BS19, BS31 – globojamasis BS34 (person under guardianship); 183 atsargos ofici eris BS19 – atsargos karininkas BS31 (reserve officer), BS34. Most changes—even ones such as 160 atsakytojas BS19 – atsakovas BS31 (respondent), BS34; 160 ieškotojas BS19 – ieškovas BS31 (plaintiff), BS34; 479 keliautojas BS19 – keleivis BS31 (traveler – passenger), BS34; 532 važiuotojas BS19 – keleivis BS31 (driver/rider – passenger), BS34, indicate not the correction of errors but the refinement of terminology and the selection of more suitable forms. However, the fact that the term 684 priestata BS19, BS31 (поставка UU) was replaced by tiek yba BS34 does not mean that the latter term is much better. If priestata (from pristatyti) had taken root, we would still be using it today. At that time, when terms were being changed, the issue of accuracy may have been even more pressing than that of correctness. The reasons for the appearance of some substitutions in later translations can be seen by comparing the terms with the original, for example: 15 to carry out the death penalty UU – to punish with the death penalty BS19, BS31 – to execute the death sentence BS34; 210 forgery UU – not genuine BS19, BS31 – falsified BS34; 124 community UU – union BS19, BS31 – association BS34; 480 volost elder UU – volost elder BS19 – volost chief BS31, BS34; 681 public auction UU – public negotiations BS19 – public auction BS31, BS34. As can be seen, the 1934 substitutions correspond more accurately to the original, while some 1919 terms are even misleading. Although it is not always good to strive to match the original, for example, record-keeping procedures UU 443 was translated as writ- 91 ceremonies BS19, BS31, later corrected to be more suitable for Lithuanian – the procedure for writing documents BS34. Striving to improve the 1934 translation by following the original could also have harmed it. For example, there was no need to change 574 movable property BS19 – movable property BS31 to movable property BS34. Rather inappropriately, instead of 479 prisoner BS19, BS31 detainee BS34 was introduced (prisoner УУ). Especially since the change was made inconsistently (e.g., in 123, 652, etc., prisoner was retained). In general, the term detainee is entirely suitable for referring to a person who has been arrested but is not yet imprisoned, but no such distinction was made at the time. Alternatively, perhaps more Lithuanian-sounding translations might have become established: 443 forms of legal proceedings УУ – forms of document writing BS19, BS31, 669 court session УУ – court sitting BS19, if in 1934 it had not been changed to document-writing form, court session. Finally, it should be said that this article did not aim to select the worst translation in terms of correctness and accuracy. In general, assessing the correctness of terms from the past is problematic, since understandings of correctness change somewhat. The intention here was rather to present an overall picture of how terminology changed in the past. The terms cited also show that much has changed by today. While acknowledging that the 1919 BS translation was far from perfect in terms of terminology and language overall, its value for legal language as the first translation, at a time when Lithuanian legal terminology was almost nonexistent, is beyond dispute. Clear progress in terminology is also evident. The 1931 translation was improved somewhat, and the 1934 translation considerably more. The latter’s terminology is closest to that used today. Nevertheless, it is clear that the 1934 and, even more so, the 1931 BS translations were not translated anew from the original, but were merely revisions of the earlier 1919 translation. Incidentally, the preface to the 1934 translation acknowledged that all the translations had shortcomings. It was explained that better results required involving more people in the work. But working on a private initiative in Lithuania, where the book market was small, simply did not pay. Unfortunately, the state did not provide an official translation. It is true that in 1938 a commission was formed at the State Council to prepare a substantially new BS, but the codification work proceeded slowly and drew considerable criticism (Dakutis 1939: 172–173), so little had been accomplished before the occupation. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that the path taken to improve legal terminology in translating the Criminal Code is highly important for contemporary legal language— 92 language. Many legal terms have been adopted from it. On the other hand, even today, when particular questions of legal terminology arise, it is worth first looking to the past and only then creating or improving the latest terminology. REFERENCES AND SOURCES Andriulis V. 1996: Lietuvos valstybės teisinės sistemos formavimo (1918.II.16–1940.IV.15) bruožai. – Lietuvos valstybės teisės aktai (1918.II.16–1940.IV.15). Parengė V. Andriulis ir kt., Vilnius. BS19: Baudžiamasis statutas, Kaunas, 1919 // Baudžiamieji įstatymai, Kaunas, 1919. BS30: Baudžiamasis statutas: su papildymais. K. Jablonskis, Kaunas, 1930. BS31: Baudžiamasis statutas: su papildymais. K. Jablonskis, 2 leid., Kaunas, 1930. BS34: Baudžiamasis statutas su papildomaisiais baudžiamaisiais įstatymais ir komentarais, sudarytais iš Rusijos Senato ir Lietuvos Vyriausiojo Tribunolo sprendimų bei kitų aiškinimų, Kaunas, 1934. Dakutis T. 1939: Lietuviškosios teisės kelias. – Vairas 9. Danilenko V. P. 1977: Даниленко В. П. Русская терминология: опыт лингвистического описания, Москва. DJTŽ 1919: Dėl juridinių terminų žodyno. – Lietuva, lapkričio 3. LLTS 1919: Laikinasis Lietuvos teismų ir jų darbo sutvarkymas. – Laikinosios Vyriausybės žinios 2–3. Maksimaitis M. 2001: Lietuvos teisės šaltiniai 1918–1940 metais, Vilnius. Masiulis B. 1954: Kalba ir teisininkai. – Teisininkų žinios 6, 7. Stankevičius V. 1925: Baudžiamoji teisė: paskaitos, Kaunas. Sugintas A. 1958: Šis tas iš darbuotės teismo srity. – Teisininkų žinios 23–24. Šilingas S. 1918: Teisų Komisijos darbams sąmata [08 20 raštas Lietuvos Valstybės Tarybos Prezidiumui]. – LCVA, f. 1014, ap. 1, b. 32. Umbrasas A. 2001: Teisės terminijos padėtis Lietuvoje 1918–1940 metais. – Terminologija 8. UU: Уголовное уложение 22 марта 1903 г. По изданиям Н. С. Таганцева, Рига, 1922. DIFFERENCES IN THE TERMINOLOGY OF LAW IN THE TRANSLATION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE THAT FUNCTIONED IN THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA IN 1918–1940 Summary During the period of the independent Republic of Lithuania (1918–1940) there was no original criminal code prepared. From 1918 Russian criminal laws were in force, among them – The Criminal Code (Уголовное уложение) of 1903. This article 93 deals with differences in the terminology of law in translations of this Code into Lithuanian (translations of 1919, 1931 and 1934 are compared). In total there were about 200 differences found. They are analysed and grouped according to the expression. The correctness and preciseness of terms are also discussed. The conclusion is drawn that translations of 1919 and 1931 differ very slightly. The biggest changes in the terminology of law were made in the translation of 1934 – here it is closest to the terminology of the present. It is likely that most of the differences between these translations occurred because terminology was being constantly improved. Some of the differences appeared because of corrections of mistakes and inaccuracies in the translation from 1919. The article emphasizes the significance of the terminology created in 1918–1940 to the contemporary language of law. Alvydas UMBRASAS Received 2002-10-03 Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 5 P. Vileišio St., LT-2055 Vilnius, E-mail: [email protected] 94