Dvylikos Olimpo dievų vaizdavimas Enijaus Analuose

Annales of Ennius, partly aimed at survey of Roman history year by year, partly at memorizing Roman heroes and equating them to gods, though had a few antecedant models in Hellenistic epic, remains unrivalled in respect of vastitude and bravery of the innovatory devise. The poem, praising deeds of Roman god-like ancestors, kings, consuls and tribunes, had certain political aspirations tending to melt the scepticism towards Greek culture and its reception among conservative members of aristocracy of Ennius’ time. On the other hand, being performed in traditional Roman convivial setting, Annales were in accord with Roman piety and reverent attitude towards gods, whence poet’s aim at his own otherness and impartiality might be discerned. Annales of Ennius not only reminds its readers of Roman strategy of gaining over Carthaginian or Greek deities during Roman expansion outside Appenines, but also claims their common identity with Roman gods, whence the idea of Greek and Roman cultural affinity and common genealogy comes. This idea most probably originates from the deep consideration of homeric and hellenistic epic and their exegetical traditions combined with other philosophical views (even contrasting ones) attainable in III B. C. Italy. However, the state of extant text of Annales, consisting of over 600 fragmentary verses (plus around 100 more or less identified testimonia together with recently deciphered fragments from Herculanean papyrus), doesn’t provide us with certain argument what attitude in Ennius’ notion prevailed, unless we investigate one by one all the mentions of gods in this poem. The complex task is treated in this article in a selective manner: the main attention is paid only to the limited part of over 40 deities present in Annales, namely, to the Greco-Roman dodekatheon or di consentes, most clearly attested in Ann. 240–241 Sk. The method of investigation rests on the description of each deity separately, both trying to establish the most characteristical features of each in Ennian depiction and compare with the evidence of his / her contemporary cult and degree of syncretization. In the course of analysis, a somewhat parallel attempt is also made to verify Cicero’s message concerning Ennius’ belief in gods in general (Div. 1, 58). The analysis shows quite divergent result resting upon incomplete status of our sources: some gods are depicted as participants of human actions, some remain mere vague representatives of natural phenomena. The bulk of conclusions deals with national dependance, hierarchy and stylistic variation of Ennius’ dodekatheon. Material of this paper clearly indicates the national priority in Annales: the most honoured both statistically and virtually are the four ancestral Roman gods (di genitales) – Juppiter, Juno, Venus and Mars. Each of them also appears in certain non-Roman context (Trojan, Greek, Carthaginian or Sabinian), where their Roman priority is not emphasized, unless their Latin name is taken into account. The latter fact combined with Ennian technics of Homer’s imitation and hellenistic erudition enables him to rewrite ancient history from the Roman point. This actually happens on the theological level when Roman state gods become continuators of variously reinterpreted homeric greco-trojan gods. Annals of Ennius thus attest the absorbtion of Greek Olympic pantheon into Roman state pantheon. Depiction of gods in the poem also has certain “expurgatory” mark, since very few traces of obscenity in gods’ portrayal are present (with exception of Mars, called homo pulcer with possibly euhemeric hint). On the other hand, the sublimity of Ennian gods is moderate: there are several indications of their humanly sensitive and not indifferent stance in their contacts with people (esp. Juno, Juppiter and Venus). A considerable group of Olympian gods in the current fragmentary shape of Annals remains not clearly presented: some produce no material for deeper analysis (e. g. Diana and Ceres), some appear only in the metonymic use (Neptune, Volcanus), others could be characterized on the ground of mere indirect reference to their ritual elements, mythological or allegorical identity (Vesta, Minerva, Mercurius). Permanent attention to universal aspects, esp. to the mysthic and prophetic ones (Minerva, Apollo, Muses), and avoidance of “undignified” features show perhaps definite poet’s attitude and support modern view of Ennius’ both honorable and impartial position towards Roman “political Olympus”

Isokratas apie εὖ φρονοῦντες: kai kurie semantiniai ir stilistiniai šio koncepto aspektai

This article, based on the paper read at Colloquium Balticum XI Lundense (Lund, November 8–10, 2012), focuses on the discussion of the function of the phrase eu phronein, and especially its participial variant eu phronountes, as one of the key expressions denoting the praiseworthy and commendable persons, distinguished by their wisdom and mental health, in the texts of Isocrates. The paper aims to delineate the semantic aspects of this phrase while briefly discussing its location, etymology, closest equivalents, context and content (the system of features and functions). The discussion is based on the preliminary analysis of about 50 episodes of the epideictic discourses of Isocrates, where the mentioned phrase itself or synonymous and antonymous expressions appear. The article summarizes the main points of the results of that (early) stage of our research (including the discovery of similarity between or even almost equivalent meaning of certain concepts and phrases, e.g. eu phronein and noun ekhein, as well as their opposites) and provides a concise systematic picture of both the contents of the phrase itself and the methods of its textual application. Conclusions that are made at the end of the article help to see more clearly the interrelation among various concepts of mental activities in Isocratean oeuvre and to discover the subtlety of the Isocratean style. This paper shows that the concept of eu phronountes (as well as its semantic substitute noun ekhontes) is very similar in its meaning to the concepts of sophoi, phronimoi, pepaideumenoi. Having its origin in early epic and frequent use in dramatic poetry, the concept may be regarded as a key phrase distinguishing Isocratean style and his selection of topics from his contemporary prosaic writers who have used it considerably less frequently than Isocrates. The contextual analysis and synthetic picture of various ethical features, wise decisions or advices, attributed to eu phronountes, reveal their doublesided identity: on the one hand, eu phronountes are very flexible and apparently free in their thoughts, speech and actions, ready for challenges of life and ready to help others, on the other hand, they are dependent on certain definite tasks and rules of behavior and judgement (ascribed to them). These features make them seem to be a kind of a new literary hero, created by the speech-writer not only for the rhetorical purpose (as a well-known stylistic device facilitating the argumentation and attested in Aristotleʼs Rhetoric), but also for the promotion of his own ideas and allusive advisory messages addressed to his contemporary audience. When seen as a reflection of the worldview of the author (or the main literary speaker of Isocratean discourses), the concept could be estimated as an important standpoint for the later Aristotelian concept of phronesis, and hence, for the modern „phronetic dimension“ of the variety of approaches to the phenomena of nowadays life.Straipsnis nagrinėja vieną reikšmingą ir nelengvai į kitas kalbas išverčiamą graikišką frazę, aptinkamą Isokrato kalbose – εὖ φρονοῦντες, susijusią su mąstymo, svarstymo, supratimo, vertinimo veiklų ir šias veiklas atliekančių subjektų reikšmėmis. Straipsnyje frazė aptariama vartojimo dažnumo, santykio su kontekstu, jos sudėtinių komponentų etimologijos, semantinio giminiškumo su kitomis frazėmis ir žodžiais aspektais, ieškoma frazės kaip retorinės priemonės reikšmės ir bandoma skirtingų frazės vartojimo kontekstų medžiagą sujungti į vientisą paveikslą, galintį aiškiau nusakyti pačios frazės turinį. Šiame darbe taip pat pirmą kartą publikuojami Isokrato kalbų ištraukų vertimai į lietuvių kalbą

Graikiško Odarion’o (1604) šv. Kazimiero garbei autorystės problema | The problem of the authorship of the Greek Odarion to Saint Casimirus (1604)

The present article focuses on the question of the authorship of the Greek Odarion to St. Casimirus, one of the most outstanding pieces of Greek poetry in Early Modern Lithuania, recently famed for its dual versification. This amusing piece of work, located in the collection of the panegyrical texts to the same saint, carrying the title THEATRVM S. CASIMIRI, IN QVO IPSIVS PROSAPIA, VITA, MIRACVLA, & illustris pompa in solemni eiusdem apotheoseos instauratione, Vilnae Lithuaniae Metropoli V. Id. Maij, Anno D[omi]ni M. DC. IV. instituta graphice proponuntur. […] Editum ibidem [sc. Vilnae], eodem anno [sc. 1604], operis Typographicis Academiae SOCIETATIS IESV, was performed orally during the solemnities that took place 10–12 May in 1604 in Vilnius due to the recent canonization of this saint. The true author of this collection is actually unknown and the same is applicable to the Odarion. Gregorius Swięcicki, the member of Vilnius chapter, whose name appears in several parts of the convolute (especially, under the short introductory letter Author Lectori), is generally being taken as an author’s name for the whole printed collection (including Odarion). This position was recently questioned due to the detection of one more important part of the convolute, the so-called Pompa Casimiriana written by certain Quirinus Cnoglerus Austrius. The main idea of this article is to reveal the complicated cultural, educational and confessional surroundings of such a litterary composition as Odarion and give several suggestions concerning the personalities who might be called its authors. First of them is Austrian “philhelenic” humanist and probably convertite Quirinus Cnogler, the author of the panegyrical oration (sermo panegyricus) Pompa Casimiriana (s. l., s. a. [=Vilnae 1604?]) and a number of occasional, publicistical, polemical writings of different scope. Another “candidate” is Swedish poet Laurentius Boierus (1561–1619), the author of Carolomachia (Vilnae, 1606) and meanwhile unknown, not-extant poem Pompa Casimiriana (Brunsbergae, 1604), mentioned by various Jesuit bibliographies. Finally, the third of the „candidates“ is Ioannes Kraykowski of Polish/Lithuanian origin, the student of rhetoric at Vilnius Jesuit college, the author of various occasional Latin and Greek verses and one larger poem, Epos de S. Casimiro (Vilnae, 1604), composed for the mentioned solemnities of S. Casimirus and dedicated to his patron Fabian Plemięcki. The article doesn’t solve the problem of the authorship of Odarion completely and leaves the question open. Nevertheless, a certain strand of tentative conclusions is to be drawn. First of all, the authorship of Gregorius Swięcicki is to be reduced, reserving him only the name of the organizer or co-author of the whole collection (Theatrum S. Casimiri). The role of all the professors and students (especially the members of pious congregations and rhetorical/poetical ‘academies’) of Vilnius Jesuit academy is to be stated more firmly, too. Certain lexical and methodological affinities between Odarion and a couple of Greek compositions of Ioannes Kraykowski (including his Greek Odarion, written in dactylic tetrameters) enable us to state the hypothesis that he was its actual author. Nevertheless, the outstanding “philhelenism” of Quirinus Cnoglerus and the intricate manner of the self-camouflage (writing suppresso nomine) of Laurentius Boierus still remain as a serious claim for the name of the author of Odarion

Dvylikos Olimpo dievų vaizdavimas Enijaus Analuose. Depiction of twelve Olympian gods in Ennius’ Annales

Annales of Ennius, partly aimed at survey of Roman history year by year, partly at memorizing Roman heroes and equating them to gods, though had a few antecedant models in Hellenistic epic, remains unrivalled in respect of vastitude and bravery of the innovatory devise. The poem, praising deeds of Roman god-like ancestors, kings, consuls and tribunes, had certain political aspirations tending to melt the scepticism towards Greek culture and its reception among conservative members of aristocracy of Ennius’ time. On the other hand, being performed in traditional Roman convivial setting, Annales were in accord with Roman piety and reverent attitude towards gods, whence poet’s aim at his own otherness and impartiality might be discerned.Annales of Ennius not only reminds its readers of Roman strategy of gaining over Carthaginian or Greek deities during Roman expansion outside Appenines, but also claims their common identity with Roman gods, whence the idea of Greek and Roman cultural affinity and common genealogy comes. This idea most probably originates from the deep consideration of homeric and hellenistic epic and their exegetical traditions combined with other philosophical views (even contrasting ones) attainable in III B. C. Italy. However, the state of extant text of Annales, consisting of over 600 fragmentary verses (plus around 100 more or less identified testimonia together with recently deciphered fragments from Herculanean papyrus), doesn’t provide us with certain argument what attitude in Ennius’ notion prevailed, unless we investigate one by one all the mentions of gods in this poem. The complex task is treated in this article in a selective manner: the main attention is paid only to the limited part of over 40 deities present in Annales, namely, to the Greco-Roman dodekatheon or di consentes, most clearly attested in Ann. 240–241 Sk. The method of investigation rests on the description of each deity separately, both trying to establish the most characteristical features of each in Ennian depiction and compare with the evidence of his / her contemporary cult and degree of syncretization.In the course of analysis, a somewhat parallel attempt is also made to verify Cicero’s message concerning Ennius’ belief in gods in general (Div. 1, 58). The analysis shows quite divergent result resting upon incomplete status of our sources: some gods are depicted as participants of human actions, some remain mere vague representatives of natural phenomena.The bulk of conclusions deals with national dependance, hierarchy and stylistic variation of Ennius’ dodekatheon. Material of this paper clearly indicates the national priority in Annales: the most honoured both statistically and virtually are the four ancestral Roman gods (di genitales) – Juppiter, Juno, Venus and Mars. Each of them also appears in certain non-Roman context (Trojan, Greek, Carthaginian or Sabinian), where their Roman priority is not emphasized, unless their Latin name is taken into account. The latter fact combined with Ennian technics of Homer’s imitation and hellenistic erudition enables him to rewrite ancient history from the Roman point. This actually happens on the theological level when Roman state gods become continuators of variously reinterpreted homeric greco-trojan gods. Annals of Ennius thus attest the absorbtion of Greek Olympic pantheon into Roman state pantheon. Depiction of gods in the poem also has certain “expurgatory” mark, since very few traces of obscenity in gods’ portrayal are present (with exception of Mars, called homo pulcer with possibly euhemeric hint). On the other hand, the sublimity of Ennian gods is moderate: there are several indications of their humanly sensitive and not indifferent stance in their contacts with people (esp. Juno, Juppiter and Venus).A considerable group of Olympian gods in the current fragmentary shape of Annals remains not clearly presented: some produce no material for deeper analysis (e. g. Diana and Ceres), some appear only in the metonymic use (Neptune, Volcanus), others could be characterized on the ground of mere indirect reference to their ritual elements, mythological or allegorical identity (Vesta, Minerva, Mercurius). Permanent attention to universal aspects, esp. to the mysthic and prophetic ones (Minerva, Apollo, Muses), and avoidance of “undignified” features show perhaps definite poet’s attitude and support modern view of Ennius’ both honorable and impartial position towards Roman “political Olympus”

Savęs pateikimo (savivaizdos) aspektai Isokrato kalbose

This article, based on the paper presented at the ISHR 2013 Conference (July 24–27, 2013, Chicago), reconsiders the rhetorical image of Isocrates, preserved in his literary works and especially in three of the most prominent speeches, Panegyricus, Antidosis, and Panathenaicus, discusses certain controversies and difficulties of determining his public character and his attitude towards the audience and, basing on both empirically gathered data (references found in Isocrates’ writings) and on the theoretical basement provided by the consideration of the classical rhetoric tradition and the modern communication science approach, reviews the main aspects of the speaker’s self-presentational tactics as seen in his self-reflexive statements (found in the mentioned speeches), the examination of which could lead to a better comprehension of the otherwise obscure picture of this influential Athenian rhetorician.Straipsnyje, kuris parengtas pagal pranešimą, skaity­tą Tarptautinės retorikos istorijos asociacijos (ISHR) konferencijoje (Čikaga, 2013, liepos 24–27), patei­kiama naujų idėjų apie žymaus Atikos oratoriaus Isokrato (436–338 m. pr. Kr.) savivaizdos (savęs pateikimo) aspektus, išryškėjančius atidžiau skai­tant jo kalbas. Straipsnyje dėl medžiagos gausumo apsiribota trimis šio IV a. pr. Kr. retorikos mokytojo kūriniais, dažnai laikomais vienais iš geriausių ir re­prezentatyviausių – Panegiriku, Antidoze (Apie ap­sikeitimą), Panatenaiku. Isokrato literatūrinis por­tretas, perteiktas jo vėlyvose biografijose interpre­tuojant jo paties kūrinius, teikia įvadinių duomenų apie oratoriaus savirefleksiją, bet, neturint tikslesnių liudijimų apie tikrovėje gyvenusio asmens savybes, jis tegali būti tam tikro sąmoningai kurto savęs įvaiz­džio atspindžiu. Nepaisant šio pamatinio neaišku­mo, straipsnyje vis dėlto bandoma išskirti ir aptarti Isokrato retorinės personos (sąlygiškai tapatinamos su autoriumi, siekiant dėstymo glaustumo ir kartu apsidraudžiant nuo radikalaus tapatybių atskyrimo) savęs pateikimo aspektus, derinant Antikos retorikos teorijos ir šiuolaikinių komunikacijos mokslų su­formuluotas kalbėtojo, kalbos objekto ir auditorijos santykio koncepcijas, daugiausia dėmesio skiriant kalbėtojo savęs ir auditorijos suvokimo bei atitinka­mos strategijos pasirinkimo klausimams. Straipsnyje pateikiami samprotavimai apie Isokrato įvaizdžio dvilypumą: keliose jo tekstų vietose tiesiogiai mi­nimi psichofiziologiniai kalbėtojo trūkumai (silpnas balsas, nedrąsa viešai kalbėti), implikuojantys atitin­kamai neryžtingą ir nevertą pagyrimo poziciją Atėnų politinės sistemos kontekste, sudaro reikšmingą kon­trastą kitur demonstruojamam kalbėtojo ryžtui imtis didingų (panatėniškų, panhelėniškų) temų ir gana aiškiai skelbiamam savo pranašumui prieš kitus ora­torius ir mokytojus, kartais beveik atviram kvietimui jį pagerbti. Šis dvilypumas ir pastebėti kiti oratoriaus įvaizdžio pokyčiai, įvykstantys priklausomai nuo kalbos temos ir progos unikalumo ir paties kalbos kūrėjo amžiaus, verčia subtiliau ir atsargiau vertinti visą Isokrato literatūrinį palikimą, įžvelgiant auto­riaus gebėjimą skirtingai save impersonuoti. Dvily­pumas matomas ir oratoriaus ir auditorijos santykio perspektyvoje. Sau palankios klausytojų grupės iš­skyrimas rodo ne tik oratorių veikiančią psichologinę įtampą, stojant prieš minią (tai aktualu Isokrato kaip nedrąsaus kalbėtojo įvaizdžio šalininkams), bet ir są­moningą savo neeilinės tapatybės įtvirtinimą, užsiti­krinant dalies auditorijos (ar skaitytojų) palankumą (captatio benevolentiae manevras). Savęs pateikimo aspektų analizė straipsnyje pateikiama glaustai. Ji remiama medžiaga, gauta atlikus preliminarų em­pirinį trijų nagrinėjamų tekstų tyrimą – perskaičius ir išrinkus kalbėtojo / rašytojo tiesioginius ir netie­sioginius pasisakymus apie save ir atlikus tam tikrą šios medžiagos grupavimą. Klasifikavimo principas (kuris taip pat aptartas straipsnyje) susijęs su paste­bėjimu dėl retorinės medžiagos žanrinio skirstymo antikinės retorikos mokslo tradicijoje ir su įžvalga, kad tie teorinių nuostatų ir praktinių priemonių as­pektai, kurie taikomi kalbėtojo dėmesį kreipiant į klausytojus, gali būti analogiškai taikomi ir pačiam kalbėtojui. Taigi straipsnyje išskiriami 7 kalbėtojo savęs pateikimo aspektai, apytikriai atitinkantys 7 retorinių kalbų (kaip skirtingas progas atitinkančių strategijų) „pavidalus“ (εἴδη). Jų glaustas aptarimas ekstensyviau yra pateikiamas straipsnio priede, kur, be kita ko, taip pat pateikiama ištraukų iš Isokrato kalbų, iliustruojančių kiekvieną savęs pateikimo taktikos aspektą. Aptariant savęs gynimo aspektą, straipsnyje pamėginta jį sugretinti taip pat su viena iš šiuolaikinių žodinės savigynos strategijų teorijų ir pritaikyti amerikiečių mokslininkų B. L. Ware’o ir W. A. Linkugel’o schemą

Kilmingųjų jaunuolių Andriaus ir Aleksandro Chodkevičių eilėdarinės Meλetai – Europos krikščioniškos mokyklinės poezijos pavyzdys

Straipsnyje, kuris parengtas pagal pranešimą, skaitytą 2008 m. lapkričio 12–15 d. Vilniaus universitete vykusioje konferencijoje Colloquium Balticum VIII Vilnense, pristatomas Lietuvoje mažai žinomas lei­dinys, parengtas vokiečių poeto ir filologo Johano Milijaus, išleistas 1568 m. Leipcige su sudėtine antrašte: Iohannis Mylii Libenrodensis, Poetae lau­reati, Cato Graecolatinus. Praecipua Christianae pietatis Capita. Mel#tai D. Andreae & D. Alexandri Chodcieuitiorum, illustrium magni Lithuaniae Duca­tus Equitum. Omnia in gratiam studiosae iuuentutis publicata. Cum Gratia & Priuilegio Caesareo. M. D. LXVIII. Gilinamasi į nedidelę leidinio dalį, apimančią LDK didiko, Trakų ir Vilniaus pilininko, Lietuvos ir Lenkijos didžiojo etmono Grigo Chodkevičiaus sūnų Andriaus ir Aleksandro, kuriuos tėvo dvare mokė ir į mokslus lydėjo tas pats J. Milijus, lotyniškus eilėraš­čius, aptariama jų tematika, santykis su kitais leidinio tekstais, stilistinės ypatybės, pateikiama pastebėjimų dėl imitacijos ir originalumo. Aptariamieji jaunųjų Chodkevičių tekstai iliustruoja lotynų kalbos, tikėjimo pagrindų ir krikščioniškos etikos įsisavinimo litera­tūrinėmis priemonėmis mechanizmą, būdingą XVI a. Europos švietimui. Kalbos mokymasis neatsiejamas nuo tikybos ir kasdieninio elgesio taisyklių; šios temos vyrauja Chodkevičių eilėse. Vis dėlto vienas kitas kūrinėlis nutolsta nuo religijos ir liturgijos, paliečia universalius gyvenimo dėsnius, minėtus Antikos iš­minčių, filosofų ir poetų. Straipsnyje pateikiama viena kita įžvalga dėl lietuviškos tematikos. Antai Andriaus Chodkevičiaus eilėraštyje Anacharsis Hannoni, su­kurtame kaip Cicerono Tuskulo disputųepizodo (Cic. Tusc. 5, 32, 90) parafrazė, galima regėti tuometinių lietuvių ir totorių papročių analizės, reikštos XVI a. publicistiniuose Mykolo Lietuvio, Augustino Rotundo ir kt. veikaluose, atgarsių. Straipsnyje atkreipiamas dėmesys į Erazmo Roterdamiečio redaguotų tekstų ir jo paties kurtų krikščioniškų parafrazių įtaką naujoms mokyklinėms parafrazėms. Didelę atspirtį ir paskatinimą poetiniam žaidimui teikė ir įvairūs sentencijų, ištarmių, bendrųjų motyvų iš antikinės ir krikščioniškos literatūros rinkiniai. Šiame straipsnyje ypač pabrėžiamas kai kurių eilėraščių pavadinimų panašumas į Georgo Majoro rinkinio SENTENTIAE VETERVM POETARVM, PER LOCOS COMMVNES DIGESTAE. Auctae et recognitae per GEORGIVM MAIOREM (Magdeburgi, 1537) „bendrųjų vietų“ pavadinimus, todėl keliama hipotezė, kad būtent šiuo rinkiniu naudojosi jaunieji Chodkevičiai. Kita vertus, Johano Milijaus redaguoti ir į graikų kalbą versti Ps.–Katono dvieiliai (labai populiarus visos Europos viduramžių ir ankstyvųjų naujųjų laikų skaitinys, pra­dedantiesiems lotynų kalbos studentams) taip pat pali­ko reikšmingą pėdsaką šių lietuvių didikų poetiniuose bandymuose. Trumpa nagrinėjamų kūrinėlių tema­tikos ir stilistikos apžvalga (pratęsta prie straipsnio pridedamuose prieduose) rodo abiejų autorių pažangą lotyniškos literatūros studijose (patikimai įvaldytos pagrindinės antikinės eilėdaros – hegzametras, pen­tametras, neskurdus žodynas, stilistinių priemonių bei apsiskaitymą liudijanti imituojamų šaltinių įvairovė), tačiau dar neskatina minties apie poetinio talento brandumą ir originalumą. Andriaus ir Aleksandro Chodkevičių eilėraščiai kartoja mokyklinės poezi­jos, jungiančios poetinį žaidimą su etikos ir tikybos mokslo pradmenimis, tradiciją, kuri atitiko tuometinio švietimo kryptį (docta et eloquens pietas), tačiau drąsesnio poetinio manifesto, savo talento pareiškimo, gilesnės moralinės ar teologinės polemikos juose negirdime. Nepasiekta ir Baroko epochai būdingos „krikščioniškosios parodijos“ subtilumo. Nepaisant to, šitokia kūryba žavi žaismingu, epigramiškai glaustu tikėjimo dogmų ir bendražmogiško elgesio taisyklių perteikimu, galbūt todėl neatsitiktinai buvo įtraukta į Jano Gruterio rinktinę Delitiae poetarum Germano­rum huius superiorisque aevi illustrium(Francofurti 1612). Klausimas, kodėl tenai perspausdinti Andriaus Chodkevičiaus eilėraščiai priskirti jo mokytojui J. Milijui, lieka atviras