Chapter Five Polyglossia and Linguistic Variations in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Quadripartite Theory Attempts to establish the principles of multilingual communication in ethnically complex and large speech communities is carried on at present by investigating large urban centers such as – I would just mention several – Los Angeles, São Paulo do Brazil and other big multiethnic communities (cf. Ivanov 1998). Today’s large cities have an indisputable advantage in that they allow field work on linguistic phenomena in progress. They constitute a peculiar linguistic laboratory which can be directly observed and which allows linguists to analyze the data in many different ways. Although not based on field work, but rather on written sources, one could nevertheless attempt reconstruction of a dynamic multilingual situa- tion in large speech communities of the past as well. Such an attempt could even include certain ethnically extremely complex groups which were characterized by a high degree of polyglossia. I think one of the best examples in the past is precisely the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and its main cosmopolitan cities, first of all the capital Vilnius, during the Renaissance. Luckily enough we have some contemporary information about that. A pretty accurate description of the linguistic situation in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the beginning of the 16th century was reported by the Polish historian Miechovita [1453/7–1523] (whose real name was Maciej z Miechova)1. Thus, even if it is true – as stressed by Giuliano Bonfante (1954:679) – that for linguists: Linguistic problems of the past, and the problems of kinship of languages in particular, have attracted very little attention. This case should be considered because Miechovita’s book repre- sents a rare case in which data on languages are combined with original linguistic ideas. In this chapter I have two aims: first, to investigate thoroughly Miechovita’s ideas on the languages which from 1845 until the present we usually call ‘Baltic’; second, to present and comment on Miechovita’s knowledge of and views on polyglossia and multilingual communication in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 5.1. Miechovita’s linguistic ideas about Baltic The first edition of Miechovita’s main book, entitled Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis was published in Cracow in 1517, but was reprinted several times 84 Prelude to Baltic Linguistics and translated into many languages. In this book Miechovita expressed his own linguistic theory about the Baltic languages in which he reflected well his preference for synchronic matters and for a diatopic linguistic descrip- tion, that is, a description linked to territory. Originally enough, Miechovita refers to the Baltic family as a Lin- guagium Lithuanicum quadripartitum. He claims literally that in Lithuania there is a predominant Linguagium Lithuanicum that he terms ‘quadripar- tite’. Thus, he wrote in Latin (Miechovita 1582:146): Praeterea linguagium Lithuanicum est quadripartitum, primum linguagium est Iaczuingorum, ut horum qui circa castrum Drohicin inhabitarunt, & pauci supersunt. Alterum est Lithuanorum & Sama- githarum: Tertium Prutenorum. Quartum in Lothua seu Lothihola, id est Livonia, circa fluuium Dzuina, & Riga ciuitatem. Et horum quan- quam eadem sit lingua, unus tamen non plene alterum intelligit, nisi cursiuus et qui uagatus est per illas terras. [Beyond that the Lithuanian language is quadripartite. The first language is that of the Jatvingians, i.e., of those, who settled near to the camp Drohicin, and few still survive. The second is that of the Lithuanians and Samogitians; the third is that of the Prussians. The fourth is in Latvia or Latgale, i.e. Livonia, near to river Daugava and the city of Riga. And although those people have the same language, nevertheless one does not completely understand the other if he is not used to wandering about in those lands]. Thus Miechovita recognized one ‘quadripartite’ language: The first is that of the Jatvingians, who were not numerous and lived near Drohicin, the second, that of the Lithuanians and of the Samogitians, the third, that of the Prussians and the fourth and last, that which is spoken in Livonia, near the Daugava (Dvina) river and the city of Riga. After this, Miechovita points out that no one is able to understand any of these languages if he or she has not lived for some time in these lands. In this passage from Miechovita one should consider at least three issues: a) Miechovita does not show any diachronic interest: he simply states that four peoples speak the linguagium Lithuanicum. b) Although there exist circumstantial differences it is the same ‘quadripartite’ language. c) Only after having explored and wandered about (cursivus et vagatus) the whole linguistic territory (per illas terras) where the lingua- gium Lithuanicum is spoken, only after that, is one able to understand that it is, although ‘quadripartite’ (quadripartitum), the same language. It is appropriate to notice that one has to distinguish clearly between linguagium Lithuanicum and linguagium Lithuanorum & Samagitharum, which is considered at another place in the book. It is possible to assume .