1695 m. Kražių rankraščio chronogramos ir chronostichai

Direct Link:
Collection:
Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Straipsnis / Article
Language:
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Title:
1695 m. Kražių rankraščio chronogramos ir chronostichai
Alternative Title:
Chronograms and chronostichs of the 1695 Kražiai manuscript
In the Journal:
Senoji Lietuvos literatūra. 2015, 39, p. 53-80. XVI-XIX a. lietuviško ir kitakalbio rankraštinio paveldo tyrimai
Keywords:
LT
Kražiai; Lietuva (Lithuania); Barokas / Baroque; Jėzuitai / Jesuits; Kolegijos / Colleges; Literatūros istorija / Literary history; Poezija / Poetry; Rankraščiai / Manuscripts; Retorika / Rhetoric.
Summary / Abstract:

LTReikšminiai žodžiai: 1695 m. Kražių jėzuitų kolegijos retorikos pratybų rankraštis; Artificiozinė poezija; Barokas; Chronograma; Chronostichas; Eilėdara; Kražių kolegija; Literatūra, lotynų k.; Rankraštinė knyga; Retorika; Artificial poetry; Baroque; Chronogram; Chronostich; Kražiai College; Lithuanian literature, Latin; Manuscript book; Rhetoric; Rhetoric practicals manuscript of Kražiai Jesuit College of 1695; Versification.

ENThirty chronograms and chronostichs were found in the 1695 Kražiai manuscript. In the paper, the original variants with the indication of their nature (chronostich or chronogram) and metre, with the calculation of their dates, and with their translations into Lithuanian are presented in sequential order. The method of chronogram composition and counting applied by the authors of the 1695 Kražiai manuscript has not been seen or used anywhere else. Therefore it is not clear whether it was a ‘one-off’ licentia poetica approved by the teacher in order to facilitate composition of chronograms for the students, or a search for new creative paths. Composition of six ‘regular’ chronograms, one of which is the so-called Cabbalah chronostich, raises no doubt as to the students’ talent and knowledge of mandatory rules. Hardly had such an ‘innovation’ a chance of spreading wider, for it would have been misunderstood and even treated as erroneous. We, too, were unable to explain, for quite a long time, why the counting resulted in the incomprehensible sum of ‘1715’. In this case we were much assisted by our awareness that the authors could only have the number ‘1695’ in their minds and not any other. Without such a key, a riddle like this might remain unsolved next time.

ISSN:
1822-3656
Related Publications:
Permalink:
https://www.lituanistika.lt/content/66324
Updated:
2022-01-17 14:05:10
Metrics:
Views: 24    Downloads: 8
Export: