Teisės terminijos padėtis Lietuvoje 1918–1940 metais

Alvydas UMBRASAS Institute of the Lithuanian Language THE STATE OF LEGAL TERMINOLOGY IN LITHUANIA IN 1918–1940 Both in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which ceased to exist as a state at the end of the eighteenth century, and later in the territory of present-day Lithuania, which for more than a century was divided among powerful neighboring countries, the Lithuanian language had virtually no place in the state’s legal life. Neither the famous 1588 Lithuanian Statute (written in Latin, the Slavic chancery language, and Polish), nor the later Russian compilations of the laws of the Russian Empire, in force across most of present-day Lithuania, created conditions for the emergence of a Lithuanian legal language or the development of Lithuanian legal terminology. When Lithuania declared independence in 1918, the Lithuanian language began to be used for the first time in state administration and other areas of public life. Naturally, in seeking to preserve the stability of social relations, the young state inevitably had to adopt most of the laws of the Russian Empire. This was enacted in Article 24 of the Fundamental Provisions of the Provisional Constitution of Lithuania, adopted by the State Council on 2 November 1918: until new laws were enacted, those in force before the First World War were to remain temporarily in effect (this meant abandoning the short-lived wartime legal acts introduced during the period of Kaiser-era occupation). In the same year, the State Council also turned its attention to translating Russian laws into Lithuanian (Maksimaitis 2001: 46–48). Shortly thereafter (1920 07 31), Article 16 of the Law on the Provisional Organization of the Lithuanian Courts and Their Work, adopted by the Supreme Tribunal, established that court proceedings were to be conducted in the state language, Lithuanian (LLTI: 47). The beginning was not easy. As the lawyer and ardent promoter of Lithuanian identity Boleslovas Masiulis writes, there were only a handful of Lithuanian lawyers, and some had not yet returned from Russia. Already in the first years of independence, efforts to create Lithuanian legal terms began in earnest. The work was carried out mainly by a few people with a good command of Lithuanian. In 1919, 76 B. Masiulis and Konstantinas Jablonskis (son of Jonas Jablonskis), assigned by Minister Liudas Noreika, developed legal terms in various fields at the Ministry of Justice. Later, K. Jablonskis, in consultation with B. Masiulis, translated the Russian Criminal Code and the Bills of Exchange Regulations. Antanas Kriščiukaitis (Aišbė), Chairman of the Supreme Tribunal, dealt with the terminology of proceedings (the term then used was teisenos). In short, by 1919–1920 the essential terms required by the courts in criminal and civil law had been established (Masiulis 1954 6: 2). At the beginning of independence, work also began on compiling a legal terminology dictionary. A fairly large-format (slightly larger than A4), 120-page handwritten Russian–Lithuanian “Draft Dictionary of Legal Terms and Other Words Needed by the Courts” has survived (Fig. 1). To this day, it has not been studied and is, generally speaking, virtually unknown; it is mentioned in the literature perhaps only once (Andriulis 1998: 12). A hectographed copy of this dictionary (loose sheets) is held in the K. Jablonskis collection of the Manuscript Department of the Central Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (F 256–551). A. Kriščiukaitis’s grandson Vytautas Vaidelys has two identical copies. The lawyer Vytautas Andriulis also has a hectographed copy (bound in a hard cover)1. V. Vaidelys also has another version of the same dictionary—a handwritten original in a different hand (the hectographed copies were most likely transcribed by a clerk). None of the dictionary copies gives the author or the year it was compiled (only on the first page of V. Andriulis’s copy, among the terms, the date 1923 VI 13 is entered for an unclear purpose). The time when the dictionary was written can be inferred from additional sources. On 3 November 1919, the “Government News” section of “Lietuva” reported that Department II of the Ministry of Justice was preparing for publication a “dictionary of legal terms and words most needed by judges, investigators, notaries, etc.” (DJTŽ: 2). As stated, the information was provided by the director of Department II, Al. Milčinskis, and the department head, K. Jablonskis. The people for whom the dictionary was intended were asked to send, within three weeks, lists of the terms they used and of Russian-language terms that 1 I thank V. Andriulis and V. Vaidelys for providing information and for the opportunity to consult the dictionary. 77 Fig. 1. First page of the manuscript draft of a legal terminology glossary 78 should be translated (with proposed translations). V. Vaidelys has letters from the Ministry of Justice (signed by Justice Minister Vincas Karoblis and others), which show that as early as 1920 IX 1, two sheets of the dictionary in question were sent to the famous linguist J. Jablonskis (subsequent pairs of sheets were sent on September 21 and October 1 of the same year). J. Jablonskis was asked to familiarize himself with the dictionary as quickly as possible and submit comments on the translations of existing terms, as well as suggestions on how to supplement the dictionary and translate the terms left untranslated. After some time, a meeting of lawyers and linguists was planned in order to determine the legal terms definitively. Most likely, J. Jablonskis was sent the same kind of copy as those that have survived. Unfortunately, no information has been found on whether he submitted any suggestions. It is not known how this dictionary was considered (most likely, those reviewing it received identical copies), but one of V. Vaidelys’s copies contains a wealth of annotations—various proposed terms, alongside which the author is also identified. Here one can find the surnames or abbreviations of Ciplijauskas, Leonas, Linartas, Mačys, Sąmajauskas2, Šaulys, and others (e.g., Braz., Bugail., Stark., Šalk.). It is difficult to say with complete certainty who authored this dictionary, but it was most likely K. Jablonskis (at least one of the authors). The aforementioned K. Jablonskis manuscript collection contains a draft of this dictionary (F 256–550), as well as numerous sheets of various sizes covered in detailed notes (F 256–546, 547, 552), which reveal the process of compiling the dictionary. Since the work was carried out at the Ministry of Justice, K. Jablonskis apparently had assistants as well. It is very likely that he consulted (or even collaborated) with A. Kriščiukaitis. It is unclear how, but the surviving original ended up in his possession (the handwriting appears to be K. Jablonskis’s; as mentioned, it is now held by V. Vaidelys). Naturally, as President of the Supreme Tribunal, A. Kriščiukaitis was most interested in the terms needed by the courts. Sources state that A. Kriščiukaitis actively worked on creating legal terminology. According to Liudas Šmulkštys, he “compiled an entire Lithuanian-language terminology for the field of law and demonstrated how legal ideas could be expressed simply and clearly” (Šmulkštys 1958: 153). 2 He signed his name this way, but in the “Lietuvių enciklopedija” it is given as Samajauskas (XXVI, South Boston, 1961, 379.) 79 The legal terminology dictionary draft in question is the only work of this kind from the period of the earlier independence known to date. It is not known whether it was further developed or made available to lawyers of the time. It may have been distributed in hectographed form. Considering that the dictionary was being compiled in the first years of the Republic of Lithuania’s independence (1919–1920), when suitable Lithuanian sources were lacking, its size is quite impressive. Rough estimates put the dictionary at close to 3,000 term entries, containing about 4,000 Russian multiword and single-word terms or other words. Of these, just over 200 were not translated into Lithuanian. Translating Russian terms was not easy, so several Lithuanian equivalents were usually provided. The total number of Lithuanian equivalents given in the dictionary is about 5,500. As the title indicates, the dictionary contains more than just legal terms. About one-fifth of its terms should be considered non-legal terms or not terms at all. Nevertheless, the dictionary may have had a significant influence on the language of law; unfortunately, its fate is unknown. It may be that, for unknown reasons, it was not edited further and faded into oblivion. The contents of the dictionary undoubtedly merit a separate study. The creation and stabilization of legal terminology were also influenced by the Terminology Commission established under the Ministry of Education by a Cabinet of Ministers order dated March 29, 1921. The order also stipulated that interested government institutions should form auxiliary commissions in various fields, including law, to collect terms (TKSĮ: 4). No information has so far been found on whether such a legal terminology commission was established. As the minutes of the Terminology Commission show, on October 6, 1921, its then-chairman A. Smetona was tasked with forming a “small legal terminology commission” (these usually consisted of three people) to prepare terms for this field. No specific information has been found about the composition or activities of this small commission, but at a meeting on November 11 of that same year, a short list of legal terms with usage examples was considered; its author was A. Kriščiukaitis (he attended the meeting and may also have been a member of the aforementioned small commission). A somewhat larger number of legal terms were discussed at the December 1 meeting. All the terms were published in “Lietuvoje” (TTP: 2) for public criticism. As can be seen from the minutes, several responses were received (Bendo 80 rio and Bulota). Apparently, the commission itself also reconsidered some things, because the rather chaotic list was reorganized somewhat, examples of usage were moved into a separate section, and the terms were edited. Lithuanian equivalents that had not previously appeared in the list were added: atsakovas (atsakytojas) – ответчик, ieškovas – истец (гражданский). tretininkas, meaning “a third party in a case,” was removed. The initially adopted terms kliaudis (улика), įkliaudinti (уличать, уличить) were abandoned, and įkaltis, įkaltinti, etc., were proposed for use instead. The final revised list of legal terms was approved at the Terminology Commission meeting of March 9, 1922, and published by commission resolution in „Lietuvoje“ and „Švietimo darbe“ (TT₁: 3; TTR₁: 77–81). In 1922, the specialized journal „Teisė“, launched by the Lithuanian Lawyers’ Society, also included the same list of terms in its first issue (TT₂: 53–56). This wide circulation could not have gone unnoticed either by lawyers or by society at large. It helped establish such important terms as byla, teismo byla – судебное дело, kaltinimas – обвинение, kaltintojas – обвинитель, kaltinamasis – обвиняемый, teisiamasis – подсудимый, pareiškimas – заявление, and others. At the same time, numerous alternative terms were proposed: baudžiamoji (kriminalinė, kriminalė) byla – уголовное дело; civilinė (civilė) byla – гражданское дело; ieškinys (ieškas), skundas – иск (гражданский и уголовный), жалоба; atsakovas (atsakytojas), skundžiamasis, apskųstasis – ответчик; liudytojo (liudininko) rodymas, parodymas, liudijimas (liudymas) – свидетельское показание, and others. As is evident from present-day terminology, the most suitable variant was chosen over time. Since it was then important to translate not only individual terms but also entire constructions from Russian, numerous examples of term usage were provided as well. Moreover, judged by today’s understanding of terminology, some items in the list would be considered certain term combinations rather than terms. Altogether, 22 examples and 46 terms (by numbered entries) were provided. Including all the variants, the actual number of Lithuanian terms was considerably higher. The booklet „Įvardai, arba terminai, priimti Terminologijos komisijos“, compiled a couple of years later by Antanas Vireliūnas, secretary of the Terminology Commission, also helped these terms become established. Alongside terms from other fields, the same „Terminai teisės reikalams“ were published once again, rearranged alphabetically and supplemented with a dozen or so additional references (TTR₂: 13–23). Although, because of errors, J. Jablonskis 81 šį leidinuką supeikė ir net nerekomendavo skaityti (Rygiškių Jonas 1925: 347–348), jis skaitytojų neliko nepastebėtas. The relevance and importance of these terms are also demonstrated by the fact that a few years later A. Vireliūnas’s revised list of legal terms, with several changes, was printed in the then-popular „Teisininkų kalendorius“ (TTR3: 272–277), published by the Lithuanian Lawyers’ Society (chairman A. Kriščiukaitis). Perhaps at the initiative of the society or its compiler, Zigmas Toliūšis, some errors were corrected, several terms were changed, and one or another variant was dropped. Apparently, the years that had passed since its first publication had already modified usage, so there was no longer a need for atsakytojo, skundžiamojo, apskųstojo alongside atsakovo; liudininko alongside liudytojo. The previously listed as synonyms ieškas, ieškinys (учк) were distinguished from skundas (жалоба), ieškovas (истец) from skundikas (жалобщик), and so on. Thus, this list of terms adopted by the Terminology Commission, published at least five times, undoubtedly played a major role in shaping and stabilizing legal terminology at the time—and today. It should be noted that some legal terms also appeared in other lists published by the Terminology Commission. They can be found in the sections of A. Vireliūnas’s aforementioned booklet entitled „Terminai akcizo reikalams“ (p. 5–13) and „Terminai politiškosios ekonomijos reikalams“ (p. 139–144). The Terminology Commission, which existed until 1926, did not consider any further legal terms specifically. After the commission was disbanded, terminology work was assigned to the university, but it came to a complete halt there. With the Terminology Commission gone, for a time no one concerned themselves with legal or other terminology at the state level. Although there was discussion of the reasons for the commission’s dissolution (chiefly internal disagreements and differing views on Lithuanianizing terms), and an idea was put forward to revive terminology work and return it to the Ministry of Education (Laurinaitis 1928: 4–5, Laurinaitis 1930: 27–31), neither the public nor the education authorities took heed. Only in 19353 was the Lithuanian 3 Until that year, there was no commission responsible for regulating terminology across different fields, while a special Legal Terminology Commission had been operating in the office of the State Council since around 1930–1933. Very little information about it is available; see further in the article. 82 Language Society’s Terminology Section; however, since it had only five members and had resolved to consider only terms that the society itself would need first (LKDK 1936: 164), its work was neither extensive nor varied. As can be seen from the book of minutes of the society’s public meetings, preserved in the manuscript collection of the Central Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (F 63–3), on 1935 05 13 the society member B. Masiulis was assigned to draft a list of legal terms, but no information about it has been found. B. Masiulis himself does not mention it either (Masiulis 1954). Since neither the minutes of the Terminology Section nor other documents could be found (apparently, they have not survived), and given that the section had resolved to publish the adopted terms in the press most accessible to interested parties (LKDK 1935: 95), but no such publication appeared, it is likely that the section did not consider legal terms at all. Apparently, private initiative was lacking, since in 1939 Petras Jonikas was still urging lawyers to take responsibility for the culture of their language, discussable legal terms to be considered with language specialists, and to seek assistance from the LKD Terminology Section (Jonikas 1939: 99–100). And in „Teisė“, following an article by Jonas Mičiulis (Mičiulis 1937: 326–328), which likewise looked to the Terminology Section for assistance, the journal’s editors added a note (p. 328–329) endorsing the ideas expressed and urging readers to submit the necessary material themselves. It stated that Pranas Skardžius and Antanas Salys had agreed to help lawyers if the latter submitted draft terms with explanations and translations into other languages. The terms established by the Lithuanian Language Society, with explanations, would have been published in „Teisė“. Unfortunately, this appeal seems to have gone unanswered, although expressions of support appeared in the press (Stravinskas 1937: 4), followed somewhat later by hints that some members of the Lawyers’ Society were preparing to take up the work and that a group of linguists was being assembled for the purpose at the „Teisė“ editorial office (Stravinskas 1938: 98). It was also proposed that the work of regulating legal terminology would more appropriately be entrusted to a government institution, which would form a competent commission to review terms in use and create new ones. Terms published by such a commission would have been official and binding on everyone, and would therefore have gained acceptance more readily in practice (see ibid.). By the end of the 1930s, addressing problems in legal terminology was becoming increasingly urgent also because, at that time, it was being publi- 83 the “Lithuanian Encyclopedia” was being prepared. If the necessary terminology had been organized and developed too late, important legal concepts might have remained unnamed in the encyclopedia, and unsuitable legal terminology might have become established. Two decades after independence, legal terminology had still not been officially codified. There were numerous inconsistencies both in legislation and in theoretical and practical legal writing. This impeded not only legislative work but also the practice of law. Although the older generation of lawyers, educated in Russian, German, and other legal schools that had greatly influenced their language, was gradually giving way to lawyers with a Lithuanian education, and the language of law had made considerable progress, there was still a great lack of a legal terminology dictionary. Under these circumstances, greater attention was paid to the terminology of the field in question. In order to evaluate the legal terms already in use and supplement them with new ones, a Terminology Commission was established at the State Council; it began its work on February 13, 1939. The commission was chaired by B. Masiulis, president of the State Council, and its members included K. Jablonskis, a member of the State Council, A. Salys, a colleague of the Council, and P. Stravinskas, a Council referent. When necessary, other Council colleagues and members of commissions drafting legislation were also invited to the meetings. As B. Masiulis writes, the State Council had attended to language matters from the very time of its establishment (1928). President Antanas Smetona had stipulated that at least one person with a good command of Lithuanian should serve on the Council. The aim was for draft laws and other documents to be written in exemplary, correct language. Therefore, in the second year after the Council’s establishment, the linguist A. Salys was invited to work with it. He worked there for several years, with interruptions. After he left, the Lithuanian studies specialist Juozas Bukota came to assist for a time. In addition, an editorial commission operated at the State Council almost continuously to edit draft laws; its permanent members were B. Masiulis, Juozas Papečkys, and Zigmas Starkus. At times, its chair, Stasys Šilingas, also contributed (Masiulis 1954 6: 2–3, Masiulis 1958: 14). B. Masiulis’s texts show that a Terminology Commission had already been active at the State Council in its early years, and that its members included 84 he himself, A. Kriščiukaitis, and A. Salys. When A. Kriščiukaitis died suddenly in October 1933, it ceased to operate. Terminology work, however, did not stop: it was continued by the Council’s editorial commission, with A. Salys’s assistance, and by the commissions drafting legislation (ibid. and Masiulis 1965: 60). The work begun by the Terminological4 Commission was an important step toward standardizing legal terminology. It was planned that terms would be considered three times. The terms considered and revised were to be sent to the Institute of Lithuanian Studies for final review. The terms then adopted were to become mandatory. P. Stravinskas informed the public about these plans and the commission’s work in “Teisė” (Stravinskas 1939: 384–385). At the same time, in the journal he began publishing, for the attention of interested readers, terms adopted after one or two rounds of consideration during the commission’s first months of work. For, by June 12, the commission had held 25 meetings and considered 307 terms. Four issues of “Teisė” (1939: No. 48, pp. 385–387, No. 49, pp. 475–480; 1940: No. 50, pp. 73–74, No. 51, pp. 184–185) presented 211 numbered terms with translations into German and Russian (a few terms were translated into only one language). Since several terms sometimes shared one number, the actual number was somewhat higher. The work was interrupted by the occupiers who flooded Lithuania, but there was still more to publish. P. Stravinskas states that the commission had adopted about 500 terms in all (Stravinskas 1958: 16). This figure indicates that the commission worked intensively only during its first few months. Later, perhaps, it proceeded less hastily, waiting for public reaction to the relatively small batches of published terms. Since civil-law terminology had in practice not been standardized throughout the entire period of independence, there was a shortage of terms in this field, and the Terminology Commission considered almost exclusively civil-law terms. Circumstances also encouraged this: the Civil Code was being drafted at the time. Its drafters were represented on the commission by an employee of the Code’s editorial commission, who submitted the necessary matters for consideration- 4 As can be seen from the sources used, the first State Council commission discussed here was a terminology commission, while the second was for some reason terminological. This is not entirely certain, since the people writing about the commission’s work may have distorted its name. 85 ti medžiagą (Stravinskas 1958: 16). Tuo metu Valstybės Taryba rengė ir santuokos įstatymą. Jo terminijai komisija skyrė daug dėmesio. Maždaug pusę spėtų paskelbti terminų sudaro giminystės ir kiti su santuoka susiję terminai5. Be tradicinių dažniausių giminystės terminų (tėvas, motina, sūnus, duktė, anyta, uošvis ir kt.), pateikta daug priešdėlių vedinių, reiškiančių giminystės tikrumą ar kartų santykius, pvz.: įvaikis – Wahlkind (adaptiert), usynovlionnyj6; įtėviai – Wahleltern (Adaptiveltern), usynoviteli (priemnyje roditeli); provaikaičiai – die Urenkel, pravnuki; proprovaikaičiai – die Urenkel, prapravnuki; provaikaičiai – Grossneffen und -nichten, dvojurodnyje vnuki i vnjučki; potetė – tetka dvojurodnaja, papuseserė – Kusine der Kusine, weitläufige Kusine, sestra trojurodnaja; povaikiai – Stiefkinder, pasynki i padčery ir kt. Apskritai nemažai šiame projekte paskelbtų terminų tapo įprasti, dalis jų vėliau pasikeitus santvarkai neteko aktualumo. Būta ir neįprastų įdomių terminų: reik inys7 – Anspruch; atieškas – Rückgriff, regres; spręsumas – Urteilsfähigkeit, raszudok, raszuditel’nost’; patarytinis, -ė – der Bereitbedürftige; teisinis sandaras – Rechtsgeschäft, juridicăsaja sdelka. Lyginant su jau sovietiniais laikais (1954 m.) pasirodžiusiu Alfonso Žiurlio sudarytu pirmuoju spausdintu teisės terminų žodynu (TŽ), kai kurie terminai buvo pakeisti: pereigyba – Amt, dolžnost’ (pareigybė TŽ); pareigonis – Beamter, dolžnostnoje lico (pareigūnas TŽ); tikrinis asmuo – natürliche Person, fizičeskoje lico (fizinis asmuo TŽ); teisinis asmuo – juristische Person, juridīčeskoje lico (juridinis asmuo TŽ). The project also proposed derivatives with suffixes popular in contemporary terminology: prieštara – Einwendung (objection in TŽ); globa – Vormundschaft, opeka; rūpa – Pflegschaft, popečitelstvo (care in TŽ); patara – Bereitschaft; būtinoji gyna – Notwehr, neobchodimaja oborona (necessary defence in TŽ); būtinoji reika – Notstand, krajniaja neobchodimost’ (necessity in TŽ). From today's perspective, the method of forming these terms can be regarded as progressive. 5 This was probably due mainly to A. Salys, since just a couple of years earlier he had published a substantial article on these terms (see Salys 1937). 6 Russian words transliterated into Latin letters are presented here as they appear in the original. 7 Vėliau jį kritikavo pats P. Stravinskas (Stravinskas 1954: 3). 86 The list under consideration also included terms that had long been debated and were of current relevance teisinas, -a – rechtsfähig, pravosposobnyj (teisnus in TŽ); veik­s­nus, -i – geschäftsfähig, dejesposobnyj and their abstract nouns with -umas. The long-competing form teisinus, -i8 had already been rejected around 1933 by the first Terminology Commission of the State Council (Masiulis 1957: 36). It has not been possible to find any terminology adopted by the Terminology Commission published after that. Nor have any minutes, letters, or other documents indicating the commission's activities been found, since the Lithuanian Central State Archives has no State Council document collection at all9. In the absence of official sources, press accounts were used. All the discussed, organized work on the standardization of legal terminology was undoubtedly important to the development of legal language culture at the time. Nevertheless, the several hundred terms considered constituted only a relatively small portion of the terms used in legal theory and practice. Legal writings reflect the full range of legal terminology of the period. These include about five and a half thousand legal acts published in the “Government Gazette,” as well as translations of the Russian codes that remained in force (the Civil and Criminal Codes) and the periodically published decisions in cases of the Supreme Tribunal. The university's Faculty of Law also played an important role. It was here that future lawyers were taught Lithuanian terminology, and this required Lithuanian textbooks. The faculty published a considerable number of these, both translated and original. Since the university employed the leading legal scholars of the time, many legal studies were prepared there. The Faculty of Law had independent publishing rights and published these works itself. In 1924 it began publishing the “Works of the Faculty of Law” series (42 books by authors were published); in 1931, the “Library of Legal Sciences” (the series comprised 26 volumes of legal research); and in 1936, the “Legal 8 Plačiau apie teisinus, -i ir teisinas, -a santykį žr. Skardžius 1958: 14–15. 9 B. Masiulis writes that on July 27, 1940, “some kind of fury” sent by Povilas Pakarklis burst into the State Council headquarters. She quickly sealed the offices, not even allowing the employees to collect their belongings. It appears that on July 26 J. Paleckis and M. Gedvilas had signed the “Law on the Dissolution of the State Council,” which instructed P. Pakarklis to appoint a commission to take over the State Council's property. After that, the council staff's personnel files and work files, as well as its archives, disappeared somewhere (Masiulis 1958: 14). 87 and studies of economics.” Also worth mentioning are the lecture notes published at the initiative of university students, based on lectures delivered by lecturers of the Faculty of Law. There were also legal monographs. The legal journals most accessible to the public (especially Teisė) also had a great influence on the development of legal language. They not only disseminated terminology most rapidly, but also provided opportunities to discuss the issue10. It is in periodicals that we see the legal-terminology issues of the period under discussion. It was understood that perfect legal terminology could not emerge suddenly. Only countries with a long history of legal life can have developed terminology. It is also very important to take account of increasingly complex legal relations, the advancement of legal science, and the emergence of new concepts. Legal terminology depends to a great extent on the level of legal science. First, scholarship must explain and analyse legal concepts; only then can one speak of the specific application of terminology in practice. Since legal scholarship in Lithuania had not long been conducted in Lithuanian, many concepts, although present in the consciousness, had no Lithuanian name (Stravinskas 1938: 94–95). The absence of terms was not the only problem. There was also polysemy and synonymy. The latter caused particular difficulties. Every translator of Russian legal acts could become a term-maker, since there was no established terminology. Some ignored terms they disliked and devised their own alternatives. Of course, lawyers themselves stirred up this mess without the help of linguists. At times, matters went to extremes. The press even carried proposals to replace terms that had become more or less established —for example, to replace statute and kodeskas with “book of laws,” civil with “property-related” (property law), and criminal or penal with “punitive” (punishment science, punitive case); appeal with “recall,” cassation with “review,” and tribunal with “court” (Šamajauskas 1934: 26–35). Some of these proposals can be justified. They might have been adopted, and today they would be commonplace. There were even suggestions that the term state should be replaced by realm, that citizen should be replaced by “subject,” and that state law should be called law of the realm (ibid.). Such proposals did not gain approval and apparently even raised a smile in some. 10 Išsamiau apie to laikotarpio teisės leidinius žr. Andriulis 1998: 6–27. 88 Lawyers also received more substantial suggestions from linguists. In the “Question Basket” section of the journal Gimtoji kalba, some legal terms were corrected. The journal also devoted considerable attention to the emerging terminology of office administration, which was relevant to lawyers. There were also articles offering more interesting suggestions. One proposed replacing be žinios dingti (безвестно отсутствовать) with simply (pra)dingti, and calling a person missing without trace (безвестно отсутствующий) dinguonis; replacing a contract of sale in advance (запродажа) with sulygimas parduoti, and a contract of sale in advance (запродажный договор) with a conditional contract; and replacing a judgment by default (заочное решение) with a judgment in absentia, among other suggestions (Zimanas 1933: 36–37). Mention should also be made of the Lithuanian-German-English “Dictionary of Commercial Correspondence,” compiled by Leonardas Dargis and edited by A. Salys11 (Dargis 1938: 160–179). Since trade is closely connected with legal relations, many of the terms included can be classified, wholly or in part, as belonging to the field of law. Terms found there include dalininkas – Teilhaber; išsimokamasis pardavimas – Abzahlungsgeschäft; įvežamasis muitas – Einfuhrzoll, import-duty; nekilnojam ybės – Immobilien; nepiniginis mokėjimas – bargeldlose Zahlung; raginamasis raštas – Mahnungsschreiben; vertybiniai popieriai – Effekten, Wertpapiere, stoks, funds, and so on. The dictionary gives considerable attention to Lithuanian usage. For example, it proposes quite successfully the equivalents padalas, pelninys (dividendas) – Dividende, Gewinnanteil, dividend. Overall, the dictionary remains relevant even today, and there is much to learn from it. As we can see, throughout the period of independence, progress was made, albeit in small steps, towards a dictionary of legal terms. In the final years of independence, there were already people competent to undertake this work, and the terminology had been considerably refined. The Terminology Commission of the State Council had this as its objective, but unfortunately it was not achieved. 11 In L. Dargis’s book, it was simply titled “Dictionary.” Since A. Salys did much of the work on the Lithuanian section of this dictionary, it was included in A. Salys’s “Writings,” published in Rome (Salys 1979: 455–484). When these were being published, L. Dargis supplemented the dictionary with the missing English terms. 89 Apparently, the largest list of terms representing the legal terminology of the final years of independence is held in the manuscript department of the Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania. It is a 61-page typescript dated by the librarians to approximately 1941, containing legal terms in Lithuanian and Russian (PR – 1221). No author is identified. The terms are arranged alphabetically only by their first letter (with the entries in no particular order beneath it). The list has two parts; one could say that it consists of two lists. The first is 47 pages long, and the second (as an appendix) is 14 pages long. The second bears a handwritten entry: “brought from Vilnius 1942. VI. 19/20.” It has not been possible to find any mention of this list of terms in the press. Nor have any references to it by scholars been found. (The section on the cover where readers are recorded contains no entries.) Judging from one term accompanied by an example (atsistatyti – nodamъ, быть в отставку; the President of the Republic resigns under the 1938 Constitution of Lithuania (212), this list was compiled no earlier than 1938. Although the list contains many terms published by the State Council’s Terminology Commission, it is not known for certain whether the Commission prepared it. The date assigned by the librarians is apparently quite plausible. It may be a work from the first year of the occupation. The structure of the first part of the list is very reminiscent of the “Dictionary of Legal Terms” prepared by A. Žiurlys and published in 1954, although it contains no terms referring to Soviet realities. This connection may help, at least in part, to establish authorship. In the émigré-published Teisininkų žinios, B. Masiulis published a review of A. Žiurlys’s dictionary, stating that the preface did not mention all the people who had contributed to its creation. In 1940–1941, a commission was formed at the People’s Commissariat of Justice (Commissar: P. Pakarklis), headed by the young lawyer A. Žiurlys (head of the Commissariat’s Codification Department), and charged with translating into Lithuanian the legal acts brought in by the Russians. B. Masiulis states that the commission’s terminology was collected and discussed by Liudas Ciplijauskas, a former member of the State Council and President of the Supreme Tribunal, and J. Pa-, a former vice-chairman of the State Council. 12 Typescript page. 90 Pečkys, former council secretary P. Stravinskas, and linguist Stasys Dabušis (Masiulis 1957: 34). It is highly likely that these people were the compilers of the first part of the list in question, or at least contributed to it. This list may be regarded as the embryo of A. Žiurlys’s dictionary (more than three times larger). On the basis of the review mentioned above, though with the source of the dictionary incorrectly identified, the concealment of some of the authors of the “Dictionary of Legal Terms” had already been alluded to in the literature (Andriulis 1998: 12–13). The list of terms under discussion is relatively substantial. Its main part (47 pp.) contains about 1,100 term entries, with about 1,500 terms. The appended supplementary list (14 pp.) contains about 500 terms. Some terms recur in the second part, which also has a different presentation structure. It is almost certain that this part was compiled by another person (or persons), probably somewhat later as well. This part also contains some Soviet realia (e.g.: Executive Committee – Ispolkom; participant in a collective farm – kolchoznik; collective farm – kolchoz). Some terms also reveal a very negative influence from Russian: low-quality products – niedobrokačestviennaja produkcija; accomplice – součastnik; defective goods /faulty goods/ – bračnyj tovar; pre-conscription [person] – doprizyvnik; person-month – čelovekomesiac. There are also terms that seem interesting from today’s perspective: insurer – strachovščik; sobering-up facility – vytrezvitel; collective-farm worker – kolchoz; collective-farm member – kolchoznik. Overall, the second part of the list is not very valuable from a scholarly point of view. The first part is different. It should reflect fairly well the legal terminology of the final years of independence. In the review of A. Žiurlys’s dictionary mentioned above, B. Masiulis remarked: “the terms, wherever you look, are all old ones—from the days of independent Lithuania” (Masiulis 1957: 34–35), although the dictionary’s foreword states: “Under bourgeois rule, the question of legal terminology in Lithuania was completely neglected: the bourgeoisie was not only unconcerned with creating clear and precise legal terminology, but, on the contrary, was interested in this terminology being unclear and confusing, since this enabled it to oppress and exploit working people even more, as they were unable to make sense of bourgeois laws” (3). The words of the cited review are an apt comment: “Ah, what comedians!” (35). The list of legal terms is unfinished. Two columns have been left blank for terms in German and French (not a single term appears in them, but evidently there were ambitious plans). 91 The column for Russian equivalents is also incomplete. Only the head terms of entries are translated, while compound terms are usually left untranslated. This also reflects the commendable nature of the compilers’ work: Lithuanian terms were being collected, rather than equivalents for Russian ones being sought. Although the terms adopted by the Terminology Commission of the State Council were undoubtedly used in compiling the list, the question arises as to why some of those terms were nevertheless omitted. It seems that terms needed more for legal theory than for practice were left out. This may also indicate that the list was intended for practical use. From a terminological point of view, the list is fairly good. The authors did not necessarily have to coin terms; they could collect terms already in use, more or less considered and tested by time. Many of them, either identical or slightly modified, can be found in the “Dictionary of Legal Terms.” Some terms, of course, became unnecessary as the legal system changed. On the other hand, from today’s perspective, many terms in A. Žiurlys’s dictionary—not to mention Sovietisms—have lost their relevance or require substantial revision, but that is another topic. The fairly good quality of the terms in the list can also be illustrated by this handful of examples: acquittal (14), instrument of a crime (15), legitimation of a child (15), prosecutor’s closing argument (18), false testimony (22), provisions of the law (24), conditional conviction (26), advisory vote (31), preventive measure (35), aggravating circumstance (40), settlement agreement (42), preliminary investigation (43). They stood the test of time and have survived to the present day. There are also terms that did not take hold, for example: drinks for consumption on the premises – pachevočno, sale of beer for consumption on the premises (13), time-bound – срочный, time-bound document, time-bound work (17), detention facility – местозаключения (40). Alongside the more familiar term deposit – поклажа, terms now seemingly unknown are proposed: deposit provider – custodian, deposit recipient – keeper (29). Terms for the provider and recipient of a service are not easy to coin in every field, although even at that time the terms insurer – страхователь (18), insurance provider – страховщик (18) were coined quite successfully and took hold. In conclusion, it should be said that, although disorder in the field of legal terminology was discussed, much was accomplished in 1918–1940. Lithuanian legal terminology began to emerge rapidly and continued to improve; attempts were gradually made to standardize it, or at least make it more uniform. Already then it might have been possible to develop a dictionary of legal terms— 92 —but, evidently, there was not enough initiative, and ultimately political circumstances stood in the way. Nevertheless, the work of that period was not wasted, even though during the Soviet era it was emphasized that attention to legal terminology began only after Lithuania’s “liberation.” In fact, it was precisely in 1918–1940 that the foundations were laid on which today’s edifice of legal terminology stands. LITERATŪRA Andriulis V. 1998: Pirmosios Lietuvos Respublikos (1918 II 16–1940 VI 15) teisinės sistemos kūrimo bruožai, Vilnius. Dargis L. 1938: Prekybinė korespondencija: vadovėlis mokyklai ir gyvenimui, Kaunas. DJTŽ – Dėl juridinių terminų žodyno. – Lietuva. 1919. Lapkričio 3. Jonikas P. 1939: Apie teisės kalbą. – Gimtoji kalba 7. Laurinaitis J. M. 1928: Dėl terminologijos darbo pakasynų. – Lietuvos aidas. Kovo 16. Laurinaitis J. M. 1930: Terminologijos darbo atgaivinimas. – Kalba 1 (1). LKDK 1935 – LKD kronika. – Gimtoji kalba 6. LKDK 1936 – LKD kronika. – Gimtoji kalba 12. LLTI – Laik. Liet. teismų ir jų darbo sutvarkymo įstatymas. – Teisė 1, 1922. Maksimaitis M. 2001: Lietuvos teisės šaltiniai 1918–1940 metais, Vilnius. Masiulis B. 1954: Kalba ir teisininkai. – Teisininkų žinios 6, 7. Masiulis B. 1957: Pasklaidžius teisinių terminų žodyną. – Teisininkų žinios 21–22. Masiulis B. 1958: Valstybės Taryba. – Teisininkų žinios 25–26. Masiulis B. 1965: Valstybės taryba. – Lietuvių enciklopedija 33, South Boston. Mičiulis J. 1937: Teisininkai ir lietuvių kalba. – Teisė 39. Rygiškių Jonas 1925: Įvardai, arba terminai, priminti Terminologijos komisijos (recenzija). – Švietimo darbas 4. Salys A. 1937: Mūsų gentvardžiai. – Gimtoji kalba 1, 2, 3, 5. Salys A. 1979: Raštai 1, Roma. Sąmajauskas K. 1934: Lietuviškasis teismas. – Teisė 25. Skardžius P. 1958: Teisnus ir veiksnus. – Gimtoji kalba 1. Stravinskas P. 1937: Teisinės terminologijos reikalu. – Lietuvos aidas. Spalio 26. Stravinskas P. 1938: Lietuviškosios teisinės terminologijos klausimu. – Teisė 41. Stravinskas P. 1939: Teisinės terminijos projektas. – Teisė 48. Stravinskas P. 1954: Mūsų teisinė terminologija. – Teisininkų žinios 9. Stravinskas P. 1958: Kaip ruošėme Lietuvos civilinį kodeksą. – Teisininkų žinios 25–26. Šmulkštys L. 1958: Antanas Krischiukaitis. – Lietuvių enciklopedija 13, South Boston. 93 TKSĮ – Terminologijos Komisijos sudarymo įsakymas. – Vyriausybės žinios 60, 1921. TT1 – Teisės terminai. – Lietuva. 1922. Kovo 26. TT2 – Teisės terminai. – Teisė 1, 1922. TTP – Teisės terminai (projektas). – Lietuva. 1921. Gruodžio 23. TTR1 – Terminai teisės reikalams. – Švietimo darbas 7, 1922. TTR2 – Terminai teisės reikalams. – Įvardai, arba terminai, priimti Terminologijos komisijos. Sud. A. Vireliūnas. Kaunas, 1924. TTR3 – Terminai teisės reikalams. – Teisininkų kalendorius 1928 metams. Sud. Z. Toliūšis. TŽ – Teisinių terminų žodynas. Sud. A. Žiurlys. Vilnius, 1954. Zimanas G. 1933: Keletas pasiūlymų teisininkams jų terminologijos reikalu. – Gimtoji kalba 3. THE STATE OF THE TERMINOLOGY OF LAW IN LITHUANIA IN 1918–1940 Summary After the declaration of independence in 1918 Lithuanian language for the first time got into the fields of government of state and other fields of the public life. The need for the Lithuanian terminology of law arose and terms were created. This article gives an overview of various works (1918–1940) which dealt with the creation and standardisation of the terminology of law. Probably for the first time the manuscript of the dictionary of law (1920) is more widely introduced. Quite a lot of attention is given to activities of the standardisation of the terminology of law which was performed in an organised way – merits of the Terminological commission at the Ministry of Education (1921–1926) and Terminological commission of the State Council (1939–1940) are described. Various data about terminology of law from the press of that time is presented. This article also introduces with the typewriting copy of the list of terms of law which is kept in the Department of manuscripts of the Martynas Mažvydas National Library. Possible authors and sources of the first published dictionary of law („Teisinių terminų žodynas“ compiled by A. Žiurlys. Vilnius, 1954), which could have been concealed are mentioned. The aim of this article is to emphasize that the foundations of the Lithuanian terminology of law were laid in 1918–1940. Alvydas UMBRASAS Gauta 2001 10 01 Lietuvių kalbos institutas Antakalnio g. 6, 2055 Vilnius E. paštas [email protected] 94