立陶宛 1918-1990 年的编纂学:图书史与古文字学之间的关系

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Rima Cicėnienė
{"title":"立陶宛 1918-1990 年的编纂学:图书史与古文字学之间的关系","authors":"Rima Cicėnienė","doi":"10.15388/knygotyra.2023.81.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses the development of the discipline of codicology in Lithuania in the period 1918-1990 thus continuing the research carried out from the early 19th century until 1918. The concept of codicology and its affiliation with the discipline of book studies allow us to identify the chronology of the research with the development of book studies, which entered the stage of independent science in the period under discussion. This was also the time when the discipline of codicology in Western Europe underwent a quantum leap - with the birth of the term codicology and the emphasis on its distinction from palaeography. The concept expanded to include the study of manuscripts in various aspects - from their physical structure to the reception of written culture. Did this influence the development of the discipline in Lithuania? Did it succeed in renewing the codicological research that had begun at the beginning of the 19th century? How did the science of codicology develop in the turbulent 20th century? Why did codicology failed to become the subject of a separate research and is hardly mentioned in Lithuanian science? The answer to these questions is sought through the bibliographies of Lithuanian book studies and history, publications of sources of the period, and the history of Lithuanian scientific institutions. The research enables us to talk about two distinct periods. Between 1918 and 1939, the subjects of bibliography and book history were formed and established in Lithuanian scholarship, while the history of the manuscript book was recorded as the earliest period of Lithuanian book history. The bibliographies, which were started on a national basis, recorded single copies of codices in a variety of languages and included some external features, but the manuscripts did not receive a closer look. V. Biržiška formulated the concept of the history of the manuscript book with a distinction between the Cyrillic and Latin codices. His insights about the poor quality of manuscript books in the GDL were later developed to some extent but remained mainly unchanged until the 1990s, and apparently influenced the subsequent development of research. The first phase can therefore be called the bibliographical period. The second phase covers the period 1945-1990. The end of the Second World War saw the reactivation of academic institutions, the training of a new generation of historians and librarians, the accumulation of manuscript books, and the appearance of individual works on the history of the book. However, we can only speak of codicological research and attention to the manuscript book as a research object since the 1980s. Historians and philologists (S. Lazutka, E. Gudavičius, V. Raudeliūnas, V. Mažiulis, V. Drotvinas), following the work of the scholars of the Vilnius Imperial University in the early 19th century, began to publish sources of writing. The comprehensive study of the First Statute of Lithuania by S. Lazutka and E. Gudavičius, published in 1983, clearly demonstrated the difference between codicology and palaeography. The detailed codicological description, still called palaeography, was used as an auxiliary research method to argue the origin and originality of the text, the history of its functioning and the dating process. Thus, between 1945 and 1990, codicology completely fulfilled its role as an auxiliary science of history. While book studies became an independent discipline in the period under discussion, codicology did not become as a discipline complete in itself. It remained a discipline between book history and palaeography, looking for a place in the structure of Lithuanian science. Although the term codicology was already in use in the scientific world and the concept of the term had expanded considerably, it did not function in Lithuanian science. However, it is significant to note that the studies in which codicology was used as an auxiliary science at the same time developed the topics of book science, raised new questions, and drew attention to new phenomena and cultural connections.","PeriodicalId":37220,"journal":{"name":"Knygotyra","volume":"16 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kodikologija Lietuvoje 1918–1990 metais: tarp knygos istorijos ir paleografijos\",\"authors\":\"Rima Cicėnienė\",\"doi\":\"10.15388/knygotyra.2023.81.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article discusses the development of the discipline of codicology in Lithuania in the period 1918-1990 thus continuing the research carried out from the early 19th century until 1918. The concept of codicology and its affiliation with the discipline of book studies allow us to identify the chronology of the research with the development of book studies, which entered the stage of independent science in the period under discussion. This was also the time when the discipline of codicology in Western Europe underwent a quantum leap - with the birth of the term codicology and the emphasis on its distinction from palaeography. The concept expanded to include the study of manuscripts in various aspects - from their physical structure to the reception of written culture. Did this influence the development of the discipline in Lithuania? Did it succeed in renewing the codicological research that had begun at the beginning of the 19th century? How did the science of codicology develop in the turbulent 20th century? Why did codicology failed to become the subject of a separate research and is hardly mentioned in Lithuanian science? The answer to these questions is sought through the bibliographies of Lithuanian book studies and history, publications of sources of the period, and the history of Lithuanian scientific institutions. The research enables us to talk about two distinct periods. Between 1918 and 1939, the subjects of bibliography and book history were formed and established in Lithuanian scholarship, while the history of the manuscript book was recorded as the earliest period of Lithuanian book history. The bibliographies, which were started on a national basis, recorded single copies of codices in a variety of languages and included some external features, but the manuscripts did not receive a closer look. V. Biržiška formulated the concept of the history of the manuscript book with a distinction between the Cyrillic and Latin codices. His insights about the poor quality of manuscript books in the GDL were later developed to some extent but remained mainly unchanged until the 1990s, and apparently influenced the subsequent development of research. The first phase can therefore be called the bibliographical period. The second phase covers the period 1945-1990. The end of the Second World War saw the reactivation of academic institutions, the training of a new generation of historians and librarians, the accumulation of manuscript books, and the appearance of individual works on the history of the book. However, we can only speak of codicological research and attention to the manuscript book as a research object since the 1980s. Historians and philologists (S. Lazutka, E. Gudavičius, V. Raudeliūnas, V. Mažiulis, V. Drotvinas), following the work of the scholars of the Vilnius Imperial University in the early 19th century, began to publish sources of writing. The comprehensive study of the First Statute of Lithuania by S. Lazutka and E. Gudavičius, published in 1983, clearly demonstrated the difference between codicology and palaeography. The detailed codicological description, still called palaeography, was used as an auxiliary research method to argue the origin and originality of the text, the history of its functioning and the dating process. Thus, between 1945 and 1990, codicology completely fulfilled its role as an auxiliary science of history. While book studies became an independent discipline in the period under discussion, codicology did not become as a discipline complete in itself. It remained a discipline between book history and palaeography, looking for a place in the structure of Lithuanian science. Although the term codicology was already in use in the scientific world and the concept of the term had expanded considerably, it did not function in Lithuanian science. However, it is significant to note that the studies in which codicology was used as an auxiliary science at the same time developed the topics of book science, raised new questions, and drew attention to new phenomena and cultural connections.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37220,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knygotyra\",\"volume\":\"16 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knygotyra\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15388/knygotyra.2023.81.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knygotyra","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/knygotyra.2023.81.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文章讨论了 1918-1990 年间立陶宛编纂学学科的发展,从而延续了 19 世纪初至 1918 年间所开展的研究。编纂学的概念及其与书籍研究学科的联系使我们能够将研究的时间顺序与书籍研究的发展相联系,书籍研究在本文所讨论的时期进入了独立科学的阶段。这也是西欧编纂学学科发生质的飞跃的时期--随着编纂学一词的诞生并强调其与古文字学的区别。这一概念扩展到包括手稿研究的各个方面--从其物理结构到书面文化的接受。这是否影响了立陶宛的学科发展?它是否成功地重振了始于 19 世纪初的编纂学研究?编纂学科学在动荡的 20 世纪是如何发展的?为什么编纂学未能成为独立的研究课题,在立陶宛科学界几乎无人提及?我们通过立陶宛图书研究和历史书目、当时的资料出版物以及立陶宛科学机构的历史来寻找这些问题的答案。通过研究,我们可以了解到两个截然不同的时期。1918 年至 1939 年间,立陶宛学术界形成并确立了书目和图书史学科,而手稿图书史则被记录为立陶宛图书史的最早时期。以国家为基础开始的书目记录了各种语言的抄本单行本,并包括一些外部特征,但手稿并未得到仔细研究。V. Biržiška 提出了手抄本历史的概念,并对西里尔抄本和拉丁抄本进行了区分。他对 GDL 手稿书籍质量不佳的见解后来在一定程度上得到了发展,但直到 20 世纪 90 年代仍主要保持不变,并明显影响了随后的研究发展。因此,第一阶段可称为书目学时期。第二阶段为 1945-1990 年。第二次世界大战结束后,学术机构重新活跃起来,新一代历史学家和图书馆员得到培养,手稿书籍不断积累,图书史方面的个别著作也开始出现。然而,我们只能说自 20 世纪 80 年代以来的编纂学研究和对手稿书籍作为研究对象的关注。历史学家和语言学家(S. Lazutka、E. Gudavičius、V. Raudeliūnas、V. Mažiulis、V. Drotvinas)在 19 世纪初维尔纽斯帝国大学学者的工作之后,开始出版文字资料。S. Lazutka 和 E. Gudavičius 于 1983 年出版的《立陶宛第一法规》综合研究清楚地表明了编纂学和古文字学之间的区别。详细的编纂学描述(仍称为古文字学)被用作一种辅助研究方法,以论证文本的起源和原始性、其运作历史和年代测定过程。因此,从 1945 年到 1990 年,编纂学完全发挥了其作为历史学辅助科学的作用。虽然图书研究在这一时期成为一门独立的学科,但编纂学本身并没有成为一门完整的学科。它仍然是一门介于书籍史和古文字学之间的学科,正在立陶宛科学结构中寻找一席之地。尽管编纂学这一术语已在科学界使用,其概念也已大大扩展,但它并未在立陶宛科学中发挥作用。然而,值得注意的是,将编纂学用作辅助科学的研究同时发展了图书科学的主题,提出了新的问题,并引起了对新现象和文化联系的关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Kodikologija Lietuvoje 1918–1990 metais: tarp knygos istorijos ir paleografijos
The article discusses the development of the discipline of codicology in Lithuania in the period 1918-1990 thus continuing the research carried out from the early 19th century until 1918. The concept of codicology and its affiliation with the discipline of book studies allow us to identify the chronology of the research with the development of book studies, which entered the stage of independent science in the period under discussion. This was also the time when the discipline of codicology in Western Europe underwent a quantum leap - with the birth of the term codicology and the emphasis on its distinction from palaeography. The concept expanded to include the study of manuscripts in various aspects - from their physical structure to the reception of written culture. Did this influence the development of the discipline in Lithuania? Did it succeed in renewing the codicological research that had begun at the beginning of the 19th century? How did the science of codicology develop in the turbulent 20th century? Why did codicology failed to become the subject of a separate research and is hardly mentioned in Lithuanian science? The answer to these questions is sought through the bibliographies of Lithuanian book studies and history, publications of sources of the period, and the history of Lithuanian scientific institutions. The research enables us to talk about two distinct periods. Between 1918 and 1939, the subjects of bibliography and book history were formed and established in Lithuanian scholarship, while the history of the manuscript book was recorded as the earliest period of Lithuanian book history. The bibliographies, which were started on a national basis, recorded single copies of codices in a variety of languages and included some external features, but the manuscripts did not receive a closer look. V. Biržiška formulated the concept of the history of the manuscript book with a distinction between the Cyrillic and Latin codices. His insights about the poor quality of manuscript books in the GDL were later developed to some extent but remained mainly unchanged until the 1990s, and apparently influenced the subsequent development of research. The first phase can therefore be called the bibliographical period. The second phase covers the period 1945-1990. The end of the Second World War saw the reactivation of academic institutions, the training of a new generation of historians and librarians, the accumulation of manuscript books, and the appearance of individual works on the history of the book. However, we can only speak of codicological research and attention to the manuscript book as a research object since the 1980s. Historians and philologists (S. Lazutka, E. Gudavičius, V. Raudeliūnas, V. Mažiulis, V. Drotvinas), following the work of the scholars of the Vilnius Imperial University in the early 19th century, began to publish sources of writing. The comprehensive study of the First Statute of Lithuania by S. Lazutka and E. Gudavičius, published in 1983, clearly demonstrated the difference between codicology and palaeography. The detailed codicological description, still called palaeography, was used as an auxiliary research method to argue the origin and originality of the text, the history of its functioning and the dating process. Thus, between 1945 and 1990, codicology completely fulfilled its role as an auxiliary science of history. While book studies became an independent discipline in the period under discussion, codicology did not become as a discipline complete in itself. It remained a discipline between book history and palaeography, looking for a place in the structure of Lithuanian science. Although the term codicology was already in use in the scientific world and the concept of the term had expanded considerably, it did not function in Lithuanian science. However, it is significant to note that the studies in which codicology was used as an auxiliary science at the same time developed the topics of book science, raised new questions, and drew attention to new phenomena and cultural connections.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Knygotyra
Knygotyra Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信